Flexiwings 2024

[SiLo]

It’s interesting. But a poor comparison as the cars are not taking the curb in the same way.

The Merc very clearly hits more curb and surprise surprise, its wing bounces more.

Flexible wings are nothing new. Every team knows how to create them. It’s probably a safe bet that they are all flexing almost equally within the current testing procedures.

I was going to say the same thing. We need a shot of them all going over the same curb really, in a similar way.

[stewie325]

Apologize if I missed it, but does the FIA plan to publish any results of the testing or will it just result in a potential TD to be applied this year? Were they just testing at Spa or ??

Judging by these quotes, any changes will be postponed until next year or even 2026:

An FIA spokesperson told PlanetF1.com in a statement that “The FIA has decided, starting from Belgium onward for an indefinite period of time, to measure the overall front wing deformation on track. The FOM forward-facing cameras are unfortunately not capable of capturing the complete front wing as a large outboard part is not covered by the angle.

“The intent will therefore be to measure across several events all front wings with a camera provided by the FIA which will be installed on the nose (in place of current camera housings) offering a sideways view. The collected data will be used to enhance the overall understanding of bodywork flexibility when defining future regulations.

“It is also reiterated that all front wings checked so far this season have passed the existing deflection tests and are deemed legal. This new technical directive is the result of a long-standing desire to better capture front wing behavior under aerodynamic load.”

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/sports/other/ ... r-BB1qe53r

[ispano6]

It’s interesting. But a poor comparison as the cars are not taking the curb in the same way.

The Merc very clearly hits more curb and surprise surprise, its wing bounces more.

Flexible wings are nothing new. Every team knows how to create them. It’s probably a safe bet that they are all flexing almost equally within the current testing procedures.

Look at the evolution of the Merc fwing and it's plain and simple that they've tuned the flex in a certain way and chracteristic. I design RC cars as a hobby and one material I've been choosing to build the front wing mount is lexan instead of carbon because of the flex and ability for it to eat imperfections in the ground. It makes a big difference. Especially for front suspensions that are coil spring kingpins with no IFS damper.

The movement of the FW clearly shows an oscillating dampening frequency that is reacting to suspension forces and not aerodynamic load.

[AR3-GP]

It’s interesting. But a poor comparison as the cars are not taking the curb in the same way.

The Merc very clearly hits more curb and surprise surprise, its wing bounces more.

Flexible wings are nothing new. Every team knows how to create them. It’s probably a safe bet that they are all flexing almost equally within the current testing procedures.

Look at the evolution of the Merc fwing and it's plain and simple that they've tuned the flex in a certain way and chracteristic. I design RC cars as a hobby and one material I've been choosing to build the front wing mount is lexan instead of carbon because of the flex and ability for it to eat imperfections in the ground. It makes a big difference. Especially for front suspensions that are coil spring kingpins with no IFS damper.

The movement of the FW clearly shows an oscillating dampening frequency that is reacting to suspension forces and not aerodynamic load.

In theory, this is not permitted.



Mercedes would not be allowed to engineer compliance into the front wing for the specific purpose of acting as a mass damper. It would be an interesting concept, if it was permitted.

[ispano6]

In theory, this is not permitted.

Mercedes would not be allowed to engineer compliance into the front wing for the specific purpose of acting as a mass damper. It would be an interesting concept, if it was permitted.

I think it'd be very difficult and time consuming for both the FIA/FOM/Rivals to pinpoint the exact tuning aspect of the aerodynamic elements that, from testable parameters, satisfies regulations, but cleverly, if not cheekily, engages a grey area of the regulations that allow the exploitation of said aerodynamic elements to function with a wave/particle duality that serves both aerodynamic purposes as well as mechanical. It may be that Mercedes stumbled upon it by accident. The W15 clearly has a gap separation between the first two wing elements that allows the greatest amount of wobble between them compared to all other teams. This wobble is made possible by the "looseness" of the endplate joinery, as evident in the posted video. The first wing element is also shallowest and flimsiest compared to the following wing elements.

Here is a quote from Andrew Shovlin describing such a solution.

“It's just to do with how you run the car. You might need mechanical tools to help you change how you run the car, but you can achieve the same by affecting the aero characteristics through the speed range and through the corner.”

Mercedes' open-minded approach in identifying effective development directions continues to be critical.

“We don't understand every aspect of what might be different with our car to theirs, but all we need are development directions that are going to improve it. We'll keep going at that problem until we get to where we want to be,” Shovlin concluded.

He is being coy in using "aero characteristics" not in terms of the aerodynamics but the mechanical characteristics of the aerodynamic elements. (I know the motion of a mass damper when I see one!)

https://www.si.com/fannation/racing/f1b ... j5hfne1fff

[TimW]

It’s interesting. But a poor comparison as the cars are not taking the curb in the same way.

The Merc very clearly hits more curb and surprise surprise, its wing bounces more.

Flexible wings are nothing new. Every team knows how to create them. It’s probably a safe bet that they are all flexing almost equally within the current testing procedures.

The interesting thing to me is how much torsion deformation there is compared and how little bending deflection of the main plane.

Best visible on the Merc because it takes the most curb:


The main plane hardly bends at all, but is torsionally so soft that the flaps deflect & change the angle of attack a lot.

This huge ratio of torsion to bending compliance looks very engineered to me. And that is what I think the FIA is looking into, not mass dampers.

[SiLo]

It’s interesting. But a poor comparison as the cars are not taking the curb in the same way.

The Merc very clearly hits more curb and surprise surprise, its wing bounces more.

Flexible wings are nothing new. Every team knows how to create them. It’s probably a safe bet that they are all flexing almost equally within the current testing procedures.

The interesting thing to me is how much torsion deformation there is compared and how little bending deflection of the main plane.

Best visible on the Merc because it takes the most curb:
[url]https://i.postimg.cc/59QY5VpJ/Merc ... 24-FP1.gif [/url]

The main plane hardly bends at all, but is torsionally so soft that the flaps deflect & change the angle of attack a lot.

This huge ratio of torsion to bending compliance looks very engineered to me. And that is what I think the FIA is looking into, not mass dampers.

That's also because the second plane is connected to the nose directly with no slot dividers.

[TimW]

The interesting thing to me is how much torsion deformation there is compared and how little bending deflection of the main plane.

Best visible on the Merc because it takes the most curb:
[url]https://i.postimg.cc/59QY5VpJ/Merc ... 24-FP1.gif [/url]

The main plane hardly bends at all, but is torsionally so soft that the flaps deflect & change the angle of attack a lot.

This huge ratio of torsion to bending compliance looks very engineered to me. And that is what I think the FIA is looking into, not mass dampers.

That's also because the second plane is connected to the nose directly with no slot dividers.

Good point! Hadn't thought about the effect of disconnecting the main plane from the nose, which will reduce the torsion stiffness relative to the bending stiffness. Now I am really puzzled why RB reconnected the main plane to the nose for this year.....

[Big Tea]

I know little of aerodynamics, but surely something flapping about like that must create all sorts of uncontrollable and unusable airflows? Would it not be a hindrance rather than a benefit to the car?

[Andi76]

I know little of aerodynamics, but surely something flapping about like that must create all sorts of uncontrollable and unusable airflows? Would it not be a hindrance rather than a benefit to the car?

This only happens in places where the car drives extremely over the curbs. These are mostly areas of the track where the mechanics are more important than the aerodynamics, i.e. in slower areas. In the areas where aerodynamics are important, on the other hand, such wings bend in a very precisely defined manner and shift the center of pressure of the car to advantage.

[ispano6]

It’s interesting. But a poor comparison as the cars are not taking the curb in the same way.

The Merc very clearly hits more curb and surprise surprise, its wing bounces more.

Flexible wings are nothing new. Every team knows how to create them. It’s probably a safe bet that they are all flexing almost equally within the current testing procedures.

The interesting thing to me is how much torsion deformation there is compared and how little bending deflection of the main plane.

Best visible on the Merc because it takes the most curb:
[url]https://i.postimg.cc/59QY5VpJ/Merc ... 24-FP1.gif [/url]

The main plane hardly bends at all, but is torsionally so soft that the flaps deflect & change the angle of attack a lot.

This huge ratio of torsion to bending compliance looks very engineered to me. And that is what I think the FIA is looking into, not mass dampers.

That's also because the second plane is connected to the nose directly with no slot dividers.

I've been saying this is the flaw Mercedes and other teams realized that RB instead ventured into. The main plane being a spring board isn't to do with aero and the disruption to airflow at low speed over bumps is secondary in importance to the absorption effect the leaf spring front wing is. The wobble of the wing is not due to aerodynamic load and it's damping frequency can certainly be engineered. Anyone who doesn't see this as a damper probably doesn't have experience or the clever engineering mind to find solutions like this. I'm not saying it should be banned, I think it's brilliant and that others should consider it. But I feel Newey had this understanding that perhaps Wache and others didn't see.

[AR3-GP]

There is a chance that a front wing could have been incorporated into the total body dynamics. The mass damper of the Renault was built specifically to normalize the tire loads in corners like this where there were curb strikes and bumps. Effectively you are increasing mechanical grip by reducing the effect of bumps of the curb strikes on the tire loads. It's an interesting theory. A team that is really on the ball could have sought to maximize this.

[Vanja #66]

I've been saying this is the flaw Mercedes and other teams realized that RB instead ventured into. The main plane being a spring board isn't to do with aero and the disruption to airflow at low speed over bumps is secondary in importance to the absorption effect the leaf spring front wing is. The wobble of the wing is not due to aerodynamic load and it's damping frequency can certainly be engineered. Anyone who doesn't see this as a damper probably doesn't have experience or the clever engineering mind to find solutions like this. I'm not saying it should be banned, I think it's brilliant and that others should consider it. But I feel Newey had this understanding that perhaps Wache and others didn't see.

How many DOF did Renault mass damper have in 2006? How many DOF does a front wing have?

[AR3-GP]

I've been saying this is the flaw Mercedes and other teams realized that RB instead ventured into. The main plane being a spring board isn't to do with aero and the disruption to airflow at low speed over bumps is secondary in importance to the absorption effect the leaf spring front wing is. The wobble of the wing is not due to aerodynamic load and it's damping frequency can certainly be engineered. Anyone who doesn't see this as a damper probably doesn't have experience or the clever engineering mind to find solutions like this. I'm not saying it should be banned, I think it's brilliant and that others should consider it. But I feel Newey had this understanding that perhaps Wache and others didn't see.

How many DOF did Renault mass damper have in 2006? How many DOF does a front wing have?

You aren't allowed to design a mass damper (an obvious one). The Renault system was idealized, but IF a team wanted to reproduce the effects (in a reduced capacity), they would have had to get creative. It couldn't work as well as the Renault system, but "something" can be better than nothing.

Maybe the wobble of the rear wings can be tuned? It could depend on how it is mounted and the stiffness. It's either hindering you or it's tuned to benefit you. I think an F1 team would be smart about this.

[Vanja #66]

You aren't allowed to design a mass damper (an obvious one). The Renault system was idealized, but IF a team wanted to reproduce the effects (in a reduced capacity), they would have had to get creative. It couldn't work as well as the Renault system, but "something" can be better than nothing.

Maybe the wobble of the rear wings can be tuned? It could depend on how it is mounted and the stiffness. It's either hindering you or it's tuned to benefit you. I think an F1 team would be smart about this.

What kind of damping properties did W15 front wing exhibit in Bus stop at Spa?