Sauber C30 Ferrari

[King Six]

Illegal Sauber wing due to manufacturing error

The rear wing element that saw Sauber disqualified from the Australian grand prix has been put down to a manufacturing process error a source within the team told gocar.gr. Sauber has three versions of the upper element of the rear wing of which two were taken to Melbourne. The version that was used had not been checked properly at Hinwil. This makes an appeal unlikely.

The wing element was found to be too curved to fit a 100mm ball template introduced for this season. The ball must stay in contact with the element at all times as it is rolled along it, in Sauber’s case it did not. The other wing version was also tested and did comply with the regulations.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... ing-error/

[RacingManiac]

it just illustrates the FIA's selective nature regarding rules enforcement and their inability to perform more sophisticated tests.

OK, you have 24 cars to check for all sort of stuff.
How do you make your "more sophisticated tests" in time?
Where do you get the money for "more sophisticated" test rigs?
How do you train the people to make those "more sophisticated test"? AFAIK stewards who do the tests are randomly picked folks from local racing associations.

I don't know, checking something like this should be fairly simple especially it being a DQ-able offence....I am sure they check the min-radius of the endplate and whatnot every time for their tire-shredding potential...

Besides, 24 cars is peanuts....They do tech for 120+ cars at Formula SAE every year....

[Pedro]

Could this be the problem?


It should be uppermost element, concave curvature (flap is convex) and not influencing the performance. It looks to me like the RW endplate is the problem.

[Richard]

Could this be the problem?


It should be uppermost element, concave curvature (flap is convex) and not influencing the performance. It looks to me like the RW endplate is the problem.

No. That is a flat surface. Also it has been reported that it is the flap that is at fault, not the end plate.

[Pedro]

No. That is a flat surface. Also it has been reported that it is the flap that is at fault, not the end plate.

You could be right. But isn't that flap of convex shape? Wouldn't a flap radius have an impact on the performance? And the last thing - there is a concave radius on the endplate.

[bot6]

The flap surface is convex on the underside and concave on the top. The stewards measure the curvature on the top surface of the wing.

[myurr]

Scarbs has an explanation up: http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/03/2 ... ringement/

[Pedro]

The flap surface is convex on the underside and concave on the top. The stewards measure the curvature on the top surface of the wing.

There's no inflection point, the flap surface is just convex.
Rule 3.10.1 on the other side excludes the endplates (though Sergio Pérez hinted so) as it applies to bodywork between 75mm and 355mm from the car centre line, so the problem probably wouldn't be the endplate.

[bot6]

Pedro -> I think you're confusing things a little bit here.

When talking about surface curvature, think about a salad bowl. If you look inside a salad bowl, that's a concave surface (bends inwards). It has no inflection point, it's just concave everywhere.

Now turn the bowl upside down. In front of you, you now have a convex surface. it "bumps outwards". But it's convex everywhere, still no inflection point. And the bowl itself has not changed, you're just looking at it differently.

Now look at the rear wing flap in exactly the same way. The surface is convex on the bottom of the wing and concave on the top of the wing. And the surface that is measured by the stewards is that top part.

[Pedro]

Pedro -> I think you're confusing things a little bit here.

When talking about surface curvature, think about a salad bowl. If you look inside a salad bowl, that's a concave surface (bends inwards). It has no inflection point, it's just concave everywhere.

Now turn the bowl upside down. In front of you, you now have a convex surface. it "bumps outwards". But it's convex everywhere, still no inflection point. And the bowl itself has not changed, you're just looking at it differently.

Now look at the rear wing flap in exactly the same way. The surface is convex on the bottom of the wing and concave on the top of the wing. And the surface that is measured by the stewards is that top part.

I see, thank you bot6. That concavity expression was confusing me.
I had also talk with a member of a Sauber team about that couple minutes ago - the problem is really the flap.

[n_anirudh]

Side view of the Sauber "cheese grater"..Can anyone explain how this aero device works? This being the tail end of teh car, what effect would it have on the diffuser?
Thanks

[volarchico]

I read somewhere else on this forum that the "cheese grater" as you called it below the rear wing endplates is used to redirect some of the diffuser air outwards towards the wake behind the rear wheels.

[mx_tifoso]

I wonder if they are the diffuser equivalent of the the vents at the top of the rear wing end plate?
More info here:
Why the cut outs?

[horse]

I'm sure it's some kind of compromise between vortex control like the function of the wing end plates and allowing the flow to escape into the rear wheel low pressure zones. So in some respects you are right, but they've come at it from the opposite direction as in first they want to allow spilling and second they want to improve the control of the vortices leaving the diffuser.

In fact, it has probably become more important this season because of the diffuser Gurneys. These pseudo end-plates might well allow even more Gurney to be used without stalling the flow.

[shelly]

@mx tifosi I have written down my point of view on this in the mclaren mp4-26 thread (page147). Horse has found it convincing, and so I hope you will.