Front Wing safety wire

[Manoah2u]

Should the FIA implement a rule to implement a safety wire to prevent the front wing from coming off?






Looking at Hamilton's accident, and reminding clearly of Rosberg's Korea front wing sheering off, Alonso's wing coming off sending him off, and various incidents, it seems the front wing is increasingly dangerous for car and driver safety since a
wing that snaps off will catch the car itself hanging above it when it slides under the wheels.

now i remember the FIA demanded a safety construction where a 'wire' or 'tether' will maintain that when suspension breaks, a wheel should not come off the car creating a potentially dangerous situation. i assume something similar can be done for the front wing, so that in case of damage, it's impossible that the front wing can slide below the front wheels and cause havoc?



http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/zylon.html

should the FIA implement a rule / demand a front wing pillar wire?
it's a simple solution with great benefits. it prevents accidents and it keeps the already damaged car from total destruction in the barriers

[CBeck113]

Interesting idea, but I am not sure that it would be possible to implement. Here are two arguements against it:

1) Where do you stop with the attached components? If you do this with the front wing, then the rear wing would also be necessary, along with the side pods and engine cover, unless they are directly attached to the chassis.
2) A pair of wires attaching the fron twing to the car would not have stopped LH from hitting the barrier, since they would not keep the wing in a position to transfer the downforce to the car, and this loss of downforce was the reason (according to AMuS) for the accident:
"12:53 Neues zum Hamilton-Crash: Für den Unfall ist die Technik verantwortlich, wie Mercedes mitteilte. Auf den Bildern lässt sich erkennen, dass sich beim Anbremsen zuerst der Frontflügel verabschiedet haben muss und das Auto somit seinen Abtrieb an der Vorderachse verloren hat. Keine Chance mehr für den Briten."
Translation: first lost the front wing and therefore his downforce on the front axle

I am all for a safe formula, but accidents are an unavoidable part of the sport. This is the reason why they test the cars first, and will never be able to completely replace testing through simulation.

[Manoah2u]

Interesting idea, but I am not sure that it would be possible to implement. Here are two arguements against it:

1) Where do you stop with the attached components? If you do this with the front wing, then the rear wing would also be necessary, along with the side pods and engine cover, unless they are directly attached to the chassis.
2) A pair of wires attaching the fron twing to the car would not have stopped LH from hitting the barrier, since they would not keep the wing in a position to transfer the downforce to the car, and this loss of downforce was the reason (according to AMuS) for the accident:
"12:53 Neues zum Hamilton-Crash: Für den Unfall ist die Technik verantwortlich, wie Mercedes mitteilte. Auf den Bildern lässt sich erkennen, dass sich beim Anbremsen zuerst der Frontflügel verabschiedet haben muss und das Auto somit seinen Abtrieb an der Vorderachse verloren hat. Keine Chance mehr für den Briten."
Translation: first lost the front wing and therefore his downforce on the front axle

I am all for a safe formula, but accidents are an unavoidable part of the sport. This is the reason why they test the cars first, and will never be able to completely replace testing through simulation.

1) regarding point 1, the wing is dangerous because even though dragging it across the floor will cause a loss of downforce,
that in itself is not the reason for crashing into the barriers, usually it's because the wing comes lodged underneath the wheels causeing the car to skate and having insufficient grip and brake capability to come to a sufficient halt.

the rear wing will not lodge underneath the actual car, and cars behind it should be able to avoid it. you simply can't avoid your own wing trapped underneath the front wheels. that's the danger.

2) i agree there is a great possibilty that you still can hit the barriers even if the wing isnt lodged underneath. however, if the wires prevent the wing to come off the car, then you maintain the wing as a aerodynamic device that still generates downforce.

i agree accidents are part of the sport, but if there is a simple solution to increace safety i think it shouldn't be overlooked. a lodged wing is an increased danger both for the driver as for other drivers since it enhances possibilty of another driver carrying on and slamming into another car. I remember a driver, perhaps it even was alonso, in a recent grandprix that had front wing damage and the stewards gave him black-orange flag to fix the wing in the pits.

i think tethering the wing to a mounting point centrally in the nosecone where it almost meets the tub is a safety measure that can provide benefits in case of a front wing coming off.

[Writinglife]

Pros for a cable connection to the wing would be to reduce the amount of debris on the floor following a failure, preventing the wing from sliding underneath the car or being hit by another car following. It would also help marshalls as they wouldn't have to recover a wing (it won't stop pieces delaminating from it, but the large body of the wing would stay with the car. There could be a "con" in terms of the added weight contributing to a potential final impact, but this is pretty negligible. From my point of view, it's worth the FIA investigating a solution which runs a cable from the nose, down the pylons and into the wing base.

[SectorOne]

I wouldn´t mind seeing a steel cable run through the wing to a fixed point on the central section. And while you are at it, put one in the Mclaren rear wing.

[xDama]

Yes, more regulations! Everybody wants that!

[Manoah2u]

lol. i agree but i can't remember having so many front wings snap off before the past years, which makes me feel a potential danger is growing.

[CBeck113]

Yes, it would keep whatever remains attached to the tethered section of wing from detaching from the car. But I see this as a bandaid for the real problem: the wings are not structurally sound enough in the first place. They are designer to be as light as possible, and the teams sacrifice safety to meet this goal. Adding the cable (and all the rules necessary to do so) are fighting the symptoms, but not the actual root cause. If you tell an engineer that teh wing cannot break off the nose in one piece, then you'll see wings that shatter into hundreds of pieces to get past this rule. If you say that the wing has to withstand an additional crash test in which the nose with wing are propelled against a barrier with 20km/h then the teams will say that this is not realistic.
Why not make a rule saying that the wing must be able to pass under the car without touching any part of the floor? Then the drivers could drive over them without a problem. What I'm basically trying to say is that the rules for the front impact have sent the teams on this route. In order to change it you either continue to try and mend the existing rule, or completely rewrite it to insure that there are no loopholes. And thousands of F1 engineers are much smarter than the FIA.
BTW, the reinforced section of wing will have a negative impact on the crash test - which would be very bad.

[Manoah2u]

Yes, it would keep whatever remains attached to the tethered section of wing from detaching from the car. But I see this as a bandaid for the real problem: the wings are not structurally sound enough in the first place. They are designer to be as light as possible, and the teams sacrifice safety to meet this goal. Adding the cable (and all the rules necessary to do so) are fighting the symptoms, but not the actual root cause. If you tell an engineer that teh wing cannot break off the nose in one piece, then you'll see wings that shatter into hundreds of pieces to get past this rule. If you say that the wing has to withstand an additional crash test in which the nose with wing are propelled against a barrier with 20km/h then the teams will say that this is not realistic.
Why not make a rule saying that the wing must be able to pass under the car without touching any part of the floor? Then the drivers could drive over them without a problem. What I'm basically trying to say is that the rules for the front impact have sent the teams on this route. In order to change it you either continue to try and mend the existing rule, or completely rewrite it to insure that there are no loopholes. And thousands of F1 engineers are much smarter than the FIA.
BTW, the reinforced section of wing will have a negative impact on the crash test - which would be very bad.

a mandated structural rigidity of the wing pylons could solve a lot, aswell.

[CBeck113]

a mandated structural rigidity of the wing pylons could solve a lot, aswell.

Exactly =D> Why difficult with wires etc. when you can attack the cause - the pylons themselves.

[Bazza]

See - this is what I don't get. You've got this beefy section up front, mostly the middle part of the front wing and to a lesser extent the main plane of the outer parts, but it still ends up flimsy and fragile enough to end the driver's own race. CBeck's got the right idea - get the teams to strengthen the whole thing so it doesn't sideline a car. Heck, while they're at it, the smart thing to do would be to work out some regulations that align the front wing and pylons (move them forward so they're not just hanging onto the last 5mm of the wing) with the rear diffuser, and make both the front wing/pylons and the diffuser moderately strong. Bingo, instant front-rear-end improved crash protection.

As for regulating it, it's very, very simple. Don't tell the teams how the front wing is going to be tested, but tell them if they fail they're out of the race. Be intentionally ambiguous and punishing that they get the point and make strong wings. If people get their knickers in a knot, then just rule that the front wing must survive an attack by the race steward and remain intact and attached - that should be sufficiently simple for those simple people - the goal here is to prevent cheesing or dodging of the rules by finding some loophole. Loopholes are good, when applied to SOME areas.

[Tim.Wright]

a mandated structural rigidity of the wing pylons could solve a lot, aswell.

Exactly =D> Why difficult with wires etc. when you can attack the cause - the pylons themselves.

They already test the front wings for rigidity. Something like 200kg a side or something.

Hanging cables is an absolutely daft idea. Once it breaks off it will dangle about and hack both front tyres to pieces ending in the same result.

This is a non existant problem anyway. With wide tracks, massive run offs, safety barriers, frontal crash zones, indestructable monocoques and HANS devices, what exactly will you gain by adding a tether to the front wing?

[CBeck113]

They already test the front wings for rigidity. Something like 200kg a side or something.

Hanging cables is an absolutely daft idea. Once it breaks off it will dangle about and hack both front tyres to pieces ending in the same result.

This is a non existant problem anyway. With wide tracks, massive run offs, safety barriers, frontal crash zones, indestructable monocoques and HANS devices, what exactly will you gain by adding a tether to the front wing?

The 200kg test on the wing is more to test the flex, and the real problem here is the reaction to a force from the front and not from above (if they wouldn't pass the static test how could they generate downforce without failing?).

But I do agree with you other two points - too much effort with little to gain. Why not have a standard crash structure on the front similar to the rear structure, which reaches farther forward than the wing to protect it?

[DaveKillens]

Let us examine Alonso's wing problems from the 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix. Due to contact his front wing became detached, but was dragging in front of the front wheels. Instead of immediately pitting, he hoped to get in a couple more laps in an attempt to reach his pit window. In hindsight, it was evident he should have pitted as soon as possible.

Eventually the wing did detach, and his race was over. The thing is, with some form of tether, drivers may attempt to stay out on track when the prudent thing is to pit immediately. And no matter how strong any tether is, if it is subjected to repeated abuse, it will eventually fail. They are only strong enough to keep the detached component attached to the car post-impact, and not to retain it for repeated laps.

IMO, this kind of tether can lead to larger safety issues. And that leads us back to fixing the core issues, and not the band-aid solution. The wing attachments need to be made stronger if they are deficient. And Charlie Whiting and his gang have to be braver and order any damaged car into the pits for repair IMMEDIATELY. He knew that if he threw the black with orange circle flag on Alonso, the Ferrari team would protest loud and clear that his car was OK, and it was unfair to the team. And Charlie failed to separate politics from safety. He left it up to the driver and team, and we are fortunate that Alonso did not take anyone else out when the wing eventually did detach.

Instead of more tethers, the FIA needs to add some regulations that in the event of an obvious separation of certain components, it is a case of black and white, no judgement is required, and the car has to pit and fix the problem.