PDA

View Full Version : anyone follow the ferrari rear wing thing in F1?



rammsteinmatt
03-27-2006, 02:26 PM
or think that aerodynamic pieces are smoke and mirrors?

here's a picture that shows differences in the ferrari rear wing at the malasian gp, and the questionable rear wing

(really hope it works, lifted it from another site)
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/520/sinttulo29qa.gif

also notice the rear wheel height/suspension movement. thats due solely to downforce. the cars squat down inches along the straights due to thousands of pounds of downforce pushing (or sucking, in the case of ground effects) them down

photo courtesy of scarbs f1 tech forum. www.scarbsf1.com the forum link here (http://scarbsf1.com/tech_bb/viewtopic.php?t=7)

Terry S
03-27-2006, 02:28 PM
Hey Matt,

I know this is slightly off topic, but is the Toyota Grand Prix (in Long Beach) a CART event or F1? I dont follow either forms of racing...

Terry S

rammsteinmatt
03-27-2006, 02:30 PM
IRL (indy racing league)

maybe cart too, i dunno i always confused about the difference between IRL and cart (i guess i could spend 2 minutes and look that up since im doing nothing for the rest of the day)

WOT
03-27-2006, 02:53 PM
nice pic.

however, the line isnt drawn the same betwee nthe 2 pics. Look @ the endplates, the line goes below them when the wing is supposedly not flexing.

In saying that, the 1st eliment is compressing a bit compared to teh main plain........so maybe there is something there???? You would have to test all mnufacorers to see if there is some type of deflection.

the lbgp is a cart event.

Terry S
03-27-2006, 02:55 PM
Thanks WOT & Matt.

Terry S

rammsteinmatt
03-27-2006, 03:07 PM
put your finger over the line (so you cant see it at all) but where you are still able to see the wing and endplates. you can definately see the top element changing its angle of attack.

although it must be noted that every piece on a F1 car flexes under loading during a race, that is the nature of materials. also it is in the basic definition of a structure - a structure is an assemblage of materials of sole purpose to resist loads. [loads are resisted through material deformation].

so every car on the grid has a "flex" wing. just ferrari's flexes more than others and the teams and FIA stuck it to them. it must be noted that there is a a standardized test for aero element flexure that is conducted before each race. failing this test will disqualify you from racing. ferrari and the other teams passed the test, but it was determined that although ferrari and 2 other teams' rear wing did technically pass, it didnt really pass.

also ferrari has a problem with their front wing, but thats a whole different thing. i dunno what the FIA is gonna do about that. but basically when the car reaches speed, the front wing bends due to dynamic pressure over the surface (all perfectly normal) but the way ferrari designed the wing, it is pulling ut of the nose by up to 2mm in some cases it seems. people are thinking that this is considered a "movable aerodynamic device" that is strictly prohibited under F1/FIA rules

drwn kix
03-27-2006, 03:53 PM
They've come a long way since Jerry Grant bolted that Bardahl sign to the back of his Lotus 19, Chevy at Laguna Seca and dropped a couple of seconds a lap. I worked on the car after Jerry Hansen bought it. It had a 505 horsepower, 377 cu inch Traco motor when I worked on it. 58 DCOE webers. What a sound. The steering wheel felt like it was pinned when the car wasn't moving and you could barely push the clutch in. I'll bet Robi's car has more horsepower now.

rammsteinmatt
03-27-2006, 04:22 PM
They've come a long way since Jerry Grant bolted that Bardahl sign to the back of his Lotus 19, Chevy at Laguna Seca and dropped a couple of seconds a lap. I worked on the car after Jerry Hansen bought it. It had a 505 horsepower, 377 cu inch Traco motor when I worked on it. 58 DCOE webers. What a sound. The steering wheel felt like it was pinned when the car wasn't moving and you could barely push the clutch in. I'll bet Robi's car has more horsepower now.


its not just the hp thing. but whats really bad is cars with much less hp could go round the track alot faster thanks to overall technology improvement. seriously, look at the hp/liter that a stock engine puts out compared to that of any older car. then look at some of the guys that have 500+whp on 2.0 or 2.3-4 engines and their hp/liter. and the cars are reliable, safe, and generaly easy to drive.

F1 cars can pull 4 lateral g's in turns. 4 lateral g's thats just astonishing. or a bugatti veyron, a road car, can stop from 253mph in 10 seconds (a steady 1.15 g's of deceleration even with brake fade), but of course, it can also go 253mph on a street

i'll tell you what, im studying a field that is on the tip of technology (aerospace), so i am used to rediculous technology and huge numbers, but some numbers are just logically astonishing

then you get jonny pencil pusher with his business degree, who looks immediatly at the wing thing and just straight away says that ferrari's wing is illegal, without any reference to what a wing should deform at 180mph. im sure bernie eccleson understands all the technology that he frequently bans and the implications that those changes make on the sport. hell, just look at the 2008 rules, its becomming FIA nascar

hksevo8
03-27-2006, 05:34 PM
The FIA and Renault are also taking a look at the front wing on the Ferrari. It has a tendency to pull away from the nose cone at high speeds and then close back up under braking.

It is kinda fishy if you ask me.

rammsteinmatt
03-27-2006, 05:50 PM
The FIA and Renault are also taking a look at the front wing on the Ferrari. It has a tendency to pull away from the nose cone at high speeds and then close back up under braking.

It is kinda fishy if you ask me.


i mentioned this above. i'll just copy paste my response on ferrichat.com as i dont feel like typing it over again


the front wing. what i really think is going on is when they constructed the wing it is made with pins in the end, so it can slip into the side of the nose (the top portion) and as the dynamic pressure increases there is is strain that occurs and the top element is slightly pulled from the nose. i dont think that it was completely unintentional. allowing the top element to move freely would eliminate axial (tensile) stress in the member

if the wing is connected firmly to something, whether it be connected to the nose or a vertical structure element, instead of moving outward like the ferrari element does, it will develop strain. namely, instead of the material staying in its original form and moving as a piece, it will deform and stretch at the molecular level, such that the actual atoms are moving apart (and this, understandibaly, makes the material weaker - or less resistance to loads)

so where a renault may develop stress, the ferrari pulls out of the nose. its not really a big deal. i dont think ferrari designed it so that their wing didnt stress, but rather this design made assembly of the front nose section easier. (sliding a rod into a hole on the nose as opposed to trying to reach into the tip of the nose to tighten a nut or other fasener)

like i said above, i dont really see an aerodynamic advantage to having that space, i think its just a concidencidental accident and the other teams are trying to stick it to ferrari. for them to say that ferrari's wings are moving and theirs are not, is just naive or retarded, havent decided which yet


pictures of member in question [front wing]:
http://socalevo.net/gallery/albums/userpics/11425/normal_frontwing.jpg

also if this flexi wing technology was so great why did ferrari place 6th and 7th, and not first and second by a large margin? i honestly think people are making a bigger deal than needs to be made over this incident. there is no aparent advantage that ferrari received. now if renault is mixed into this, let the spanking commence, as their cars were redculously fast the whole race even with alonso's heavy fuel load

so thats what i think. but ive only had 5 aerodynamic classes and up to intermediate aerodynamic structures, so dont listen to me if you think you know better or have a different angle on this (which for all i know could be true)

*chris*
03-27-2006, 05:52 PM
im a little behind in f1 (havent payed much attention in the last 5years or so...) but what exactly is happening here? they saying its illegal because it flexes?

Terry S
03-27-2006, 05:54 PM
They're saying its illegal because its a possible case of "variable aerodynamics".

Terry S

*chris*
03-27-2006, 05:57 PM
ooooook. im gonna have to go with matt on this....

also if this flexi wing technology was so great why did ferrari place 6th and 7th, and not first and second by a large margin?

rammsteinmatt
03-27-2006, 06:08 PM
They're saying its illegal because its a possible case of "variable aerodynamics".

Terry S


the correct term is "movable aerodynamic device"

and aparently thats a hot stick up the ass if you violate it

drmosh
03-27-2006, 06:51 PM
It's already very apparent, see the video where Kimi loses his rear wing at Indy and smashes into the tire barrier.

rammsteinmatt
03-27-2006, 07:01 PM
It's already very apparent, see the video where Kimi loses his rear wing at Indy and smashes into the tire barrier.



you mean 1 of many times that he has lost his rear wing in the last 1.5 seasons. ahahah, silly kimi. you have to know he hates maclaren for misfunctioning car parts and blowing engines. oh, but the fireballs his cars made were always spectacular

Macky
03-27-2006, 08:49 PM
tisk tisk tisk.

movable aerodynamic devices are a no-no in F1. I noticed the nose cone wing element separate like that, but didnt see the rear wing elements.

rammsteinmatt
03-27-2006, 10:41 PM
tisk tisk tisk.

movable aerodynamic devices are a no-no in F1. I noticed the nose cone wing element separate like that, but didnt see the rear wing elements.


because theres no camera where they show ferrari's rear wing.

and macky, you have to realize that no matter how good [you think] maclaren is, or how much you like them, they have some serious reliability issues. but you're sticking by them, i can definately respect that.

one day it'll be like when mika was running the show, and it'll be better. whethere they still have kimi to do the driving, or they have some one else. im sure it'll be worth the wait. F1 is like that, just wait your turn to be on top, as much as i hate to say it, ferrari and MSC look to be on the downslope of the alonso/renault train

Macky
03-27-2006, 10:43 PM
yup I know McLaren is not the best team in F1 in terms of reliability. But thats how dedicated a fan I am O0

I wont be surprised though if Kimi moves to Ferrari since their cars dont break :grin:

drwn kix
05-23-2006, 12:08 PM
yup I know McLaren is not the best team in F1 in terms of reliability. But thats how dedicated a fan I am O0

I wont be surprised though if Kimi moves to Ferrari since their cars dont break :grin:


I wonder how many people here are old enough to remember Can Am days when moving wings and vacumn cleaner cars were legal. How many remember that the great Bruce McLaren died testing a car of his own design when the movable wing (which was attached to the suspension, I think) failed. You have to be even older to remember Mercedes air brake panels in the 50's.
Damn....I am old enough to remember all of this stuff.