CatharticF1 wrote:
I don't think there are any benefits to having the front wing twist at
high speed - they tend to be very efficient and don't produce that much
drag. It has to bend under the load, and it's pretty clear that in the
braking zone going from 200mph to 80, you're going to see some unloading
on the screen. It's not that much, it just looks it because you can see
the difference between gap and no gap.

Rubbish. Go back and look. It may look solid when you don't have a
reference point, but as soon as they put that graphic up you could see
it, especially by how much it moved in the braking zone for turn 1.

Ferrari cheated by using a sliding pin and a spring to attach bodywork
to the car. McLaren's wing is rigidly mounted as per the regulations,
and passes the load test.

--
Phil

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/

Steve Greenaway <macfisto (AT) engsoc (DOT) org> writes:
It's very easy to see the McLaren wing flex under load as there's
something to visually compare it against, but there isn't for the
Ferrari. Do you know whether the outermost part of the Ferrari wing
deflects less than the innermost part of the McLaren wing? Can you
back up your "knowledge" with facts - actual measurements?

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote in
news:87ejljmyb5.fsf (AT) nonospaz (DOT) fatphil.org:

Does the McLaren wing move less at the extremities?

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."

On Mon, 14 May 2007 09:47:53 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
wrote:

If the wing moves, it is illegal; benefit or not. Ferrari will simply
wait until it costs them a victory and then try and get the McLaren's
DQ'd. Monaco would be a good venue, if it's needed.

Ok, I don't get it:

"McLaren F1 CEO Martin Whitmarsh said his team never had any doubts
that the wing was fully legal, and played down any movement that was
visible from the on-board footage.

"Anyone who went out on the circuit or watched the slow speed
photography saw the wing was very stable, and frankly we didn't think
it was ever an issue," said Whitmarsh.

"It hasn't to my knowledge been mentioned to us at all. It is a very
slender section, so it might be prone to movement. And perhaps others
could be taking advantage of that, but there is no doubt that whoever
watches it, knows it is legal."

McLaren's main championship rivals Ferrari also made it clear that
they were not worried about the movement of the wing - despite
themselves having been accused in the past of running flexi-wings.

Ferrari technical director Mario Almondo said: "At the moment, we
think we do not have anything against McLaren. Full stop.""

R Brickston wrote:
The reason is perfectly simple. Look at Massa's front wing - there must
be someone somewhere on the net whose bothered enough to put up the shot
of him braking for T1, from the onboard camera, with the graphics as a
point of reference. It moves. If you could find a shot of anyone else's
wing from BMW all the way to the back of the grid you'll find that they
move too, because it isn't that difficult to calculate the stiffness
required to pass the load test using commercially available FEA. The
principle issue here is not moveable aerodynamics as such (because I
don't think it's all that helpful on a front wing, although I'd be
prepared to accept that I'm wrong if there's data available that shows
why) but weight - if they mandated a stiffer front wing, it would weigh
more, and that weight would be about as far from the c.g. as you can
get, which would increase the polar moment of inertia of the car, which
is Very Bad. So all the teams have an incentive to make the wing as
light as is legal, first and foremost. That's why you won't see an
official Ferrari protest; because their front wing would also fail a
significantly harsher load test.

--
Phil

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/

CatharticF1 wrote:
Where exactly do you imagine the movement in the middle comes from? From
deflection of the upper surface or deflection of the whole wing? Looked
to me like the whole lot moves, just like anyone else's does - the only
reason for getting particularly excited about McLaren's is the easy
frame of reference given by the nose.

--
Phil

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/

Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> writes
When I was watching Massa's front wing it seemed to me that the wing
wasn't just bending but twisting as well and therefore producing a
lesser AoA...surely that has to represent a significant aerodynamic
advantage?
--
Peter

Piggybacking, Bredan ist geplonked.

Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> writes:
It is entirely possible that it might do. There is, after all, another
strut connecting the two endpoints which would resist any deformation
that causes the distance between those endpoints changing, such as
the wings flexing downwards. Had you not noticed that strut? Weird,
as it's apparently what everyone else in this thread is talking about.

Exactly. We can only eyeball. The FIA do not eyeball, they apply
accurately known loads and accurately measure actual deflections.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

peter wrote:
You're seeing it from an angle looking down - if the wing moves
downwards, the angle of the plane of the wing relative to the camera
will change. You need a side view to see any twist, or a view from
directly behind the wing absolutely on the same level. Claiming that the
wing twists just means you haven't thought about parallax errors

--
Phil

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/