Whacky Macky Wings

#21

"CatharticF1" <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

But seriously - if that wing suddenly found itself touching the nose on
the
main straight would you consider it illegal or cleverly getting around the
tests?

Gut feeling is it'd be illegal.

Paul

#22

CatharticF1 wrote:

Quote:

Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:59ne9bF2inskpU3
@mid.individual.net:

CatharticF1 wrote:
forty <cforteNO (AT) SPAMgmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:59m7l1F2jououU14
@mid.individual.net:

They've crossed the line and entered the 'totally fugly' zone:
http://www.formula1.com/news/6016.html
McLaren - boldy going where the ugly stick dares to tread.

(It's time they regulated all of these additional aero devices off the
cars.)
So it's ok when Ferrari have two deck wings, but when McLaren do the
same thing but it's not as pretty, you want to ban it?

Of course! ;-p

But seriously - if that wing suddenly found itself touching the nose on the
main straight would you consider it illegal or cleverly getting around the
tests?

Illegal, clearly. I'm honestly not sure why they've not put in a
vertical support.

--
Phil

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

#23

Luigi Topolino wrote:

Quote:

On Tue, 01 May 2007 01:00:44 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:
CatharticF1 wrote:
forty <cforteNO (AT) SPAMgmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:59m7l1F2jououU14
@mid.individual.net:
They've crossed the line and entered the 'totally fugly' zone:
http://www.formula1.com/news/6016.html
McLaren - boldy going where the ugly stick dares to tread.

(It's time they regulated all of these additional aero devices off the
cars.)
So it's ok when Ferrari have two deck wings, but when McLaren do the
same thing but it's not as pretty, you want to ban it?

How is that the same thing, even for someone as blinkered and
unreasoning as you?

How is it not the same thing? Look, either make a point or go away, I'm
fed up with your inane insensible questions.

--
Phil

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

#24

Phil Newnham wrote:

Quote:

CatharticF1 wrote:

Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:59ne9bF2inskpU3
@mid.individual.net:

CatharticF1 wrote:

forty <cforteNO (AT) SPAMgmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:59m7l1F2jououU14
@mid.individual.net:

They've crossed the line and entered the 'totally fugly' zone:
http://www.formula1.com/news/6016.html

McLaren - boldy going where the ugly stick dares to tread.

(It's time they regulated all of these additional aero devices off
the cars.)

So it's ok when Ferrari have two deck wings, but when McLaren do the
same thing but it's not as pretty, you want to ban it?

Of course! ;-p

But seriously - if that wing suddenly found itself touching the nose
on the main straight would you consider it illegal or cleverly
getting around the tests?

Illegal, clearly. I'm honestly not sure why they've not put in a
vertical support.

Its convex shape and end mounts effectively pre-stress it against
downward deflection (or should).

Now if the end mounts were not longitudinally fixed, allowing it instead
to slide, another story...

#25

On Tue, 01 May 2007 10:07:49 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

Luigi Topolino wrote:
On Tue, 01 May 2007 01:00:44 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:
CatharticF1 wrote:
forty <cforteNO (AT) SPAMgmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:59m7l1F2jououU14
@mid.individual.net:
They've crossed the line and entered the 'totally fugly' zone:
http://www.formula1.com/news/6016.html
McLaren - boldy going where the ugly stick dares to tread.

(It's time they regulated all of these additional aero devices off the
cars.)
So it's ok when Ferrari have two deck wings, but when McLaren do the
same thing but it's not as pretty, you want to ban it?

How is that the same thing, even for someone as blinkered and
unreasoning as you?

How is it not the same thing?

They are not even facially similar.

Quote:

Look, either make a point or go away, I'm
fed up with your inane insensible questions.

The point, well made and yet again, is you clearly don't understand
even only what you are looking at, much less what you might actually
see.

--

"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."

#26

Luigi Topolino wrote:

Quote:

On Tue, 01 May 2007 10:07:49 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:
Luigi Topolino wrote:
On Tue, 01 May 2007 01:00:44 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:
CatharticF1 wrote:
forty <cforteNO (AT) SPAMgmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:59m7l1F2jououU14
@mid.individual.net:
They've crossed the line and entered the 'totally fugly' zone:
http://www.formula1.com/news/6016.html
McLaren - boldy going where the ugly stick dares to tread.

(It's time they regulated all of these additional aero devices off the
cars.)
So it's ok when Ferrari have two deck wings, but when McLaren do the
same thing but it's not as pretty, you want to ban it?
How is that the same thing, even for someone as blinkered and
unreasoning as you?
How is it not the same thing?

They are not even facially similar.

No? Look again. Try to see what's actually there and ignore the fact
that you don't like the aesthetics.

Quote:

Look, either make a point or go away, I'm
fed up with your inane insensible questions.

The point, well made and yet again, is you clearly don't understand
even only what you are looking at, much less what you might actually
see.

No. The point is that you have no point to make beyond baseless
accusation, as always.

--
Phil

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

#27

News wrote:

Quote:

Phil Newnham wrote:

CatharticF1 wrote:

But seriously - if that wing suddenly found itself touching the nose
on the main straight would you consider it illegal or cleverly
getting around the tests?

Illegal, clearly. I'm honestly not sure why they've not put in a
vertical support.

Its convex shape and end mounts effectively pre-stress it against
downward deflection (or should).

The end mounts are unsupported, so I'm not entirely sure how you measure
the Euler buckling length - I would've thought it's the full length of
the wing from one side of the hanging supports all the way round to the
other side, which seems unnecessarily long when a vertical mount would
halve it. I agree that the shape helps, although I would describe it as
turning the load path in a useful way (instead of being a pure bending
load there will be a component that's a compressive load) - I would
regard pre-stressing it as something slightly different (with my
engineering pedant hat on).

Quote:

Now if the end mounts were not longitudinally fixed, allowing it instead
to slide, another story...

I can't think what you might be referring to.

--
Phil

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

#28

Phil Newnham wrote:

Quote:

News wrote:

Phil Newnham wrote:

CatharticF1 wrote:

But seriously - if that wing suddenly found itself touching the nose
on the main straight would you consider it illegal or cleverly
getting around the tests?

Illegal, clearly. I'm honestly not sure why they've not put in a
vertical support.

Its convex shape and end mounts effectively pre-stress it against
downward deflection (or should).

The end mounts are unsupported, so I'm not entirely sure how you measure
the Euler buckling length - I would've thought it's the full length of
the wing from one side of the hanging supports all the way round to the
other side, which seems unnecessarily long when a vertical mount would
halve it. I agree that the shape helps, although I would describe it as
turning the load path in a useful way (instead of being a pure bending
load there will be a component that's a compressive load) - I would
regard pre-stressing it as something slightly different (with my
engineering pedant hat on).

Having examined the pix, it is unclear how the 'basket handle' element
is mounted. One can imagine it being snapped into place, creating
compressive end loads, for example.

Quote:

Now if the end mounts were not longitudinally fixed, allowing it
instead to slide, another story...

I can't think what you might be referring to.

In the contrary example, wing element ends located by pins such that
instead of loading the mounts (pre-stress, as above, or unstressed at
rest, stressed under aero loads), allowing the ends to slide freely,
thereby allowing a degree of freedom and permitting greater mid-span
bending.

#29

News wrote:

Quote:

Phil Newnham wrote:
The end mounts are unsupported, so I'm not entirely sure how you
measure the Euler buckling length - I would've thought it's the full
length of the wing from one side of the hanging supports all the way
round to the other side, which seems unnecessarily long when a
vertical mount would halve it. I agree that the shape helps, although
I would describe it as turning the load path in a useful way (instead
of being a pure bending load there will be a component that's a
compressive load) - I would regard pre-stressing it as something
slightly different (with my engineering pedant hat on).

Having examined the pix, it is unclear how the 'basket handle' element
is mounted. One can imagine it being snapped into place, creating
compressive end loads, for example.

I agree.

Quote:

Now if the end mounts were not longitudinally fixed, allowing it
instead to slide, another story...

I can't think what you might be referring to.

In the contrary example, wing element ends located by pins such that
instead of loading the mounts (pre-stress, as above, or unstressed at
rest, stressed under aero loads), allowing the ends to slide freely,
thereby allowing a degree of freedom and permitting greater mid-span
bending.

Yes I know, I was being sarky for the benefit of people like Brendan

--
Phil

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

#30

Geoff May wrote:

Quote:

forty wrote:
They've crossed the line and entered the 'totally fugly' zone:
http://www.formula1.com/news/6016.html

Do you want to rephrase that?

http://neptune.spacebears.com/images/gallery/ugly1.jpg

Cheers

Geoff

Maybe on VW Bug but that's just wrong.......

--
Frank....H

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Whacky Macky Wings

Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)

Re: Whacky Macky Wings - 05-01-2007 , 03:26 AM

Re: Whacky Macky Wings - 05-01-2007 , 05:05 AM

Re: Whacky Macky Wings - 05-01-2007 , 05:07 AM

Re: Whacky Macky Wings - 05-01-2007 , 06:51 AM

Re: Whacky Macky Wings - 05-01-2007 , 07:59 AM

Re: Whacky Macky Wings - 05-01-2007 , 08:18 AM

Re: Whacky Macky Wings - 05-01-2007 , 08:26 AM

Re: Whacky Macky Wings - 05-01-2007 , 09:56 AM

Re: Whacky Macky Wings - 05-01-2007 , 10:24 AM

Re: Whacky Macky Wings - 05-01-2007 , 02:41 PM