 | |
Whacky Macky Wings
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#31
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Whacky Macky Wings -
05-01-2007
, 09:00 PM
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
The Williams "Tusks" were uglier! |
#33
| |||
| |||
|
| TonyMitch (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote: The Williams "Tusks" were uglier! Likely less functional, too. I disagree. That little strip on the McLaren's nose will do buckleys |
;-)
--
Regards, Frank
#34
| |||
| |||
|
|
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  That thing would have to lower though when the wing ends get pushed |
--
Regards, Frank
#35
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:07:52 -0400, News <News (AT) Groups (DOT) com> wrote: TonyMitch (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote: The Williams "Tusks" were uglier! Likely less functional, too. I disagree. That little strip on the McLaren's nose will do buckleys in helping to spin another driver around and keeping the nose intact. ;-) |
Instead of jacking the front end for tire changes, the nose man just
lifts up on the basket handle.
No muss, no fuss.
#36
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:24:47 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: 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 That thing would have to lower though when the wing ends get pushed down on the fast straights, no ? Depends which is more bendy -- to use the proper engineering term. |
#37
| |||
| |||
|
|
News wrote: 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. 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 |
;-p
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#38
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:24:47 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: 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 That thing would have to lower though when the wing ends get pushed down on the fast straights, no ? |
on the fast straights. There shouldn't be a problem so long as it's been
made strong enough, and that depends on whether they intend to run it in
races or not - I won't be convinced that it's not just a test of the
outer edge of the envelope until we see it on a race weekend.
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
#39
| |||
| |||
|
|
Luigi Topolino wrote: 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. |
Sad that you can't see that for the nationalities.
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. |
behaves as, two smaller fully supported elements of similar area?
....Perhaps your ignorant countrymen are right, and I am wasting my
time.
--
"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."
#40
| |||
| |||
|
|
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? Are you ever going to contribute something instructive or informative here? |
don't get is I rather like Phil, he's bright if not smart, and if I
can get him to recognize even one of his logical inconsistencies are
based on parochial preconceptions and jingoistic fervor it'll be worth
all the racist, nationalist, village idiot spittle I've endured from
the likes of you and your dark-ages cohort.
Even a blind man, or a know nothing dimwit like you, can see McLaren's
novel front wing solution is nothing similar to Ferrari's: For Phil
to claim otherwise has reason in other than science or logic.
--
"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.