Quote:
Originally Posted by Killed by Death
|
Interesting video.
But what I don't understand is regarding to the potential new FIA rules.
They say that (@5:10) following the new loads applied (1000N vertically and 2x 750N horizontally directed to the rear), the rear wing is
allowed to flex 1 degree.
So that is a
rotational deformation.
The video only refers to 3.9.3 (@2:58) and not to 3.9.6 which covers amount of flex (in mm, not degrees) when applied with horizontal load (on the top aerofoil). I would expect the FIA to expand 3.9.6 with a vertical load and an allowable deformation in mm (they can also write that in 3.9.3 of course, but the point is an allowable deformation in
mm, not in degrees.)
Is Mercedes' problem with the RB wing that it rotates too much (so the direction of the aerofoil is changed) or that it sags too much, so that it might catch less airstream as it hides more behind the rest of the car?
If the last case is the problem, setting limits to the rotational deformation has no effect.
It's not impossible to design a rigid spring that only deflects in one direction, so that any rotational movement is limited but linear movement is allowed (in my eyes that's what they already did).
So does the video miss the real problem and corresponding FIA article at hand or don't I understand the problem correctly?