McLaren active wing
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_5Q3OreIo&eur

WTF?

Thats ace !

Ohh i thought of a capation for the other tread for that Enzo crash

" New active rear wing pictured above " LOL

There must be a rule against that ......... :(

There is.
Active aerodynamics is really old. I think the rule is 'no moveable aerodynamic devices' - that's one of the reasons they had that whole thing about the Ferrari wheel covers (turns out as the front ones are on bearings, and the rear ones 'look' the same as they rotate - they don't count as moving in regards to aerodynamics)

To be honest, the mclaren wing just looks like a weaker wing, I doubt any foul play

C'mon guys! Moving aerodymanics are banned. Toyota and Ferrari were prosecuted because of that. Wings can't flex

That's crazy. Of course wings can flex, and they do. It's just the degree to which they flex that the FIA decide is acceptable or not.

Anyway looking at the video, it certainly doesn't look like a moveable aerodynamic device. It looks like a flow guide vane and not a downforce generating device. Something to perhaps help smooth out some areas of rough flow over other parts of the car. I certainly don't see it twisting relative to speed. Anyone else agree?

You can't just call something with any aero-elastics a moveable aerodynamic device. Either way it's a video from a test session (assuming my Spanish is still okay and that's the title of the youtube video), so doesn't show McLaren doing anything wrong.

Take a look at FIA rules again, then talk. It does not generate downforce? Please, review your aerodymanics notes.

it's aspect ratio doesn't appear to change out of a tolernace, unlike the rear wings, where the wing chord flatten out almost under high speed thus reducing drag and increasing top speed....

Reducing drag? How if it's not generating lift in the first place?

Alberto - I know the FIA rules very well thank you.

I think Jason (glypo) is spot on - it's primarily a flow guidance device.

When Ferrari originally unveiled their equivalent (which doesn't bridge the nosecone) they were asked to revise it as there were suspicions it flexed (twisted) too much, i.e. when slow the incidence was increased relative to higher speeds, so deemed an 'active' aerodynamic device.

Are you sure the rear wing elements do this enough to provide any performance benefit? I thought they were bolted at several points to the end plates; plus don't the rules specify strict limits on this sort of thing?

It would be impossible to make a part that takes so much load that didn't flex on a racing car (where you need things light).

G

Quite right. To clarify I wasn't trying to suggest there should be zero flex; I meant beyond the limits imposed by the rules.

Exactly :)

G

Also if you think about it the more force applied to it the less effective it is at guiding the air over the car, there is also the fact in where if it was a wing and it flexed a lot, it would make the car very inconsistent:confused:

the rule was designed to stop the chord from reducing under load, reducing the drag of the aerofoil section. These don't creat lift, they create downforce, and the rear portion of the lip was clearly deforming on the flexy wings.... reducing drag and increasing top speed/reducing fuel usage.

In my opinion it works managing the amount of air over the car. It'd reduce drag keeping the flow laminar rather than turbulent at high speed. I'm just wondering. What do you think about this?

If I'm right, this is an active aerodynamic device according to the rules.

I would agree with that statement alberto regarding laminar and turbulent airflow:)

I think that if teams/FIA thought it was a problem, it would be being dealt with.

Remember that the wings on an F1 car will hold it upside down at 100MPH. Some flex is to be expected. The lower section is flexing very slightly. The top section is just exaggerating that small movement due to its shape.