This is quite clearly not the case, and perhaps this is why such a design seems less feasible to you than it does to me. Both my suggestions (and they’re just guesses at what might be possible) are based on the premise of miniscule deflections changing the effective structure of the wing by changing the alignment of normally-load-bearing members. In terms of your simple beam theory example, this is a change in effective beam cross-section, not elastic modulus.

In the case of the first suggestion, I’m not talking about loading upwards rather than downwards, or loading in an untested direction, but loading in a combination of modes already tested. The most likely example would be when experiencing drag and/or pitching moment, the wing being more flexible under downforce. I hope that clears things up…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4Wro6SYjRA&feature=player_embedded

The only other load direction they could test the wings would be in fact the direction of pointing parallel with the car and we already know the testing for that is in fact for crashing and that the structure holds up to a certain degree of force for it to be safe for the driver and they don’t absorb the impact instead of the car’s nose and monocoque. Again also Young’s Modulus stuff.

As for the “stiffener” on the wing, you’d have to find some strange material that did that to put into the carbon fibre. I know as much as carbon fibre is significantly stronger in one direction than the other i.e. it can take loadings better in one direction than the other and that heat does have a factor in the amount of deflection occuring in a material, but you’d have to be looking at massive temperature differences for that to occur.

I think ultimately if the wings are flexing too much then it’s a case of the wings are just a bit thin, but obviously still strong enough to take the load settings the car goes through. Alternatively wherever the wing elements are held, it’s held somewhat more loosely and therefore is a bit free to move about to the air flow.

For example, the tests generally only consider loading in one direction at a time. If deflection in one direction caused parts which were touching but not connected to slide out of line, it’s conceivable that the wing would then become more flexible in another direction.

Or if a stiffener in the wing only worked properly when it was warm, and hence slightly longer through thermal expansion. Plenty of warm air in a hot garage, perhaps, but after a bit of breeze in the installation lap, such a stiffener might cease to do its job.

Of course Red Bull (or anyone else for that matter) would have to not only get one of these or an equally outlandish scheme of their own to work as described, but also for the resulting flexibility to help them aerodynamically, all at the risk that the door be closed with the addition of a new deflection test, which would probably be joined by penalisation for breaking the spirit of the “no deformable bodywork” rule itself.

Not sure if the link will work if not copy and paste. James any thoughts?