Flexiwings 2025

[SiLo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmT2cTOWoAA ... ame=medium

https://i.imgur.com/kIxHwTu.png

Whats actually bending here? The beam wing? The floor? Very interesting catch that one.

[Vettel165]

Interesting.

From the Chinese Grand Prix this weekend, the level of flex permitted will be reduced to 0.75mm under the static test loads, while the level of flex permitted will be reduced down to 0.5mm from the Japanese Grand Prix.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/new-fia-f ... 7CTK5xmgMg

[organic]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmT2cTOWoAA ... ame=medium

Remarkable. I don't understand how wings are flexing backwards this much despite FIA trying to crack down harder on this

As shown, red bull have significantly less flex on their medium-low wing than rivals. They have margin to gain there, or they should push politically to tighten the tests again

[euv2]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmT2cTOWoAA ... ame=medium

Remarkable. I don't understand how wings are flexing backwards this much despite FIA trying to crack down harder on this

As shown, red bull have significantly less flex on their medium-low wing than rivals. They have margin to gain there, or they should push politically to tighten the tests again

Just need a couple of DSQs again to put the fear back in these teams, they have grown too comfortable pushing to flexing boundaries again.

Weak action from the FIA will always mean the team end up exploiting rules but in cases like this where they have already clearly banned stuff in the past the teams should get no extra leeway. Start handing out DSQs and see how quickly they fall into place.

[Vanja #66]

Remarkable. I don't understand how wings are flexing backwards this much despite FIA trying to crack down harder on this

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

[Arcanum]

The moral outrage in this thread is strong. Anyone would think people here are new to F1.

This is no different from blown diffusers, Red Bull flexwings circa 2012, clever adaptations to the plank, Ferrari's creative engine fueling, Mercedes "tyre warming" steering, McLaren's F-Duct, oil burning engines, etc. etc.

None of the F1 teams will ever meet the rule of rigid immovable bodywork. Every one of them is in violation of the spirit or "intent" of those rules. And on the topic of "intent" Horner observed that there's no such thing. There is no difference here. https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/horn ... a-dispute/

If you pass the tests you're legal. If you don't, you're not. Simple as that. The FIA are tightening up the test, which is fine and in their remit. Though there's a question around how reasonable it is to implement new tests so rapidly when teams are normally given multiple races to comply. As McLaren haven't complained publicly, I doubt they are too concerned.

But the fundamental point is that all the teams design to the rules. Not the spirit. Not the intent. It's just that this wing situation is more visible, unlike the myriad of less visible parts of the car where they will all be taking a liberal interpretation of the rule book.

I have neither the time nor inclination to do so, but I'd bet if I dug back through the threads, the people who are outraged here were less vocal about the creative approaches to planks that Red Bull and Ferrari were employing back in 2022.

[napoleon1981]

Things like this are F1, its awesome. It is impressive how some engineers have pushed the gray zone. Its clearly against the spirit of the rules, but not against any of the actual regulations in the rule book. It will be interesting to see how the clampdowns affect the pecking order.

[DGP123]

It will be interesting to see how the clampdowns affect the pecking order.

Bar McLaren out front, I wouldn’t say we’ve even got a confirmed pecking order, under normal racing conditions.

Reigning in McLaren will be the ultimate goal of the FIA. No surprise they’ve panicked again, and fast tracking a clampdown after the advantage seen in Australia.

[Emag]

The moral outrage in this thread is strong. Anyone would think people here are new to F1.

This is no different from blown diffusers, Red Bull flexwings circa 2012, clever adaptations to the plank, Ferrari's creative engine fueling, Mercedes "tyre warming" steering, McLaren's F-Duct, oil burning engines, etc. etc.

None of the F1 teams will ever meet the rule of rigid immovable bodywork. Every one of them is in violation of the spirit or "intent" of those rules. And on the topic of "intent" Horner observed that there's no such thing. There is no difference here. https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/horn ... a-dispute/

If you pass the tests you're legal. If you don't, you're not. Simple as that. The FIA are tightening up the test, which is fine and in their remit. Though there's a question around how reasonable it is to implement new tests so rapidly when teams are normally given multiple races to comply. As McLaren haven't complained publicly, I doubt they are too concerned.

But the fundamental point is that all the teams design to the rules. Not the spirit. Not the intent. It's just that this wing situation is more visible, unlike the myriad of less visible parts of the car where they will all be taking a liberal interpretation of the rule book.

I have neither the time nor inclination to do so, but I'd bet if I dug back through the threads, the people who are outraged here were less vocal about the creative approaches to planks that Red Bull and Ferrari were employing back in 2022.

This is what I have been saying for a while now, including during the whole mini-DRS saga last year. Also people tend to get a little too personally involved sometimes, which is normal to be honest, it happens in every sport, however the ever-repeating ying-yang between fans of different teams/drivers gets a little unpleasant.

Long story short :
- For something to be illegal, it needs to break the rules.
- For something to be within the rules, it has to comply with the technical directives.
- For something to comply with the technical directives, it needs to past the tests.

Therefore, if something passes the tests, it cannot be considered illegal under the current modus operandi.

The thing is, the problem stands with the FIA and their means of policing their rules, which in my opinion is flawed. Carbon fiber does not exhibit purely linear elasticity. That means that just because you observe a flex of (let's say) 1mm at 750N of force, then you can't assume there will be a 10mm flex at 7500N of force. It may be more or less depending on the composite.

If they really wanted to close this completely, it's really easy to do so with all the sensors and technology we have available now. You just need to rewrite the rules so that the legality doesn't depend only on the passing of these simple and restrictive static-load tests and introduce measurements taken during on-track running too.

With the topic still popping up, it honestly feels like they're farming content for engagement ...

[Cs98]

It will be interesting to see how the clampdowns affect the pecking order.

Bar McLaren out front, I wouldn’t say we’ve even got a confirmed pecking order, under normal racing conditions.

Reigning in McLaren will be the ultimate goal of the FIA. No surprise they’ve panicked again, and fast tracking a clampdown after the advantage seen in Australia.

This TD will not affect the pecking order. Mini-DRS is a sideshow compared to the flexing of the RW assembly (which isn't changing), and even then flexing clampdowns on the rear wing have historically not affected performance hardly at all.

[fourmula1]

It will be interesting to see how the clampdowns affect the pecking order.

Bar McLaren out front, I wouldn’t say we’ve even got a confirmed pecking order, under normal racing conditions.

Reigning in McLaren will be the ultimate goal of the FIA. No surprise they’ve panicked again, and fast tracking a clampdown after the advantage seen in Australia.

This TD will not affect the pecking order. Mini-DRS is a sideshow compared to the flexing of the RW assembly (which isn't changing), and even then flexing clampdowns on the rear wing have historically not affected performance hardly at all.

Agreed with this and the previous few posts.

I think the reason they are seemingly abruptly introducing the new test is that most teams comply and it will just put the issue to bed. The drs flap looks pretty stable in relationship to the main plane compared to what we saw last year on the mclaren.

The rear assembly flex is so simple and obvious and easily tested if they wanted to clamp down on that.

[napoleon1981]

We will see, clearly the teams think its worth investing development time in, while knowing the FIA is watching this area. So brushing it off as something that hardly affects performance does not rhyme with that.

[Quantum]

We will see, clearly the teams think its worth investing development time in, while knowing the FIA is watching this area. So brushing it off as something that hardly affects performance does not rhyme with that.

How much are they gaining for what they invested?

[michl420]

I read that the FIA had some special cameras on the cars in free practice they look on the rear wings. Now they bring this new test. I think they can bring this new test this fast because they know now that everyone will pass it. Just PR.

[hollus]

That is a very Machiavellian theory. And makes a lot of sense!
Such a change between 2 overseas races within a week…