Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[RZS10]

Is something not right with that clip?
Airflow over a big wing deflects it, no prob, I understand. The DRS opens, and the wing stays in the same place even though there is much less pressure on it?

Am I missing something important here? Is the downward force the same with and without DRS?

Check out the gifs, it's all frames when they open and close the DRS slowed down, look at the upper edge of the endplates and their distance to the yellow boxes, the wings move all the way up viewtopic.php?p=975369#p975369

[dans79]

That is what you guys don't get your head arround. The "norm" is dictate by 3.9. It is written nowhere that deformation should be in a linear fashion.

If you take any uniform material (wood, metal, plastic, etc) and load it like the tests do, you will find that the deflection is linearly related to the amount of force applied. if you double the force you will get double the deflection. You can see this by looking at any of the standard formulas for deflection.

In order to get a composite structure to not deform linearly, you would have to intentionally design it that way. As was show in the past, designing something to work a certain way is what gets teams in trouble.

[Xwang]

It's not that guys, it's the fact that the Mercedes fans seem to justify the oscillations and movement of the t wings and sharkfins as incidental and thus allowed and then repeatedly cite article 3.8 and the wording "immobile" when it is clear as night and day the Mercs parts are clearly MOVING. So naturally the Red Bull fans here will facepalm at the apparent hypocrisy of the Mercedes fans criticism of Red Bull and justification of the Mercs apparent infractions. I've already mentioned that there is in fact evidence that supports that inducing oscillations has the effect of reducing drag, such is vortex generation. Yet you folks repeatedly insist that the oscillations induce drag.

There is quite a difference between oscillation and bending. The shark fin and T-wing don't really seem like a controlled movement. Apart from that; the T-wing is connected to the shark fin, and thus will logically react to flutter from the shark fin.

You can then of course say that it has benificial effects, which might be true. But you have effects that are based on wind speed and direction, it's not controllable in that sense.

If we look at the load tests and material behavior, then (with simplifying the whole physics behind it) we can reasonably conclude that wing bending is proportionate to wing loading; you can fairly safely calculate the rates at which the wing should then bend without trickery going on in the materials. If a wing conforms the test, yet under driving conditions bends beyond what should be the norm, then there is clearly some trickery going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBWUefSl5tI

If we look at this comparison then we can see one thing that is missing; oscillation that is proportionate to the airspeed. Whereas the wing bends, it doesn't oscillate more as the car accelerates. If the behavior was incidental, it would most likely behave similarly in multiple directions.

The fact that it bends in a specific, controlled way confirms, beyond reasonable doubt, that it's behavior is intentional.

In the video I see the leading edge of Mercedes flap moving towards the bottom as speed increase. Do you see the same?

[peaty]

In order to get a composite structure to not deform linearly, you would have to intentionally design it that way.

I'll say it again...yes, it was designed that way. Who's even arguing the opposite? I thought that was clear already

As was show in the past, designing something to work a certain way is what gets teams in trouble.

Everything in a formula 1 car is design to work a certain way and teams don't get in troubles for that.
Designs that don't meet the technical regulations do get teams in trouble though.
Is this one of those cases!? I don't think so.
You keep bringing up 2014. For this to be similar Mercedes will have to prove that the bending/tilting is pushing the floor of the car down. That would potentially lead to a violation of article 3.8 ("bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground"). Good luck with that one!

Not that much difference between MB and RBR this time around...

[SmallSoldier]

I guess Seidl from Mclaren agrees with a few here (me included) in regards to “intention” or purposely designing the rear wings to flex to be against article 3.8... Seidl in regards to the Rear Wings and potential protests by Mclaren:

"It is not just the deflection that you see, but in the end what is important is for the FIA to look into how does this deflection get created," he explained.

"If this deflection gets created by a design that is clearly done for passing the test which is in the regulations, then is creating excessive deflection, on purpose, that's obviously not within 3.8 [of the rules that bans moveable aerodynamic devices]."

If teams do run with flexible wings, and the FIA does not take action, then the door remains open for rivals to lodge a protest. Mercedes has already suggested it may take such action.

Seidl drew short of confirming whether or not McLaren would go down that route, but said it was something that would be judged later in the weekend.

"I don't want to go into discussion of a protest at the moment," he said when asked about the timing of any complaint.

"In general, it doesn't make sense to do anything before the event, because you can change a rear wing on Saturday morning. There's no point to do anything on a Friday night."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

In order to get a composite structure to not deform linearly, you would have to intentionally design it that way.

I said it again...yes, it was designed that way. Who's even arguing the opposite? I thought that was clear already

As was show in the past, designing something to work a certain way is what gets teams in trouble.

Everything in a formula 1 car is design to work a certain way and teams don't get in troubles for that.
Designs that don't meet the technical regulations do get teams in trouble though.
Is this one of those cases!? I don't think so.
You keep bringing up 2014. For this to be similar Mercedes will have to prove that the bending/tilting is pushing the floor of the car down. That would potentially lead to a violation of article 3.8 ("bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground"). Good luck with that one!

Not that much difference between MB and RBR this time around...

The portion of article 3.8 that could get teams in trouble is:

“Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.”

If the wings are design to flex / rotate, they are braiding the gap and therefore would be in clear breach of the article.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[nzjrs]

Round and round the roundabout we go again.

[ispano6]

The behavior of the Merc's wing is identical to the RedBull's in that video.
Let's see if Merc actually use it in qualifying and the race. Maybe it's a ploy to make others think it's OK to use it, or Mclaren will be lodging a protest to the hand that feeds them.

[Wouter]

Round and round the roundabout we go again.

[peaty]

The portion of article 3.8 that could get teams in trouble is:

“Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.”

If the wings are design to flex / rotate, they are braiding the gap and therefore would be in clear breach of the article.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just the wing flexing/rotating won't cut it. There's no breach at all.

[dans79]

Is this one of those cases!? I don't think so.

Thats your opinion!

Imo, it's an issue if the upright structures allow the wing to deflect in a nonlinear fashion. The would mean they intentionally designed the wing to pass the current tests and still gain an aerodynamic advantage. As SmallSoldier showed other members of the paddock see it similarly.

As much as I rag on the FIA, they have some common sense, and know the difference between Incidental and intentional. They know nothing is perfectly rigid, hence why they have tests. They are creating new tests to ensure skirting around the test is more difficult or impossible. Creating new tests implies that they have an issue with someone intentionally working around the current tests.


Designed intent was the issue in 2014.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/30167902

Red Bull design chief Adrian Newey said the part had been designed to flex but said all teams did the same thing.

He added that in terms of overall aerodynamic effect on the car, Red Bull's wing was less extreme than those on some of their rivals, although he admitted that their wing deflected more than others in the official test.

Newey said that the part in question had been designed with a central piece of metal inside the layers of carbon-fibre that was thinner than usual, with the aim of saving weight.

He admitted that making the part flex downwards was also part of the designed-in characteristics.

[dans79]

The behavior of the Merc's wing is identical to the RedBull's in that video.
Let's see if Merc actually use it in qualifying and the race. Maybe it's a ploy to make others think it's OK to use it, or Mclaren will be lodging a protest to the hand that feeds them.

Those wings are not even close to having the same amounts of downforce and drag.

[SmallSoldier]

The behavior of the Merc's wing is identical to the RedBull's in that video.
Let's see if Merc actually use it in qualifying and the race. Maybe it's a ploy to make others think it's OK to use it, or Mclaren will be lodging a protest to the hand that feeds them.

McLaren has no relationship with Mercedes beyond buying the PU’s from them... There aren’t even Merc logos in the car... No problem for them protesting Mercedes

But McLaren’s potential protest most probably would be aimed at Ferrari/AT/Alpine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

The portion of article 3.8 that could get teams in trouble is:

“Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.”

If the wings are design to flex / rotate, they are braiding the gap and therefore would be in clear breach of the article.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just the wing flexing/rotating won't cut it. There's no breach at all.

Won’t cut it? The upper element is indeed rotating and the assembly therefore reducing the gap to the ground... That’s pretty much the definition of “bridging the gap”.

I find it clear, but clearly you have a different opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peaty]

The portion of article 3.8 that could get teams in trouble is:

“Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.”

If the wings are design to flex / rotate, they are braiding the gap and therefore would be in clear breach of the article.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just the wing flexing/rotating won't cut it. There's no breach at all.

Won’t cut it? The upper element is indeed rotating and the assembly therefore reducing the gap to the ground... That’s pretty much the definition of “bridging the gap”.

I find it clear, but clearly you have a different opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the assembly includes the floor? if that is the case, as I said before, I agree with you.
If that is not the case and only the wing is flexing...there's no violation at all