Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[TimW]

I think the point of redbull move is force fia technician to allow officially what mercedes and redbull are doing, since new tests are now for 2022. This way for last two race they can optimise the flexing design of wings and associated tricks, without risk of bein disqualified

I think they are throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks to be honest. It's 50% them trying to cover for their own setup mistakes, and 50% them being clueless as to how Mercedes are so much faster.

I thought the same, but now I think there is more to it. FIA doing new tests, Merc passing it, and Red Bull still asking to make them mandatory for the last two races, does not make sense if there is nothing going on. (From below article I get the impression the test will 'not yet' be introduced, but will be next year)

Yes the Mercedes passed the test, but in Qatar they also did not have a big straightline advantage like in Brazil. It could be that they have main planes that would not pass the test, and by introducing the new test Red Bull would want to prevent them from using those.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... ble-teile/

I am not convinced yet, but a lot of smoke and maybe some fire.

[bonjon1979]

The only reason Red Bull are asking for the test to be included, is so that they can make a big fuss when they're not and hurl more mud. They've been nothing short of a disgrace with some of the language they've used and all of it to tarnish their competitors. I expect they're salty because they were found to have a wing that was doing something the FIA weren't happy with, new tests were introduced. The FIA can't find anything that they're unhappy with in the Mercedes wing. THey passed the new tests with no issues. They still had the same straightline advantage on Red Bull gaining 0.250 of their qualy advantage on the straights, as they did in brazil.

[xaero]

I think the point of redbull move is force fia technician to allow officially what mercedes and redbull are doing, since new tests are now for 2022. This way for last two race they can optimise the flexing design of wings and associated tricks, without risk of bein disqualified

I think they are throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks to be honest. It's 50% them trying to cover for their own setup mistakes, and 50% them being clueless as to how Mercedes are so much faster.

I thought the same, but now I think there is more to it. FIA doing new tests, Merc passing it, and Red Bull still asking to make them mandatory for the last two races, does not make sense if there is nothing going on. (From below article I get the impression the test will 'not yet' be introduced, but will be next year)

Yes the Mercedes passed the test, but in Qatar they also did not have a big straightline advantage like in Brazil. It could be that they have main planes that would not pass the test, and by introducing the new test Red Bull would want to prevent them from using those.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... ble-teile/

I am not convinced yet, but a lot of smoke and maybe some fire.

There are some videos (one I remember from The Race) wherein they have done analysis about this myth that in Qatar Merc lost straight line advantage. In fact, they were better by roughly 2% compared to Brazil.

[bonjon1979]

I think they are throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks to be honest. It's 50% them trying to cover for their own setup mistakes, and 50% them being clueless as to how Mercedes are so much faster.

I thought the same, but now I think there is more to it. FIA doing new tests, Merc passing it, and Red Bull still asking to make them mandatory for the last two races, does not make sense if there is nothing going on. (From below article I get the impression the test will 'not yet' be introduced, but will be next year)

Yes the Mercedes passed the test, but in Qatar they also did not have a big straightline advantage like in Brazil. It could be that they have main planes that would not pass the test, and by introducing the new test Red Bull would want to prevent them from using those.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... ble-teile/

I am not convinced yet, but a lot of smoke and maybe some fire.

There are some videos (one I remember from The Race) wherein they have done analysis about this myth that in Qatar Merc lost straight line advantage. In fact, they were better by roughly 2% compared to Brazil.

Precisely, everything Horner said was nonsense but Sky won't pick him up on it and call it out. That's why he does all those interviews with them. Apparently, he's stopped speaking to proper journalists and is just using Sky to get his message across without any questioning.

[Stu]

Mind games.
I mean if people wanted I'm pretty sure they could protest Red Bulls fluttery DRS flap too.

Precisely. The fluttery wing hasn't been seen in an official session yet. If it's seen in qualifying or in the race, Merc will protest it and get them DSQ'd. The precedent has been set that regardless of whether it's caused by damage or not, a part that doesn't conform to the rules will mean that's the punishment. It would fall foul of the moveable aero rules as it's very clearly the case that it's not rigid in any sense of the word. That's why red bull have been forced to revert to different wings.

My understanding is that the DRS is specifically excluded from the moveable aero rules as it is, by definition, moveable. Compliance is regulated by the min/max dimensions of the slot gap. AFAIK…..

[bonjon1979]

Mind games.
I mean if people wanted I'm pretty sure they could protest Red Bulls fluttery DRS flap too.

Precisely. The fluttery wing hasn't been seen in an official session yet. If it's seen in qualifying or in the race, Merc will protest it and get them DSQ'd. The precedent has been set that regardless of whether it's caused by damage or not, a part that doesn't conform to the rules will mean that's the punishment. It would fall foul of the moveable aero rules as it's very clearly the case that it's not rigid in any sense of the word. That's why red bull have been forced to revert to different wings.

My understanding is that the DRS is specifically excluded from the moveable aero rules as it is, by definition, moveable. Compliance is regulated by the min/max dimensions of the slot gap. AFAIK…..

I think they would fall foul of this article:

3.10.10

f. Any alteration of the incidence of the uppermost closed section may only be
commanded by direct driver input and controlled using the control electronics
specified in Article 8.3.

So the DRS can only move at the command of the driver and the control electronics. The flapping back and forth isn't being controlled by the electronics or the driver, therefore it's outside regulation and should result in disqualification.

[dans79]

My understanding is that the DRS is specifically excluded from the moveable aero rules as it is, by definition, moveable. Compliance is regulated by the min/max dimensions of the slot gap. AFAIK…..

I think if Merc protested, it would be tied to Toto's gripe about Red bull being able to fix/replace their damaged wing several races in a row under parc ferme conditions. I think the argument would be if they weren't allowed to fix it what tests would it potentially fail!

Then could cast doubt by suggesting the drs actuator is designed to fail in a way, thas would cause damage to the drs flap to gain some form of advantage!

Engineered/designed failure is a thing in mechanical and electrical engineering, but usually for safety reasons!

[WaikeCU]

My understanding is that the DRS is specifically excluded from the moveable aero rules as it is, by definition, moveable. Compliance is regulated by the min/max dimensions of the slot gap. AFAIK…..

I think if Merc protested, it would be tied to Toto's gripe about Red bull being able to fix/replace their damaged wing several races in a row under parc ferme conditions. I think the argument would be if they weren't allowed to fix it what tests would it potentially fail!

Then could cast doubt by suggesting the drs actuator is designed to fail in a way, thas would cause damage to the drs flap to gain some form of advantage!

Engineered/designed failure is a thing in mechanical and electrical engineering, but usually for safety reasons!

If RB replaced the rear wing in PC conditions, then I'd imagine that's a loophole to run a Quali trim RW and Race trim RW

[Big Tea]

My understanding is that the DRS is specifically excluded from the moveable aero rules as it is, by definition, moveable. Compliance is regulated by the min/max dimensions of the slot gap. AFAIK…..

I think if Merc protested, it would be tied to Toto's gripe about Red bull being able to fix/replace their damaged wing several races in a row under parc ferme conditions. I think the argument would be if they weren't allowed to fix it what tests would it potentially fail!

Then could cast doubt by suggesting the drs actuator is designed to fail in a way, thas would cause damage to the drs flap to gain some form of advantage!

Engineered/designed failure is a thing in mechanical and electrical engineering, but usually for safety reasons!

Any design would have to 'fail safe' though, which would mean in this case not open or able to open due to outside influence. I can not see it being of any benefit as it would mean no DRS

[dans79]

My understanding is that the DRS is specifically excluded from the moveable aero rules as it is, by definition, moveable. Compliance is regulated by the min/max dimensions of the slot gap. AFAIK…..

I think if Merc protested, it would be tied to Toto's gripe about Red bull being able to fix/replace their damaged wing several races in a row under parc ferme conditions. I think the argument would be if they weren't allowed to fix it what tests would it potentially fail!

Then could cast doubt by suggesting the drs actuator is designed to fail in a way, thas would cause damage to the drs flap to gain some form of advantage!

Engineered/designed failure is a thing in mechanical and electrical engineering, but usually for safety reasons!

Any design would have to 'fail safe' though, which would mean in this case not open or able to open due to outside influence. I can not see it being of any benefit as it would mean no DRS

I was meaning that by fluttering like that, it could damage the drs flap, thus allowing it to flex more when closed.

[Big Tea]

I think if Merc protested, it would be tied to Toto's gripe about Red bull being able to fix/replace their damaged wing several races in a row under parc ferme conditions. I think the argument would be if they weren't allowed to fix it what tests would it potentially fail!

Then could cast doubt by suggesting the drs actuator is designed to fail in a way, thas would cause damage to the drs flap to gain some form of advantage!

Engineered/designed failure is a thing in mechanical and electrical engineering, but usually for safety reasons!

Any design would have to 'fail safe' though, which would mean in this case not open or able to open due to outside influence. I can not see it being of any benefit as it would mean no DRS

I was meaning that by fluttering like that, it could damage the drs flap, thus allowing it to flex more when closed.

That's what I mean. If it was not 'in control' it would (probably) be designed to close or not respond to the request to open. Assuming of course it would be detected as malfunctioning, or was not being overridden. (they would not do that, would they )

[peaty]

Mind games.
I mean if people wanted I'm pretty sure they could protest Red Bulls fluttery DRS flap too.

Precisely. The fluttery wing hasn't been seen in an official session yet. If it's seen in qualifying or in the race, Merc will protest it and get them DSQ'd. The precedent has been set that regardless of whether it's caused by damage or not, a part that doesn't conform to the rules will mean that's the punishment. It would fall foul of the moveable aero rules as it's very clearly the case that it's not rigid in any sense of the word. That's why red bull have been forced to revert to different wings.

No new precedent has been set, nothing have change really. Not sure how you reached that conclusion but I don't see the logic behind it.
Usually when a car get damage it tend to loose performance. In Mercedes' case it was the other way arround...a flap opening more than it should. To make it even worse for Mercedes, the problem was located on the end of the rear wing...in other words, the area that generates the most amount of drag. If that is not enough, Mercedes didn't notice the problem before scrutineering...and wait for it, because there's more! Before the incident there were suspicions over Mercedes' rear wing.

It would be super easy to design a car that fails leading to enhance performance. You'll just have to notify the stewards before the scrutineering, explain them what went wrong and show them a new part (same specs but without damage) to back up your theory. And you'll get away with it! It doesn't work like that I'm afraid!

[bonjon1979]

Mind games.
I mean if people wanted I'm pretty sure they could protest Red Bulls fluttery DRS flap too.

Precisely. The fluttery wing hasn't been seen in an official session yet. If it's seen in qualifying or in the race, Merc will protest it and get them DSQ'd. The precedent has been set that regardless of whether it's caused by damage or not, a part that doesn't conform to the rules will mean that's the punishment. It would fall foul of the moveable aero rules as it's very clearly the case that it's not rigid in any sense of the word. That's why red bull have been forced to revert to different wings.

No new precedent has been set, nothing have change really. Not sure how you reached that conclusion but I don't see the logic behind it.
Usually when a car get damage it tend to loose performance. In Mercedes' case it was the other way arround...a flap opening more than it should. To make it even worse for Mercedes, the problem was located on the end of the rear wing...in other words, the area that generates the most amount of drag. If that is not enough, Mercedes didn't notice the problem before scrutineering...and wait for it, because there's more! Before the incident there were suspicions over Mercedes' rear wing.

It would be super easy to design a car that fails leading to enhance performance. You'll just have to notify the stewards before the scrutineering, explain them what went wrong and show them a new part (same specs but without damage) to back up your theory. And you'll get away with it! It doesn't work like that I'm afraid!

Merc failed by 0.2mm because a screw was loose. Even Red bull admitted there was no advantage. If a car doesn’t meet the technical regs it should be dsq’d. Simple as really. That’s why red bull won’t risk the fluttering wing because it will be an instant penalty

[Stu]

Precisely. The fluttery wing hasn't been seen in an official session yet. If it's seen in qualifying or in the race, Merc will protest it and get them DSQ'd. The precedent has been set that regardless of whether it's caused by damage or not, a part that doesn't conform to the rules will mean that's the punishment. It would fall foul of the moveable aero rules as it's very clearly the case that it's not rigid in any sense of the word. That's why red bull have been forced to revert to different wings.

No new precedent has been set, nothing have change really. Not sure how you reached that conclusion but I don't see the logic behind it.
Usually when a car get damage it tend to loose performance. In Mercedes' case it was the other way arround...a flap opening more than it should. To make it even worse for Mercedes, the problem was located on the end of the rear wing...in other words, the area that generates the most amount of drag. If that is not enough, Mercedes didn't notice the problem before scrutineering...and wait for it, because there's more! Before the incident there were suspicions over Mercedes' rear wing.

It would be super easy to design a car that fails leading to enhance performance. You'll just have to notify the stewards before the scrutineering, explain them what went wrong and show them a new part (same specs but without damage) to back up your theory. And you'll get away with it! It doesn't work like that I'm afraid!

Merc failed by 0.2mm because a screw was loose. Even Red bull admitted there was no advantage. If a car doesn’t meet the technical regs it should be dsq’d. Simple as really. That’s why red bull won’t risk the fluttering wing because it will be an instant penalty

At Zandvoort, during the final Q runs, the DRS failed to open as MV started onto the final straight. It started to open, but then failed. Presumably the FIA did their checks (as RB would have requested to perform repairs in parc ferme), there was no DSQ in this case (again, presumably because it was still within the regulations - even though it had failed).

[bonjon1979]

No new precedent has been set, nothing have change really. Not sure how you reached that conclusion but I don't see the logic behind it.
Usually when a car get damage it tend to loose performance. In Mercedes' case it was the other way arround...a flap opening more than it should. To make it even worse for Mercedes, the problem was located on the end of the rear wing...in other words, the area that generates the most amount of drag. If that is not enough, Mercedes didn't notice the problem before scrutineering...and wait for it, because there's more! Before the incident there were suspicions over Mercedes' rear wing.

It would be super easy to design a car that fails leading to enhance performance. You'll just have to notify the stewards before the scrutineering, explain them what went wrong and show them a new part (same specs but without damage) to back up your theory. And you'll get away with it! It doesn't work like that I'm afraid!

Merc failed by 0.2mm because a screw was loose. Even Red bull admitted there was no advantage. If a car doesn’t meet the technical regs it should be dsq’d. Simple as really. That’s why red bull won’t risk the fluttering wing because it will be an instant penalty

At Zandvoort, during the final Q runs, the DRS failed to open as MV started onto the final straight. It started to open, but then failed. Presumably the FIA did their checks (as RB would have requested to perform repairs in parc ferme), there was no DSQ in this case (again, presumably because it was still within the regulations - even though it had failed).

Totally, I don’t see anything against the rules there. Very different to it consistently opening and then moving while open. As I said, it won’t be an issue because red bull won’t risk running it