TD018 2023 - clampdown on flexible wings

[TFSA]

We can't cite statements as evidentiary, they categorically denied breaking the budget cap after all. I don't want to get embroiled in that, just using a recent example as a counter point.

That's because they genuinely believed that they hadn't.

The FIA thought otherwise, and disagreed with Red Bulls interpretations of parts of the financial regulations.

[rijtuig]

I think if RB had to change something due to one of the TDs, they would not categorically deny it (both Adrian and Horner)... I think they would say something sly like yes there were changes to the car this weekend look at the documents detailing changes. Even if RB have a bad reputation I don't think they would all be lying straight up

I don't see a reason why they would publicly confirm this. In a way, this would expose potentially some reverse engineering to the other teams, in how the car operates.

[Stu]

There were huge (comparatively!) carbon reinforcement patches on the sides of the Merc noses this weekend; this coincides with a visually reduced amount of downward flex on the inboard end of the upper flap (the part fixed to the nose).
Didn’t get enough onboard views to determine what others had done.

[basti313]

Interesting...I thought these black stickers were just stickers...to cover the mounting holes?
Are there comparison pictures?

[dans79]

There were huge (comparatively!) carbon reinforcement patches on the sides of the Merc noses this weekend; this coincides with a visually reduced amount of downward flex on the inboard end of the upper flap (the part fixed to the nose).
Didn’t get enough onboard views to determine what others had done.

I assume this is your personal opinion?

I have not seen a photo or article from any news outlet suggesting what you have above.

[RZS10]

There were huge (comparatively!) carbon reinforcement patches on the sides of the Merc noses this weekend [...]

Chill, dans79 ... the thick carbon panel is clearly visible imho. Did you mean those, Stu?

[Stu]

There were huge (comparatively!) carbon reinforcement patches on the sides of the Merc noses this weekend [...]

Chill, dans79 ... the thick carbon panel is clearly visible imho. Did you mean those, Stu?
https://i.imgur.com/ljNWPTP.png

Maybe, they were clearly visible from the camera on the LHS of the nose, very clearly not original.

[scuderiabrandon]

There were huge (comparatively!) carbon reinforcement patches on the sides of the Merc noses this weekend [...]

Chill, dans79 ... the thick carbon panel is clearly visible imho. Did you mean those, Stu?
https://i.imgur.com/ljNWPTP.png

Maybe, they were clearly visible from the camera on the LHS of the nose, very clearly not original.

These have always been there.

Baku

[AR3-GP]

I have a theory about the nose boxes and how teams could get them to deform while still passing the load test. The problem for the FIA is the fact that the wings have a drag force operating concurrently with the downforce. This may cause the nose section to deform in a fashion which promotes deflection. This is something you cannot see in a static load test which is only capable of generating simple X and Z forces.

[RZS10]

Maybe [...]

Well good thing you didn't write "yes" as that is from Jeddah :^)

Here's a bunch more:

Testing


Australia


Miami


Hungary


Singapore


Belgium


Again Singapore


Zandvoort vs Singapore


It might be slightly different panels for wing types/downforce levels, different tape application and varying lighting conditions but there's no real difference between them, at least in thickness, is there?

And there's still quite a bit of the usual movement, even on the inboard pieces, despite this being a comparison with a small delta (278 and 120 kph, i did not have anything better) and far from top speed on a low/moderate (?) DF level wing (at least compared to places like Zandvoort etc)


I'd personally reserve judgement and wait for the next race(s), they will run more DF and higher top speeds there, maybe i'll be able to grab some footage for them and other cars, it's a rarely used cam unfortunately.

[chrisc90]

Be interesting to put a dotted line on the lower inner flap and see the movement. Looking at that it seems to come rearwards and the tip of the nose down.

[RZS10]

Would i be wasting my time trying to explain some of the visual effects at play which might exaggerate the perceived change in part positioning?

[Sevach]

I am surprised too that Monaco/baku were alright and Singapore was not, but at the beginning of the season they had a larger margin.

Newey suggested humidity played a part.. and it's clear the setup was not correct. And the drivers made large errors.

Like a perfect storm of many different issues.

Baku is fairly different in terms of how you run the car because of the looooooong full throttle section.
At Monaco RBR was vulnerable(remembering it now quite weird how Aston had the faster car for 2 sectors but was way slower in the third, and Monaco isn't like Spa where this happens for obvious reasons), but they managed to pull it off.

And Ferrari, Mercedes and Mclaren are now faster than Aston who was the main competition back in Monaco.

[AR3-GP]

Newey suggested humidity played a part.. and it's clear the setup was not correct. And the drivers made large errors.

That's the part that's confusing to me, the teams can change mappings cooling etc etc right up to the start of qualifying so how did the humidity affect the engine and upshifts.

These PUs use exotic combustion schemes. Changing mappings is not the work of a whim. You need to have a full understanding of the contents of the combustion chamber before you can attempt to control the combustion. Maybe humidity alters the mixing of fuel and air in an unexpected way. Maybe there is condensate entering the combustion chamber. Maybe things are happening which were never modeled, thus there can be no predetermined solution.

As I understand, the PU is blipped and prodded during upshifts and downshifts. This seems to be where they struggled to actually get the PU to do the right things due to an unexpected response of the PU to the control inputs.

Perez hinted at such an issue during qualifying:

"And then it just made it worse the fact that I could not give in my final attempt in Q2, massive under-delivery from the engine and then it kicked really hard.

https://racingnews365.com/perez-reveals ... nd-q2-spin


When a PU does the "unexpected", it means you have lost control, albeit briefly.

[Airshifter]

Would i be wasting my time trying to explain some of the visual effects at play which might exaggerate the perceived change in part positioning?

For me, yes. (maybe not a total waste of time but not needed to see your concern) The lighting towards the nose especially distorts movement. Zooming in on a mega monitor clarifies it.

And thanks for all the nose pics. I might double check to see if they are the same, but either the lighting or angle had me convinced the mount are was in fact thicker, similar to what Stu thought. It could be I've noticed it with certain wings in other races, but never thought anything of it because there was no recent TD clarification.