Flexiwings 2024

[Farnborough]

Here's a quote from another site about TD34

" The TD034G technical directive has been sent to all Formula 1 teams by Nikolas Tombazis, the FIA Single Seater Director, so they can place the markers on the front wings of their respective cars. It should be remembered that Technical Directives are sent exclusively to the teams. They are not a rule and they are the method of enforcing it. At the same time, a technical directive could determine a regulatory review if certain numerical values vary as a limit. In such a case, the regulation article would be modified. For example, if the mass to be applied in the flex test or the flexion limit amplitude were to change.'

So, who has knowledge of the rules specifically relating to and controlling flex of that component ? Is there such a thing, very illusive so far

Whats the test method, what's the limit etc, tbat would give us here a clear view.

[Quantum]

Yeah, it’s a case of one rule for one, one rule for someone else. RBR’s back wing passed the tests in 2021 - but still got told to change it.

Makes you wonder how much noise was coming out of Zak Browns mouth a few months ago about other teams, and now the balls on their court with the flexi devices.

That's a false assertion.
Red Bull could've continued to race the wing in 2021 IF it passed the new tests. It was changed because it would've failed them, else they would have kept running it.

The Red Bull team principal, Christian Horner, denied any infringement, stating their wing had passed all the rigidity tests required by the FIA. However, it is understood the FIA has now written to the teams warning it had observed some cars had passed static tests but may have demonstrated wing movement while in motion.

The governing body has told the teams it will introduce new static tests from 15 June.
The teams have been given a month before the new tests and monitoring system come in to allow them to enact any changes necessary. They will be able to use their current designs for the next three meeting.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... ear-wings

[organic]

Yeah, it’s a case of one rule for one, one rule for someone else. RBR’s back wing passed the tests in 2021 - but still got told to change it.

Makes you wonder how much noise was coming out of Zak Browns mouth a few months ago about other teams, and now the balls on their court with the flexi devices.

That's a false assertion.
Red Bull could've continued to race the wing in 2021 IF it passed the new tests. It was changed because it would've failed them, else they would have kept running it.

The Red Bull team principal, Christian Horner, denied any infringement, stating their wing had passed all the rigidity tests required by the FIA. However, it is understood the FIA has now written to the teams warning it had observed some cars had passed static tests but may have demonstrated wing movement while in motion.

The governing body has told the teams it will introduce new static tests from 15 June.
The teams have been given a month before the new tests and monitoring system come in to allow them to enact any changes necessary. They will be able to use their current designs for the next three meeting.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... ear-wings

...Because they defined the new testing parameters around making red bull's wing illegal to run

[AR3-GP]

Would something like this be legal now?

[bananapeel23]

Would something like this be legal now?

https://i.ibb.co/G9qXyHS/AC4151-EA-F2-B ... 9917-D.gif

Didn't Red Bull have the same issue in 2022 or 2023? I seem to recall the DRS would flutter a lot and sometimes refuse to stay open, leading to issues for Verstappen at certain tracks, notably Spain.

[Quantum]

...Because they defined the new testing parameters around making red bull's wing illegal to run

You are assuming that McLaren's wing will be illegal in any speculative new test.
They're all flexing too, which means it's possible the target of any "new testing parameters" could pass while others fail, depending on construction and properties.

[Farnborough]

With this wording from TD 034 (if quoted verbatim ? )

"In the note, the FIA says that it does not consider legal “designs whose structural characteristics are altered by secondary parameters, so as to produce (whilst running at the track) a different deflection characteristic than when stationary during the FIA checks. Examples of secondary parameters could be temperature, aerodynamic load etc.”

There seems to be a wide gap to walk through if that phrase is absolute.

Just a FEA optimised design of that flap, with attendant minimal weight characteristic, will give a distribution of flex varied across it's plane.

It's supported at two upper points, and one central lower-ish to give attachment of DRS operation mechanism. That in itself will ultimately require less material, the least in fact, right at those outer and lowest corners.

If anyone familiar with layup of carbon (resin base fibre in general) they will know, the thickness/ section, call it what you will, is in varying levels right throughout each piece.

If the FIA are to test that by pulling upwards specifically at those corner then the "different deflection" criteria would be redundant if just the magnitude of force used were to change. The "different" inserted there is obviously to avoid doubt in having included in the component a change in material response, but at the same time facilitates a "same" deflection, but larger with increased load as it's not specifically "different "

That's not a GREY area, just insufficient language used by the rules writers.

[Vanja #66]

The RB still looks to be flexing more, in 2 ways. One, in the actual height between the top of the flap at both ends of a straight, the RB looks to lean back a lot more. Two, in the fact that there is substantially more bodywork moving including the main plane. It wouldn't surprise me if the issue with the RB wing was the fact that the whole thing was leaning. it's not apples for apples and I don't think it proves inconsistency.

It's very much exactly the same amount of excessive flexing



For reference, DRS span in 2021 was 950mm and now it's 960mm, which is why I've aligned everything, redrawn the lines and gaps are comparable

[TimW]

Note that the the flap lower outer edge moves UP while the aero load on the flap is down. So they use the aero load on the center section of the flap, along with the DRS attachment point location and a well engineered stiffness distribution of the flap, to let the outer lower edge move up, against the direction of the load.

That is a deliberately engineered movable aerodynamic device. This cannot be defended with 'infinitely stiff is not possible, and of course they will chose the not infinitely stiff to be beneficial'. If the FIA allow such a blatant violation of the ban on movable aero, than the ban is off entirely.

And don't get me wrong, it is brilliant engineering, I love these tricks.

[mwillems]

The RB still looks to be flexing more, in 2 ways. One, in the actual height between the top of the flap at both ends of a straight, the RB looks to lean back a lot more. Two, in the fact that there is substantially more bodywork moving including the main plane. It wouldn't surprise me if the issue with the RB wing was the fact that the whole thing was leaning. it's not apples for apples and I don't think it proves inconsistency.

It's very much exactly the same amount of excessive flexing

https://i.ibb.co/XpGL9WM/rbr-mcl-flex.png

For reference, DRS span in 2021 was 950mm and now it's 960mm, which is why I've aligned everything, redrawn the lines and gaps are comparable

The Mclaren's main plane is pretty static, as is the RW Structure. Even the front of the central DRS flap is pinned down so aside from the leading edges, it is still gathering air at the same angle. The only flexing part on the Mclaren is the DRS flap and supporting structure.

The RB Main Plan leans back. The entirety of the Top plane on the RB leans back including the leading edge, reducing drag further. The RW structure leans back. The amount of flex on the RB is much greater, covering more carbon, more drag inducing parts and leaning them in a way that offers more drag reduction than the Mclaren can because the entirety of the RW can be made flatter towards oncoming airflow.

Let's agree to disagree.

I do think the FiA are brushing it away, but I can't see this as an example of inconsistency because the two designs are too different in their scope and in the ultimate effect on the bodywork.

[TimW]

One element of achieving this is putting the connection point of the DRS as far forward as possible. This maximizes the distance of the DRS attachement to the center of pressure of the aero load on the flap, maximizing the torque created and causing the upper flap to twist backwards.

Mclaren have done exactly that (source: the-race.com):

[KimiRai]

Many teams now want explanations about the rear wing 'trick'.
The best teams would be ready to replicate it pretty quickly.

[Rikhart]

This is actually easily solvable by any rival, just do a low cost exagerated flexing wing (both front and back, if you're not mclaren/merc), watch how it gets stopped very hastily.

[Sevach]

This is actually easily solvable by any rival, just do a low cost exagerated flexing wing (both front and back, if you're not mclaren/merc), watch how it gets stopped very hastily.

At this point it's surprising Red Bull doesn't just suggest this to RB.

PS:Not much wingflex camera in FP1
I don't think i've seen any rear angled shots or nose/FW shots in FP1

[Luscion]

Mclaren has to make changes to its rear wing