Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[PhillipM]

The shark fin tip doesn't move vertically at all. You only have to hold your mouse pointer over it to see it remains at the same height relative to the camera regardless. It's really as easy as that, seeing what you want to see when it's demonstrably wrong and takes no time to show is rather weird.

[Starkblood80]

Have you tried it? I get it's in fashion to contradict me, Hamilton fans live up to his message of understanding and inclusivity, truly makes me feel like we race as one!

Even better if you have a go pro, or small camera you can mount. Then everything is fixed on the same perspective. Post results I don't mind being wrong. So far I show logic and reasoning behind my opinion, use as many facts as possible. Avoid he said she said stuff, like quoting an entire Matt Sommers article that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I have a feeling you're focusing on my finger and not what it is pointing at.

I am focusing on what I am seeing, and thats long before you arrived with your new theory. I feel it's you that is focusing on the finger and not what everyone else is pointing at. If your theory was correct, then more cars would 'appear' to flex as much as RedBull, why would they be any different. I think you are wrong here like you were with the RB16b's pace in the last race.

Umm Ferrari, Alpine, McLaren ALL exhibit the same exact behavior, why would all high rake cars behave the same? Gee I wonder if high rake cars all squat at speed. Short memories guys you already forgot Ferrari testing in 2019.

FYI in that video you can actually see the upper flap flex in relation to the DRS mechanism which pretty much makes all of your point moot.

[SmallSoldier]

Umm Ferrari, Alpine, McLaren ALL exhibit the same exact behavior, why would all high rake cars behave the same? Gee I wonder if high rake cars all squat at speed. Short memories guys you already forgot Ferrari testing in 2019.

Ferrari isn’t a “low rake car” and doesn’t show as much flexing as the others (RBR, Alpine)... Even Mclaren shows less flexing from all the footage we’ve seeing so far... Williams isn’t a “low rake car” and doesn’t show flex like others.

Are you kidding? I don't mind a bit of trolling but the Ferrari wing moves nearly the same as the RB one. The shark fin tip and the rear wing flap are displaced very similarly.

Not trolling you... This image by RZS10 illustrates the point that the Ferrari wing doesn’t flex as much




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[godlameroso]

I'd love to do a current Ferrari.

edit: here it is
https://s3.gifyu.com/images/scuberioa.gif

Dont underestimate the squatting effect and the parallax effect

Counterpoint to this is the Williams rear wing in Bahrain which appears to be completly immovable compared to the others ... i'll try to find it and put the lines on that thing

Ok i was wrong, it's less and the wing just isn't flapping about as much as the others.

https://s3.gifyu.com/images/willuamss.gif

But regarding the "it's just the squat" claim - what does it mean for a car where the suspension travel is a multitude higher than the wing tilt? What's happening there? Is the wing moving upwards? Strange.

https://s3.gifyu.com/images/image3b46558828c9ef84.png

This alone shows that this assumption is just plain wrong.

It's also very easy to show that none of the other elements of the bodywork move relative to the camera:

https://s3.gifyu.com/images/body.gif

"Also, the shark tip on the engine cover moves down" - nope, it absolutely doesn't.

Edit2:
Here's all of them for comparison
https://s3.gifyu.com/images/image62e8374242f3b070.png

Wrong, the tip of the shark fin does move in relation to the A on the rear wing of the Williams. Second, check the slot gap between the main and second plane of the rear wing on the Williams, there's your lost motion.

[godlameroso]

Ferrari isn’t a “low rake car” and doesn’t show as much flexing as the others (RBR, Alpine)... Even Mclaren shows less flexing from all the footage we’ve seeing so far... Williams isn’t a “low rake car” and doesn’t show flex like others.

Are you kidding? I don't mind a bit of trolling but the Ferrari wing moves nearly the same as the RB one. The shark fin tip and the rear wing flap are displaced very similarly.

Not trolling you... This image by RZS10 illustrates the point that the Ferrari wing doesn’t flex as much

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202105 ... 19c9ce.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How can you tell anything from that grainy low resolution image?



Again I don't mind a bit of trolling, it's all in good fun.

[godlameroso]

Dont underestimate the squatting effect and the parallax effect

Counterpoint to this is the Williams rear wing in Bahrain which appears to be completly immovable compared to the others ... i'll try to find it and put the lines on that thing

You can add the Ferrari video too. If you take the exhaust pipe as a reference - which is as distant the the T-cam as the RW-, it doesnt move, while the wing does, a lot. So no parallax effect here. #flexing_wing

How can you tell if the exhaust is moving with the suspension or not? We don't see the upper wishbones in the video. The only reference is the track kerbs. Let's not jump to conclusions, the mind is prone to optical illusions, our expectations are particularly powerful in guiding our perception.

[peaty]

This will definitely open the floodgates. All wings flex, all of them have been subjected to the same test and all of the passed said test. I still trying to find in the regulations how much flexing is too much (because that's the real discussion!).
To me this is politics to the next level but...this is F1! so nothing new here!

[RZS10]

Wrong, the tip of the shark fin does move in relation to the A on the rear wing of the Williams. Second, check the slot gap between the main and second plane of the rear wing on the Williams, there's your lost motion.

The gif clearly shows that the entire engine cover remains unmoved, and the "move[ment] in relation to the A" is the wing tilt ...lmao

edit: Just to drive the point home, the white area is covering everything apart from the engine cover, no one who wants to be taken seriously can claim that that isn't the case (see first few frames) - right?



Whoa.

There's practically no discernible change in the slot gap, it's 99% just changes in shadow ...
The Ferrari video still has the wheels which are connected to the suspension so they can be taken as reference.

About the low res image, all the gifs and images are in previous posts, he obviously messed up the quality when saving to his phone.

But you're admitting that you don't mind doing some trolling so w/e ... no point in trying to show you how objectively wrong you are, eh?

[TimW]

Actually the whole squatting of f1 cars, reducing the rake at speed, is an (intentional) form of aeroelasticity. Strictly speaking, all cars on the grid contravene with current regulations.

[dans79]

How can you tell anything from that grainy low resolution image?

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202105 ... 19c9ce.jpg

Again I don't mind a bit of trolling, it's all in good fun.

have you not read any of the previous posts?

a much larger version can be seen in this post from the previous page of this thread.
viewtopic.php?p=971016#p971016

[JordanMugen]

To me it looks like Merc's flex is fair play.

So is Red Bull's. Red Bull have been using the flexible rear wing endplate designed to rotate backwards for years. Unlike, say V8 Supercars, Formula One does not have a "spirit of the rules" clause in the regulations, rather in Formula One it's encouraged for teams to follow the letter of the regulations rather than the spirit.



The rules will change, so Red Bull will change it, it's all fine.

[JordanMugen]

https://i.ibb.co/SN0FQqP/triangulation.jpg

The amount the wing lowers is almost exactly the same distance the suspension is displaced.

Just look at how the "D" in Honda moves relative to the sharkfin, you'll see.

It's very clear. The fact the Red Bull & McLaren & Alpine rearwing endplate is designed to rotate the wing backwards at speed is not under debate. It's quite clear.

Given the rearwing endplates have been designed this way for years (at least since the 2017 rules created the step in endplate width, where teams could play around with cut-outs etc), I don't really understand why FIA have decided to act on it now, during the middle of a season?

Also, the shark tip on the engine cover moves down, but due to perspective, being closer to the camera than the rear wing, the apparent movement of the rear end of the car will be higher than the apparent movement of the engine cover. Basic parallax, if you look closely you can see a small difference between high and low speeds.

The camera, Finn, floor, uprights, and wing, etc are in the same frame of reference as they are supposed to be rigidly affixed to each other. In other words no relative movement (within reason).

Unless of course, the part between where the camera is attached, and where the rear wing connects to the chassis can bend so much Which I'm sure would cause a f%&# ton of handling problems.

Occam's razor says it's the rear wing bending Hence the FIA's response to this whole shebang.

The whole gearbox bending? That can't be good!

Thankfully a Formula One car is not a top fuel dragster (and even then it's the front, flimsy tubular part of the dragster that bends, not the rear rigid engine & gearbox part of the dragster).

[JordanMugen]

Baffles me how it is possible

The wing is supported in the center, yet claimed that it flexes in the center while the ends stay up. Is there lift being created at the ends?

Only the main plane of the wing is supported in the centre. Not the upper plane.

[zibby43]

Nice technical piece from Matt Somerfield on RB's "flapping phenomenon"

https://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/flapp ... e/6507247/

Excerpts:

"The new rotational tests will prevent the wing from ‘steering’ around the centre plane, a trick that the FIA may be focusing on as being used to circumvent the symmetrical loading applied in the deflection tests.

This is a notable feature in the onboard footage from the rear facing T-camera of the Red Bull, for example.

Close examination of the moving images shows the top rear wing element ‘flapping’ laterally, moving side-to-side with the relative vibration of the endplates, which owing to their design also find themselves oscillating.

This could explain how the wing ‘bends’ rearwards under load, as the wing pivots around the central axis, with one side of the wing moving incrementally rearward before the other."

Also, the 3-race grace period may be irrelevant, as rival teams could choose to simply protest wings that they believe fall afoul of the rules.

"It will be interesting to see if the new load/deformation tests have an impact on the competitive order when we head to the long straights at Paul Ricard.

Any team making changes to its wings, to ensure they comply to the rules, will also need to juggle the potential consequences that could have on them hitting the budget cap limit.

There could also be intrigue beforehand though, because teams could yet decide to lodge protests against their rivals should they believe they’re using a rear wing assembly that contravenes the current regulations, even before the new tests come in to force."

Where's the part that shows the wing bending. That's just a tabloid writer talking about what we already know.

Calling Matthew Somerfield a tabloid writer undermines your credibility.

So did your Brawn claims. Literally have no idea what he has to do with anything.

Another clarification: Ross Brawn works for FOM - not the FIA. Guess who triggered the new RW tests? Hint: Not Brawn.

I don’t know why the FIA bothered to issue the clarification/new tests. They got duped by suspension squat, according to you.

And so did all the engineers at Mercedes who noticed this. And then, everyone else in this thread.

[henry]

Earlier in this thread there was imagery showing the Red Bull “swelling” at speed. Is this a way of reducing flow to the rear wing?