Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[Marty_Y]

Slightly off topic questions:

Was Red Bull's having this level of deflection in the last high downforce race of 2020? Does Alpha Tauri's rear wing have anything similar?
Or is it really a new development (the extreme degree of flexing) for Red Bull in 2021?

I don't know if this is relevant but last year it was mentioned by the media,

https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/65373/fl ... utiny.html

"The guys from Motorsport.com noticed last weekend at the Mercedes that the rear wing 'snaps' above a certain speed with a rather abrupt movement to the inside of the corner and thus follows the rolling movement of the car. At Ferrari and Red Bull Racing a similar system would be present, which causes the rear wing to drop as much as three centimetres on the RB16"

[RZS10]

Was Red Bull's having this level of deflection in the last high downforce race of 2020? Does Alpha Tauri's rear wing have anything similar?

Not to the same extent, less than Alpine and more than Ferrari this year (see small inserts). But i don't exactly remember which DF level they have at the RB Ring.



The wing appears a lot less stable, more wobbly than the new one imho.



Helmut Marko claimed that Alpha Tauri wouldn't be affected by the new test at all.

[ispano6]

The Mercedes rear wing oscillates quite a bit and the sharkfin also appears to bend slightly on the exit of corners, possibly influencing load asymmetrically. The TWing also bends down on the straights and oscillates but rises up and is more stationary entering corners. Both can be seen as methods to reducing drag, as high frequency oscillations are purported to reduce the oscillatory amplitude of drag. This has been researched by many institutions including the US Army/Nasa.

Maybe some teams will come back and ask the rules to also clamp down on oscillating fluttery wings/elements.

[hkbruin]

I’m noticing on all of these videos of when the wing seems to be flexing, the rear suspension arms are also angling down, meaning that the entire rear end of the car is getting pushed down lower? You can see how the suspension arms peeks over the end of the body cowling as the car gains speed and the rear end of the car lowers. Could it be the camera angle changing as the rear lowers?

[Just_a_fan]

I’m noticing on all of these videos of when the wing seems to be flexing, the rear suspension arms are also angling down, meaning that the entire rear end of the car is getting pushed down lower? You can see how the suspension arms peeks over the end of the body cowling as the car gains speed and the rear end of the car lowers. Could it be the camera angle changing as the rear lowers?

Look at the relative position of the rear tip of the shark fin and the top of the rear wing. The shark fin is a fixed point relative to the camera, so any relative movement between it and the rear wing is the result of the wing deflecting, not the suspension moving.

[zibby43]

Is the T wing an actual wing with downforce, or is it a vane to direct air? I was wondering if in conjunction with that, the waving shark fin would create a low pressure area beneath the rear wing?

I address that very question about 4 posts above yours.

[zibby43]

The Mercedes rear wing oscillates quite a bit and the sharkfin also appears to bend slightly on the exit of corners, possibly influencing load asymmetrically. The TWing also bends down on the straights and oscillates but rises up and is more stationary entering corners. Both can be seen as methods to reducing drag, as high frequency oscillations are purported to reduce the oscillatory amplitude of drag. This has been researched by many institutions including the US Army/Nasa.

Maybe some teams will come back and ask the rules to also clamp down on oscillating fluttery wings/elements.

The t-wing's bending at Barcelona (which is likely entirely incidental and a function of its size) isn't yielding 0.3s worth of performance, because of how absolutely tiny it is compared to the RW. Which is why it won't even be on the radar of any of the teams.

Are there deflection tests for t-wings and shark fins?

[i70q7m7ghw]

Jeez, Hamilton wasn't kidding, that's definetly pushing the rules to limit...

If you look closely, you can see that it's both planes of the wing that are effectively rotating to reduce the angle of attack. They appear to be doing this by allowing the endplates to flex in such a way the upper assembly pivots. I wonder if this is how the pass the flex tests, the FIA are looking for flex in the wing, when the flex is actually in the end plates.

[dans79]

Jeez, Hamilton wasn't kidding, that's definetly pushing the rules to limit...

If you look closely, you can see that it's both planes of the wing that are effectively rotating to reduce the angle of attack. They appear to be doing this by allowing the endplates to flex in such a way the upper assembly pivots. I wonder if this is how the pass the flex tests, the FIA are looking for flex in the wing, when the flex is actually in the end plates.

When the FIA does the pull test, the end plates are rigidly connected via a bar in the front and the back so they can't rotate in the vertical axis.

You can see some illustrations of how the pull test is done in this article.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/why-f ... a/6507108/

I assume that the end plates are not very resistant to rotation in the vertical axis, so when forces are applied to them and there's no bar keeping them parallel they rotate and allow the wing to deflect.

[hollus]

I don’t think the rules even define a T-wing, so no. They kind of ignore its possible existence, that’s not a wing, nothing to see here.
The shark fin is defined in the rules, but not tested AFAIK.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Jeez, Hamilton wasn't kidding, that's definetly pushing the rules to limit...

If you look closely, you can see that it's both planes of the wing that are effectively rotating to reduce the angle of attack. They appear to be doing this by allowing the endplates to flex in such a way the upper assembly pivots. I wonder if this is how the pass the flex tests, the FIA are looking for flex in the wing, when the flex is actually in the end plates.

When the FIA does the pool test, the end plates are rigidly connected via a bar in the front and the back so they can't rotate in the vertical axis.

You can see some illustrations of how the pool test is done in this article.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/why-f ... a/6507108/

I assume that the end plates are not very resistant to rotation in the vertical axis, so when forces are applied to them and there's no bar keeping them parallel they rotate and allow the wing to deflect.

Wow, yeah so that's how they are getting away with it. Very clever, but obviously not within the spirit of the regulations. I hope the new test measures the flex relative to the reference plane.

[zibby43]

I don’t think the rules even define a T-wing, so no. They kind of ignore its possible existence, that’s not a wing, nothing to see here.
The shark fin is defined in the rules, but not tested AFAIK.

Yep, I was asking rhetorically, but everything you said is spot-on.

[El Scorchio]

And to be fair if they feel it gives any advantage, RBR and everyone else are perfectly free to slap a t wing and a great big wobbly shark fin on their car at any point as well, if they want.

[zibby43]

[BrunoH]

Did it pass the test? yes..
so its legal.
end of story.
<silly politics comment removed>
~regards

could be yeah.
i was always more under the impression that because they have more rake, they can go with softer suspension, hence when downforce increased the car wold lower more at the back.
but yes seems its flexing a bit more

It seems?
A bit more?




Suspension and car movement does not change the fact that the rear wing deflects signficantly relatively to the fixed, rigid mounting point that is the roll hoop.

In fact this bending wing is barely legal! <Edit, that was a bit too much, PZ>