Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[SmallSoldier]

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>

I’m hoping that Red Bull doesn’t look at the issue like you do... In 2014 their front wings passed all tests, nevertheless were deemed illegal and were penalized in Abu Dhabi.

It could happen again this season unless they take some measures to avoid it from flexing as much as it does right now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[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.

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?

How do you know its not yielding 3 tenths performance? It just isn't in the straights. Just because it isn't in the rules doesn't mean it's not moveable aero, clearly both the TWing and sharkfin are oscillating and flapping at high frequency as plain as day.

The rules should not be open to such gray areas in which some approaches are deemed legal and some aren't. The T wing is clearly a wing and not an antennae. And besides, Marko doesn't seem too phased with the additional tests or loss of performance RedBull haters are hoping for. Since the new tests won't be until June 15 RedBull can run the wing in Baku without changes, and then just have to make sure to pass the updated tests.

[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?

How do you know its not yielding 3 tenths performance? It just isn't in the straights. Just because it isn't in the rules doesn't mean it's not moveable aero, clearly both the TWing and sharkfin are oscillating and flapping at high frequency as plain as day.

The simplest explanation is because that would make the t-wing more powerful than the rear wing. The second explanation I already covered on the previous page. It’s a tiny bit of downforce that’s worth it to run because of its inherent efficiency. It pales in comparison to the rear wing, which is far less efficient, and this is why there’s an incentive to have the RW deflect.

The shark fin and its incidental movement doesn’t have anything to do with drag reduction. If there was any benefit to that oscillation, every team would opt for that engine cover design. That’s the reality of F1.

On a side note, Scarbs said the new tests would begin in Monaco. I don’t know if he misspoke, or there’s been a change.

If it is 3 races, I would expect teams to protest before the new tests take effect, and I doubt teams will want to take that risk and they’ve probably been fast-tracking RW end plate reinforcement.

Flexi-wings won’t have utility in Monaco. No straights are long enough.

[hollus]

Didn't FIA say that there would be a grace period of a month?
So they'll test with the new test in Monaco (I guess teams also have a right to actually see the new test in action?), but only apply penalties three races from now, I guess.

[ispano6]

The simplest explanation is because that would make the t-wing more powerful than the rear wing. The second explanation I already covered on the previous page. It’s a tiny bit of downforce that’s worth it to run because of its inherent efficiency. It pales in comparison to the rear wing, which is far less efficient, and this is why there’s an incentive to have the RW deflect.

The shark fin and its incidental movement doesn’t have anything to do with drag reduction. If there was any benefit to that oscillation, every team would opt for that engine cover design. That’s the reality of F1.

On a side note, Scarbs said the new tests would begin in Monaco. I don’t know if he misspoke, or there’s been a change.

If it is 3 races, I would expect teams to protest before the new tests take effect, and I doubt teams will want to take that risk and they’ve probably been fast-tracking RW end plate reinforcement.

Flexi-wings won’t have utility in Monaco. No straights are long enough.

I should stress that the Mercedes rear wing itself exhibits high frequency oscillations. Google oscillating wing drag and see what information you can find. And yes, like I said Baku is where RedBulls "flex" wing would benefit, not Monaco. That would more likely be the other high downforce wing they trialed in Spain.

[zibby43]

Didn't FIA say that there would be a grace period of a month?
So they'll test with the new test in Monaco (I guess teams also have a right to actually see the new test in action?), but only apply penalties three races from now, I guess.

Good call. That makes sense. Only wild card is the potential protest in that span, as Somers mentioned. I’m not sure how that would work though.

[Big Tea]

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.

Yes, that's what started me thinking. Is it a 'wing' though? In that does it actually generate downforce, or is it what I can only call an 'orifice' which does nothing in its self? I really don't know how to phrase the question I want to ask about it (I'm thick)

[PhillipM]

T wings are actually downforce producing wings, not just flow conditioners

[El Scorchio]

I don’t get why people are trying to deflect (pardon the pun) away from the rear wing and argue instead about components on other cars that aren’t even in question?

It’s a totally moot point at the moment.

[Stu]

I don’t get why people are trying to deflect (pardon the pun) away from the rear wing and argue instead about components on other cars that aren’t even in question?

It’s a totally moot point at the moment.

Possibly because almost 100% of teams have wings that deflect (reducing AoA).

The other reason could be because it is F1, nobody ever goes to great lengths to highlight some device that another team is using (better than they are??) without it being a smokescreen to divert attention from something that they are using.

From what I can find, if the FIA were to change the test method for rear wings they could eliminate the issue, but there is something in the new ruling about checking for axial deflection, which suggests that they think the rear wings are being steered by the flex.

[RZS10]

Still not relevant tho?

All rear wings wobble, flex, tilt or oscillate to a certain degree so it may well be that everyone will have to change their wings with varying degrees of performance loss - no point in bringing up other parts, really, especially when just pointing out one team because that will eventually lead to another "your team - my team" discussion.

The test being available in Monaco might be used by the teams to check whether their current wings pass it - if it does they might not have to do anything (with the exception that the FIA might use video footage to still claim it's not rigid enough).

[El Scorchio]

I don’t get why people are trying to deflect (pardon the pun) away from the rear wing and argue instead about components on other cars that aren’t even in question?

It’s a totally moot point at the moment.

Possibly because almost 100% of teams have wings that deflect (reducing AoA).

The other reason could be because it is F1, nobody ever goes to great lengths to highlight some device that another team is using (better than they are??) without it being a smokescreen to divert attention from something that they are using.

From what I can find, if the FIA were to change the test method for rear wings they could eliminate the issue, but there is something in the new ruling about checking for axial deflection, which suggests that they think the rear wings are being steered by the flex.

Actually I’m referring to t wings and shark fins.

[Mattchu]

People get all tribal and huff and puff for their team when something like this occurs. The top and bottom of it all is the rear wing is dropping down [flexing] thus changing the AoA and helping the car on the straights!

Anyone can see that from the various videos, etc, maybe some don`t want to admit that it`s actually doing this by design, which is, to be fair some absolutely brilliant design and testing work, but cutting it a bit close on a "sporting" arrangement IMO, although Red Bull may not have anticipated it moving so much.

Red Bull will sort this out, if they have an "issue" with another teams car parts, that will be brought to the attention of the FIA and we`ll have similar discussions, it`s how F1 has pretty much always worked.

Calling people fanboys/haters or bringing up other stuff is really school playground tactics, but then again, F1 is like a big school with the FIA as the headmaster

I do like Scarbs` idea of using a fixed point camera for measurement, as we`ve seen many times, the way something behaves when in a static enviroment compared to real world can be quite different!

[SmallSoldier]

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?

How do you know its not yielding 3 tenths performance? It just isn't in the straights. Just because it isn't in the rules doesn't mean it's not moveable aero, clearly both the TWing and sharkfin are oscillating and flapping at high frequency as plain as day.

The rules should not be open to such gray areas in which some approaches are deemed legal and some aren't. The T wing is clearly a wing and not an antennae. And besides, Marko doesn't seem too phased with the additional tests or loss of performance RedBull haters are hoping for. Since the new tests won't be until June 15 RedBull can run the wing in Baku without changes, and then just have to make sure to pass the updated tests.

Marko wasn’t worried either before they were penalized the last time... I wouldn’t take his comments as reassurance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

Didn't FIA say that there would be a grace period of a month?
So they'll test with the new test in Monaco (I guess teams also have a right to actually see the new test in action?), but only apply penalties three races from now, I guess.

FIA will start the new tests in 3 races (France), but it doesn’t prevent teams from protesting, which could potentially bring penalties regardless if the new test is been made or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk