Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[PhillipM]

So by how much is the wing illegal? So far the consensus is a few pixels on video.

Glad to know that's acceptable engineering round here.

Enough that Red Bull acknowledges it's doing it and that they will have to change it - and might even go with an interim wing to meet the relaxed rules before a fully compliant one.

But still, it's a lot better engineering diagnosis than "I know nothing about camera's but it's the camera and chassis flexing"

[PhillipM]

Yes, they had camera mounts on the nose one year that were so flexible the FIA made them change them because the video from them was a mess of vibration and they couldn't use it.

[RZS10]

So by how much is the wing illegal? So far the consensus is a few pixels on video.

Glad to know that's acceptable engineering round here.

We can't even say whether it is illegal at all or by how much because we don't know how a perfectly legal wing would look and how much flexing can be achieved whilst passing the new test, we can just make observations.

It's not even necessary to quantify the difference if it is clearly visible in the footage by scaling all wings to the same size which allows for a qualitative analysis.

The "it's just x pixels" argument is disingenous, because the relations of various parts and gaps to each other wouldn't change even in 8K and there's enough points of reference and known sizes that can be used to actually determine the amount of deflection, as an engineer you should know how to do it and i'm really surprised that you're questioning the very simple visual analysis done on those wings.

One point of reference we can use is the wing span of 950 mm.

For the RBR it's 435.5 px - the difference or tilt at the upper edge of the wing is 9.5px and some basic math will tell us that this is 20.6mm - this obviously has a certain tolerance.

For Merc: 613px wingspan , 5px gap = 7.7mm

Difference between Mercedes and RBR is therefore ~12.9mm. Even without concrete numbers this could be done as percentages.

The exact same method yielded great results for determining wheelbases a few years ago although a higher resolution picture would def. improve the accuracy.

(various edits for typos and additions)

[PhillipM]

The actual angle change could be far more than that, it's easy to see the RB rear wing rotates around backwards more than most too

[RZS10]

Am i wrong in thinking that just rotating around the connection to the support would give a bigger angle compared to also rotating via the entire support if the total change in observable height was the same?

[El Scorchio]

Flexible parts should not be restrict. It would bring a new technological development that also could be applied on road cars.
The crash test on the front and back already impose hardness.
Same think happened to ABS and/or electronic controls that needed to be standardized.

The reason for it is sudden loss of downforce in changing weather conditions or passing other vehicles can have huge consequences and you end up with a car taking off at 300kph into the catch fencing.

And I guess the risk of massive structural failure if the teams take it to the limit with flexing parts.

[lucafo]

Flexible parts should not be restrict. It would bring a new technological development that also could be applied on road cars.
The crash test on the front and back already impose hardness.
Same think happened to ABS and/or electronic controls that needed to be standardized.

The reason for it is sudden loss of downforce in changing weather conditions or passing other vehicles can have huge consequences and you end up with a car taking off at 300kph into the catch fencing.

Thanks for the answer.
I suppose that the ability to prevent colapse would be part of the development.
The other point is: if it was made to avoid colapse (and it is not happening nowadays) so why to improve restrictions?
Besides, some accidents makes racing more interesting...

[dans79]

So by how much is the wing illegal? So far the consensus is a few pixels on video.

technical regulations 3.9.3

Bodywork may deflect by no more than one degree horizontally when a load of 1000N is
applied simultaneously to its extremities in a rearward direction 825mm above the reference
plane and 20mm forward of the forward edge of the rear wing endplate at 825mm above the
reference plane.

3.9.4

Bodywork may deflect no more than 3mm vertically when a 500N load is applied
simultaneously to each side of it 250mm behind the rear wheel centre line, 375mm from the
car centre plane and 890mm above the reference plane. The deflection will be measured at
the outer extremities of the bodywork at a point 395mm behind the rear wheel centre line.

The load will be applied in a downward direction through pads measuring 200mm x 100mm
which conform to the shape of the bodywork beneath them, and with their uppermost
horizontal surface 890mm above the reference plane. The load will be applied to the centre
of area of the pads. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

no one here can give you a quantitative answer as to how legal or illegal the RBR is. A quantitative answer would require knowing the drag curve for the RBR rear wing, or and very good approximation of it. It would also require a reliable way of accurately determining how much the wing is deflecting at any given speed. No one here has access to that kind of information.

However, the other teams have access to enough information and technology that they can make good estimations. Hence why Mercedes brought it up in front of the media. Also, the FIA isn't altering the testing regime for no reason.

[Tommy Cookers]

Flexible parts should not be restrict.....

The reason for it is sudden loss of downforce in changing weather conditions or passing other vehicles can have huge consequences and you end up with a car taking off at 300kph into the catch fencing.

And I guess the risk of massive structural failure if the teams take it to the limit with flexing parts.

the matter seems to be passive flexibility reducing DF rise with speed (relative to DF rise with speed otherwise)
how is this bad in the ways claimed above ?

aircraft have been doing this for 100 years

[Just_a_fan]

The actual angle change could be far more than that, it's easy to see the RB rear wing rotates around backwards more than most too

Indeed so. It doesn't flex backwards at all - or rather it flexs backwards within the current test limits. You can see it in this video quite nicely where the T of Aston moves relative to the leading edge. Put your cursor on the leading edge and you can see that the leading edge basically doesn't move. The wing rotates around an axis at or near the leading edge. This wouldn't be picked up by the test that only exerts a rearwards load near the top. It's clever design and layup work by the team, you have to admit that.

[godlameroso]

So by how much is the wing illegal? So far the consensus is a few pixels on video.

technical regulations 3.9.3

Bodywork may deflect by no more than one degree horizontally when a load of 1000N is
applied simultaneously to its extremities in a rearward direction 825mm above the reference
plane and 20mm forward of the forward edge of the rear wing endplate at 825mm above the
reference plane.

3.9.4

Bodywork may deflect no more than 3mm vertically when a 500N load is applied
simultaneously to each side of it 250mm behind the rear wheel centre line, 375mm from the
car centre plane and 890mm above the reference plane. The deflection will be measured at
the outer extremities of the bodywork at a point 395mm behind the rear wheel centre line.

The load will be applied in a downward direction through pads measuring 200mm x 100mm
which conform to the shape of the bodywork beneath them, and with their uppermost
horizontal surface 890mm above the reference plane. The load will be applied to the centre
of area of the pads. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

no one here can give you a quantitative answer as to how legal or illegal the RBR is. A quantitative answer would require knowing the drag curve for the RBR rear wing, or and very good approximation of it. It would also require a reliable way of accurately determining how much the wing is deflecting at any given speed. No one here has access to that kind of information.

However, the other teams have access to enough information and technology that they can make good estimations. Hence why Mercedes brought it up in front of the media. Also, the FIA isn't altering the testing regime for no reason.

You're overthinking things, the wing is clearly illegal and it's illegal by a few pixels on a screen. So how much do those pixels translate into illegality? That's what we're basing our judgment on, that and Mercedes whims(like you said Mercedes brought it up to the media and the FIA, and the media took immediate action of passive aggressive finger pointing and information manipulation). If you can't quantify your claims how can you claim they are valid? We stopped doing phrenology precisely because of that.

The Red Bull passes all those tests you mention, and has done so, so clearly it's not bending more than that. That shouldn't even be a question, but you still claim the wing is illegal, by how much is it illegal? I am merely asking the experts here to validate their claim.

*Antagonistic for making a valid point? Sorry challenging your narrative offends you so much.

[SiLo]

The interesting thing for me is, if they have to make changes, will we see them have to run the lower downforce rear wing to keep their top speed or will they accept a lower top speed and go for higher downforce, similar to Mercedes in Spain? Pic below for the two wings they have so far:

[SiLo]

So by how much is the wing illegal? So far the consensus is a few pixels on video.

technical regulations 3.9.3

Bodywork may deflect by no more than one degree horizontally when a load of 1000N is
applied simultaneously to its extremities in a rearward direction 825mm above the reference
plane and 20mm forward of the forward edge of the rear wing endplate at 825mm above the
reference plane.

3.9.4

Bodywork may deflect no more than 3mm vertically when a 500N load is applied
simultaneously to each side of it 250mm behind the rear wheel centre line, 375mm from the
car centre plane and 890mm above the reference plane. The deflection will be measured at
the outer extremities of the bodywork at a point 395mm behind the rear wheel centre line.

The load will be applied in a downward direction through pads measuring 200mm x 100mm
which conform to the shape of the bodywork beneath them, and with their uppermost
horizontal surface 890mm above the reference plane. The load will be applied to the centre
of area of the pads. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

no one here can give you a quantitative answer as to how legal or illegal the RBR is. A quantitative answer would require knowing the drag curve for the RBR rear wing, or and very good approximation of it. It would also require a reliable way of accurately determining how much the wing is deflecting at any given speed. No one here has access to that kind of information.

However, the other teams have access to enough information and technology that they can make good estimations. Hence why Mercedes brought it up in front of the media. Also, the FIA isn't altering the testing regime for no reason.

You're overthinking things, the wing is clearly illegal and it's illegal by a few pixels on a screen. So how much do those pixels translate into illegality? That's what we're basing our judgment on, that and Mercedes whims(like you said Mercedes brought it up to the media and the FIA, and the media took immediate action of passive aggressive finger pointing and information manipulation). If you can't quantify your claims how can you claim they are valid? We stopped doing phrenology precisely because of that.

The Red Bull passes all those tests you mention, and has done so, so clearly it's not bending more than that. That shouldn't even be a question, but you still claim the wing is illegal, by how much is it illegal? I am merely asking the experts here to validate their claim.

*Antagonistic for making a valid point? Sorry challenging your narrative offends you so much.

Illegal enough for the FIA to mandate new rear wing tests whilst also giving teams the time to make changes. There are some calculations earlier in the thread that put the change in AoA at betwee 2-2.7 degrees which is quite a lot.

[SmallSoldier]

Flexible parts should not be restrict. It would bring a new technological development that also could be applied on road cars.
The crash test on the front and back already impose hardness.
Same think happened to ABS and/or electronic controls that needed to be standardized.

Even though it would be interesting if the teams were allowed to explore either passive or active aero, with the new budget cap and efforts to control costs, I’m afraid that such development won’t happen in the near future.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hollus]

I don’t think anyone is concluding that the wing is ilegal? Certainly not by the old test?

Anyways, the cameras seem to be pointing at the leading edge of the wings, thus, if the whole end plate and wing assembly were to flex at the base on the end plates, and be rigid otherwise, the movement of the leading edge away from the camera would barely translate into any movement in the screen. The trailing edge, though, is off center in the camera and would move towards the center simply by moving away. Away and rotating, then even more so.

I don’t think the alignment of directions is perfect, but close enough to mask movements at the leading edge, I’d think. Also, the small misalignment, with the camera pointing down a bit, would make the leading edge move, in the camera, a bit up by moving away, and a bit down by rotating with the pivot near the floor, which cancels out.

I don’t think we can conclude that the leading edge does not move.