Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[Marty_Y]

What is the distance from the camera to the rear wing? Let's assume the car is roughly 5.4 meters, I don't know how long it is off the top of my head.

The rules say the camera is 800mm above the reference plane. Is the camera parallel to the ground or the reference plane?

I don't know anything about cameras, if anyone does and wants to share what they know, it would be helpful to the discussion.

This is the type of camera used
https://www.resolveoptics.com/207-000-6 ... zoom-lens/

Anyway, assuming the camera is roughly at the middle of the car, that gives us around 2.7 meters from the camera to the rear wing.

Let's say the ride height is 100mm at the rear and squats to 90mm at speed for a 10 mm drop. Meanwhile the front ride height is 36mm and squats to 32mm at speed. I'm being purposefully conservative, the ride height at the rear may be more, I doubt it's less. That's a 6mm drop, 2.7 meters away, how would that translate on this camera? Again I don't know anything about cameras so I'm asking in case someone knows. So how much would it look if the rear end moves down 6mm relative to the front on a 3x zoom camera with some amount of lens distortion? I don't know, hopefully the stricter tests shed more light on the truth. I eagerly await it for obvious reasons.

I want to be sure, instead of just pointing fingers, let's be more thorough with our investigation like a good scientist is supposed to do. Instead of simply saying "the wing bends illegally let's burn them at the stake", let's instead say "it sure looks like the wing is bending in a weird way, let's get more information to be sure, and try to eliminate bias". Apparently people get offended at such a suggestion, oh well.

You're drastically overthinking this.

everything on the car except the tires, and the suspension components are all "rigidly" connected. It doesn't matter if the front end squats, the rear end squats, or the car's airborne and perpendicular to the ground.

Everything on the car will remain in the same position within the cameras field of view. It's all moving together. If you see movement, it's because something is moving or flexing relative to the other components.

Great, not disputing that at all, I'm disputing if the wing is bending illegally, I want to make sure it is.

This entire conversation has gone pretty much like this.

The wing bends, we see it on video. Ok we all agree there right? I see it, you see it, we are all in agreement it's as clear as the sun. No complaints so far right?

Then we move on to the next step, is it illegal?

That is my question to all of you, maybe I'm overthinking it, maybe I'm not, but my thinking is irrelevant here, let's focus on the important part, is the wing bending illegally? That is after all the main crux here right? Why we are all rousing the rabble.

If we examine the video carefully the most obvious part of everything is that we have a Mercedes wing, and a Red Bull wing. The Mercedes wing CLEARLY looks like it bends and deforms less than the Red Bull wing. We agree here still correct? No argument from me here so far. I agree the Red Bull wing appears to bend more than the Mercedes wing. So far we are all in agreement and the world is a wonderful place.

Here is where we disagree, and please correct me if I got this wrong.

The Mercedes wing is the benchmark upon which all wing legalities shall be measured upon, for although ALL the wings bend due to aero load, the Mercedes wing is by default, the very definition of legality and thus, the ONLY way a wing should deform under load. By decree of the FIA and Mercedes' exemplary rear wing deformation, all other competitors must have the same or less wing deformation. So sayeth the Forum.

To me that sounds pretty crazy, and I would like a little more due process than rule by decree.

My question, which I admit is a complex one to answer, is, by how much is the Red Bull wing illegally deforming compared to the benchmark Mercedes rear wing which is without question in its legality? That's all, it's a straightforward question that is met with some interesting evidence.

It seems that other cars exhibit the same behavior as the Red Bull, in that we should also be in agreement. The Williams's rear wing deformation for example is in line with the benchmark of legality Mercedes, and thus they deserve no scrutiny. Haas? A backmarker, Toto tells them to get out of the way who cares what they're doing.

The other cars like the Alpine and Ferrari also exhibit this behavior, but we all know the Red Bull's wing is the most illegal because there was a video with white square grids which showed the wing moving a whole square but not a whole square on Mercedes. Again implying Mercedes deformation is perfectly legal and without question and the benchmark that all other cars must abide by.

I agree with you guys, the Red Bull wing is the most illegal because they are the biggest threat to Mercedes, that makes them the dirtiest cheaters, just like Ferrari and their cheating engine in 2019 when they started threatening Mercedes. I agree Red Bull's wing is the most illegal that's why the FIA is stepping in and forcing stricter tests, we don't want cheaters. I agree cheating is shameful, but that's my personal belief and has no place here.

Anyway, yes the Red Bull wing is illegal, and the video clearly shows it, and so the final question remains, by how much is it illegal? No one can answer that here, but we are sure it's illegal because when compared to the Mercedes wing it's doing something that the Mercedes wing doesn't seem to do. All factors have been accounted for so there is no way any optical illusions or bias are playing tricks on us, it's clearly illegal, and the video shows it.

So again, I ask the most pertinent question, the video shows the wing bending, so by how much more is the wing bending on the Red Bull than on the Mercedes? Can anyone quantify it, the difference between the two wings at speed and at rest? If I get mocked for 2mm how can I take 10 pixels seriously, when it's an even dumber metric for the wing's illegality? I'm sorry, but would any of you take me seriously if I told you 10 pixels were the difference in Verstappen nailing a corner vs Hamilton? I'm supposed to believe 10 pixels mean the difference between Red Bull and Mercedes illegality? Okie dokie.

I'm sorry that this post is off topic, but it's replying to a post that should be deleted or at least fact checked.

The FIA wrote to all the teams, and new tests apply to everyone, not just Red Bull.

The stuff about "Mercedes benchmark" is ridiculous, it's the FIA that scrutinize cars to meet the current regulations.

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/scrutineering.html

It was Red Bull that complained to the FIA about Ferrari!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/red-b ... 9/4986309/

Red Bull gets F1 fuel flow rule clarification amid Ferrari intrigue

The Red Bull Racing Formula 1 team has written to the FIA for clarification over a potential loophole it believes could be used to 'beat' the fuel flow regulations

[RZS10]

It does move on the RBR, probably on some other cars but not as evidently, even though it's "just a few pixels" :^)



A LOT of flex in this part:


edit: posted the wrong gif, this one has more markings

[dans79]

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,

let's go through this another time.

These are the test that every team on the grid has currently been passing.

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.

However, passing those test really doesn't mean much because of these rules.


3.8 (Note the highlighted)

With the exception of the parts described in Articles 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6, and the rear view
mirrors described in Article 14.3, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic
performance:

a. Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.

b. Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means
not having any degree of freedom).

With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.6.8 (in addition to
minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the parts described in Articles 11.4,
11.5 and 11.6, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must
remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the
car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.

No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of
the parts referred to in Articles 3.7.11, 3.7.12 and 3.7.13, may under any circumstances be
located below the reference plane.

With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.6.8, any
car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the
aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

3.9.9

In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.8 are respected, the FIA reserves the
right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to
be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

3.9.9 is the FIA's gotcha, It allows them to change the tests as they see fit, when they see fit. It's an indirect "spirit of the rules" rule. They can do whatever that want, they can change the tests and not tell anyone until the last minute, they can make the new tests so strict that every team on the grid will fail them with their current wings.

What most members of this technical forum do is look at all the information we can get, and make educated and informed hypothesis.

if you look at the quotes from the first post of this thread, it's obvious the fia thinks teams are skirting the rules.

But on Tuesday, sources have revealed that the FIA has written to all teams and informed them that it is concerned teams are exploiting designs that pass the static tests but still flex at speed.


In the note, a copy of which has been seen by Motorsport.com, the FIA states that it is aware of designs that comply with the current tests but ‘nonetheless exhibit excessive deflections while the cars are in motion.”

It adds: “We believe that such deformations can have a significant influence on the car’s aerodynamic performance.”

In response to its concerns, the FIA has stated that it is to enact a clause in F1’s technical regulations that allows it to introduce new tests.

Article 3.9.9 of F1’s Technical Regulations states: “The FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.”

A good analogy for this is how most car people can look at a tire on a car and tell it's low. They can just look at it and tell you it needs some air/nitrogen. They can't tell you its 4.7 PSI under spec, but they know it's low. They have the other tires for reference and all their past knowledge & experience to pull from.

[El Scorchio]

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

I was thinking more about just allowing aero to be as flexible as the teams liked- i.e. no longer regulating it as lucafo suggested, rather than this particular instance where there's a few CM of travel. They'll push it to the extreme to get the biggest benefit possible and operate as close to the tolerance of the material it's built from as they can to extract every millisecond of performance. You wouldn't want a rear wing that's in any danger of snapping off.

With aircraft, they are built with much, much larger safety margins than I expect any F1 car would.

[peaty]

From my point of view the real question is why the FIA is stepping in now. Last season we had a similar scenario with similar video evidence. The only difference is Mercedes was the one on the line.

[nevill3]

Is there any evidence or video of whether it is actually the floor where the rear wing mounts to that is being deformed/flexing and so reducing the effectiveness of the diffuser too?

[PhillipM]

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

1. What's the separation distance on aircraft passing each other?
2. How many planes are running close to full stall on all the lift surfaces all the time?
3. Nobody cares if your plane drops 10cm from turbulance. 10cm from lift might well flip an F1 car.

[Just_a_fan]

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

Yes, and they sometimes had horrible things happen too. Aircraft have been lost when aerodynamic effects have gone wrong.

[dans79]

The only difference is Mercedes was the one on the line.

No, Redbull did it last year as well!

Most likely Mercedes didn't feel the need to point it out last year.

IMO, the FIA almost never does anything anymore, unless they are made to look foolish or wanting. it's a reactionary organization.

[Marty_Y]

The only difference is Mercedes was the one on the line.

No, Redbull did it last year as well!

Most likely Mercedes didn't feel the need to point it out last year.

IMO, the FIA almost never does anything anymore, unless they are made to look foolish or wanting. it's a reactionary organization.

Exactly, apparently it was most noticeable on the RB16

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.

[Phil]

The question about if it's legal or not legal is boring. What's relevant is that evidently, new tests will come that will ensure the wings are more rigid.

The more spicy question is from my view:

1.) how much (performance) will they [RedBull] lose when the wing will have to be more rigid?

2.) if they don't change it before the new tests will come in, will they be subject to a formal protest by a competing team?

[dans79]

1.) how much (performance) will they [RedBull] lose when the wing will have to be more rigid?

I'd say it's impossible to tell, until we know exactly what the new tests will entail.

2.) if they don't change it before the new tests will come in, will they be subject to a formal protest by a competing team?

I think technically someone could protest now, but i don't think anyone would as that would start a war.

[peaty]

The only difference is Mercedes was the one on the line.

No, Redbull did it last year as well!

Most likely Mercedes didn't feel the need to point it out last year.

IMO, the FIA almost never does anything anymore, unless they are made to look foolish or wanting. it's a reactionary organization.

I know they also did it last year but, as I said, Mercedes was the one on the line mainly.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/mercedes- ... rear-wing/

by the way, they didn't feel the need to point it out but they also were doing it, so...
Anyway, it's not Mercedes' job to point out, that's on the FIA.
In any case, last season it was well known and the FIA didn't take any action. What's going on!?
I'm wondering if Mercedes had their "bendy" wing during the first 3 races...

[dans79]

Anyway, it's not Mercedes' job to point out, that's on the FIA.
In any case, last season it was well known and the FIA didn't take any action. What's going on!?

Teams will always point out what they think benefits them, or hinders a competitor. Renault protesting racing point last year is a perfect example.

as I said earlier.

IMO, the FIA almost never does anything anymore, unless they are made to look foolish or wanting. it's a reactionary organization.

In other words Mercedes made the the FIA look lackadaisical, and thus the FIA was forced to act!

[SmallSoldier]

1.) how much (performance) will they [RedBull] lose when the wing will have to be more rigid?

I'd say it's impossible to tell, until we know exactly what the new tests will entail.

2.) if they don't change it before the new tests will come in, will they be subject to a formal protest by a competing team?

I think technically someone could protest now, but i don't think anyone would as that would start a war.

I don’t think teams are afraid of a little “war”... At the same time I don’t think teams like Williams, Alpha, Alfa and Haas would protest it... But, the likes of Mercedes, McLaren and Ferrari might do it if they think they will pass the tests


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk