Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[politburo]

It's not a "narrative" it's observable facts - there's enough posts in this thread that show that the wing's movement has absolutely nothing to do with the suspension, so there's no reason to rehash already disputed talking points

I did not mention any "narrative", where did you retrieve that from in my original post?. I made no assertions apart from that the suspension setup is obviously softer on RB and explicitly asked if "part" of the vertical displacement in the video could be partly due to that softer suspension, and that is where I ended my post. Read my post again in full please rather than going out of your way to misconstrue it.

[RZS10]

You literally wrote "narrative" in your own post.

I quote "Isn't part of this vertical displacement narrative down to differing setups in the rear suspension?"

And then i answered your question about the suspension playing a possible role with "there's enough posts in this thread that show that the wing's movement has absolutely nothing to do with the suspension".

I did not misconstrue anything.

[politburo]

You literally wrote "narrative" in your own post.

I quote "Isn't part of this vertical displacement narrative down to differing setups in the rear suspension?"

And then i answered your question about the suspension playing a possible role with "there's enough posts in this thread that show that the wing's movement has absolutely nothing to do with the suspension".

I did not misconstrue anything.

Again, is the vertical displacement shown in the video attributed to suspension stiffness or not?.

[peaty]

That's what I think. (and by the looks of it a fair few other people)
It possibly was Mercedes who kicked it off because now is a good strategic time for them to do so. Maximum pain for the opposition and gain for themselves at a time where they most need it. Could have been Ferrari or McLaren though, if they think they have a chance of catching RBR or feel a threat from Alpine behind them.

Why are you so obsessed with who did it?

We always know who is protesting and/or seeking for clarification. There are a lot of example: rbr vs mercedes over DAS, Renalt vs AM over the pink mercedes, rbr vs ferrari over the engine...this time around all we have is just Mercedes talking to the media.

That's all that's in the public domain. You and I both have zero clue what's been discussed about rear wings amongst the teams and the officials. It's going to be a lot more than some comment from a driver.

In a year they have had a lot of time to discuss about rear wings. I certainly don't know what have been discussed but, base on what we know, there are a number of things that are questionable to say the least.

[RZS10]

Again, is the vertical displacement shown in the video attributed to suspension stiffness or not?.

Should i point you to the relevant posts or can you skim through the topic yourself?

Unless you didn't confuse vertical and horizontal, because no one is discussing any vertical movement or displacement, mainly because there is no real vertical movement on any wings.

[politburo]

You literally wrote "narrative" in your own post.

I quote "Isn't part of this vertical displacement narrative down to differing setups in the rear suspension?"

And then i answered your question about the suspension playing a possible role with "there's enough posts in this thread that show that the wing's movement has absolutely nothing to do with the suspension".

I did not misconstrue anything.

You misconstrued it, it was a question referring to the vertical displacement not full movement of the wing with respect to any other plane, i.e, backward/forwards or sideways. In the video, only the vertical displacement is emphasized, and hence why that was the reference for my question - a question I wanted to be answered in the context within which I asked it.

However, it shall be seen if they fail the new scrutineering test(s) for this element.

[politburo]

Again, is the vertical displacement shown in the video attributed to suspension stiffness or not?.

Should i point you to the relevant posts or can you skim through the topic yourself?

Unless you didn't confuse vertical and horizontal, because no one is discussing any vertical movement or displacement.

I did not discuss horizontal movement, I discussed vertical movement as that is the narrative I came across. You might have missed that yet it was explicitly mentioned as such in the original post. Read it again maybe.

[dans79]

I did not discuss horizontal movement, I discussed vertical movement as that is the narrative I came across. You might have missed that yet it was explicitly mentioned as such in the original post. Read it again maybe.

are you talking about what looks like vertical movement relative to the reference lines in the video/stills?

[RZS10]

I did not discuss horizontal movement, I discussed vertical movement as that is the narrative I came across. You might have missed that yet it was explicitly mentioned as such in the original post. Read it again maybe.

Oh you mean the rotation around the support pillar when looking from the side?

The rotation is essentially the cause of any observable horizontal movement of the wing relative to the camera, isn't it? It can't just move up/down without it. So there's no seperate "vertical movement" of the wing.

That's why you got me confused, i did not "misconstrue" anything, i misunderstood - big difference since one is done by mistake and i must admit that i completely missed that you wrote 'vertical' initially and then thought you flipped words because "vertical movement" in this context didn't make much sense to me, my bad, sorry.

From the camera angle we can't deduce by how much the wing is moving 'backwards', it simply isn't possible - but the answer is still the same though: ANY movement of the wing that we see relative to the camera is independent from what is happening with the suspension which doesn't mean that bumps and curb riding that get transferred as 'hits' to the chassis and thus the wing don't make it shake, but that's that. So yea, maybe a harder suspension could lead to bigger "peaks" in the movement but only momentarily.
And as i just wrote, there's no clearly observable movement side to side from the camera's pov apart from some oscillations and wobble.

I can only point you to this: viewtopic.php?p=971132#p971132

In the images i actually rotated the rear wings around the marked "possible pivot points" - so that's your vertical movement, i guess?

I'm also surprised that anyone would be talking about any vertical movement in the first place, where'd you come across it?

[politburo]

I did not discuss horizontal movement, I discussed vertical movement as that is the narrative I came across. You might have missed that yet it was explicitly mentioned as such in the original post. Read it again maybe.

are you talking about what looks like vertical movement relative to the reference lines in the video/stills?

Exactly. In that camera angle in that video t is quite difficult to properly characterize any excessive lateral movement, or any rotation of any of the surfaces either (plane or otherwise). All I saw is it vibrating laterally and moving up and down - yet people elsewhere used it as proof of "bendy" wings. Hence why I asked the question. I do understand that the wing may be designed to bend to reduce drag coefficient on the straights.

[dans79]

I did not discuss horizontal movement, I discussed vertical movement as that is the narrative I came across. You might have missed that yet it was explicitly mentioned as such in the original post. Read it again maybe.

are you talking about what looks like vertical movement relative to the reference lines in the video/stills?

Exactly.

Ok, as RZS10 said above, that's the wing rotating backwards. If you looked directly up from the bottom of the wing, it would look like it was moving backwards as well.

If you look at rotation in the cartesian coordinate system, you will see it has an X and a Y component. You are only seeing the one component (vertical), because of the view angle. If we had a view from the side of the wing, you would see both.

[politburo]

I did not discuss horizontal movement, I discussed vertical movement as that is the narrative I came across. You might have missed that yet it was explicitly mentioned as such in the original post. Read it again maybe.

Oh you mean the rotation around the support pillar when looking from the side?

The rotation is essentially the cause of any observable horizontal movement of the wing relative to the camera, isn't it? It can't just move up/down without it. So there's no seperate "vertical movement" of the wing.

That's why you got me confused, i did not "misconstrue" anything, i misunderstood - big difference since one is done by mistake and i must admit that i completely missed that you wrote 'vertical' initially and then thought you flipped words because "vertical movement" in this context didn't make much sense to me, my bad, sorry.

From the camera angle we can't deduce by how much the wing is moving 'backwards', it simply isn't possible - but the answer is still the same though: ANY movement of the wing that we see relative to the camera is independent from what is happening with the suspension which doesn't mean that bumps and curb riding that get transferred as 'hits' to the chassis and thus the wing don't make it shake, but that's that. So yea, maybe a harder suspension could lead to bigger "peaks" in the movement but only momentarily.
And as i just wrote, there's no clearly observable movement side to side from the camera's pov apart from some oscillations and wobble.

I can only point you to this: viewtopic.php?p=971132#p971132

In the images i actually rotated the rear wings around the marked "possible pivot points" - so that's your vertical movement, i guess?

I'm also surprised that anyone would be talking about any vertical movement in the first place, where'd you come across it?

I understand, I have also come across some other articles. I came across the vertical displacement in the video. It is actually for the exact reasons you just outlined there. I did not deny that there could be movement otherwise, in fact I was providing critique (whether reasonable or otherwise) about the use of that video as proof of "bendy" wings as it has been termed by some media.

Thanks for pointing out the motion in your illustrations, also for this explanation. I also read from Piola on motorsport.com that the scrutiny will most likely be focused around measuring rotations about the centreline of the car.

[politburo]

are you talking about what looks like vertical movement relative to the reference lines in the video/stills?

Exactly.

Ok, as RZS10 said above, that's the wing rotating backwards. If you looked directly up from the bottom of the wing, it would look like it was moving backwards as well.

If you look at rotation in the cartesian coordinate system, you will see it has an X and a Y component. You are only seeing the one component (vertical), because of the view angle. If we had a view from the side of the wing, you would see both.

I see, but I did not deny any bending backwards - I actually think it is fairly reasonable to assume that teams intentionally design the RW to deflect backwards slightly on the straight.

I want to see if any team actually fails the new tests.

[dans79]

I want to see if any team actually fails the new tests.

I would hope none of them do, the FIA has given them a decent length grace period, to make sure they don't. the FIA was a lot harsher in Abu dhabi 2014.

[RZS10]

I see we're all using vertical and horizontal interchangeably ... haha

Just goes to show how easy it is to misunderstand each other, dans calls the movement we observe vertical (i guess because it changes the vertical 'height' along the z axis), i call it horizontal (because it's relative to the horizontal line).