Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[SmallSoldier]

Given that there's teams with vast differences in budget (well not anymore, really) and manpower who supposedly have wings that "exploit" the rules i find it very hard to believe that any of those who supposedly have very rigid wings would struggle to build a more flexing wing, no?

If you are part of the rigid wing group, there is more upside on protesting the flexible wings than developing your own (which I’m sure they could do).

Why invest time, resources, etc when you can simply get your rivals to comply to the regulations? Now that the issue has been raised and the FIA has intervened, it becomes a non-issue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RZS10]

I can just point you to the post right before yours which probably wasn't up when you started writing yours

It's just about their general capability, not about whether they could change it now and i'm not suggesting they should.

[dans79]

Now you go and compare that with the new test, which is basically similar to the old but tougher loads and the camera with the markers. Looks like they spend 10 month to come up with the new test! Super innovative and certainly solve all the problems Tombazis himself said the old test had.

You're free to think whatever you want, but the new test is not the one they had in mind in the first place. Bare in mind the new test is a variation of the old one, it came up 3 days after Hamilton mentioned the "bendy wings" and also remember that no Mercedes powered car, in theory, will be affected by it.
All coincidence, nothing to do with Mercedes.

P.S: I wonder how did they come up with the new loads and the 1.5x option if neccessary...

what exactly are you trying to claim/state?

[El Scorchio]

Now you go and compare that with the new test, which is basically similar to the old but tougher loads and the camera with the markers. Looks like they spend 10 month to come up with the new test! Super innovative and certainly solve all the problems Tombazis himself said the old test had.

You're free to think whatever you want, but the new test is not the one they had in mind in the first place. Bare in mind the new test is a variation of the old one, it came up 3 days after Hamilton mentioned the "bendy wings" and also remember that no Mercedes powered car, in theory, will be affected by it.
All coincidence, nothing to do with Mercedes.

P.S: I wonder how did they come up with the new loads and the 1.5x option if neccessary...

what exactly are you trying to claim/state?

I think a few people have been trying to determine that for a day or so with no success!

[wesley123]

You're free to think whatever you want, but the new test is not the one they had in mind in the first place. Bare in mind the new test is a variation of the old one, it came up 3 days after Hamilton mentioned the "bendy wings" and also remember that no Mercedes powered car, in theory, will be affected by it.
All coincidence, nothing to do with Mercedes.

P.S: I wonder how did they come up with the new loads and the 1.5x option if neccessary...

The rules never truly allowed flex, so if the teams opt to break those rules, and the FIA chooses to implements tests , then the consequence of that is on the teams themselves, not the ones who never broke those rules in the first place.

[Stu]

The earth is flat and humans never set a foot on the moon. That is easily "verfiable" with some online searches.

At this point i know that you're just being argumentative and disingenous since most of the other quoted parts you obviously chose to misread were about the verifiable timeline of events, which simply does not fit your very own theory.

A quite literal summary of the quotes of Tombazis in that article would be:
"We are looking at the wings, we hope that we can improve the test in the future since the current one does not represent the real world loads on the wings, but we do not want to rush it. It will take time but it's on our job list"

My reading of it is: "We want to improve the test but we do not want to rush the process of changing it and will take our time to make sure it represents the real life loads as closely as possible ( = it isn't ready)", whether one then calls it "job list" or "to-do-list" doesn't matter, it's the same thing.

This is of course an 'interpretation' but a very reasonable one that sticks very closely to what was said.

"We have a test ready but we're waiting for the right moment to introduce it." is a rather - liberal - interpretation, don't you think?

___________________

That’s one of the new tests been implemented... What I read is that the teams will have to place 12 marking points in the rear wing and the onboard camera will be used to determine how much the wing is flexing while in motion.

One thing i was wondering about is whether they will use two cameras or some dual lens camera because that would allow them to 'see' or interpret the movement of the markings in 3D in some software, or is it already possible to do that with just one camera and known distances measured from the lens to each point?

One possible way to do it could be similar to what i did in Photoshop

When the car is stopped you mark where the points are, then you compare it to the max. deflection.
Run some lens correction and afterwards it's just some trigonometry between all the points, some of which would have 90°angles + some known points of reference:

https://s3.gifyu.com/images/image90b831c6b1bfa96a.png

Question is whether something like this would be precise enough without two cams that would allow a '3D' analysis.

That would be a very good solution, but I doubt that it will be the way it’s implemented... My guess is that it will be way simpler than that and will depend on where the markings are located.

They will want to not only look at the “height” of the rear wing measured against the baseline when static, but they will probably add markings to the end plates and main plane to understand where the potential pivot point is, which there is still speculation on it’s location.

Regardless, the use of the inboard camera to measure this should be better than the physical test done with the car in an static position, specially if the movement isn’t linear vs load.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don’t really care how they measure it using cameras, dots, etc, provided that they monitor the movement correctly in all axes. All aerodynamic pieces (bodywork, using the language in the regs) have tightly defined limitations boxes in which they must exist.
The static tests are there to determine if items are being designed to operate outside of tthose regulation boxes (hence floor deflection tests - laterally and longitudinally). Any visual tests using cameras would require carefully calibrated devices (more than one, most likely three) as movement/flex of the parts occurs in multiple axes.
Framing a physical test to determine this is extremely difficult, hence teams (all teams) are circumventing the tests with careful design such that any flex is occurring outside of the tested area or in a different plane to the applied load in the tests.

Does anyone recall the furore around the Benetton (??) flexing floor from 1994/5 that only came to light after the jabroc planks were introduced? There was a tolerance of around 5mm on the flatness of the floor and teams were found to be precisely constructing floors using the tolerance to benefit under floor flows. It was one of the primary reasons for the introduction of stepped flat bottoms, I recall.

Are capes subject to load tests? We know that shark fins are not and that t-wings seem not to be (in spite of being enclosed within a very small regulatory box but ‘clearly’ flexing to the degree that they are operating outside of that regulation box for significant periods (most teams guilty of this too).

Not really sure of the ultimate solution, other than issuing wings (front & rear) as ‘standard’ parts. Any suspicion of tampering would be illegal and could be dealt with by issuing a fresh item, as well as the usual bans, etc.

Apologies, that does go on a bit.

[Phil]

Any structure deflects under load, perfectly rigid materials do not exist.

If the rules stipulate that wings should be rigid, i’d assume that to mean under the loads they are subjeced to. “Perfectly rigid” is irrelevant. No one is asking the teams to build wings rigid at hypersonic speeds i.e. They should be rigid at the speeds they drive. Pretty easy and clear. This applies to all teams and cars equally.

That teams have gotten away with moving wings is IMO nothing more than tolerated. At what loads the tests are done is not really relevant.

I’m not hating btw - what RB among others are doing is all fair game. They’re operating within the fine greys of the rules and tolerances - but in knowing that, they must be prepared to face the potential risks, e.g. fines, disqualification, having to change parts mid season.

[peaty]

You're free to think whatever you want, but the new test is not the one they had in mind in the first place. Bare in mind the new test is a variation of the old one, it came up 3 days after Hamilton mentioned the "bendy wings" and also remember that no Mercedes powered car, in theory, will be affected by it.
All coincidence, nothing to do with Mercedes.

P.S: I wonder how did they come up with the new loads and the 1.5x option if neccessary...

The rules never truly allowed flex, so if the teams opt to break those rules, and the FIA chooses to implements tests , then the consequence of that is on the teams themselves, not the ones who never broke those rules in the first place.

I agree. The problems is not the FIA enforcing the rules, the problem is how and when.
By the way, at this point is very clear that all wings flex. The only thing that the new rules will change is the amount of flexing.

[SmallSoldier]

At this point i know that you're just being argumentative and disingenous since most of the other quoted parts you obviously chose to misread were about the verifiable timeline of events, which simply does not fit your very own theory.

A quite literal summary of the quotes of Tombazis in that article would be:
"We are looking at the wings, we hope that we can improve the test in the future since the current one does not represent the real world loads on the wings, but we do not want to rush it. It will take time but it's on our job list"

My reading of it is: "We want to improve the test but we do not want to rush the process of changing it and will take our time to make sure it represents the real life loads as closely as possible ( = it isn't ready)", whether one then calls it "job list" or "to-do-list" doesn't matter, it's the same thing.

This is of course an 'interpretation' but a very reasonable one that sticks very closely to what was said.

"We have a test ready but we're waiting for the right moment to introduce it." is a rather - liberal - interpretation, don't you think?

___________________


One thing i was wondering about is whether they will use two cameras or some dual lens camera because that would allow them to 'see' or interpret the movement of the markings in 3D in some software, or is it already possible to do that with just one camera and known distances measured from the lens to each point?

One possible way to do it could be similar to what i did in Photoshop

When the car is stopped you mark where the points are, then you compare it to the max. deflection.
Run some lens correction and afterwards it's just some trigonometry between all the points, some of which would have 90°angles + some known points of reference:

https://s3.gifyu.com/images/image90b831c6b1bfa96a.png

Question is whether something like this would be precise enough without two cams that would allow a '3D' analysis.

That would be a very good solution, but I doubt that it will be the way it’s implemented... My guess is that it will be way simpler than that and will depend on where the markings are located.

They will want to not only look at the “height” of the rear wing measured against the baseline when static, but they will probably add markings to the end plates and main plane to understand where the potential pivot point is, which there is still speculation on it’s location.

Regardless, the use of the inboard camera to measure this should be better than the physical test done with the car in an static position, specially if the movement isn’t linear vs load.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don’t really care how they measure it using cameras, dots, etc, provided that they monitor the movement correctly in all axes. All aerodynamic pieces (bodywork, using the language in the regs) have tightly defined limitations boxes in which they must exist.
The static tests are there to determine if items are being designed to operate outside of tthose regulation boxes (hence floor deflection tests - laterally and longitudinally). Any visual tests using cameras would require carefully calibrated devices (more than one, most likely three) as movement/flex of the parts occurs in multiple axes.
Framing a physical test to determine this is extremely difficult, hence teams (all teams) are circumventing the tests with careful design such that any flex is occurring outside of the tested area or in a different plane to the applied load in the tests.

Does anyone recall the furore around the Benetton (??) flexing floor from 1994/5 that only came to light after the jabroc planks were introduced? There was a tolerance of around 5mm on the flatness of the floor and teams were found to be precisely constructing floors using the tolerance to benefit under floor flows. It was one of the primary reasons for the introduction of stepped flat bottoms, I recall.

Are capes subject to load tests? We know that shark fins are not and that t-wings seem not to be (in spite of being enclosed within a very small regulatory box but ‘clearly’ flexing to the degree that they are operating outside of that regulation box for significant periods (most teams guilty of this too).

Not really sure of the ultimate solution, other than issuing wings (front & rear) as ‘standard’ parts. Any suspicion of tampering would be illegal and could be dealt with by issuing a fresh item, as well as the usual bans, etc.

Apologies, that does go on a bit.

Regarding the shark fins and T-Wings... I may have a misconception, but I haven’t seeing them “flex”, they vibrate / oscillate which I believe are 2 different phenoms


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

You're free to think whatever you want, but the new test is not the one they had in mind in the first place. Bare in mind the new test is a variation of the old one, it came up 3 days after Hamilton mentioned the "bendy wings" and also remember that no Mercedes powered car, in theory, will be affected by it.
All coincidence, nothing to do with Mercedes.

P.S: I wonder how did they come up with the new loads and the 1.5x option if neccessary...

The rules never truly allowed flex, so if the teams opt to break those rules, and the FIA chooses to implements tests , then the consequence of that is on the teams themselves, not the ones who never broke those rules in the first place.

I agree. The problems is not the FIA enforcing the rules, the problem is how and when.
By the way, at this point is very clear that all wings flex. The only thing that the new rules will change is the amount of flexing.

I don’t see a problem with the how or when, just glad that is been addressed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedNEO]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... t-fluegel/
ARE THERE NOW ALSO FRONT WING TESTS?
Red Bull wants justice

Translation-

After the announcement of stricter controls, Red Bull has to change its rear wing. The correction costs half a million dollars. In return, the world championship challenger is now pushing the FIA to also tighten the tests for the front wings. The aim is to annoy rival Mercedes.

Red Bull team boss Christian Horner is taking it sportingly, although the FIA's latest technical directive will cost his racing team a lot of money: "Mercedes has pushed the issue with the rear wings. It's part of the game in Formula 1. We pushed last year for the engines to be allowed to run only with a power mode." But he also says: "Mercedes cares more about other teams' issues than anyone else in the field."

Engineering boss Adrian Newey estimates that the stricter rear wing regulations will cost Red Bull half a million dollars. "It's not a trivial thing." Which is because Red Bull uses an ingenious trick to make its wing elastic, according to rivals.
Opponents claim to have observed from video footage that the rear wing end plates bend inwards from 250 km/h, pulling the main wing blade downwards. The secret of the controlled bending apparently lies in the design of the carbon structures of the corresponding parts. Red Bull has always been a pioneer and a border crosser.

Red Bull pushes the rules to the limit
"Aerodynamic structures can bend at high speed. To a certain extent, that's normal. But it can also be designed into these parts. Red Bull has always pushed the limits. In 2014 in Abu Dhabi they were punished for it," Mercedes said. Back then, both Red Bull drivers had to start from the pit lane because the front wing flaps had bent backwards too much via a "soft connection".

Sports director Helmut Marko defends himself against the accusation that the effervescent manufacturer's cars were driving illegally at any time this season: "Motorsport is about pushing the rules to the limit. That's what we pay our engineers to do. The load test for the wing sets the limit. We passed all the tests. So our car was also legal. If the tests are tightened now, we will react."
The conversion, however, costs time.

Because it is not a banal mechanism that you can simply remove. You don't change carbon structures overnight. It takes time and costs money. In a normal season, the extra half a million dollars would be a pittance for Red Bull. But since there is a budget cap, every expense that was not budgeted for hurts twice. "It's an additional penalty," Horner admits.

Front wing change is even more expensive
The Englishman has therefore thrown the subject of the front wing into the round: "There are shots from Imola showing the Mercedes front wing flexing more than our rear wing. It would only be fair if the FIA applied the same standard to front wings." McLaren team boss Andreas Seidl would welcome that: "We are clean. Any tightening of the tests brings us closer to the top teams."

Red Bull firmly expects the federation to tighten the thumbscrews on teams at the front end of the car too. And what does it cost to build a new front wing? "More than half a million. By our standards, anyway," Horner reveals. That would make it a draw in the competition to inflict as much damage as possible on the opposition.

Andreas Seidl thinks that this is complaining at a high level: "Due to the cancelled races, the cost ceiling has risen again. The top teams also have more room to breathe." In fact, it now stands at 149.8 million dollars. For the cancellations in Canada and Turkey, as for races 22 and 23, there was an extra 1.2 million dollars on top.

[SmallSoldier]

Changes to front wings incoming? Will we need a thread of it’s own for them?

Surprised that Red Bull is pioneering this, since their front wing also flexes, but it’s fair game if the rear wings are tighten up... Although find it amusing that they are championing it and complaining about the cost of the Rear Wings when they will themselves also have to invest on theirs.

We are not having a boring season off the track this year either


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RZS10]

Unfortunately there's no real way to compare the front wing flex if i'm not mistaken, the entire wing is not in view from the nose cam so there's no way to scale it, which is a requirement for a comparison ... but the entire article seems to just be a longer piece about the comments from Horner where he pointed a finger at Merc's FW which were mentioned here earlier, nothing concrete.

The fable about the Scorpion And The Frog comes to mind when thinking about Red Bull asking for stricter testing of the FW.

[e30ernest]

The fable about the Scorpion And The Frog comes to mind when thinking about Red Bull asking for stricter testing of the FW.

Yeah I wonder if it will come back to bite them too. I remember the single engine mode did not particularly pan out to their favor.

[El Scorchio]

The fable about the Scorpion And The Frog comes to mind when thinking about Red Bull asking for stricter testing of the FW.

Yeah I wonder if it will come back to bite them too. I remember the single engine mode did not particularly pan out to their favor.

If it’s purely as retaliation, even if it causes them to redesign theirs as well, then it seems like a crazy move. Maybe they think they are in better budget shape.

If every team’s front wing moves similarly. It’s the sort of thing I can see the FIA not worrying about this season as no-one will be gaining a relative advantage from it.