Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[TimW]

Toto responded to horners claims that they would actually like their front wing to be stiffer. The fact that Horner brings it up probably means that RB's FW is stiffer. Stricter test could force Mercedes to develop a new wing, spend money on it, but they might get a performance benefit in return. Not sure if Horner would be happy with that.

[RZS10]

Yea ... no ...

If Merc would benefit from running a stiffer front wing they would run a stiffer front wing, that is if it's possible to have a stiffer front wing without an additional flap seperator towards the center...

[LM10]

Toto responded to horners claims that they would actually like their front wing to be stiffer. The fact that Horner brings it up probably means that RB's FW is stiffer. Stricter test could force Mercedes to develop a new wing, spend money on it, but they might get a performance benefit in return. Not sure if Horner would be happy with that.

If Mercedes wanted the FW to be stiffer, they would have made it stiffer. Simple as that. Toto’s words are just mind games or simply fooling around.

[TimW]

Toto responded to horners claims that they would actually like their front wing to be stiffer. The fact that Horner brings it up probably means that RB's FW is stiffer. Stricter test could force Mercedes to develop a new wing, spend money on it, but they might get a performance benefit in return. Not sure if Horner would be happy with that.

If Mercedes wanted the FW to be stiffer, they would have made it stiffer. Simple as that. Toto’s words are just mind games or simply fooling around.

It is not as simple as that. With these tiny profiles adding stiffness will probably mean more volume of material and thus also an aerodynamic impact.

[TimW]

Question for the aerodynamicist (hope they are still reading this thread): is there a drag benefit of letting the endplates flex inward(even if it would not affect the mainplane AoA)? I guess in 3D that will reduce downforce, but also drag?

[El Scorchio]

I don’t really know why Horner is bringing flexing front wings up. They just showed the front wing view from Verstappen’s car in Monaco FP3 and it was noticeably flexing away with speed changes.

[LM10]

Toto responded to horners claims that they would actually like their front wing to be stiffer. The fact that Horner brings it up probably means that RB's FW is stiffer. Stricter test could force Mercedes to develop a new wing, spend money on it, but they might get a performance benefit in return. Not sure if Horner would be happy with that.

If Mercedes wanted the FW to be stiffer, they would have made it stiffer. Simple as that. Toto’s words are just mind games or simply fooling around.

It is not as simple as that. With these tiny profiles adding stiffness will probably mean more volume of material and thus also an aerodynamic impact.

If others can do it, Mercedes can do it as well. Especially if it would give them a performance benefit like you mentioned.

[dans79]

As I showed earlier in the thread with a video and side by side stills, Horner's full of it. The Red Bull front Wing flexes as much as the Mercedes and everyone else's does.

This is just horner trying to deflect as usual.

[hollus]

Gentlemen, let's not turn this into a Red Bull vs Mercedes thread.
Flexing bodywork in on focus.
Whether RB sucks or M sucks, or Horner this or Toto that, is better discussed in other forums, I am sure that is not what you come to F1T for.
And yes, I am aware that this is to an extent driven by politics., but let's not turn this into a Red Bull vs Mercedes thread.

[JordanMugen]

Toto responded to horners claims that they would actually like their front wing to be stiffer. The fact that Horner brings it up probably means that RB's FW is stiffer. Stricter test could force Mercedes to develop a new wing, spend money on it, but they might get a performance benefit in return. Not sure if Horner would be happy with that.

If Mercedes wanted the FW to be stiffer, they would have made it stiffer. Simple as that. Toto’s words are just mind games or simply fooling around.

It is not as simple as that. With these tiny profiles adding stiffness will probably mean more volume of material and thus also an aerodynamic impact.

That's what the permitted metallic front wing stiffener elements are specifically for, of course they get repurposed as turning vanes by sneaky F1 designers...

There are mandatory slot gap separators for the rear wing too.

[gshevlin]

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.

IMHO this is exactly the solution that the FIA should propose. This is like dealing with errant children who push boundaries. If children step over boundaries and ignore warnings, and you want to change their behavior, you take stuff (freedoms, assets) away from them. If the teams prove that they cannot be trusted to build parts that conform to both the letter and spirit of the regulations, then the ability to build those parts should be taken away from them.
Right now the teams are doing the usual public posturing and bullshitting, as part of a semi-public negotiation process.

[TimW]

If Mercedes wanted the FW to be stiffer, they would have made it stiffer. Simple as that. Toto’s words are just mind games or simply fooling around.

It is not as simple as that. With these tiny profiles adding stiffness will probably mean more volume of material and thus also an aerodynamic impact.

That's what the permitted metallic front wing stiffener elements are specifically for, of course they get repurposed as turning vanes by sneaky F1 designers...

There are mandatory slot gap separators for the rear wing too.

Good point, never had a good look at those before, but from a structural point of view there seems quite a bit of stiffness that can be gained there.

[El Scorchio]

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.

IMHO this is exactly the solution that the FIA should propose. This is like dealing with errant children who push boundaries. If children step over boundaries and ignore warnings, and you want to change their behavior, you take stuff (freedoms, assets) away from them. If the teams prove that they cannot be trusted to build parts that conform to both the letter and spirit of the regulations, then the ability to build those parts should be taken away from them.
Right now the teams are doing the usual public posturing and bullshitting, as part of a semi-public negotiation process.

It should be like PE. If they don’t turn up with the right kit, they have to pick something out of the old spares box!

[Pyrone89]

Any news on the FIA clamping down on the front wing also? I mean literally use the same ruler for both cases (don't know if that translates in an English saying).

Basically if they clamp down on the rear wing but not on the front wing it would be embarassing (especially when Toto said RB is the one supposedly being favored).

[JordanMugen]

Watching Formula 2, I notice that the rear wings, sharkfins and front wings are all extremely rigid. Something for the Formula 1 designers to note.

It clearly can be done and at a far lower cost than designing the parts to be deliberately flexible.