Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[RZS10]

The front wing has two flaps that are connected on the inside, the shark fin is a lot thicker and 'flows' into the engine cover, gradually getting slimmer towards the top, the rear wing is completely connected to the diffuser and has very fat massive endplates.

So those components aren't even remotely close to the F1 designs and thus can't be compared to F1 parts (at least under the current regulations).

[JordanMugen]

So those components aren't even remotely close to the F1 designs and thus can't be compared to F1 parts (at least under the current regulations).

F1 regulations permit thick parts for the sharkfin and rear wing endplates too, it's the teams who choose to make them thin and flexible, almost as if deliberate.

Dallara shows that, even on a cost-orientated vehicle, it is easily possible to make these parts very rigid when so desired... The rules do say the parts are meant to be immobile with respect to the sprung part of the vehicle, so teams should be designing to that goal for all bodywork...

The front wing has two flaps that are connected on the inside,

Five elements in F1 for the front wing is a maximum. Teams are permitted to have two elements only, if two elements is what is needed for a stiff flap that allows their front wing to be immobile and rigidly secured for complying to the regulations in best faith.

The tubs, for example, have no issue with being rigid.

So I would put severe load tests on the mirrors, the front wing & flaps, the rear wing & flaps, the sharkfin, and the bargeboards (or vortex generators in 2022 rules), to make sure teams are designing their parts extra thick, in good faith for minimal deflection. Hopefully that would put flexible bodywork suspicions, on ALL parts of the car, to bed for good!

How about 50kgf on the mirrors, 100kgf laterally on the sharkfin, 350kgf on each side of the front wing, and 700kgf on the rear wing? I think that ought to do it. If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing!

[RZS10]

Well yea, maybe - but you know what i meant ... pointing at a terribly slow F2 car and saying "there's no flex here" isn't really a sensible comparison

I don't even want to imagine how heavy an F1 car with such fat carbon parts would be, the 2022 cars will already be close to a ton with driver and fuel ...

[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.

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.

Why is that a problem? It's also stipulated in the rules that the FIA can introduce tests whenever they please.

[JordanMugen]

Well yea, maybe - but you know what i meant ... pointing at a terribly slow F2 car and saying "there's no flex here" isn't really a sensible comparison

I must disagree. Look at this. F1 teams are using the available rear wing endplate width for air deflectors, and not to make the endplates as rigid as possible. It seems the F1 teams are not even trying to make their bodywork as rigid as possible.



The swan-neck on the other hand, shows an example of properly designed robust bodywork that can reasonably be deemed to be intended to be as rigid as possible. The T-wing, however, fails miserably.

If you are going to add a T-wing, surely it should have sufficient thickness to clearly show it has been designed to be rigid and immobile with relation to the sprung part of the vehicle? Same for mirror mounts etc?

[nzjrs]

Why would an engineer choose to make anything as rigid as possible instead of as rigid as necessary?

[RZS10]

Exactly, they're looking for performance.

I remember in the days of Caterham, HRT and Virgin/Marussia when some of their parts didn't look as refined and you'd look at them saying "yea that's slow".

As long as the regulations do not force anyone to build parts a certain way not one single engineer worth their money would go and design anything to be "as rigid as possible" (or in other words: unnecessarily slow) and given that some wings already move a lot less than the others despite not having parts that look like stuff from a spec series it's clear that (relatively) stiffer parts are possible even without making certain elements as thick as the swan neck/support pillar - or the other way round: that some teams do not build their parts with the intention to have them bend beyond what appears to be acceptable.

The thick support pillar isn't even a good example because it's potentially one of the parts that are being used for the flexing anyways.

I don't even think that mirror mounts are "flexible"? I know that drivers sometimes complain that they're very shaky but the WIlliams braking the mirror glass by riding a curb in Spain indicates that they're very rigid already...

Could the teams make their parts a lot stiffer? Sure. Are regulations forcing them to? No. So comparing a spec series to F1 really doesn't lead anywhere.

[JordanMugen]

Toto Wolff:

We will protest Red Bull flexible rear wing if they use it in Baku and take it to FIA court and then arbitration. FIA needs to act faster.

But then Red Bull will then protest Mercedes front wing and so on and so on...

Ultimately, every single car will get disqualified from the Azerbaijan Grand Prix for flexible bodywork. It will be a farce.

Utterly absurd.

[JordanMugen]

Why would an engineer choose to make anything as rigid as possible instead of as rigid as necessary?

Exactly. QED.






Hope that clears up why the Red Bull rear wing is as rigid as necessary and no more.

[dans79]

Toto Wolff:

We will protest Red Bull flexible rear wing if they use it in Baku and take it to FIA court and then arbitration. FIA needs to act faster.

But then Red Bull will then protest Mercedes front wing and so on and so on...

Ultimately, every single car will get disqualified from the Azerbaijan Grand Prix for flexible bodywork. It will be a farce.

Utterly absurd.

I'm not sure Red Bull would do that, as their front wing flexes just as much.

[JordanMugen]

I'm not sure Red Bull would do that, as their front wing flexes just as much.

It would highlight the farce of every single vehicle being disqualified from the Grand Prix though, showing how ridiculous Mercedes' protest is.

The definition of the "necessary rigidity" of the rear wing can only change when FIA bring a new load test, and not a moment before.

That Mercedes have a different interpretation of the "necessary rigidity" of the rear wing than Red Bull or than the FIA, is hardly Red Bull's problem. Mercedes were more than welcome to make a similar flexible rear wing that complies to the necessary rigidity of the existing load test and no more. They already have a front wing that is only as rigid as necessary and no more, after all.

[SiLo]

I'm not sure Red Bull would do that, as their front wing flexes just as much.

It would highlight the farce of every single vehicle being disqualified from the Grand Prix though, showing how ridiculous Mercedes' protest is.

The definition of the "necessary rigidity" of the rear wing can only change when FIA bring a new load test, and not a moment before.

That Mercedes have a different interpretation of the "necessary rigidity" of the rear wing than Red Bull or than the FIA, is hardly Red Bull's problem. Mercedes were more than welcome to make a similar flexible rear wing that complies to the necessary rigidity of the existing load test and no more. They already have a front wing that is only as rigid as necessary and no more, after all.

Why is their protest ridiculous? It's faily obvious the movement of the wing is a lot more than is intended by the rules. It's like people think passing the test = complying with the rules.

[JordanMugen]

It's like people think passing the test = complying with the rules.

That's what the Red Bull and other team engineers think after all, because...

Why would an engineer choose to make anything as rigid as possible instead of as rigid as necessary?

I'm sure Red Bull and everybody else are very capable of making extremely rigid rear wings, front wings, sharkfins, mirrors, bargeboards, tea-trays etc, but they are simply not necessary within the rules at present, even though the rules say all these parts are supposed to be rigid and immobile.

In effect, the load tests define the necessary rigid of these parts. Engineers have absolutely no incentive to make their tea-tray, front wing or rear wing any more rigid than necessary.

[RZS10]

Don't know how "ridiculous" a potential protest really is...

The FIA clearly believes that the wings bend too much, that much is obvious, otherwise they wouldn't bring new tests and even keep the door open to monitoring them with cameras should any team manage to make them just as flexible.

Correct me if i'm wrong but right now there's wings that are essentially considered to be likely illegal by the FIA but they're still OK to use because of the grace period and the fact that the limit of what is acceptable is currently still defined by the old test.

One question is: what would the stewards do?
Afaik they're not bound by the test result in scrutineering, they can deem parts to be illegal despite them passing the tests (i believe that is also where the "passing the test ≠ complying with the rules" line of thinking comes from), so in theory they could decide either way.

edited for clarity:
There's also still a big difference between the front and rear wings when it comes to chances of a successful protest. One part is going to be admittedly illegal soon, the other parts are the same on all cars (so no advantage or disagvantage to anyone) and there's no intention of the FIA to clamp down on their flexibility.

This could very well lead to a decision along the lines of "no one is gaining an advantage so we're forwarding this matter to the FIA for further discussion" - a disqualification completely out of the blue for any team because of their front wing is rather unlikely.

So the chances of those protests being successful are very different.

Remember when Merc wasn't running their rims until they had both championships secured because Ferrari threatened them with a protest? They believed those to be 100% legal (which was confirmed eventually) ... some teams are now running parts with an expiration date.

So the second question is: is any team running a 'sketchy' wing going to use it despite of this threat scenario? Would RBR risk losing ALL points when they could still fight at the front without it?

[SuperCNJ]

Admittedly I do find that RB's counter-protest that Merc's front wing also bends significantly a bit like a clutching-at-straws attempt to retaliate. The front wing has no other supports at its free end and so is therefore purely cantilevered from the nose cone, whereas the rear wing has at least two supports, at either end of the wing making it far stiffer. Unless the front wing is made ridiculously beefy, the front wing is inherently going to flex more than the rear wing. My guess is that all the cars on the grid will have quite a lot of flex in the front wing, especially compared to the rear wing which I think is more likely to be acceptable given the nature of the front wing.

Would RBR risk losing ALL points when they could still fight at the front without it?

I agree, at the end of the day, this is what it boils down to. I have a lot of faith in the RB designers to claw back the deficit particularly given that in recent years they have been one of the biggest development gainers over the course of a season. But no doubt with the current cost cap and resource limitations it will hurt them a lot if they have to make the wing more rigid.