Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[Juzh]

There's also still a big difference between the front and rear wings

There isn't. Only difference is mercedes missed a trick on rear wing and not on front wing and now they're throwing a tantrum because of it. If I'd be in red bull's position and get challenged with a protest I'd certainly threaten back with a counter protest on same grounds of flexible aero, only this time it could have an effect on entire grid, thus showing how ridiculous mercedes' whole premise is. JordanMugen already explained it all.

[RZS10]

That sentence has to be read with everything else, don't know why you'd rip it out of context - it's about the chances of both protests and i've edited to make it clearer... Which one could more realistically lead to some form of punishment? Can either be successful? Which is the 'better' threat etc.

And i was judging the term "ridiculous" not on motivation or w/e but on whether it could actually lead to a serious enough threat scenario to stop RBR from using their wing.

[hollus]

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

In other sports that is called "playing to the whistle", and it is the only sensible way to go for a professional competitive player. Sometimes the referees adjust how they whistle, and a few games later, the players adjust to the new limits.

I have a horrible sense of deja-vu. As if flexible front wings coming closer to the ground, and flexible nose cones, and flexible (flattening) rear wings have been here before. In 2010, and 2012, and 2014...
If I remember correctly, the solution was always the same, FIA fixing the spirit of the rules by adding an extra or harder load test.
IIRC, back then they even went as far as to say in public something along these lines: Yeah... we see it bending, and that would appear to be illegal, but we also have a load test, and it passes it and that would appear to make it legal... we announce now our new load test and until that day we'll see that it is kind of illegal but we'll only actually call it illegal if it fails the new load test and only from that point in time. I cannot find the quote, though (probably from Charlie Withing).
But I might remember wrong, of course.

Edit: Found a few:

CW, 2012:

Q: How and why have the tests for front wing deflection changed?


CW: The rules state the wings (as well as all other parts of the bodywork) must be rigid. We have halved the permitted deflection. Previously the wing was tested with a 1kN load and allowed to deflect 20mm. As a result of this the teams were testing wings until they found a design that deflected 19.9mm under a 1kN load. Our allowances are only a guideline for us and we felt the teams were operating outside the spirit of the rules and clearly designing their wings with flexibility in mind. In our view Article 3.15 takes precedence over Article 3.17 where the deflection limits are quantified. Article 3.17.8 allows us to introduce new tests if we feel our guidelines are not being following in an appropriate manner. The new test therefore moves the pressure point rearwards by 10mm and inboard by 5mm with the permitted deflection reduced to 10mm. We have also told the teams that we may apply the load to just one side of the front wing, an asymmetrical test.

CW, 2011:

I emailed Charlie Whiting about the wing movement and what is permitted in this area

"there is no stated permissible deflection of the parts you’re referring to, we do of course have a blanket restriction on any bodywork moving but, in some cases, we define limits given that no bodywork can be designed infinitely rigid.

The slight anomaly you refer to has been investigated and we have told the team improvements need to be made."

CW, 2011:

Thoughts on the legality of current front wings

The flexibility limits are clearly stated. It’s very simple. Under the test load [wings] are allowed to move 20mm.

The only thing we could discuss in the Technical Working Group is whether those limits are too high – but everyone has the same limits, they’re all tested in the same way.

There was often an argument that the cars see more load on the wings, on the track, than they do under our test. But we often double that load to make sure that the deflection remains the same up to the increased load. We test everyone like that. We test with the nose off the car, on the car. We think we have been very thorough. The teams, I think, are satisfied. I haven’t heard any complaints of late. I think the situation is under control.

CW, 2012:

To prevent such flexing from happening, the FIA already toughened their front wing flexi-tests this year. But Red Bull have been able to pass those tests and even then take advantage of aerodynamic benefits by flexing their nose to some extent and hence flexing the front wing in entirety.

What Race Director Charlie Whiting had to say about this saga:-

“I think rigidity, or lack of it, on some front wings has been the subject of a lot of discussion,” he explained. “We’ve attempted to introduce some new tests, which not only tests its vertical deflection but also torsional stiffness of the front wing as well. And we’re going to take a step further next year as well.

“It will be a matter of applying the load. At the moment we apply the load at 790mm forward of the front axle. We are going to move that forward 15cm and back 15cm – so we will do two tests [in those areas].”

Ferrari 2016:
https://imgur.com/r/formula1/k3F89H8

2016, this very site:

Sorry that this isn't about the testing days, but I've noticed in a recently released on-board video from Vettel's Ferrari on Race-Sunday that the whole rear wing seems to move a bit down while on the straight and goes up again while breaking:

Source: Second Video here

I thought all Aero-Parts except for DRS aren't allowed to move like that? I am noticing this for the first time (never noticed it like this on another car before) so it does look kind of weird to me.

Also the engine cover seems to deflate when the car slows down. Or it's just an optical illusion?

plus ça change...

[RZS10]

Speaking of deja-vu ... went out to search for that quote on the internet and found this instead *:

"The FIA is to clamp down on so-called ‘flexible wings’ – or at least attempt to clear the air on their use – by introducing more stringent load tests by the next race in Belgium.

The teams are being informed tonight at the governing body is making use of a rule which allows it to change the load tests in the course of the season, should it be deemed necessary. In essence teams are being told ‘this is what the tests will be like at the next race, be prepared' "

Currently skimming through that ancient 2010 thread which got to 71 pages - this one right now doesn't even have half of that but many of the arguments are the same.

Guys, the red lines are in the same position relative to the chassis in both images. The [...] wing is clearly changing position. The position of the wheels is irrelevant, as the concern is that the wing is moving relative to the chassis. There is no optical illusion, as the red lines avoid that.

there is no controversy at all!!! The rules say how the flexibility should be tested and what are the allowed margins. If the measurements are within the allowed limits, this it.

The main point is that the wings are LEGAL, within the parameters set by FIA.

The whole saga lends itself towards video refereeing, much like other sports, where hawk-eye or goal-line technology is being discussed, surely there must be place for it in motorsport.

These on-board mounted cameras could surely play more of a role than just bringing us cinematic pleasure.

We all could have just copy pasted some stuff from there. hehe

You all know the saying "the internet never forgets" right ... not really true since unfortunately all the (image) links are broken

One thing of interest is though that in 2010 the stricter test was announced August 1st, the next race was August 29th so roughly ~4 weeks time to adapt. Now it's ~ 4 weeks between the announcement and Baku, but for whatever reason the FIA has given them ~6 weeks and an extra period with a certain tolerance.

*i see that hollus did a better job of searching than me and edited his post whilst i was putting together this one ...nice

[Datco]

Are they also changing front wing tests?

[hollus]

Definitely maybe.

[RZS10]

Well there's nothing official - aren't the front wing load tests mostly for the main plane anyways with just some tiny load on the flaps?

[Just_a_fan]

Definitely maybe.

[JordanMugen]

CW, 2012:

CW: Previously the wing was tested with a 1kN load and allowed to deflect 20mm. As a result of this the teams were testing wings until they found a design that deflected 19.9mm under a 1kN load.

That's so F1! As we were saying about the parts being as rigid as necessary and no more.

[SuperCNJ]

Just a thought on the timing of this bendy wing protest, could it be that Mercs knew about the RB's bendy wing for a very long time but deliberately refrained from protesting over the last few years because they wanted to firstly save this protest for when they actually need to play this card and secondly to leave RB to continue on this path, hopefully adopting and committing to it in their 2022 design before raising the issue? But as RB are challenging them to the championship, they have optimised the timing and planned to protest now so it will hurt both its current 2021 chances RB's 2022 design?

I'm probably talking nonsense here but just a thought that came to mind.

[One and Only]

Mercedes' logic in this case is something like:
Our rear wing flexes, but within legal margins which is confirmed by only way to confirm it - deflection test. Their wing flexes more, and it's illegal which is confirmed by camera footage, which is not official test for anything, but since their wing also passes deflection test f..k you.
I really can't see how Mercedes can win this case if they go on with the protest.

[NathanOlder]

Just a thought on the timing of this bendy wing protest, could it be that Mercs knew about the RB's bendy wing for a very long time but deliberately refrained from protesting over the last few years because they wanted to firstly save this protest for when they actually need to play this card and secondly to leave RB to continue on this path, hopefully adopting and committing to it in their 2022 design before raising the issue? But as RB are challenging them to the championship, they have optimised the timing and planned to protest now so it will hurt both its current 2021 chances RB's 2022 design?

I'm probably talking nonsense here but just a thought that came to mind.

I'd say thats very much the case. Use it for maximum effect. Plus using it this year means RedBull and others will have to spend time and money addressing the issue. With such small margins at the top, any advantage is worth gaining.

[dans79]

Mercedes' logic in this case is something like:
Our rear wing flexes, but within legal margins which is confirmed by only way to confirm it - deflection test. Their wing flexes more, and it's illegal which is confirmed by camera footage, which is not official test for anything, but since their wing also passes deflection test f..k you.
I really can't see how Mercedes can win this case if they go on with the protest.

I would be willing to bet that Mercedes would use some of the FIA's words against them.


From the first post in the thread.

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 other words the argument would most likely be that the FIA knows some teams are in violation of the Spirit of the rules and Mercedes thinks Red Bull is one of them.

In addition the argument would be that the FIA is letting those teams get away with it on one of the tracks they would gain the most benefit from it this season.

[One and Only]

Mercedes' logic in this case is something like:
Our rear wing flexes, but within legal margins which is confirmed by only way to confirm it - deflection test. Their wing flexes more, and it's illegal which is confirmed by camera footage, which is not official test for anything, but since their wing also passes deflection test f..k you.
I really can't see how Mercedes can win this case if they go on with the protest.

I would be willing to bet that Mercedes would use some of the FIA's words against them.


From the first post in the thread.

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 other words the argument would most likely be that the FIA knows some teams are in violation of the Spirit of the rules and Mercedes thinks Red Bull is one of them.

In addition the argument would be that the FIA is letting those teams get away with it on one of the tracks they would gain the most benefit from it this season.

That's why FIA will introduce stricter deflection tests from French GP onwards. Other than that within current ruleset FIA cannot do anything else. Mercedes is trying to force FIA to do something with their hands tied. Can't see how that can work out in Mercedes' favor.

[PhillipM]

CW, 2012:

CW: Previously the wing was tested with a 1kN load and allowed to deflect 20mm. As a result of this the teams were testing wings until they found a design that deflected 19.9mm under a 1kN load.

That's so F1! As we were saying about the parts being as rigid as necessary and no more.

The problem is with such as the RB rear wing etc, it's not linear.
Yes it might be deflecting 'X' amount at the test load 'Y' - but at load 1.5x the structure is deliberately designed to bend and deform to reduce its stiffness and now it's moving 3 times as much at only 50% more load (exaggerated but you get the idea).

So the actual stiffness 'rate' being enforced by the test is no longer true, which is what they don't like, because when teams get that a little wrong things go wrong big time at 300kph.

It's not that they're designing the parts to be as light and only as stiff as necessary for the test like some say, it's that the parts are designed to only be as stiff as necessary - as most said, that's what most engineers would do - and *then* deliberately deform and warp the structure to reduce that stiffness as soon as your past the testing load.
The problem is then you are out of just matching the FIA's test with as little as you can do structurally to help aero, and into deliberate compromising the structure for movable aero gain - that's where the FIA and rules get tricky.

To put it another way the FIA are trying to set a rate of deflection/load that's okay, and as soon as you're outside the test range they're circumventing that. It's the FIA's own fault really, they should be running at least a pair of tests instead of a single one.

Frankly I'd make the test be twice the load they expect to see on track, diffuser effects included - and there you go, problem solved with some leeway for vibration effects too.