Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[Just_a_fan]

My stance, I hope Red Bull run their wing at Baku, then for them to count her protest the Mercedes front wing at the Y250 section as it flexes. I really want this season to be a battle of the teams as well as drivers, get as much bad blood between them as is required.

I am a fan of active aero, allow the teams to split the rear wing into two, with a wing that can adapt to the corner as well. However, the active aero can only be used for three 5 lap spells in the race.

I am wondering if this will lead to sensors being attached to the cars that the FIA are only allowed to access where they monitor the wing flex via a small QR code type panel on the rear wing on the upper corner.

RedBull will have their own problems with the front wing as well.

Exactly so. All of the front wings do this because of the way they're supported. The rear wing can easily be made with little deflection, the front wing less so. If Red Bull protest the Merc's front wing, they'll need to be damn sure theirs isn't also deflecting or they'll be counter claimed there too.

[Hoffman900]

RedBull will have their own problems with the front wing as well.

Yes, but it will highlight the farce of how every single car out there has flexible bodywork...

This is fair, but there doesn't need to be a spirit of the rules clause when the rule specifically says flexible body work isn't allow. It's spelled out.

All very well, but every single car out there has flexible bodywork. Are you going to disqualify every single car from the race?

This is the problem the FIA created. They would have had to nip this is the butt a decade or two ago, but now you're in a situation where everyone is playing this game. My experience when that happens, is they almost have to make it legal.

I should add, I like what RedBull did here. Great play by them. I also think Mercedes has a point and their protest would be fair.

The only one who messed up, and continues to trip over their own feet here, is the FIA.

[JordanMugen]

This is the problem the FIA created.

There is no problem. It's all a non-issue stirred up by Mercedes GP.

FIA clearly have no issue with bodywork not being perfectly rigid else they would have put 800kg load tests on the front and rear wings with maximum 1mm deflection etc.

I also think Mercedes has a point and their protest would be fair.

Mercedes have no point and a protest would be absurd IMO.

Why didn't they just build one of these perfectly legal rear wings months ago? That would have been far easier.

[Hoffman900]

This is the problem the FIA created.

There is no problem. It's all a non-issue stirred up by Mercedes GP.

I disagree, but I know you're unbiased

FIA clearly have no issue with bodywork not being perfectly rigid else they would have put 800kg load tests on the front and rear wings with maximum 1mm deflection etc.

They don't, which is counter to their rules. That's on them.

[JordanMugen]

This is the problem the FIA created.

There is no problem. It's all a non-issue stirred up by Mercedes GP.

I disagree, but I know you're unbiased

FIA clearly have no issue with bodywork not being perfectly rigid else they would have put 800kg load tests on the front and rear wings with maximum 1mm deflection etc.

They don't, which is counter to their rules. That's on them.

Wouldn't it have been far easier for Mercedes to just build one of these perfectly legal rear wings 10 months ago and put it on their car 9 months ago?

Why give away free performance?

FIA rules also say the white lines define the tracks (I think that's sporting rather than technical). Interpreting rules is also a funny old thing.

[Hoffman900]

There is no problem. It's all a non-issue stirred up by Mercedes GP.

I disagree, but I know you're unbiased

FIA clearly have no issue with bodywork not being perfectly rigid else they would have put 800kg load tests on the front and rear wings with maximum 1mm deflection etc.

They don't, which is counter to their rules. That's on them.

Wouldn't it have been far easier for Mercedes to just build one of these perfectly legal rear wings 10 months ago and put it on their car 9 months ago?

Why give away free performance?

FIA rules also say the white lines define the tracks (I think that's sporting rather than technical). Interpreting rules is also a funny old thing.

Oh for sure. I don't disagree with you on any of this. I think Mercedes was 1) sitting on it waiting for it to be really inconvenient for RB to change their wing 2) or the FIA take action. Toto apparently had a conversation with Christian before Barcelona, they could have gotten this ball rolling from the get-go of this season. Now Merc finds themselves behind. I don't think they gambled on the FIA creating this grace period though. If I was a lawyer, this is the part I would be going after... "where does it say in the rules a grace period is allowed?".

The track limits mess is something the FIA created. That's on them too.

[SmallSoldier]

This is the problem the FIA created.

There is no problem. It's all a non-issue stirred up by Mercedes GP.

FIA clearly have no issue with bodywork not being perfectly rigid else they would have put 800kg load tests on the front and rear wings with maximum 1mm deflection etc.

I also think Mercedes has a point and their protest would be fair.

Mercedes have no point and a protest would be absurd IMO.

Why didn't they just build one of these perfectly legal rear wings months ago? That would have been far easier.

Why didn’t they create one? Because it’s better to get your rival to take theirs out?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hoffman900]

They all do it. Maybe it was Adrian Newey who said in the past that Ferrari tried to copy some of his stuff, couldn’t make it work, so then they lobbied for it to be made illegal, which it was.

This has been going on since day one.

[dans79]

The points is that flexible rear wings, flexible front wings and flexible sharkfins all comply with the rules. "Throwing the books" at Formula One teams for merely complying with the rules as required would be most bizarre and unprecedented.

You realize the FIA threw the book at RBR in Abu Dhabi 2014 over their front wings flexing right?

[dans79]

There is NO spirit of the rules clause in the F1 technical regulations, and the FIA and teams both work on this basis. This is a VERY important point. Formula One very deliberately does not have this clause.

when it comes to the wings moving, there is a "spirit" rule, it's not directly called that but that's what it is. that's how they are changing the tests.

3.9.9

In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.8 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

for reference article 3.8 is the one about aerodynamic influence

[nevill3]

Toto has said that they brought this to the attention of the FIA last August and they are unhappy with how long it is taking the FIA to sort this out. They have tried to play by the FIA rules and so now it is time to protest the rear wings that move too much in a bid to make them all comply with the no moving aero.

The front wings no longer droop under load but the flaps compress at high speed, this could be outlawed too but all the teams use this effect at the moment so would end up hurting themselves if they were to protest about the flaps compressing.

Any perceived advantage a team may have by exploiting grey areas have always attracted the wroth of opposing teams who resort to getting clarification by "protesting" which results in more definitive rules or definitions issued by the FIA to either outlaw or allow "grey area innovations". Afterwards the teams are then free to either adopt any advantageous innovations or come up with their own interpretations.

It is the extended timescale of this particular dispute that has displeased Mercedes etc.

[SiLo]

This is the problem the FIA created.

There is no problem. It's all a non-issue stirred up by Mercedes GP.

FIA clearly have no issue with bodywork not being perfectly rigid else they would have put 800kg load tests on the front and rear wings with maximum 1mm deflection etc.

I also think Mercedes has a point and their protest would be fair.

Mercedes have no point and a protest would be absurd IMO.

Why didn't they just build one of these perfectly legal rear wings months ago? That would have been far easier.

I think their issue is that they raised it quietly with the FIA last year and nothing was done, and now they are making noise about it because Red Bull are fighting them for a championship. If they think it's something that is illegal, then they aren't going to make one are they? Especially if the FIA turns around and says so, which is what they have effectively done, it's just taken them 12 months to do so.

[Just_a_fan]

There is NO spirit of the rules clause in the F1 technical regulations, and the FIA and teams both work on this basis. This is a VERY important point. Formula One very deliberately does not have this clause.

when it comes to the wings moving their is a "spirit" rule, it's not directly called that but that's what it is. that's how they are changing the tests.

3.9.9

In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.8 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

for reference article 3.8 is the one about aerodynamic influence

The fact that the regulations say that if the bodywork "appears to be" moving means that the rigidity rule is one they aim to be strict with.

[Stu]

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.

I think that this is why the new regs are stipulating that the wings MUST be mounted to the side of the nose-cone.
Just take a quick look at how the front wings are mounted, from a structural rigidity perspective, they are mostly a cantilever with a pivot point towards the rear. Under load there will be a tendency for the wing to pivot rearwards (losing AoA). There are some really extreme examples of this on the grid. All of the recent wings have been particularly rear-loaded aerodynamically, which just increases the lever ratio around this virtual pivot. Basically the same as they are (all) doing with the rear wings.
The question is if they are passing whatever load tests the FIA are using, how do you determine what is “taking the piss” and what is “acceptable”; because neither is within the ‘spirit of the rules’ which calls for bodywork to be “rigid with reference to the spring platform of the car”?

[dans79]

The question is if they are passing whatever load tests the FIA are using, how do you determine what is “taking the piss” and what is “acceptable”; because neither is within the ‘spirit of the rules’ which calls for bodywork to be “rigid with reference to the spring platform of the car”?

The front wing flaps aren't tested at all. The FIA has only been testing the main plane, to prevent teams fromy trying to use it for ground effect.