Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[trinidefender]

Forgive me if this has already been spoken about but while I have been reading about it externally I haven't read through much on this thread.

I actually think it's all a lot of nothing and I don't like the way that the FIA is starting to regulate things. They are moving away from objective based ruleset and towards subjectively judged rules which just seems to make the sport more confusing.

The term immovable as is written in the current rules is totally subjective as every car will have flex on the rear wing. Even the Mercedes rear wing twists a bit but enough to be visible on the rearward facing camera. Should that be declared illegal as well?

In fact if a team can cleverly design a way to pass the flex tests and still have the wing flex while racing then more power to them. They have simply designed a better car and that is a major facet of F1 as a sport.

Seidl has said that he is in support of limiting the wing flex and thinks the FIA should hurry up and implement changes sooner. I'm personally a McLaren fan and not a fan of Red Bull and them making this change will benefit the team I support but I still don't like the subjectivity of the way the rules are written subjectively so it's not a case of me being biased.

It's the FIA's job to write a rule set that defines the load tests. As long as you pass these tests (and the part doesn't have safety implications) then it should be legal. It's not the teams fault that the FIA didn't do their job properly in writing the rules correctly.

Secondly, why the focus on the rear wing? Watching the onboards of the Mercedes at Monaco with the camera angle showing the front wing, the inner edge of the flaps were clearly and visibly bending backwards/downwards. If the rear wing is an issue then why isn't the front wing flaps bending an issue?

This subjectivity will create a tit for tat between the teams of every team now going through the video footage of other cars looking for flex of any single body panel and complaining or protesting to the FIA. It's senseless and does nothing for the sport.

Thoughts?

[Just_a_fan]

Forgive me if this has already been spoken about but while I have been reading about it externally I haven't read through much on this thread.
[...]
Thoughts?

Everything you wrote is what this thread is about, really. It's all been argued from both sides already.

[hollus]

...
It's the FIA's job to write a rule set that defines the load tests. As long as you pass these tests (and the part doesn't have safety implications) then it should be legal. It's not the teams fault that the FIA didn't do their job properly in writing the rules correctly.
...

AFAICT, FIA is taking exactly that approach.
You passed the old test > you were legal
We noticed the test is not enough > we change the test
You pass the new test > you will be legal then.

Hype must be had and shades of gray exist, and FIA is not always the ultimate rule decider, but their stance is as clear as it is logical and effective.

If Red Bull protests enough, they’ll probably apply the same process to the front wing, say from Spa?
But Red Bull hasn’t done that, yet.

To me this as a lot of noise about very little, typical F1, really.

Fans will scream, media will spin and teams will posture. It has always been thus.
In the words of Battlestar Galactica: This all has happened before, and this all will happen again.

[Just_a_fan]

If Red Bull protests enough, they’ll probably apply the same process to the front wing, say from Spa?
But Red Bull hasn’t done that, yet.

Red Bull won't protest the front wing unless they can easily and cheaply make their own front wing non-flexible. With the cost restrictions now in place, they won't want to spend money they don't have to. Making the rear wing less flexible will be time/money they don't want to waste - that's why they're making noises about the front wing to try to scare Mercedes off. The reality is that the rear wing will be changed, the front wing won't be and we'll all carry on as normal.

At the end of the season, assuming Max/Red Bull don't win the title, there will be lots of post-season claims that the FIA helped Mercedes, blah, blah. Was it ever thus.

[Starkblood80]

Secondly, why the focus on the rear wing? Watching the onboards of the Mercedes at Monaco with the camera angle showing the front wing, the inner edge of the flaps were clearly and visibly bending backwards/downwards. If the rear wing is an issue then why isn't the front wing flaps bending an issue?

So Red Bulls front wing doesn’t flex in a similar manner then?

[RZS10]

Forgive me if this has already been spoken about [...] I haven't read through much on this thread.
[...]
Thoughts?

As Just_a_fan wrote, the 'thoughts' are all on the previous thirty odd pages, no point in re-doing it all over again and adding another page or two so that it's even more for those who decide to read it later.
_____________________

I'm sure teams will come up with compromises or innovative alternatives that achieve similar performance, perhaps maybe even flappy oscillating sharkfins and t-wings or a suspension that squats enough to achieve the same angle rear wing edge.

Honest question: Where did the idea come from that the t-wing+sharkfin wobblin' in the wind by maybe a centimeter or so in either direction in what appears to be an inconsistent and random motion could "achieve similar performance" as the rear wing tilting back a few degrees in a controlled manner?

The way it can be achieved is apparently just about making the sharkfin as big as possible (with the internals underneath the engine cover being a limiting factor) and as thin as possible. That can't be too hard or expensive.

If it would have a performance benefit that could even come anywhere close to the rear wing flex - wouldn't most teams do it (?), especially since it's something that isn't even regulated, no spending millions to (by)pass a load test, no (or extremely low) risk of new tests being introduced mid season as it would require an actual rule change on safety grounds, very low to no cost to get rid of it should there be a clampdown.

And if it was as powerful then that would be the actual area where teams are missing out, no?

Could it be that it's just a BS reason to point at another team as a sort of "BUT LOOK, THIS MOVES TOO!" gotcha argument?

Afterall, i haven't seen it brought up anywhere else apart from this forum and not by our resident aero guys ... even though i'd be interested in their input regarding this.

At the same time i don't want to dismiss the idea since i don't know enough about aero to do so.
___

The cars squat as far as they possibly can already, don't they? With high rake cars having the advantage in that regard.

[mkay]

If Red Bull protests enough, they’ll probably apply the same process to the front wing, say from Spa?
But Red Bull hasn’t done that, yet.

AFAIK, FIA has never outlawed or ruled against front wing flap flexing; this is probably the most logical element to flex out of the entire car, given the loads they are subject to and that they are only supported on one end, unlike a rear wing flap.

Besides, for the FIA, it's always been about the main plane flexing. Not sure what RB is expecting here. I expect nothing to come out of this wild goose chase. This is pure diversion tactics by RB, IMO.

[nzjrs]

At the end of the season, assuming Max/Red Bull don't win the title, there will be lots of post-season claims that the FIA helped Mercedes, blah, blah. Was it ever thus.

We've already got a thread for this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29748

[TimW]

If Red Bull protests enough, they’ll probably apply the same process to the front wing, say from Spa?
But Red Bull hasn’t done that, yet.

AFAIK, FIA has never outlawed or ruled against front wing flap flexing; this is probably the most logical element to flex out of the entire car, given the loads they are subject to and that they are only supported on one end, unlike a rear wing flap.

Besides, for the FIA, it's always been about the main plane flexing. Not sure what RB is expecting here. I expect nothing to come out of this wild goose chase. This is pure diversion tactics by RB, IMO.

As JordanMugen pointed out there are these metal separators connecting the flaps, and I do not see a reason why they could not be much stiffer than they currently are.

[One and Only]

So basically Mercedes are choosing which part of moveable aero to protest based on what benefits them the most? RBR and FIA are entitled not to play that game.

Of course they are only going to protest another teams perceived erroneous parts, in which world would a team protest their own designs, it is the way it has been forever in F1 and how it should be. Cutting edge and highly intelligent engineers and designers looking to maximise their teams performance without obviously falling foul of the current rule set.

The thing is they will protest the part for breaking the rule their car is also breaking, but on other end of the car. It just doesn't make sense.

[SiLo]

So basically Mercedes are choosing which part of moveable aero to protest based on what benefits them the most? RBR and FIA are entitled not to play that game.

Of course they are only going to protest another teams perceived erroneous parts, in which world would a team protest their own designs, it is the way it has been forever in F1 and how it should be. Cutting edge and highly intelligent engineers and designers looking to maximise their teams performance without obviously falling foul of the current rule set.

The thing is they will protest the part for breaking the rule their car is also breaking, but on other end of the car. It just doesn't make sense.

Yes it does, because the front wings are not the rear wings. Do front wings flex a lot? Yes, all the front wings flex in similar manners. The reason this is causing noise is because there are teams that are not using flexing REAR wings and are able to call them out as not being compliant.

[El Scorchio]

Could it be that it's just a BS reason to point at another team as a sort of "BUT LOOK, THIS MOVES TOO!" gotcha argument?

That is exactly what it is. Just waving an accusatory finger at something on another car which isn't under scrutiny for the sake of it. IF they decide to look at load tests for the rigidity of t wings and shark fins, then let's definitely talk about it.

No-one in the sport seems bothered about it in the slightest. If it were an issue of any substance, then you can bet Horner and Marko would have referred specifically to the Mercedes t wing and shark fin to try and place scrutiny on it and target Mercedes specifically, rather than the front wing which they know moves on all the cars.

[Oakstreet]

As JordanMugen pointed out there are these metal separators connecting the flaps, and I do not see a reason why they could not be much stiffer than they currently are.

Front wing flexing is something that has become increasingly more significant in the last 15 years. You won't see any movement on a 2005 front wing. For sure they could make it super stiff, but they choose not to, for clear benefits.

The only real solution is to over-simplify the wings again. What about next year's regs? Seems like the flaps need to be connected end-to-end again from nose to endplate.

[One and Only]

Of course they are only going to protest another teams perceived erroneous parts, in which world would a team protest their own designs, it is the way it has been forever in F1 and how it should be. Cutting edge and highly intelligent engineers and designers looking to maximise their teams performance without obviously falling foul of the current rule set.

The thing is they will protest the part for breaking the rule their car is also breaking, but on other end of the car. It just doesn't make sense.

Yes it does, because the front wings are not the rear wings. Do front wings flex a lot? Yes, all the front wings flex in similar manners. The reason this is causing noise is because there are teams that are not using flexing REAR wings and are able to call them out as not being compliant.

Rules don't say front wing is permitted to flex, but rear wing isn't. It's not defined like that. Only tests are defined separately, but to conform to same rules that any aero part must conform.
Don't get me wrong, I know exactly why Red Bull made their rear wing the way they did. It's just FIA must play by the rules they wrote.

[SiLo]

The thing is they will protest the part for breaking the rule their car is also breaking, but on other end of the car. It just doesn't make sense.

Yes it does, because the front wings are not the rear wings. Do front wings flex a lot? Yes, all the front wings flex in similar manners. The reason this is causing noise is because there are teams that are not using flexing REAR wings and are able to call them out as not being compliant.

Rules don't say front wing is permitted to flex, but rear wing isn't. It's not defined like that. Only tests are defined separately, but to conform to same rules that any aero part must conform.
Don't get me wrong, I know exactly why Red Bull made their rear wing the way they did. It's just FIA must play by the rules they wrote.

Oh yes in that respect I agree. I know it's hard for the FIA to actually properly police it, but I think they need to put more effort into doing it because then it stops teams spending money on R&D for flexible bodywork.

They also need to understand just how much force there is on these wings, I always feel like their tests are never strenuous enough.