Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[El Scorchio]

lol if redbull protests anyone's front wing, it will be one of the most hilarious things ever, as their front wing flexes as much as everyone else's.

talk about shooting themselves in the foot........

A minute ago we didn't have good video evidence but looks like you already looked into it. Please tell us more, how much are the front wings (and the flaps) flexing?

It's utterly irrelevant. Front wings aren't under scrutiny by the FIA at the moment.

[RZS10]

This is very weak arguing. [...]
it is also obvious the merc FW is also much more moveable, if you care to admit it or not. That is also an advantage and if Merc is really threatening to go to court for an already very short grace period I feel redbull would be wise to repay the favour. Let the judge decide if and what is within the current rules and the spirit of the rules. I hope it won’t come down to that. Just one more race with the currently valid limits.

It's possible, not denying it. Just saw the tweets being shared in the RBR topics and no one even cared to question it's
accuracy because it's confirming what many want to see/believe.

That comparison however doesn't hold up well under scrutiny, the actual arguments for that were in the previous post - the camera distance, angle, wingshape etc all play a role.

I thought about drawing something to show this but all one has to do is hold two fingers in front of the eyes and then twist the hand or change the angle or the distance of the hand - the observable distance between the fingertips will change drastically, especially when having something next to the hand as reference (like a grid).

Compare how much one can see of the neutral section in the middle of the wing, that section seemingly varies in size/span, right? That means the camera is looking at it from a different distance or angle. That alone makes it really hard to make any definitve conclusions based on that footage, apart from: those wings move a lot.

I even tried to somehow align the wings properly but i failed miserably.

As i wrote, not saying that what the comparison supposedly shows def. isn't the case, technically it could even exaggerate the flexing on RBR's wing compared to Merc (which would mean that Merc's wing moves even more), but i wouldn't even bet one $ on either of the wings moving more based on it. That's just it.

And about the video monitoring, it kinda makes me believe that none of the teams will go overboard with their flexing because of it.

[SmallSoldier]

Correct, and the front wing currently complies. Unless the rules change redefining these parameters, there are no grounds.

That’s why the rear wing is a different case.

It is. But it is also ultimately the same case. The 3mm move under stress was allowed as the limit for the RW. And all wings were moving. It was just when a few wings were deemed to move excessively (no longer within the spirit of the rules) that the FIA agreed to make the test limit more strict. But, when the FIA feels some front wings are deemed to move excessively (as compared to others) they might introduce tests, and limits just the same. It is harder as there is no predescribed test yet, but ultimately the same factors are in play. Do we feel what some teams are doing is excessive, enough to warrant stricter regulation.

It is why mercedes have threatened to go to ICA, not because RBR is not in compliance (they are) but because they are not following the spirit of the rules.

Yes, but this is my point. Unless the regs/testing which apply to the front wing changes, there are no grounds to challenge. The front wing passes the tests and has been deemed legal. Unless there is a reg change before the next race, the same rules apply. The rear wing can now be protested only because there has been new clarification. At which point the rear wing can be tested against the new rules.

That’s the jump off point - New regs/testing.

I agree with you, but the problem for the teams with flexi wings is that there is precedence that even if a wing passes the static test it can still be ruled illegal... I was trying to find the notes on the Stewards decision for Abu Dhabi 2014 to confirm, but the Red Bull front wing ruling is not much different in essence to what is happening in this situation.

The Front Wings of the RB10 passed all the static load tests, nevertheless after video footage of the wings flexing under load (same situation as now), further inspection found them to have been designed to flex and therefore ruled illegal... In that particular case they used a type of spring mechanism on the adjusters, but conceptually is no different than using carbon layup to flex the wing under load beyond what test measures.

I’m sure that the precedent above will be a part of a potential Protest by those that have wings not under scrutiny.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[214270]

Yes, but this is my point. Unless the regs/testing which apply to the front wing changes, there are no grounds to challenge. The front wing passes the tests and has been deemed legal. Unless there is a reg change before the next race, the same rules apply. The rear wing can now be protested only because there has been new clarification.

That’s the jump off point - New regs/testing.

but it won't be apply until the french gp?. Even at that point teams will have a 20% tolerance for a month I believe. That's why, in theory, there are not grounds to challenge. If the protest is accepted, as explained by others, RBR will protest as well.

Well that’s not how I understand it, I could be wrong through. As far as I’m aware new rules are in force. Testing/compliance of new rules however will remain as previous until the French GP, that is the core of Wolff’s position.

https://www.skysports.com/amp/f1/news/1 ... r-is-legal

I still can’t find where it says both rules & testing are being delayed till France vs just the testing being delayed. If it is just the testing, then it’s quite significant as these periods would apply:

Previous rules - previous testing
New rules - previous testing
New rules - new testing

If it goes to ICA which would require preparation time, I suspect the legal argument would be which should apply at the time of tribunal.

[214270]

It is. But it is also ultimately the same case. The 3mm move under stress was allowed as the limit for the RW. And all wings were moving. It was just when a few wings were deemed to move excessively (no longer within the spirit of the rules) that the FIA agreed to make the test limit more strict. But, when the FIA feels some front wings are deemed to move excessively (as compared to others) they might introduce tests, and limits just the same. It is harder as there is no predescribed test yet, but ultimately the same factors are in play. Do we feel what some teams are doing is excessive, enough to warrant stricter regulation.

It is why mercedes have threatened to go to ICA, not because RBR is not in compliance (they are) but because they are not following the spirit of the rules.

Yes, but this is my point. Unless the regs/testing which apply to the front wing changes, there are no grounds to challenge. The front wing passes the tests and has been deemed legal. Unless there is a reg change before the next race, the same rules apply. The rear wing can now be protested only because there has been new clarification. At which point the rear wing can be tested against the new rules.

That’s the jump off point - New regs/testing.

I agree with you, but the problem for the teams with flexi wings is that there is precedence that even if a wing passes the static test it can still be ruled illegal... I was trying to find the notes on the Stewards decision for Abu Dhabi 2014 to confirm, but the Red Bull front wing ruling is not much different in essence to what is happening in this situation.

The Front Wings of the RB10 passed all the static load tests, nevertheless after video footage of the wings flexing under load (same situation as now), further inspection found them to have been designed to flex and therefore ruled illegal... In that particular case they used a type of spring mechanism on the adjusters, but conceptually is no different than using carbon layup to flex the wing under load beyond what test measures.

I’m sure that the precedent above will be a part of a potential Protest by those that have wings not under scrutiny.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don’t think this quite applies though. The flex in that case was engineered in. That doesn’t appear to be the case here.

[Sieper]

This is very weak arguing. [...]
it is also obvious the merc FW is also much more moveable, if you care to admit it or not. That is also an advantage and if Merc is really threatening to go to court for an already very short grace period I feel redbull would be wise to repay the favour. Let the judge decide if and what is within the current rules and the spirit of the rules. I hope it won’t come down to that. Just one more race with the currently valid limits.

It's possible, not denying it. Just saw the tweets being shared in the RBR topics and no one even cared to question it's
accuracy because it's confirming what many want to see/believe.

That comparison however doesn't hold up well under scrutiny, the actual arguments for that were in the previous post - the camera distance, angle, wingshape etc all play a role.

I thought about drawing something to show this but all one has to do is hold two fingers in front of the eyes and then twist the hand or change the angle or the distance of the hand - the observable distance between the fingertips will change drastically, especially when having something next to the hand as reference (like a grid).

Compare how much one can see of the neutral section in the middle of the wing, that section seemingly varies in size/span, right? That means the camera is looking at it from a different distance or angle. That alone makes it really hard to make any definitve conclusions based on that footage, apart from: those wings move a lot.

I even tried to somehow align the wings properly but i failed miserably.

As i wrote, not saying that what the comparison supposedly shows def. isn't the case, technically it could even exaggerate the flexing on RBR's wing compared to Merc (which would mean that Merc's wing moves even more), but i wouldn't even bet one $ on either of the wings moving more based on it. That's just it.

And about the video monitoring, it kinda makes me believe that none of the teams will go overboard with their flexing because of it.

The camera’s are a real help to keep the playing field level. I have (see RBR team thread) also actively resisted people making the point the rake is a factor in the RBR RW moving on camera. It tilts at the same rate with the whole car so that can’t explain it.

[Sieper]

but it won't be apply until the french gp?. Even at that point teams will have a 20% tolerance for a month I believe. That's why, in theory, there are not grounds to challenge. If the protest is accepted, as explained by others, RBR will protest as well.

Well that’s not how I understand it, I could be wrong through. As far as I’m aware new rules are in force. Testing/compliance of new rules however will remain as previous until the French GP, that is the core of Wolff’s position.

https://www.skysports.com/amp/f1/news/1 ... r-is-legal

I still can’t find where it says both rules & testing are being delayed till France vs just the testing being delayed. If it is just the testing, then it’s quite significant as these periods would apply:

Previous rules - previous testing
New rules - previous testing
New rules - new testing

If it goes to ICA which would require preparation time, I suspect the legal argument would be which should apply at the time of tribunal.

The rules have not been changed. Just the limits stipulated for the existing test. Or have they?

[dans79]

lol if redbull protests anyone's front wing, it will be one of the most hilarious things ever, as their front wing flexes as much as everyone else's.

talk about shooting themselves in the foot........

A minute ago we didn't have good video evidence but looks like you already looked into it. Please tell us more, how much are the front wings (and the flaps) flexing?

Video evidence of everyone's front wings flexing at speed has been around for years.

[Stu]

[/quote]
I don’t think this quite applies though. The flex in that case was engineered in. That doesn’t appear to be the case here.
[/quote]

It certainly is engineered in, however as no flexing device is fitted (it appears to use the end plate structure coupled with a stiff beam wing) that it is possible for them to argue the term legally.
It will have had FEA tests done (to prove strength under load), they will know the loads applied aerodynamically from both CFD, end tunnel and track correlation, but if they have been really clever there will be no CFD of the structure in its ‘flexed’ mode. It would then be possible to argue that they were unaware of any drag reduction (which, if they haven’t measured and compared, would be true!).
And it has passed the FIA tests.
Very, very, clever. And LEGAL by the only means available to the FIA to measure that.

[214270]

Well that’s not how I understand it, I could be wrong through. As far as I’m aware new rules are in force. Testing/compliance of new rules however will remain as previous until the French GP, that is the core of Wolff’s position.

https://www.skysports.com/amp/f1/news/1 ... r-is-legal

I still can’t find where it says both rules & testing are being delayed till France vs just the testing being delayed. If it is just the testing, then it’s quite significant as these periods would apply:

Previous rules - previous testing
New rules - previous testing
New rules - new testing

If it goes to ICA which would require preparation time, I suspect the legal argument would be which should apply at the time of tribunal.

The rules have not been changed. Just the limits stipulated for the existing test. Or have they?

For some reason I thought both were changed and just the test implementation delayed. I’m gonna fall back from this thread as I have a sore head, lol

Carry on everyone.

[214270]

I don’t think this quite applies though. The flex in that case was engineered in. That doesn’t appear to be the case here.
[/quote]

It certainly is engineered in, however as no flexing device is fitted (it appears to use the end plate structure coupled with a stiff beam wing) that it is possible for them to argue the term legally.
It will have had FEA tests done (to prove strength under load), they will know the loads applied aerodynamically from both CFD, end tunnel and track correlation, but if they have been really clever there will be no CFD of the structure in its ‘flexed’ mode. It would then be possible to argue that they were unaware of any drag reduction (which, if they haven’t measured and compared, would be true!).
And it has passed the FIA tests.
Very, very, clever. And LEGAL by the only means available to the FIA to measure that.
[/quote]

Yes, main point I was trying to convey is there’s a difference between flexing under load vs. flexing under load because of a spring.

It’s the latter that made that case unique.

[Sieper]

https://www.skysports.com/amp/f1/news/1 ... r-is-legal

I still can’t find where it says both rules & testing are being delayed till France vs just the testing being delayed. If it is just the testing, then it’s quite significant as these periods would apply:

Previous rules - previous testing
New rules - previous testing
New rules - new testing

If it goes to ICA which would require preparation time, I suspect the legal argument would be which should apply at the time of tribunal.

The rules have not been changed. Just the limits stipulated for the existing test. Or have they?

For some reason I thought both were changed and just the test implementation delayed. I’m gonna fall back from this thread as I have a sore head, lol

Carry on everyone.

I have the exact same, have a nice coffee and enjoy your evening!

[SmallSoldier]

Yes, but this is my point. Unless the regs/testing which apply to the front wing changes, there are no grounds to challenge. The front wing passes the tests and has been deemed legal. Unless there is a reg change before the next race, the same rules apply. The rear wing can now be protested only because there has been new clarification. At which point the rear wing can be tested against the new rules.

That’s the jump off point - New regs/testing.

I agree with you, but the problem for the teams with flexi wings is that there is precedence that even if a wing passes the static test it can still be ruled illegal... I was trying to find the notes on the Stewards decision for Abu Dhabi 2014 to confirm, but the Red Bull front wing ruling is not much different in essence to what is happening in this situation.

The Front Wings of the RB10 passed all the static load tests, nevertheless after video footage of the wings flexing under load (same situation as now), further inspection found them to have been designed to flex and therefore ruled illegal... In that particular case they used a type of spring mechanism on the adjusters, but conceptually is no different than using carbon layup to flex the wing under load beyond what test measures.

I’m sure that the precedent above will be a part of a potential Protest by those that have wings not under scrutiny.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don’t think this quite applies though. The flex in that case was engineered in. That doesn’t appear to be the case here.

The flex isn’t “engineered in” this time? I’m afraid that’s not the case... It most definitely is designed to do so... It has even been admitted by Binotto already... It’s the same scenario.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[214270]

The rules have not been changed. Just the limits stipulated for the existing test. Or have they?

For some reason I thought both were changed and just the test implementation delayed. I’m gonna fall back from this thread as I have a sore head, lol

Carry on everyone.

I have the exact same, have a nice coffee and enjoy your evening!

[diffuser]

Lol, protest the front wing on what grounds?

That's the entire issue with this whole argument. There are two parts to the regulations. One objective and one subjective.

The objective rule is a load test that is applied to various parts of the car such as the front and back wing. The subjective rule is that all external surfaces must remain static and immovable (whatever the hell that means ).

All cars racing now have passed the rear wing load tests and should be/are currently declared legal. Mercedes is arguing that Red Bulls rear wing visibly flexes ergo it violates the immovable surface rule.

The issue is that if you set that precedent then Mercedes are also violating this rule as their rear wing also visibly flexes.

The front wings are the same, it's hard to judge by how much but it does appear from the camera shots that mercedes front wing flexes more than the Red Bull front wing.

If Red Bull's car subsequently gets declared illegal through Mercedes court action that they are threatening to do then Red Bull will simply turn around and make their own court appeal against Mercedes front wing and the same penalty should be applied to Mercedes as the legal precedent will have been set.

This entire thing will become a tit for tat and Toto Wolf will look like a right a** hole for starting it.

The only logical way to move forward is for the FIA to change its load tests. If the the Red Bull passes the more stringent load tests but is shown to flex on camera then so be it, the car should be declared legal

I'm gonna be very interested to see how this plays out. RBR, as you've pointed out, seemed to be heading to making this about "everything" flexing, not just about the rear wing flexing and the Merc FW flexs.

Last year AMR used illegal brake ducts, which were on the list of proprioary info not available to be sold. They were allowed to continue using them at a price of 15 points and 360K pounds. The drug dealer Merc, got away without penality when obviously AMR got the plans from somewhere....that leads me to how harsh can the FIA be on Rear wing benders anyways?

If 6 out of 10 teams, maybe more, are bending something or other then what's the point in policing it? It is in the last year of these aero rules, at this point and time, everyone has almost completely moved on from those regs? I mean therew might be some developmentstill in the pipe line but no more R&D.