Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[SmallSoldier]

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 and the Merc FW flexs.

Last year AMR used illegal brake ducts and were allowed to continue using them at a price of 15 points and 360K pounds....that leads me to how harsh can the FIA be on Rear wing benders anyways?

If 6 out of 10 teams are bending something or other then what's the point in policing it in the last year of these aero rules when for all intent and purpose everyone has almost completely moved on from those regs?

Because of the 4 teams that aren’t bending the wings, it could mean millions in terms of prize money at the end of the Championship? I mean, if having a flexible rear wing provides an advantage, those that don’t use it will protest against it.

The reason why RP was allowed to keep using the brakes was because it wasn’t a matter of grey area in the regulation from a Technical Perspective... It was a bit different buying something from someone (when it was allowed) and using it when it wasn’t, compared to engineering a part to fool a deflection test.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[trinidefender]

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.

Isn't the 3mm tolerance the amount that the rear wing can move on the load test? Not the limit of movement while the car is being driven?

Secondly from the onboards it looks like the Mercedes rear wing moves much more than 3mm.

Yes, it is. I may have been unclear about that. Sorry if that caused confusion. The current limit of movement for the existing static, pull test limit is 3mm. This will be reduced to 1mm. Per France. How much wing movement we ultimately see on track is indifferent to that. It was clearly a lot more. Even for Mercedes. I would guess that at this much stricter test limit will prevent much wing flex, if at all.

And even if after the wings comply with the new static test limit of 1mm we still see wing flexing. What is to stop parties protesting again.

I don’t think we will see much flexing anymore, but if it would, it would still not be in the spirit of the rule.

What is the front wing flex tolerance in the test? There can't be no tolerance at all.

Even more pertinent is what does the front wing flex test actually test for? Back in 2010 Red Bull front wings were shown to flex laterally with the end plates sometimes touching the floor. The load tests were made more stringent to stop this. Separate from that what does the FIA do to test the front wing flaps bending back and downwards?

[Phil]

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

Have they?

Perhaps you should reread what exactly is stipulated in the rules. E.g.: does it say that wings must confirm to a specific load limit?

Or does it say in the rules that surfaces/wings must be rigid and that load test can be carried out to enforce them?

There is a difference, subtle yes, but none the less.

It means the FIA could, at any time, bring in new tests they deem necessary to enforce the rules. E.g. after a protest. There is no mention that they must offer a “grace period” of any sort.

The Ferrari/engine thingy is no different. The rules were clear. Investing into technology that is there to “defeat” the tests to gain an advantage is always on shaky grounds. If you do, one should be prepared to face the consequences. Arguing in favor that this is all “legal” is futile - no different then the engine saga.

RedBull could protest the other teams too - if they were disqualified (based on Mercedes potential protest), they’d have nothing to lose, even at their own detriment (cant be disqualified twice) - however, assuming they’d go through with it and that their frontwings would also fail, would then have to spend even more money on new developments. I’d also argue the FIA might not want to introduce tests that would disqualify the entire test. However, the sole team (or max 3 teams) that have a rear wing designed to circumvent load tests... that i dont think will go through.

[ispano6]

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........

You mean Mercedes shooting THEMSELVES in the foot, I mean in the front wing. Their cost cap is already threatened by Bottas chassis repair, machining wheel nuts, and now possibly stiffer front wings. They probably wouldn't have even mentioned Red Bull's rear wing if they were comfortably in the lead now would they? And of course they specifically called out RedBulls wing, not any other team's, although its probably because they actually have to be behind the RB16b during races!

[RZS10]

Well that is where the video monitoring steps in, if the teams spend let's say half a million to design another wing that (by)passes the load test via nonlinear behaviour the FIA will simply look at the footage and say "That's too much".

is the "nonlinear behaviour" included in the wording of the rule?

Weirdly there's passages about non-linearity in the same section but none directly in the part about the rear wing load test, which is kinda strange but it seemingly doesn't have to be written into the rules directly:
the flexing is most probably (or even most certainly) being achieved via non-linear behaviour, which means the wings are designed to flex past a certain aero load, this was literally part of the reasoning in 2014 where the FIA deemed that the front wing was "designed to flex under aerodynamic load".

[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........

You mean Mercedes shooting THEMSELVES in the foot, I mean in the front wing. Their cost cap is already threatened by Bottas chassis repair, machining wheel nuts, and now possibly stiffer front wings. They probably wouldn't have even mentioned Red Bull's rear wing if they were comfortably in the lead now would they? And of course they specifically called out RedBulls wing, not any other team's, although its probably because they actually have to be behind the RB16b during races!

No, I mean Red Bull. If they protest front wings because they lost the rear wing protest they would have to re-design their front ring as well, because their's flexes as much as anyone else's.

That would be catastrophic for their budget for this season, because not only would they have to redesign both wings they have to redesign a lot of stuff in between them as well.

[peaty]

Well that is where the video monitoring steps in, if the teams spend let's say half a million to design another wing that (by)passes the load test via nonlinear behaviour the FIA will simply look at the footage and say "That's too much".

is the "nonlinear behaviour" included in the wording of the rule?

Weirdly there's passages about non-linearity in the same section but none directly in the part about the rear wing load test, which is kinda strange but it seemingly doesn't have to be written into the rules directly:
the flexing is most probably (or even most certainly) being achieved via non-linear behaviour, which means the wings are designed to flex past a certain aero load, this was literally part of the reasoning in 2014 where the FIA deemed that the front wing was "designed to flex under aerodynamic load".

I think it was mentioned in the article regarding the floor? (article 3.9.5?).
My point is, in theory, the FIA cannot enforce a non-written rule. Also, the spirit of the rule doesn't exist, they go by the letter of the rule.
Unfortunately, in reality, politics always decide.

[RZS10]

Yea i believe it's the floor ... "no parts and designs that allow non-linear behaviour" something along those lines.
It's not as subjective as one might think but all this has been debated in this thread back and forth endlessly so no reason to go in circles, i think.

[Sieper]

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

Have they?

Perhaps you should reread what exactly is stipulated in the rules. E.g.: does it say that wings must confirm to a specific load limit?

Or does it say in the rules that surfaces/wings must be rigid and that load test can be carried out to enforce them?

There is a difference, subtle yes, but none the less.

It means the FIA could, at any time, bring in new tests they deem necessary to enforce the rules. E.g. after a protest. There is no mention that they must offer a “grace period” of any sort.

The Ferrari/engine thingy is no different. The rules were clear. Investing into technology that is there to “defeat” the tests to gain an advantage is always on shaky grounds. If you do, one should be prepared to face the consequences. Arguing in favor that this is all “legal” is futile - no different then the engine saga.

RedBull could protest the other teams too - if they were disqualified (based on Mercedes potential protest), they’d have nothing to lose, even at their own detriment (cant be disqualified twice) - however, assuming they’d go through with it and that their frontwings would also fail, would then have to spend even more money on new developments. I’d also argue the FIA might not want to introduce tests that would disqualify the entire test. However, the sole team (or max 3 teams) that have a rear wing designed to circumvent load tests... that i dont think will go through.

I have not argued the wing is legal. But the FIA has said the current limits will be retained until France. I have a problem with Toto threatening to go above FIA for even that. The Ferrari engine thingy was very different. This wing is designed to the current test. Not to circumvent it (as you wrongfully claim). The engine thingy was to circumvent fixed flow limits.

[Just_a_fan]

[. It's just FIA must play by the rules they wrote.

They are. The rules say that new tests will be applied if something looks naughty.

No they don't. The rules say no flexing and there are bits flexing all over the cars.

All cars have flexing front wing flaps, some cars have flexi entire rear wings. Perhaps the view is that the front wing is inherently flexible but the rear wing isn't - some rear wings don't move therefore is it reasonable to suppose that none of them should.

Red Bull and its fans would have a point if the Red Bull front wing was non-flexible and the Mercedes (and others) were flexible. BUt as their own is flexible, they look a bit silly pointing the finger at the Mercedes front wing. Mercedes, on the other hand, can point at the Red Bull rear wing and say "look, it's moving a lot".

[Just_a_fan]

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.

Er, I don't think they can claim any such thing.

"So, Mr Newey, could you tell us what happens to the drag generated by a given wing if its angle of attack is reduced from a positive angle to some lesser positive angle, all other things being equal?"

"Er, I don't know."

"Really Mr Newey? The most successful designer in F1 history, one who is held in the highest regard in the sport as the premier aerodynamicist, and you don't know what the link is between angle of attack and drag?"

Yeah, any barrister worth his wig would take that argument apart in moments.

[dans79]

This wing is designed to the current test. Not to circumvent it (as you wrongfully claim). The engine thingy was to circumvent fixed flow limits.

The thing is if the FIA where to test it beyond the current test, and finds that the response to force applied is non linear above the current testing force, they would conclude that was designed that way.

eidit: here is a good example image from a paper. It's linear for all intensive purposes until stuff starts to break.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Loa ... _322215740

[peaty]

All cars have flexing front wing flaps

I agree

some cars have flexi entire rear wings.

Not true, all cars rear wings flex. The whole thing is about how much is too much not about if the wings flex or not.

Perhaps the view is that the front wing is inherently flexible but the rear wing isn't

I didn't read any of that in the technical regulations...

some rear wings don't move therefore is it reasonable to suppose that none of them should.

Even Haas' rear wing flex. There are videos in this thread comparing Mercedes and Red Bull where it's clear that both wing flex.

Red Bull and its fans would have a point if the Red Bull front wing was non-flexible and the Mercedes (and others) were flexible. BUt as their own is flexible, they look a bit silly pointing the finger at the Mercedes front wing. Mercedes, on the other hand, can point at the Red Bull rear wing and say "look, it's moving a lot".

In other words, according to you, Mercedes look a bit silly pointing the finger at the Red Bull rear wing because, as shown in the videos, their rear wing also flex.

[Just_a_fan]

In other words, according to you, Mercedes look a bit silly pointing the finger at the Red Bull rear wing because, as shown in the videos, their rear wing also flex.

No, that's you putting words in my mouth. I never said Mercedes look silly. I think Horner's attempt to divert attention on to the front wing looks silly, however, for reasons that have been pointed out by many over the pages of this thread.

[ispano6]

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........

You mean Mercedes shooting THEMSELVES in the foot, I mean in the front wing. Their cost cap is already threatened by Bottas chassis repair, machining wheel nuts, and now possibly stiffer front wings. They probably wouldn't have even mentioned Red Bull's rear wing if they were comfortably in the lead now would they? And of course they specifically called out RedBulls wing, not any other team's, although its probably because they actually have to be behind the RB16b during races!

No, I mean Red Bull. If they protest front wings because they lost the rear wing protest they would have to re-design their front ring as well, because their's flexes as much as anyone else's.

That would be catastrophic for their budget for this season, because not only would they have to redesign both wings they have to redesign a lot of stuff in between them as well.

Actually no, it would not be catastrophic to RedBull. You just wish it to be. Mercedes would have to redo their own front wing after bringing up the bendy wing issue, so it would be a backfire if the other teams counter with front wing bendy complaints.