Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[diffuser]

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

They were not penalized for copygate cause photocopying was a grey area. Brake ducts were definitely on the no IP sell list. The analysis showed the insides of the brake ducts were identical to Merc, therefore, the only way that could have happened was that they'd been given the plans. That was why they were penalized. Why they were allowed to keep the brakes is beyond me.

[nzjrs]

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

They were not penalized for copygate cause photocopying was a grey area. Brake ducts were definitely on the no IP sell list. The analysis showed the insides of the brake ducts were identical to Merc, therefore, the only way that could have happened was that they'd been given the plans. That was why they were penalized. Why they were allowed to keep the brakes is beyond me.

They did not find the 2020 ducts were "identical", they found that they [had] only "minimal changes" wrt. the 2019 ones.

They were minimally changed because they were on the 2019 IP sell list (which is not how the listed parts regulations are described, incidentally), and not on the 2020 list, so RP "minimally changed them".

So the problem was the intersection of the 2019 -> 2020 listed parts rule change, and what RP did not do in response to that rule change.

And IMO the whole photocopying business wrt. the brake ducts was a red herring, it was found that they did the "minimal changes" from legally (2019) supplied CAD data.

[diffuser]

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.

I think RBR plan is if you're gonna stop rear wing flexing then you need to apply that to everything. Leading to have everyone in the paddock have to redesign their front, rear or both wings. Leading to all of them complaining to the FIA and eventually pushing the new front/rear wing test changes for 2022.

[nzjrs]

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.

The thing about mutually assured destruction is you never fire the missiles, but everyone knows everyone has them armed.

[diffuser]

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

They were not penalized for copygate cause photocopying was a grey area. Brake ducts were definitely on the no IP sell list. The analysis showed the insides of the brake ducts were identical to Merc, therefore, the only way that could have happened was that they'd been given the plans. That was why they were penalized. Why they were allowed to keep the brakes is beyond me.

They did not find the 2020 ducts were "identical", they found that they [had] only "minimal changes" wrt. the 2019 ones.

They were minimally changed because they were on the 2019 IP sell list (which is not how the listed parts regulations are described, incidentally), and not on the 2020 list, so RP "minimally changed them".

So the problem was the intersection of the 2019 -> 2020 listed parts rule change, and what RP did not do in response to that rule change.

And IMO the whole photocopying business wrt. the brake ducts was a red herring, it was found that they did the "minimal changes" from legally (2019) supplied CAD data.

Wouldn't the 2018 ducts be on the 2019 list and not the 2019 ducts on the 2019 list? The 2019 ducts would have been on the 2020 list had they remains there no?

[SmallSoldier]

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

They were not penalized for copygate cause photocopying was a grey area. Brake ducts were definitely on the no IP sell list. The analysis showed the insides of the brake ducts were identical to Merc, therefore, the only way that could have happened was that they'd been given the plans. That was why they were penalized. Why they were allowed to keep the brakes is beyond me.

Yes, they copy the brakes from the designs that they purchased from Mercedes while that was legal... They were allowed to keep on using them under the “you can’t unlearn what you already learned” statement.

But, let’s not derail this thread with discussion on the RP brake saga


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dans79]

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.

I think RBR plan is if you're gonna stop rear wing flexing then you need to apply that to everything. Leading to have everyone in the paddock have to redesign their front, rear or both wings. Leading to all of them complaining to the FIA and eventually pushing the new front/rear wing test changes for 2022.

It'll be out of the FIA's hands, if Mercedes protests and then take it to the ICA if the stewards don't side with them.

[Phil]

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.

As always with things like these - the devil is in the details. E.g. the FIA did not say that the wings are legal and will be until further tests are introduced, they simply stated that new tests will be introduced in France, giving the teams time to tidy up whatever they are doing. There's a big difference. And yes, a competitor can always protest a result.

The FIA have pretty much confirmed that the wings should not be moving as they are, thus the reason why they are going to change the load tests, but Mercedes obviously feels that the Baku race will yield a particular large advantage and thus is well within their rights to protest. If a protest could be lodged successfully and what the consequences of that will be, can't be guaranteed obviously. One thing is for sure; I wouldn't want to be in RedBulls shoes. They also have a history with bendy wings and a resulting disqualification.

Going by what Horner is saying, the threats against protesting other elements of the Mercedes car and other interview where it was said, that it's a bigger change makes me believe this is substantial and this will also hurt RedBulls overall performance this year substantially.

[Just_a_fan]

The "we meet the test so we're legal" argument is interesting. If you drive down the road and there is a speed camera and the speed camera doesn't activate, you then speed up and exceed the speed limit well out of range of the speed camera, are you still legal? No. You're breaking the law, it's just that the test (the camera) isn't seeing you do it.

What the FIA is doing is saying is the equivalent of the police saying "we know that people are speeding after the camera so we're going to put up some other cameras too".

[DChemTech]

The "we meet the test so we're legal" argument is interesting. If you drive down the road and there is a speed camera and the speed camera doesn't activate, you then speed up and exceed the speed limit well out of range of the speed camera, are you still legal? No. You're breaking the law, it's just that the test (the camera) isn't seeing you do it.

What the FIA is doing is saying is the equivalent of the police saying "we know that people are speeding after the camera so we're going to put up some other cameras too".

I disagree. Speeding is quite a black-and-white issue; there is a fixed limit at a certain location, and either you break it or you don't.
Flexing is something that always happens to some degree, and as such there is some grey area between what is considered flexing and what is considered rigid. Which means you end up with standardized tests that state "under a load X, maximum displacement is Y" - in other words, the limit is implicit in the test. So, in changing the tests you actually change the limit (which is not the case when you add more cameras on a stretch of road). It would be a more similar case if the rules stated "the wing cannot displace/rotate more than Y under any condition" - just like with speeding, that makes it a black-and-white issue.

[RZS10]

Speeding still has a legal tolerance in most places though and cameras are often set to something even higher because the earnings aren't worth the trouble when people just go single digits above the limit.

From earlier in this thread .. hehe

More like Bob and Jake take the same road to work.
The speed limit is 100kph, both know that the police has set the speed cameras along the way to 110kph.
Jake knows where the cameras are and is doing 150kph+ everywhere and only slows down to 110kph when he has to, Bob however does 110kph consistently because he doesn't want to break the law too much .
Bob complains to the police because he doesn't like that Jake arrives at work a lot earlier every day.
The police set up more speed cameras and says they might end up using section control to make sure no one is speeding.

I don't think the analogy is too far off, it should be a lower tolerance instead of more cameras but then Bob would have to adapt, which he arguably might not have to IRL so - so "more cams" just stands for "stricter control", technically Bob could be doing 107 just to be safe with the new limit being 108 but that doesn't really change that much.

I had another analogy in mind with coke and dope but never posted it.

[One and Only]

The "we meet the test so we're legal" argument is interesting. If you drive down the road and there is a speed camera and the speed camera doesn't activate, you then speed up and exceed the speed limit well out of range of the speed camera, are you still legal? No. You're breaking the law, it's just that the test (the camera) isn't seeing you do it.

What the FIA is doing is saying is the equivalent of the police saying "we know that people are speeding after the camera so we're going to put up some other cameras too".

You are breaking the law, but you can't be penalised for it because there is no proof that you actually broke the law. At least in my country when you get speeding ticket there is name and model of measuring equipment that measured your speed. More than decade ago people in Croatia were challenging their speeding tickets recorded with some Italian made device that had huge error margin. I think some of them won.

Also why everyone assumes only Red Bull will have to modify their rear wing in order to pass new tests? I bet all of these rear wings are designed to pass current static tests and not one kilogram more (or spend one gram of carbon fibre more than necessary). I am talking strictly about static tests, not aero wing load.

[CMSMJ1]

The partisan elements of this discussion are tedious There..I've said it.

The flex and test doesn't give a hoot about what the car is.

The bodywork must remain immobile and rigid - but we don't make these cars from cast iron.

Front wing flex - this measures the plane, it is not measuring the elements of the flaps..as they are (relatively) flimsy and deflect under the aero load. That is as obvious as the balls on a dog. The main plane no longer droops as it used to whe the plane height was higher. If there was a test on the fingers of the flap elements - they would fail.

Rear wing - it's a different structure isn't it? If the main plane or top plane were allowed to be multi element you could bet your last quid that they would be shown to flex at speed to reduce drag.

The issue with the rear wing that as a structure it can pass the tests, but still show signs of flex.

Good design. Well played. We get new designs next year - this whole hullaballoo is a waste of resource and effort for all teams and it smells of a political rat and manipulation - hence why some of you feel that it has to be a partisan issue.

FIA can surely nip up these regs but should they?

[El Scorchio]

The partisan elements of this discussion are tedious There..I've said it.

The flex and test doesn't give a hoot about what the car is.

[DChemTech]

Speeding still has a legal tolerance in most places though and cameras are often set to something even higher because the earnings aren't worth the trouble when people just go single digits above the limit.

From earlier in this thread .. hehe

More like Bob and Jake take the same road to work.
The speed limit is 100kph, both know that the police has set the speed cameras along the way to 110kph.
Jake knows where the cameras are and is doing 150kph+ everywhere and only slows down to 110kph when he has to, Bob however does 110kph consistently because he doesn't want to break the law too much .
Bob complains to the police because he doesn't like that Jake arrives at work a lot earlier every day.
The police set up more speed cameras and says they might end up using section control to make sure no one is speeding.

I don't think the analogy is too far off, it should be a lower tolerance instead of more cameras but then Bob would have to adapt, which he arguably might not have to IRL so - so "more cams" just stands for "stricter control", technically Bob could be doing 107 just to be safe with the new limit being 108 but that doesn't really change that much.

I had another analogy in mind with coke and dope but never posted it.

But that is quite a different situation - whether there is some margin of error applied in enforcement or not, the limit in this case is 100 kph, unconditionally, regardless of other factors. In case of flexible bodywork, the limit is conditional: X mm under load Y, A mm under load B, etc. There is no unconditional limit that can be enforced - all that can be enforced are whether the specifics of the prescribed tests are met.