Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[Phil]

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.

No, that is just plain wrong. There is no "legal tolerance" - what you are referring to are the margin of error of the equipment measuring the limits. The speed limit is what it is, plain and simple. The enforcement is done using equipment that has an error threshold - depending on how they measure it, that error of margin is higher or lower (e.g. laser, being followed by the police with camera etc).

...in other words, the limit is implicit in the test.

That is factually incorrect, unless you care to point to the rules where the tests (and how they are done and what loads are used) to determine the infringement. Again; The rule stipulates that the wings in question must be rigid. That's the black/white rule. If and how it is enforced is another. The FIA could at any point, at any minute, introduce new tests to determine infringements. The amount of load and how the test is conducted is not in the rules, therefore it is not part of any ruleset. That is merely your interpretation of it, which is plain and simply wrong.

[DChemTech]

...in other words, the limit is implicit in the test.

That is factually incorrect, unless you care to point to the rules where the tests (and how they are done and what loads are used) to determine the infringement. Again; The rule stipulates that the wings in question must be rigid. That's the black/white rule. If and how it is enforced is another. The FIA could at any point, at any minute, introduce new tests to determine infringements. The amount of load and how the test is conducted is not in the rules, therefore it is not part of any ruleset. That is merely your interpretation of it, which is plain and simply wrong.

No material is 100% rigid. Anything will deflect to some degree under load. So while the spirit may be that a part must be 'fully rigid', you need to specify some tolerance to make it practical. Which is exactly what article 3.9 does for a range of conditions - and those tolerances are all specified conditionally (Xmm displacement under Y N load at location Z)

Edit: Doesn't mean you cannot come up with unconditional tolerances (e.g. max. displacement of X under any non-destructive condition), but such statements are not there in the current article.

[RZS10]

We quite literally have a legal tolerance in speed enforcement, yes it's there to cover the margin of error of the equipment, but it's explicitly written into the law and it's 3kph below 100kph and 3% above, irregardless of the measurement device. I know that there's even higher values in other countries but elsewhere there might be none, of course.
So the law dictates a limit, but only enforces limit+x.

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.

Oh c'mon cut me some slack man, it's a sh**y analogy not a comparison of law enforcement ...

Actual speed limit = rigid bodywork ... that's what is written in the rules/law
Enforced speed limit via cams = enforced limits of bodywork flex via test

Maybe the drug analogy would have been better

[Phil]

...in other words, the limit is implicit in the test.

That is factually incorrect, unless you care to point to the rules where the tests (and how they are done and what loads are used) to determine the infringement. Again; The rule stipulates that the wings in question must be rigid. That's the black/white rule. If and how it is enforced is another. The FIA could at any point, at any minute, introduce new tests to determine infringements. The amount of load and how the test is conducted is not in the rules, therefore it is not part of any ruleset. That is merely your interpretation of it, which is plain and simply wrong.

No material is 100% rigid. Anything will deflect to some degree under load. So while the spirit may be that a part must be 'fully rigid', you need to specify some tolerance to make it practical. Which is exactly what article 3.9 does for a range of conditions - and those tolerances are all specified conditionally (Xmm displacement under Y N load at location Z)

Edit: Doesn't mean you cannot come up with unconditional tolerances (e.g. max. displacement of X under any non-destructive condition), but such statements are not there in the current article.

Again, that is YOUR interpretation of it. I'm not disputing that the rules are stipulating something rather difficult to achieve, but factually, you are incorrect. The rules stipulate it to be completely rigid. Period.

Anything beyond that is your conjecture on the premise that "all materials flex at some point".

[sosic2121]

Spirit of the rules said that oil should not be used as fuel, and yet, that pretty much decided 2017 champions...
Not to mention DAS.

Rule said that wing should move and there is a test that messures if wing moves more than it should.
And it seems that after one team designed better wing, other (obviously more important) team started to rave about it.

[DChemTech]

That is factually incorrect, unless you care to point to the rules where the tests (and how they are done and what loads are used) to determine the infringement. Again; The rule stipulates that the wings in question must be rigid. That's the black/white rule. If and how it is enforced is another. The FIA could at any point, at any minute, introduce new tests to determine infringements. The amount of load and how the test is conducted is not in the rules, therefore it is not part of any ruleset. That is merely your interpretation of it, which is plain and simply wrong.

No material is 100% rigid. Anything will deflect to some degree under load. So while the spirit may be that a part must be 'fully rigid', you need to specify some tolerance to make it practical. Which is exactly what article 3.9 does for a range of conditions - and those tolerances are all specified conditionally (Xmm displacement under Y N load at location Z)

Edit: Doesn't mean you cannot come up with unconditional tolerances (e.g. max. displacement of X under any non-destructive condition), but such statements are not there in the current article.

Again, that is YOUR interpretation of it. I'm not disputing that the rules are stipulating something rather difficult to achieve, but factually, you are incorrect. The rules stipulate it to be completely rigid. Period.

Anything beyond that is your conjecture on the premise that "all materials flex at some point".

I disagree with you still. It's not all materials flex at some point, it is all materials flex to some degree. You cannot specify rigidity without specifying tolerance, because the design choices inherently depend on the tolerance.

An analogy might be that say, you are asked to drill holes of 10mm. You need to know what kind of tolerance your customer wants. If your customer wants 0.0001mm tolerance, you're going to need a different drill than with 0.1mm tolerance - you need that information to design your approach. Specifying "I need holes of 10mm" without any specification of tolerance just doesn't make sense.
Now of course, in case of rigidity those tolerances are specified, but as I stated, they are conditional tolerances. If your design meets the described tests, it meets the prescribed tolerances.
FIA has the right to change those tests and tolerances, but personally, I find it bad practice to do so, because it changes the design criteria during the season in a way teams could not have foreseen.

[Big Tea]

It is quite acceptable in engineering to have a 'tolerance' stated as "no (less than small number) deflection at point 'x'. in relation to point(s) 'Z' when a load of ''N' is applied in stated direction(s) and point(s), and is quite producible and measurable.

This problem comes from where the load is applied, how much it is and in what direction, and essentially in relation to what point?

Meeting a speck is easy enough if the limits are stated. The problem, again, is the spec.

[diffuser]

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.

It's the FIA's International Court of Appeal (ICA), technically still in it's hands.

Not sure you're getting me. It isn't that they can't do it. It's that RBR are trying to widen the scope to make Merc and other feel the pain as well. So not to want to appeal.

[rogazilla]

From the black and white point of view of rigid wings and no flex body work... EVERY CAR on the grid currently are in breach of this rule.

[Phil]

I disagree with you still. It's not all materials flex at some point, it is all materials flex to some degree. You cannot specify rigidity without specifying tolerance, because the design choices inherently depend on the tolerance.

We agree that the rules could be written better. Anything other than that, again, is conjecture. The rules stipulate no movement.

If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, one could assume that to mean "no movement that would result in a performance advantage". That could mean anything, so lets not go there.

What is relevant, is what is in the rules.

The rules stipulate those parts being rigid. Check.
The rules do not stipulate at what loads or how the tests must be done. Check.
The rules mention that tests can and will be used to enforce the "must be rigid" rule. Check.

If you design a wing that moves under certain loads in a way that bypasses the load tests the FIA are doing to gain a performance advantage, well, you can see where that will get you... eventually.

Some of you are mistaking "being tolerated" with "being legal". The slight movement on certain parts have been tolerated. Nothing more, nothing less.

[SiLo]

I disagree with you still. It's not all materials flex at some point, it is all materials flex to some degree. You cannot specify rigidity without specifying tolerance, because the design choices inherently depend on the tolerance.

We agree that the rules could be written better. Anything other than that, again, is conjecture. The rules stipulate no movement.

If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, one could assume that to mean "no movement that would result in a performance advantage". That could mean anything, so lets not go there.

What is relevant, is what is in the rules.

The rules stipulate those parts being rigid. Check.
The rules do not stipulate at what loads or how the tests must be done. Check.
The rules mention that tests can and will be used to enforce the "must be rigid" rule. Check.

If you design a wing that moves under certain loads in a way that bypasses the load tests the FIA are doing to gain a performance advantage, well, you can see where that will get you... eventually.

Some of you are mistaking "being tolerated" with "being legal". The slight movement on certain parts have been tolerated. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well said Phil, that's a nice summary. People need to see beyond "passing the test" as being entirely legal.

[DChemTech]

I disagree with you still. It's not all materials flex at some point, it is all materials flex to some degree. You cannot specify rigidity without specifying tolerance, because the design choices inherently depend on the tolerance.

We agree that the rules could be written better. Anything other than that, again, is conjecture. The rules stipulate no movement.

If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, one could assume that to mean "no movement that would result in a performance advantage". That could mean anything, so lets not go there.

What is relevant, is what is in the rules.

The rules stipulate those parts being rigid. Check.
The rules do not stipulate at what loads or how the tests must be done. Check.
The rules mention that tests can and will be used to enforce the "must be rigid" rule. Check.

If you design a wing that moves under certain loads in a way that bypasses the load tests the FIA are doing to gain a performance advantage, well, you can see where that will get you... eventually.

Some of you are mistaking "being tolerated" with "being legal". The slight movement on certain parts have been tolerated. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am arguing because I think your statement is incorrect. It is not a matter of conjecture. There is no such thing as literally 'no movement'; 3.9 specifies the margin when it comes to what is considered no movement.. If a part passes those tests, it's sufficiently rigid to be in line with 3.8. If there are other margins of error to what is considered as rigid under 'on track' conditions, those margins should be stipulated in the rules, and they are not.

Again, specifying 'no movement' is as ridiculous as specifying 'a drill that drills holes of exactly 10mm', or if you want to stick with a speed limiter analogy, 'a cruise control that maintains exactly 100kph'. These things simply cannot be done. You can design a cruise control that maintains that speed within 5% margin, or 0.5% if you like - but not one that maintains it exactly. And without providing what the margin is, no designer can properly do their work.

[peaty]

The rules stipulate no movement.

I agree. Article 3.8b say so

The rules stipulate those parts being rigid. Check.

Again, article 3.8b

The rules do not stipulate at what loads or how the tests must be done. Check.

What's article 3.9 for!? Because a number of locations, loads and maximum deflections are provided...including for the front wing flaps by the way...

The rules mention that tests can and will be used to enforce the "must be rigid" rule. Check.

I assume you're refering to 3.9.9? In which case it's about the FIA reserving the right to change the test.

If you design a wing that moves under certain loads in a way that bypasses the load tests the FIA are doing to gain a performance advantage, well, you can see where that will get you... eventually.

The problem is the current design is not bypassing the FIA test. That's what people don't get their head arround and that's why the FIA is changing the test and not directly imposing a penalty.

Some of you are mistaking "being tolerated" with "being legal". The slight movement on certain parts have been tolerated. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think it's the other way arround, you confusing one with the other. RBR rear wing is legal under current article 3.9, that's why they didn't get a penalty and have until mid june to change the rear wing.
We could talk as much as you want about the test but not about the legality.

[DChemTech]

The problem is the current design is not bypassing the FIA test. That's what people don't get their head arround and that's why the FIA is changing the test and not directly imposing a penalty.

But the problem with that is, that by changing the tests, FIA is also changing the tolerances and hence design criteria.
Time was invested and resources were spent into designing a wing that meets the criteria, and then all of a sudden, while the season is already running, the criteria are changed. In that case, I would be rather... upset... as an engineer, to put it nicely. And this detail is why the 'speed camera' analogy doesn't work. It's not adding more cameras, or more accurate cameras to check whether everyone is staying within a certain margin at all times - it's changing the margins which are being tolerated themselves in this case, to new margins that existing designs were not based on.

[dans79]

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.

It's the FIA's International Court of Appeal (ICA), technically still in it's hands.

Not sure you're getting me. It isn't that they can't do it. It's that RBR are trying to widen the scope to make Merc and other feel the pain as well. So not to want to appeal.

https://www.fia.com/international-court-appeal

In accordance with good governance principles, the International Court of Appeal (ICA) is an independent body with its own administration detached from the main structure of the FIA