Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[DChemTech]

The fact that Red Bull admitted they would need to change the wing should be enough for 50% of these arguments to be put to bed.

I do not agree. RB stated that within the new test criteria they need to change the design. But that is because new test criteria impose new design criteria. It does not mean the wing was illegal under the old criteria.

Does any of that, apart from them saying they have to change the design, actually matter though?

Well, yes. The whole charade started because someone pointed out that the RB wing was "illegally flexing", while within the regulations at that point, there was no criterion by which that could actually be determined. Based on that, the criteria are being changed, mid-season, and hence redesigns have to be made based on criteria that were not available to engineers when the original designs were made. Effectively, teams are being punished for designing something that was fully within the rules as they were available when they made those designs.

It would be the same as declaring DAS illegal during the season, and forcing Mercedes to remove it while the season is ongoing.

[Wouter]

The fact that Red Bull admitted they would need to change the wing should be enough for 50% of these arguments to be put to bed.

This is why most teams need and admitted to change the wing:

The FIA note details a series of new tests that are being introduced and focus on the characteristics of a wing that rotates backwards at speed. The current regulations check on bodywork not deflecting either one degree horizontally, or 3mm vertically, when certain forces are attached to them.

For the new test, the FIA is focusing on the behaviour of wings as they rotate backwards.

The tests will include limiting the rear wing to just one degree of rotation about an axis normal to the centre plane when two rearward and horizontal 750N loads are applied at a set location. A further test, involving a 1000N vertical and downforce force, will similarly allow just one degree of rotation.

Until now it was one degree and three degrees!

[One and Only]

The fact that Red Bull admitted they would need to change the wing should be enough for 50% of these arguments to be put to bed.

Why does everyone assume only Red Bull will have to change their wing design? Mercedes' rear wing is flexing as well, to much lesser extent, but it doesn't mean it can pass new test without design change.

[peaty]

I do not agree. RB stated that within the new test criteria they need to change the design. But that is because new test criteria impose new design criteria. It does not mean the wing was illegal under the old criteria.

Does any of that, apart from them saying they have to change the design, actually matter though?

Well, yes. The whole charade started because someone pointed out that the RB wing was "illegally flexing", while within the regulations at that point, there was no criterion by which that could actually be determined. Based on that, the criteria are being changed, mid-season, and hence redesigns have to be made based on criteria that were not available to engineers when the original designs were made. Effectively, teams are being punished for designing something that was fully within the rules as they were available when they made those designs.

It would be the same as declaring DAS illegal during the season, and forcing Mercedes to remove it while the season is ongoing.

This is even worse than DAS because there is a criteria to meet. DAS was in a limbo (is it part of the steering or the suspension system?). The fact that it was accepted is surprising considering how other elements (mass damper or 2017 Mercedes and RBR suspension come to mind) were treated (these devices were illegal because they were not contributing to what the system is intended for, or did the DAS system steer the car? no, right?)
The only thing about this situation is article 3.9.9. The problem with it though is that, as you pointed out, it's being apply via politics. In other words, the FIA is not ensuring a fair competition thus far. Let's see what they do next.

[peaty]

The fact that Red Bull admitted they would need to change the wing should be enough for 50% of these arguments to be put to bed.

Why does everyone assume only Red Bull will have to change their wing design? Mercedes' rear wing is flexing as well, to much lesser extent, but it doesn't mean it can pass new test without design change.

Not only Mercedes, not a single Mercedes powered car. Just coincidence...

[Wouter]

F1 managing director of motorsport Ross Brawn doesn't think a protest against Red Bull's rear wing at the Azerbaijan Grand Prix would be successful.

A Technical Directive aimed at tightening up rear wing flex has been issued, but doesn't kick in until June 15, meaning that teams are still able to run contentious rear wing designs in Baku.

"No, I don't think so," Brawn told ESPN. "I think the FIA have been pretty consistent with their approach. I'd be amazed if the stewards go against the opinion of the FIA."

"I think this is probably flexi rear wing version 27 [in F1 history]," Brawn added. "In 40 years of motor racing, I've been through this many times.

"I can remember [Williams'] Patrick Head jumping on our front wing in parc ferme because he considered that it wasn't stiff enough. He wanted to demonstrate to Charlie [Whiting] that it wasn't stiff enough, so he actually stood on it and bounced up and down to demonstrate how flexible it was.

"There are a set of FIA tests and that's the only way we have been able to determine the limits of what you can do. If you pass the tests and some [rival] teams don't like it, the FIA can look at it, say 'fair point' and stiffen the tests and do different tests, so it's perpetual.

"I honestly don't believe there is any case for going in a different route to solve the problem, because I don't know how you quantify it. One person's view of it being too flexible is another person's view of it being OK, and that's why we have the tests.

"If you put a mechanism in there or a hinge in there, I agree that's not correct.
But within the normal compliance of the structure, I don't see a problem."

https://racingnews365.com/f1-director-b ... h-mercedes

[El Scorchio]

I do not agree. RB stated that within the new test criteria they need to change the design. But that is because new test criteria impose new design criteria. It does not mean the wing was illegal under the old criteria.

Does any of that, apart from them saying they have to change the design, actually matter though?

Well, yes. The whole charade started because someone pointed out that the RB wing was "illegally flexing", while within the regulations at that point, there was no criterion by which that could actually be determined. Based on that, the criteria are being changed, mid-season, and hence redesigns have to be made based on criteria that were not available to engineers when the original designs were made. Effectively, teams are being punished for designing something that was fully within the rules as they were available when they made those designs.

It would be the same as declaring DAS illegal during the season, and forcing Mercedes to remove it while the season is ongoing.

But is there any point in expressing dissatisfaction with the process over and again? It might seem a bit shitty from certain points of view, but what's happened has happened and now the key point is surely how the teams move forward, adapt and overcome.

[El Scorchio]

F1 managing director of motorsport Ross Brawn doesn't think a protest against Red Bull's rear wing at the Azerbaijan Grand Prix would be successful.

A Technical Directive aimed at tightening up rear wing flex has been issued, but doesn't kick in until June 15, meaning that teams are still able to run contentious rear wing designs in Baku.

"No, I don't think so," Brawn told ESPN. "I think the FIA have been pretty consistent with their approach. I'd be amazed if the stewards go against the opinion of the FIA."

"I think this is probably flexi rear wing version 27 [in F1 history]," Brawn added. "In 40 years of motor racing, I've been through this many times.

"I can remember [Williams'] Patrick Head jumping on our front wing in parc ferme because he considered that it wasn't stiff enough. He wanted to demonstrate to Charlie [Whiting] that it wasn't stiff enough, so he actually stood on it and bounced up and down to demonstrate how flexible it was.

"There are a set of FIA tests and that's the only way we have been able to determine the limits of what you can do. If you pass the tests and some [rival] teams don't like it, the FIA can look at it, say 'fair point' and stiffen the tests and do different tests, so it's perpetual.

"I honestly don't believe there is any case for going in a different route to solve the problem, because I don't know how you quantify it. One person's view of it being too flexible is another person's view of it being OK, and that's why we have the tests.

"If you put a mechanism in there or a hinge in there, I agree that's not correct.
But within the normal compliance of the structure, I don't see a problem."

https://racingnews365.com/f1-director-b ... h-mercedes

I agree. I think Mercedes or any other team are welcome to protest it but I don't really see it being a successful one. It's clearly going to pass the load tests and the only possible way I could otherwise see anything going forward is if the stewards are convinced to look at the rear facing cam footage and make a decisive judgement from that alone without the benefit of actual measurements. Which surely would be a huge surprise if it happened.

[diffuser]

I do not agree. RB stated that within the new test criteria they need to change the design. But that is because new test criteria impose new design criteria. It does not mean the wing was illegal under the old criteria.

Does any of that, apart from them saying they have to change the design, actually matter though?

Well, yes. The whole charade started because someone pointed out that the RB wing was "illegally flexing", while within the regulations at that point, there was no criterion by which that could actually be determined. Based on that, the criteria are being changed, mid-season, and hence redesigns have to be made based on criteria that were not available to engineers when the original designs were made. Effectively, teams are being punished for designing something that was fully within the rules as they were available when they made those designs.

It would be the same as declaring DAS illegal during the season, and forcing Mercedes to remove it while the season is ongoing.

I'm not pro or against anybody here but technically they were legal as per how legality was being tested. The FIA reserve the right to change any of those tests at anypoint in a season to enforce the rules.

[diffuser]

The fact that Red Bull admitted they would need to change the wing should be enough for 50% of these arguments to be put to bed.

Why does everyone assume only Red Bull will have to change their wing design? Mercedes' rear wing is flexing as well, to much lesser extent, but it doesn't mean it can pass new test without design change.

Whoever doesn't pass the new tests "The loads they are subjected to in the ‘pull-back’ and ‘push-down’ tests will be doubled." will be effected. So you are right just cause they don't bend as much as RBR on a straight doesn't mean they will not bend via a new test with double the loads.

[DChemTech]

Does any of that, apart from them saying they have to change the design, actually matter though?

Well, yes. The whole charade started because someone pointed out that the RB wing was "illegally flexing", while within the regulations at that point, there was no criterion by which that could actually be determined. Based on that, the criteria are being changed, mid-season, and hence redesigns have to be made based on criteria that were not available to engineers when the original designs were made. Effectively, teams are being punished for designing something that was fully within the rules as they were available when they made those designs.

It would be the same as declaring DAS illegal during the season, and forcing Mercedes to remove it while the season is ongoing.

I'm not pro or against anybody here but technically they were legal as per how legality was being tested. The FIA reserve the right to change any of those tests at anypoint in a season to enforce the rules.

True, they can. But I don't find it a desirable situation in cases where the design requirements are inherently linked to the tests, because now you expect designs to comply with rules they were not designed under, and which they could not possibly anticipate.

It would be a different situation if, say, the FIA would come with a new, more accurate test to monitor fuel flow or so. It doesn't change the rules, it just changes the way the rules are checked. In this case, the rules themselves are changed mid-season, and while the FIA can do that, I do find it problematic.

[tpe]

Very well said, thank you.

[Hoffman900]

Mercedes’ protest shouldn’t be about the test / what is flexible, etc. I’m in the Ross Brawn camp on this.

What Mercedes should protest is the duration of the grace period. That, by my understanding, is a subjective call and not based on anything in the rulebook. I’m pretty sure that’s what Toto / Mercedes is taking the most exception to.

[Stu]

Here is another way to view this. ALL of the teams actually intend to produce an advantage through the manufacture of their cars. ALL teams attempt to produce a car that is below the stated minimum weight limit (illegal), but present the car to the scrutinisers with ballast added in favourable locations to meet the testing criteria. These wings are no different really, all teams have some rearward, angular motion in their wing structures (either front or rear), but pass the FIA tests (as they are currently). This change in testing procedure would be similar to the FIA telling the teams that the ballast must be located in a particular place in the car and also specifying the method of retention. How many of the teams would cope without a redesign??
Yet again I feel that it is necessary to point out that the regulations refer to “bodywork” that is flexing (not simply wings), it is merely that wings (and floors) seem to be the only items of bodywork that have a load test to determine the amount of acceptable movement.

[Hoffman900]

Mercedes’ protest shouldn’t be about the test / what is flexible, etc. I’m in the Ross Brawn camp on this.

What Mercedes should protest is the duration of the grace period. That, by my understanding, is a subjective call and not based on anything in the rulebook. I’m pretty sure that’s what Toto / Mercedes is taking the most exception to.

to reinforce my point:

But Wolff is very unhappy with the grace period introduction, saying that being able to run even semi-flexible wings for the Azerbaijan GP will be hugely beneficial for those teams down the huge main straight in Baku.

"It's clear that if you have a back to back race, maybe even two weeks is too short for everybody to adjust," Wolff told media, including RacingNews365.com on Thursday in Monaco.

"But we're having four weeks to Baku, and it is incomprehensible that within four weeks, you can't stiffen up a rear wing. For the track that is probably the most affected by flexible rear wings.

"So that leaves us in no man's land, because the technical directive says that the movement of some rear wings has been judged as excessive."

Wolff hinted that those teams may yet be protested by the better-behaved teams, and said that the mess isn't desirable.

"So teams who would run this kind of wing are prone to be protested, and probably that this is going to go to the ICA (International Court of Appeal) and nobody needs this messy situation," Wolff explained.

So to get legalese on this.. the FIA's technical directive, by existing, admits that wings like the RedBulls are illegal. Furthermore, the grace period, if not based on anything in the rules, is a subjective call, and without anything to back it up, can be considered biased in order to influence the show.

That's where Mercedes lawyers will have a field day with the FIA and that's what the protest will really be about. This is entirely on the FIA for not enforcing their own rules. Especially considering they have shown in the past to move quicker on these very issues.