Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[Sieper]

I got the feeling that if you are in that camp you do not know what F1 is about, or how it works. Perhaps mistaken.

[Hoffman900]

No, the FIA's technical directive made wings like the RB illegal, because it changed the tolerances that are allowed. Before the directive, RB and the other teams were all meeting the specifications that were put forward.
It may of course be that FIA officials had other 'on-track tolerances' in their mind, but those were never put down on paper, so how could designers account for them? Telepathy? (Although, telepathy is a less outrageous requirement than 100% rigid wings...). But even that is questionable, as the whole charade started with Hamilton commenting on the matter, not with a FIA official making the observation.

False. The charade started last July, the FIA was slow to react (Mercedes can claim bias in making the RB more competitive and the show better)

This was noted last year by the fans and media at Austria. The only problem is their attention span is very short.

Mercedes / Toto asked the FIA to look into this last year. Toto approached Christian Horner about this sometime before Barcelona. Then Lewis said something.

People literally commented on it here almost 11 months ago: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=28771&start=465

This video was uploaded July 18, 2020


From last October: https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/65373/fl ... utiny.html

[DChemTech]

No, the FIA's technical directive made wings like the RB illegal, because it changed the tolerances that are allowed. Before the directive, RB and the other teams were all meeting the specifications that were put forward.
It may of course be that FIA officials had other 'on-track tolerances' in their mind, but those were never put down on paper, so how could designers account for them? Telepathy? (Although, telepathy is a less outrageous requirement than 100% rigid wings...). But even that is questionable, as the whole charade started with Hamilton commenting on the matter, not with a FIA official making the observation.

False.

This was noted last year by the fans and media at Austria. The only problem is their attention span is very short.

Mercedes / Toto asked the FIA to look into this last year. Toto approached Christian Horner about this sometime before Barcelona. Then Lewis said something.

Alright, then maybe the second part is not correct, I have no problem conceding that. But the first part still is (and that is, IMO, the more relevant). There is nothing in the (original) rules for this year that can be used to state that RB (like) wings are illegal, whereas Mercedes (like) wings are not. By 3.8 in isolation they are all illegal, with the tolerances specified in 3.9 they are all legal. Only after the rule changes in the technical directive such a distinction can be made.

[SmallSoldier]

It’s been said before but I will post it again just to be sure: Mercedes being sad about the grace period after their DAS operation last year with a grace period of a year show who are the real hypocrites in this situation

No rule broken for DAS, no grace period required... The situations aren’t equivalent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No rule broken here either, 3.9 stipulates the tolerances that are allowed, they were met.
If you still consider 3.8 in isolation as being the rule, then all teams were breaking it, are breaking it, and will always be breaking it, because physics does not allow otherwise.

So to get legalese on this.. the FIA's technical directive, by existing, admits that wings like the RedBulls are illegal.

No, the FIA's technical directive made wings like the RB illegal, because it changed the tolerances that are allowed. Before the directive, RB and the other teams were all meeting the specifications that were put forward.
It may of course be that FIA officials had other 'on-track tolerances' in their mind, but those were never put down on paper, so how could designers account for them? Telepathy? (Although, telepathy is a less outrageous requirement than 100% rigid wings...). But even that is questionable, as the whole charade started with Hamilton commenting on the matter, not with a FIA official making the observation.

It's the same as declaring party mode engine mapping illegal mid season. That was at the behest of Red Bull and I don't remember the same people complaining about the rear wing rules changing also complaining about the engine mode rules changing. That was teams being punished for running absolutely legal engine maps.

That is true, and that was a rather undesirable decision as well. What is legal at the start of the season, should remain legal throughout. If that leads to undesirable developments, ban them for next season like they did with DAS, but not while a season is running.

Now, the implications for engine mapping were a bit different - it meant teams could not use the party mode anymore, and time invested in developing them was lost but it did not necessarily lead to redevelopment requirements, with all due further timeloss and expenses. That is the case with the new wing regulations, however. Furthermore, in case of party modes, the intention was to bring a fight into a season that was lacking one. In this case, the result may well be killing a fight in a season that finally has one. And that's really a shame, whether you are a RB fan or not.

Research about 2014 Abu Dhabi:

Rule 3.15 was the equivalent to 3.8 (If I’m not wrong exact wording)

Rule 3.17.X was the set of rules equivalent to 3.9.X (with 3.17.1 The rule regarding Front Wings)

Red Bull passed Rule 3.17.1, but was found in breach of Rule 3.8.

You keep missing the point that if Red Bull has designed or engineered additional deflection in their wing, they are infringing Rule 3.8... The set of tests in Rule 3.9 account for the fact that materials can’t be 100% rigid... But there is a difference between flex been a by product of the materials used and flex been designed into a part... If the latter, the teams will most probably (just like in 2014) be penalized.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[henry]

…..

Now, the implications for engine mapping were a bit different - it meant teams could not use the party mode anymore, and time invested in developing them was lost but it did not necessarily lead to redevelopment requirements, with all due further timeloss and expenses. That is the case with the new wing regulations, however.

I don’t think this is right. The PU manufacturers life their PUs for a set of duty cycles. They did soon the basis of two basic configurations, qualifying with higher power output and more damage to components and, racing with lower power and less damage. The change meant that they could increase the power and damage for the race configuration, so they went back to the dynos and checked what they could do. They might have used the pre-change race settings but that would have left some performance on the table.

Similarly I would think the teams could stiffen the rear wings quite simply, at low cost, but they will want to redesign to be on the limit of the new tests with the new wings and optimise the flow over the car to maximise performance with the new design.

[dans79]

Research about 2014 Abu Dhabi:

Rule 3.15 was the equivalent to 3.8 (If I’m not wrong exact wording)

Rule 3.17.X was the set of rules equivalent to 3.9.X (with 3.17.1 The rule regarding Front Wings)

Red Bull passed Rule 3.17.1, but was found in breach of Rule 3.8.

You keep missing the point that if Red Bull has designed or engineered additional deflection in their wing, they are infringing Rule 3.8... The set of tests in Rule 3.9 account for the fact that materials can’t be 100% rigid... But there is a difference between flex been a by product of the materials used and flex been designed into a part... If the latter, the teams will most probably (just like in 2014) be penalized.

This is all correct!

here is a copy of the 2014 technical regulations.
https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.n ... _20.07.pdf

Here is a post I made with link to all the relevant documents from Abu Dhabi 2014.
viewtopic.php?p=971148#p971148

[Hoffman900]

Exactly. As Scarbs pointed out, this is premeditated, designed flex, not accidental. Anyone claiming anything else is naive. That is a direct infringement of the rules and the FIA should have squashed it a year ago. Redbull (and other teams) knowing this, should have been prepared to have to go to a different wing at any point of time, this is why the grace period is ridiculous.

Kudos to RedBull for getting away with it for so long. This is entirely on the FIA being slow to react and not enforcing their own rules.

[dans79]

That was even mentioned in the technical delegates report to the stewards.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -%2028.pdf

When checking the front wing of car numbers 01 and 03 it was found that the front wing flaps were
designed to flex under aerodynamic load. In my opinion this is not in compliance with Article 3.15 of
the Formula One Technical Regulations. Therefore I am referring this matter to the stewards for their
consideration.

Checking for designed flex vs incidental flex is fairly straightforward. If a wing flexs in a nonlinear fashion relative to the force applied to it, the flex is either intentional or the wing is just about at the point of structural failure/delamination.

[SmallSoldier]

Exactly. As Scarbs pointed out, this is premeditated, designed flex, not accidental. Anyone claiming anything else is naive. That is a direct infringement of the rules and the FIA should have squashed it a year ago. Redbull (and other teams) knowing this, should have been prepared to have to go to a different wing at any point of time, this is why the grace period is ridiculous.

Kudos to RedBull for getting away with it for so long. This is entirely on the FIA being slow to react and not enforcing their own rules.

One portion of article 3.8 that is been brushed off is the following:

“Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.”

If the Flex is designed / engineered into the wing, it is “bridging the gap to the ground”... This is a key part of article 3.8 that any team thinking about protesting will probably highlight... The problem isn’t the fact that the wings passed the tests as prescribed (although it’s clear that the tests do not account for the loads and type of flex (rotational) that currently has been observed, but the fact that the Wings have been purposely designed to do this, which is a clear infringement of the article.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

Exactly. As Scarbs pointed out, this is premeditated, designed flex, not accidental. Anyone claiming anything else is naive. That is a direct infringement of the rules and the FIA should have squashed it a year ago. Redbull (and other teams) knowing this, should have been prepared to have to go to a different wing at any point of time, this is why the grace period is ridiculous.

Kudos to RedBull for getting away with it for so long. This is entirely on the FIA being slow to react and not enforcing their own rules.

Also, I read an interview by Vasseur that stated that they have trialed “back to back” their rear wings (trying to minimize the impact of the flex on their pace)... If teams like Alfa Romeo have tried back to back rear wings, with and without the flex, that means that they currently have wings at their disposal that don’t exhibit the additional flex and therefore kills the argument of having to spend money to redesign them... It also shows that the flex is not inherent to the wings, but it is a design feature added to it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hoffman900]

Exactly. As Scarbs pointed out, this is premeditated, designed flex, not accidental. Anyone claiming anything else is naive. That is a direct infringement of the rules and the FIA should have squashed it a year ago. Redbull (and other teams) knowing this, should have been prepared to have to go to a different wing at any point of time, this is why the grace period is ridiculous.

Kudos to RedBull for getting away with it for so long. This is entirely on the FIA being slow to react and not enforcing their own rules.

Also, I read an interview by Vasseur that stated that they have trialed “back to back” their rear wings (trying to minimize the impact of the flex on their pace)... If teams like Alfa Romeo have tried back to back rear wings, with and without the flex, that means that they currently have wings at their disposal that don’t exhibit the additional flex and therefore kills the argument of having to spend money to redesign them... It also shows that the flex is not inherent to the wings, but it is a design feature added to it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Exactly. I'm with Toto, the grace period should cover one weekend of racing, but over a month is a little ridiculous, especially because they all knew they were infringement of the rules and this has been talked about for nearly 11 months.

[Hoffman900]

Exactly. As Scarbs pointed out, this is premeditated, designed flex, not accidental. Anyone claiming anything else is naive. That is a direct infringement of the rules and the FIA should have squashed it a year ago. Redbull (and other teams) knowing this, should have been prepared to have to go to a different wing at any point of time, this is why the grace period is ridiculous.

Kudos to RedBull for getting away with it for so long. This is entirely on the FIA being slow to react and not enforcing their own rules.

One portion of article 3.8 that is been brushed off is the following:

“Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.”

If the Flex is designed / engineered into the wing, it is “bridging the gap to the ground”... This is a key part of article 3.8 that any team thinking about protesting will probably highlight... The problem isn’t the fact that the wings passed the tests as prescribed (although it’s clear that the tests do not account for the loads and type of flex (rotational) that currently has been observed, but the fact that the Wings have been purposely designed to do this, which is a clear infringement of the article.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This post was needed on Page 1. Not that it would change some people's minds.

Mercedes' protest would just have to prove intent. Considering how intrusive the RP brake duct protest was, I think Mercedes could be able to do this if the FIA was willing.

[El Scorchio]

Exactly. As Scarbs pointed out, this is premeditated, designed flex, not accidental. Anyone claiming anything else is naive. That is a direct infringement of the rules and the FIA should have squashed it a year ago. Redbull (and other teams) knowing this, should have been prepared to have to go to a different wing at any point of time, this is why the grace period is ridiculous.

Kudos to RedBull for getting away with it for so long. This is entirely on the FIA being slow to react and not enforcing their own rules.

Absolutely. It is a bit offensive to try and portray RBR as some sort of wronged party here in this instance. As mentioned, the engineers knew full well what they were doing when designing the wing to do what it does, and it doesn’t behave that way by accident.

It was a very clever bit of design to pass the tests and still flex for aero advantage for which they should be applauded, but now the loophole has been closed as it almost always eventually is in F1, and they and any other teams in the same boat will adapt and move forward.

[dans79]

Mercedes' protest would just have to prove intent. Considering how intrusive the RP brake duct protest was, I think Mercedes could be able to do this if the FIA was willing.

Given that Mercedes has access to Red Bull GPS data, video footage, and a team of engineers with access to the right software, I don't even think it would need to be that invasive.

They can probably come up with a simulation/model/data that strongly suggests the wing does not flex in a linear fashion.

[DChemTech]

Exactly. As Scarbs pointed out, this is premeditated, designed flex, not accidental. Anyone claiming anything else is naive. That is a direct infringement of the rules and the FIA should have squashed it a year ago. Redbull (and other teams) knowing this, should have been prepared to have to go to a different wing at any point of time, this is why the grace period is ridiculous.

Eh, yeah, of course it is, I am not disputing that. As an engineer, you try to hit the limit of what the rules allow. If you impose any additional restrictions on yourself while your competition is not, you are losing ground. No team would do that. What I want to know is what is the dividing line, objectively, by a wing that flexes too much, and one that doesn't. By what quantitative criterion is the flex of an MB or McL wing allowed, and that of a Ferrari, RB or AR wing not.
And I agree with you that the FIA should have squashed it before, if the observed behavior is what they deem illegal. But that is fully a failure of the FIA. You can't blame RB, Alfa, Ferrari, etc. for not abiding to rules that the FIA failed to put up in the first place.

You keep missing the point that if Red Bull has designed or engineered additional deflection in their wing, they are infringing Rule 3.8... The set of tests in Rule 3.9 account for the fact that materials can’t be 100% rigid... But there is a difference between flex been a by product of the materials used and flex been designed into a part... If the latter, the teams will most probably (just like in 2014) be penalized.

But has this been shown to be the case?. And with that I mean, is there some specific element, like a connecting piece (as was the case in the 2014 FW situation, AFAIK), that is designed to yield beyond the test stress? If that is so, I concur that can be interpreted as a deliberately moving part (as I pointed out before), and that would arguably be a violation. So if this has been indeed shown to be the case, that's that. Is any connection OK provided there is always a (sub-)linear deflection/load relation? Is some none-linearity allowed provided there are no indications that any part has been designed to be excessively flexible at higher loads (and what is excessive, then)? Where is the limit between 'designing for deliberate flex' and 'designing to be on the flex tolerance'? None of that is there! So even if it was clear that some teams were violating a rule (which still seems contestable), it is not clear what those teams should have done to abide that rule, nor is it clear by what standard it is decided that the wings of those other teams are deemed 'not designed to flex'.