Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[Hoffman900]

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.

I meant internal emails, CAD drawings, and/or FEA analysis showing this was designed in, which is in direct conflict of the rules. Like the RP brake ducts, they were legal too in design, but they were purposely copied, so they were illegal, and RP fined, due to intent.

[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.

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'.

I don’t have any information to determine what is happening with the rear wings and none of us will be the ones ruling for or against in a potential protest... Nevertheless “my opinion” is that the flex in some of these wings have been designed into the parts and in that case it’s a clear infraction of article 3.8... What do I base my opinion that it is indeed the case:

A) A couple of teams have already made public statements in regards to this... Binotto has openly stated that they have been exploiting the way the current tests are done and will bring forward wings that will comply with the new set of tests.
B) Vasseur has also openly stated that they have a wing design to do this and not only that, but that they have done back to back tests with a wing that does flex and one that doesn’t flex, suggesting that the flex is a design element of their wings.
C) The FIA statements when the new TD was issued implies that the current amount of flex is considered excessive and therefore they are adding additional tests to curtail this.
D) During this whole saga, none of the teams with a flexible wing have stated that the current flex is part of the expected flexibility of the rear wings... Their statements have been only made in reference to “passing the test”.
E) There are teams on the grid that have wings that flex way less than the suspect wings, which shows that it is entirely possible to manufacture rear wings with a lesser degree of flex.
F) The threatening from Marko/RBR to counter protest if Mercedes acts against their rear wing in Baku, if they would be comfortable that there is no illegality on their rear wings and comfortable with their position, they wouldn’t need to make such a threat... Based on their comments, they are concerned about a potential protest.

The above is only an opinion with no data to back it up and we won’t be able to quantify it until the new tests with the markings on the wings and the use of the rear camera are used to determine the amount of flex... Been said that, the FIA will have a chance to look deep into the wings and find out how the flex is been generated, article 3.8 covers both “design” and “construction”, so the use of clever ways of carbon layup and other means to induce aeroelasticity would be penalized if present.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[e30ernest]

I agree with Chain Bear's view over the matter:



I really think he explained it well. Especially why this isn't really "changing the rules" as what Horner would like to spin.

[ispano6]

https://f1i.com/news/406029-vasseur-liv ... -joke.html

Vasseur livid over flexible wing rule changes: 'It's a joke!'

"I’m a bit upset with the approach to change the rule," Vasseur told the media in Monaco. "To change the value of the test is not fair at all because the business of the engineers in F1 and the designers is to design parts at the limit of the regulation.

"If you change the regulation in the course of the season, you will have to design new parts and the teams who are saying that they won’t be affected, it’s a joke. It will affect everybody.

"At the end of the day, we have the regulation with the maximum deformation under load and I think we are not more clever than the others. Everybody was sticking to the limit, and the FIA decided to change the limits.

[Phil]

I’m willing to bet those teams with linear flex will not be forced to change anything.

[nzjrs]

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.

Why do they need to show intent?

[nzjrs]

I’m willing to bet those teams with linear flex will not be forced to change anything.

I think linearity is a red herring. Linearity wrt. definition of linearity +/- tolerance under test. Which gets us back to where we currently stand - a test criteria with tolerance to enforce a rule whose text is absolute.

It's absolutes wrapped in tests seasoned with tolerances and adding another spice doesn't change the flavour so much.

[Just_a_fan]

I’m willing to bet those teams with linear flex will not be forced to change anything.

I think linearity is a red herring. Linearity wrt. definition of linearity +/- tolerance under test. Which gets us back to where we currently stand - a test criteria with tolerance to enforce a rule whose text is absolute.

It's absolutes wrapped in tests seasoned with tolerances and adding another spice doesn't change the flavour so much.

Linearity is dead easy to show. You double the force applied and you get a consequent doubling of deflection. So long as you stay within the elastic limits of the material/structure, you can reverse the process and repeat it. If, however, increasing the force applied leads to a non-straight line graph of force v deflection, then you have something other than linearity. That in itself would point to a designed response and thus show intent.

[dans79]

I’m willing to bet those teams with linear flex will not be forced to change anything.

I think linearity is a red herring. Linearity wrt. definition of linearity +/- tolerance under test. Which gets us back to where we currently stand - a test criteria with tolerance to enforce a rule whose text is absolute.

It's absolutes wrapped in tests seasoned with tolerances and adding another spice doesn't change the flavour so much.

Linearity is dead easy to show. You double the force applied and you get a consequent doubling of deflection. So long as you stay within the elastic limits of the material/structure, you can reverse the process and repeat it. If, however, increasing the force applied leads to a non-straight line graph of force v deflection, then you have something other than linearity. That in itself would point to a designed response and thus show intent.

Exactly this!

[cooken]

I think linearity is a red herring. Linearity wrt. definition of linearity +/- tolerance under test. Which gets us back to where we currently stand - a test criteria with tolerance to enforce a rule whose text is absolute.

It's absolutes wrapped in tests seasoned with tolerances and adding another spice doesn't change the flavour so much.

Linearity is dead easy to show. You double the force applied and you get a consequent doubling of deflection. So long as you stay within the elastic limits of the material/structure, you can reverse the process and repeat it. If, however, increasing the force applied leads to a non-straight line graph of force v deflection, then you have something other than linearity. That in itself would point to a designed response and thus show intent.

Exactly this!

What was meant was: what if you double the load, and get 2.01x the deflection? Is that ok? What about 2.05? 2.1? Remember this is real life and physical tests will never show a perfectly straight line. Linearity is a silly assumption we all learned in school to make things easy, and it's good enough for only very simple problems. The real world is always nonlinear (recall engineering stress vs true stress for example).

[nzjrs]

I think linearity is a red herring. Linearity wrt. definition of linearity +/- tolerance under test. Which gets us back to where we currently stand - a test criteria with tolerance to enforce a rule whose text is absolute.

It's absolutes wrapped in tests seasoned with tolerances and adding another spice doesn't change the flavour so much.

Linearity is dead easy to show. You double the force applied and you get a consequent doubling of deflection. So long as you stay within the elastic limits of the material/structure, you can reverse the process and repeat it. If, however, increasing the force applied leads to a non-straight line graph of force v deflection, then you have something other than linearity. That in itself would point to a designed response and thus show intent.

Exactly this!

Plus minus tolerances of course. Which is half my point...

The other half is what does intent have to do with anything? It's a speeding fine (or not), not a murder trial.

At least that's my contention, please explain where intent is assessed in such matters, either through precedent or explicit regualatory text - I haven't seen it explained so far.

[nzjrs]

Linearity is dead easy to show. You double the force applied and you get a consequent doubling of deflection. So long as you stay within the elastic limits of the material/structure, you can reverse the process and repeat it. If, however, increasing the force applied leads to a non-straight line graph of force v deflection, then you have something other than linearity. That in itself would point to a designed response and thus show intent.

Exactly this!

What was meant was: what if you double the load, and get 2.01x the deflection? Is that ok? What about 2.05? 2.1? Remember this is real life and physical tests will never show a perfectly straight line. Linearity is a silly assumption we all learned in school to make things easy, and it's good enough for only very simple problems. The real world is always nonlinear (recall engineering stress vs true stress for example).

Exactly this! (To quote dans79)

[cooken]

Edit: double post

[Just_a_fan]

Linearity is dead easy to show. You double the force applied and you get a consequent doubling of deflection. So long as you stay within the elastic limits of the material/structure, you can reverse the process and repeat it. If, however, increasing the force applied leads to a non-straight line graph of force v deflection, then you have something other than linearity. That in itself would point to a designed response and thus show intent.

Exactly this!

What was meant was: what if you double the load, and get 2.01x the deflection? Is that ok? What about 2.05? 2.1? Remember this is real life and physical tests will never show a perfectly straight line. Linearity is a silly assumption we all learned in school to make things easy, and it's good enough for only very simple problems. The real world is always nonlinear (recall engineering stress vs true stress for example).

One can carry out the test several times. Plot the results of deflection v force applied. If it hockey sticks at a certain point but is still responding elastically then that's a design that's been created to give a moveable aero benefit without being caught by the current single load test.

[RZS10]

The wings that tilt back a lot will surely not just have a small deviation from complete linearity but will have a point where it suddenly changes so they wouldn't just double the load and check once and then have to decide whether 2.01 or 2.1 was still OK but they would increase the load and plot load vs. deflection - if it's a curve that doesn't have a kink in it it's fine, otherwise it isn't.

The "intent" is whether the element is designed to flex at aero loads higher than the test loads and the precedent is 2014 - but this has been pointed out and chewed through in this thread multiple times, same as the idea with testing via linearity etc 13 or so pages ago.

More than half of this thread has been nothing but a repetition of the same exact talking points, really.