Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[nzjrs]

Yep, thanks mate ... i mean ... it's quite clear what the enforcement of the rules is based on and in the end it doesn't matter what you call it.

I think we just understand things differently, it's not clear to me even from the one example that intent is a scalable or general principle.

[dans79]

'linearity' - and 'non-linearity' as has been waved around in this thread ? .....

nothing mechanical is 'linear' .....
carbon fibre isn't
epoxy resin isn't

Perfectly linear no, but the FIA isn't looking for perfection.

They want to see something like this. For all intensive, linear all the way till you reach structural failure.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... cimens.png
graph pulled from this paper
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Loa ... _322215740


If fitted with a line, both of these would have a good correlation coefficient, and/or coefficient of determination, depending on what you chose to show accuracy of the fit. It only starts to fall aways as you approach the point of structural failure.

Well, if that is what FIA wants to see, why don't they just add that to the rules? 3.9.9.2 "In addition to the test criteria above, the relation between deflection and load should under no non-fatal conditions exceed linearity" (or something along those lines, perhaps allowing for some -clearly defined- tolerance wrt linearity)

Or (for this example) "under no circumstance that does not compromise wing integrity can the deformation be more than [20 mm]". That was not in the original regs, but it hasn't been added to the new directive either - hence still leaving the prospective gray area wide open.

Who knows, If you sit down and go through the rules, you will see the are written horribly. They jump around a lot, and are vague in a lot of cases.

They read like they were written by someone who wanted' to do the least amount of work possible. Not to mention almost any time they change them, it's a knee jerk reaction to something, so they just get messier.

[nzjrs]

'linearity' - and 'non-linearity' as has been waved around in this thread ? .....

nothing mechanical is 'linear' .....
carbon fibre isn't
epoxy resin isn't

Perfectly linear no, but the FIA isn't looking for perfection.

They want to see something like this. For all intensive, linear all the way till you reach structural failure.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... cimens.png
graph pulled from this paper
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Loa ... _322215740


If fitted with a line, both of these would have a good correlation coefficient, and/or coefficient of determination, depending on what you chose to show accuracy of the fit. It only starts to fall aways as you approach the point of structural failure.

Well, if that is what FIA wants to see, why don't they just add that to the rules? 3.9.9.2 "In addition to the test criteria above, the relation between deflection and load should under no non-fatal conditions exceed linearity" (or something along those lines, perhaps allowing for some -clearly defined- tolerance wrt linearity)

Or (for this example) "under no circumstance that does not compromise wing integrity can the deformation be more than [20 mm]". That was not in the original regs, but it hasn't been added to the new directive either - hence still leaving the prospective gray area wide open.

And as I was also saying, they might want to put a clause into the regulations that would allow the prosecution to argue intent even if the rules continue to be met.

DAS is instructive here, you could argue intent easily, but it was legal on other, firmer, grounds.

[Hoffman900]

Perfectly linear no, but the FIA isn't looking for perfection.

They want to see something like this. For all intensive, linear all the way till you reach structural failure.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... cimens.png
graph pulled from this paper
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Loa ... _322215740


If fitted with a line, both of these would have a good correlation coefficient, and/or coefficient of determination, depending on what you chose to show accuracy of the fit. It only starts to fall aways as you approach the point of structural failure.

Well, if that is what FIA wants to see, why don't they just add that to the rules? 3.9.9.2 "In addition to the test criteria above, the relation between deflection and load should under no non-fatal conditions exceed linearity" (or something along those lines, perhaps allowing for some -clearly defined- tolerance wrt linearity)

Or (for this example) "under no circumstance that does not compromise wing integrity can the deformation be more than [20 mm]". That was not in the original regs, but it hasn't been added to the new directive either - hence still leaving the prospective gray area wide open.

Who knows, If you sit down and go through the rules, you will see the are written horribly. They jump around a lot, and are vague in a lot of cases.

They read like they were written by someone who wanted' to do the least amount of work possible. Not to mention almost any time they change them, it's a knee jerk reaction to something, so they just get messier.

This.

I've run civil engineering / construction projects in excess of $120mil, both on the owners side and on the field side. The rules are terrible written, not "tight" at all, contradict themselves, etc. If we had issued a RFP, design specs, a proposal, etc. written like that, the projects would have been disasters.

[dans79]

Yep, thanks mate ... i mean ... it's quite clear what the enforcement of the rules is based on and in the end it doesn't matter what you call it.

I think we just understand things differently, it's not clear to me even from the one example that intent is a scalable or general principle.

Intent, is hinted at several places in the rules.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -03-05.pdf

9.2.4 (transmission related)

Designs or systems which in addition to typical inherent hydraulic and mechanical properties
are designed to, or have the effect of, adjusting or otherwise influencing the amount, or rate,
of engagement being demanded by the FIA ECU, are not permitted.

11.7.1 (brakes)

No braking system may be designed to prevent wheels from locking when the driver applies
pressure to the brake pedal.

11.7.2 (brakes)

No braking system may be designed to increase the pressure in the brake calipers above that
achieved by the driver applying pressure to the pedal under all conditions.

I know other articles hint at intent using different adjectives, I just don't want to go down a searchining rabbit hole right now.


Honestly a lot of other events governed by rules, have one rule that clearly states intent to circumvent a rules even if in a legal manner is illegal. I don't know why F1 doesn't have something as simple.

[Hoffman900]

Honestly a lot of other events governed by rules, have one rule that clearly states intent to circumvent a rules even if in a legal manner is illegal. I don't know why F1 doesn't have something as simple.

This is where you need a strong sanctioning body who makes the rules, not the manufacturers by committee.

[nzjrs]

I think we just understand things differently, it's not clear to me even from the one example that intent is a scalable or general principle.

Intent, is hinted at several places in the rules.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -03-05.pdf

9.2.4 (transmission related)

Designs or systems which in addition to typical inherent hydraulic and mechanical properties
are designed to, or have the effect of, adjusting or otherwise influencing the amount, or rate,
of engagement being demanded by the FIA ECU, are not permitted.

11.7.1 (brakes)

No braking system may be designed to prevent wheels from locking when the driver applies
pressure to the brake pedal.

11.7.2 (brakes)

No braking system may be designed to increase the pressure in the brake calipers above that
achieved by the driver applying pressure to the pedal under all conditions.

I know other articles hint at intent using different adjectives, I just don't want to go down a searchining rabbit hole right now.


Honestly a lot of other events governed by rules, have one rule that clearly states intent to circumvent a rules even if in a legal manner is illegal. I don't know why F1 doesn't have something as simple.

I take your point - although for what it's worth in this case I read designed as a rather a catch-all for the opposite case, kind of like a force majeure catch-all. I.e. should through failure or accident a part act or behave in an illegal manner then it is not subject to penalty.

[dans79]

here is another good example of how something was perfectly legal, but became illegal because of intent.
McLaren’s “fiddle-brake”

https://www.mclaren.com/racing/inside-t ... l-3153421/

[godlameroso]

Watch this video and you'll understand what this debate is turning in to.

I 100% agree that all video evidence shown thus far indicates the RBR wing bends more than the Mercedes wing. That is beyond dispute. Whether it's illegal or not, we'll see, and no point getting amped up until the FIA makes their decision. It's an enjoyable bit of added tension, and it's shown us that Toto really means business, like any good businessman should.

My bias should make the stubbornness of my position obvious I like Hondas.

[Just_a_fan]

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.

Intent implies cheating in some minds.

[Just_a_fan]

'linearity' - and 'non-linearity' as has been waved around in this thread ? .....

nothing mechanical is 'linear' .....
carbon fibre isn't
epoxy resin isn't

Perfectly linear no, but the FIA isn't looking for perfection.

They want to see something like this. For all intensive, linear all the way till you reach structural failure.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... cimens.png
graph pulled from this paper
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Loa ... _322215740


If fitted with a line, both of these would have a good correlation coefficient, and/or coefficient of determination, depending on what you chose to show accuracy of the fit. It only starts to fall aways as you approach the point of structural failure.

Well, if that is what FIA wants to see, why don't they just add that to the rules? 3.9.9.2 "In addition to the test criteria above, the relation between deflection and load should under no non-fatal conditions exceed linearity" (or something along those lines, perhaps allowing for some -clearly defined- tolerance wrt linearity)

Or (for this example) "under no circumstance that does not compromise wing integrity can the deformation be more than [20 mm]". That was not in the original regs, but it hasn't been added to the new directive either - hence still leaving the prospective gray area wide open.

That would be the sensible thing to do - write in a maximum deflection allowed and make the test load sufficiently high that it represents the load applied to the wing at top speed. In effect, they would be making the rear wing inflexible. The current loads are small in comparison to the downforce and drag figures that the rear wings will be attaining. Also, the test loads are applied vertically and horizontally and done so separately. But the wing experiences a resultant force from the drag and downforce acting at the same time.

[Stu]

11.7.1 (brakes)

No braking system may be designed to prevent wheels from locking when the driver applies
pressure to the brake pedal.

11.7.2 (brakes)

No braking system may be designed to increase the pressure in the brake calipers above that
achieved by the driver applying pressure to the pedal under all conditions.

I know other articles hint at intent using different adjectives, I just don't want to go down a searchining rabbit hole right now.


Honestly a lot of other events governed by rules, have one rule that clearly states intent to circumvent a rules even if in a legal manner is illegal. I don't know why F1 doesn't have something as simple.

These two regs are a direct parallel to the “no flexing bodywork relative to the datum plane”

In both cases ALL cars taking to the track are illegal, in the first of them the brakes would have to lock as soon as pressure was applied by the driver, for the second ALL cars taking to track use a hydraulic braking system consisting of (at least) a master cylinder and a slave cylinder which, by design, have differential piston sizes (and therefore amplify the pressure applied by the driver to the pedal).

I think that ALL teams will, most likely, revisit their rear wing designs to pass the new test (whether that is to make them less flexible or more). The test itself is essentially a tolerance check on the flexibility of the wing structure (a go/no-go test), the new test simply changes the parameters.
ALL of the teams try to ‘game’ the rules to gain advantage, there is enough financial advantage to do so; if the method of testing for compliance changes it does not make those parts created to the previous method compliance testing (pun intended!!) illegal when they used (much like oil-burning).

The ‘game’ will move on and find the next weakness in the regulations...

[Just_a_fan]

11.7.1 (brakes)

No braking system may be designed to prevent wheels from locking when the driver applies
pressure to the brake pedal.

11.7.2 (brakes)

No braking system may be designed to increase the pressure in the brake calipers above that
achieved by the driver applying pressure to the pedal under all conditions.

I know other articles hint at intent using different adjectives, I just don't want to go down a searchining rabbit hole right now.


Honestly a lot of other events governed by rules, have one rule that clearly states intent to circumvent a rules even if in a legal manner is illegal. I don't know why F1 doesn't have something as simple.

These two regs are a direct parallel to the “no flexing bodywork relative to the datum plane”

In both cases ALL cars taking to the track are illegal, in the first of them the brakes would have to lock as soon as pressure was applied by the driver, for the second ALL cars taking to track use a hydraulic braking system consisting of (at least) a master cylinder and a slave cylinder which, by design, have differential piston sizes (and therefore amplify the pressure applied by the driver to the pedal).

I think that ALL teams will, most likely, revisit their rear wing designs to pass the new test (whether that is to make them less flexible or more). The test itself is essentially a tolerance check on the flexibility of the wing structure (a go/no-go test), the new test simply changes the parameters.
ALL of the teams try to ‘game’ the rules to gain advantage, there is enough financial advantage to do so; if the method of testing for compliance changes it does not make those parts created to the previous method compliance testing (pun intended!!) illegal when they used (much like oil-burning).

The ‘game’ will move on and find the next weakness in the regulations...

Re: the brake argument. Incorrect on the first point - the driver could put in a tiny bit of brake pressure and the brakes wouldn't lock simply because the braking force is insufficient to overcome other forces in the system - wheel/tyre rotational inertia, tyre grip, downforce increased grip, etc. The brakes wouldn't naturally lock in such circumstances and the system isn't designed to prevent locking. Locking is prevented by the driver inputting less force than is required to lock the wheels at that given moment. That the wheels can be locked by the driver braking hard enough shows that the system isn't designed to prevent it from occurring. With the rear flexi wing, the driver can do nothing to prevent the wing from flexi - it's an inherent feature of the way it was designed and constructed.

[hollus]

An amusing though (to me) regarding the forces applied to test the rear wing's flexibility:



Is they were to apply forces equivalent to what the rear wing sees at 300 km/h, and they were to apply them to the rear wing exclusively, while the car is sitting in the pit lane:
The whole car would be dragged backwards.

If they were to restrain the rear wheels to prevent that backwards movement:
The front would probably lift off the ground.

Is they were to restrain the front wheels as well:
The rear wheels and suspension would still compress a lot, rotating the whole car. This would force the rig to rotate accordingly less the lever forces are wrong, and it would force the reference line for measurement to tilt accordingly.

Al this probably goes a long way to explain why the applied forces are so inadequately small in the current tests.

By the time they have this whole-car-encompassing test rig applying close to a ton of force, they might juts as well test the car while moving in the track. (I know, they are considering exactly that!).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

And yet, they might still fail to measure the very thing they are trying to measure:



If they define wing rotation as in that drawing, they'd still miss the point.
The Red Bull wing (I suppose others too, but harder to estimate) seems to rotate not as a solid object including the complete end plates, but in particular it seems to pivot mostly at the kinks in the end plates. Those are also the most obvious place to induce flexibility.
So if you measure a displacement at the top of the wing assembly, you'd be averaging the relatively rigid bottom part and the relatively movable top part and arrive at an angle which is about half of the real rotation of the wing planes.

So now you'd need a rig that applies about 1 ton of force, that applies it at the wing planes without restricting the end plates (that would affect all bending forces), while holding the 4 wheels, and you are left measuring the real rotation of the aero force generating planes, the same planes you were forced to stabilize to apply an enormous force to with a metallic rigid object... back to measuring while running in the track, isn't it?
(and otherwise maybe, just maybe, to measure the flexibility of the test rig for measuring the flexibility of the car?)

the perfect test is just impossible to make and, as all teams know, only running in the track properly replicates running in the track.

[Chuckjr]

Well, if that is what FIA wants to see, why don't they just add that to the rules? 3.9.9.2 "In addition to the test criteria above, the relation between deflection and load should under no non-fatal conditions exceed linearity" (or something along those lines, perhaps allowing for some -clearly defined- tolerance wrt linearity)

Or (for this example) "under no circumstance that does not compromise wing integrity can the deformation be more than [20 mm]". That was not in the original regs, but it hasn't been added to the new directive either - hence still leaving the prospective gray area wide open.

Who knows, If you sit down and go through the rules, you will see the are written horribly. They jump around a lot, and are vague in a lot of cases.

They read like they were written by someone who wanted' to do the least amount of work possible. Not to mention almost any time they change them, it's a knee jerk reaction to something, so they just get messier.

This.

I've run civil engineering / construction projects in excess of $120mil, both on the owners side and on the field side. The rules are terrible written, not "tight" at all, contradict themselves, etc. If we had issued a RFP, design specs, a proposal, etc. written like that, the projects would have been disasters.

Thank you for that post. It’s one of the most revealing and therefore clarifying I’ve read in this thread.