Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[Wouter]

Marc Surer: "I don't know if a protest can do anything. They don't do anything illegal," he says in an interview
on Formula1.de's YouTube channel.

"Things don't get messed up here, but the rules are exploited. It is permitted and normal for the wings to bend easily. By the way, a wing must not be one hundred percent stiff.

Therefore, the subject of "Flexiwings" is "ultimately only a question of measurement. If the measurement is now increased, the wing has to be made stiffer." But Red Bull did not "have installed a spring or a mechanism that folds the wing back. From that point of view there is no cheating. Even as a commissioner you cannot punish someone who takes advantage of the regulations."

[RZS10]

Improved (less literal) translation, main issue was the term "easily" which in this context means "slightly" i also listened to the original and added a few bits, changed the order of words to put them into the actual context:

Marc Surer: "It's a threat, yes, they want to put pressure on RBR, because I don't know if a protest could really be successful, they don't do anything illegal afterall.
We have to remember when you're doing something illegal, like Tyrell who used lead balls instead of water, when BAR had their hidden extra fuel tank etc, such things are illegal and that's proper cheating.
But here it's not cheating but exploiting the rules, which is allowed and it's normal for the wings to bend slightly.
A wing cannot be one hundred percent stiff by the way, otherwise it would break if it wouldn't flex."

Therefore, the subject of "Flexiwings" is "ultimately only a question of measurement. If the measurement is now increased, the wing has to be made stiffer." [the term measurement could be translated with "test", really]

But Red Bull does not "have a spring or a mechanism built in that folds the wing back. From that point of view there is no cheating. Therefore, as a steward, you cannot punish someone who takes advantage of the regulations."

Later on he insists that the stewards "can only judge (a car) by the regulations, if a car passes the scrutineering they can't do anything." but adds "unless they would take the wing apart and find some mechanism but if it's bending simply because it isn't sturdy enough [lmao] then they can't do anything."

He then gets asked whether he was aiming at "intent" and whether it would be necessary to prove that the wing was built to tilt on purpose he nods but then goes on about some "built in hinge or something" and says "if there's no mechanism then there's absolutely no intent behind it" ... which we all know is total nonsense, unless he worded it very poorly and meant that it would be hard to prove the intent without some mechanism being present.

[Wouter]

Improved (less literal) translation,............................

RZS10 . Most active topic:
Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021
(76 Posts / 5.68% of user’s posts)

You've already spent a lot of time convincing everyone here that RB, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo and Alpine are cheating.
Where does that obsession come from?
No criticism, because from me you may feel free to do that . Just a sincere question.

[PhillipM]

It's a technical forum. That's the entire point of being here, discussion

[hollus]

Come on, guys. RZS has used the word "cheat" or any derivative exactly 4 times in the last 12 months, and only once in this thread AFAICT.
One thing is thinking that RB is "bending" the rules (pun intended).
But thinking that does not mean thinking that RB is cheating.

(And what if, it is a forum for discussion, exactly).
The obsession with denying any cheating seems to be at least as strong as the supposed obsession to declare cheating.

Live, discuss and learn. The point of a discussion is not always to win the discussion.

[El Scorchio]

Improved (less literal) translation,............................

RZS10 . Most active topic:
Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021
(76 Posts / 5.68% of user’s posts)

You've already spent a lot of time convincing everyone here that RB, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo and Alpine are cheating.
Where does that obsession come from?
No criticism, because from me you may feel free to do that . Just a sincere question.

I'm not sure he's made accusations of cheating per se. More that it was the intention of several teams, when designing their rear wings, that they flex under certain loads but still pass the existing load tests. Objectively it's just exploiting a grey area in the load tests. But a grey area the FIA have now decided to finally clamp down on which may make several team's wings non compliant with the new tests.

It's problematic because there's been a lot of splitting hairs and semantics at play in this thread to try and prove a point either way.

I think you have to congratulate the teams for being so resourceful and clever with their engineering, but also you have to acknowledge that they were manufacturing components which intentionally do something they are not supposed to be doing and now face being 'hoisted by their own petard(s)', so to speak.

[Sieper]

But no energy was ever spent on let’s use an example, Mercedes years of oil burn. So, the question is valid imho. Why now, it is not as if oil burn (also totally outside the rules, you need to burn fuel and nothing else per the rules and certainly the oilburners did that with intent as it was always possible to just burn 0,1liter) was any different. So why are the topics treated differently. A Fair question.

[hollus]

But no energy was ever spent on let’s use an example, Mercedes years of oil burn.
...
So why are the topics treated differently. A Fair question.

Oil burning went on for a while, sometimes commented on but ignored by the rule makers. More than one manufactured was doing it. Eventually it got in the attention spot and it was reduced (not outlawed) from a few races into the future.


Rear wing bending has been going on for a while, minimum a year but probably more, sometimes commented on but ignored by the rule makers. More than one team seem to have been doing it. Eventually it got in the attention spot and it was reduced (not outlawed) from a few races into the future.

I beg to differ, what is being treated differently?

If you mean the fan's outroar, also that seems to be very similar this time, just different colors, no?

[El Scorchio]

But no energy was ever spent on let’s use an example, Mercedes years of oil burn.
...
So why are the topics treated differently. A Fair question.

Oil burning went on for a while, sometimes commented on but ignored by the rule makers. More than one manufacturer was doing it. Eventually it got in the attention spot and it was reduced (not outlawed) from a few races into the future.


Rear wing bending has been going on for a while, minimum a year but probably more, sometimes commented on but ignored by the rule makers. More than one team seem to have been doing it. Eventually it got in the attention spot and it was reduced (not outlawed) from a few races into the future.

I beg to differ, what is being treated differently?

If you mean the fan's outroar, also that seems to be very similar this time, just different colors, no?

Agree. Obviously this sort of thing is emotive for people when they are invested in the fortunes of particular team(s) and it's very easy to lose objectivity.

[SmallSoldier]

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.

Great post... I always wondered why the loads applied were so small compared to what the cars experienced on track and it makes absolute sense.

The camera + markings might be the best bet for measuring deflection after all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sieper]

But no energy was ever spent on let’s use an example, Mercedes years of oil burn.
...
So why are the topics treated differently. A Fair question.

Oil burning went on for a while, sometimes commented on but ignored by the rule makers. More than one manufactured was doing it. Eventually it got in the attention spot and it was reduced (not outlawed) from a few races into the future.


Rear wing bending has been going on for a while, minimum a year but probably more, sometimes commented on but ignored by the rule makers. More than one team seem to have been doing it. Eventually it got in the attention spot and it was reduced (not outlawed) from a few races into the future.

I beg to differ, what is being treated differently?

If you mean the fan's outroar, also that seems to be very similar this time, just different colors, no?

Oil burn was treated quite differently imho. It was only ever reduced “next year” not during the year (to the best of my memory) and certainly not within 3 races. Like the wing. And even that is apparently not quick enough. Oil burn was first ignored and then .9 .6 .3 and later I believe separate tanks etc. To finally cut it. Took 5 years at least.

To me that is strange. Conceptually very similar type of “colouring outside the lines”. Very different treatment.

[SmallSoldier]

But no energy was ever spent on let’s use an example, Mercedes years of oil burn.
...
So why are the topics treated differently. A Fair question.

Oil burning went on for a while, sometimes commented on but ignored by the rule makers. More than one manufactured was doing it. Eventually it got in the attention spot and it was reduced (not outlawed) from a few races into the future.


Rear wing bending has been going on for a while, minimum a year but probably more, sometimes commented on but ignored by the rule makers. More than one team seem to have been doing it. Eventually it got in the attention spot and it was reduced (not outlawed) from a few races into the future.

I beg to differ, what is being treated differently?

If you mean the fan's outroar, also that seems to be very similar this time, just different colors, no?

Oil burn was treated quite differently imho. It was only ever reduced “next year” not during the year (to the best of my memory) and certainly not within 3 races. Like the wing. And even that is apparently not quick enough. Oil burn was first ignored and then .9 .6 .3 and later I believe separate tanks etc. To finally cut it. Took 5 years at least.

To me that is strange. Conceptually very similar type of “colouring outside the lines”. Very different treatment.

Wasn’t oil consumption changed in 2017 from 1.2 liters to 0.9 liters mid season in 2017? If I’m not wrong, they came with the changes applicable as of Monza of that year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sieper]

That could be, one step maybe mid year, don’t remember exactly, but the rest of these steps were between years and it took several of them to finally cut it. Should have just said. Engine’s burn fuel, in 3 races from now you are allowed 0.1 liter. Maybe give a year, Not 5 years.

[Just_a_fan]

There is a key difference between an engine and a rear wing. One is massively controlled with limited numbers allowed, penalties given out if changes made, etc., and the other is the rear wing. Any team can change the rear wing penalty free from race to race if they wish, not so the engine. And weren't the oil burning changes as a result of Red Bull complaining? Just like with the qualifying modes. Both were changed mid season. Goes around, comes around, as they say.

[Sieper]

There is a key difference between an engine and a rear wing. One is massively controlled with limited numbers allowed, penalties given out if changes made, etc., and the other is the rear wing. Any team can change the rear wing penalty free from race to race if they wish, not so the engine. And weren't the oil burning changes as a result of Red Bull complaining? Just like with the qualifying modes. Both were changed mid season. Goes around, comes around, as they say.

Well, there has been a lot more going around going on than coming around. I am surprised at the enormous speed this is being done at and even more so that that short timeframe is not enough. It leaves me feeling a bit peeved that apparently the team that I support does not seem to have that leverage.