Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[Stu]

That's how I see it really. They can surely only take rear facing footage to the powers that be and try to protest on the basis of that, which I don't see getting much traction.

Yep, pretty much this. Footage of multiple cars, analysis of it, and a copy of rule 3.8 to point at!

But we have video/photographic proof now of ALL teams breaking that rule; by the exact wording of the rule THAT would be the ‘nuclear option’.

You referenced another part of the rule about flex bridging the gap between the car and the ground, I haven’t seen any suggestion that the door is flexing to the ground, that particular part of the rules is mostly targeted at the front wings (lateral flex along the wing).

[El Scorchio]

Another tidbit: Szafnauer talked about wanting to help the FIA with the rear wing stuff, what if it's just on their car (no other car with any marking so far, right?) and it's just work to help with the measurements etc.

So it is every car then. Very intrigued as to whether they are there this weekend strictly for data gathering and to find out more about the behaviour of each particular wing ahead of France and to establish a benchmark for teams as to how far any of stickers can be seen to move, or if they will entertain any protests this weekend based on what is observed from footage. Surely the former.

[peaty]

We have talk about this many many time already. It's not suprise you didn't understand me, that's why you keep repeating yourself over and over again!

No I understand completely, I think many here don't understand how to interpret the rules. Hence why Abu Dhabi 2014 is such a good reference. In Abu Dhabi, RBR was excluded from qualifying because they were seen to not meet the requirements of what is article 3.8 today. Back then the equivalent of today's 3.9 wasn't even referenced.

In other words compliance with article 3.9 doesn't guarantee your in compliance with article 3.8, nor does it mean you are safe if someone protests you, because article 3.8 is open to interpretation by the stewards, the FIA, and the members of the ICA.

Ooohh yeah, you clearly understand! That's why you are comparing a front wing with a rear wing...
You clearly understand why article 3.8 (3.15 at the time) was the one in breach in 2014 and 3.9 (3.17 at the time) wasn't even referenced...
And that's why you understand completely the case in hands...

Seriously...

[peaty]

That's how I see it really. They can surely only take rear facing footage to the powers that be and try to protest on the basis of that, which I don't see getting much traction.

Yep, pretty much this. Footage of multiple cars, analysis of it, and a copy of rule 3.8 to point at!

But we have video/photographic proof now of ALL teams breaking that rule; by the exact wording of the rule THAT would be the ‘nuclear option’.

You referenced another part of the rule about flex bridging the gap between the car and the ground, I haven’t seen any suggestion that the door is flexing to the ground, that particular part of the rules is mostly targeted at the front wings (lateral flex along the wing).

That's what he doesn't understand!

[RZS10]

Another tidbit: Szafnauer talked about wanting to help the FIA with the rear wing stuff, what if it's just on their car (no other car with any marking so far, right?) and it's just work to help with the measurements etc.

Yea they're also on the Alpine


and Merc

[Just_a_fan]

If you were Red Bull, would you bring a "stiff" rear wing to this race knowing that this sticker / video assessment is going to be done? Then you can say "look, our wing is fine!". The FIA then mumble about thinking they have left the oven on and wander off feeling silly. You then bring your "self adjusting" rear wing to future races.

[SmallSoldier]

That's how I see it really. They can surely only take rear facing footage to the powers that be and try to protest on the basis of that, which I don't see getting much traction.

Yep, pretty much this. Footage of multiple cars, analysis of it, and a copy of rule 3.8 to point at!

But we have video/photographic proof now of ALL teams breaking that rule; by the exact wording of the rule THAT would be the ‘nuclear option’.

You referenced another part of the rule about flex bridging the gap between the car and the ground, I haven’t seen any suggestion that the door is flexing to the ground, that particular part of the rules is mostly targeted at the front wings (lateral flex along the wing).

Actually, the wording on that part of the rule was aimed at the floors, if I’m not wrong... Teams where designing them to deform and create “skirts” and that’s why it was added.

Now, if the wings are indeed rotating backwards, then they are bridging the gap to the ground (the upper element is)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

If you were Red Bull, would you bring a "stiff" rear wing to this race knowing that this sticker / video assessment is going to be done? Then you can say "look, our wing is fine!". The FIA then mumble about thinking they have left the oven on and wander off feeling silly. You then bring your "self adjusting" rear wing to future races.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the stickers actually stayed until they can determine if the static tests show a true picture of the wing behaviors under on track load


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dans79]

But we have video/photographic proof now of ALL teams breaking that rule; by the exact wording of the rule THAT would be the ‘nuclear option’.

That's why this is an interesting topic, because as many people have already said perfectly rigid with no degrees of freedom is impossible to achieve. Thus by its very nature article 3.8 is subjective, and open to interpretation as to how much is acceptable.

I Personally wouldn't call this a nuclear option. If Mercedes protests Red Bull, do you really thing Redbull is going to Protest every other team on the grid? Even if they did it goes back to article 3.8 being subjective, so odds are some teams would be cleared of the protest.

You referenced another part of the rule about flex bridging the gap between the car and the ground, I haven’t seen any suggestion that the door is flexing to the ground, that particular part of the rules is mostly targeted at the front wings (lateral flex along the wing).

while a lot less likely, if the floor/diffuser is flexing some that could also get a team in hot water. If the floor/diffuser area flexed it would most likely be down and back at the outer edges. This could aide sealing of the floor. It could also effect if/when the diffuser stalls, but generally teams don't want to mess with stalling the diffuser as its a very tricky thing.

[nzjrs]

If you were Red Bull, would you bring a "stiff" rear wing to this race knowing that this sticker / video assessment is going to be done? Then you can say "look, our wing is fine!". The FIA then mumble about thinking they have left the oven on and wander off feeling silly. You then bring your "self adjusting" rear wing to future races.

Haha if I was RB I would, after FP1, proactively protest MBs rear wing that moved 1 micron (detected in video footage) in order to get them to rule on the issue for the remainder of the weekend.

(Joking of course)

[ispano6]

If you were Red Bull, would you bring a "stiff" rear wing to this race knowing that this sticker / video assessment is going to be done? Then you can say "look, our wing is fine!". The FIA then mumble about thinking they have left the oven on and wander off feeling silly. You then bring your "self adjusting" rear wing to future races.

What? So now you're suggesting Red Bull would "cheat" after passing a visual test at a single race event and therefore feel that they would go unnoticed thereafter? What is your problem exactly? You must think Red Bull is stupid or something.

[dans79]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the stickers actually stayed until they can determine if the static tests show a true picture of the wing behaviors under on track load

I was thinking about the stickers again earlier today, and I now think it might be far easier to use them to monitor wing deflection/rotation that some of us thought previously.

Since the stickers are circles they will have the same width and height when they are parallel to the camera. When they are at an angle to the camera, the width will stay the same, while the height (as perceived in a frame grab) will be less. I think the change in height is just a cosinusoidal relationship to the angle. When Parallel to the camera the angle is zero and the height and width are the same. Perpendicular to the camera and the height goes to zero, ie the cosine of 90 degrees.


If the camera is of sufficient resolution and sharpness, then you don't need to have a whole bunch of known distances to do calculations. All the information you need is contained within a frame.



Edit: you might even be able to use a similar methodology with 2 dots, if they are known distance apart, thus making camera resolution less significant.

[SmallSoldier]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the stickers actually stayed until they can determine if the static tests show a true picture of the wing behaviors under on track load

I was thinking about the stickers again earlier today, and I now think it might be far easier to use them to monitor wing deflection/rotation that some of us thought previously.

Since the stickers are circles they will have the same width and height when they are parallel to the camera. When they are at an angle to the camera, the width will stay the same, while the height (as perceived in a frame grab) will be less. I think the change in height is just a cosinusoidal relationship to the angle. When Parallel to the camera the angle is zero and the height and width are the same. Perpendicular to the camera and the height goes to zero, ie the cosine of 90 degrees.


If the camera is of sufficient resolution and sharpness, then you don't need to have a whole bunch of known distances to do calculations. All the information you need is contained within a frame.



Edit: you might even be able to use a similar methodology with 2 dots, if they are known distance apart, thus making camera resolution less significant.

Agreed, although I probably wouldn’t have used “round” stickers and instead, checkered ones since it would have assist on accurate measurements.

Interesting development for the weekend though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RZS10]

You guys mean sth like this?

[Just_a_fan]

If you were Red Bull, would you bring a "stiff" rear wing to this race knowing that this sticker / video assessment is going to be done? Then you can say "look, our wing is fine!". The FIA then mumble about thinking they have left the oven on and wander off feeling silly. You then bring your "self adjusting" rear wing to future races.

What? So now you're suggesting Red Bull would "cheat" after passing a visual test at a single race event and therefore feel that they would go unnoticed thereafter? What is your problem exactly? You must think Red Bull is stupid or something.

A sense of humour is a great thing to have if you're going to play on public forums on the internet.

There's a hint in my post that it wasn't serious. It looks like this: