Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[djones]

If Mercedes are not bending the rear wing, then they are certainly not bending the front one on purpose (if indeed its even bending).

If they had the desperation mentality of Redbull they could have EASILY made their rear wing bend too. But they didn't, they chose to stick firmly to the rules.

Redbull and the other teams with bending rear wings are clutching at straws and trying to distract from the borderline cheating going on. It will not work. Mercedes will come out on top and the less flexing (as long as its over all teams) the better for them as they have the strongest engine and can take the drag hit.

One year maybe a team will get close to Mercedes without lets say 'tricks' such as the bending rear wing or fuel flow manipulation. It is not this year I'm afraid to say.

[RZS10]

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

Heh ... RBR has square checkerboard stickers AND white dots



Ferrari, Mercedes and Aston have complementary (?) coloured ones (relative to the base wing colour), most dark (black-ish) ones have white dots.

[El Scorchio]

RBR rear wing looked steady as a rock just then down the main straight. So I guess they've made some changes or just not run that one?

[djones]

RBR rear wing looked steady as a rock just then down the main straight. So I guess they've made some changes or just not run that one?

They will probably not run it.

Then pretend its exactly the same as the one that was bending.

[RZS10]

edit: Deleted the comparisons because it was wrong, the difference in speed wasn't between end of straight and slow corner but medium speed corner and part way down the straight.

[RZS10]

From sky, scaled to similar size (no idea why the footage is so grainy)


Given the quality it's hard to tell whether there's more flex on Merc's wing compared to Spain (subjectively: not really) but should the wings stay like that i don't expect any protests, at least not from Merc - it is interesting though, how the barn door RW apparently has a similar level of tilt as that skinny low DF wing.

Someone will surely upload 1080p stuff somewhere - the video itself showed the DRS flaps open down the straight which could be interesting.

Here's the poor quality, watch the endplates for reference:




I tried to get some FW footage btw but they always kept cutting away towards turn1

[ispano6]

And that makes it OK? Surely Mercedes is capable of making something that is thin but does not flap like a flag?

Well yes, it does make it ok. Just like Red Bull and other teams’ flexing wings have been ok up until now until they came under scrutiny of the FIA. Just because you personally don’t like another team’s shark fin (probably for no other reason than because it’s not on a Honda powered car and is on a rival car) doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with it.

Let’s talk about shark fins IF they become relevant to the conversation- I.e. someone within the sport whose opinion matters queries them, because they WILL at some point if there’s any more substance to it other than people on a forum waving the finger. Otherwise there’s zero point in going down that road

Pretty much took the words off of my fingertips.

To add, I've yet to see a single compelling argument as to what the benefit of the wobbly shark fin would be, considering its primary purposes are providing laminar flow to the RW and helping stabilize the car in yaw conditions.

I can see an argument for a stiffer shark fin making those other two metrics more predictable/beneficial, but at the expense of some extra weight/girth/drag.

If there was a significant performance benefit from making the fin as large and as wobbly as possible, every single team would be doing it. With the RW, several teams have pushed the limits with respect to flexibility because the performance is there. Other teams had the capacity to do the same, but decided the risk-reward benefit of pursuing that option was not worth it.

It's not that guys, it's the fact that the Mercedes fans seem to justify the oscillations and movement of the t wings and sharkfins as incidental and thus allowed and then repeatedly cite article 3.8 and the wording "immobile" when it is clear as night and day the Mercs parts are clearly MOVING. So naturally the Red Bull fans here will facepalm at the apparent hypocrisy of the Mercedes fans criticism of Red Bull and justification of the Mercs apparent infractions. I've already mentioned that there is in fact evidence that supports that inducing oscillations has the effect of reducing drag, such is vortex generation. Yet you folks repeatedly insist that the oscillations induce drag.

[henry]

From sky, scaled to similar size (no idea why the footage is so grainy)
https://s6.gifyu.com/images/image7132a2f91ae47a2f.png

Given the quality it's hard to tell whether there's more flex on Merc's wing compared to Spain (subjectively: not really) but should the wings stay like that i don't expect any protests, at least not from Merc - it is interesting though, how the barn door RW apparently has a similar level of tilt as that skinny low DF wing.

Someone will surely upload 1080p stuff somewhere - the video itself showed the DRS flaps open down the straight which could be interesting.

Here's the poor quality, watch the endplates for reference:
https://s6.gifyu.com/images/RBRDRS2.gif
https://s6.gifyu.com/images/MERCDRS.gif


I tried to get some FW footage btw but they always kept cutting away towards turn1

There’s quite a lot of horizontal movement of the trailing edge of the end plates as the DRS opens on both cars. Possibly due to differential flexibility between the leading and trailing edges of the dog-leg support?

[e30ernest]

Well yes, it does make it ok. Just like Red Bull and other teams’ flexing wings have been ok up until now until they came under scrutiny of the FIA. Just because you personally don’t like another team’s shark fin (probably for no other reason than because it’s not on a Honda powered car and is on a rival car) doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with it.

Let’s talk about shark fins IF they become relevant to the conversation- I.e. someone within the sport whose opinion matters queries them, because they WILL at some point if there’s any more substance to it other than people on a forum waving the finger. Otherwise there’s zero point in going down that road

Pretty much took the words off of my fingertips.

To add, I've yet to see a single compelling argument as to what the benefit of the wobbly shark fin would be, considering its primary purposes are providing laminar flow to the RW and helping stabilize the car in yaw conditions.

I can see an argument for a stiffer shark fin making those other two metrics more predictable/beneficial, but at the expense of some extra weight/girth/drag.

If there was a significant performance benefit from making the fin as large and as wobbly as possible, every single team would be doing it. With the RW, several teams have pushed the limits with respect to flexibility because the performance is there. Other teams had the capacity to do the same, but decided the risk-reward benefit of pursuing that option was not worth it.

It's not that guys, it's the fact that the Mercedes fans seem to justify the oscillations and movement of the t wings and sharkfins as incidental and thus allowed and then repeatedly cite article 3.8 and the wording "immobile" when it is clear as night and day the Mercs parts are clearly MOVING. So naturally the Red Bull fans here will facepalm at the apparent hypocrisy of the Mercedes fans criticism of Red Bull and justification of the Mercs apparent infractions. I've already mentioned that there is in fact evidence that supports that inducing oscillations has the effect of reducing drag, such is vortex generation. Yet you folks repeatedly insist that the oscillations induce drag.

I'm all for clamping down on the T-Wing and Fin if it is found to be in contravention to the rules. The question is, why aren't the teams protesting it?

This thread is about the rear wing because the FIA were called out on it and now they are clamping down on it. If they do the same to the fins/t-wings/front wings for parity then personally (as a Merc/McLaren fan) I won't mind.

[henry]

The comments here certainly do have a 'circular' aspect to them.... If the FIA uses targets and video to measure deflection of a wing at speed and makes this the actual test for legality this puts the teams in a bit of a tight spot, as the teams won't be able to test their wings at the factory for legality unless they have a full scale wind tunnel capable of the top speed of an F1 car. The rules do restrict model size, wind speed, and wind tunnel run time so this would be a difficult test to run. The current rigidity test is a force applied to a static wing with a measure of deflection within limits to pass; a video real time defection test would. without added testing time, be a difficult one to simulate. I think the FIA has to have a static test that the teams can perform themselves in the factory.

Very good point. They can however estimate the forces they will generate and compare these with the test forces.

Earlier in this thread @hollus raised the issue that it is not possible to react realistic test forces on a free standing car.

Perhaps a solution would be to require the teams to provide anchor points on the bottom of the car so that it can be clamped to a rig with the car resting on the plank. The main purpose would be to react horizontal forces since the downward forces would be reacted through the plank. The exception is the tea tray test where it is pushed upwards.

A suitable location for the attachment might be at the rear monocoque bulkhead where the ICE attaches.

[El Scorchio]

Well yes, it does make it ok. Just like Red Bull and other teams’ flexing wings have been ok up until now until they came under scrutiny of the FIA. Just because you personally don’t like another team’s shark fin (probably for no other reason than because it’s not on a Honda powered car and is on a rival car) doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with it.

Let’s talk about shark fins IF they become relevant to the conversation- I.e. someone within the sport whose opinion matters queries them, because they WILL at some point if there’s any more substance to it other than people on a forum waving the finger. Otherwise there’s zero point in going down that road

Pretty much took the words off of my fingertips.

To add, I've yet to see a single compelling argument as to what the benefit of the wobbly shark fin would be, considering its primary purposes are providing laminar flow to the RW and helping stabilize the car in yaw conditions.

I can see an argument for a stiffer shark fin making those other two metrics more predictable/beneficial, but at the expense of some extra weight/girth/drag.

If there was a significant performance benefit from making the fin as large and as wobbly as possible, every single team would be doing it. With the RW, several teams have pushed the limits with respect to flexibility because the performance is there. Other teams had the capacity to do the same, but decided the risk-reward benefit of pursuing that option was not worth it.

It's not that guys, it's the fact that the Mercedes fans seem to justify the oscillations and movement of the t wings and sharkfins as incidental and thus allowed and then repeatedly cite article 3.8 and the wording "immobile" when it is clear as night and day the Mercs parts are clearly MOVING. So naturally the Red Bull fans here will facepalm at the apparent hypocrisy of the Mercedes fans criticism of Red Bull and justification of the Mercs apparent infractions. I've already mentioned that there is in fact evidence that supports that inducing oscillations has the effect of reducing drag, such is vortex generation. Yet you folks repeatedly insist that the oscillations induce drag.

I think we just have to wait until someone in the sport either brings it up or protests it. If the FIA then decide to make a ruling on t wings and fins and MB subsequently has to alter their design, then it's an absolute fair cop in exactly the same way this is with flexing rear wings.

You'd have thought if it was of any significance at all, then RBR would have been all over it as their counter claim as it's something that behaves differently to that on their car and only hurts an another team, rather than making their rebuttal about front wings instead which of course would also impact themselves just as much as any other team. This leads me to think there can't be much, if any, advantage to the shark fin and t wing as used by MB. The RBR team surely wouldn't miss a trick like that. Far too savvy.

[Xwang]

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

https://cdn-7.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... s-test.jpg

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:

https://cdn-3.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... r-wing.jpg

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.

Why they do not simultaneously test with higher loads (similar to the real ones) the front and rear wings so that to avoid the whole car from rotating or moving when tested? It should be sufficient to keep the same front/rear load distribution as the static one which is prescribed by the rules. Doing so the car should be in pretty the same condition in which it runs and measurements can be more precise. do you agree?

[dans79]

I've already mentioned that there is in fact evidence that supports that inducing oscillations has the effect of reducing drag, such is vortex generation. Yet you folks repeatedly insist that the oscillations induce drag.

When you originally suggested this, you said that NASA had published papers on the topic. At the time I searched for a non trivial amount of time to see if I could find anything.

The only paper I could find was one related to the shedding of vortices at trans-sonic speeds which is not relevant to F1.

If relevant papers exist please link to them, or provide any of the other common means of reference so that others can find them.

[AMG.Tzan]

https://fb.watch/5VO19XX6Cg/

From the video it seems the wings have exactly the same flex! So either Red Bull fixed their wings in anticipation of a Mercedes protest or it has to do them running lower wing levels compared to Barcelona!

[RZS10]

There’s quite a lot of horizontal movement of the trailing edge of the end plates as the DRS opens on both cars. Possibly due to differential flexibility between the leading and trailing edges of the dog-leg support?

Some of it is just them flapping in the wind but they do indeed seem to move to the inside at the trailing edge ... what's the dog-leg support? the "horizontal" portion highlighted here?

https://fb.watch/5VO19XX6Cg/

From the video it seems the wings have exactly the same flex! So either Red Bull fixed their wings in anticipation of a Mercedes protest or it has to do them running lower wing levels compared to Barcelona!

Yea it's similar, but one is low DF so the conclusion would be that it is probably more flexible, so it's rather the latter.