Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[SmallSoldier]

People get all tribal and huff and puff for their team when something like this occurs. The top and bottom of it all is the rear wing is dropping down [flexing] thus changing the AoA and helping the car on the straights!

Anyone can see that from the various videos, etc, maybe some don`t want to admit that it`s actually doing this by design, which is, to be fair some absolutely brilliant design and testing work, but cutting it a bit close on a "sporting" arrangement IMO, although Red Bull may not have anticipated it moving so much.

Red Bull will sort this out, if they have an "issue" with another teams car parts, that will be brought to the attention of the FIA and we`ll have similar discussions, it`s how F1 has pretty much always worked.

Calling people fanboys/haters or bringing up other stuff is really school playground tactics, but then again, F1 is like a big school with the FIA as the headmaster

I do like Scarbs` idea of using a fixed point camera for measurement, as we`ve seen many times, the way something behaves when in a static enviroment compared to real world can be quite different!

People get all tribal and huff and puff for their team when something like this occurs. The top and bottom of it all is the rear wing is dropping down [flexing] thus changing the AoA and helping the car on the straights!

Anyone can see that from the various videos, etc, maybe some don`t want to admit that it`s actually doing this by design, which is, to be fair some absolutely brilliant design and testing work, but cutting it a bit close on a "sporting" arrangement IMO, although Red Bull may not have anticipated it moving so much.

Red Bull will sort this out, if they have an "issue" with another teams car parts, that will be brought to the attention of the FIA and we`ll have similar discussions, it`s how F1 has pretty much always worked.

Calling people fanboys/haters or bringing up other stuff is really school playground tactics, but then again, F1 is like a big school with the FIA as the headmaster

I do like Scarbs` idea of using a fixed point camera for measurement, as we`ve seen many times, the way something behaves when in a static enviroment compared to real world can be quite different!

They are doing that... The teams will be required to place 12 markers on the wing so that FIA can determine how much it’s flexing from the onboard camera


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zibby43]

Interview with Helmut Marko about how the new directive will impact the RB, etc.

He says that the new directive will impact the team, but doesn't believe it will be decisive in the championship. He actually says that a few times, which I thought was interesting.

Think that kind of settles 2 questions: 1) The RW is unequivocally deflecting; 2) it has an impact on performance - so much so that the engineers are conducting calculations to estimate the losses

Excerpt via Motorsport Magazin, translation courtesy of u/Richtung_Norden (with some subtle grammar improvements by me)

Now, of course, we also have to talk about the rear wings...

Dr Helmut Marko: A few years ago, I think we had to improve the front wings two or three times in one season. The FIA draws up regulations and the teams try to use them as optimally as possible. But this is not just a Red Bull issue - other teams are affected just as much.

When you say 'not only', does that mean you have to make improvements?

Dr. Helmut Marko: We assume that we might have to make minimal improvements with regard to the interpretation that is coming now. This is a different interpretation than the previous one.

That should be explained briefly: The Red Bull was not illegal. It only exploited the limits of the regulations that were valid until then...

Dr. Helmut Marko: Yes, exactly. I think there are other cars that are more affected.

How much performance will the change cost you approximately?

Dr Helmut Marko: We are calculating that right now. But it's not the case that it would somehow be decisive for the World Championship.

The interpretation counts from 15 June with a tolerance of 20 percent. From 15 July it will be complete. Can you imagine that two variants will be developed? First, that the tolerance is used for a few races and then completely?

Dr. Helmut Marko: We have to check to what extent we are not already within this tolerance. That has just come out now.

You sound reassured about this issue...

Dr Helmut Marko: I would say that it is not a World Cup deciding factor. We've seen that happen more often. I don't know how many technical people the FIA has, but certainly far fewer than any Formula One team. They are up against an armada of technically highly qualified engineers. Some try to make the regulations as compliant as possible and others try to work around them as best they can within the rules. In that sense, there is no bad faith on either side.

[hollus]

Thanks for that.

The interpretation counts from 15 June with a tolerance of 20 percent. From 15 July it will be complete.

Ok, so that’s how FIA will play it.

[ispano6]

The t-wing's bending at Barcelona (which is likely entirely incidental and a function of its size) isn't yielding 0.3s worth of performance, because of how absolutely tiny it is compared to the RW. Which is why it won't even be on the radar of any of the teams.

Are there deflection tests for t-wings and shark fins?

How do you know its not yielding 3 tenths performance? It just isn't in the straights. Just because it isn't in the rules doesn't mean it's not moveable aero, clearly both the TWing and sharkfin are oscillating and flapping at high frequency as plain as day.

The rules should not be open to such gray areas in which some approaches are deemed legal and some aren't. The T wing is clearly a wing and not an antennae. And besides, Marko doesn't seem too phased with the additional tests or loss of performance RedBull haters are hoping for. Since the new tests won't be until June 15 RedBull can run the wing in Baku without changes, and then just have to make sure to pass the updated tests.

Marko wasn’t worried either before they were penalized the last time... I wouldn’t take his comments as reassurance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fine with me, we appreciate your concern for the RedBull teams and fans.

No one here knows how the new tests will affect the teams and to what degree. All teams will be subject to it and all of them will eventually be in compliance, rest assured.

We may even learn that for some applications it isn't the wing that is bending but a different part of the chassis that the wing is attached to, like the floor and swan neck.

[Just_a_fan]

The rear wing is currently tested by pulling backwards on it near the top of the structure. That only replicates one of the loads experienced by the wing on track. It ignores downforce and that the resultant of the drag and downforce loads is some rearward-pointing diagonal. The wing is obviously designed to to resist the purely rearward load as simulated by the test, but deflect when some vertical component is added. That's clever work to make the system selectively stiff to just the right degree in each direction. No doubt the vertical component is dependent on the relative size of the main plane and the flap, etc. So quite a complex system that changes with different tracks. Or maybe it's only used on high downforce tracks.

So will the new test add some vertical load too, or even apply the testing load at a resultant angle? Tricky to do the latter, I suppose, because each design of wing will have its own resultant.

[One and Only]

Jeez, Hamilton wasn't kidding, that's definetly pushing the rules to limit...

If you look closely, you can see that it's both planes of the wing that are effectively rotating to reduce the angle of attack. They appear to be doing this by allowing the endplates to flex in such a way the upper assembly pivots. I wonder if this is how the pass the flex tests, the FIA are looking for flex in the wing, when the flex is actually in the end plates.

When the FIA does the pull test, the end plates are rigidly connected via a bar in the front and the back so they can't rotate in the vertical axis.

You can see some illustrations of how the pull test is done in this article.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/why-f ... a/6507108/

I assume that the end plates are not very resistant to rotation in the vertical axis, so when forces are applied to them and there's no bar keeping them parallel they rotate and allow the wing to deflect.

This looks like kinda obvious way to get around the test. Either others are not willing to pursue this avenue or things with this rear wing are more complicated than it looks. Could it be it's not just wing construction itself, but also carbon fibre construction? Red Bull managed to get around load tests for front wing in the past.

[matteosc]

I’m noticing on all of these videos of when the wing seems to be flexing, the rear suspension arms are also angling down, meaning that the entire rear end of the car is getting pushed down lower? You can see how the suspension arms peeks over the end of the body cowling as the car gains speed and the rear end of the car lowers. Could it be the camera angle changing as the rear lowers?

Look at the relative position of the rear tip of the shark fin and the top of the rear wing. The shark fin is a fixed point relative to the camera, so any relative movement between it and the rear wing is the result of the wing deflecting, not the suspension moving.

I disagree: the tip of the shark fin and the top of the rear wing are at a certain distance along the longitudinal axis of the car. If the whole car pitch backward, the tip of the shark fin appears higher in relation to the top of the rear wing. What should be compared is the edge of the rear (where the hot air exits) with the top of the wing. If you do that you see that the "wing flex" is mainly due to the high-rake configuration, for which the rear end of the car moves down significantly at higher speed. This is even clearer if you focus on the braking point: you will see both rear of the car and wing going up together.

[Just_a_fan]

I’m noticing on all of these videos of when the wing seems to be flexing, the rear suspension arms are also angling down, meaning that the entire rear end of the car is getting pushed down lower? You can see how the suspension arms peeks over the end of the body cowling as the car gains speed and the rear end of the car lowers. Could it be the camera angle changing as the rear lowers?

Look at the relative position of the rear tip of the shark fin and the top of the rear wing. The shark fin is a fixed point relative to the camera, so any relative movement between it and the rear wing is the result of the wing deflecting, not the suspension moving.

I disagree: the tip of the shark fin and the top of the rear wing are at a certain distance along the longitudinal axis of the car. If the whole car pitch backward, the tip of the shark fin appears higher in relation to the top of the rear wing. What should be compared is the edge of the rear (where the hot air exits) with the top of the wing. If you do that you see that the "wing flex" is mainly due to the high-rake configuration, for which the rear end of the car moves down significantly at higher speed. This is even clearer if you focus on the braking point: you will see both rear of the car and wing going up together.

No. The tip of the fin is a fixed point relative to the camera. The fin will move downwards with the suspension movement and the angle of the camera will follow it - so the fin stays in the same place in the frame. The line between both of them and the top of the wing when the car is stationary is fixed. Thus, when in the motion and the wing is seen to drop relative to the fin, it is dropping below the line that joined it , the fin and the camera when stationary. Ergo, the wing is flexing separately to any other overall movement of the car.

We have to remember that an F1 car is a very rigid thing - the tub, engine and gearbox are bolted together to form a very stiff structure - they have to be in order for the suspension loads to be resisted correctly.

[Blackout]

They say they'll use cameras and markings too...
Will it be discreet/fast/effective will it be workable without the need to paint the wing black or white (and anger the sponsors)

[El Scorchio]

They say they'll use cameras and markings too...
Will it be discreet/fast/effective will it be workable without the need to paint the wing black or white (and anger the sponsors)

https://i.imgur.com/vsoyXhn.jpg

I expect it'll be small fluorescent dots which must be put in predefined places.

[godlameroso]

What is the distance from the camera to the rear wing? Let's assume the car is roughly 5.4 meters, I don't know how long it is off the top of my head.

The rules say the camera is 800mm above the reference plane. Is the camera parallel to the ground or the reference plane?

I don't know anything about cameras, if anyone does and wants to share what they know, it would be helpful to the discussion.

This is the type of camera used
https://www.resolveoptics.com/207-000-6 ... zoom-lens/

Anyway, assuming the camera is roughly at the middle of the car, that gives us around 2.7 meters from the camera to the rear wing.

Let's say the ride height is 100mm at the rear and squats to 90mm at speed for a 10 mm drop. Meanwhile the front ride height is 36mm and squats to 32mm at speed. I'm being purposefully conservative, the ride height at the rear may be more, I doubt it's less. That's a 6mm drop, 2.7 meters away, how would that translate on this camera? Again I don't know anything about cameras so I'm asking in case someone knows. So how much would it look if the rear end moves down 6mm relative to the front on a 3x zoom camera with some amount of lens distortion? I don't know, hopefully the stricter tests shed more light on the truth. I eagerly await it for obvious reasons.

I want to be sure, instead of just pointing fingers, let's be more thorough with our investigation like a good scientist is supposed to do. Instead of simply saying "the wing bends illegally let's burn them at the stake", let's instead say "it sure looks like the wing is bending in a weird way, let's get more information to be sure, and try to eliminate bias". Apparently people get offended at such a suggestion, oh well.

[dans79]

What is the distance from the camera to the rear wing? Let's assume the car is roughly 5.4 meters, I don't know how long it is off the top of my head.

The rules say the camera is 800mm above the reference plane. Is the camera parallel to the ground or the reference plane?

I don't know anything about cameras, if anyone does and wants to share what they know, it would be helpful to the discussion.

This is the type of camera used
https://www.resolveoptics.com/207-000-6 ... zoom-lens/

Anyway, assuming the camera is roughly at the middle of the car, that gives us around 2.7 meters from the camera to the rear wing.

Let's say the ride height is 100mm at the rear and squats to 90mm at speed for a 10 mm drop. Meanwhile the front ride height is 36mm and squats to 32mm at speed. I'm being purposefully conservative, the ride height at the rear may be more, I doubt it's less. That's a 6mm drop, 2.7 meters away, how would that translate on this camera? Again I don't know anything about cameras so I'm asking in case someone knows. So how much would it look if the rear end moves down 6mm relative to the front on a 3x zoom camera with some amount of lens distortion? I don't know, hopefully the stricter tests shed more light on the truth. I eagerly await it for obvious reasons.

I want to be sure, instead of just pointing fingers, let's be more thorough with our investigation like a good scientist is supposed to do. Instead of simply saying "the wing bends illegally let's burn them at the stake", let's instead say "it sure looks like the wing is bending in a weird way, let's get more information to be sure, and try to eliminate bias". Apparently people get offended at such a suggestion, oh well.

You're drastically overthinking this.

everything on the car except the tires, and the suspension components are all "rigidly" connected. It doesn't matter if the front end squats, the rear end squats, or the car's airborne and perpendicular to the ground.

Everything on the car will remain in the same position within the cameras field of view. It's all moving together. If you see movement, it's because something is moving or flexing relative to the other components.

[zibby43]

What is the distance from the camera to the rear wing? Let's assume the car is roughly 5.4 meters, I don't know how long it is off the top of my head.

The rules say the camera is 800mm above the reference plane. Is the camera parallel to the ground or the reference plane?

I don't know anything about cameras, if anyone does and wants to share what they know, it would be helpful to the discussion.

This is the type of camera used
https://www.resolveoptics.com/207-000-6 ... zoom-lens/

Anyway, assuming the camera is roughly at the middle of the car, that gives us around 2.7 meters from the camera to the rear wing.

Let's say the ride height is 100mm at the rear and squats to 90mm at speed for a 10 mm drop. Meanwhile the front ride height is 36mm and squats to 32mm at speed. I'm being purposefully conservative, the ride height at the rear may be more, I doubt it's less. That's a 6mm drop, 2.7 meters away, how would that translate on this camera? Again I don't know anything about cameras so I'm asking in case someone knows. So how much would it look if the rear end moves down 6mm relative to the front on a 3x zoom camera with some amount of lens distortion? I don't know, hopefully the stricter tests shed more light on the truth. I eagerly await it for obvious reasons.

I want to be sure, instead of just pointing fingers, let's be more thorough with our investigation like a good scientist is supposed to do. Instead of simply saying "the wing bends illegally let's burn them at the stake", let's instead say "it sure looks like the wing is bending in a weird way, let's get more information to be sure, and try to eliminate bias". Apparently people get offended at such a suggestion, oh well.

You're drastically overthinking this.

everything on the car except the tires, and the suspension components are all "rigidly" connected. It doesn't matter if the front end squats, the rear end squats, or the car's airborne and perpendicular to the ground.

Everything on the car will remain in the same position within the cameras field of view. It's all moving together. If you see movement, it's because something is moving or flexing relative to the other components.

Correct.

In addition to that, Helmut Marko has already stipulated that the RB wing flexes, and that they are already addressing it. I posted the interview in the RW thread.

[SiLo]

It's best to think of everything on the chassis to be rigid and thus, should have zero relative movement. The only things that should be moving relative to the chassis are the suspension members and tyres.

[godlameroso]

What is the distance from the camera to the rear wing? Let's assume the car is roughly 5.4 meters, I don't know how long it is off the top of my head.

The rules say the camera is 800mm above the reference plane. Is the camera parallel to the ground or the reference plane?

I don't know anything about cameras, if anyone does and wants to share what they know, it would be helpful to the discussion.

This is the type of camera used
https://www.resolveoptics.com/207-000-6 ... zoom-lens/

Anyway, assuming the camera is roughly at the middle of the car, that gives us around 2.7 meters from the camera to the rear wing.

Let's say the ride height is 100mm at the rear and squats to 90mm at speed for a 10 mm drop. Meanwhile the front ride height is 36mm and squats to 32mm at speed. I'm being purposefully conservative, the ride height at the rear may be more, I doubt it's less. That's a 6mm drop, 2.7 meters away, how would that translate on this camera? Again I don't know anything about cameras so I'm asking in case someone knows. So how much would it look if the rear end moves down 6mm relative to the front on a 3x zoom camera with some amount of lens distortion? I don't know, hopefully the stricter tests shed more light on the truth. I eagerly await it for obvious reasons.

I want to be sure, instead of just pointing fingers, let's be more thorough with our investigation like a good scientist is supposed to do. Instead of simply saying "the wing bends illegally let's burn them at the stake", let's instead say "it sure looks like the wing is bending in a weird way, let's get more information to be sure, and try to eliminate bias". Apparently people get offended at such a suggestion, oh well.

You're drastically overthinking this.

everything on the car except the tires, and the suspension components are all "rigidly" connected. It doesn't matter if the front end squats, the rear end squats, or the car's airborne and perpendicular to the ground.

Everything on the car will remain in the same position within the cameras field of view. It's all moving together. If you see movement, it's because something is moving or flexing relative to the other components.

Great, not disputing that at all, I'm disputing if the wing is bending illegally, I want to make sure it is.

This entire conversation has gone pretty much like this.

The wing bends, we see it on video. Ok we all agree there right? I see it, you see it, we are all in agreement it's as clear as the sun. No complaints so far right?

Then we move on to the next step, is it illegal?

That is my question to all of you, maybe I'm overthinking it, maybe I'm not, but my thinking is irrelevant here, let's focus on the important part, is the wing bending illegally? That is after all the main crux here right? Why we are all rousing the rabble.

If we examine the video carefully the most obvious part of everything is that we have a Mercedes wing, and a Red Bull wing. The Mercedes wing CLEARLY looks like it bends and deforms less than the Red Bull wing. We agree here still correct? No argument from me here so far. I agree the Red Bull wing appears to bend more than the Mercedes wing. So far we are all in agreement and the world is a wonderful place.

Here is where we disagree, and please correct me if I got this wrong.

The Mercedes wing is the benchmark upon which all wing legalities shall be measured upon, for although ALL the wings bend due to aero load, the Mercedes wing is by default, the very definition of legality and thus, the ONLY way a wing should deform under load. By decree of the FIA and Mercedes' exemplary rear wing deformation, all other competitors must have the same or less wing deformation. So sayeth the Forum.

To me that sounds pretty crazy, and I would like a little more due process than rule by decree.

My question, which I admit is a complex one to answer, is, by how much is the Red Bull wing illegally deforming compared to the benchmark Mercedes rear wing which is without question in its legality? That's all, it's a straightforward question that is met with some interesting evidence.

It seems that other cars exhibit the same behavior as the Red Bull, in that we should also be in agreement. The Williams's rear wing deformation for example is in line with the benchmark of legality Mercedes, and thus they deserve no scrutiny. Haas? A backmarker, Toto tells them to get out of the way who cares what they're doing.

The other cars like the Alpine and Ferrari also exhibit this behavior, but we all know the Red Bull's wing is the most illegal because there was a video with white square grids which showed the wing moving a whole square but not a whole square on Mercedes. Again implying Mercedes deformation is perfectly legal and without question and the benchmark that all other cars must abide by.

I agree with you guys, the Red Bull wing is the most illegal because they are the biggest threat to Mercedes, that makes them the dirtiest cheaters, just like Ferrari and their cheating engine in 2019 when they started threatening Mercedes. I agree Red Bull's wing is the most illegal that's why the FIA is stepping in and forcing stricter tests, we don't want cheaters. I agree cheating is shameful, but that's my personal belief and has no place here.

Anyway, yes the Red Bull wing is illegal, and the video clearly shows it, and so the final question remains, by how much is it illegal? No one can answer that here, but we are sure it's illegal because when compared to the Mercedes wing it's doing something that the Mercedes wing doesn't seem to do. All factors have been accounted for so there is no way any optical illusions or bias are playing tricks on us, it's clearly illegal, and the video shows it.

So again, I ask the most pertinent question, the video shows the wing bending, so by how much more is the wing bending on the Red Bull than on the Mercedes? Can anyone quantify it, the difference between the two wings at speed and at rest? If I get mocked for 2mm how can I take 10 pixels seriously, when it's an even dumber metric for the wing's illegality? I'm sorry, but would any of you take me seriously if I told you 10 pixels were the difference in Verstappen nailing a corner vs Hamilton? I'm supposed to believe 10 pixels mean the difference between Red Bull and Mercedes illegality? Okie dokie.