Flexiwings 2024

[Quantum]

Yeah, it’s a case of one rule for one, one rule for someone else. RBR’s back wing passed the tests in 2021 - but still got told to change it.

Makes you wonder how much noise was coming out of Zak Browns mouth a few months ago about other teams, and now the balls on their court with the flexi devices.

That's a false assertion.
Red Bull could've continued to race the wing in 2021 IF it passed the new tests. It was changed because it would've failed them, else they would have kept running it.

The Red Bull team principal, Christian Horner, denied any infringement, stating their wing had passed all the rigidity tests required by the FIA. However, it is understood the FIA has now written to the teams warning it had observed some cars had passed static tests but may have demonstrated wing movement while in motion.

The governing body has told the teams it will introduce new static tests from 15 June.
The teams have been given a month before the new tests and monitoring system come in to allow them to enact any changes necessary. They will be able to use their current designs for the next three meeting.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... ear-wings

[organic]

Yeah, it’s a case of one rule for one, one rule for someone else. RBR’s back wing passed the tests in 2021 - but still got told to change it.

Makes you wonder how much noise was coming out of Zak Browns mouth a few months ago about other teams, and now the balls on their court with the flexi devices.

That's a false assertion.
Red Bull could've continued to race the wing in 2021 IF it passed the new tests. It was changed because it would've failed them, else they would have kept running it.

The Red Bull team principal, Christian Horner, denied any infringement, stating their wing had passed all the rigidity tests required by the FIA. However, it is understood the FIA has now written to the teams warning it had observed some cars had passed static tests but may have demonstrated wing movement while in motion.

The governing body has told the teams it will introduce new static tests from 15 June.
The teams have been given a month before the new tests and monitoring system come in to allow them to enact any changes necessary. They will be able to use their current designs for the next three meeting.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... ear-wings

...Because they defined the new testing parameters around making red bull's wing illegal to run

[AR3-GP]

Would something like this be legal now?

[bananapeel23]

Would something like this be legal now?

https://i.ibb.co/G9qXyHS/AC4151-EA-F2-B ... 9917-D.gif

Didn't Red Bull have the same issue in 2022 or 2023? I seem to recall the DRS would flutter a lot and sometimes refuse to stay open, leading to issues for Verstappen at certain tracks, notably Spain.

[Quantum]

...Because they defined the new testing parameters around making red bull's wing illegal to run

You are assuming that McLaren's wing will be illegal in any speculative new test.
They're all flexing too, which means it's possible the target of any "new testing parameters" could pass while others fail, depending on construction and properties.

[Farnborough]

With this wording from TD 034 (if quoted verbatim ? )

"In the note, the FIA says that it does not consider legal “designs whose structural characteristics are altered by secondary parameters, so as to produce (whilst running at the track) a different deflection characteristic than when stationary during the FIA checks. Examples of secondary parameters could be temperature, aerodynamic load etc.”

There seems to be a wide gap to walk through if that phrase is absolute.

Just a FEA optimised design of that flap, with attendant minimal weight characteristic, will give a distribution of flex varied across it's plane.

It's supported at two upper points, and one central lower-ish to give attachment of DRS operation mechanism. That in itself will ultimately require less material, the least in fact, right at those outer and lowest corners.

If anyone familiar with layup of carbon (resin base fibre in general) they will know, the thickness/ section, call it what you will, is in varying levels right throughout each piece.

If the FIA are to test that by pulling upwards specifically at those corner then the "different deflection" criteria would be redundant if just the magnitude of force used were to change. The "different" inserted there is obviously to avoid doubt in having included in the component a change in material response, but at the same time facilitates a "same" deflection, but larger with increased load as it's not specifically "different "

That's not a GREY area, just insufficient language used by the rules writers.