TD018 2023 - clampdown on flexible wings

[majki2111]

I have a question. I just got a masters degree in material engineering in Zagreb, Croatia and I saw this tweet.




In my faculty we learnt about mechanics of materials trough stress-strain plot mainly.

Whit which plot would this phenomenon of Aston be describable and would it be even understandable for guy who graduated from faculty a month ago and with no work experience in this field?

[Marc.W]

I have a question. I just got a masters degree in material engineering in Zagreb, Croatia and I saw this tweet.




In my faculty we learnt about mechanics of materials trough stress-strain plot mainly.

Whit which plot would this phenomenon of Aston be describable and would it be even understandable for guy who graduated from faculty a month ago and with no work experience in this field?

From what I've seen from that particular account, it can say literally anything with no foundation, and sensationalises the smallest of things

[majki2111]

From what I've seen from that particular account, it can say literally anything with no foundation, and sensationalises the smallest of things

Yeah its a fan page, but he is reffering to an article.. I find this page good for following Alosno... As I am a fan too.

Bu that was not the question haha.

[organic]

From what I've seen from that particular account, it can say literally anything with no foundation, and sensationalises the smallest of things

Yeah its a fan page, but he is reffering to an article.. I find this page good for following Alosno... As I am a fan too.

Bu that was not the question haha.

I guess the point is that the account is entirely speculative and they will post very baseless content. They're also now incentivized to generate interactions with the new Twitter ad revenue to blue subscribers, of which they are one of. So they have reason to sow dissent and generate interesting stories as it directly profits them in engagement and wallet.

Car threads are fine for some speculation but it should not be baseless here. The team thread might be a much better place to post content from them, especially given they are not directly quoting from articles

[clownfish]

It is understood that several teams, including Aston Martin, were advised to make changes to their front wing designs around the time of the Azerbaijan Grand Prix in a bid to ensure that they did not fall foul of any rule breaches.

But as part of a ramped up effort to stop any attempt at getting around the regulations, the FIA has now issued a formal technical directive outlining what it believes are unacceptable designs with regards to flexible bodywork.

In TD018, a copy of which has been seen by Motorsport.com and was sent to teams ahead of the Dutch GP weekend, the FIA states that it believes outfits are exploiting “regions of purposely design localised compliance” plus “relative motion between adjacent components” to deliver a significant boost to aerodynamic performance.

It states that any design that operates like this is in breach of Article 3.2.2 of F1’s Technical Regulations, which states that all components that influence a car’s aerodynamic performance must be “rigidly secured and immobile with respect to their frame of reference defined in Article 3.3.

Furthermore, these components must produce a uniform, solid, hard, continuous, impervious surface under all circumstances.”

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-t ... /10513312/

[clownfish]

Some of the proposed mechanisms are outlined later in the article:

The FIA has duly outlined four key design elements that it considers to be in breach of the technical rules, but suggests there may be other ideas at play that could be illegal as well.
They are:

1) Wing elements that can translate vertically, longitudinally or laterally relative to the bodywork that they are fixed to.

2) Wing elements that can rotate relative to the bodywork that they are fixed to, such as rotating around one fixing.

3) Designs that utilise elastomeric fillets, compliant sections of wing profile or thin flexible laminate at a junction that can either distort, deflect out of plane or twist to permit localised deflection relative to the bodywork the component is attached to.

4) Designs that utilise ‘soft’ trailing edges to wing elements to prevent ‘localised cracking’ as the result of component assembly deflection.

[SiLo]

I would love to see a crackdown on this. Use those front facing nose cameras to track wing movement, because most of the teams are flexing the wings a huge amount.

[chrisc90]

About time. Hopefully it cracks down on the ‘split’ front wing elements.

[hollus]

I hope there is more wording than this, because forbidding translations and rotations is going back to the impossible infinitely rigid body.

1) Wing elements that can translate vertically, longitudinally or laterally relative to the bodywork that they are fixed to.

2) Wing elements that can rotate relative to the bodywork that they are fixed to, such as rotating around one fixing.

[KeiKo403]

How does the FIA intend to police this TD? Sure it can look at the drawings but them then saying “I think this will flex” isn’t gonna cut it. How will they prove that any designs are taking advantage here?

Assuming they can prove anything wrong and and designs need to change, is it just a case of upcycling old wings/endplates/components etc or could a redesign (cfd implications?) and new manufactured parts be required?

[TimW]

IMO a rule change on this topic is long overdue. The should remove the ban on flexible aero and change it to clearly defined limits flexibility. Then it is also aligned with the testing that is done, which also has non-zero limits. With the current approach the topic of flexible aero is becoming like a broken record.

[Just_a_fan]

The ban on moving aero dynamic parts is, if I remember correctly, founded back in the 1960s when the teams ran with moveable wings and they had failures and nasty crashes. In later years, we saw rear wings fail because they were designed to rotate backwards as an entire piece. Today, there is a much better understanding of designing and building flexible elements that don't fail and thus do not compromise safety.

Should F1 actually now move in a direction that allows for flexible aero parts so long as they are designed/manufactured such that failure is extremely rare/not likely to lead to injury? After all, the definition of "flexible" is already a moving target with the rules technically outlawing all flex whilst also accepting that absolute rigidity is impossible and thus allowing for some flex.

[AR3-GP]

Flexible parts means drivers are less likely to lose bits of their car on lap 1.

Perhaps banning them will lead to different decision making on the track as the cars become ever more like fine China…

[organic]

Pretty interesting that they are trying to do this now. Maybe their clampdown on Aston Martin led them down a rabbit hole, or perhaps when forced to change their wing, Amr pointed out others are doing it too

Is also possible this is an attempt to bring RB slightly closer to others. If amr are safe from this td and RB now lose this, maybe they'll be a lot closer at Singapore onwards.

Mercedes:



Rb



RB/Ferrari/Merc at Zandvoort



Amr (season start)

[Cs98]

That AMR Bahrain vid is insane. That's like a solid 10cm of flex, minimum.