Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[El Scorchio]

Red Bulls ‘evidence’ is most likely…
a) We know this is structurally possible (we have designed our own variant and modelled the structure to pass the current load test AND still flex as we suggest the Mercedes is)

That's still legal though right. I don't know what the tech regs/TDs say about he fiducial markers on the rear wing however.

That's the thing - if it passes the test then they can race it. That's the argument that Red Bull themselves used with their own wing - "it passes the test". If Red Bull think they have evidence of wrong doing, bringing it up after the event won't help them - the FIA won't design a new test after the final race and apply it retrospectively.

Maybe Red Bull are going to drop the bomb if Hamilton wins in Jeddha. Making Mercedes change the car for the last race would be one way of throwing them a curve ball.

I'm not sure bringing it up now/in Jeddah helps either, to be honest. If Mercedes' wing passes the current test then there's no time remaining to go through the process of getting new tests implemented provided they give an equal timeframe with earlier in the season, which they are compelled to in the interests of fairness. They can't rule differently or dish out a punishment when there was none for flexing wings earlier in the season.

Even if something is awry, which still there is zero actual proof or evidence of.

[basti313]

That's still legal though right. I don't know what the tech regs/TDs say about he fiducial markers on the rear wing however.

That's the thing - if it passes the test then they can race it. That's the argument that Red Bull themselves used with their own wing - "it passes the test". If Red Bull think they have evidence of wrong doing, bringing it up after the event won't help them - the FIA won't design a new test after the final race and apply it retrospectively.

Maybe Red Bull are going to drop the bomb if Hamilton wins in Jeddha. Making Mercedes change the car for the last race would be one way of throwing them a curve ball.

I'm not sure bringing it up now/in Jeddah helps either, to be honest. If Mercedes' wing passes the current test then there's no time remaining to go through the process of getting new tests implemented provided they give an equal timeframe with earlier in the season, which they are compelled to in the interests of fairness. They can't rule differently or dish out a punishment when there was none for flexing wings earlier in the season.

Even if something is awry, which still there is zero actual proof or evidence of.

Well, there is a difference:
At the beginning of the season we were talking about the "natural" flex of the wing supports. We discussed how much is allowed there and not only one team was affected.
Now we are talking about the possibility that one plate is softer than the other on purpose. If this is proven, we are not talking about the limits of "natural" flex, but something that is deliberately made soft for the reason of "movable aero".
I do not yet see, that this is the case or a chance that they will prove this. Merc knows exactly what they are doing, so I expect them to turn up with a wing that definitely passes the test. I see no chance that this topic about the flex will really open up officially with "failing" the new test.

[El Scorchio]

That's the thing - if it passes the test then they can race it. That's the argument that Red Bull themselves used with their own wing - "it passes the test". If Red Bull think they have evidence of wrong doing, bringing it up after the event won't help them - the FIA won't design a new test after the final race and apply it retrospectively.

Maybe Red Bull are going to drop the bomb if Hamilton wins in Jeddha. Making Mercedes change the car for the last race would be one way of throwing them a curve ball.

I'm not sure bringing it up now/in Jeddah helps either, to be honest. If Mercedes' wing passes the current test then there's no time remaining to go through the process of getting new tests implemented provided they give an equal timeframe with earlier in the season, which they are compelled to in the interests of fairness. They can't rule differently or dish out a punishment when there was none for flexing wings earlier in the season.

Even if something is awry, which still there is zero actual proof or evidence of.

Well, there is a difference:
At the beginning of the season we were talking about the "natural" flex of the wing supports. We discussed how much is allowed there and not only one team was affected.
Now we are talking about the possibility that one plate is softer than the other on purpose. If this is proven, we are not talking about the limits of "natural" flex, but something that is deliberately made soft for the reason of "movable aero".
I do not yet see, that this is the case or a chance that they will prove this. Merc knows exactly what they are doing, so I expect them to turn up with a wing that definitely passes the test. I see no chance that this topic about the flex will really open up officially with "failing" the new test.

Of course it's the same. it's about wings which flex by design- visibly in the case of the whole wing on most cars earlier in the season and allegedly on one car now. All wings passed the tests back then and all wings pass the tests now. it wasn't natural flex on all the rear wings earlier in the season. By your own definition it was also moveable aero.

[basti313]

I'm not sure bringing it up now/in Jeddah helps either, to be honest. If Mercedes' wing passes the current test then there's no time remaining to go through the process of getting new tests implemented provided they give an equal timeframe with earlier in the season, which they are compelled to in the interests of fairness. They can't rule differently or dish out a punishment when there was none for flexing wings earlier in the season.

Even if something is awry, which still there is zero actual proof or evidence of.

Well, there is a difference:
At the beginning of the season we were talking about the "natural" flex of the wing supports. We discussed how much is allowed there and not only one team was affected.
Now we are talking about the possibility that one plate is softer than the other on purpose. If this is proven, we are not talking about the limits of "natural" flex, but something that is deliberately made soft for the reason of "movable aero".
I do not yet see, that this is the case or a chance that they will prove this. Merc knows exactly what they are doing, so I expect them to turn up with a wing that definitely passes the test. I see no chance that this topic about the flex will really open up officially with "failing" the new test.

Of course it's the same. it's about wings which flex by design- visibly in the case of the whole wing on most cars earlier in the season and allegedly on one car now. All wings passed the tests back then and all wings pass the tests now. it wasn't natural flex on all the rear wings earlier in the season. By your own definition it was also moveable aero.

As usual you do not understand the difference between just discussing wording and the spirit of the rule.
If the upper plate of the wing flexes completely different from the lower plate although both are fairly similar, then you simply leave the grey area. This is deliberate and clearly against the spirit of the rule. FIA would immediately take action.
The flex in the mount of the wing is natural and everyone has it, classical grey area. With the definition of the test, they defined where the grey area ends and Toto clearly said that they need to rework their wing to this limit. Maybe this is even the better explanation for the new straight line speed then the scratch theory.

But as said, I do not think there is sense in discussing it. The wing will not flex in the test in one week, I am 100% sure about this.

[Sieper]

It was.

But there was an allowance for the whole wing to move, e.g. there was a test procedure and limit on it to which you had to adhere. If you were within you had some movement (not allowed by the letter of the wet) but no punishment. That limit has been made more strict during this year.

For individual planes there was no allowance, it was expected for them not to be moveable. Now, as it appears the mainplane could be moving an additional test is introduced. Hanging two 35kg weights from the back of the mainplane. With an allowance for movement I think. Don’t know how much.

It appears Mercedes already passed the “fact finding” test in Qatar. These results were not published and were of no consequence, you did not have to pass the test yet. From jeddah on you have to pass the test.

The telemetry also showed the main plane did not move anymore during the race.

I would be happy to see some rearward facing footage from a Merc in Qatar if anyone has that?

[RZS10]

Where does the claim come from that the test will have to be passed? It's being thrown around as fact but there's not a single source for this that i could find - only a few which say the opposite.

If the main plane can't be seen moving seperately from the entire wing in any of the previous footage what good would newer footage do?
Anyways, i did check all Qatar videos because i was curious myself (from FP1 to R, Best Onboard, Best Radio) and there is none.
You'd have to sit through the race in the onboard channels in F1TV for one of the Mercs probably.

[El Scorchio]

Well, there is a difference:
At the beginning of the season we were talking about the "natural" flex of the wing supports. We discussed how much is allowed there and not only one team was affected.
Now we are talking about the possibility that one plate is softer than the other on purpose. If this is proven, we are not talking about the limits of "natural" flex, but something that is deliberately made soft for the reason of "movable aero".
I do not yet see, that this is the case or a chance that they will prove this. Merc knows exactly what they are doing, so I expect them to turn up with a wing that definitely passes the test. I see no chance that this topic about the flex will really open up officially with "failing" the new test.

Of course it's the same. it's about wings which flex by design- visibly in the case of the whole wing on most cars earlier in the season and allegedly on one car now. All wings passed the tests back then and all wings pass the tests now. it wasn't natural flex on all the rear wings earlier in the season. By your own definition it was also moveable aero.

As usual you do not understand the difference between just discussing wording and the spirit of the rule.
If the upper plate of the wing flexes completely different from the lower plate although both are fairly similar, then you simply leave the grey area. This is deliberate and clearly against the spirit of the rule. FIA would immediately take action.
The flex in the mount of the wing is natural and everyone has it, classical grey area. With the definition of the test, they defined where the grey area ends and Toto clearly said that they need to rework their wing to this limit. Maybe this is even the better explanation for the new straight line speed then the scratch theory.

But as said, I do not think there is sense in discussing it. The wing will not flex in the test in one week, I am 100% sure about this.

Again disagree- the 'spirit of the rule' is the same for this as it was with the whole wing flexing. Horner clearly said they needed to rework their wing earlier in the year.

[Just_a_fan]

As usual you do not understand the difference between just discussing wording and the spirit of the rule..

There is no spirit of the rule. There is a rule and you either comply or don't.

This idea of "spirit of the rule" is heard a lot in various sports but it's meaningless.

[Stu]

Red Bulls ‘evidence’ is most likely…
a) We know this is structurally possible (we have designed our own variant and modelled the structure to pass the current load test AND still flex as we suggest the Mercedes is)

That's still legal though right. I don't know what the tech regs/TDs say about he fiducial markers on the rear wing however.

I don’t disagree with either you of JaF, that is exactly what I was saying.

[DChemTech]

As usual you do not understand the difference between just discussing wording and the spirit of the rule..

There is no spirit of the rule. There is a rule and you either comply or don't.

This idea of "spirit of the rule" is heard a lot in various sports but it's meaningless.

For sure there is a spirit of the rule. There has to be, as sec. 3.8 implies a part must be 100% rigid, which is physically impossible. To specify what quantifies as perfectly rigid, there are tolerances in 3.9. But if we look back at the RB 'flexiwing' saga, these tolerances were perfectly met by RB and other teams.
Yet, the FIA judged 'something was wrong' and changed the tolerances (so, changed the rules) in order to curb flexing of the wings. This can only be interpreted as the FIA judged the spirit of the rule was breached, because there was no quantitative rule that was broken. The rules, as they were, were complied to.

Of course there was this whole discussion whether or not some teams had a wing that "bended more than one would expect when the quantitative limits of sec. 3.9 were extrapolated to track behavior" (some form of non-linear behavior), but there have never been clear statements by the FIA on whether that was the case - and if it was, it is very much a case of "breaching the spirit of the rule" (that such behavior would be excessive flexibility), because there was nothing explicitly forbidding it. The rules are not at all black and white; there is a substantial gray area in which it is possible to operate, but tricky, as the FIA can and does change interpretations on the fly based on the spirit of the rules. And that's hugely annoying.

[Just_a_fan]

There is no spirit of the rule. There is a rule and you either comply or don't.

This idea of "spirit of the rule" is heard a lot in various sports but it's meaningless.

For sure there is a spirit of the rule. There has to be, as sec. 3.8 implies a part must be 100% rigid, which is physically impossible. To specify what quantifies as perfectly rigid, there are tolerances in 3.9. But if we look back at the RB 'flexiwing' saga, these tolerances were perfectly met by RB and other teams.
Yet, the FIA judged 'something was wrong' and changed the tolerances (so, changed the rules) in order to curb flexing of the wings. This can only be interpreted as the FIA judged the spirit of the rule was breached, because there was no quantitative rule that was broken. The rules, as they were, were complied to.

The rule defines what is allowable deflection because it is impossible to make an infinitely stiff component. There is no spirit here, just a requirement to limit deflection to a defined approximate of "totally stiff".

If the FIA think components aren't "totally stiff" to a reasonable approximation, they change the test to ensure the components are "totally stiff" to a reasonable approximation.

The rule is the deflection allowed in the prescribed test. The prescribed test is adjusted to ensure clever work arounds are prevented.

There is no spirit, just a rule.

[DChemTech]

There is no spirit of the rule. There is a rule and you either comply or don't.

This idea of "spirit of the rule" is heard a lot in various sports but it's meaningless.

For sure there is a spirit of the rule. There has to be, as sec. 3.8 implies a part must be 100% rigid, which is physically impossible. To specify what quantifies as perfectly rigid, there are tolerances in 3.9. But if we look back at the RB 'flexiwing' saga, these tolerances were perfectly met by RB and other teams.
Yet, the FIA judged 'something was wrong' and changed the tolerances (so, changed the rules) in order to curb flexing of the wings. This can only be interpreted as the FIA judged the spirit of the rule was breached, because there was no quantitative rule that was broken. The rules, as they were, were complied to.

The rule defines what is allowable deflection because it is impossible to make an infinitely stiff component. There is no spirit here, just a requirement to limit deflection to a defined approximate of "totally stiff".

If the FIA think components aren't "totally stiff" to a reasonable approximation, they change the test to ensure the components are "totally stiff" to a reasonable approximation.

The rule is the deflection allowed in the prescribed test. The prescribed test is adjusted to ensure clever work arounds are prevented.

There is no spirit, just a rule.

So, what is "totally stiff to a reasonable approximation"? That's very much a qualitative assessment, which one has to interpret in a certain spirit. And that is unjustifiable in an engineering spot.
If I'm asked to manufacture a certain part, I need to know whether my tolerance is 1 mm or 2.5 mm, and those things should not change halfway a project because the principal 'feels' the provided tolerance is not a "reasonable approximation of totally stiff". You could set up these rules such that there is no gray area where the spirit rules in the end, but that is not what the FIA did.

edit: in that sense, it would have been nice if the FIA would at least disclose why they ruled the RB (and other) wings were against the spirit of the rules. Instead, they opted to change the rules without really disclosing why. they did so. At least if they did, we might now have had a more clear criterion to evaluate the current situation.

[Just_a_fan]

For sure there is a spirit of the rule. There has to be, as sec. 3.8 implies a part must be 100% rigid, which is physically impossible. To specify what quantifies as perfectly rigid, there are tolerances in 3.9. But if we look back at the RB 'flexiwing' saga, these tolerances were perfectly met by RB and other teams.
Yet, the FIA judged 'something was wrong' and changed the tolerances (so, changed the rules) in order to curb flexing of the wings. This can only be interpreted as the FIA judged the spirit of the rule was breached, because there was no quantitative rule that was broken. The rules, as they were, were complied to.

The rule defines what is allowable deflection because it is impossible to make an infinitely stiff component. There is no spirit here, just a requirement to limit deflection to a defined approximate of "totally stiff".

If the FIA think components aren't "totally stiff" to a reasonable approximation, they change the test to ensure the components are "totally stiff" to a reasonable approximation.

The rule is the deflection allowed in the prescribed test. The prescribed test is adjusted to ensure clever work arounds are prevented.

There is no spirit, just a rule.

So, what is "totally stiff to a reasonable approximation"? That's very much a qualitative assessment, which one has to interpret in a certain spirit. And that is unjustifiable in an engineering spot.
If I'm asked to manufacture a certain part, I need to know whether my tolerance is 1 mm or 2.5 mm, and those things should not change halfway a project because the principal 'feels' the provided tolerance is not a "reasonable approximation of totally stiff". You could set up these rules such that there is no gray area where the spirit rules in the end, but that is not what the FIA did.

edit: in that sense, it would have been nice if the FIA would at least disclose why they ruled the RB (and other) wings were against the spirit of the rules. Instead, they opted to change the rules without really disclosing why. they did so. At least if they did, we might now have had a more clear criterion to evaluate the current situation.

The rule is written so that they can easily change it as necessary to deal with technology changes. By putting in the "it must be stiff" bit, they can then define stiff as the teams develop their layup technology etc.

It's the same as the law saying "you must not exceed the speed limit" but then allowing, in practice, a tolerance owing to the variability of car speedometers etc. So the speed limit is 60mph but you can "get away with" doing e.g. 63mph because the law recognises the imperfect nature of the measuring devices available to the motorist.

The absolute rule is "do not exceed the speed limit" but the application of it is "speed limit + X" where X is an allowance for the speedometer.

The absolute rule is "components must be totally stiff" but the application is "stiff is defined as having an allowable deflection of X in a specified test".

In neither cases is there a "spirit of the rule". There are just rules. If you meet the rules as defined by the governing entity at the moment then you are ok. There is real world precedent for this in, for example, car fuel economy and emissions rules. The tests were changed to ensure that they represent real world fuel economy and emissions rather than laboratory results. The absolute rule is still the same - the car must meet emissions limits. The application of that is "as defined by a test which we will decide on from time to time".

The idea of the "spirit of the rules" is one of those things that was made up to allow someone to accuse an opponent of cheating but without actually saying it.

[Just_a_fan]

edit: in that sense, it would have been nice if the FIA would at least disclose why they ruled the RB (and other) wings were against the spirit of the rules. Instead, they opted to change the rules without really disclosing why. they did so. At least if they did, we might now have had a more clear criterion to evaluate the current situation.

They will have to say "safety" because that's the only way they can change the rules in such a way mid season without the teams agreeing. If a rear wing deflects excessively and fails, for example, then you're in to big accident territory.

They haven't said it, but if pressed I bet that's their argument.

[SiLo]

Nice to see everyone is having the same arguments we put to bed weeks ago with the previous flexing rear wing noise. At least that time we had pretty conclusive evidence that the wings were flexing a lot.

Honestly until we either get a new directive, I don't think anything will change this year.