Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[Stu]

Merc failed by 0.2mm because a screw was loose. Even Red bull admitted there was no advantage. If a car doesn’t meet the technical regs it should be dsq’d. Simple as really. That’s why red bull won’t risk the fluttering wing because it will be an instant penalty

At Zandvoort, during the final Q runs, the DRS failed to open as MV started onto the final straight. It started to open, but then failed. Presumably the FIA did their checks (as RB would have requested to perform repairs in parc ferme), there was no DSQ in this case (again, presumably because it was still within the regulations - even though it had failed).

Totally, I don’t see anything against the rules there. Very different to it consistently opening and then moving while open. As I said, it won’t be an issue because red bull won’t risk running it

That will force them to use the high DF rear wing (which has a different actuator for the DRS), will they really want to do that?
The actuators are a homologated part that was covered by the token system last off-season. There have been reports of failures since it was introduced in 2020, it was not re-engineered under the token spend.
The high DF wing uses a different actuator, that is reliable, but cannot be fitted to the low & medium DF wings by regulation.

If RB are forced to use the high DF wing (as they were in Qatar), you can start the celebration party for the first ever 8-time driver champion & an 8th consecutive constructor champion!

[El Scorchio]

At Zandvoort, during the final Q runs, the DRS failed to open as MV started onto the final straight. It started to open, but then failed. Presumably the FIA did their checks (as RB would have requested to perform repairs in parc ferme), there was no DSQ in this case (again, presumably because it was still within the regulations - even though it had failed).

Totally, I don’t see anything against the rules there. Very different to it consistently opening and then moving while open. As I said, it won’t be an issue because red bull won’t risk running it

That will force them to use the high DF rear wing (which has a different actuator for the DRS), will they really want to do that?
The actuators are a homologated part that was covered by the token system last off-season. There have been reports of failures since it was introduced in 2020, it was not re-engineered under the token spend.
The high DF wing uses a different actuator, that is reliable, but cannot be fitted to the low & medium DF wings by regulation.

If RB are forced to use the high DF wing (as they were in Qatar), you can start the celebration party for the first ever 8-time driver champion & an 8th consecutive constructor champion!

Why might the actuators be different for each wing and not just the same device across all of them? Genuine question as I don't know. Is it to do with how far or how hard it has to move/pull a high downforce wing vs a low downforce one, or something different?

[Stu]

Totally, I don’t see anything against the rules there. Very different to it consistently opening and then moving while open. As I said, it won’t be an issue because red bull won’t risk running it

That will force them to use the high DF rear wing (which has a different actuator for the DRS), will they really want to do that?
The actuators are a homologated part that was covered by the token system last off-season. There have been reports of failures since it was introduced in 2020, it was not re-engineered under the token spend.
The high DF wing uses a different actuator, that is reliable, but cannot be fitted to the low & medium DF wings by regulation.

If RB are forced to use the high DF wing (as they were in Qatar), you can start the celebration party for the first ever 8-time driver champion & an 8th consecutive constructor champion!

Why might the actuators be different for each wing and not just the same device across all of them? Genuine question as I don't know. Is it to do with how far or how hard it has to move/pull a high downforce wing vs a low downforce one, or something different?

Probably, all I know is that they have two systems homologated and they are not interchangeable. Seems a bit strange, but that is how I understand it. The rules allow for two systems (I would imagine that all teams have two systems). The term ‘system’ must be for the hydraulic operation as the mechanical part of the medium and low downforce wings MUST be different, surely?

[dans79]

Another user(I forget who I'm sorry) posted this earlier today.

If you jump to 9:47 and watch Max's rear wing you will see it flexing back a substantial amount in Jeddah!


I contacted at @RZS10 and he generated some stills with reference line similar to earlier in the season.

Entering turn 1 (low speed)


At speed down the front strait.



@RZS10 correct me if I'm wrong or misinterpreted your pm. The 1ts image below is from silverstone(post new more stringent tests), and the second one is segments of the Silverstone image overlaid on the Jeddah! image.


[/img]


I assume the wing meets the new tests, but thats still looks like an awful lot of flex to me!

[RZS10]

Yea it's from this post , i scaled them to size (one had to go to 102%) - it's pretty much the same amount of flex as in Silverstone, all within margin of error. Silverstone was already less than Baku with a similar wing though.



Given that the FIA is monitoring it with their funky stickers (which even changed position and colour) it's all fine, even if it still flexes more than their rivals' wings.

[DChemTech]

There is anyway still no limit in the rules as what constitutes too much flex, so as long as the wings meet the test, which I assume they do, there are no grounds to call them being overtly flexing. Until the FIA decides to change the rules agin, but I don't expect that on such short notice.

[Just_a_fan]

There is anyway still no limit in the rules as what constitutes too much flex, so as long as the wings meet the test, which I assume they do, there are no grounds to call them being overtly flexing. Until the FIA decides to change the rules agin, but I don't expect that on such short notice.

I think that's the point. Some are suggesting that the Mercedes rear wing is illegal. It meets the test just as the Red Bull rear wing does.

[Jolle]

Yea it's from this post , i scaled them to size (one had to go to 102%) - it's pretty much the same amount of flex as in Silverstone, all within margin of error. Silverstone was already less than Baku with a similar wing though.

https://i.imgur.com/yV1xPzi.gif

Given that the FIA is monitoring it with their funky stickers (which even changed position and colour) it's all fine, even if it still flexes more than their rivals' wings.

After the race before this one they took Verstappen’s car for the new “Ferrari check” and didn’t noticed anything, so it must comply with the guidelines. It does raid eyebrows after the RedBull comments on the Mercedes’ rear wing.

[west52keep64]

But there was an allowance for the whole wing to move

Can you quote the rules that state this?

For individual planes there was no allowance, it was expected for them not to be moveable.

Same for this statement please. In which part of the technical regulations are you seeing this? I have not seen anything in the technical regulations that states there was an allowance for movement of the entire rear wing assembly, but no such allowance for a single component of the wing.

From jeddah on you have to pass the test.

Where has this been publicised?

I don't believe I ever received a response to any of this? There were many factual claims made in this post, could you please provide the answers?

[Stu]

The ‘allowance’ is governed by the testing procedure (there is a limit on how much various parts can move under load). It doesn’t alter the wording of the regulations, but (in a way) undermines the wording of the rules by admitting that nothing can be compliant with the written regulations. Hence the much spoken falsehood of the ‘spirit of the rules’.

To my knowledge the new main-plane test (a load increase over the previous test procedure) is being performed, but not acted upon this year. They are validating the test. This could be interpreted as either:
a) Red Bull have given their dossier to the FIA proving that such a thing is possible (and could pass the existing test - essentially the flex can be designed to be non-linear & pass the existing test)
b) on detailed inspection of the Mercedes wing from Brazil (was it returned in Qatar or do they still have it?), it was found that it could pass the existing test but behaved in a non-linear manner when further loaded - the new load test is unlikely to be a ‘finger-in-the-air’ guesstimate).

Much as with the previous flexing rear wing fiasco, the regulations have not changed, but the tests performed to encourage () compliance have been altered (as the FIA allow themselves to do.

The funniest thing about the whole thing?
Now that the accusations are coming from the other team (implicated previously), the arguments have not changed, but the protagonists have changed sides….

[peaty]

Looks like we're back in square 1 when it come to rear wing flexing, what a surprise!

Let's be serious once and for all, the fact that the rear wings are still flexing as much as they did before even after the introduction of the new test and the FIA monitoring them goes to prove the following:

1-The spirit of the rules, that many have claim over and over again, doesn't exist.
2-The new test didn't "fix" the problem. And this goes back to point 1.

[peaty]

There is anyway still no limit in the rules as what constitutes too much flex, so as long as the wings meet the test, which I assume they do, there are no grounds to call them being overtly flexing. Until the FIA decides to change the rules agin, but I don't expect that on such short notice.

I think that's the point. Some are suggesting that the Mercedes rear wing is illegal. It meets the test just as the Red Bull rear wing does.

There are more rules involving the rear wing, not just the ones regarding flexibility. IF Mercedes is doing what Red Bull is suggesting (bending the main plane/rotating the main plane/etc), even if it passes all the flexibility test...it's flat out illegal because it leads to a gap bigger than the stipulated by the rules when the DRS is not active. That is a breach of another article completelly different to the one regarding flexibilty.

[RZS10]

[...] the rear wings are still flexing as much as they did before even after the introduction of the new test and the FIA monitoring them [...]

That sentence simply isn't true - just go through the thread and look at various comparisons.
Horner even said something along the lines of the changes to the tests having a material impact when he was complaining about the supposedly flexing Merc wing.

[e30ernest]

it's flat out illegal because it leads to a gap bigger than the stipulated by the rules when the DRS is not active.

If I recall, that section only mandates the maximum gap when the DRS is active, and a minimum gap when the DRS is not active. I don't think there was a mandated maximum gap with the DRS off? I also recall the minimum gap was set because team would stall the wings by closing the gap to decrease drag (not increase the gap).

[peaty]

[...] the rear wings are still flexing as much as they did before even after the introduction of the new test and the FIA monitoring them [...]

That sentence simply isn't true - just go through the thread and look at various comparisons.
Horner even said something along the lines of the changes to the tests having a material impact when he was complaining about the supposedly flexing Merc wing.

English is not my first language and I might be wrong here but..."as much as" means equal in quantity, right? The point is I never mentioned flexion related to speed but just flexion. That's why I still thinking that my sentence is correct.

Look, this is a technical forum and I can understand that accuracy is a must. I do feel though that, in this occasion, you are missing the forest for the trees.