TD018 2023 - clampdown on flexible wings

[peewon]

…

…

No. Its still all subjective hogwash.

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.

This is the main issue raised.

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.

This is the same cited regulation which is impossible to be absolutely compliable with for anyone. So then it becomes a question of degrees and subjectivity and FIA chicanery.

[Just_a_fan]

Ferrari seems subtle compared to the others, Mercedes and Red Bull use it more and AMR at Bahrain Jesus...

If you look at Merc they are doing something different to Ferrari/RB. The inboard elements of the front wing (attached directly to the nose) also significantly flex. Whereas with RB/Ferrari it seems to be only the outboard section.

For me it's: AMR (Bahrain) >> Merc > RB > Ferrari

Don't have any other videos of AMR's front wing unfortunately

The inboard section is longer, it seems, which is always going to make it deflect a bit more than the shorter versions on the other two - the section sizes aren't great there so making them more rigid at that length might be tricky. I guess they could go with shorter inboard sections if the FIA decide the current design is naughty.

[taperoo2k]

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)

Maybe, maybe not. Guess it depends on how they manage the airflow to the floor, is flexing the wing critical to creating the right kind of airflow to the floor or not really an issue for Red Bull?

I do wonder about RB's rear wing though, I've seen it flex a few times, though I put that down to the aerodynamic loads rear wings face rather than an intentional design feature. But who knows. Lewis might have been onto something in regards to RB's rear wing, guess we'll find out.

[Cs98]

Maybe, maybe not. Guess it depends on how they manage the airflow to the floor, is flexing the wing critical to creating the right kind of airflow to the floor or not really an issue for Red Bull?

I do wonder about RB's rear wing though, I've seen it flex a few times, though I put that down to the aerodynamic loads rear wings face rather than an intentional design feature. But who knows. Lewis might have been onto something in regards to RB's rear wing, guess we'll find out.

It flexes almost nothing. I did a comparison of this earlier in the year and the W14 had more rear wingflex at that point (was with the mid-DF wing). Keep in mind the flex was still minimal compared to what we used to have under the previous regulation set.

[Sevach]

Ferrari seems subtle compared to the others, Mercedes and Red Bull use it more and AMR at Bahrain Jesus...

If you look at Merc they are doing something different to Ferrari/RB. The inboard elements of the front wing (attached directly to the nose) also significantly flex. Whereas with RB/Ferrari it seems to be only the outboard section.

For me it's: AMR (Bahrain) >> Merc > RB > Ferrari

Don't have any other videos of AMR's front wing unfortunately

Yes, Mercedes seems to flex even the area beyond the adjustable flap.

[RZS10]

[...] I did a comparison of this earlier in the year [...]

Here on the forum or just for yourself? If the former than maybe link to it as it's relevant here?

[dans79]

I don't think its about the front wing flaps, they are literally allowed to rotate and flex. I think their is some kind of more complicated interplay going on.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -04-25.pdf

[AR3-GP]

An intriguing comment from an article that Gary Anderson wrote last month regarding Merc's new front wing for Silverstone:
https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-and ... l-visible/

Mercedes is leading itself astray with the fact it has a very flexible front-wing flap assembly. It is trying to fix the underfloor problem with the front wing flexing at high-speed. But that’s like putting a band aid on it because to do that you sacrifice overall downforce. However, from what I’ve seen of its car’s problem I’d hate to see Mercedes run with a rigid front wing flap assembly because it would be a nightmare to drive. There is still a long way to go before it has a package that gives its drivers a stable aerodynamic platform.

There could be a Mercedes nerf in Singapore.

It may also explain why Mercedes and their drivers have not cried foul publicly regarding flexing front wings. As it would turn out, they are probably in the cross-hairs of this TD.

[Sevach]

Is there a link to the Hamilton comments?

It goes back to hungary and RB's lack of obvious DRS advantage.

I heard a theory that RedBull DRS advantage boils down to RBR comparatively running a big RW with a small (tipically single element)beam wing, when they open DRS they end up with less drag than the competition, who runs bigger beam wings and shed less drag on RW proper on DRS activation.

In a track like Hungary, where Red Bull (and everybody else) max's both the upper wing and beam wing, there's no advantage.

[KeiKo403]

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:

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.

Can anyone explain what these are….in simple terms please

I think I get number 3 but if I’m right with what I think how on earth would that be simulated in CFD?

[JordanMugen]

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?

Requiring several 10mm thick aluminium alloy braces (similar to a rear wing mount) to hold the front wing flap elements in their respective positions should do the trick.

As it is, it seems teams aren't even trying to make their front wing elements rigid!

I think I get number 3 but if I’m right with what I think how on earth would that be simulated in CFD?

CFD normally doesn't include elastic effects, however they would know what the geometry is supposed to be at different levels of load/speed and have different models for different speeds. Having different models in their system to account for different levels of flex would be a dead giveaway that a part is deliberately designed to flex!

Though I suppose you could couple CFD with FEA to include elastic effects, i.e., with this much load it deflects this much? But the CFD analysis itself is still going to be time-average with a fixed geometry to be tractable to solve for an object like a Grand Prix car, and not include fluttering (or porpoising) effects!

[basti313]

As it is, it seems teams aren't even trying to make their front wing elements rigid!

Well, and this is the nice thing about this TD:
They do not have to. They just need to make a proper design and not put extra flexing sections or even rubber into the parts.

I like this TD. It forbids expensive and non-visible (stupid) design tweaks.

[TimW]

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?

One thing they use is 'bend twist coupling'

With composites, by playing with fibre angles in your laminates, you make structures that deform torsionally when you bend them(you can do other things as well). By doing so, you can e.g. make a front wing that twists the outer part under load, such that the angle of attack for the wing profile reduces.

But since the front wings are swept back, it will have this tendency to twist anyway. And gut feel I'd expect that the geometrical coupling effect is bigger than teams want. So they will all be playing with fibre angles to get the right amount of twist. Therefore I doubt the clampdown is for this.

I also read somewhere the suggestion that they were using elastomer fillets in the connection to the nose. But that would be a clear breach because the only possible intend of using an elastomer there would be to allow deflection.

[KimiRai]

Don't have any other videos of AMR's front wing unfortunately

[organic]

Looks normal now. In line with what other teams are still doing