Flexiwings 2024

[organic]

https://postimg.cc/2bjch2wr image hosting sites

I think it's mostly about the behaviour further outboard. At Monza, McLaren's FW modification was a cut on the inboard portion. They didn't trim the outboard portion at all, which I find pretty telling

[scuderiabrandon]

https://postimg.cc/2bjch2wr

There is actually a noticeable offset even on the 3rd element of the McLaren front wing at high speed, which is not seen on any of the other wings.

Obviously they ran quite a loaded front wing setup last weekend which is not a surprise you see a bit more flex throughout the assembly but also an interesting choice regardless.

[Vanja #66]

https://postimg.cc/2bjch2wr image hosting sites

I think it's mostly about the behaviour further outboard. At Monza, McLaren's FW modification was a cut on the inboard portion. They didn't trim the outboard portion at all, which I find pretty telling

They used Spa front wing in the end, not that one with the cutout

[stewie325]

Posting the above picture comparison from Monza isn't even that telling, because wings at Monza are much skinnier than usual.

If you look at this onboard of Russell from Canada 24, the amount of flex is much more pronounced than is suggested by the screenshots. From other videos I've seen, that also holds true for McLaren.



It's quite frankly shocking the FIA are turning the other way, when it's the most blatantly obvious example of wing flex I can remember. Of course, we all know they're doing it to facilitate some "exciting title battle"...

[chrisc90]

Excuse the chunky lines, but this is Norris during FP3 at Monza. ~36mins on the F1tv stream for anyone else to look at)

[bluechris]

Excuse the chunky lines, but this is Norris during FP3 at Monza. ~36mins on the F1tv stream for anyone else to look at)

Lol to FIA....

[ispano6]

So as long as the wings don't flex when you push down, it means they can flex if they happen to oscillate and flap up.

In addition to the sting ray morphology and vortex, the humpback whale fin design also features in flaps that are used on Formula 1 wings. The shapes and angles in which they oscillate and flap are uncanny.

Expecting to see development further inspired by aquatic life and bionic propellers!

I have no idea where you get these ideas from, but they are certainly entertaining.

One of the benefits of pursuing or having a dual major in college. The overlap and cross-discipline background help to have a more malleable mind in accepting and pursuing solutions outside ones specific area of expertise.

[catent]

So as long as the wings don't flex when you push down, it means they can flex if they happen to oscillate and flap up.

In addition to the sting ray morphology and vortex, the humpback whale fin design also features in flaps that are used on Formula 1 wings. The shapes and angles in which they oscillate and flap are uncanny.

Expecting to see development further inspired by aquatic life and bionic propellers!

I have no idea where you get these ideas from, but they are certainly entertaining.

One of the benefits of pursuing or having a dual major in college. The overlap and cross-discipline background help to have a more malleable mind in accepting and pursuing solutions outside ones specific area of expertise.

No one is arguing this is not a clever/innovative solution.

What is being argued is that such a solution violates the spirit of the existing rules regarding wing flex (even if the existing measurement methodology is limited in its ability to predict/measure wing flex, such that a part could pass the rigidity test, yet still flex in a way that is at-odds with what the rules intended to achieve).

It’s ultimately up the FIA; either they determine (moving forward) that such flex is something they welcome in the sport, or they decide this does violate the spirit of the rule and implement further scrutiny/tests to ensure such flexing does not occur.

[AR3-GP]

We were having a discussion about whether or not there is intent in the fluttering of the Mercedes front wing. The footage from Monza shows that the Mercedes front wing flutters much more than others even in the normal aero conditions and in the absence of curb strikes:




So this isn't something that's just because a curb was struck harder than other cars in the footage. The Mercedes wing just flutters more. That is the way it is designed.

[ispano6]

I have no idea where you get these ideas from, but they are certainly entertaining.

One of the benefits of pursuing or having a dual major in college. The overlap and cross-discipline background help to have a more malleable mind in accepting and pursuing solutions outside ones specific area of expertise.

No one is arguing this is not a clever/innovative solution.

What is being argued is that such a solution violates the spirit of the existing rules regarding wing flex (even if the existing measurement methodology is limited in its ability to predict/measure wing flex, such that a part could pass the rigidity test, yet still flex in a way that is at-odds with what the rules intended to achieve).

It’s ultimately up the FIA; either they determine (moving forward) that such flex is something they welcome in the sport, or they decide this does violate the spirit of the rule and implement further scrutiny/tests to ensure such flexing does not occur.

Equally I wonder if gaining such an understanding and applying it should fall under a cost cap or "capabilities" restriction. It would be interesting to see if the FIA see the behavior of the wings as being beneficial for performance. If the intent is nefarious and attempting to create "dirty" air for following cars, then I see the regulation as being appropriate in spirit. I see the application of such new approaches as being outside of the box thinking, which is likely what the FIA's stance may be. True, the spirit of the regulations can only be taken with a grain of salt if the regulations are only policed with static tests applied with a set amount of force on set locations, but F1 has always been about interpreting the rules and identifying where there is design freedom.

[Vanja #66]

We were having a discussion about whether or not there is intent in the fluttering of the Mercedes front wing. The footage from Monza shows that the Mercedes front wing flutters much more than others even in the normal aero conditions and in the absence of curb strikes:




So this isn't something that's just because a curb was struck harder than other cars in the footage. The Mercedes wing just flutters more. That is the way it is designed.

Those are flaps fluttering, not the wing itself, but the wing definitely is designed in a way that allows them to do it. Not sure it's very healthy for floor aero though, could be a part of Spa package development that screwed their last two races...

The 2nd element is where the main spar is and both flaps and first element are twisting around this spar. This spar can be very stiff in Z axis and it has to be to pass the load test. If you leave out or reduce the number of ribs in that 2nd element, you will allow the skin to deform a lot. This causes the flap brackets to deflect and reduce the flap angle and, seemingly, the angle of the 1st element, which acts a lot like an inverted slat. If you really push the limit, you get a groovy flappy wing that Mercedes has now. McLaren's wing is visibly flexing in a much more controlled manner and this is what a floor would need for a stable operation across the whole lap on any track

[TimW]

Aston Martin must be pretty annoyed with the inconsistency of the FIA. They were forced to change their front wing mid season, while this is allowed. Also their creative rear wing end plate solution was made illegal, while the outwashing front wing to endplate connections pioneered by Mercedes are allowed to this day.

Don't get me wrong, I think they way they are handling this case is the correct way. It should always be done this way. The rules should not be changed mid season to close a loophole.
But the inconsistency and lack of transparency annoys me. I cannot escape the impression that this is politics to help the show, or specific teams.

[AR3-GP]

Those are flaps fluttering, not the wing itself, but the wing definitely is designed in a way that allows them to do it. Not sure it's very healthy for floor aero though, could be a part of Spa package development that screwed their last two races...

That's what I meant. Also, i believe this front wing was introduced in Monaco. Perhaps the flutter is how the wing is able to flex. Some kind of viscoelastic phenomenon...

The 2nd element is where the main spar is and both flaps and first element are twisting around this spar. This spar can be very stiff in Z axis and it has to be to pass the load test. If you leave out or reduce the number of ribs in that 2nd element, you will allow the skin to deform a lot. This causes the flap brackets to deflect and reduce the flap angle and, seemingly, the angle of the 1st element, which acts a lot like an inverted slat. If you really push the limit, you get a groovy flappy wing that Mercedes has now. McLaren's wing is visibly flexing in a much more controlled manner and this is what a floor would need for a stable operation across the whole lap on any track

This is plausible. One car is more effective than the other...

[ispano6]

The current tests only stipulate forces being applied in the DOWNWARD direction. FIA/FOM just needs to introduce a testing procedure that pulls on the wing flaps at various locations and see if it can pull on one element beyond the prescribed limits without then causing another element to then continue the motion. It's very feasible to create a wing that passes downward force tests but is easy to bend up in the upward direction ( ex airline wings etc ). The rules don't stipulate restriction with regard to the upward motion or force applied.

In both avian and aquatic biomechanics, fluttering or treading is a form of maintaining horizontal stabilization. Rays do it to glide along the sea floor without kicking up sand.

[AR3-GP]

The current tests only stipulate forces being applied in the DOWNWARD direction. FIA/FOM just needs to introduce a testing procedure that pulls on the wing flaps at various locations and see if it can pull on one element beyond the prescribed limits without then causing another element to then continue the motion. It's very feasible to create a wing that passes downward force tests but is easy to bend up in the upward direction ( ex airline wings etc ). The rules don't stipulate restriction with regard to the upward motion or force applied.

In both avian and aquatic biomechanics, fluttering or treading is a form of maintaining horizontal stabilization. Rays do it to glide along the sea floor without kicking up sand.

FIA needs to get rid of the load testing and define a geometric shape tolerance which is monitored by camera and based on the original undeformed wing shape.