McLaren MCL38

[mwillems]

Looking at past races onboards... there isn't rear facing footage for both drivers at every race. Where there is footage:
Whatever is going on with this DRS edge lift, it was already there (looks like with a smaller movement) in Monza in Piastri's car, but it does not seem to have been there, also for Piastri, in Zandvoort.
Norris had a bit of it in Spa.
Piastri did not have it in Hungary. Norris didn't either in Hungary.
Norris didn't have it in Silverstone.
Norris had a minusculous amount of it in Austria.
Piastri did not have it in Spain.
It was either absent on miniscule for Piastri in Miami.
Norris didn't have it in Jeddah.

So either this a relatively new development, or it correlates with very low load wings.

The wing at Baku was the Spa and Monza wing, so your observations seem to align correctly with and confine any real flex to this wing.

But it's worth noting that that wing is used on tracks with very high speed and long straights, which will also be part of the reason for flex.

The rigidity/thickness of the different wings may not be that different but the forces they expect to receive are. Seems like quite a cute design.

[.poz]

McLaren also opens a gap in the FW plane at speed... yes, all fw flex, all produce a discontinuity in the plane but only McLaren seem to open a gap between the metal tabs leaving an actual opening. Does that make a difference? Why do it differently from others?

https://x.com/433_marc/status/183535404 ... hwjfA&s=19

front wing is composed by 2 "main planes" and 2 flaps; the gap opens because the two main planes are bending (the tip near the wheel is going down), you can see it in the left corner of the video

[warpomex]

McLaren also opens a gap in the FW plane at speed... yes, all fw flex, all produce a discontinuity in the plane but only McLaren seem to open a gap between the metal tabs leaving an actual opening. Does that make a difference? Why do it differently from others?

https://x.com/433_marc/status/183535404 ... hwjfA&s=19

front wing is composed by 2 "main planes" and 2 flaps; the gap opens because the two main planes are bending (the tip near the wheel is going down), you can see it in the left corner of the video

I understand how that gap is formed. But if you look at other car's FW, the metal tabs separating the fixed and the bending planes never create a gap. The tabs are always in contact with each other even when they allow movement.

On the McLaren these tabs DO separate at high load, not only allowing movement but also creating a gap.

Why does McLaren does it different to others and allow that gap? I'm not questioning legality, to me they're legal under the current rules/test.

[raymondu999]

But is the RW flexing?

I feel like, from the limited onboards we’ve seen, it’s hinging. I think for low load wings (as observed above) where they don’t need the load at high speeds, they’ve shifted the CofP for this wing to near the trailing edge, somehow — which, in line with potentially clever non-linearity in the hinge forces the DRS plane to lean back

I’m no expert so I may be talking absolute hogwash but I would wager they’re also blowing the wing no? Like a blown stall akin to 2010

[FittingMechanics]

Looking at past races onboards... there isn't rear facing footage for both drivers at every race. Where there is footage:
Whatever is going on with this DRS edge lift, it was already there (looks like with a smaller movement) in Monza in Piastri's car, but it does not seem to have been there, also for Piastri, in Zandvoort.
Norris had a bit of it in Spa.
Piastri did not have it in Hungary. Norris didn't either in Hungary.
Norris didn't have it in Silverstone.
Norris had a minusculous amount of it in Austria.
Piastri did not have it in Spain.
It was either absent on miniscule for Piastri in Miami.
Norris didn't have it in Jeddah.

So either this a relatively new development, or it correlates with very low load wings.

The wing at Baku was the Spa and Monza wing, so your observations seem to align correctly with and confine any real flex to this wing.

But it's worth noting that that wing is used on tracks with very high speed and long straights, which will also be part of the reason for flex.

The rigidity/thickness of the different wings may not be that different but the forces they expect to receive are. Seems like quite a cute design.

Also if I am not mistaken, Spa wing was a new development.

[Farnborough]

Looking at past races onboards... there isn't rear facing footage for both drivers at every race. Where there is footage:
Whatever is going on with this DRS edge lift, it was already there (looks like with a smaller movement) in Monza in Piastri's car, but it does not seem to have been there, also for Piastri, in Zandvoort.
Norris had a bit of it in Spa.
Piastri did not have it in Hungary. Norris didn't either in Hungary.
Norris didn't have it in Silverstone.
Norris had a minusculous amount of it in Austria.
Piastri did not have it in Spain.
It was either absent on miniscule for Piastri in Miami.
Norris didn't have it in Jeddah.

So either this a relatively new development, or it correlates with very low load wings.

The wing at Baku was the Spa and Monza wing, so your observations seem to align correctly with and confine any real flex to this wing.

But it's worth noting that that wing is used on tracks with very high speed and long straights, which will also be part of the reason for flex.

The rigidity/thickness of the different wings may not be that different but the forces they expect to receive are. Seems like quite a cute design.

I agree with this.

There's note, generally on forum, in various projections and description such as "cheating, grey area, intent of rule" etc which don't seem to apply here.

My knowledge of the rules and absolute nuance is not going to be a match for those working within the team and holding responsibility for compliance. But, it does look through comparison to walk past the rule set if examined against them.

It appears located without movement via it's pivot, stays in place until commanded in respect of control (how is "control determined ? ) if that control is the position of the actuation mech, its "home" position vs it's activated "open" position. In other words, it looks at assurance the driver only can command it, which it seems to do.

Rigidly fixed to structure, tick. Not able to move unless commanded, tick.

Is there a specification for the flap strength/torsional competence ? Doesn't appear to be, certainly not quoted by anyone so far. How can the FIA judge this without specific criteria ?

Conventionally, and using knowledge from Mercedes penalised wing in Brazil, that gap was tested with a "go no go" type gauge. That method pulls a set size object through the gap in control load that's specified. Then, attempts to pull a one size up object, 1mm increase in that case, through the same gap. If that's not possible, then the gap passes scrutiny.
Often incorrectly quoted by MB supporters & TW as failed by 1mm, which is completely untrue, as that larger test object cannot DEFINE the potential movement available between the top and lower flap, in that case. Just that it fails the proscribed test.

IF this current wing is tested in the same way ( needs more intimate knowledge here) and the teams keep their own tools to replicate FIA proceedings, then it would appear there's possibility of test method trying to pull a flexible flap structure closer to the main plane below, this preventing a "failure " in that test routine.

I dont know about "grey" area, looks like the FIA don't have enough black & white to go round in this case unless someone can indicate differently.

As already pointed out, on forum, there's never going to be no flex in things. Unless there's detailed and commonly carried out strain type testing, then you cannot enforce compliance, logically. There doesn't APPEAR to be one noted for this element in existence.

Flrxing structure in F1 is just routine, without specific details, it's free.

Other notable practitioners that do this with routine ease are helicopter blade structure, snowboard and ski structures, daily routine in manufacture of playing torsional against structure against lifing of component, all to deliver desirable performance in their field. Theres no real secrets about this.

[mwillems]

But is the RW flexing?

I feel like, from the limited onboards we’ve seen, it’s hinging. I think for low load wings (as observed above) where they don’t need the load at high speeds, they’ve shifted the CofP for this wing to near the trailing edge, somehow — which, in line with potentially clever non-linearity in the hinge forces the DRS plane to lean back

I’m no expert so I may be talking absolute hogwash but I would wager they’re also blowing the wing no? Like a blown stall akin to 2010

I don't think it is to be honest. It is the whole DRS flap and the winglets that flex. The winglets do not pivot and are "static" in and out of DRS, yet flex perfectly with the DRS FLap, so I guess that this means that it would be the supporting structure of the winglets that are flexing to allow the DRS flap to lean back? It may not even be related to DRS thickness, at least at the top of the Flap. The outer edges of the leading edge likely be flexing due to the thickness though.

It seems to becoming clear that this is a design specifically for this wing. It'd be interesting to know the KPH at which the wing leans back and then at which the leading edge starts to curl.

[SiLo]

Is it possible that the as the entire wing is forced back, the AoA changes just enough to actually start lifting the edge of the top flap?

[mwillems]

Is it possible that the as the entire wing is forced back, the AoA changes just enough to actually start lifting the edge of the top flap?

Seems logical that if it is the entire AoA being affected, that airflow would be lifting the edges and that they aren't being warped due to the rear of the DRS flap flexing. It'd be interesting to get a shot with DRS open to see what is happening to the wing and where the pivot is. You'd think the leading edge of the flap is going to be exposed to a lot more force when DRS is open, and if the leading edges are curling with a little AoA then you'd expect to see something when DRS is engaged.

Edit: I'm talking nonsense about the leading corners, I'm certain it will just be because of force applied to the top of the wing cannot be shared equally across the wing due to the pivot points and the actuator, therefore the leading corners, the only other area that can share the force, is being curled upwards.

[Farnborough]

Is it possible that the as the entire wing is forced back, the AoA changes just enough to actually start lifting the edge of the top flap?

Seems logical that if it is the entire AoA being affected, that airflow would be lifting the edges and that they aren't being warped due to the rear of the DRS flap flexing.

Tipping backwards is proscribed and tested with strain gauge against the specification issued, that's as I understand it.

They'll all be within that test otherwise a notable failure and fail in scrutiny.

[n_anirudh]

Its simple to follow regs

3.10.10 Drag Reduction System (DRS)
The entire RW Flap described in Article 3.10.1, including any gurney if fitted, part of the
rearward most section from any regions of the Rear Wing Tip described in Article 3.10.5
where there are exactly two sections in an intersection with any plane that contains the Xaligned axis [Y,Z]= [480, 670], and the portions of the Rear Wing Separators defined in 3.10.6
that are attached to these components, may be rotated about a fixed axis whilst the car is in
motion. All bodywork to be rotated shall be known as “DRS Bodywork”

c. There must be no relative movement between the constituent parts of the DRS Bodywork
g. Any alteration of the incidence of the uppermost closed section may only be
commanded by direct driver input and controlled using the control electronics specified
in Article 8.3

c - There is no clarity if this is when the car is in motion or not.
Wrt the Mclaren wing, there is relative movement - but then we can always go back to say "no body is ever stiff and only static tests need to be done"

g - with the car in the lead, the DRS incidence should not have been activated by driver input and if the incidence is changing it is contravening the rules of the sport.

[mwillems]

Is it possible that the as the entire wing is forced back, the AoA changes just enough to actually start lifting the edge of the top flap?

Seems logical that if it is the entire AoA being affected, that airflow would be lifting the edges and that they aren't being warped due to the rear of the DRS flap flexing.

Tipping backwards is proscribed and tested with strain gauge against the specification issued, that's as I understand it.

They'll all be within that test otherwise a notable failure and fail in scrutiny.

I'm not really questioning legality, just what the wing is doing. The FIA docs show the Mclaren rear wing was tested and passed all tests at Baku. It's legal for sure (Today). But I'm curious to see if those leading edges are deforming. They look like it to me, but there's some doubt around.

Fairly certain we are flexing a little more on the supporting structure underneath the winglets than others, and it is affecting the AoA, but the fact that the leading edges deform with a little AoA makes me think they'd be deforming when DRS is open, which doesn't seem optimal, so it seems worth checking what the DRS flap looks like when open.

Edit: Suspect it is only the pressure hitting the top and central portion of the flap that can only be shared with the leading corners, because the pivot and actuator make the other portions of the DRS flap rigid.

[.poz]

On the McLaren these tabs DO separate at high load, not only allowing movement but also creating a gap.

Why does McLaren does it different to others and allow that gap? I'm not questioning legality, to me they're legal under the current rules/test.

because everybody have flaps bending backwards, only Mclaren has the mainplanes bending down enough to open a gap

[mwillems]

On the McLaren these tabs DO separate at high load, not only allowing movement but also creating a gap.

Why does McLaren does it different to others and allow that gap? I'm not questioning legality, to me they're legal under the current rules/test.

because everybody have flaps bending backwards, only Mclaren has the mainplanes bending down enough to open a gap

I can see almost no flex on the mainplane, nothing that would make an aerodynamic difference. What appears is that under low load, the edge of the DRS flap is aligned with the winglets. Under high load, the leading corners of the DRS flap raise a little. But not anything of note on the main plane.

But I'm certain this effect on the corners will be due to the warping of the DRS flap from the pressures hitting the top, and not for any other reason.

Still be interesting to see if it has been manufactured to be strong enough not to warp with DRS open vs closed at high speeds.

[venkyhere]

But is the RW flexing?

I feel like, from the limited onboards we’ve seen, it’s hinging. I think for low load wings (as observed above) where they don’t need the load at high speeds, they’ve shifted the CofP for this wing to near the trailing edge, somehow — which, in line with potentially clever non-linearity in the hinge forces the DRS plane to lean back

I’m no expert so I may be talking absolute hogwash but I would wager they’re also blowing the wing no? Like a blown stall akin to 2010

I don't think it is to be honest. It is the whole DRS flap and the winglets that flex. The winglets do not pivot and are "static" in and out of DRS, yet flex perfectly with the DRS FLap, so I guess that this means that it would be the supporting structure of the winglets that are flexing to allow the DRS flap to lean back? It may not even be related to DRS thickness, at least at the top of the Flap. The outer edges of the leading edge likely be flexing due to the thickness though.

It seems to becoming clear that this is a design specifically for this wing. It'd be interesting to know the KPH at which the wing leans back and then at which the leading edge starts to curl.

https://i.ibb.co/jgQDggQ/comp-spa-24.jpg
(from Vanja's post in ferrari team thread)

Although the flaps are roughly same size in the above image, the incline is vastly different, isn't it ? (the reference 'dots' show it) McLaren's flap's outboard bottom end is 'peeking up' from the main plane's high pressure (local area) surface ; while the flap's outboard top end (hinge) has local load high pressure => at high speed it's like a clockwise/anti-clockwise (depending which side-view of the wing we take) torque is acting on the hinge, even when DRS is disabled => it 'lifts'. That's clever.
Ferrari and Redbull have gone for more upright flap, where the outboard bottom of the flap is almost very near the mainplane high pressure surface ; and crucially, severe edge vortex generating sharp ends on the flap outboard support, thus keeping their flap 'well shut' when no DRS is there. McLaren low DF wing is a hybrid of the Ferrari/Redbull style and Mercedes style low DF wings, with much more 'benign' flap outboard supports.