Flexing visible but not banned?

[yener]

Guys im trying to figure out for months now why RB doesnt get punished for the flexing parts on their car.
A car always flexes thats clear and they have a "weight" test to see how much the wings flex due to the regulation.
But you can clearly see that lots of wings (RB started was first after new regulation) and other parts are flexing too much.
Why they are not getting any penalties by the FIA?

Somehow the teams are able to "manipulate" the rules. Because they dont flex in the FIA test, but on the track they hit the ground!

BTW sorry for my bad english. I'm working on it

[beelsebob]

Guys im trying to figure out for months now why RB doesnt get punished for the flexing parts on their car.
A car always flexes thats clear and they have a "weight" test to see how much the wings flex due to the regulation.
But you can clearly see that lots of wings (RB started was first after new regulation) and other parts are flexing too much.
Why they are not getting any penalties by the FIA?

Somehow the teams are able to "manipulate" the rules. Because they dont flex in the FIA test, but on the track they hit the ground!

BTW sorry for my bad english. I'm working on it

The simple fact is that while we can all see with our eyes that various teams are breaking the rules here, the FIA need a higher standard of proof than "I can see it". I can see it could be caused by any number of things like weird perspective effects, or the car nose ducking down on the suspension under high aero loads.

Because of this, the FIA specify a standard of proof – i.e. a certain amount of flex allowed when they shove hydraulic rams into the car at set pressures. None of the cars in question flex too much when this is applied, thus they're not penalised.

[Ian P.]

Anyone with a materials or structural background will be the first to say that everything is flexible. It is then an issue of how much force to create a measurable, or in this case, a rules exceeding deflection.
There is no such thing as a non flexible component on an F1 car. The FIA and the Regulations are specific in identifying the amount of flex for a given load, push, pull or whatever. Over the years they have raised the force levels and reduced the allowable deflections (in effect, specifying the stiffness) for a whol host of different parts.
Regardless of how "stiff" a component is, it will flex in any and all axis with any force, no matter how small. Force / deflection = stiffness
In the case of the Redbull front wings, the forces must be significantly higher than the FIA load test to achieve the deflections that are visible. The fact that A. Newey was not the least bit concerned prior to the last round of load and deflection revisions, shows he had done his homework and knew the results ahead of time. Don't punish them for clearly conforming to the rules, which they have done.

[Dragonfly]

Please, not all over again. Please.
There are more than one threads all full of endless argument over the stupid assumption that if you notice flex, it can't be legal.

[Jersey Tom]

If it passes the test, it passes the test. That's all there is to it, and all that matters.

Want to make a better test? Go for it. Teams will still find ways of working around it.

[beelsebob]

Dragonfly, you've framed the discussion poorly, though the conclusion is dead right. The assumption is not that "if you notice flex, it can't be legal", it's that the technical regulations say that something with *any* degree of flex is illegal. They go on to specify a test to see if flexing is happening. The discussion is over which part of the technical regulations is more important... the bit that says "it can't flex, at all, ever", or the bit that says "this is the way we determine whether it flexes or not".

Bottom line
1) Some people say, if it passes the test for flexing specified, it most not flex.
2) Some other people say, if I can see it flexing, it clearly breaks the rule that says it can't flex.

I tend to sit somewhere between the two... If I can see it flexing, it clearly breaks the rule... *but* I want a higher standard of evidence than "I can see it", and so do the FIA... Unfortunately, they don't have any way to gather evidence beyond an insufficient test.

[Dragonfly]

Why you people stick to the text about no flex at all and fail to take into account that there is a lot more about exclusions and acceptable levels of flex as well as a bunch of specially designed tests and tools to measure it. The initial declarations is just to ensure the whole car is included and then come the parts that can actually flex. As you cannot defy physics.

And this is my last post on this very subject. But it's really annoying to see one and the same being chewed and spitted every couple of months.

[Shrieker]

I think the only way to prevent over-flexing is to bring in multiple tests and not to disclose any of their details to the teams. The teams should only be notified that the part in question can't flex more than a given amount x under any circumstance. It is then up to the teams to make a part that flexes, but not too much or not. Wanna take a chance ? Go ahead.

[Richard]

Don't punish them for clearly conforming to the rules, which they have done.

That's the answer to the OP. They're not punished because the comply with the rules.

Its a formula race series. That means any car complying with the published formula is allowed to race. All teams meet the same formula, they have a level playing field.

[lolzi]

I think the only way to prevent over-flexing is to bring in multiple tests and not to disclose any of their details to the teams. The teams should only be notified that the part in question can't flex more than a given amount x under any circumstance. It is then up to the teams to make a part that flexes, but not too much or not. Wanna take a chance ? Go ahead.

That would be incredibly stupid, wouldn't it? What if Williams thought 1 mm of flexing at 10,000 N would be alright and Ferrari thought 2 mm? Williams could build a part with no visible flexing while on track but still fail a test because they guessed the wrong number. You might as well just have the team bosses choose a number at the beginning of the season and have a lottery as to who wins the race!

[beelsebob]

More so, the teams with money would turn up to races with wings that flexed 1mm, 2mm, 3mm, 4mm, 5mm, etc and throw them all at scrutineering to see what would pass.

[Shrieker]

That would be incredibly stupid, wouldn't it? What if Williams thought 1 mm of flexing at 10,000 N would be alright and Ferrari thought 2 mm? Williams could build a part with no visible flexing while on track but still fail a test because they guessed the wrong number. You might as well just have the team bosses choose a number at the beginning of the season and have a lottery as to who wins the race!

More so, the teams with money would turn up to races with wings that flexed 1mm, 2mm, 3mm, 4mm, 5mm, etc and throw them all at scrutineering to see what would pass.

The teams should only be notified that the part in question can't flex more than a given amount x under any circumstance.

The amount of maximum allowed flex will be known to the teams (x as i stated in the message). I can't see why it can't be done.

You could essentially build a test that breaks the part in question by applying too much force. If the part flexes more than the maximum allowed amount x before breaking then it would be illegal. Sounds logical to me.

[Richard]

So wings designed like glass would pass, while wings with some redundancy and reserve strength would fail the test? We'd end up with a lot of fragile cars on track.

[Shrieker]

The given amount x could more than allow redundancy and reserve strength. Plus, who'd want to make -for example- a front wing that could fail on the race track ? The primary design goal will always be reliability rather than performance when it comes to flexibility. Cause a failing part will nullify any advantage gained through flexing.

The method I'm trying to explain isn't set in stone by any means. There are some holes in FIA's policing method; take it as a brain exercise rather than "what should be". I'm not dictating anything, it's just a thought process.

Ps: I see that "the only way" part in my first message is well over the top. Another fellow member had suggested on another thread that a real time monitoring system could be used to police felxing while the cars were on track. From a pure scientific pow, that should be the way to go.

[Richard]

What I'm saying is that the problem is one of elasticity or Youngs Modulus (E). So regulating with it with a test based on strength or yield stress doesn't add up. Mandating failure leads to brittle designs but safe wings need to be ductile.