Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[godlameroso]

No he said she said, straight facts. What is the rake angle of the RB16B, about 2.4 degrees right?

"Anyways i took the angle from the pic and then stretched the endplate onto an endplate in a side view and it's roughly 2.3° to 2.7° ... that's the best i could do"

"If you watch the video that has lines superimposed on it you can see the only thing that moves is the wing and nothing else."

Incorrect, watch the upper wishbones on the RB16B, you see that they move in the opposite direction the wing is "panning". Wing goes down upper wishbone goes up by an equal amount. If the wing were moving in relation to the floor and not the suspension, it wouldn't move exactly in relation to the suspension. Because the wing would be bending relative to the floor not the suspension.



The amount the wing lowers is almost exactly the same distance the suspension is displaced.

[zibby43]

No he said she said, straight facts.

Now do the engine cover.

[godlameroso]

I want to put this to bed. You people are literally mistaking the change in ride height at speed as a bending wing. I can show you all the physical proof to show you there's no bending wing whatsoever, you will still tell me I'm wrong regardless of physical evidence showing you the truth.

The wing passes all tests, and will do so again in France AS IS.

Let's use a little logic. The front of the RB16B is stiffly sprung as it's close to the ground, thus the front end moves less than the rear end. The rear end is softly sprung in relation, it rolls and dives and squats. If you pay attention to the upper wishbones, the end plate and the rear tires, you can see this is clearly the case.

Mercedes says RB's wing is illegal, and all the F1 tabloids just roll with it, never bothering to wonder why in God's green earth does it pass ALL FIA tests. The simplest answer is usually the right one, either the FIA are incompetent(possible), RBR is cheating(unlikely), or the car squatting at speed is mistaken as a bending wing because of the suggestion of a powerful figure with a lot of power in F1, and people simply follow the path of least resistance(simplest).

Downvote away.

Read this, and then explain to us why the FIA would notify all the teams that they're going to change the tests!


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... s/6507003/



Also, the cameras are fixed to the chassis, just like the floor, uprights, and the rear wing, so suspension squat plays no part in the video footage.

Because Toto owns Ross Brawn, and what Toto wants Toto gets.

[godlameroso]

Mclaren’s rear wing also flexes, doesn’t seem to be as dramatic as Red Bull’s though:
https://twitter.com/naturalparadigm/sta ... 89993?s=21

McLaren's wing appears to mostly tilt at the connection between support and the wing, the lower part barely moves compared to the RBR.

https://s3.gifyu.com/images/McL.gif


Alpine
https://i.imgur.com/vZqBJhA.gif

And i'm adding the RBR because i think there's still a difference between the wing position through the chicane relative to T1, so it's only fair to have the same spot for comparison.

https://s3.gifyu.com/images/RBR3.gif

And the Merc because why not
https://s3.gifyu.com/images/mnerc2.gif

When scaling them to the same wing width the difference isn't as huge as it might appear between the RBR and McL/Alpine, Merc is def. tilting less
https://i.imgur.com/gE1m73H.png

RBR>Alp>McL>Merc
https://i.imgur.com/oxPnk6X.png

Look at the upper wishbones.

[godlameroso]

No he said she said, straight facts.

Now do the engine cover.

Oh you mean the engine cover that's above the driver's head where the rake angle puts the car closer to the ground, more stiffly sprung vs the rear. Ok, sure.

Let's point fingers at the engine cover, BTW you notice how much that shark fin on the Mercedes moves, almost illegal if you ask me, but I don't have power over Ross Brawn so they're not going to investigate.

Also, the shark tip on the engine cover moves down, but due to perspective, being closer to the camera than the rear wing, the apparent movement of the rear end of the car will be higher than the apparent movement of the engine cover. Basic parallax.

[TimW]

With the current design of the endplates (at the step they are only connected at the front) all wings will flex backward. Since it is beneficial, why would you fight it beyond what is required to pass the tests?

It is such a well known grey area. The fact that the Mercedes wing is so stiff, means they probably planned on asking for a further clampdown for a while. It also cannot be very unexpected for Red Bull, so they could well have alternative designs lined up already.

[zibby43]

No he said she said, straight facts.

Now do the engine cover.

Oh you mean the engine cover that's above the driver's head where the rake angle puts the car closer to the ground, more stiffly sprung vs the rear. Ok, sure.

Let's point fingers at the engine cover, BTW you notice how much that shark fin on the Mercedes moves, almost illegal if you ask me, but I don't have power over Ross Brawn so they're not going to investigate.

Huh? We are simply asking, if the rear is squatting, why doesn't the end of shark fin move down in a corresponding fashion?

Also, please explain the benefit of the shark fin moving, since it's there to primarily act as a flow conditioner.

If Toto gets what Toto wants, I'm pretty positive he would've wanted DAS in 2021, and qualifying engine modes for all of 2020 and 2021.

[godlameroso]

Now do the engine cover.

Oh you mean the engine cover that's above the driver's head where the rake angle puts the car closer to the ground, more stiffly sprung vs the rear. Ok, sure.

Let's point fingers at the engine cover, BTW you notice how much that shark fin on the Mercedes moves, almost illegal if you ask me, but I don't have power over Ross Brawn so they're not going to investigate.

Huh? We are simply asking, if the rear is squatting, why doesn't the end of shark fin move down in a corresponding fashion?

Also, please explain the benefit of the shark fin moving, since it's there to primarily act as a flow conditioner.

If Toto gets what Toto wants, I'm pretty positive he would've wanted DAS in 2021, and qualifying engine modes for all of 2020 and 2021.

So by your logic any piece of bodywork is allowed to bend as long as it doesn't add performance by your trained eyes?

Also, the shark tip on the engine cover moves down, but due to perspective, being closer to the camera than the rear wing, the apparent movement of the rear end of the car will be higher than the apparent movement of the engine cover. Basic parallax, if you look closely you can see a small difference between high and low speeds.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
"Parallax also affects optical instruments such as rifle scopes, binoculars, microscopes, and twin-lens reflex cameras that view objects from slightly different angles."

You can easily verify this by yourself if you have a long board. Put something close to your eyes and tilt the board, you'll see the object closer to you does not move as much as the end of the board does.

[zibby43]

Oh you mean the engine cover that's above the driver's head where the rake angle puts the car closer to the ground, more stiffly sprung vs the rear. Ok, sure.

Let's point fingers at the engine cover, BTW you notice how much that shark fin on the Mercedes moves, almost illegal if you ask me, but I don't have power over Ross Brawn so they're not going to investigate.

Huh? We are simply asking, if the rear is squatting, why doesn't the end of shark fin move down in a corresponding fashion?

Also, please explain the benefit of the shark fin moving, since it's there to primarily act as a flow conditioner.

If Toto gets what Toto wants, I'm pretty positive he would've wanted DAS in 2021, and qualifying engine modes for all of 2020 and 2021.

So by your logic any piece of bodywork is allowed to bend as long as it doesn't add performance by your trained eyes?

Also, the shark tip on the engine cover moves down, but due to perspective, being closer to the camera than the rear wing, the apparent movement of the rear end of the car will be higher than the apparent movement of the engine cover. Basic parallax, if you look closely you can see a small difference between high and low speeds.

To your first question - that's the entire point of the regulations and the tests to enforce the regulations against flexible bodywork that aid aerodynamic performance. The FIA doesn't joke around with that stuff.

Respectfully, no, I don't see that. And that doesn't add up, for all the reasons other posters have pointed out. That's it from me. You're certainly entitled to your opinions.

[godlameroso]

Huh? We are simply asking, if the rear is squatting, why doesn't the end of shark fin move down in a corresponding fashion?

Also, please explain the benefit of the shark fin moving, since it's there to primarily act as a flow conditioner.

If Toto gets what Toto wants, I'm pretty positive he would've wanted DAS in 2021, and qualifying engine modes for all of 2020 and 2021.

So by your logic any piece of bodywork is allowed to bend as long as it doesn't add performance by your trained eyes?

Also, the shark tip on the engine cover moves down, but due to perspective, being closer to the camera than the rear wing, the apparent movement of the rear end of the car will be higher than the apparent movement of the engine cover. Basic parallax, if you look closely you can see a small difference between high and low speeds.

To your first question - that's the entire point of the regulations and the tests to enforce the regulations against flexible bodywork that aid aerodynamic performance. The FIA doesn't joke around with that stuff.

Respectfully, no, I don't see that. And that doesn't add up, for all the reasons other posters have pointed out. That's it from me. You're certainly entitled to your opinions.

You can see it easily if you do a small experiment to verify your suspicions. Take a board about 1 meter long, put something close to your eyes with your chin fixed to the board and tilt the board. You'll see the object closer to you barely move, while the end moves more. Likewise you're entitled to your opinions.

[zibby43]

Nice technical piece from Matt Somerfield on RB's "flapping phenomenon"

https://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/flapp ... e/6507247/

Excerpts:

"The new rotational tests will prevent the wing from ‘steering’ around the centre plane, a trick that the FIA may be focusing on as being used to circumvent the symmetrical loading applied in the deflection tests.

This is a notable feature in the onboard footage from the rear facing T-camera of the Red Bull, for example.

Close examination of the moving images shows the top rear wing element ‘flapping’ laterally, moving side-to-side with the relative vibration of the endplates, which owing to their design also find themselves oscillating.

This could explain how the wing ‘bends’ rearwards under load, as the wing pivots around the central axis, with one side of the wing moving incrementally rearward before the other."

Also, the 3-race grace period may be irrelevant, as rival teams could choose to simply protest wings that they believe fall afoul of the rules.

"It will be interesting to see if the new load/deformation tests have an impact on the competitive order when we head to the long straights at Paul Ricard.

Any team making changes to its wings, to ensure they comply to the rules, will also need to juggle the potential consequences that could have on them hitting the budget cap limit.

There could also be intrigue beforehand though, because teams could yet decide to lodge protests against their rivals should they believe they’re using a rear wing assembly that contravenes the current regulations, even before the new tests come in to force."

[Stu]

It looks to me as though the front edge of the rear wing is staying in roughly the same place vertically, which suggests that the bending is being achieved with the lower beam element. The wing itself is rigid (hence it passes the current tests), the new tests will load the wing differently....
That isn’t cheating, that is designing to the rules!!

Let’s hope for Mercedes sake they don’t apply load tests to the shark fin or T-wing....

Really interesting is the comparison of air box volume, but that could be a trick of the light.

What would be the advantage of the shark fin's flexibility? Or the t-wing for that matter?

Wouldn't you want a flow conditioner to be as stable as possible?

Flex is flex, but if the shark fin/t-wing flex was a disadvantage (and cost performance) you can bet that they would reduce it to a minimum, therefore it must be either:

a) Harmless (unlikely, given the amount of effort concentrated on generating stable downforce)

b) Beneficial (re-invigorating airflow at particular speeds - as with the RB wing it becomes increasingly prevalent as speed increases)

[dans79]

Look at the upper wishbones.

The wishbones are in a different frame of reference, as they are allowed to move relative to everything else.


The camera, Finn, floor, uprights, and wing, etc are in the same frame of reference as they are supposed to be rigidly affixed to each other. In other words no relative movement (within reason).

[zeffman]

In addition to more stringent static loading tests, could the new tests planned to prevent wing displacement also include some kind of real-time monitoring of wing movement during the race weekend? If the FIA mandated the placement of fiducials on the rear and front wings in standard locations then it might be possible to measure deflection (noise notwithstanding) using the standard cameras (or perhaps with additional standard sensors) and altert the teams when limits are exceeded significantly.

This would be subject to some difficulties (noise, lighting, signal loss, wing damage due to crashes etc..) but the FIA already use real-time monitoring of multiple car parameters during the race weekend.

[jjn9128]

An Alpine aero surfacers opinion on flexiwings