Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[pimpwerx]

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.

Hey man, I think you have confused yourself. The camera is stationary (fixed). Because it is fixed to the chassis, NOTHING else that is also fixed to the chassis will move at all, relative to the camera. This is assuming everything else fixed to he chassis is a rigid object. The head-based analogies don't work, as your eye is a moving (panning) camera in that situation.

So, with the understanding that the chassis and its attachments are all one rigid body, any chassis attachments that show movement relative to the camera, are by definition soft (flexible). In this case, the shark fins fluttering, and the rear wing bending.

I don't think you should be so aggressive and condescending, especially when you're incorrect. It's a simple mistake, and one that is easy to have cascade if you base the rest of your conclusions around it. However, if you were more receptive to some of the feedback being provided, you would have caught the error.

[Shrieker]

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).

Unless of course, the part between where the camera is attached, and where the rear wing connects to the chassis can bend so much Which I'm sure would cause a f%&# ton of handling problems.

Occam's razor says it's the rear wing bending Hence the FIA's response to this whole shebang.

[NathanOlder]

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.

That only works if the 1 meter board is moving independently from your head. If the 1 meter board is fixed to your chin. then the object close to you moves around the same as the end of the stick from your view. Unless of course the board is flexing.

[El Scorchio]

An Alpine aero surfacers opinion on flexiwings

You could say exactly the same thing about all the fuss made over DAS last year. (Ironically those who made the most fuss over that are the ones probably most likely to be defending vehemently this flexing wing)

But it's true that it is sad in a way to lose innovation and clever thinking to evolving regulations. But I suppose that's the risk the teams take. They know some will stick, but some will be clamped down on.

[Afterburner]

Can we assume that when Lewis referred to have discovered interesting details on RedBull car when he was driving near him, may also be connected with the diffuser?

I'm saying this because we don't have cameras poiting directly to the diffuser so it's much harder to spot it.

Bending the rear wing, for sure every team on the grid already now RB was doing it.

Bending diffuser would also suit the high rake cars like a glove.

[godlameroso]

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."

Where's the part that shows the wing bending. That's just a tabloid writer talking about what we already know.

[godlameroso]

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.

That only works if the 1 meter board is moving independently from your head. If the 1 meter board is fixed to your chin. then the object close to you moves around the same as the end of the stick from your view. Unless of course the board is flexing.

Have you tried it? I get it's in fashion to contradict me, Hamilton fans live up to his message of understanding and inclusivity, truly makes me feel like we race as one!

Even better if you have a go pro, or small camera you can mount. Then everything is fixed on the same perspective. Post results I don't mind being wrong. So far I show logic and reasoning behind my opinion, use as many facts as possible. Avoid he said she said stuff, like quoting an entire Matt Sommers article that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I have a feeling you're focusing on my finger and not what it is pointing at.

[godlameroso]

This is footage from the Austrian GP last season... The amount of flex of Red Bull’s rear wing seems pretty big, trying to find footage of other teams for comparison




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for proving me right. This video shows its just the car squatting at speed. Case closed, a nothingburger conspiracy theory.

[TimW]

This is footage from the Austrian GP last season... The amount of flex of Red Bull’s rear wing seems pretty big, trying to find footage of other teams for comparison




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for proving me right. This video shows its just the car squatting at speed. Case closed, a nothingburger conspiracy theory.

The camera, shark fin and rear wing should not move relative to each other. They clearly do.
Open your mind a bit, and accept there is a tiny possibility you can be wrong.

[kartwheels]

This is footage from the Austrian GP last season... The amount of flex of Red Bull’s rear wing seems pretty big, trying to find footage of other teams for comparison




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for proving me right. This video shows its just the car squatting at speed. Case closed, a nothingburger conspiracy theory.

How is this case closed? Far from it....

The wing movement is relative to the shark fin. Squat would not show movement relative to the shark fin and the whole car is decreasing in height under load.

IMO you're wrong. This footage shows aero elasticity of the rear wing.

[NathanOlder]

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.

That only works if the 1 meter board is moving independently from your head. If the 1 meter board is fixed to your chin. then the object close to you moves around the same as the end of the stick from your view. Unless of course the board is flexing.

Have you tried it? I get it's in fashion to contradict me, Hamilton fans live up to his message of understanding and inclusivity, truly makes me feel like we race as one!

Even better if you have a go pro, or small camera you can mount. Then everything is fixed on the same perspective. Post results I don't mind being wrong. So far I show logic and reasoning behind my opinion, use as many facts as possible. Avoid he said she said stuff, like quoting an entire Matt Sommers article that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I have a feeling you're focusing on my finger and not what it is pointing at.

I am focusing on what I am seeing, and thats long before you arrived with your new theory. I feel it's you that is focusing on the finger and not what everyone else is pointing at. If your theory was correct, then more cars would 'appear' to flex as much as RedBull, why would they be any different. I think you are wrong here like you were with the RB16b's pace in the last race.

[Starkblood80]

This is footage from the Austrian GP last season... The amount of flex of Red Bull’s rear wing seems pretty big, trying to find footage of other teams for comparison




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for proving me right. This video shows its just the car squatting at speed. Case closed, a nothingburger conspiracy theory.

Like others have said, the RW is flexing in relation to the shark fin, both of these components are attached to the same structure so they are moving relative to each other not independently.

[RZS10]

Just completely ignore the sharkfin, it's is a but not the relevant reference point, the lines are 'fixed' to the camera, the camera is fixed to the chassis, so the only movement can be that of parts that aren't rigidly attached to it, which is the wheel and suspension assembly and any part which can flex, which in this case are the wings which is very clearly visible in the footage.



I doubt good ol' Giorgio would mind me using his old sketch.

Top pic - car at low speed, not squatted.

2nd pic - car squatted at high speed, rigidly attached non-flexing wing, the red line 'moves with the squat' if you will - the blue line was the old one before squatting.

3rd pic - wing tilting via support pillar around point 1

4th pic - wing tilting via attachment point to support pillar around point 2

From the footage i'd say that McL, Merc and Alpine are more point1, RBR is a mix of 1&2.

Another little thing


p.s.: i wish i was as confident in being blatantly, provably and objectively wrong ... lol

[SiLo]

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.

Genuinely struggling to figure out why you think the wing is not flexing.

The camera, along with the rest of the chassis INCLUDING THE REAR WING should be static relative to one another.

Suspension travel is completely independent of that movement.

I'm actually baffled how you think this is all down to squat. The rear wing is attached to the chassis, not the rear suspension. Maybe back in the 60's and 70's when attaching wings to the suspension was allowed, but not for a long time has that been in the regulations.

What is happening here is the wing moving independently of the chassis which is it attached to, thus the only logical conclusion is that the wing is flexing.

At this point you're either an idiot, or a troll.

[Blackout]

Dont underestimate the squatting effect and the parallax effect
And in some of those rear facing cams, the exhaust pipe seem to follow the upward/downward movement of the wing (relative to rollhoop/sharkfin)... so is the exhaust/gearbox/chassis flexing too? nope, that's where parallax comes into play.
There is flexing but it's exaggerated on those onboards on the cars that squat a lot, IMO.
Looking forward for those new tests...