Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[peaty]

it's flat out illegal because it leads to a gap bigger than the stipulated by the rules when the DRS is not active.

If I recall, that section only mandates the maximum gap when the DRS is active, and a minimum gap when the DRS is not active. I don't think there was a mandated maximum gap with the DRS off? I also recall the minimum gap was set because team would stall the wings by closing the gap to decrease drag (not increase the gap).

When the DRS is deployed the distance must be between 10 and 85mm. When it's not...between 10 and 15mm.
With regards to the minimum gap, yeah you're right. To some extent it's the "legacy" of teams stalling the rear wing by closing the gap. Initially the FIA introduced the slot gap separator (2006).

[RZS10]

[...] the rear wings are still flexing as much as they did before even after the introduction of the new test and the FIA monitoring them [...]

That sentence simply isn't true - just go through the thread and look at various comparisons.
Horner even said something along the lines of the changes to the tests having a material impact when he was complaining about the supposedly flexing Merc wing.

English is not my first language and I might be wrong here but..."as much as" means equal in quantity, right? The point is I never mentioned flexion related to speed but just flexion. That's why I still thinking that my sentence is correct.

Look, this is a technical forum and I can understand that accuracy is a must. I do feel though that, in this occasion, you are missing the forest for the trees.

I think i read it as it was intended (?) ... if you were to add "almost " to "as much as" ... then yea ... you'd be correct.

Anyways ... some teams by their own admission changed their wings and they also appear to flex less since the introduction of the new tests compared to earlier in the season and there's comparisons (pre/post change to the test, not low/high speed) of the maximum deflection for wings of a few teams in this thread.

Of course they flex (some still quite a lot, but fine according to the FIA) but it's extremely likely that the updated tests did have an impact on the wings' behaviour/construction and by that probably on the performance of certain teams, even if marginal.

So the tests did to some degree work as intended and they might also limit how far teams might push their development in the future, but that's just a guess.

[peaty]

That sentence simply isn't true - just go through the thread and look at various comparisons.
Horner even said something along the lines of the changes to the tests having a material impact when he was complaining about the supposedly flexing Merc wing.

English is not my first language and I might be wrong here but..."as much as" means equal in quantity, right? The point is I never mentioned flexion related to speed but just flexion. That's why I still thinking that my sentence is correct.

Look, this is a technical forum and I can understand that accuracy is a must. I do feel though that, in this occasion, you are missing the forest for the trees.

Nope, I read it exactly as it was intended. Some teams changed their wings and they flex less since the introduction of the new tests compared to earlier in the season and there's comparisons (pre/post change to the test) of the maximum deflection for wings of a few teams in this thread.

Of course they flex (some still quite a lot, but fine according to the FIA) but it's extremely likely that the updated tests did have an impact on the wings' behaviour/construction and by that probably on the performance of certain teams, even if marginal.

Now if you were to add "almost " to "as much as" ... then yea ... you'd be correct.

I wont go into a "war of words" with you because it's pointless really. This is just another case of "the spirit of the rules" and you don't understanding what you read (or not wanting to or understanding whatever it fits you...). Hence you resorting to nit picking what you thought wrong which, ironically, it is not!

[RZS10]

I personally never went into the argument of what is legal/illegal/spirit of the rules or any of that in the entire thread. I just pointed out that there were observable changes after the new test, which is something that is hard to argue against - that's all.
There is no "not wanting to or understanding whatever it fits [me]" [sic] but this last post does admittedly leave me a bit confused as it appears to be completely detached from any of what i wrote, but i agree, there seems no point in taking this discussion any further as it's seemingly impossible to have any sort of productive conversation in good faith with you.

[Jolle]

I think the spirit of the rules is quite simple. Any Inevitable flexing shouldn’t result in (designed) performance gain.

[Big Tea]

I think the spirit of the rules is quite simple. Any Inevitable flexing shouldn’t result in (designed) performance gain.

I'm sure the spirit is seen as 'don't fail the test'. So often we see F1 rules deliberately left with lots of wriggle room, and even when teams are 'caught out' they are usually given a warning and told to change it, as long as it does not fail any physical test. Any 'tweak' left unexplored can lose a championship, and that is one of the things I love about F1 (not so much now when it gets bitchy though)

[Jolle]

I think the spirit of the rules is quite simple. Any Inevitable flexing shouldn’t result in (designed) performance gain.

I'm sure the spirit is seen as 'don't fail the test'. So often we see F1 rules deliberately left with lots of wriggle room, and even when teams are 'caught out' they are usually given a warning and told to change it, as long as it does not fail any physical test. Any 'tweak' left unexplored can lose a championship, and that is one of the things I love about F1 (not so much now when it gets bitchy though)

That’s the spirit how to deal with rules. As in, it’s legal as long as you don’t fail the tests or get caught doing so. The rules are set up to not have any performance gain from flex. Flex itself can’t be denied, because else any car that would bounce off a curb would be disqualified.