Flexiwings 2025

[the EDGE]

And while we are at it… should we be speaking of flexible floors as well? Not as in sprung or cantilevered, but just as in “as thin as possible”, so that the floor “bulges down” under its own partial vacuum?

Wasn’t that the cause of porpoising?

[hollus]

Porpoising was the suspension bringing the car up and down, bringing the (rigid?) floor too close to the tarmac. I am talking of the floor changing shape.

[napoleon1981]

A little thought on flexible wings and long term development in general:
Having a wing that can have a large angle of attack at low speed and a low one at high speed comes with obvious immediate benefits. So does, say, the weight savings from not adding rigidity.
But wouldn’t this changing geometry of the front wing individual flaps and of the rear wing as a whole, and of the beam wing somewhere in between… wouldn’t this exacerbate the correlation problems that all teams have to some extent with their wind tunnels?


And while we are at it… should we be speaking of flexible floors as well? Not as in sprung or cantilevered, but just as in “as thin as possible”, so that the floor “bulges down” under its own partial vacuum?

An infinitely rigid car must be ultimately slower, but sooooo much easier to develop!

Where is the right compromise there?

The flexiwing is a compromise, but its an opportunity to have somewhat active aero, thats where the big advantage is. I think if teams could develop floors and wings with active aero, the wings themselves would be very rigid.

[bluechris]

Porpoising was the suspension bringing the car up and down, bringing the (rigid?) floor too close to the tarmac. I am talking of the floor changing shape.

Wasn't Ferrari with flexing in the floor and the TD crippled them? I suppose from that moment the floors must be pretty rigid logically.

[AR3-GP]

These squads are understood to be McLaren, Ferrari, Alpine and Haas.

Haas team principal Ayao Komatsu said that while his squad would not need to make modifications to the wing, “we may have to change a little bit how we set up the wing, but not the design or anything".

This comment may offer a clue that the tricks being employed by teams are more about how the wings are configured rather than any designs themselves being outside the new restrictions.

The Race has learned that this year’s mini-DRS controversy involves a different area of the wing compared to last year – when McLaren managed to flex the main DRS flap to help open the slot gap and reduce drag.

This time around the key area of focus is the flap area outside of the DRS element. It is suspected the slot gap is being manipulated to open up slightly – and not even as much as last year’s McLaren trick that helped Oscar Piastri win the Azerbaijan Grand Prix.

The theory is that by rotating the flap to open up the slot gap in this area, it not only helps to reduce the frontal area of the wing but also helps stall the wing – delivering an immediate reduction in drag.

This benefit has been described by sources as “potentially significant”.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-f ... hinese-gp/

[Luscion]

Top 4 teams saying they didnt have to change anything, Alpine did according to Ted and Ayao Komatsu confirmed that Haas also had to modify their wing, he knows of others but didnt want to say

[Vanja #66]

Ferrari flexes as much as McLaren and Mercedes' bigger wing in testing. I see this as excessive and unreasonable, but the FIA is now ok with it beyond doubt. Red Bull is missing out on this, it's not a lot but it's free lap time basically

[euv2]

Ferrari flexes as much as McLaren and Mercedes' bigger wing in testing. I see this as excessive and unreasonable, but the FIA is now ok with it beyond doubt. Red Bull is missing out on this, it's not a lot but it's free lap time basically

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmjAvxnXwAA ... name=large

I'm surprised FIA went after the relatively minor slot gap deflection instead of this whole rear wing assembly flexing. It seems pretty obvious which is leading to more lap time and given they have already banned the RB16b wings for similar behavior it's a headscratcher from the FIA for sure.

[Vanja #66]

I'm surprised FIA went after the relatively minor slot gap deflection instead of this whole rear wing assembly flexing. It seems pretty obvious which is leading to more lap time and given they have already banned the RB16b wings for similar behavior it's a headscratcher from the FIA for sure.

There's some FIA logic to it, we're just yet to understand them...

[SiLo]

Porpoising was the suspension bringing the car up and down, bringing the (rigid?) floor too close to the tarmac. I am talking of the floor changing shape.

Wasn't Ferrari with flexing in the floor and the TD crippled them? I suppose from that moment the floors must be pretty rigid logically.

No, it was the sensor being added to check porpoising effects that killed them. Their porpoising was quite bad obvious, but seemed manageable to the drivers and was quite soft vs what Mercedes had, where the car just smashed into the floor continuously.

[organic]

Porpoising was the suspension bringing the car up and down, bringing the (rigid?) floor too close to the tarmac. I am talking of the floor changing shape.

Wasn't Ferrari with flexing in the floor and the TD crippled them? I suppose from that moment the floors must be pretty rigid logically.

No, it was the sensor being added to check porpoising effects that killed them. Their porpoising was quite bad obvious, but seemed manageable to the drivers and was quite soft vs what Mercedes had, where the car just smashed into the floor continuously.

They stopped policing the porpoising metric before the end of 2022 and Ferrari's good performance never rematerialised

[hollus]

Porpoising was the suspension bringing the car up and down, bringing the (rigid?) floor too close to the tarmac. I am talking of the floor changing shape.

Wasn't Ferrari with flexing in the floor and the TD crippled them? I suppose from that moment the floors must be pretty rigid logically.

No, it was the sensor being added to check porpoising effects that killed them. Their porpoising was quite bad obvious, but seemed manageable to the drivers and was quite soft vs what Mercedes had, where the car just smashed into the floor continuously.

That's not the point I was trying to make at all.
I just mentioned that porpoising wha a suspension related effect, not a floor deformation effect.
And didn't the "outlawed" floor have some explicitly designed hinges to absorb shocks? Again, not the point I was trying to make at all.
My point is more abut how you can hold a "solid" wooden plank on three (or four) points and it will behave very different to a fablic sail held on the same 3 or 4 points.

If you hold a large cardboard box against a vaccuum, the closest side will bulge out. Is it beneficial to reduce THAT effect to (almost) zero?

[Espresso]

Since I had some questions why I think MCL is not affected by the rear wing gap-test.
Just some lunch scribles. In the videos you can see with MCL their whole read wing structure is pivoting backward related to speed.

Imho I thought about it and try to clarify it in simple way, just the basic principles.
MCL learned and evolved after previous years warnings....
The way it is applied by the few teams using it is a bit more complicated, but the mechanics are the same.
The solution is driven by the way FIA applies the static test. A brilliant solution from MCL! Visible but invisible.
Kudos to that!

A:
Try it yourself and fold a piece of paper/cardboard and put it on its side (not fully folded). When you push on top it is actually quite strong. It holds weight on top while it is hard to fold along the fold.
a.k.a. it will pass the FIA pressure test.

B:
Now fully fold the paper. Now you can start to bend the paper(along the fold). Imagine similarly this will happen mechanically with increasing speed (where the fold is the side), just through the force of wind.
a.k.a. with increasing speed the wing is pulled backward (MCL: top wing and monkey seat) (pulling the wing backward will enable the pivoting motion and the downforce on the wing will cause it to pivot)

C:
Pivoting backward will change the angle of attack (most) for the top-wing. This will benefit. By reducing this downforce component it will remove and element to porpoising and reduce skid wear.

When the FIA test the rear wing while both applying a force toward the back and on top a few teams would start to fail the static test. Applying onboard test during the race would also work. But rules are getting more and more complicated by directives. I´d say let them evolve.

Feel free to elaborate how the single post DRS, side wall and the rear-wing hinge contribute to the full picture.
Or draw a better picture then mine...