F1 - FIA has eye on flexing Ferrari, Red Bull

[godlameroso]

You could have a surface that doesn't deflect under load but deflects predictably when an electric current is passed through memory alloys embedded in the surface.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rrPv5AlVXg

This would be clearly against the rules and no way FIA overlooks it.

Where is such a system expressly forbidden in the rules?

Where is electronic active flow control by ionic fields expressly forbidden? I've poured over the regulations, all I see is load tests, and some vague wording regarding deflecting surfaces.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
a) Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
b) Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
2016 F1 Technical Regulations 18/90 27 February 2016
© 2016 Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the parts referred to in Article 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.
With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

Nothing here about using shape memory alloys or ionic fields to accelerate air flow, or preventing said flow from detaching.

The only regulations regarding body work flexibility only mention deflection based on a load applied to the surface in question, it's not stated anywhere in the regulations that shape memory alloys are prohibited.

3.17.5 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 4000N load is applied vertically to it at three different points which lie on the car centre line and 100mm either side of it. Each of these loads will be applied in an upward direction at a point 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line using a 50mm diameter ram in the two outer locations and a 70mm diameter ram on the car centre line.
Stays or structures between the front of the bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be present for this test, provided they are completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows non-linear deflection during any part of the test.
Furthermore, the bodywork being tested in this area may not include any component which is capable of allowing more than the permitted amount of deflection under the test load (including any linear deflection above the test load), such components could include, but are not limited to :
a) Joints, bearings pivots or any other form of articulation.
b) Dampers, hydraulics or any form of time dependent component or structure.
c) Buckling members or any component or design which may have any non-linear characteristics.
d) Any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit permanent deformation.

This is the closest thing I can see that would prohibit it, but this is a load test done on the main chassis itself and not on the wings, nor the monkey seat.

So as long as the wings pass the deflection test they're legal.

[wesley123]

You could have a surface that doesn't deflect under load but deflects predictably when an electric current is passed through memory alloys embedded in the surface.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rrPv5AlVXg

This would be clearly against the rules and no way FIA overlooks it.

Where is such a system expressly forbidden in the rules?

The bodywork flexes through an controlled action, which in no doubt will be considered active aero, which is explicitly banned in the rules(though I'm not sure which article it would be in the rulebook).

With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

This would outlaw such a system.

Stays or structures between the front of the bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be present for this test, provided they are completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows non-linear deflection during any part of the test.

The system you described would fall under such a system.

Furthermore, the bodywork being tested in this area may not include any component which is capable of allowing more than the permitted amount of deflection under the test load (including any linear deflection above the test load), such components could include, but are not limited to :
a) Joints, bearings pivots or any other form of articulation.
b) Dampers, hydraulics or any form of time dependent component or structure.
c) Buckling members or any component or design which may have any non-linear characteristics.
d) Any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit permanent deformation.

This outlaws it as well.

[Just_a_fan]

The key phrase that is the cover-all for these devices is:

any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

I.e. you may not have an aero surface that changes shape/position relative to the car. You can move the whole car but that's not really practicable within the rules anyway because it would require an already banned active suspension system of some type. The DRS system is excluded from this requirement, of course.

[erikejw]

F1 - FIA has eye on flexing Ferrari, Red Bull
The FIA is aware of the issue and could invoke Article 3.15


11 June 2016 - 12h03, by GMM
Some flexing bodywork on the 2016 car has caught the eye of some rival teams.

That is the claim of Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport, revealing that at high speed the rear wing and ’monkey seat’ of the red car flex, providing a likely aerodynamic advantage.

Not only that, correspondent Michael Schmidt said details on Red Bull’s front wing is also attracting attention, even though both the team and Ferrari are passing all of the current FIA flex tests.

He reports that the FIA is aware of the issue and could invoke Article 3.15 of the technical regulations that forbids any part of the car to move for aerodynamic gain.


http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/FIA- ... 04781.html

A German paper writes about RB and Ferraris wings that do pass the tests.

It smells like Mercedes is behind it and want to put pressure on FIA. They want the attention.

They should ask FIA and deal with it with normal procedures.

FIA is the judge.

F1 is about moving frontiers.
If it is against the rules it should be declared illegal. As long as FIA deems anything as legal I hate bad losers and whiners.

Get back on it and work on your own solutions.

[godlameroso]

With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.
This would outlaw such a system.

Stays or structures between the front of the bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be present for this test, provided they are completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows non-linear deflection during any part of the test.

How, as long as the driver isn't the one altering the aero? This can easily be controlled by a simple feedback controller within the ERS control electronics.

Also that bit of regulation is not for the wings, it's for the floor and tea tray areas. Otherwise these stipulations would have been included in the wing deflection tests.

And as far as ionic acceleration of air flow, there is ZERO moving parts to this system. You don't need to deflect the surface.

Also if you read the regulations it's a bit of a grey area because on the one hand it's allowing 10mm here 4mm there 1mm here of deflection, but then at the same time it's saying that it's not allowed to deflect. Well which is it?

It's the FIA's fault for making such vague regulations, and you can't be surprised if teams are going to push what's legal or not.



But everyone follows the rules, no flexing whatsoever

[ollandos]

https://twitter.com/f1writers/status/741984349239795712 ferrari rear wing

[godlameroso]

Someone will come on and say it's an optical illusion

[dans79]

This is what the FIA would/will site, it's the catch all.

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... -02-27.pdf

3.17.8
In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the
right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to
be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

[wesley123]

With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.
This would outlaw such a system.

Stays or structures between the front of the bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be present for this test, provided they are completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows non-linear deflection during any part of the test.

How, as long as the driver isn't the one altering the aero? This can easily be controlled by a simple feedback controller within the ERS control electronics.

One could argue it requires the drivers pace to activate.

Also if you read the regulations it's a bit of a grey area because on the one hand it's allowing 10mm here 4mm there 1mm here of deflection, but then at the same time it's saying that it's not allowed to deflect. Well which is it?

It's the FIA's fault for making such vague regulations, and you can't be surprised if teams are going to push what's legal or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PArZCXRsMQ

But everyone follows the rules, no flexing whatsoever

Yes, the rules are vague, but the rulemakers have the laws of physics against them. A "not flex" rule can't be applied, as due to physics, materials flex regardless. They can merely enforce a limit, which is what they are doing.

The issue here is that it can't be measured, merely when the car is standing still. Which is when the parts will stay within the limits

[godlameroso]

This is what the FIA would/will site, it's the catch all.

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... -02-27.pdf

3.17.8
In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the
right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to
be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

Only until they make the test and determine a part is now illegal, it's legal, because all parts have to be inspected and signed off by the FIA. They do this thing called scrutineering.

[dans79]

This is what the FIA would/will site, it's the catch all.

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... -02-27.pdf

3.17.8
In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the
right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to
be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

Only until they make the test and determine a part is now illegal, it's legal, because all parts have to be inspected and signed off by the FIA. They do this thing called scrutineering.

You're missing the point!

This is the catch all, for when they think you have found a way to work around scrutineering.

[Sevach]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... wing-tests

For now they passed.

[shamikaze]

I would think that in both video examples above, the wings are rotating around the horizontal axis.

With Bottas's FW, you can clearly see that due to the load and the way the FW is attached, the FW in its entirety tilts slightly backwards (i.e. the Leading-edge moves up relative to the fixing point. Mind you, the rotational axis, may actually be behind the mounting point because of the way it was designed. This changes (reduces) the AoA of all the winglets and the whole FW itself at higher speeds and thus reduces drag and removes some DF. As the airspeed reduces, the AoA of the FW and winglets increases again increasing the DF and thus load. Thus the golden value of low speed, High DF, high speed, low DF.

No amount of flex-testing on a fixed-rig will catch this at it is aero-induced. You would need a windtunnel in which to simulate this and only then you could catch them redhanded. So apart from pusing FW's through a crash-test, you could also force the team to go through an aero-test. for the whole FW / nose assembly.

It's pretty much the same for Ferrari's rearwing. The bearing-structure (where the RW connects to the chassis) made of carbon and core-cell, can easily be molded/layup to flex/move in exact amounts / directions under very precisely defined loads. Also here, only in-situ aero-testing can shown exact behavior.

To me, both are "designed" moveable aero and I consider them illegal in the current rule set and against the mindest of the rules. Not that anyone cares about the 2nd part as long as they gain from it...

Just my 0,02$,

S.

[giantfan10]

F1 race director Charlie Whiting told Motorsport.com: "The rear wings were checked on the top five constructors [on Saturday in Canada] and all were in conformity.

"We even increased the load by 50 percent in order to see if there was anything happening above the test load and all was well."

Case closed.

Now on to the next conspiracy theory.

[bhall II]

If Ferrari's tilting rear wing works the way I suspect it works, the FIA is going to have to come up with a test that measures deflection after the support pylon has been heated by the exhaust...