TD018 2023 - clampdown on flexible wings

[Stu]

The ban on moving aero dynamic parts is, if I remember correctly, founded back in the 1960s when the teams ran with moveable wings and they had failures and nasty crashes. In later years, we saw rear wings fail because they were designed to rotate backwards as an entire piece. Today, there is a much better understanding of designing and building flexible elements that don't fail and thus do not compromise safety.

Should F1 actually now move in a direction that allows for flexible aero parts so long as they are designed/manufactured such that failure is extremely rare/not likely to lead to injury? After all, the definition of "flexible" is already a moving target with the rules technically outlawing all flex whilst also accepting that absolute rigidity is impossible and thus allowing for some flex.

Tend to agree with this, there is a method of reducing flex in the front wing elements (rotationally), which would be to stipulate adjustment mechanisms at each end of the flap; as far as I can ascertain all teams now have a single adjustment point at the outboard end (with only a pivot towards the inboard end). All of the teams are attempting to use the adjustment mechanism as a part of creating outwash & the inner legality plates to creat a vortex that is speed related (drag reduction?).

Edit:
There is a simple cure if it is the rotational flexing around the flap pivot is what is trying to be avoided/excluded; specify that the pivot must be within ‘X’ mm of the trailing edge of the rear-most flap (much as they do with the rear wing flap).

[AR3-GP]

Something that Pierre Wache (RB technical director) said in an interview with french media was telling....

FRONT WING
Already last year, when technical director Pierre Waché presented his RB18, he did not dwell on this part of the car, merely pointing out Red Bull's specific design: "The nose is attached to the second flap," he slipped. "We are the only ones to do so." This year, the French engineer is no more talkative. "The front wing is not a place where you gain a lot directly, but above all it allows you to control the flow of air to the floor. In addition, the regulations limit us enormously. There is not much to do. Teams like Aston Martin or Mercedes play on deflection but the gain is marginal: we are talking about a tenth, no more!"

He called out Mercedes and Aston Martin for front wing flexing in this interview which was likely conducted in late june/early july.

[organic]

Something that Pierre Wache (RB technical director) said in an interview with french media was telling....

FRONT WING
Already last year, when technical director Pierre Waché presented his RB18, he did not dwell on this part of the car, merely pointing out Red Bull's specific design: "The nose is attached to the second flap," he slipped. "We are the only ones to do so." This year, the French engineer is no more talkative. "The front wing is not a place where you gain a lot directly, but above all it allows you to control the flow of air to the floor. In addition, the regulations limit us enormously. There is not much to do. Teams like Aston Martin or Mercedes play on deflection but the gain is marginal: we are talking about a tenth, no more!"

He called out Mercedes and Aston Martin for front wing flexing in this interview which was likely conducted in late june/early july.

https://i.imgur.com/xwPnDro.jpg

I wasn't sure if "deflection" in that context was flexing or outwash. If anyone more familiar with French could check that would be cool

[Sevach]

Ferrari seems subtle compared to the others, Mercedes and Red Bull use it more and AMR at Bahrain Jesus...

[organic]

Ferrari seems subtle compared to the others, Mercedes and Red Bull use it more and AMR at Bahrain Jesus...

If you look at Merc they are doing something different to Ferrari/RB. The inboard elements of the front wing (attached directly to the nose) also significantly flex. Whereas with RB/Ferrari it seems to be only the outboard section.

For me it's: AMR (Bahrain) >> Merc > RB > Ferrari

Don't have any other videos of AMR's front wing unfortunately

[AR3-GP]

Something that Pierre Wache (RB technical director) said in an interview with french media was telling....

FRONT WING
Already last year, when technical director Pierre Waché presented his RB18, he did not dwell on this part of the car, merely pointing out Red Bull's specific design: "The nose is attached to the second flap," he slipped. "We are the only ones to do so." This year, the French engineer is no more talkative. "The front wing is not a place where you gain a lot directly, but above all it allows you to control the flow of air to the floor. In addition, the regulations limit us enormously. There is not much to do. Teams like Aston Martin or Mercedes play on deflection but the gain is marginal: we are talking about a tenth, no more!"

He called out Mercedes and Aston Martin for front wing flexing in this interview which was likely conducted in late june/early july.

https://i.imgur.com/xwPnDro.jpg

I wasn't sure if "deflection" in that context was flexing or outwash. If anyone more familiar with French could check that would be cool

Well the direct translation from french is "deflection". Unfortunately one may see this as an ambiguity but given the context, teams, and evidence, I do think he's referring to flexing.

[AR3-GP]

Amr (season start)

It may be slightly unfair to judge the Aston wing while it's under the influence of turbulence. That turbulence can mean one side of the wing is loaded, and the other not so much, which exacerbates the appearance of a deflection which may not otherwise show on a symmetrically loaded wing because turbulence can create torsion in the nose section, something which is more difficult to resist with a narrow nose box section.

But then given all the whispers, they were probably doing something the FIA didn't like...

It's telling that Mercedes have not been throwing stones...perhaps it's an indication that they were in the line of fire as well.

Toto wolf was besides himself with the floor flexing last year....Both his drivers were screaming bloody murder as well. They have not given any performances this year....that perhaps says it all...

[RZS10]

I wouldn't jump to hasty conclusions of "team X or Y is doing a lot more!" without any comparisons.

I've posted a quick and dirty "analysis" of RB's wing here already and Waché going on about Merc's and Aston's FW with their own showing massive deflection and also clear separation between the inboard and outboard sections at the joint (forgot what the regulatory name for the element is) is ironic - and yes, their inboard section also bends down.

What i find interesting is that there doesn't seem to be footage of the AM FW from the nose cam?

Oh and another detail:
AFAIK the Technical Directives get named in ascending order, McLaren's show and tell document for Monaco mentioned a TD-029 relating to floor fences that came into effect for the race in Imola (19-21 May).
This is supposedly TD-018, which would date it to some time before the cancelled race, as there would have to be 11 other TDs between them.

[AR3-GP]

I wouldn't jump to hasty conclusions of "team X or Y is doing a lot more!" without any comparisons.

I've posted a quick and dirty "analysis" of RB's wing here already and Waché going on about Merc's and Aston's FW with their own showing massive deflection and also clear separation between the inboard and outboard sections at the joint (forgot what the regulatory name for the element is) is ironic - and yes, their inboard section also bends down.

What i find interesting is that there doesn't seem to be footage of the AM FW from the nose cam?

I would say the pictures from your RB video are utilizing RBs maximum downforce wing (Hungary). So we should expect to see the most deflection in this setting.

Bahrain is not a max downforce track, and the Aston wing is certainly having fun out there (but maybe turbulence is exacerbating it).

[AR3-GP]

Ferrari seems subtle compared to the others, Mercedes and Red Bull use it more and AMR at Bahrain Jesus...

The Ferrari pictures are from Zandvoort where they were unable to actually use a high downforce wing so that may also skew perception of the amount of flexing they have. They had to use meidum load rear wing, and then balance it with a weaker front wing. A lower downforce wing won't flex as much as a high downforce wing.

[RZS10]

[...]
I would say the pictures from your RB video are utilizing RBs maximum downforce wing (Hungary). So we should expect to see the most deflection in this setting.

Bahrain is not a max downforce track, and the Aston wing is certainly having fun out there (but maybe turbulence is exacerbating it).

All i'm saying is that for a comprehensive analysis or even comparison* we'd need the nose cam footage from the cars from the same race, at least for the same wing spec and similar DF levels, i don't even know if the onboard channels switch to that camera and it seems to be sparsely used on the global feed (but i also don't watch every second of every session).

What the footage allows to see, without comparing the cars to each other, is the mechanisms described in the articles, so rotation, deflection, separation etc.

* I always refrained from doing any quantitative comparison between front wings as the camera positioning and angle differs from car to car, but it would still give an idea.

[DChemTech]

So, there we go again.
I haven't looked into the thing yet, but as always the question that first pops to mind is, was this kind of behavior actually forbidden by the technical regulations as provided, i.e. was there a quantitative threshold specified in the rules (both amount of deflection and load conditions for which this threshold applies) that prohibits the observed behavior? If not, the teams did nothing wrong, the FIA ruleset just didn't cover it. Props to the teams in that case for identifying and using the space the rules left open, and this TD should not be issued as it amounts to a mid-season rule change.
In case there was a quantitative threshold which is broken by this, the teams broke the rules and penalize them accordingly.

[Polite]

Ferrari seems subtle compared to the others, Mercedes and Red Bull use it more and AMR at Bahrain Jesus...

The Ferrari pictures are from Zandvoort where they were unable to actually use a high downforce wing so that may also skew perception of the amount of flexing they have. They had to use meidum load rear wing, and then balance it with a weaker front wing. A lower downforce wing won't flex as much as a high downforce wing.

Ferrari didt change the front wing. What u are referring to is only for the rear wing!

[DChemTech]

So, there we go again.
I haven't looked into the thing yet, but as always the question that first pops to mind is, was this kind of behavior actually forbidden by the technical regulations as provided, i.e. was there a quantitative threshold specified in the rules (both amount of deflection and load conditions for which this threshold applies) that prohibits the observed behavior? If not, the teams did nothing wrong, the FIA ruleset just didn't cover it. Props to the teams in that case for identifying and using the space the rules left open, and this TD should not be issued as it amounts to a mid-season rule change.
In case there was a quantitative threshold which is broken by this, the teams broke the rules and penalize them accordingly.

In general, in an engineering sports, rules should be clear and quantitative, and adhere to SMART principles. No vague descriptions that are open for interpretation ('spirit of the rules' bla), no unphysical statements ('part must be completely rigid', as that is not physically possible) -- but clear, quantitative statements.
And IMO,
If a team breaks those rules, the problem is with the team. The breach should be made public, and penalized accordingly.
If a team designs something that does not break those rules but does something the FIA doesn't like, the problem is with the FIA. The team should not be penalized (and a TD, requiring design changes and expenses, is a punishment). Sharpen the rules for the next season, and move on.

The FIA unfortunately has a tendency of penalizing teams and slapping around mid-season rule changes (with all due implications, especially in budget-cap era) to address their own mistakes or regulatory shortcomings. Which is bad practice.

But, as mentioned, I did not dive in the details of this specific TD/rules yet, so I cannot judge if that is the case here. Perhaps someone else already has the answer.

[SiLo]

So, there we go again.
I haven't looked into the thing yet, but as always the question that first pops to mind is, was this kind of behavior actually forbidden by the technical regulations as provided, i.e. was there a quantitative threshold specified in the rules (both amount of deflection and load conditions for which this threshold applies) that prohibits the observed behavior? If not, the teams did nothing wrong, the FIA ruleset just didn't cover it. Props to the teams in that case for identifying and using the space the rules left open, and this TD should not be issued as it amounts to a mid-season rule change.
In case there was a quantitative threshold which is broken by this, the teams broke the rules and penalize them accordingly.

breaking the spirit of the rules usually doesnt result in a punishment. I think the teams were still passing the static load tests.