Flexiwings 2025

[Cs98]

We will see, clearly the teams think its worth investing development time in, while knowing the FIA is watching this area. So brushing it off as something that hardly affects performance does not rhyme with that.

It does affect performance, but the difference between abusing the flex and having a "reasonable" amount of flex might be a tenth per lap. Not inconsequential, but hardly game-changing. No great car is great because of RW flex.

But just by looking at the footage it would seem we are getting back to levels of flex that the FIA have previously taken issue with.

It's significant for many reasons and certainly worth more than a tenth per lap when considering all the relevant downstream variables beyond top speed (downforce level, car balance, setup compromises) and the impact that has on drivability, tire deg, etc.

Maybe, if some teams are abusing it a lot more than others. But I take you back to 2021, TD comes in targetting RB's rear wing, and they win the next 3 races.

[organic]

It does affect performance, but the difference between abusing the flex and having a "reasonable" amount of flex might be a tenth per lap. Not inconsequential, but hardly game-changing. No great car is great because of RW flex.

But just by looking at the footage it would seem we are getting back to levels of flex that the FIA have previously taken issue with.

It's significant for many reasons and certainly worth more than a tenth per lap when considering all the relevant downstream variables beyond top speed (downforce level, car balance, setup compromises) and the impact that has on drivability, tire deg, etc.

Maybe, if some teams are abusing it a lot more than others. But I take you back to 2021, TD comes in targetting RB's rear wing, and they win the next 3 races.

Only the high downforce wing was flexi in 2021 for red bull (used in Barcelona). All of their other wings were not. The 3 races after that flexiwing TD red bull ran with lower downforce so it wasn't a factor

Later in the season red bull experienced substantial issues with their high downforce rear wing structure, which had been modified not to flex as much, cracking under load and faced a parts shortage as a result. Caused loss of track time and suboptimal setups being used

So it had more effects than meet the eye

[Cs98]

It's significant for many reasons and certainly worth more than a tenth per lap when considering all the relevant downstream variables beyond top speed (downforce level, car balance, setup compromises) and the impact that has on drivability, tire deg, etc.

Maybe, if some teams are abusing it a lot more than others. But I take you back to 2021, TD comes in targetting RB's rear wing, and they win the next 3 races.

Only the high downforce wing was flexi in 2021 for red bull (used in Barcelona). All of their other wings were not. The 3 races after that flexiwing TD red bull ran with lower downforce

Not sure about that. It's not like you'd want to limit that to just one wing so I think it's likely the more stringent test affected all their wings. It may have been most obvious or visible on the high DF wing.

[organic]

Maybe, if some teams are abusing it a lot more than others. But I take you back to 2021, TD comes in targetting RB's rear wing, and they win the next 3 races.

Only the high downforce wing was flexi in 2021 for red bull (used in Barcelona). All of their other wings were not. The 3 races after that flexiwing TD red bull ran with lower downforce

Not sure about that. It's not like you'd want to limit that to just one wing so I think it's likely the more stringent test affected all their wings. It may have been most obvious or visible on the high DF wing.

It was only the spooned high downforce wing that did it. The lower downforce spoon wing which won at Baku (pre-td implementation) & France (post-td implementation) did not appear to have changed in flexing characteristics, and the same was true of their other wings (including their max downforce unspooned wing) . it was just the Imola/Barcelona spooned high df wing that was controversial

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/the-r ... t/6547977/

For while Red Bull had been centre of attention after the Spanish Grand Prix with its flexi-wing antics, it elected to run in Baku with a new interim spoon-shaped wing that acted in a much more normal manner and helped steer clear of any controversy.

The high DF wing structure is also the only one that started failing towards the end of the year. Probably because change in flex rules meant the wing had to withstand more force etc and it eventually started to give in

[Cs98]

Only the high downforce wing was flexi in 2021 for red bull (used in Barcelona). All of their other wings were not. The 3 races after that flexiwing TD red bull ran with lower downforce

Not sure about that. It's not like you'd want to limit that to just one wing so I think it's likely the more stringent test affected all their wings. It may have been most obvious or visible on the high DF wing.

It was only the spooned high downforce wing that did it. The lower downforce spoon wing which won at Baku (pre-td implementation) & France (post-td implementation) did not appear to have changed in flexing characteristics, and the same was true of their other wings (including their max downforce unspooned wing) . it was just the Imola/Barcelona spooned high df wing that was controversial

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/the-r ... t/6547977/

For while Red Bull had been centre of attention after the Spanish Grand Prix with its flexi-wing antics, it elected to run in Baku with a new interim spoon-shaped wing that acted in a much more normal manner and helped steer clear of any controversy.

The high DF wing structure is also the only one that started failing towards the end of the year. Probably because change in flex rules meant the wing had to withstand more force etc and it eventually started to give in

Still, it proves the point that the car's competitiveness wasn't contingent on a flexiwing. We are talking about small relative gains/losses here.

[catent]

Not sure about that. It's not like you'd want to limit that to just one wing so I think it's likely the more stringent test affected all their wings. It may have been most obvious or visible on the high DF wing.

It was only the spooned high downforce wing that did it. The lower downforce spoon wing which won at Baku (pre-td implementation) & France (post-td implementation) did not appear to have changed in flexing characteristics, and the same was true of their other wings (including their max downforce unspooned wing) . it was just the Imola/Barcelona spooned high df wing that was controversial

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/the-r ... t/6547977/

For while Red Bull had been centre of attention after the Spanish Grand Prix with its flexi-wing antics, it elected to run in Baku with a new interim spoon-shaped wing that acted in a much more normal manner and helped steer clear of any controversy.

The high DF wing structure is also the only one that started failing towards the end of the year. Probably because change in flex rules meant the wing had to withstand more force etc and it eventually started to give in

Still, it proves the point that the car's competitiveness wasn't contingent on a flexiwing. We are talking about small relative gains/losses here.

It proves that particular 2021 Red Bull's competitiveness wasn't entirely contingent on that particular high-DF flexi-wing under every setup configuration. Their high-DF setup which utilized the flexi-wing was absolutely compromised following the technical directive, as @organic has demonstrated.

And that's to say absolutely nothing about how flexible aerodynamic surfaces in this particular formula, a different one than 2021 impact performance. With these ground-effect cars, teams have had to make a lot design/setup compromises ... suspension stiffness, ride height, balance, downforce, etc, etc, etc. It seems the benefits of flexible aero could be (and likely are) more significant than in previous formulas (especially if a team managed to find a way to implement underbody/floor/plank flex).

All of that is to say ...

• RBR's flexi-wing in 2021 was not meaningless nor a negligible performance bump (within the particular setup config it was utilized).

• The benefits provided by flexi-wings are not necessarily constant across all formulas, and prior benefits (or a lack thereof) cannot be generalized to potential benefits within the current formula.

• There are many more downstream considerations than just a couple kph from reduced drag, and those downstream considerations are likely an especially big benefit in this particular formula for the reasons mentioned above.

[Quantum]

All of that is to say ...

• RBR's flexi-wing in 2021 was not meaningless nor a negligible performance bump (within the particular setup config it was utilized).

• The benefits provided by flexi-wings are not necessarily constant across all formulas, and prior benefits (or a lack thereof) cannot be generalized to potential benefits within the current formula.

• There are many more downstream considerations than just a couple kph from reduced drag, and those downstream considerations are likely an especially big benefit in this particular formula for the reasons mentioned above.

1. It mattered little because bump was marginal. Unless you have evidence it had a huge impact, which I've yet to see?

2. You can generalize they would be doing it for pretty much identical purposes. Less drag on the straight and more downforce in the corners and the inherent benefit of that. If they are doing it for a further benefit that would not have benefited the 2021 ruleset, the thread benefits from that type of detail rather it remaining a mystery.

3. Which "downstream considerations" are you suggesting to be so vastly different in 2025 from 2021? If they're doing it for the same reasons, those "downstream considerations" will be the same with minor variance.


Seems like there's intentional complication that throws out comparison or intentionally balloons the impact because (insert reason). I don't understand that.
I cannot guess if this whole thing will have an impact or not because here's the thing, none of us really know right?

[bluechris]

The biggest performance gain for me is not the the less drag from this type of wings but the ability to have more downforce in low to medium corners and braking.

[tev33]

Wouldn't it also limit how much downforce you make on the straight, pushing the ride height down less, and then you can run even lower than usual. Maybe even able to run softer both front and rear?

[catent]

All of that is to say ...

• RBR's flexi-wing in 2021 was not meaningless nor a negligible performance bump (within the particular setup config it was utilized).

• The benefits provided by flexi-wings are not necessarily constant across all formulas, and prior benefits (or a lack thereof) cannot be generalized to potential benefits within the current formula.

• There are many more downstream considerations than just a couple kph from reduced drag, and those downstream considerations are likely an especially big benefit in this particular formula for the reasons mentioned above.

1. It mattered little because bump was marginal. Unless you have evidence it had a huge impact, which I've yet to see?

2. You can generalize they would be doing it for pretty much identical purposes. Less drag on the straight and more downforce in the corners and the inherent benefit of that. If they are doing it for a further benefit that would not have benefited the 2021 ruleset, the thread benefits from that type of detail rather it remaining a mystery.

3. Which "downstream considerations" are you suggesting to be so vastly different in 2025 from 2021? If they're doing it for the same reasons, those "downstream considerations" will be the same with minor variance.


Seems like there's intentional complication that throws out comparison or intentionally balloons the impact because (insert reason). I don't understand that.
I cannot guess if this whole thing will have an impact or not because here's the thing, none of us really know right?

I never said the downstream considerations have changed; I said they exist, and the benefits inferred may be greater in this particular formula than 2018-2021.

Perhaps I should've used the phrase "extent to which", because I was claiming the extent to which flexible aero could provide benefits would likely vary depending on the formula and car concepts. "Not necessarily constant across all formulas".

There were some really significant changes to suspension headed into this current formula (beginning in 2022), coupled with the ground-effect concept and much more of the overall downforce coming via the floor.

If teams were able to effectively setup the car with ideal balance as they wished in the past via suspension settings, it's certainly feasible that simplifying the suspension systems and taking away tools used previously to setup/balance the car, could make it such that flexible aero becomes a much more powerful tool when addressing setup/balance, and allow advantageous compromises elsewhere within the setup that otherwise wouldn't be possible. Pierre Wache has spoken about this at length.

[Emag]

The biggest performance gain for me is not the the less drag from this type of wings but the ability to have more downforce in low to medium corners and braking.

This can easily be solved by just running more wing at the expense of more drag, which essentially negates the first part of your sentence. The drag benefit is the only benefit that we can say with 100% confidence that it's existent and non-negligible, just because physics.

As for the rest of the benefits, namely here the balance & ride height optimizations, tire wear improvements etc ... , we can only guess. Only the teams know how much it impacts the rest of the car and the resulting laptime implications.

I wish the FIA did something about it and forced all teams to comply to a standard when it comes to flexing. It would neutralize this element between the teams and help us understand how impactful it is for a car's performance. Either way, at least we will get some partial answers after Spain.

[fourmula1]

The biggest performance gain for me is not the the less drag from this type of wings but the ability to have more downforce in low to medium corners and braking.

This can easily be solved by just running more wing at the expense of more drag, which essentially negates the first part of your sentence. The drag benefit is the only benefit that we can say with 100% confidence that it's existent and non-negligible, just because physics.

As for the rest of the benefits, namely here the balance & ride height optimizations, tire wear improvements etc ... , we can only guess. Only the teams know how much it impacts the rest of the car and the resulting laptime implications.

I wish the FIA did something about it and forced all teams to comply to a standard when it comes to flexing. It would neutralize this element between the teams and help us understand how impactful it is for a car's performance. Either way, at least we will get some partial answers after Spain.

Emag, you seem to have a good nuanced handle on the topic. Is the Spain TD just for the front wing? And the China test just for the rear wing slot gap? No TD for general rear wing assembly rear/downward flex?

[Emag]

The biggest performance gain for me is not the the less drag from this type of wings but the ability to have more downforce in low to medium corners and braking.

This can easily be solved by just running more wing at the expense of more drag, which essentially negates the first part of your sentence. The drag benefit is the only benefit that we can say with 100% confidence that it's existent and non-negligible, just because physics.

As for the rest of the benefits, namely here the balance & ride height optimizations, tire wear improvements etc ... , we can only guess. Only the teams know how much it impacts the rest of the car and the resulting laptime implications.

I wish the FIA did something about it and forced all teams to comply to a standard when it comes to flexing. It would neutralize this element between the teams and help us understand how impactful it is for a car's performance. Either way, at least we will get some partial answers after Spain.

Emag, you seem to have a good nuanced handle on the topic. Is the Spain TD just for the front wing? And the China test just for the rear wing slot gap? No TD for general rear wing assembly rear/downward flex?

The Spain TD is only for the front wing yes, but it is supposedly going to be quite restrictive, so you would expect teams which are currently utilizing them to higher-degree compared to others (specifically McLaren & Mercedes) to be impacted the most.

My statement about getting partial answers was related to the fact that the Spain TD targets only the FW. So if we see changes in the pecking order after Spain, we can only attribute it to the front wing flex being restricted. If the Rear Wings remain the same, we still won't be able to draw any conclusions for them specifically (although you would expect them to have an impact too if there are obvious differences in car performance after Spain).

As for the China test, the TD, as explicitly stated by the FIA, is concerned only with the slot gap and its widening under heavy load (from the 2mm allowance currently, to 0.5mm +0.25 temporary allowance just for China). That means that the flex of the general rear wing assembly will see no changes (only if teams can enforce the structure to limit the slot gap widening without reducing overall flex)

Now, there are some who are reporting that the new TD is also rewriting the rules where Rear Wings will not only need to pass the tests to be considered legal. In that scenario, even if some wings pass the tests, FIA will have the right to illegalize the components that it deems to exhibit extreme behavior on track, essentially forcing teams to limit the flexing of their elements under heavier load.

I don't know if this is true or not though, so we will have to wait for more sources to confirm. Reading the actual TD description that was published by the FIA, I didn't see any change to how the rules were written before.

[ispano6]

As is now tradition, @Auto_Racer_it has the latest scoop on the new Technical Directive regarding rear wing flexing. According to their sources, the TD contains wording that effectively mean:

A wing that passes static load tests is no longer necessarily compliant with the rules

Their article reiterates FIA is furious with some teams exploiting their static load tests and racing wings beyond the grey areas of regulations. Apparently, Rob Marshall is one of the people pushing to go over the limit of grey areas (and straight into illegal designs) and he was often not allowed to do so in Red Bull. One of such cases in the infamous illegal Spa/Baku 2024 McLaren wing - curiously never again used after it was banned, not even in Las Vegas.

Original (Italian) https://autoracer.it/it/mini-drs-e-la-n ... la-mclaren

I imagine that Marshall had a role in some of RedBull's flexiwing solutions. After the TD it was the endplates that exhibited stress fractures in following races. The ply and weave direction of the carbon fiber sheets influence the rigidity and flex but thermal heating does as well. I've said this before but I do believe teams try to leverage heat from various sources to influence this flex nature in dynamic environments. As an engineer, I would look to use any controllable parameters as an instrument to influence marginal effects that (downstream) compounds effectiveness.

There is recent footage of the Alpine rear wing wobbling like jello but it too passes static load tests, so teams definitely are utilizing flex in very obvious ways.

[hollus]

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?