F1technical.net

henry wrote: ↑

13 May 2021, 18:29

Earlier in this thread there was imagery showing the Red Bull “swelling” at speed. Is this a way of reducing flow to the rear wing?

I wonder if that swelling might have been the cause of Perez' bodywork failure in testing as well? IIRC it was that portion of the bodywork which was ripped away?

Here is a nice article that covers the history of the subject at hand, and even has some nice illustrations of how the tests are conducted.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/why-f ... a/6507108/

Does anybody know if the loads for the new tests are higher than they were for.previous tests?

If so, it might be that the entire field needs to stiffen their wings, as there is (was) no reason to make the wing stiffer than it needs to be to pass the test.

PS. If the FIA wants to test "any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion", they have some work to do

RZS10 wrote: ↑

13 May 2021, 16:21

The upper part of the endplates move with the entire wing though?

SiLo wrote: ↑

13 May 2021, 16:03

dans79 wrote: ↑

13 May 2021, 15:59

The rear suspension squat is just going to add to the effect of the wing flexing, further altering the AOA.

Can you explain why it would please?

It's an added effect, the AOA on the wing will get lowered with the squat already, an additional flex then lowers it even further.

It's a bit exaggerated here viewtopic.php?p=970967#p970967 but the difference between the blue and red line would show the change in AOA

Or here:
In the lower pic the red line is parallel to the ground.
in the upper pic the car has squatted, the red line was moved with it, the difference in AOA on the rear wing is between the red line and the blue one (which is now parallel to the ground.
https://s3.gifyu.com/images/image121f7d91ae3fcbf3.png

This is wrong because the lines need to come from the point of vision (the camera) to the rear wing.

The only reason we see a change is because there is a relative change between the camera and the rear wing. Squat has 0 impact on this change. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

13 May 2021, 02:49

I want to put this to bed. You people are literally mistaking the change in ride height at speed as a bending wing. I can show you all the physical proof to show you there's no bending wing whatsoever

So you are telling us that the wing has infinite stiffness? Is it made of unobtanium?

To try and make this clear... The rules state the rear wing should not flex. The rear wing is also attached to the chassis (not the suspension).

If the rear wing cannot flex, then it's position relative to the camera should remain unchanged, no matter how much the car squats, rotates or generally flies around the place.

I have provided a picture to show what I mean. The angle from the wing to the camera should remain the same no matter what. The ONLY way it can change is if the rear wing is flexing, which is what all the video footage is showing.

Is there any on-board, rear wing video of the Merc? I'd love to see a comparison of the single vs. dual piller center support on the Merc relating to rear wing flex. Actually I'd love to see all comparisons between all manufacturers central pillars supports and their rear wing flex.

We've seen in testing and free practices, different designs and single and dual pillar configurations. Are they testing for just the right amount of rear wing flex at speed?

JordanMugen wrote: ↑

13 May 2021, 16:59

So is Red Bull's.

I beg to differ. It's quite evident there's whole a lot more going on with the RB rw than the merc.

SiLo wrote: ↑

13 May 2021, 22:20

*snip*

This is wrong because the lines need to come from the point of vision (the camera) to the rear wing.

The only reason we see a change is because there is a relative change between the camera and the rear wing. Squat has 0 impact on this change. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.

I think you misunderstood because we do not disagree ... the newer image shows the change of AOA due to the car squatting and THEN additionally you have the wing bending which was shown in the post i linked.

I just threw it all into one image and added some text:


I'll also repost the little gif which shows that no matter the level of squatting the camera will show the wing in the exact same position but within it's view the wheels will move up/down

Am I right in thinking the RedBull wing is illegal even though it passes the test. As it still breaks the rule on bodywork flexibility. Are some people confusing the test as making it legal? Passing the test and being legal are 2 completely different things.

NathanOlder wrote: ↑

13 May 2021, 23:46

Am I right in thinking the RedBull wing is illegal even though it passes the test. As it still breaks the rule on bodywork flexibility. Are some people confusing the test as making it legal? Passing the test and being legal are 2 completely different things.

Passing the test IS the legal determination.

Once again, the FIA is completely out of their depth, and will handle this with a club and not a scalpel.

NathanOlder wrote: ↑

13 May 2021, 23:46

Am I right in thinking the RedBull wing is illegal even though it passes the test. As it still breaks the rule on bodywork flexibility. Are some people confusing the test as making it legal? Passing the test and being legal are 2 completely different things.

it's the FIA, so they don't want to disrupt the show or the championship this early in the season, hence why they are giving any team that falls foul of the rule/tests time to correct the issue.

If it was later in the season, and championships had already been decided, it would probably be like Abu Dhabi qualifying 2014, when Red bull was excluded from qualifying after the fact. They got excluded from the results so they would have to start from the back of the grid. On top of that they were forced to change front wings and thus violate parc ferme, so they ultimately had to start from pit lane!

NathanOlder wrote:Am I right in thinking the RedBull wing is illegal even though it passes the test. As it still breaks the rule on bodywork flexibility. Are some people confusing the test as making it legal? Passing the test and being legal are 2 completely different things.

That’s the next chapter in the drama... There is potential for the teams to actually protest the rear wing and that will generate the debate on whether the ones (because RBR isn’t the only one with that flexes, may be the one with the most flex though) that are using this trick are infringing the rules in regards to movable devices and ask for penalties.

That would probably don’t go anywhere though... The FIA would have a very hard time proving it from just the onboard cameras (only way for them to prove it, since the wings were passing the static tests)... In addition, there will be an argument that such tricks in the past have simply been banned and no penalty has came from their use (Mclaren’s F-Duct, Red Bull’s flexing front wing)... Ultimately it seems that the TD has been issued in advance to prevent such drama and even have given the teams a grace period (3 weeks) to rectify it, the fact that the tests were passed with the current testing methods gives everyone using one a pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NathanOlder wrote: ↑

13 May 2021, 23:46

Am I right in thinking the RedBull wing is illegal even though it passes the test. As it still breaks the rule on bodywork flexibility. Are some people confusing the test as making it legal? Passing the test and being legal are 2 completely different things.

Yes and no. The rule is that things shouldn't flex. But how do you check that? You define a test and if the test is passed then you are deemed to be complying. If the test itself is incorrect or incorrectly carried out, and you pass, then you "get away with it". The FIA can change the test, of course, and that might catch you breaking the rule. Either way, you're breaking the rule (you're illegal) but you just haven't been caught.

You are breaking the law if you drive at 80mph in a 60mph zone. That there isn't a copper there to catch you doesn't change the fact that you are breaking the law. You're just "getting away with it". If the copper is there but messes up the speed reading, you're still breaking the law, he just can't prove it. So you "get away with it".

The problem for the FIA is that they outlaw flexible bodywork but then also have to accept that nothing is infinitely stiff, especially when dealing with racing car bodywork. So they have to allow some leeway. And the teams play in that grey zone.