Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[SmallSoldier]

How does DRS vs non DRS data look from the races we’ve had so far?

One could presume DRS would have less of an effect on cars who are exploiting this the most.

The effect of DRS itself should be the same, since the wing wouldn’t tilt backwards when using it... But, the delta gained from a car with a flexible wing (Red Bull) vs the delta gained from a car with a rigid wing (Mercedes) would be lesser... How much of an effect will depend on various different factors, from how much drag the rear wing generates, how much of an effect the tilting of the wing creates, engine power and deployment strategy (early on the straight, “linear” or more towards the end of the straight)... It would be hard to make an assessment and it would probably vary from track to track.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

Mclaren’s rear wing also flexes, doesn’t seem to be as dramatic as Red Bull’s though:




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RZS10]

What are the dimensions of the endplate?

Anyways i took the angle from the pic and then stretched the endplate onto an endplate in a side view and it's roughly 2.3° to 2.7° ... that's the best i could do ...

[radosav]

Alpine wing too, 7:47

[mkay]

Insightful video which shows the extent of RB's flexing vs. Merc's.

[RZS10]

Mclaren’s rear wing also flexes, doesn’t seem to be as dramatic as Red Bull’s though:
https://twitter.com/naturalparadigm/sta ... 89993?s=21

McLaren's wing appears to mostly tilt at the connection between support and the wing, the lower part barely moves compared to the RBR.




Alpine


And i'm adding the RBR because i think there's still a difference between the wing position through the chicane relative to T1, so it's only fair to have the same spot for comparison.



And the Merc because why not


When scaling them to the same wing width the difference isn't as huge as it might appear between the RBR and McL/Alpine, Merc is def. tilting less


RBR>Alp>McL>Merc

[Shrieker]

Bodywork flexibility is entirely legal so long as they pass the FIA pull tests. It's typical Mercedes/Wolff/Hamilton/F1 in general politics. They're "happy to be challenged" but as soon as they are they start whining about the legality of their opposition, Ferrari PU all over again, never shown/proved to be illegal. If their wing is bending more, just do better to pass the tests then have some bending. Simple really.

Check this out.

To me it looks like Merc's flex is fair play. You can't have no flex under so much load, and it looks normal to me. Although I don't know how much exactly the wings are allowed to flex and whether Red Bull are exceeding said limit or not, it does indeed look like a lot of flex.

And if they've managed to find a way to go around the rule by passing the FIA mandated tests but still have the wing bend beyond the legal threshold at speed anyway, then the opposition is well within their rights to give a nudge to the rule maker/enforcer.

It's fair play, and goes both ways. I don't see what the fuss is about.

Ferrari PU all over again, never shown/proved to be illegal.

It was hushed; you, me, everyone else and their dog knows this come on now.. Or maybe you want to believe binotto who said 'we have a low drag concept' Which is fine by me.

[adrianjordan]

Doesn't surprise me that McLaren would be one of the teams exploiting this. A few years ago RBR were very much the leaders in flexing wings and Peter P was still with the team at the time. So it stands to reason that he would have brought some of that expertise to Woking with him.

[Formula Wrong]

I'm having some serious flashbacks right now viewtopic.php?p=637353#p637353

Is it possible that this is the exact same thing (or at least similar) that happened in 2016?

[mkay]

Bodywork flexibility is entirely legal so long as they pass the FIA pull tests. It's typical Mercedes/Wolff/Hamilton/F1 in general politics. They're "happy to be challenged" but as soon as they are they start whining about the legality of their opposition, Ferrari PU all over again, never shown/proved to be illegal. If their wing is bending more, just do better to pass the tests then have some bending. Simple really.

FIA has always clamped down on bodywork flex, even when said bodywork passed the tests. It's a matter of the tests failing to properly ensure that the letter of the 'law' is respected. The regs are quite clear that bodywork sho

As for the Ferrari PU, it's the worst kept secret in F1 (conveniently wrapped up in all sorts of non-disclosure agreements) that Ferrari was doing 'something' to its PU. Just like Red Bull's 'bendy' rear wing, their PU was able to beat the FIA's tests until competitors told the FIA how Ferrari was able to do so. Since the tests were amended, Ferrari's PU has never been the same.

As for your comment on 'typical Merc', I'd like to remind you that it was actually RB who was most vocal about the Ferrari PU and lobbied the FIA to outlaw DAS last year.

[RZS10]

Is it possible that this is the exact same thing (or at least similar) that happened in 2016?

Yea and there were the same suggestions being made about how it's achieved (exhaust warming the support pillar etc)

[godlameroso]

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, you will still tell me I'm wrong regardless of physical evidence showing you the truth.

The wing passes all tests, and will do so again in France AS IS.

Let's use a little logic. The front of the RB16B is stiffly sprung as it's close to the ground, thus the front end moves less than the rear end. The rear end is softly sprung in relation, it rolls and dives and squats. If you pay attention to the upper wishbones, the end plate and the rear tires, you can see this is clearly the case.

Mercedes says RB's wing is illegal, and all the F1 tabloids just roll with it, never bothering to wonder why in God's green earth does it pass ALL FIA tests. The simplest answer is usually the right one, either the FIA are incompetent(possible), RBR is cheating(unlikely), or the car squatting at speed is mistaken as a bending wing because of the suggestion of a powerful figure with a lot of power in F1, and people simply follow the path of least resistance(simplest).

Downvote away.

[dans79]

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, you will still tell me I'm wrong regardless of physical evidence showing you the truth.

The wing passes all tests, and will do so again in France AS IS.

Let's use a little logic. The front of the RB16B is stiffly sprung as it's close to the ground, thus the front end moves less than the rear end. The rear end is softly sprung in relation, it rolls and dives and squats. If you pay attention to the upper wishbones, the end plate and the rear tires, you can see this is clearly the case.

Mercedes says RB's wing is illegal, and all the F1 tabloids just roll with it, never bothering to wonder why in God's green earth does it pass ALL FIA tests. The simplest answer is usually the right one, either the FIA are incompetent(possible), RBR is cheating(unlikely), or the car squatting at speed is mistaken as a bending wing because of the suggestion of a powerful figure with a lot of power in F1, and people simply follow the path of least resistance(simplest).

Read this, and then explain to us why the FIA would notify all the teams that they're going to change the tests!


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... s/6507003/



Also, the cameras are fixed to the chassis, just like the floor, uprights, and the rear wing, so suspension squat plays no part in the video footage.

[Hoffman900]

I am curious to see him prove it though.

[Marty_Y]

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, you will still tell me I'm wrong regardless of physical evidence showing you the truth.

The wing passes all tests, and will do so again in France AS IS.

Let's use a little logic. The front of the RB16B is stiffly sprung as it's close to the ground, thus the front end moves less than the rear end. The rear end is softly sprung in relation, it rolls and dives and squats. If you pay attention to the upper wishbones, the end plate and the rear tires, you can see this is clearly the case.

Mercedes says RB's wing is illegal, and all the F1 tabloids just roll with it, never bothering to wonder why in God's green earth does it pass ALL FIA tests. The simplest answer is usually the right one, either the FIA are incompetent(possible), RBR is cheating(unlikely), or the car squatting at speed is mistaken as a bending wing because of the suggestion of a powerful figure with a lot of power in F1, and people simply follow the path of least resistance(simplest).

Downvote away.

Come on, there's loads of videos all showing the same thing that the wing is bending. It's nothing to do with the ride height, the camera is in a fixed position and the shark fin doesn't move down so that proves it has nothing to do with the car squatting down.

If you watch the video that has lines superimposed on it you can see the only thing that moves is the wing and nothing else.