Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[SuperCNJ]

If RB has indeed stiffened up their rear wing so it is now flexing about the same amount as the W12, how much lap time (roughly) would they have lost?

[Slo Poke]

Mr. Newey has found himself with a fully whetted up whistle and he’s blowing it ‘let’s say’. The RedBull car hasn’t lost any lap time, in fact its gained some! He’s stuffed Merc twice once with that wing.
Let’s wait see if Max can do likewise Sunday.

[Wouter]

Mr. Newey has found himself with a fully whetted up whistle and he’s blowing it ‘let’s say’. The RedBull car hasn’t lost any lap time, in fact its gained some! He’s stuffed Merc twice once with that wing.
Let’s wait see if Max can do likewise Sunday.

Did Max run this afternoon the same rearwing as he will on Sunday?

[Slo Poke]

Mr. Newey has found himself with a fully whetted up whistle and he’s blowing it ‘let’s say’. The RedBull car hasn’t lost any lap time, in fact its gained some! He’s stuffed Merc twice once with that wing.
Let’s wait see if Max can do likewise Sunday.

Did Max run this afternoon the same rearwing as he will on Sunday?

Hi Wouter..
I can’t be sure what the team will use wing-wise for Sunday. Although I tend to believe they’d be silly not to. It’s a fine piece aero-work, of that I’m certain. Two birds one stone. Respect to Newey.

[Wouter]

Mr. Newey has found himself with a fully whetted up whistle and he’s blowing it ‘let’s say’. The RedBull car hasn’t lost any lap time, in fact its gained some! He’s stuffed Merc twice once with that wing.
Let’s wait see if Max can do likewise Sunday.

Did Max run this afternoon the same rearwing as he will on Sunday?

Hi Wouter..
I can’t be sure what the team will use wing-wise for Sunday. Although I tend to believe they’d be silly not to. It’s a fine piece aero-work, of that I’m certain. Two birds one stone. Respect to Newey.

Thank you, @Slo Poke.

[Just_a_fan]

Mr. Newey has found himself with a fully whetted up whistle and he’s blowing it ‘let’s say’. The RedBull car hasn’t lost any lap time, in fact its gained some! He’s stuffed Merc twice once with that wing.
Let’s wait see if Max can do likewise Sunday.

Did Max run this afternoon the same rearwing as he will on Sunday?

Hi Wouter..
I can’t be sure what the team will use wing-wise for Sunday. Although I tend to believe they’d be silly not to. It’s a fine piece aero-work, of that I’m certain. Two birds one stone. Respect to Newey.

I bet Newey had very little to do with the design of that wing. If he was doing that sort of detail work, they wouldn't need a team of designers and aerodynamicists, would they?

[El Scorchio]

Don't know if there were any proper pics of it, (and it might have been mentioned on coverage at a moment I wasn't listening) but did RBR put on the flexible wing for FP2? I saw one shot and it seemed to be moving somewhat more than it did in the morning session. Could be my imagination though.

[wesley123]

It's not that guys, it's the fact that the Mercedes fans seem to justify the oscillations and movement of the t wings and sharkfins as incidental and thus allowed and then repeatedly cite article 3.8 and the wording "immobile" when it is clear as night and day the Mercs parts are clearly MOVING. So naturally the Red Bull fans here will facepalm at the apparent hypocrisy of the Mercedes fans criticism of Red Bull and justification of the Mercs apparent infractions. I've already mentioned that there is in fact evidence that supports that inducing oscillations has the effect of reducing drag, such is vortex generation. Yet you folks repeatedly insist that the oscillations induce drag.

There is quite a difference between oscillation and bending. The shark fin and T-wing don't really seem like a controlled movement. Apart from that; the T-wing is connected to the shark fin, and thus will logically react to flutter from the shark fin.

You can then of course say that it has benificial effects, which might be true. But you have effects that are based on wind speed and direction, it's not controllable in that sense.

If we look at the load tests and material behavior, then (with simplifying the whole physics behind it) we can reasonably conclude that wing bending is proportionate to wing loading; you can fairly safely calculate the rates at which the wing should then bend without trickery going on in the materials. If a wing conforms the test, yet under driving conditions bends beyond what should be the norm, then there is clearly some trickery going on.


If we look at this comparison then we can see one thing that is missing; oscillation that is proportionate to the airspeed. Whereas the wing bends, it doesn't oscillate more as the car accelerates. If the behavior was incidental, it would most likely behave similarly in multiple directions.

The fact that it bends in a specific, controlled way confirms, beyond reasonable doubt, that it's behavior is intentional.

[RZS10]

I could swear that there weren't any stickers at least on one of the RBR wings in FP2 ... or am i blind?

[Hoffman900]

Did Max run this afternoon the same rearwing as he will on Sunday?

Hi Wouter..
I can’t be sure what the team will use wing-wise for Sunday. Although I tend to believe they’d be silly not to. It’s a fine piece aero-work, of that I’m certain. Two birds one stone. Respect to Newey.

I bet Newey had very little to do with the design of that wing. If he was doing that sort of detail work, they wouldn't need a team of designers and aerodynamicists, would they?

This.

He manages the engineering side and guides technical, but I bet he does very little actual designing.

That would be like asking the principal engineer on a $200 million projects, managing hundreds of designers, to somehow find the time to design the flex in like a beam. 9/10, someone in his position is just managing budgets and determining and overall direction.

[Big Tea]

Is something not right with that clip?
Airflow over a big wing deflects it, no prob, I understand. The DRS opens, and the wing stays in the same place even though there is much less pressure on it?

Am I missing something important here? Is the downward force the same with and without DRS?

[e30ernest]

Is something not right with that clip?
Airflow over a big wing deflects it, no prob, I understand. The DRS opens, and the wing stays in the same place even though there is much less pressure on it?

Am I missing something important here? Is the downward force the same with and without DRS?

You can see the deflection change on the endplates. When DRS opens, the entire thing moves up relative to the camera.

[ispano6]

...

There is quite a difference between oscillation and bending. The shark fin and T-wing don't really seem like a controlled movement. Apart from that; the T-wing is connected to the shark fin, and thus will logically react to flutter from the shark fin.

You can then of course say that it has benificial effects, which might be true. But you have effects that are based on wind speed and direction, it's not controllable in that sense.

If we look at the load tests and material behavior, then (with simplifying the whole physics behind it) we can reasonably conclude that wing bending is proportionate to wing loading; you can fairly safely calculate the rates at which the wing should then bend without trickery going on in the materials. If a wing conforms the test, yet under driving conditions bends beyond what should be the norm, then there is clearly some trickery going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBWUefSl5tI

If we look at this comparison then we can see one thing that is missing; oscillation that is proportionate to the airspeed. Whereas the wing bends, it doesn't oscillate more as the car accelerates. If the behavior was incidental, it would most likely behave similarly in multiple directions.

The fact that it bends in a specific, controlled way confirms, beyond reasonable doubt, that it's behavior is intentional.

I don't contend that the RedBull rear wing is moving, I'm merely stating that the wording of the rules dictate immobility that should apply to all structures incidental or not. It's that people selectively apply this rule to the movement of some cars elements and not the one's of the team they are in favor of, that is the distinction. Even Paul and Anthony mentioned in today's broadcast that if they are going to enforce this rule it needs to be applied universally to the entire car. They also opined that the bending is part of the innovation of F1 and that there shouldn't be any protest. Of course, we all know that Toto is making the case to protest as a threat to make teams bring solutions ahead of the French GP, but it would be nonsensical to not bring solutions ahead of the French GP to test in advance. None of the teams are required to run those wings in the test, however they are acutely aware of the power of persuasion that Toto wields as well.

[SmallSoldier]

Agreed, although I probably wouldn’t have used “round” stickers and instead, checkered ones since it would have assist on accurate measurements.

Heh ... RBR has square checkerboard stickers AND white dots



Ferrari, Mercedes and Aston have complementary (?) coloured ones (relative to the base wing colour), most dark (black-ish) ones have white dots.

The checkered stickers were added by Red Bull to correlate with their information whatever the FIA findings are


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[peaty]

There is quite a difference between oscillation and bending. The shark fin and T-wing don't really seem like a controlled movement. Apart from that; the T-wing is connected to the shark fin, and thus will logically react to flutter from the shark fin.

Under article 3.8 oscilating and bending is the same really.

You can then of course say that it has benificial effects, which might be true. But you have effects that are based on wind speed and direction, it's not controllable in that sense.

That's what you think.

If we look at the load tests and material behavior, then (with simplifying the whole physics behind it) we can reasonably conclude that wing bending is proportionate to wing loading; you can fairly safely calculate the rates at which the wing should then bend without trickery going on in the materials. If a wing conforms the test, yet under driving conditions bends beyond what should be the norm, then there is clearly some trickery going on.

That is what you guys don't get your head arround. The "norm" is dictate by 3.9. It is written nowhere that deformation should be in a linear fashion. People like to bring up DAS. One of the reason for DAS beign allowed was that the regulations never stated that the steering system should only be operated in one axis. Well, this is pretty much the same. It is written nowhere that deformation should be linear.

The fact that it bends in a specific, controlled way confirms, beyond reasonable doubt, that it's behavior is intentional.

Absolutely! It's intentional. That's not part of the discussion at all. This is all about politics.