65 replies to this topic

[jonklug]

from https://www.autospor...aled-/10513290/

 

 

As first reported earlier this month, the FIA has been taking a close look at flexible wings over the first half of this season as it believes teams have been pushing the boundaries in terms of what is allowed.
 

It is understood that several teams, including Aston Martin, were advised to make changes to their front wing designs around the time of the Azerbaijan Grand Prix in a bid to ensure that they did not fall foul of any rule breaches.
 

But as part of a ramped up effort to stop any attempt at getting around the regulations, the FIA has now issued a formal technical directive outlining what it believes are unacceptable designs with regards to flexible bodywork.
 

In TD018, a copy of which has been seen by Autosport and was sent to teams ahead of the Dutch GP weekend, the FIA states that it believes outfits are exploiting “regions of purposely design localised compliance” plus “relative motion between adjacent components” to deliver a significant boost to aerodynamic performance.
 

It states that any design that operates like this is in breach of Article 3.2.2 of F1’s Technical Regulations, which states that all components that influence a car’s aerodynamic performance must be “rigidly secured and immobile with respect to their frame of reference defined in Article 3.3. Furthermore, these components must produce a uniform, solid, hard, continuous, impervious surface under all circumstances.”
 

The FIA has been prompted into action because it believes that teams are exploiting sophisticated systems that rotate and flex front and rear wing elements in ways that cannot be detected through the regular load tests.
 

It has made it clear that any “assembly designs that exploit localised compliance or degrees of freedom are not permitted.”

 

Another mid season TD since the last one worked so well. Thoughts on who this may affect the most? At first glance Aston Martin might look like culprits and maybe McLaren with their latest surge? That would be a shame.

Edited by jonklug, 30 August 2023 - 09:40.

[P123]

I suspect all of them.  And no, it's not a shame to ensure teams adhere to the rules.

[Rumblestrip]

I mentioned in the recent race thread I'd seen one front wing flexing fairly alarmingly down the straight when viewed from the front wing camera, but I never saw another shot from that camera again on any car. Nobody replied so I assume nobody else noticed?

 

I am slightly concerned McLaren may lose out in this but I'm sure all teams will be impacted in some way.

[jonklug]

I suspect all of them.  And no, it's not a shame to ensure teams adhere to the rules.

 

Of course, what I mean it would be a shame to see McLaren somehow go back to the midfield but of course if it's because of bending the rules (pun intended) then yea, can't really complain. Hope they're not though.

[RedRabbit]

from https://www.autospor...aled-/10513290/



Another mid season TD since the last one worked so well. Thoughts on who this may affect the most? At first glance Aston Martin might look like culprits and maybe McLaren with their latest surge? That would be a shame.

Aston Martin were already affected, that's why the Canada upgrades looked as if they went backwards. They weren't allowed to use the front wing the package was designed with. They've been working on new solutions without the flexing, and seem to have found them.

Wouldn't surprise me if Red Bull were doing the same trick, flexing the wing back, and sideways, so the connecting plate on either side of the nose splits open and creates a Y250 style vortex on each side.

[PayasYouRace]

Flexing bodywork is easily the most tiresome of all of F1’s technical regulatory sagas. Aeroelastic technology isn’t a problem or a danger in and of itself, and with budget caps now in place won’t lead to a spending race. Stop changing the load tests and let teams race with cars that meet those tests. Change the wording of the rules because perfectly rigid bodywork is impossible.

[jonklug]

Aston Martin were already affected, that's why the Canada upgrades looked as if they went backwards. They weren't allowed to use the front wing the package was designed with. They've been working on new solutions without the flexing, and seem to have found them.

Wouldn't surprise me if Red Bull were doing the same trick, flexing the wing back, and sideways, so the connecting plate on either side of the nose splits open and creates a Y250 style vortex on each side.

 

If anyone else had done it as blatantly I assume they would have been forced to change like AM were. It's indeed likely that most teams exploited this somehow but I wouldn't expect any significant changes to the pecking order. 

[YorkF1Fan]

Seems like there is a TD for flexi bodywork every year now 

[Gary Davies]

Flexing bodywork is easily the most tiresome of all of F1’s technical regulatory sagas. Aeroelastic technology isn’t a problem or a danger in and of itself, and with budget caps now in place won’t lead to a spending race. Stop changing the load tests and let teams race with cars that meet those tests. Change the wording of the rules because perfectly rigid bodywork is impossible.

Good points. 

But I would go further.

 

1. Single plane wings.

2. A damn sight shorter, extending no further than half way across the face of the tyres.

 

(Yes, yes, I know I'm a dinosaur.)

[Sterzo]

Flexing bodywork is easily the most tiresome of all of F1’s technical regulatory sagas. Aeroelastic technology isn’t a problem or a danger in and of itself, and with budget caps now in place won’t lead to a spending race. Stop changing the load tests and let teams race with cars that meet those tests. Change the wording of the rules because perfectly rigid bodywork is impossible.

It's actually mind-blowing that the rules are so worded that they are impossible to comply with. "..rigidly secured and immobile..." What??? A block of concrete wouldn't be legal.

[pdac]

It's actually mind-blowing that the rules are so worded that they are impossible to comply with. "..rigidly secured and immobile..." What??? A block of concrete wouldn't be legal.

 

Not at all. It's worded that way so that the FIA can act upon anything that they don't like. Because it's impossible to adhere to the letter of the rule, it means that everything is technically illegal, meaning that anything that the FIA deem is unacceptable can be acted upon.

[pdac]

The easiest solution to sort out front-wing flexing is to ban front wings or adjust the technical regs to allow only the very simplest of simple wings.

Edited by pdac, 30 August 2023 - 10:43.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Flexing bodywork is easily the most tiresome of all of F1’s technical regulatory sagas. Aeroelastic technology isn’t a problem or a danger in and of itself, and with budget caps now in place won’t lead to a spending race. Stop changing the load tests and let teams race with cars that meet those tests. Change the wording of the rules because perfectly rigid bodywork is impossible.

It is not because of the flexing, it is because of the amount of flex that has been added by the design of the part...

[PayasYouRace]

Good points.
But I would go further.

1. Single plane wings.
2. A damn sight shorter, extending no further than half way across the face of the tyres.

(Yes, yes, I know I'm a dinosaur.)

That’s fine but has nothing to do with aeroelasticity.

[blacky]

 

I guess this wing will be declared illegal, eh?

[PayasYouRace]

It's actually mind-blowing that the rules are so worded that they are impossible to comply with. "..rigidly secured and immobile..." What??? A block of concrete wouldn't be legal.

If I apply my engineering brain to those words, then any flexible wing is legal. A wing can be attached (secured) rigidly and still flex, as that implies no hinges or folds. Bending is not moving so a flexible part is still immobile.

[lewislorenzo]

Hopefully this helps Ferrari so there will be less moaning about last years flexi floor plank TD😂

[PayasYouRace]

The easiest solution to sort out front-wing flexing is to ban front wings or adjust the technical regs to allow only the very simplest of simple wings.

Doesn’t fix the the problem for floors, rear wings and other bodywork.

[PayasYouRace]

It is not because of the flexing, it is because of the amount of flex that has been added by the design of the part...

And that merits a big fat “so what?” from me. There’s no reason to be so obsessed with ruling against aeroelastic parts.

Maybe if we remind the FIA how road relevant aeroelasticity can be, in reducing drag and therefore energy consumption, they might approach this topic sensibly.

[SenorSjon]

So everyone has to send technical drawings to the FIA. What could possibly go wrong? How much gardening leave is acceptable for the one reviewing the data?

[ARTGP]

This is tiring. Just get rid of front wings entirely. That will solve everything.

Edited by ARTGP, 30 August 2023 - 11:13.

[PayasYouRace]

This is tiring. Just get rid of front wings entirely. That will solve everything.

And the rear wings (part of this TD), and the floors, and the other body work?

[jwill189]

 

I guess this wing will be declared illegal, eh?

 

And yet the FIA forced Aston Martin to neuter its car before then.

[ARTGP]

I suspect all of them. And no, it's not a shame to ensure teams adhere to the rules.

That wings are rigid and immobile? Lol. Surely you see the problem here?

[Brian60]

I found this most notable in past seasons on the RB - all that fluttering of the rear wing element and the constant having to 'repair' it, in two cases whilst the car was in parc ferme - with no penalty! Rear wings don't flutter for no reason, to me it was obvious they were experimenting with something, then the rest of the season, phooof, no more fluttering. This led me to believe whatever concept they were chasing had come right or they had abandoned it. Similarly this year we have seen some very wobbly rear wings on the Alpines and at one round I saw some exceptional front wing movement on the Aston. Also Merc front wing, whilst the wing seemed to be mounted solidly, the intermediate elements seemed to have a mind of their own about which direction they wanted to face.

[jonklug]

 

I guess this wing will be declared illegal, eh?

 

Pretty sure every single front wing on the grid does this. 

[P123]

That wings are rigid and immobile? Lol. Surely you see the problem here?

 

I doubt that is the ultimate goal!  They are just giving themselves room to clamp down on the teams designing in flex which get around the load tests.

 

The drawings for that Alpine rear wing must be interesting!

[ARTGP]

And the rear wings (part of this TD), and the floors, and the other body work?

 

I was being a bit facetious  . Personally I think they need to leave it alone. It creates a massive amount of unnecessary oversight and overhead and it cannot even be monitored in an objective manner.

Edited by ARTGP, 30 August 2023 - 11:52.

[ARTGP]

I doubt that is the ultimate goal!  They are just giving themselves room to clamp down on the teams designing in flex which get around the load tests.

 

The drawings for that Alpine rear wing must be interesting!

 

They are giving themselves room for arbitrary eye exams, something which cannot be policed the same way for every team. This is why a prescribed and systematic load test is preferable. 

 

As for the Alpine wing, they'll be hoping it's not so interesting...

Edited by ARTGP, 30 August 2023 - 11:51.

[Gary Davies]

That’s fine but has nothing to do with aeroelasticity.

Er... I know.

[pup]

So who’s affected by this? A few people have suggested McLaren, but I haven’t seen any video of their wings flexing. Though I thought the new rear wing they brought this weekend but didn’t run seemed designed to flex. The ones I’ve seen video for are Aston (blatant), RB and Merc, and then to a lesser extent Ferrari.

I’m wondering now if McLaren's decision not to run their rear wing was actually legality related vs a shortage of parts.

Edited by pup, 30 August 2023 - 12:42.

[Organic]

Merc seem to have the most flex at this point. It was AMR by a large margin at season start, but seems they had to sort that out at an earlier date 

[KWSN - DSM]

Alpines rear wing most certainly move a lot.

[f1rules]

lol FIA dont fool around anymore, not wasting time on meassuring something they cant really meassure anyway, so now its, show us your drawings, we want to see exactly what your doing, this could become interesting

 

https://www.motorspo...ealed/10513312/

[GrumpyYoungMan]

And that merits a big fat “so what?” from me. There’s no reason to be so obsessed with ruling against aeroelastic parts.

Maybe if we remind the FIA how road relevant aeroelasticity can be, in reducing drag and therefore energy consumption, they might approach this topic sensibly.

 

That has ZERO road relevance, how much carbon fibre is used on the majority of road cars…

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 30 August 2023 - 13:52.

[PayasYouRace]

That has ZERO road relevance, how much carbon fibre is used on the majority of road cars…

You don’t think there’s any relevance to partially closing air ducts as speed increases, for example? Many mid- to high-performance cars have spoilers or some sort. You don’t think there are any potential applications?

Never mind relevance to aviation, for example.

[f1rules]

difficult to judge, i honestly never felt Mclaren was the "leader" in this area, now rb on the other hand, and with rbs head of aero now at aston, and pictures/videos emerging of the merc frontwing, i think, and its pure speculation, that it potentially will hurt those 3 the most, but will not make night and day difference, RB built a phenomenal car that will dominate all season no matter what FIA tries

 

 

 

So who’s affected by this? A few people have suggested McLaren, but I haven’t seen any video of their wings flexing. Though I thought the new rear wing they brought this weekend but didn’t run seemed designed to flex. The ones I’ve seen video for are Aston (blatant), RB and Merc, and then to a lesser extent Ferrari.

I’m wondering now if McLaren's decision not to run their rear wing was actually legality related vs a shortage of parts.

Edited by f1rules, 30 August 2023 - 14:02.

[Heyli]

I found this most notable in past seasons on the RB - all that fluttering of the rear wing element and the constant having to 'repair' it, in two cases whilst the car was in parc ferme - with no penalty! Rear wings don't flutter for no reason, to me it was obvious they were experimenting with something, then the rest of the season, phooof, no more fluttering. This led me to believe whatever concept they were chasing had come right or they had abandoned it. Similarly this year we have seen some very wobbly rear wings on the Alpines and at one round I saw some exceptional front wing movement on the Aston. Also Merc front wing, whilst the wing seemed to be mounted solidly, the intermediate elements seemed to have a mind of their own about which direction they wanted to face.

That was the DRS flap that they had to constantly repair, and considering the DRS advantage that they have now, it is possible that they found a way to make it work (although I know too little about all that to understand if that was related somehow).

[IrvTheSwerve]

You don’t think there’s any relevance to partially closing air ducts as speed increases, for example? Many mid- to high-performance cars have spoilers or some sort. You don’t think there are any potential applications?

Never mind relevance to aviation, for example.

I’m amazed that active/adaptive aero isn’t explored more to be honest and it’s even a strangely taboo subject in F1. It would be a really interesting area to open up to research, air brakes, active aero through corners to aid stability and cornering, streamlining for efficiency on the straights…

 

I know the FIA will put it down to safety and cost-cutting, but aero is such a huge area now (in general) that it would make sense for the most aero-based formula to open up a bit.

Edited by IrvTheSwerve, 30 August 2023 - 14:30.

[IrvTheSwerve]

Something like this could be the future:

 

https://youtu.be/OKp...oe38UK-mjKoHzJy

 

Ok, maybe not as drastic, but it would be so interesting to see the development of something like that on an F1 car.

[SCUDmissile]

Why do they hate flexing so much

[GrumpyYoungMan]

You don’t think there’s any relevance to partially closing air ducts as speed increases, for example? Many mid- to high-performance cars have spoilers or some sort. You don’t think there are any potential applications?

Never mind relevance to aviation, for example.

 

I was only talking about the carbon fibre having aeroelasticity, and not ducts closing, as that is already happening on road cars, but I am yet to see any carbon fibre used in any mass-production cars.
 

[Bikr7549]

I’m amazed that active/adaptive aero isn’t explored more to be honest and it’s even a strangely taboo subject in F1. It would be a really interesting area to open up to research, air brakes, active aero through corners to aid stability and cornering, streamlining for efficiency on the straights…

 

I know the FIA will put it down to safety and cost-cutting, but aero is such a huge area now (in general) that it would make sense for the most aero-based formula to open up a bit.

 

I agree completely with you on this, and with F1 wanting to be relevant in some way to the automotive world this approach would be a good one to pursue.

 

And, I have to say that the wording used in TD018 mentioned in the first post is very poorly written. How could any engineer use that in the design of their parts? It is so vague you have to wonder about the knowledge and skills of whoever wrote it, Having 'rules' like this wastes money as teams will have to go back and redesign, manufacture and tweak anything that is deemed to be unacceptable.

Edited by Bikr7549, 31 August 2023 - 00:14.

[ARTGP]

I’m amazed that active/adaptive aero isn’t explored more to be honest and it’s even a strangely taboo subject in F1. It would be a really interesting area to open up to research, air brakes, active aero through corners to aid stability and cornering, streamlining for efficiency on the straights…

I know the FIA will put it down to safety and cost-cutting, but aero is such a huge area now (in general) that it would make sense for the most aero-based formula to open up a bit.

This will be part of the 2026 regulation to my knowledge (of the various rumors, leaks, and well founded speculations)

Edited by ARTGP, 30 August 2023 - 15:56.

[ARTGP]

I agree completely with you on this, and with F1 wanting to be relevant in some way to the automotive world this approach would be a good one to pursue.

And, I have to say that the wording used in TD018 mentioned in the first post is very poorly written. How would any engineer use that in the design of their parts? It is so vague you have to wonder about the knowledge and skills of whoever wrote it, Having 'rules' like this wastes money as teams will have to go back and redesign, manufacture and tweak anything that is deemed to be unacceptable.

You are correct. The language use is an embarrassment. Two different teams could end up getting different treatment because of the subjectivity.

Edited by ARTGP, 30 August 2023 - 15:57.

[PayasYouRace]

I was only talking about the carbon fibre having aeroelasticity, and not ducts closing, as that is already happening on road cars, but I am yet to see any carbon fibre used in any mass-production cars.

I just don’t think you’re understanding why aeroelastics can be relevant. It’s simpler and lighter than mechanical designs.

[Clatter]

I mentioned in the recent race thread I'd seen one front wing flexing fairly alarmingly down the straight when viewed from the front wing camera, but I never saw another shot from that camera again on any car. Nobody replied so I assume nobody else noticed?

I am slightly concerned McLaren may lose out in this but I'm sure all teams will be impacted in some way.

Mercs front wing had looked suspicious for years.

[TomNokoe]

I suspect this is a reactive move to firm up the rumoured AM clarification earlier in the year, rather than a proactive move that will change the order.

[SenorSjon]

That was the DRS flap that they had to constantly repair, and considering the DRS advantage that they have now, it is possible that they found a way to make it work (although I know too little about all that to understand if that was related somehow).

It was the actuator that wasn't strong enough and you seem to have to run with 1 spec DRS part for the whole season, so they couldn't change the design. It couldn't cope with the DF improvement during the season

[MikeTekRacing]

 

I guess this wing will be declared illegal, eh?

I can't find a video now, but this and Mercedes probably even more have been very noticeable to the naked eye