Flexible Rear Wings - RedBull (RB16B 2021) vs Mclaren (MCL38 2024)

Formula Red Bull.

 

Funny how the FIA has successfully gone after RB for flexy stuff many, many times.

Yes for once it's not for them and instantly it's formula RB.

 

Perhaps in recently years however, 1st I don’t think RB is the only team taking issue with McCheat’s wing and 2nd I think we can all see RB imploding this year. Clearly the script within the sport has change.

 

I love “spirit of the rules”…
What does that even mean?

There’s a “load” test. I assume McLaren’s wing passes that test. Did McLaren figure out a way around it via materials, etc? Seems so. I call that innovation, not cheating.

It’s sad that governing bodies haven’t figured out that the MORE regulation they impliment, the more innovation they’ll get.

I’d love to see LESS regulation.
Keep the budget cap.
Car can x inches long, x inches wide, x inches high, minimum weight of x pounds, and let’s see who the smartest boys are!!!

 

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/ferrari-mclaren-rear-wing-legality-was-black-and-white-matter/10656176/

Ferrari: McLaren rear wing legality was ‘black and white’ matter
Ferrari does not see McLaren’s trick ‘mini-DRS’ design as a simple matter of exploiting a grey area in the rules

Ferrari team boss Fred Vasseur says the legality of McLaren’s controversial ‘mini-DRS’ rear wing was a black-and-white matter, after the FIA intervened to request it be changed.

Ahead of the Singapore Grand Prix, McLaren said it would be making modifications to its rear wing design in the wake of controversy about its flexing characteristics.

Onboard footage from Oscar Piastri’s car in last week’s Azerbaijan Grand Prix had revealed that the rear wing’s upper element was flexing to help open up the slot gap – helping reduce drag to improve top speed.

Following analysis by the FIA about the design, it emerged on the Friday in Singapore that the governing body felt the behaviour of the wing did not comply with the regulations so asked for it to be modified.

McLaren later confirmed that it had agreed to the request and would be making changes.

 

I agree, but the "sport" is going in the opposite direction; it will end up as a specs series.

 

I understand that...
But the F1 rule book is the size of the dictionary. And yet, the McLaren wing is just the latest example that no matter what the rules makers throw at the constructors, the constructors are just...SMARTER!

And I agree with William:
The governing body better slow their roll, or they're going to turn F1 into a spec series.
I can't believe the FIA thinks it can put the genie back in the bottle after so MANY years of the genie having her freedom (you know, Barbara Eden!).

 

Just ban all flex, period. Anywhere on the car.

 

Any structure flexes. Even the Empire State Building flexes !!!

 

So then allow the cars' wings to flex as much as the ground floor of the Empire State Building.

 

If a wing is conform to the rules during static tests, why try to outlaw it if it seen flexing under aerodynamic forces at 200mph ?

"The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm".
Conficius

 

Why not just solve the issue and make them inflexible? Instead of all the time and money being spent on cheating or trying to cheat. The fewer rules the better, and the more inflexible they are, the better. Get rid of the spening cap, return to open testing, have a freedom of engine choices and displacement, a fixed weight, width, length, and heigth, 3 choice of tires for the whole season...same three choices for every race, every track (period), plus one wet and one intermediate. No mandatory pit stops...each team decides what stratagey works best for them. Upgrade the car as often as you want or can afford. And just race.

 

Pre carbon fiber F1 cars weighed less, so from a practical point, carbon fiber offers no advantage...in fact it apears to be a great cost disadvantage. If you add enough struts, any wing will stop flexing.

 

It is impossible to stop flexing. Watch the slow mo videos of the cars hitting the curbs and the whole car flexes, shakes, and rattles. If these cars were completely rigid they would shatter. Any material, be it carbon, aluminum, steel, titanium, etc all flex to some degree. It is literally impossible to not flex. The FIA have induced load tests at certain points of the wings to prevent teams from deliberately flexing the wings. As teams continue to find ways around their tests, the FIA have made the tests stricter of time. Any good team will continue to find ways to flex in their advantage while still passing the FIA's legality tests. I applaud the effort, it keeps the technical side of F1 interesting. I only want the FIA to maintain some consistency in how they police it and not impose different rules on who is pushing the limits of "cheating".

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Make Wings 1990 Again.

 

just add more damn layers , and no gap at rear wing until DRS is activated no exceptions or just get rid of DrS junk

 

I thought it was you, but maybe it was someone else that mentioned no gap. A multi element wing requires a gap. More layers would also mean more weight, and these cars are heavy enough. Besides, the construction is made to flex, there is no rule to how teams construct their cars and I hope there never is.

 

I understand the reason of the gap but do away with it is what I'm Trying to say, just have a flap that opens, zero gap zero cheat . Really this whole F1 is really getting sucky. Also, who cares about 3 lbs if everyone has it added ,

 

If it was a single element wing they would still make it to flex.

 

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/why-mini-drs-will-not-be-formula-1s-last-flexi-wing-controversy/10660313/


Why ‘mini-DRS’ will not be Formula 1’s last flexi-wing controversy
Flexi-wings are a hot topic in F1 again. But it is not the first time, and it won't be the last...
Matt Somerfield Oct 5, 2024, 10:20 AM

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Formula 1’s off-track political battles can often be as interesting as the action on track. The fight to get technical innovations approved on your car, and taken away from rivals, has long been the name of the game in getting to the front of the field.

One such battleground this year has been flexi-wings, with interest intense at both the front and the rear of various cars. The situation is a delicate one, because flexible bodywork operates in a grey area of the regulations.

Wings are passing the static load tests in the pits, but it is impossible to make parts that do not deflect to some extent when exposed to the huge aero loads out on the circuit.

At the very heart of the conflict therefore is how much movement the FIA considers to be fair game, and how much it views as blatant exploitation. These are lines that can move around – especially if competitors start lobbying with complaints.

The latest such debate has been about McLaren’s ‘mini-DRS’ on its rear wings. Although the design fully complied with the statutory load tests, politicking from rivals forced the FIA into discussions before it was agreed a change would be made.


While the flexing witnessed in Baku on the upper flap of McLaren’s rear wing was extremely obvious, it is not the only trick that has been seen in the pitlane this year. But as always, the probing of rivals depends on how much flexing is being done and whether it is viewed as taking liberties or not.

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
McLaren’s rear wing was the main talking point in Azerbaijan, but it was clear that some of its rivals are rotating the rear wing assembly backwards to reduce drag, although some are doing it to a larger extent than others.

Given the FIA requested the teams to add target dots on the rear wings in 2021 (see above, right, yellow dots added to the Ferrari rear wing), to allow it to monitor footage from the rear-view camera and see how much flexion was occurring, this behaviour now must mean that it is deemed acceptable.

Nothing new
Controlling the amount of flexion being used by the teams as a means to increase downforce and reduce drag is not even close to being a new issue for F1. Each regulatory cycle ends up posing more questions, as teams attempt to apply their old knowledge to the latest regulations.

For example, we saw teams attempt slot gap manipulation on their rear wings in the early to mid-2000s, in order to reduce drag.

Slot gap separators were seen as a means to prohibit the practice. Meanwhile, constant adaptations have also been made to the static tests conducted on both the front and rear wings to limit the amount of flexion teams built into their designs down the years.

Whilst the flexion of the rear wing elements was more noticeable, there was also work being done by the teams to take advantage of flexion with the front wing too.

Its exploitation was fully unmasked as F1 entered a new regulatory era in 2009, as not only were the aerodynamic regulations much more restrictive, footage showing the front wing assembly was much more readily available, owing to the placement of the cameras.

The loss of the larger and more complex bargeboard structures also resulted in the front wing having to provide more support from a wake control point of view.

Its design and flexion were used as a means to push the wake outboard and reduce the turbulence that might otherwise be ingested beneath the floor and cause flow instability within the diffuser.

The governing body fought a protracted battle on this front throughout that period but, just as today, there’s only the static tests in place that the teams must comply with.

This helped provide scope for multiple development directions to emerge, as each team used the wing’s built-in flexibility to support its given aims.

During the aforementioned period in time, the teams were notably flexing their wings in different ways. Some used vertical flexion, so that the outboard section of the wing would bend down towards the track surface, whilst others had their wing assembly rotate rearwards.

The differing approaches obviously suited each of their end goals based around their design configurations both locally and downstream. It also made it much more difficult for the FIA to police, with them having to find different ways to prevent those various practices.

Similarly, it appears that the amount and type of flexion being utilised with this current generation of front wings doesn’t follow a common theme, with each team finding a way to flex the wing in a way which helps its overall goals.

Moreover, it seems there’s also independent flexion of the components occurring, making it altogether difficult to ascertain where the deformation is taking place and when.

Image Unavailable, Please Login
FIA front wing target dot test mockup

Photo by: Giorgio Piola

In an effort to better understand, and perhaps help the governing body frame the regulations in the future, it has been monitoring front wing flexion more closely since the Belgian Grand Prix.

Teams must now place dots on the front wing elements and endplate, which can be used as a reference in the footage captured by new cameras that are mounted in the usual position on the side of the nose.

It has never really been a question of who is using flexi-wings to improve the car's performance, as they all are to some extent.

However, the issue is more about making sure that the practice doesn’t result in a design that’s clearly working in a way which beats the static load tests but deforms excessively whilst on track.

This not only would lead to another arms race amongst the teams, as they all chase similar constructions, but can create an unsafe development environment, as the boundaries are pushed too quickly beyond the known limits of materials.

 

Exactly !!! F1 is on another unnecessary witch hunt.

 

Agree'd. We ask/expect innovation from those who engineer and develop these machines. We punish them and drive F1 to a spec formula slowly but surely.

 

Impossible: any structure under any load flexes.