Race 16 - Singapore 2023 GP

[Steve Boyd]

Flexi-wings is a major component of Redbull's dominance it seems.

It's interesting to look at the sidepod mounted camera shots on the RB. The flexible front wing planes seem to move more that those of the competition. The vertical bearing tabs between the fixed and moving parts of the wing planes also seem larger than those on other cars. Enough to hide a mechanism (electro-magnetic?) that will limit the deflection during scrutineering but let the wing flex freely during running?

Listening to Max's complaints of bottoming on the bumpy track also makes me wonder whether the RB suspension is able get the car past the static ride-height test while letting it run closer to the ground than other teams manage and that their technique for achieving this couldn't cope with the Singapore track. Newey's aero skills letting them run close to the ground without the porpoising that others have suffered from.

[Nitrodaze]

It's interesting to look at the sidepod mounted camera shots on the RB. The flexible front wing planes seem to move more that those of the competition. The vertical bearing tabs between the fixed and moving parts of the wing planes also seem larger than those on other cars. Enough to hide a mechanism (electro-magnetic?) that will limit the deflection during scrutineering but let the wing flex freely during running?

Listening to Max's complaints of bottoming on the bumpy track also makes me wonder whether the RB suspension is able get the car past the static ride-height test while letting it run closer to the ground than other teams manage and that their technique for achieving this couldn't cope with the Singapore track. Newey's aero skills letting them run close to the ground without the porpoising that others have suffered from.

Interesting!
They certainly look very flustered. But am sure they will be back on top at the next race. But l wonder if the sharp end of the grid would be much closer henceforth. That would make for a brilliant rest of the season.


How Aston Martin has disappointed! Hamilton is now 6 points away from stealing 3rd in the championship from Alonso. Ferrari has leapfrogged Aston Martin into 3rd in the constructors championship with Mclaren closing in fast. The green machine has lost its mojo.

[The Black Knight]

It's interesting to look at the sidepod mounted camera shots on the RB. The flexible front wing planes seem to move more that those of the competition. The vertical bearing tabs between the fixed and moving parts of the wing planes also seem larger than those on other cars. Enough to hide a mechanism (electro-magnetic?) that will limit the deflection during scrutineering but let the wing flex freely during running?

Listening to Max's complaints of bottoming on the bumpy track also makes me wonder whether the RB suspension is able get the car past the static ride-height test while letting it run closer to the ground than other teams manage and that their technique for achieving this couldn't cope with the Singapore track. Newey's aero skills letting them run close to the ground without the porpoising that others have suffered from.

About ten years ago I created a post in which I made the point that RBR design their cars to pass FIA tests, they don't care about what the rules state once the tests pass. Given they've gotten away with it for ao long I see no reason why this should have changed. They are a bunch of cheats - an absolute scourge on our beloved sport.

[airshifter]

All the shots I've seen on other forums, as well as many of the tech expert types, have indicated that the flexi wing TD would impact AM more than anyone else most likely. And I haven't dug for older race shots yet, but the Merc had an obvious and new carbon reinforcement on the nose mounting point for this race. Though I'm not one for any of the deep conspiracy theories of hidden electro magnetic mechanisms (they do have inspections and scrutineering) the FIA pretty much made sure none of us will find out for sure.

Usually any changes made have to be declared. But any changes made to bring things into compliance with either TD (039 floors or 018 flexi wing/mounts) did not have to be declared. And I really don't like that approach at all. They have made a regulation tougher to pass inspection for, yet allowed anyone that was doing it previously to not be named. In reality, if the regulation without the TD didn't ban it, why not at least state who had to make changes, since the new TD would likely impact their performance?

I like when crafty engineers can fabricate solutions, but I don't like cheating. In this case they aren't letting us know who might have done either. By doing this they could have cost some teams time, when in fact nobody was really cheating. It just doesn't really make much sense to me.

[Steve Boyd]

(they do have inspections and scrutineering)

Yes, they do, but if something is cleverly designed it can take a while to find. How long did it take for the F-Duct (I think that was what it was called?) to be found? Electrical connections and wires leading to the front wings coudl easily be explained away as strain gauge/load cell connections or for tyre temperature measurment. F1 (and motorsport in general) has a very long tradition of finding ways to circumvent the regulations and the teams at the top are usually the ones that are best at finding them.

[airshifter]

TD018 doesn't really deal with flexi wings, it deals more with rigid mounts and surfaces, "rubbery" materials, and intentional rotational trickery.

All wings flex, the FIA knows all wings flex, and if they pass testing they pass testing. What they trying to target is allowing the entire wing sections to rotate, drop, etc. by altering the mounting points, flexibility of the forward section of the nosecone, rear mounts, beam wing mounts to the rear uprights, and such things.

As for the Merc, I've found photos that now lead me to think that what appeared to be reinforcements might just be the contract angle of the panels on certain shots, as they look different race to race with coloration and such.

But I've also seen comparisons of other wings, including Merc. The obviously flex, the outside ends bend back some and essentially the entire wing deforms through load. This is legal per the FIA. What is not legal is allowing that flexing wing to rotate back on the mounts so it becomes more flat, even if it would mean the wing deformed less. One of the FIA articles gave an example of allowing the beam wing to rotate flatter with speed.

But to validate any conspiracy, you have to at least have some evidence. I have no evidence that RB wings are flexing any more than anyone else. TBH I think the Ferrari seems to have the most movement, and I might even review some older stuff on the McLaren, as they seemed to have a lot more "droop" rather than flex, and this might be the kind of thing the FIA are trying to target. Sadly the wing angle shots aren't used much.