Race Two : 2025 China Grandprix [Shanghai International]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Jones

How does the FIA test the wings? Do the team submit body work for testing, or does the FIA test the cars at a circuit?

---

They take a test rig to each car and use it to apply pressure to certain points on the wing and measure the deflections and gap openings. If the deflections are within spec; pass otherwise fail. Unfortunately, l don't know much about the rig that would be used in China.

With all the logistics problems that have caused cars to arrive very late to Shanghai, l wonder if they would have the time to perform the test before the race. I suspect they may have to perform the test after the race. I am speculating. That may defeat the purpose of the test, as the flexibility of the car before the race is not the same as one that has undergone structurally altering vibrations by the end of the race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Tests are at the circuit.

Flexiwings have been under FIA scrutiny for some time now. Since some teams had already invested the time to make them, the FIA gave some leeway and decided not to change testing until Spain. What the teams in turn did was make the rear wings deform in new and other ways, to a point that the FIA decided to clamp down on the rear wings now. AFAIK front wing tests still won't change until Spain.


Personally I think they are like dogs chasing their tails. Highly flexing front wings go back quite some time, and usually testing does little to change things. They need better tests if they want to stop it, but more importantly they need to decide what, as well as what not, to allow. More than anything they need to prioritize only making changes during the off season. If a wing is legal then let it race through the season, and make the change at seasons end. If it's not legal, such as the mini DRS flexing, then clarify that quickly and cause compliance.

---

I agree, l fail to see why the already stringent stiffness of the wing is not enough. It is not a safety thing, hence it must be a performance thing. The FIA should be leaving this sort of thing for the teams to sort out among themselves. If there is time to be found there, then every team should adopt it if they can. The in-season changes in regulation are disruptive and add unnecessary cost to the team's very tight budget. These interruptions seem like gimmicks of the FIA to tweak who wins and how they win the championships. From a fan's perspective, it is over-regulating and counter-intuitive to their cost-saving initiative.

All of this fuss is for 0.25mm. Madness

I say that l really don't know how such a small deflection is translated into performance. It might be a big deal if an ingenious engineer has found a way to make this deflection contribute transient added performance when the car is in motion. Even so, l think it can level out if each team adopt it if they can. Which l think, is a more efficient way of sorting it out.

Thank you for all of the responses.
I am guessing that due to the sheer speeds that the wings are going to flex and that the FIA is setting regulations on how much they can allowed to flex?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Jones

Thank you for all of the responses.
I am guessing that due to the sheer speeds that the wings are going to flex and that the FIA is setting regulations on how much they can allowed to flex?

---

The problem is they have reduced how much it flexes to the point where the wings are going to need to be highly stiff. I suspect that may have over-specified, l am thinking lots of teams are going to fall foul of this regulation. Stiffer wings add more weight to the car. The teams would need to find other areas in the car to remove the weight they are putting on the wings.

Unfortunately, this regulation would punish the midfield teams the most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Jones

Thank you for all of the responses.
I am guessing that due to the sheer speeds that the wings are going to flex and that the FIA is setting regulations on how much they can allowed to flex?

---

Well, yes and no, and that is where the problems come into the picture.

This most recent change with rear wing tests is that the teams are claimed to have exploited a new approach. Rather than the end parts of the wing flewing upwards, the gap from upper to lower element of the wings is getting wider. Essentially it's still bleeding off drag as it goes faster. But per the regs, passing the static tests deems it legal. Because of that, FIA has to clarify exactly what they consider ignoring the rules..... which often aren't very clear. And a static test won't show aeroelasticity, account for vibration and high track temps, etc. So it ends up being like a dog chasing its tail.

It's not like the flexiwings are new at all, they have been around for years. And in the case of RB, I can see their frustration with the FIA. Back in 2011 the FIA changed static wing tests due to RB having too much flex. Not that it was ever illegal per the tests, but when the other teams made an issue of it the tests were changed. Fast forward to 2021 and a technical directive is issued that seemed to target the RB rear wing. Front wings flexing came more and more into play again, yet nobody seemed to pay much attention. McLaren had the rear wing used only for a couple of races last season and deemed not legal to use any longer.... but nobody got disqualified. Was it legal, or not legal? Similar to RB, it was IMHO legal, they simply had to "outlaw" it and make a new rule.

So while all of that is going on, RB ask for clarifcation on the front wing regs. The FIA decides they are flexing too much once again, and they will change it. But then they decided not to change it until part way through the following (this) season. To me it seems as if every time a yes/no question is asked of the FIA, the answer is maybe/eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Jones

Thank you for all of the responses.
I am guessing that due to the sheer speeds that the wings are going to flex and that the FIA is setting regulations on how much they can allowed to flex?

---

At a certain speed, the air rushing over the wings literally feels like the wing is passing through a body of fluid. Like passing a slim plastic blade fast through water for instance. Due to the sheer weight of the volume of air passing over the wing, a downward force builds up on the wing which at some point forces the wing to deflect, simple Newton's Law of physics. The wings are designed to deflect under load to absorb this force. As such, under load, the wing takes on a new shape which translates the downward force into lowering the car for improved drag efficiency and transfers the force to the tyres to increase grip. But there is a third factor, the reshaped format of the deflected wing redefines the airflow characteristics over the car, which is where those with deflecting wings are probably making gains.

Where the FIA is forcing teams to reduce the deflection of the wings, the risk of the wings becoming stiffer and brittle increases. If the wings do not deflect to absorb the forces, they are likely to load up until they snap. Which is where the new risk is being opened on the cars. We don't know how the wings would snap. Are they going to be a clean fracture with big chunks or with possibly smaller bits? With smaller bits, we could have very dangerous projectiles that may be flung out to following cars. One such projectile blinded Helmet Marko in one eye, bringing his racing career to a premature end.

This is why these in-season changes in regulation such as these, which are not backed by research and testing to establish the safety aspects of the change are worrying.

So there is a conflict of opinion going on between the engineers and the FIA. The FIA has reduced deflection to 0.75mm maximum from 1cm. The engineers now need to make the wing stiffer by either making it thicker or using a different material that can deflect less but have a lower weight penalty. The side effect of this regulation is that the car may gain some weight as a consequence and the teams would have to expend cost to research, design, test and manufacture a new wing in-season. As such the teams have unplanned costs to factor into their budget for the season.

So you could say the FIA is making the cars heavier and increasing the spend of the teams as a consequence.

With regards to my saying the FIA is influencing the championship outcome by these in-season changes, it is simply a matter of "Observers Effect", any change introduced by the FIA shifts benefit from one contestant to another unwittingly or intentionally. So the FIA cannot on one hand claim F1 is a free and fair platform of competition if they are actively meddling with the outcome with unplanned in-season changes in regulation. This is why the argument for the FIA to set the regulations at the beginning of the season and leave the teams to trash it out amongst themselves is the best approach. It then goes down to the ingenuity of the teams to think their way to the front of the grid through the season.

The development war between the teams is an important component of F1 racing. It is the main factor that sets the formula above all others. Over-regulating this aspect is like stifling the formula, sucking the very life out of it. Putting the teams through treacle is not entertaining. The constructor's championship is based on this development war.

Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen's Ghost Car Lap Comparison | 2025 Chinese Grand Prix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXuAf8ly6hs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbazsi95

Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen's Ghost Car Lap Comparison | 2025 Chinese Grand Prix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXuAf8ly6hs

---

Wow, Hamilton on sprint pole! That was unexpected but very special.

The ghost car lap shows how unstable the Ferrari was. Hamilton was going left and right compared to Verstappen who had a more stable and balanced car, but unfortunately slower. The Ferrari just seemed to rocket away from the Redbull on the straight. At this stage, the Ferrari is not quite at McLarens performance levels, but close enough to give them a hard time this season.

I heavily criticised Ferrari for their performance at Melbourne, but they have responded with a great start to this weekend with Sprint pole. Hammy is still not where he likes to be with the car, but we can now see the enormous potential building in the scarlet 44 car.

Once again, Yuki sticks a finger out at Redbull with a brilliant top-ten grid position as Lawson languishes out in SQ1. I am enjoying this developing embarrassment as Yuki's performance all year would constantly remind Redbull of their bad decision.

When you fail to be objective, this is what happens; egg in the face moments like this.

Is the second Red Bull sabotaged or are the second drivers just that bad?