[Official] Japanese Grand Prix 2023: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 17 of 23

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I saw this video on TikTok. I thought it was Alpine but I admit I wasn't paying that much attention.

It's harsh to link it to Ted as part of a leak - it was 100% the teams fault. They were just walking down the pit lane and the floor came out in full view in front of them on camera.

Yeah it was Alpha Tauri during Ted's Notebook, I was watching it on tele when it happened.

Ted's Notebook - the very same segment that happens at every single race in either the pitlane or the paddock. 100% Alpha Tauri's fault, but I'm not sure the team dead last in the Championship is going to get many others looking at their innovations.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Richard C

But this also reminds me a bit of the 1995 Toyota cheat for their WRC car in which it was not obvious when looking at the design, but rather how it was assemble in a way to allow for some air to bypass the restrictor. The point being even the diagrams may not show/expose any "creativity" that may not be legal.

I'd say it would be a lot more difficult to spot a flexi-wing in a design drawing than a restrictor bypass device. Deflection tests are really the only answer, or give up and allow wings to flex (but I wonder where that would end up ).

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

I'd say it would be a lot more difficult to spot a flexi-wing in a design drawing than a restrictor bypass device. Deflection tests are really the only answer, or give up and allow wings to flex (but I wonder where that would end up ).

I suspect much of what they are trying to do is put some fear into the teams that they can't rely upon just meeting the deflection tests and then consider their solutions golden.

That there is an unwritten rule that some aero movement is enviable and by extension allowable, but that if teams are being overly creative in this area, that the FIA/stewards can just drop the hammer and decide the item in question has illegal moveable aero and can't be used.

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/wh...down/10518560/

Based upon the details outlines in the article above, it sounds like the FIA knows how teams are doing this. I think part of calling this out publicly was a nice way to say "We know what you are doing, so stop it before we call you out."

Richard

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Based upon the details outlines in the article above, it sounds like the FIA knows how teams are doing this. I think part of calling this out publicly was a nice way to say "We know what you are doing, so stop it before we call you out."

Richard

I think you're vastly overestimating the FIA.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

I think you're vastly overestimating the FIA.

How so. Explain.

(Edit: To be fair, "FIA" covers the entire organization. I think we both understand I am talking about those FIA technical delegates who manage and perform the technical scrutineering for the race weekends)

Richard

[Richard C]

Another (older) article to look at and it provides more specifics as to what TD018 is about

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...aled/10513312/

It calls out four items...

1) Wing elements that can translate vertically, longitudinally or laterally relative to the bodywork that they are fixed to.

2) Wing elements that can rotate relative to the bodywork that they are fixed to, such as rotating around one fixing.

3) Designs that utilise elastomeric fillets, compliant sections of wing profile or thin flexible laminate at a junction that can either distort, deflect out of plane or twist to permit localised deflection relative to the bodywork the component is attached to.

4) Designs that utilise ‘soft’ trailing edges to wing elements to prevent ‘localised cracking’ as the result of component assembly deflection.

The first two basically are saying "wing elements are not able to move in any of the six degrees of freedom". The last two specifically call out methods they know or suspect are being used. I would broadly say that number three attacks all types of "flexure" designs be it using material, physical design or both. Item number four is a bit more interesting as it seems to target a very specific method.

In short... #1 & #2 (don't move the wings) #3, (don't use any mechanism that allows for any movement) and #4 (don't use this specific mechanism).

As #4 is the only mechanism called out in detail, does that mean that they know ALL mechanisms that may currently or in the future exist? No, but I think #3 is pretty telling. Especially if they look for design and/or construction details. While TrapezeArtist says he thinks it will be hard to spot flexure designs in the drawings, I actually don't agree with that. While wings are complex in shape and maybe in construction, odd narrowing of materials, odd material selection, change in material, or odd moving/sliding of materials will jump out as potential flexure designs.

Will wings continue to move? Yes, the technical experts in FIA know you can't have zero movement (in effect items #1 and #2 are restating "no moveable aerodynamic parts), but they will be suspicious of strategic movement. And yes, there will continue to be a cat and mouse game.

Richard