Why ‘mini-DRS’ will not be Formula 1’s last flexi-wing controversy
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 off your rivals, has long been the name of the game in trying to get yourself to the front of the field.
One such battleground this year has been flexi-wings, with interest ramping up at both the front and the rear of various cars.
The situation is quite 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 on the upper flap of McLaren’s rear wing was extremely obvious, given it was something we’ve not witnessed before, it is not the only trick that has been seen in the pitlane this year.
But, as always happens with these things, the probing of rivals depends on how much flexing is being done, and whether it is viewed as taking the Mickey or not.
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.
Red Bull Racing RB16B flecting rear wing
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Ferrari SF21 rear wing FP1, Azerbaijan Grand Prix
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
And, given the FIA requested the teams 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 the sport.
Each regulatory cycle just 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.
Rear wing flap pullback test
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Front wing deflection test loads
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
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 is the case now, 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.
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.
