From the upcoming Singapore Grand Prix, the FIA’s Technical Directive TD018, which changes the interpretation of rules regarding flexible wings to a more restrictive one, will come into effect. Technical commissioners have noted the emergence of highly sophisticated solutions that conceal mechanisms prohibited by the rules. According to Andrea Stella, McLaren’s team principal, this measure could cost up to one-tenth of performance. It won’t affect Red Bull’s superiority but could change the hierarchy just behind.
On Friday, September 8, Formula 1 teams had to submit their CAD drawings of their wings to the FIA in preparation for the introduction of Technical Directive TD018 at the Singapore Grand Prix. This directive will make the interpretation of wing flexibility more restrictive, following observations by technical commissioners led by Tim Goss, who had seen an exaggeration of certain aerodynamic concepts.
TD018 had been issued to the teams before the Dutch Grand Prix because the FIA had noticed “specially designed areas of flexibility” and “relative movements between adjacent components” aimed at improving aerodynamic performance. Therefore, the International Federation decided to act by invoking Article 3.2.2 of the Formula 1 Technical Regulations, which stipulates that all components influencing a car’s aerodynamic performance must be: “rigidly secured and immobile with respect to their frame of reference defined in Article 3.3. Furthermore, these components must always produce a uniform, solid, hard, continuous, and impermeable surface.”
At Monza, we had discussed this with Nikolas Tombazis, FIA’s Head of Single Seater Technical Matters, trying to understand the rationale behind this intervention, even though the components used so far had always passed static conformity checks.
“In the Formula 1 regulations, we have many flexibility criteria: there are loads we apply, and allowable deflections. These are the static tests we perform for verification. Obviously, these tests are never perfect because the load direction you apply is always slightly different from the load you find on the track in terms of genuine aerodynamic force. There can be differences, which is why there are some additional more generic and conceptual specifications in the regulations that essentially prohibit mechanisms.”
“One could design a wing that, when subjected to the FIA test forces, appears to be fixed, but maybe when any other load with a different center of pressure is applied, it might become more flexible. For this reason, for years, we have clarified that mechanisms are not legal and have issued several clarifications on what we consider a mechanism.”
“If under a carbon surface, we have levers that allow deflection in one direction and not in another, we can consider this a mechanism. Another thing we have said in the past is unacceptable is when a component has relative movement compared to an adjacent element, i.e., it slides on the drift. What has happened recently? Some teams have adjacent components that have quite a high movement, but they don’t slide because these areas are covered with rubber material. We don’t find this acceptable, and that’s why we issued a clarification.”
This mainly occurs in the front wings, between one flap section and another?
“Yes, but we also look at the junction between the wing and the nose, rather than the lower rear wing in the junction with the crash structure on one side or the side drift on the other.”
What types of flexing have you seen?
“We have observed some rotations, and we analyze them with the teams because we have study sessions with them. So, on the track, we open one of their components to see what’s underneath or we look at their CAD drawings to better understand how the various elements work.”
So, there is collaboration with the teams?
“Not that they want to, but they have to. Lately, we have seen drawings where they were exaggerating: the trend was evident, so we intervened with a more severe clarification.”
Yet, you allowed teams to develop slots that increase the outwash effect in the side wall of the front wing, and this increased flow passage risks dirtying the wake, in contrast to your regulatory philosophy that should have allowed the cars to follow closely…
“We have the right to act on flexibility when we see something that doesn’t convince us because the regulations say that cars should be infinitely rigid. In reality, we know that it is not so, and therefore there is the right to apply common sense. The regulations do not allow us to act on anything we don’t like on the cars. There are several aspects in the interpretation of aerodynamic regulations that we do not like at the moment, but to change something, you would have to activate the procedures that require a broad consensus (eight out of ten teams): sometimes we have tried to change things, but we have not always achieved the desired result. I believe that 90% of the regulations meet what we wanted, and there is a 10% that, in hindsight, we could have done better.”
We asked Andrea Stella, McLaren’s team principal, how much TD018 will affect performance in Singapore…
“No more than a tenth of a second,” replied the Orvieto engineer. “It won’t be enough to change the order at the top, but it could have effects on the group just behind Red Bull, as there are many teams within a couple of tenths. We’ll see at Marina Bay…”
Leave a Reply