Formula 1: why FIA’s battle against flexible wings is still ongoing. The FIA remains vigilant on flexible wings matter.

The issue of flexible wings resurfaces every season and consistently sparks disputes and controversies among teams, who continually push the boundaries of research and development. This has also been the case in 2025, which began with two technical directives specifically addressing wing flexion, both front and rear.

Although this topic has always been central for both teams and the FIA, with ground-effect cars, the exploitation of aeroelasticity has become a fundamental tool in the pursuit of balance. As a result, research in this area has accelerated.

Initially, the Federation believed that the tests already included in the regulations at the end of 2024 were sufficient to keep the phenomenon under control. In fact, in December, the governing body stated that no further changes would be made in 2025 and that the lessons learned in recent seasons would be more relevant for 2026.

Plans Changed After Winter Reviews
However, just a few months later, the plans changed. In January, the Federation announced stricter front-wing flexion tests starting from the Spanish GP. Then, on the eve of the Chinese GP, teams were informed that static tests on the rear wing would be tightened, limiting the allowed opening in the slot gap between the DRS flap and the mainplane to just 0.5 mm.

But what prompted this change in stance? After analyzing all the data and footage gathered over the winter break, the FIA concluded that there was still room to toughen the rules to prevent 2025 from turning into a war between teams. Clearly, behind the scenes, teams always try to pressure the FIA, sometimes even through public statements. The risk was that, without intervention, excessive deformations would occur by mid-season.

This led to the decision to tighten flexion tests, initially only for the front wing, with a regulation that will come into effect from the Spanish GP. Within the paddock, however, not everyone was convinced by the choice to delay enforcement until Barcelona. The FIA could have imposed stricter tests from the first race, but with such short notice, it sought to avoid penalizing teams with fewer resources.

“There will always be complaints. We have a cost cap, and front wings are very expensive. In December, some teams have fewer resources and might carry over parts from the previous season. It would have seemed excessive to tell teams in December to discard wings with so little notice. So, we felt it was better to delay a bit,” explained Nikolas Tombazis.

The decision to postpone until Spain was also due to the fact that, before Barcelona, there would be two races on narrow or street circuits, such as Imola and Monaco, where the risk of destroying a front wing is always high. Introducing new wings before Barcelona could have jeopardized teams’ spare part supplies in case of accidents.

Why the Mini-DRS Was Targeted Immediately
Another key issue is the mini-DRS. After Baku, the FIA had already taken steps to curb excessive rear-end flexibility with McLaren’s now-famous mini-DRS, first banning its use and later adding a specific rule to the regulations to make it officially illegal. However, after winter reviews, doubts emerged about whether the measures taken were sufficient.

“We thought what we had done for the mini-DRS was enough, but we weren’t entirely sure. That’s why we requested cameras on the cars to monitor the situation, and during the Bahrain tests, it became clear that it wasn’t sufficient,” added Nikolas Tombazis.

“Rather than letting the situation escalate into a long series of media statements, photos, and complaints, we felt it was better to take decisive action. We also believed that the necessary modifications were relatively feasible for the teams most affected.”

Unlike the front-wing case, the FIA acted swiftly, intervening decisively in China, the second race of the season. However, there were specific reasons for this. Modifying a front wing is complex and involves multiple components. In contrast, the rear wing consists of fewer elements, making the necessary adjustments easier.

Not surprisingly, the teams involved—at least four or five according to the FIA, including Alpine and Haas—managed to modify their wings in time for the Chinese GP by reinforcing components to make them more rigid. The decision to enforce the rule in Shanghai was also influenced by the track’s long straights, which could have fueled controversy, so the FIA opted to shut down the issue preemptively.

At least four or five teams are believed to be involved, according to Nikolas Tombazis. Alpine and Haas admitted they had to make modifications, while McLaren, one of the teams under the most scrutiny, denied being at the center of the issue, although doubts remain.

Is This the End of the Mini-DRS? Potentially Yes, But…
Not all wings are suited to certain types of aeroelasticity, and static tests often provide only partial answers, failing to offer a complete picture. For this reason, the governing body has decided to use additional monitoring tools, including cameras, to further scrutinize flexibility.

According to Nikolas Tombazis, there was a clear correlation between the static tests and the data collected from onboard high-definition cameras. Essentially, these measures complement each other: “We found a clear correlation between the deflection measured in the FIA test and what we observed with the cameras.”

However, rear-wing flexibility remains a contentious issue, as teams constantly seek cutting-edge solutions. If necessary, the FIA could tighten the regulations further by reducing the slot-gap tolerance below the current 0.5 mm or by closely examining the “play” present in certain DRS mechanisms.

“Saying I’m confident [that the mini-DRS is no longer a problem] might be a bit of an overstatement, but I hope it’s enough. We could further reduce the tolerance if needed, or we could start analyzing the DRS mechanism in more detail to understand how it’s set up. For now, I think we’re fine, but I don’t want this to be taken as overconfidence.”

“We believe that a car that complies with FIA tests is fundamentally legal, unless there are hidden mechanisms relying on non-linear characteristics, temperature effects, or other factors, in which case we would intervene. We also have the right to approach a team and say, ‘Look, you’re pushing things too far—you need to make changes.’”

Essentially, if a team passes the static tests, the FIA considers it compliant, which is why no reports are sent to the stewards. Instead, the governing body intervenes later with more specific regulations, as there are often no clear grounds for a blatant rules violation.

“For example, if a team uses a rubbery material to create a certain level of flexibility. Sometimes we intervene specifically, but we wouldn’t report a team to the stewards if it has passed the tests. However, the regulations allow us to tighten the rules if necessary.”

There’s also a fundamental challenge: real-time monitoring is not easy and would require a dedicated team, similar to track limits enforcement. “We wouldn’t report a team to the stewards just because a camera detects a certain level of flexion. Instead, the camera would allow us to conduct a deeper investigation and determine if there’s something non-linear, a hidden mechanism, or something else, and then take action.

“I’d say we are confident that this is sufficient, but I wouldn’t want to state it definitively because the phenomenon behind this effect is quite complex. That’s why we will continue to use cameras and keep monitoring to ensure everything remains under control. For now, we think things are fine.”