The Chinese GP weekend opened with a significant technical development, namely the FIA’s crackdown on rear wing flexibility tests. Specifically, the Federation has imposed stricter tests to ensure that the “slot gap,” the distance between the DRS flap and the mainplane of the wing, does not exceed a certain size, effectively preventing the creation of a “mini-DRS.”
With the new measurements, when a vertical load of 75 kg is applied to one end of the wing, the allowed movement has been reduced from the original 2 millimeters to just 0.5 millimeters—a fourfold reduction compared to what was permitted until the Australian GP.
However, due to the short notice given to the teams, an additional tolerance of 0.25 millimeters will be allowed only for the Chinese GP weekend. The FIA deemed this measure necessary after reviewing all footage and data collected from the first race weekend in Melbourne, concluding that there was room to make the tests more stringent.
Attention quickly turned to at least four teams, especially considering that some had already pointed fingers at rivals during pre-season testing in Bahrain, raising the first doubts about the legality of certain solutions.
Alpine and Haas: modifications required for the TD
Alpine and Haas were the first teams to admit they had to modify the geometry of their rear wings to ensure that the slot gap remained within the new parameters set by the Technical Directive effective from the Chinese GP.
Alpine’s new Racing Director, Dave Greenwood, confirmed that the Enstone team was among those that had to make adjustments: “There has been a change in the technical directive for this weekend, and we have complied with it on both occasions,” Dave Greenwood explained.
“We had to do some work at the factory to make sure we were in the correct position here [in China], but I think that’s quite normal in these situations. When the rules on flexibility change, you have to check that you can comply with them as well.”
Greenwood did not go into detail about the specific changes to the wing, though it is likely that the team sought to stiffen certain elements as a temporary solution given the short notice. However, he praised the team for quickly developing a solution that adhered to the new regulations.
“I won’t go into details, but there was work to be done to ensure everything was compliant. It has been done, and we are good to go. As you can imagine, the timeframe was tight, so there wasn’t room for anything revolutionary, but yes, there are things we can do to ensure compliance.”
Haas Team Principal Ayao Komatsu also revealed that his team had to make changes to the rear wing to adapt to the new directive, as it was only marginally within the new parameters. This does not mean a complete redesign of the wing, which remains unchanged, but rather modifications to certain rigidity aspects to ensure compliance.
McLaren denies and looks at its rivals
Among the teams under scrutiny in recent days was McLaren, one of the teams that has invested the most in this area and was already at the center of the “mini-DRS” controversy last year, a topic that has resurfaced at the start of this season.
However, yesterday, Lando Norris pointed out that the Woking-based team did not have to modify any components and that the new rule was aimed at other teams. This was echoed by Technical Director Neil Houldey, who stated that the wing flex observed by McLaren was already below the limit set by the FIA for the Chinese GP, denying that the directive targeted them.
“Fortunately, when we were tested in Melbourne, the numbers the FIA chose to include in the TD were higher than the flex we recorded. This has had no impact on us at this Grand Prix, so our performance should not be affected,” Houldey said on Friday.
It should be noted that in Australia, Norris’s McLaren was subjected to additional wing flex tests after the race. However, the wing tested by the FIA was not the low-downforce version but the medium-downforce wing used for most of the Australian weekend. The engineers initially opted for the lower-drag solution but later switched to the higher-downforce option due to the limited grip on the track.
Leave a Reply