Teams to face tougher front wing tests


Formula 1 teams will face tougher front wing tests next year, with the FIA keen to clamp down on team's exploiting the flexible bodywork rules.

Although the governing body tightened up the wing flexibility tests for this year - with a 1000N force applied 790mm ahead of the front wheel centre line – that has not stopped suggestions that some teams are still trying to get around the rules.

At the Japanese Grand Prix this year the FIA trialled a different location for the tests, and it has decided that tests will be done differently for 2013.

Speaking at the United States Grand Prix, F1 race director Charlie Whiting said that four independent tests will now be used on front wings next year.

"I think rigidity, or lack of it, on some front wings has been the subject of a lot of discussion," he explained. "We've attempted to introduce some new tests, which not only tests its vertical deflection but also torsional stiffness of the front wing as well. And we're going to take a step further next year as well.

"It will be a matter of applying the load. At the moment we apply the load at 790mm forward of the front axle. We are going to move that forward 15cm and back 15cm – so we will do two tests [in those areas]."

Whiting also said he had no concerns about the visible flexibility of the nose tip of the Red Bull car - which was highlighted in video of it during a pit stop at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix – as all cars feature lighter than normal bodywork in that area.

"What you saw on the Red Bull at the last race was extreme, as they had cameras on that part and the guy was actually twisting those cameras to try and get the nose off," he said.

"I think if other cars had cameras mounted in those places and they did the same thing to get the nose off then they would do something very similar.

"We are satisfied that the Red Bull car is no more flexible than anybody else in that area so it was a rather strange phenomenon – which I don't think anyone was expecting to see – but there was a perfectly logical explanation for it."

View comments (3)