TD039

[henry]

Here’s the appropriate section of the regs:

3.15.8 Central Floor Flexibility
a. Bodywork within RV-PLANK may deflect no more than 2mm at the two holes in the plank at XF=1080 and no more than 2mm at the rearmost hole, when the car, without driver, is supported at these positions. The car will be supported on 70mm diameter pads, centred on the holes, and only in contact with the underside of the plank assembly. The displacement will be measured at the supports, relative to the reference plane at the centre of each hole.

b. Bodywork on the reference plane may deflect no more than 0.2mm when the car, without driver, is supported at the two holes in the plank at XF=1080 and at the rearmost hole in the plank. The car will be supported on 40mm diameter pads, centred on the holes, and only contacting the bodywork on the reference plane. For the two holes at XF=1080 the displacement will be measured at the supports, relative to the survival cell datum points detailed in Article 3.2.6. For the rearmost hole the displacement will be measured at the support, relative to the power unit at the uppermost transmission mounting studs detailed in Article 5.4.8.

The 0.2mm requirement suggests they expect the floor to be pretty stiff.

[Henk_v]

Here’s the appropriate section of the regs:

3.15.8 Central Floor Flexibility
a. Bodywork within RV-PLANK may deflect no more than 2mm at the two holes in the plank at XF=1080 and no more than 2mm at the rearmost hole, when the car, without driver, is supported at these positions. The car will be supported on 70mm diameter pads, centred on the holes, and only in contact with the underside of the plank assembly. The displacement will be measured at the supports, relative to the reference plane at the centre of each hole.

b. Bodywork on the reference plane may deflect no more than 0.2mm when the car, without driver, is supported at the two holes in the plank at XF=1080 and at the rearmost hole in the plank. The car will be supported on 40mm diameter pads, centred on the holes, and only contacting the bodywork on the reference plane. For the two holes at XF=1080 the displacement will be measured at the supports, relative to the survival cell datum points detailed in Article 3.2.6. For the rearmost hole the displacement will be measured at the support, relative to the power unit at the uppermost transmission mounting studs detailed in Article 5.4.8.

The 0.2mm requirement suggests they expect the floor to be pretty stiff.

So a clear case of "the entire floor may not deflect" in a very specific measuring situation, nothing on how it flexes in any other situation.

[DChemTech]

Here’s the appropriate section of the regs:

3.15.8 Central Floor Flexibility
a. Bodywork within RV-PLANK may deflect no more than 2mm at the two holes in the plank at XF=1080 and no more than 2mm at the rearmost hole, when the car, without driver, is supported at these positions. The car will be supported on 70mm diameter pads, centred on the holes, and only in contact with the underside of the plank assembly. The displacement will be measured at the supports, relative to the reference plane at the centre of each hole.

b. Bodywork on the reference plane may deflect no more than 0.2mm when the car, without driver, is supported at the two holes in the plank at XF=1080 and at the rearmost hole in the plank. The car will be supported on 40mm diameter pads, centred on the holes, and only contacting the bodywork on the reference plane. For the two holes at XF=1080 the displacement will be measured at the supports, relative to the survival cell datum points detailed in Article 3.2.6. For the rearmost hole the displacement will be measured at the support, relative to the power unit at the uppermost transmission mounting studs detailed in Article 5.4.8.

The 0.2mm requirement suggests they expect the floor to be pretty stiff.

That all does sound like conditional regulations - and I do suppose the car(s) meet this regulation under the mentioned conditions (otherwise, it'd really be rather stupid).

If this is all there is, without anything like 'the plank may not deflect more than x mm under any circumstance', it does sound an awful lot like the wings last year. Written-down tests that are being met, 'unwritten rules' that are allegedly being violated, which is then countered by new tests with new criteria that hence change the quantitative rules. So far, it seems the FIA learned very little. But let's see how it plays out; I still cannot claim I have a fully clear picture of the situation, so I may be mistaken.

[henry]

Here’s the appropriate section of the regs:

3.15.8 Central Floor Flexibility
a. Bodywork within RV-PLANK may deflect no more than 2mm at the two holes in the plank at XF=1080 and no more than 2mm at the rearmost hole, when the car, without driver, is supported at these positions. The car will be supported on 70mm diameter pads, centred on the holes, and only in contact with the underside of the plank assembly. The displacement will be measured at the supports, relative to the reference plane at the centre of each hole.

b. Bodywork on the reference plane may deflect no more than 0.2mm when the car, without driver, is supported at the two holes in the plank at XF=1080 and at the rearmost hole in the plank. The car will be supported on 40mm diameter pads, centred on the holes, and only contacting the bodywork on the reference plane. For the two holes at XF=1080 the displacement will be measured at the supports, relative to the survival cell datum points detailed in Article 3.2.6. For the rearmost hole the displacement will be measured at the support, relative to the power unit at the uppermost transmission mounting studs detailed in Article 5.4.8.

The 0.2mm requirement suggests they expect the floor to be pretty stiff.

That all does sound like conditional regulations - and I do suppose the car(s) meet this regulation under the mentioned conditions (otherwise, it'd really be rather stupid).

If this is all there is, without anything like 'the plank may not deflect more than x mm under any circumstance', it does sound an awful lot like the wings last year. Written-down tests that are being met, 'unwritten rules' that are allegedly being violated, which is then countered by new tests with new criteria that hence change the quantitative rules. So far, it seems the FIA learned very little. But let's see how it plays out; I still cannot claim I have a fully clear picture of the situation, so I may be mistaken.

Two other clauses are also effective.

3.2.2 says all bodywork must be rigid.

3.2.15 says that if they suspect non-conformity with 3.2.2 they reserve the right to introduce new tests.

So now we have new regs and potentially new ways of transgressing 3.2.2.

Personally I think RB may be twisting the floor when cornering. So the floor passes the tests with loads normal to the surface but might fail offset tests. That is not be rigid.

I think the bib and skate may be implicated in this. It’s not clear to me how the skate passes the 3.2.2 prohibition on bridging between car and ground. Perhaps because it meets the letter of the edge wing rules.

I think the FIA is keen, has always been keen, to avoid a bodywork flexibility arms race. No doubt we will see what happens come France.

[DChemTech]

3.2.2 seems iffy though, since complete rigidity is not possible, as for the wings of last year. So it again seems there is physically unrealizable regulation, with tolerance margins that are prescribed under very specific conditions (which are likely being met by all teams), but not in general.

[henry]

3.2.2 seems iffy though, since complete rigidity is not possible, as for the wings of last year. So it again seems there is physically unrealizable regulation, with tolerance margins that are prescribed under very specific conditions (which are likely being met by all teams), but not in general.

It means that if you deliberately design to be non rigid in some orientation you’re not trying to meet this requirement. The FIA are the arbiters of this rule, not you, not me, not the teams.

[DChemTech]

3.2.2 seems iffy though, since complete rigidity is not possible, as for the wings of last year. So it again seems there is physically unrealizable regulation, with tolerance margins that are prescribed under very specific conditions (which are likely being met by all teams), but not in general.

It means that if you deliberately design to be non rigid in some orientation you’re not trying to meet this requirement. The FIA are the arbiters of this rule, not you, not me, not the teams.

Sure, but intent is hard to prove without having a clear, quantitative definition of what constitutes 'non-rigid'; and qualitative rules near impossible to enforce fairly. Especially in a sport where the game basically is to operate on the edges of the allowed, it is essential to have clear, under all circumstances, where those edges are. And from what I've seen so far that is not the case. The FIA should know better, or at least have learned from last year. Anyway, I clearly have my reservations, but let's see what the exact alleged infringements and changes are before drawing any judgements.

[henry]

3.2.2 seems iffy though, since complete rigidity is not possible, as for the wings of last year. So it again seems there is physically unrealizable regulation, with tolerance margins that are prescribed under very specific conditions (which are likely being met by all teams), but not in general.

It means that if you deliberately design to be non rigid in some orientation you’re not trying to meet this requirement. The FIA are the arbiters of this rule, not you, not me, not the teams.

Sure, but intent is hard to prove without having a clear, quantitative definition of what constitutes 'non-rigid'; and qualitative rules near impossible to enforce fairly. Especially in a sport where the game basically is to operate on the edges of the allowed, it is essential to have clear, under all circumstances, where those edges are. And from what I've seen so far that is not the case. The FIA should know better, or at least have learned from last year. Anyway, I clearly have my reservations, but let's see what the exact alleged infringements and changes are before drawing any judgements.

Agreed we need to see what is said and done come France. From reports I have seen that the FIA want to review CAD and FEA, I think their approach will be to discover “intent”, if any, and then devise measurement rules to defeat that intent, if needed.

[Sieper]

It means that if you deliberately design to be non rigid in some orientation you’re not trying to meet this requirement. The FIA are the arbiters of this rule, not you, not me, not the teams.

Sure, but intent is hard to prove without having a clear, quantitative definition of what constitutes 'non-rigid'; and qualitative rules near impossible to enforce fairly. Especially in a sport where the game basically is to operate on the edges of the allowed, it is essential to have clear, under all circumstances, where those edges are. And from what I've seen so far that is not the case. The FIA should know better, or at least have learned from last year. Anyway, I clearly have my reservations, but let's see what the exact alleged infringements and changes are before drawing any judgements.

Agreed we need to see what is said and done come France. From reports I have seen that the FIA want to review CAD and FEA, I think their approach will be to discover “intent”, if any, and then devise measurement rules to defeat that intent, if needed.

Agreed, this seems to be the way. Let’s see how it all goes. Makes me wonder why they take such a different approach to last year.

But, show and tell is also new and I am quite sure FIA is intent on really bringing the teams closer together. Not have another decade of total dominance. That was not good for the sport (s commercial value). Years like last year bring the viewers in.

[Stu]

Please discuss technical matters around TD039 here. Avoid the team/car threads and keep it technical!!!!

[DChemTech]

Sure, but intent is hard to prove without having a clear, quantitative definition of what constitutes 'non-rigid'; and qualitative rules near impossible to enforce fairly. Especially in a sport where the game basically is to operate on the edges of the allowed, it is essential to have clear, under all circumstances, where those edges are. And from what I've seen so far that is not the case. The FIA should know better, or at least have learned from last year. Anyway, I clearly have my reservations, but let's see what the exact alleged infringements and changes are before drawing any judgements.

Agreed we need to see what is said and done come France. From reports I have seen that the FIA want to review CAD and FEA, I think their approach will be to discover “intent”, if any, and then devise measurement rules to defeat that intent, if needed.

Agreed, this seems to be the way. Let’s see how it all goes. Makes me wonder why they take such a different approach to last year.

But, show and tell is also new and I am quite sure FIA is intent on really bringing the teams closer together. Not have another decade of total dominance. That was not good for the sport (s commercial value). Years like last year bring the viewers in.

Yes, there is a lot to say for show and tell. Sure teams will feel exposed and robbed from a chance to differentiate, but if F1 is regarded as a sports and not a business competition, an open level playing field is important.

[TimW]

In my opinion they should strive for fully explicit regulations, and avoid anything interpretable like 'should be rigid'. If there is a loophole, close it next year.

If they want rigid, they should state 'no part of the floor may deflect more than x mm during at any time during the race'. It may be a limit that is hard to monitor, but the rule is clear, and then they have the full uncontroversial right to come up with new tests or sensors to monitor.

Loopholes are great. The regulations limit the teams, and part of this sport is to find things that are allowed. Mercedes mirror support wing structure combined with no undercut minipods is a result of a loophole. It was never something the regulations intended to allow. And isn't that one of the standout things this year, that we all love here on this site?

So my opinion on this one: if teams are using a floor flex loophole, just let the other teams also use it. Close it for next year.

[DChemTech]

In my opinion they should strive for fully explicit regulations, and avoid anything interpretable like 'should be rigid'. If there is a loophole, close it next year.

If they want rigid, they should state 'no part of the floor may deflect more than x mm during at any time during the race'. It may be a limit that is hard to monitor, but the rule is clear, and then they have the full uncontroversial right to come up with new tests or sensors to monitor.

Loopholes are great. The regulations limit the teams, and part of this sport is to find things that are allowed. Mercedes mirror support wing structure combined with no undercut minipods is a result of a loophole. It was never something the regulations intended to allow. And isn't that one of the standout things this year, that we all love here on this site?

So my opinion on this one: if teams are using a floor flex loophole, just let the other teams also use it. Close it for next year.

100% agree

[henry]

In my opinion they should strive for fully explicit regulations, and avoid anything interpretable like 'should be rigid'. If there is a loophole, close it next year.

If they want rigid, they should state 'no part of the floor may deflect more than x mm during at any time during the race'. It may be a limit that is hard to monitor, but the rule is clear, and then they have the full uncontroversial right to come up with new tests or sensors to monitor.

Loopholes are great. The regulations limit the teams, and part of this sport is to find things that are allowed. Mercedes mirror support wing structure combined with no undercut minipods is a result of a loophole. It was never something the regulations intended to allow. And isn't that one of the standout things this year, that we all love here on this site?

So my opinion on this one: if teams are using a floor flex loophole, just let the other teams also use it. Close it for next year.

So if I set x to 0mm I’ve got the current regulation.

I think that they should wait for next year to make a change but in the meantime publicise the behaviour of which they disapprove so that teams can be aware of what is needed for next years cars, and in the meantime decide if they want to take advantage of the “loophole” this season.

[TimW]

So if I set x to 0mm I’ve got the current regulation.

I think that they should wait for next year to make a change but in the meantime publicise the behaviour of which they disapprove so that teams can be aware of what is needed for next years cars, and in the meantime decide if they want to take advantage of the “loophole” this season.

Then all cars are illegal, and it is impossible to make a legal car. There is a reason the test criterion is not 0 mm.

Next you get into a 'your car is more legal then mine' discussion, and it gets purely subjective.

The simple thing is that all these 'rigid' requirements without a quantification are utterly stupid, whether for this or for aero surfaces etc. Everything deflects. So they engineer to the quantified criteria they have.

Publish all the loopholes teams find would be great for us, not sure if doing it now is fair. But sending out updated regulations for next year (about time I guess?) would give teams a pretty good idea what is going on. For sure I would love to see a publication detailing all the loopholes teams have exploited and how they are closed.