TD039

[214270]

But where is it stated that 2mm is the plank flex limit for the entire plank? To my knowledge, that is not stated anywhere. All that is stated is that 2mm is the flex limit for that particular location under those particular conditions. It is not at all clear that that would also put the limit for the entire plank at 2mm. In fact, if the limit for a section of the plank is 2mm, it would seem very odd if the limit for the entire plank is also 2mm - it essentially means the rest of the plank cannot flex at all.

Yeah if you’re looking for the word ‘entire’ it doesn’t exist, but I think the genesis needs to be considered. It was always intended to be the entire plank body, then with evolution of the cars the requirements, tolerances & measurements have been revised to suit. Fast forward to present and we a ruleset which is biased towards the plank front for no good reason given the behaviour of the new cars.

I guess the question to ask is why wouldn’t it apply to the entire plank?

Why it wouldn't apply to the entire plank is simple: because the rules do not describe it doing so. They describe it applying to a section under a given test condition. How to floor should behave outside of those conditions, the teams should seemingly guess (or find out via mindreading?).

Clear rules have clear wording. The current rules lack that. And we're in a sport where details matter: if one team 'supposes' it applies to the entire plank while it does not,then that team is on the back foot. If a team 'supposes' it does not apply to the entire plank based on the wording, than that team may suddenly find itself penalized (with all due resources spent) because they misinterpreted (or simply guessed wrong) 'the spirit of the rules'. That's not how sporting regulations should work; spirits belong in the liquor cabinet, not in technical regulations. If the 2mm applies to the entire plank, the rules should state that quantitatively and indisputably.

No I think you’re trying to hang your argument on the omission of the word ‘entire’. I was merely trying to explain how these things evolve into the ruleset & how discrepancies find their way in. Irrespective, I actually believe the rules are robust enough here. It does say 2mm is the limit and specifies the location (the rearmost hole in the plank). The prob is simply testing of this limit occurs (due to legacy reasons) at the front of the plank. Nowhere is a flex greater than 2mm permitted.

[DChemTech]

Yeah if you’re looking for the word ‘entire’ it doesn’t exist, but I think the genesis needs to be considered. It was always intended to be the entire plank body, then with evolution of the cars the requirements, tolerances & measurements have been revised to suit. Fast forward to present and we a ruleset which is biased towards the plank front for no good reason given the behaviour of the new cars.

I guess the question to ask is why wouldn’t it apply to the entire plank?

Why it wouldn't apply to the entire plank is simple: because the rules do not describe it doing so. They describe it applying to a section under a given test condition. How to floor should behave outside of those conditions, the teams should seemingly guess (or find out via mindreading?).

Clear rules have clear wording. The current rules lack that. And we're in a sport where details matter: if one team 'supposes' it applies to the entire plank while it does not,then that team is on the back foot. If a team 'supposes' it does not apply to the entire plank based on the wording, than that team may suddenly find itself penalized (with all due resources spent) because they misinterpreted (or simply guessed wrong) 'the spirit of the rules'. That's not how sporting regulations should work; spirits belong in the liquor cabinet, not in technical regulations. If the 2mm applies to the entire plank, the rules should state that quantitatively and indisputably.

No I think you’re trying to hang your argument on the omission of the word ‘entire’. I was merely trying to explain how these things evolve into the ruleset & how discrepancies find their way in. Irrespective, I actually believe the rules are robust enough here. It does say 2mm is the limit and specifies the location (the rearmost hole in the plank). The prob is simply testing of this limit occurs (due to legacy reasons) at the front of the plank. Nowhere is a flex greater than 2mm permitted.

No, there is much more lacking than just the word entire. To my knowledge, this is is:

"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. "

This only says something about the deflection at the locations of the holes, nothing else. I honestly do not see how this should be interpreted as 'obviously applying to the (entire) plank'.

[TimW]

Vs some of the things that have been brought in mid-season previously, this one is one of the easiest; same test - different plank location. It also addresses something that IMO is not even describable as ‘clever’ interpretation. 2mm is the plank flex limit in the regs and just because they only test in 1 location doesn’t make the 2mm limit disappear in a different plank location.

Only it is not that simple:

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.

So the test load is the car's own weight. When you support at different locations, you get different loads, so a different criterion. So what is your criterion then? same stiffness? and then the same stiffness as the XF1080 holes, or the stiffness at the rearmost hole?
Yes the FIA could have simply set a criterion, but they did not. Like with wings, floor edges etc. The same issue that has been there for years, and they could simply have solved by quantifying a limit.

And I am sure that if they would have put a car on its side at the start of the season, and let us judge the plank area, we would have said it was perfectly rigid.

[Quantum]

3.5.9 s. If positioned entirely inboard of Y=120 and between XF= 425 and XF= 625, must be
fastened directly to the forward floor structure with zero degrees of freedom:

Does this not suggest that flexing of the plank is not permitted?

[TimW]

3.5.9 s. If positioned entirely inboard of Y=120 and between XF= 425 and XF= 625, must be
fastened directly to the forward floor structure with zero degrees of freedom:

Does this not suggest that flexing of the plank is not permitted?

It says that you cannot put a hinge there.

[DChemTech]

3.5.9 s. If positioned entirely inboard of Y=120 and between XF= 425 and XF= 625, must be
fastened directly to the forward floor structure with zero degrees of freedom:

Does this not suggest that flexing of the plank is not permitted?

Well, whether or not the rules say that is not the issue. As mentioned by Henry on page 1, 3.2.2 says all bodywork must be rigid.

The problem is that complete rigidity does not exist, and that there is no general specification on what degree of tolerance is allowed with respect to being judged as being 'rigid'. There are conditional statements (that specify how much flexing is allowed at certain locations, under certain conditions - I expect teams to meet these, otherwise they'd be idiots as that is an invitation for disqualification), but for other locations and conditions what the FIA considers to be rigid seems to be effectively guesswork.

[Pat Pending]

No, there is much more lacking than just the word entire. To my knowledge, this is is:

"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. "

This only says something about the deflection at the locations of the holes, nothing else. I honestly do not see how this should be interpreted as 'obviously applying to the (entire) plank'.
[/quote]

Isn't the next section of that bit of the rules pertinent?

"3.15.8 Central Floor Flexibility
a. Bodywork within RV-PLANK may deflect...
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...."

Doesn't the bit underlined in bold define the entire plank? (If not, can someone explain which bit is RV-PLANK vs reference plane. Thanks)

[DChemTech]

No, there is much more lacking than just the word entire. To my knowledge, this is is:

"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. "

This only says something about the deflection at the locations of the holes, nothing else. I honestly do not see how this should be interpreted as 'obviously applying to the (entire) plank'.

Isn't the next section of that bit of the rules pertinent?

"3.15.8 Central Floor Flexibility
a. Bodywork within RV-PLANK may deflect...
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...."

Doesn't the bit underlined in bold define the entire plank? (If not, can someone explain which bit is RV-PLANK vs reference plane. Thanks)
[/quote]
That could be, still struggling a bit with the exact interpretation of this one. So far, i haven't seen it cited in the press reports, which all focus on the 2mm

[TimW]

No, there is much more lacking than just the word entire. To my knowledge, this is is:

"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. "

This only says something about the deflection at the locations of the holes, nothing else. I honestly do not see how this should be interpreted as 'obviously applying to the (entire) plank'.

Isn't the next section of that bit of the rules pertinent?

"3.15.8 Central Floor Flexibility
a. Bodywork within RV-PLANK may deflect...
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...."

Doesn't the bit underlined in bold define the entire plank? (If not, can someone explain which bit is RV-PLANK vs reference plane. Thanks)

It just says that this section of bodywork may not move more that 0.2 mm during the same test. No load is placed on this bodywork.
It seems a bit like a "although there is no load on this bodywork, it should be sufficiently stiff not to move around" requirement.

Edit: fixed the quoting

[henry]

No, there is much more lacking than just the word entire. To my knowledge, this is is:

"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. "

This only says something about the deflection at the locations of the holes, nothing else. I honestly do not see how this should be interpreted as 'obviously applying to the (entire) plank'.

Isn't the next section of that bit of the rules pertinent?

"3.15.8 Central Floor Flexibility
a. Bodywork within RV-PLANK may deflect...
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...."

Doesn't the bit underlined in bold define the entire plank? (If not, can someone explain which bit is RV-PLANK vs reference plane. Thanks)

It just says that this section of bodywork may not move more that 0.2 mm during the same test. No load is placed on this bodywork.
It seems a bit like a "although there is no load on this bodywork, it should be sufficiently stiff not to move around" requirement.

Edit: fixed the quoting

It’s a different test with smaller diameter supports, that press on the reference plane Through the plank.

It’s interesting in that there is also a requirement that there should be no air gap between the plank assembly and the floor on the reference plane, z=0.

a. The upper surface of the plank assembly must lie at Z=0,so that no air can pass between it and the Floor Body or Bib lower surfaces.

Not sure how the plank can move 2mm but the floor to which it is attached only 0.2mm.

[Zynerji]

3.5.9 s. If positioned entirely inboard of Y=120 and between XF= 425 and XF= 625, must be
fastened directly to the forward floor structure with zero degrees of freedom:

Does this not suggest that flexing of the plank is not permitted?

Not if the floor itself is flexing.

[johnny comelately]

Why does all this matter?
Apart from a rule conformity, why are there such restrictive rules?
So what if an aero device moves, so what if there are a car is short or long.
It wont be long before the quickest design emerges.
Take a perspective step back and discuss the validity of most of the rules.
I know the answers will be with minutiae but the way I see it is they are restrictive for no proper purpose that cannot be covered by cost caps, health and safety (the irony of it!), fuel specifications and no track specific designs...
If policed (and there is a word that says everything) this way it would no doubt create a complex set rules for sure but it would produce far more diverse (or not from convergence) thinking.
I know this is a crossover comment with the thread about FIA and 2022 regulations but it seems to consume a lot of energy about four fifths of nothing in the bigger scheme of things.
Standing by for the ground to air missiles LOL

[Quantum]

According to The Race, Toward the end of last year the FIA met with the teams while devising the rules and stipulated that the rule should be interpreted as the plank should be solid with 2mm tolerance and the way in which the plank and skid and skid blocks are mounted should reflect that.
This was under FIA/Team guidance during the formulation of the rules. Would be interesting if there is a paper trail of these meetings.

So if a team is bending the plank and it circumnavigates the regs but goes against the guidance as to the FIA interpretation then it stands to reason why the FIA has decided to shut this down if they can refer back to the guidance they gave the teams last year. Literally telling a team you can't bend the plank in a guidance meeting is compelling enough to break the "interpretation" defence.

[DChemTech]

According to The Race, Toward the end of last year the FIA met with the teams while devising the rules and stipulated that the rule should be interpreted as the plank should be solid with 2mm tolerance and the way in which the plank and skid and skid blocks are mounted should reflect that.
This was under FIA/Team guidance during the formulation of the rules. Would be interesting if there is a paper trail of these meetings.

So if a team is bending the plank and it circumnavigates the regs but goes against the guidance as to the FIA interpretation then it stands to reason why the FIA has decided to shut this down if they can refer back to the guidance they gave the teams last year. Literally telling a team you can't bend the plank in a guidance meeting is compelling enough to break the "interpretation" defence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr-lQTT ... el=THERACE

That's an interesting remark indeed. Makes it all the more baffling they did not actually commit such a statement to the rules, but indeed, if the minutes of the meeting are well administered and the statement is on paper, that is a strong argument against the rule being open for interpretation. To be continued, I suppose.

[Quantum]

That's an interesting remark indeed. Makes it all the more baffling they did not actually commit such a statement to the rules, but indeed, if the minutes of the meeting are well administered and the statement is on paper, that is a strong argument against the rule being open for interpretation. To be continued, I suppose.

Well if Horner is suggesting they cleverly interpreted the rules, and the FIA hold the receipts of the meeting...Horner has no defence to offer in my view.
Obviously incumbent on him to try, but if it's as reported then I don't see a plausible defence.