TD039

[Quantum]

That two teams fall foul of the fresh TD interpretation.

Ok yes that's fair enough.

We don't KNOW that per se

Corrected the post to reflect that.

[KeiKo403]

so as we move closer to the halfway point of the season and Red Bull has brought a big upgrade already and likely has more in the pipeline based on their alleged illegal flexing floor/plank - if significant changes are required what impact is this likely to have on their CFD & Budget allocations remaining for this season?

Potentially Ferrari too but I feel their upgrades haven't been as significant as Red Bulls.
Both teams have just lost a % of CFD/Windtunnel runs based on the updated constructors standings too.

[Stu]

That two teams fall foul of the fresh TD interpretation.

Ok yes that's fair enough.

We don't KNOW that per se

Corrected the post to reflect that.

Thanks for doing that.

[TimW]

The irony of the situation (if true that RB is doing this) is that a team solved the porpoising issue by (among other things) using a loophole in the regulations. Then the FIA comes with a directive to address porpoising.... in which they close the loophole...

What I don't understand BTW is why they still have the plank, now that we have ground effect cars? The plank was introduced to limit ground effect! You could argue that it still has a function to maintain a gap at the floor edge, so it does not act as a skirt (with associated sudden loss of downforce if it opens). But since we see the floor edge to flex fully down to the tarmac (not addressed as an issue by the FIA), it is not functional for this at all.

[peaty]

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

is that from a technical/legal perspective or from a political one?

[cheeRS]

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

is that from a technical/legal perspective or from a political one?

If it's not in the rules and/or not illegal, teams are going to use it to their advantage, and I'd argue that they do well to.

Oil burning, double diffuser, etc. were all known and discussed before their respective seasons when there was just an "understanding" that they weren't allowed.

[morefirejules08]

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

is that from a technical/legal perspective or from a political one?

If it's not in the rules and/or not illegal, teams are going to use it to their advantage, and I'd argue that they do well to.

Oil burning, double diffuser, etc. were all known and discussed before their respective seasons when there was just an "understanding" that they weren't allowed.

Can’t say I’ve ever heard that before.

[chrisc90]

Just seen this posted in the W13 thread by Goblin42, so thought id post it here as it gives us a indication on the wear to the plank which could be used to analyse the TD039. Not sure if we can use it to analyse plank wear patterns.

[cooken]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FXFtkHcWIAA ... &name=orig

Just seen this posted in the W13 thread by Goblin42, so thought id post it here as it gives us a indication on the wear to the plank which could be used to analyse the TD039. Not sure if we can use it to analyse plank wear patterns.

This car went sideways on 3 wheels. Maybe don't get carried away examining plank wear...

[taperoo2k]

The irony of the situation (if true that RB is doing this) is that a team solved the porpoising issue by (among other things) using a loophole in the regulations. Then the FIA comes with a directive to address porpoising.... in which they close the loophole...

Because it's not within the spirit of the rules. I know Newey scoffs at that, but that's usually because he's one of the people who finds the loopholes and exploits them before the FIA discovers it. This is the game that's always been played in F1 - cat and mouse between the teams and the FIA.

What I don't understand BTW is why they still have the plank, now that we have ground effect cars? The plank was introduced to limit ground effect!

It's there for safety, introduced after the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger. The plank is there to do a few things, including limiting the aero underneath the car for safety. It's also there to stop the cars from bottoming out.

You could argue that it still has a function to maintain a gap at the floor edge, so it does not act as a skirt (with associated sudden loss of downforce if it opens). But since we see the floor edge to flex fully down to the tarmac (not addressed as an issue by the FIA), it is not functional for this at all.

One of the other reasons for the plank is to ensure the teams stick to the minimum ride height as set out in the regulations. It's why a driver can be disqualified if the FIA deems there has been too much wear on the plank.

The plank follows the centre plane of the cars, so you may see the floor edge touching the race track, but that doesn't mean the plank has at that particular point in time. Too much wear from the plank scrapping along the floor will run the risk of disqualification (and damage to the chassis). The planks are now made out of a laminated glass product, called permaglass I think (been a while since I looked it up).

It seems by making the plank flexible at certain points it allows the teams to lower the ride heights and reduce the porpoising. All the while doing it in such a way so that the plank doesn't wear down and away from the areas that the FIA used as measuring points before this technical directive was formulated.

At the end of the day we'll see how much laptime flexi floors are worth, if we see teams losing a couple of tenths or a lot more than that.

[senja]

This is the game that's always been played in F1 - cat and mouse between the teams and the FIA.

Yes, but problem is in FIA inconsistency. They allow some, while ban other...

[DChemTech]

This is the game that's always been played in F1 - cat and mouse between the teams and the FIA.

Yes, but problem is in FIA inconsistency. They allow some, while ban other...

And the problem is that the "qualitative spirit" introduces criteria that are not exactly known to engineers and hence cannot be included properly in designs, creating ambiguity, which does not belong in a technical desig sport. As said before, spirits belong in the liquor cabinet, not in technical rulesets. Every F1 employee should scoff at it.

[Quantum]

And the problem is that the "qualitative spirit" introduces criteria that are not exactly known to engineers

The problem is, I repeat, that we don't know what was said in the meeting last year.
IF the FIA stipulated in that meeting what their view was, and a team contravenes it, that will be referred back to the meeting and outside of what the FIA deem acceptable.

For example, if the plank was raised in that meeting and questions were asked, and the FIA answered by stating we don't want to see the plank flex by more than 2mm, and it presently is flexing by more than 2mm, that isn't "qualitative spirit". That's a direct contravention of what the FIA have already told the teams how the rule would be interpreted.
By defaulting back to "team interpretation" that team would then run the risk of having the FIA come out with a TD.
We can't ignore that possibility at this point.

[DChemTech]

And the problem is that the "qualitative spirit" introduces criteria that are not exactly known to engineers

The problem is, I repeat, that we don't know what was said in the meeting last year.
IF the FIA stipulated in that meeting what their view was, and a team contravenes it, that will be referred back to the meeting and outside of what the FIA deem acceptable.

For example, if the plank was raised in that meeting and questions were asked, and the FIA answered by stating we don't want to see the plank flex by more than 2mm, and it presently is flexing by more than 2mm, that isn't "qualitative spirit". That's a direct contravention of what the FIA have already told the teams how the rule would be interpreted.
By defaulting back to "team interpretation" that team would then run the risk of having the FIA come out with a TD.
We can't ignore that possibility at this point.

I agree on that; but generally speaking there may not be additional clarifying statements on all unclear sections of the rules. So the idea that, in general, the FIA can change the rules throughout a season because interpretations may not adhere to the 'spirit' that they have in their minds (but not quantitatively committed to paper) is problematic to me. That was what I was referring to here.

[Stu]

The strange thing is, if you look at the the plank/floor combination; you can see where the test points are (a look at Zhou, Russell, Perez, Sainz underfloor during recovery ops shows points in the same places on each one).

A 2mm deflection between these points (there are three) should prevent torsional twisting of the plank.
As the reference plane can only deform by 0.2mm it would suggest that the plank should exhibit similar characteristics (although the difference also suggests that there is either some allowance for flexible mounting points on non-uniformity of the plank/mounting method)
You could also take it that the plank exists from front (bib) to rear (diffuser entrance) and the 2mm measurement incorporates these areas (although these are not measured in the test), the bib is allowed to be hinged & sprung (all teams have some method of doing this); although the plank is continuous over the hinged part and into the underfloor area. If so this would appear to fail the test of the plank flex (whilst allowing compliance with the reference plane test). Another point worth noting in relation to this is that all teams have a chamfered edge at the rear of the floor (also outside of the tested area); surely if the bib flex needs to comply with the inferred measurement, the chamfer must too.

There is fairly simple way to determine legality if the bib area is to be included; first measure the plank as currently, then using a fourth stand (10mm taller, say) to the front edge of the bib/skid plate, then measure the deflection to the pair of stands used previously at the front of the floor.
The rule change would be simple too; define the amount of movement allowed by the spring between the bib and chassis. They already state that this may not be damped in the regulations.