TD039

[basti313]

Why not DSQ like they have done in the past. Why are cars that are engineered to illegally get around a rule allowed to drive. How is this any different from 2 fuel tanks.

Flexibility is a gray area, always has been. However, in comparison to the BAR double tank; in the case of the fuel tanks there was no grey area, there was no interpretation of the rules. It was blatant cheating so that BAR could run their cars under the weight limit.

The plank flexing was in the rules for 2mm, not 6mm, I'd describe it just as blatant cheating as BAR

2mm under the test. It passes the test. There is no other relevance of the 2mm besides the test.

The only interesting part is the skids that disappear.

[.poz]

Why not DSQ like they have done in the past. Why are cars that are engineered to illegally get around a rule allowed to drive. How is this any different from 2 fuel tanks.

Flexibility is a gray area, always has been. However, in comparison to the BAR double tank; in the case of the fuel tanks there was no grey area, there was no interpretation of the rules. It was blatant cheating so that BAR could run their cars under the weight limit.

The plank flexing was in the rules for 2mm, not 6mm, I'd describe it just as blatant cheating as BAR

Where is the rule (no controversy intended) ?

About floor flexing i have found:

3.15.5 Front Floor Flexibility
Bodywork flexibility will be tested by applying a load vertically upwards using a 50mm diameter pad with a gimbled interface to the loadcell. The position of the centre of the pad will be given by the FIA and will be within a quadrilateral area on the plane Z=-10, with vertices at points [XF=460, 50], [XF=610, 65], [XF=610, -65], [XF=460, -50]. The deflection will be measured parallel to the loading axis.
At 5mm of deflection, the load must exceed 4000N. The test will be continued until either a load of 8000N or a deflection of 15mm is reached. At all times during the test, the load must increase with displacement at a rate greater than 250N/mm.

3.15.6 Outboard Floor Flexibility
a) Bodywork may deflect no more than 8mm vertically when a [0, 0, -500]N load is applied to it at [XR=-450, ±450, 155]. The load will be applied using a 50mm diameter ram and an adaptor of the same size. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary. b) Bodywork may deflect no more than 3mm vertically when a [0, 0, -100]N load is applied to it at [XR=-450, ±600, 60]. The load will be applied using a 50mm diameter ram and an adaptor of the same size. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

[Edax]

Flexibility is a gray area, always has been. However, in comparison to the BAR double tank; in the case of the fuel tanks there was no grey area, there was no interpretation of the rules. It was blatant cheating so that BAR could run their cars under the weight limit.

The plank flexing was in the rules for 2mm, not 6mm, I'd describe it just as blatant cheating as BAR

2mm under the test. It passes the test. There is no other relevance of the 2mm besides the test.

The only interesting part is the skids that disappear.

Agree. A rigidity spec is universal, but a flexing spec by its nature always has to be accompanied by a defined loadcase.

2mm doesn’t say anything if the load is not defined. If the load is defined as a test like the examples above, and the car passes the test, the car is legal.

If this was a commercial contract there IMHO would no doubt that the manufacturer has fulfilled the contract in good faith.

In my line of work a spec like that would be accompanied by a cover our ass clause like: “ at no point during normal operation, barring special circumstances like track excursions and crashes, the deflection shall exceed 2mm as defined by the distance between the reference plane and any point on the plank quality area. “, or something along those lines.

Followed by a test description and spec. That way test limitations are somewhat covered by describing what the tests are intended to achieve.

Writing specifications is a serious business, and very hard to do well. I don’t know whether it is deliberate, but reading through the rulebook, well it seems a bit amateurish.

[Tzk]

In my line of work a spec like that would be accompanied by a cover our ass clause like: “ at no point during normal operation, barring special circumstances like track excursions and crashes, the deflection shall exceed 2mm as defined by the distance between the reference plane and any point on the plank quality area. “, or something along those lines.

While this is a good rule without any obvious loopholes, you just can't police it on track. Of course you can extend the testing requirements by - for example - not specifying coordinates on the floor which are tested but areas. But still that will become hard to police.

However i agree that the current rules do look a bit amateurish to me too. But i can see the intent by the rulemakers. They try to only introduce rules that they can police, preferably with simple PASS/FAIL tests. A good example is the DRS flap rule. They just try stick a huge ball through the open flap. If it passes through the test failed.

[Just_a_fan]

The simplest way to police the flexing of the plank is to make the plank an FIA-provided item. FIA hand out planks at the start of each session and the teams are then required to bolt them to the car using FIA-provided fixings. The fixings required to be located in the tub, the bottom of the engine and the gearbox. You want to flex the floor? Then you'll have to flex your entire chassis.

[Edax]

In my line of work a spec like that would be accompanied by a cover our ass clause like: “ at no point during normal operation, barring special circumstances like track excursions and crashes, the deflection shall exceed 2mm as defined by the distance between the reference plane and any point on the plank quality area. “, or something along those lines.

While this is a good rule without any obvious loopholes, you just can't police it on track. Of course you can extend the testing requirements by - for example - not specifying coordinates on the floor which are tested but areas. But still that will become hard to police.

However i agree that the current rules do look a bit amateurish to me too. But i can see the intent by the rulemakers. They try to only introduce rules that they can police, preferably with simple PASS/FAIL tests. A good example is the DRS flap rule. They just try stick a huge ball through the open flap. If it passes through the test failed.

That is of course true. But that is why I call it covering my ass. You can not police the requirement, other than doing the test. But separating the requirement and the test saves a lot of discussion.

Since you explained the actual requirement or the “spirit” of the spec, you take take a lot of the loopholes that someone might consider to defeat the test. He/she cannot claim that he did not know it would be illegal.

It also allows you to change the test without any discussion since it still falls within the requirement that you have told the other to comply to.

Maybe a bit childish. But if the stakes are high enough people go over every letter to prove their right, better to be as clear as possible.

[Big Tea]

In my line of work a spec like that would be accompanied by a cover our ass clause like: “ at no point during normal operation, barring special circumstances like track excursions and crashes, the deflection shall exceed 2mm as defined by the distance between the reference plane and any point on the plank quality area. “, or something along those lines.

While this is a good rule without any obvious loopholes, you just can't police it on track. Of course you can extend the testing requirements by - for example - not specifying coordinates on the floor which are tested but areas. But still that will become hard to police.

However i agree that the current rules do look a bit amateurish to me too. But i can see the intent by the rulemakers. They try to only introduce rules that they can police, preferably with simple PASS/FAIL tests. A good example is the DRS flap rule. They just try stick a huge ball through the open flap. If it passes through the test failed.

That is of course true. But that is why I call it covering my ass. You can not police the requirement, other than doing the test. But separating the requirement and the test saves a lot of discussion.

Since you explained the actual requirement or the “spirit” of the spec, you take take a lot of the loopholes that someone might consider to defeat the test. He/she cannot claim that he did not know it would be illegal.

It also allows you to change the test without any discussion since it still falls within the requirement that you have told the other to comply to.

Maybe a bit childish. But if the stakes are high enough people go over every letter to prove their right, better to be as clear as possible.

Wait until they start with this 25mm floor edge measurement.

[basti313]

In my line of work a spec like that would be accompanied by a cover our ass clause like: “ at no point during normal operation, barring special circumstances like track excursions and crashes, the deflection shall exceed 2mm as defined by the distance between the reference plane and any point on the plank quality area. “, or something along those lines.

While this is a good rule without any obvious loopholes, you just can't police it on track. Of course you can extend the testing requirements by - for example - not specifying coordinates on the floor which are tested but areas. But still that will become hard to police.

However i agree that the current rules do look a bit amateurish to me too. But i can see the intent by the rulemakers. They try to only introduce rules that they can police, preferably with simple PASS/FAIL tests. A good example is the DRS flap rule. They just try stick a huge ball through the open flap. If it passes through the test failed.

This exactly. I am doing a lot of project work on the limit possible and you can simply not give "at no point during..." specs if there is not a very limited and well known "normal" operation.
An F1 car has always a different aero load on the floor and it has different forces depending on suspension settings. "Normal" operation is a flying figure, you can not police this. This is why they need some clumsy rigidity spec with weights like "if Ross Brawn stands on the front wing it may not deflect more than 2mm".

[littlebigcat]

Why not DSQ like they have done in the past. Why are cars that are engineered to illegally get around a rule allowed to drive. How is this any different from 2 fuel tanks.

Flexibility is a gray area, always has been. However, in comparison to the BAR double tank; in the case of the fuel tanks there was no grey area, there was no interpretation of the rules. It was blatant cheating so that BAR could run their cars under the weight limit.

The plank flexing was in the rules for 2mm, not 6mm, I'd describe it just as blatant cheating as BAR

Teams know when they are playing the wording rather than the intent. The risk they take for exploiting the loophole is that its banned.

[djones]

Can somebody please confirm when this is being enabled?

I thought it was France, but then moved to Spa. But one of the reputable F1 news sites still talks about France.

Thanks

[RZS10]

The enforcement starts in Belgium but from France onward teams will already be able to work with the AOM in order to learn/see whether or how they'd have to change their setup.

[.poz]

It also allows you to change the test without any discussion since it still falls within the requirement that you have told the other to comply to.

they already can do it


3.15.1 Introduction of load/deflection tests
In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.2.2 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

[PhillipM]

The simplest way to police the flexing of the plank is to make the plank an FIA-provided item. FIA hand out planks at the start of each session and the teams are then required to bolt them to the car using FIA-provided fixings. The fixings required to be located in the tub, the bottom of the engine and the gearbox. You want to flex the floor? Then you'll have to flex your entire chassis.

But that's exactly what they do, especially with the teatray area

[Just_a_fan]

The simplest way to police the flexing of the plank is to make the plank an FIA-provided item. FIA hand out planks at the start of each session and the teams are then required to bolt them to the car using FIA-provided fixings. The fixings required to be located in the tub, the bottom of the engine and the gearbox. You want to flex the floor? Then you'll have to flex your entire chassis.

But that's exactly what they do, especially with the teatray area

But easy to police that bit too by specifying how it's attached and to what. Anyone doing anything else is automatic DSQ, driver and team points removed for every race it was run illegally.

Big penalties tend to bring with them higher levels of compliance.

[SiLo]

The simplest way to police the flexing of the plank is to make the plank an FIA-provided item. FIA hand out planks at the start of each session and the teams are then required to bolt them to the car using FIA-provided fixings. The fixings required to be located in the tub, the bottom of the engine and the gearbox. You want to flex the floor? Then you'll have to flex your entire chassis.

But that's exactly what they do, especially with the teatray area

But easy to police that bit too by specifying how it's attached and to what. Anyone doing anything else is automatic DSQ, driver and team points removed for every race it was run illegally.

Big penalties tend to bring with them higher levels of compliance.

It's actually amazing they don't do this already... Provide entire plank, dictate strict mounting points, and levy heavy penalties for non-compliance.