Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Can someone explain how a skid lock that gets bigger allows a lower ride height? Surely a bigger block would raise ride height?
What am I missing?
This is a great question.
I thought the blocks were a defined material?
I understand the same.
If they were to surface mount a cooler to them though, say hot oil, with unique and robust flow device ...... then that could heat the block.
Sounds like there's something being adopted to influence the block material.
From the 2025 Technical Regulations, Section 3.5.9:
r. Must be made from Titanium alloy (according to AMS4928 or AMS4911 in annealed
condition). Furthermore, they may only be machined from solid and no processes (such
as forging, rolling, welding, heat treatment or coating) may be carried out either before
or after machining.
edited to add: The coefficient of thermal expansion for titanium is low, about 8.6 X 10^-6/°C. A 10 mm chunk heated 200° above ambient would expand about 0.017 mm (check my math!). That doesn't sound too useful.
If the block was tapered 1:100, would it not then squeeze itself outwards by 100 fold the thermal expansion, dependent on how it is fastened to the chassis
If the ??mm is persistent in the race - either by increasing the base temp of the block and allowing the friction to increase it to an average higher temp/size* - then the minimum ride height is surely increased by atleast some % of this expanded size? Otherwise we'll be scraping it more and wearing it out?
It's more about making sure the plank just wears less. So they can run the plank lower without fear of being DQS'd. The blocks aren't measured for wear at all.
Absolutely - but with a block that is 'proud' of the plank there is surely an increase in ride height or we just see excessive grounding onto the blocks - a shower of sparks and effective bottoming out?
The skids not being flush will be where the rules are breached.
For me - it's an interesting thing to look at - but I can't see it in the way described. Maybe I need pictures
90% of the lap the plank is off the ground. This is the time when you need the car lower and the "longer" skids are off the ground anyway. Of course the other 10 % the skid would wears more and the car is more nervous but this is mostly on the straighs.
...
As above...it is about skid plate wear, which is not measured.
...
I actually don't think this is true. The plank wear is measured at four specific holes in the plank:
3.5.9 f)
The plank assembly must have four precisely placed holes the positions of which are
given by RV-PLANK. To establish the conformity of the plank assembly after use, its
thickness will only be measured at these holes, regardless of whether plank or skid
material is present.
The rules don't say these holes can not be surrounded by skid material and in fact pictures of floors we have seen show these holes exactly where the skids are:
Source:https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/gary ... r-upgrade/
Is it possible the plank expands in a curved manner, but instead of expanding downwards towards the track, it curves up in the middle towards the interior of the car. Thus bending the skid block away from the floor increasing the clearance underneath?
Is it possible the plank expands in a curved manner, but instead of expanding downwards towards the track, it curves up in the middle towards the interior of the car. Thus bending the skid block away from the floor increasing the clearance underneath?
Skid blocks are attached to the floor, not the plank.
Sorry, I thought the skids went under the plank, facing down towards the track surface?
Either way, I think my idea would breach article 13.5.8 - central floor flexibility:
"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.
Furthermore, the stiffness for any deflection exceeding that defined in the previous
paragraph must be no less than 15kN/mm.
Competitors will be required to demonstrate the local vertical stiffness and design
installation of the skids and plank to the FIA for the regions around the periphery of
each of these three holes. Compliance with Article 3.5.9.e. will only be assessed in the
regions that are at least 90% as stiff as the stiffest part of the periphery. Any designs
intended to protect these regions of the periphery from wear will not be accepted.
"
From the F1 Technical Regulations, 3.5.9 Plank Assembly...
The following provisions apply to the skids. The lower surface of the plank may be fitted with flush mounted metal skids which:
k. May only be fitted in place of plank material.
l. Have a total area no greater than 24000mm² when viewed from below.
m. Are no greater than 4000mm² in area individually when viewed from below.
n. Are fitted in order that their entire lower surfaces are visible from below.
o. Must have a minimum cross sectional thickness of 15mm across its external boundaries
in plan view.
From the pictures I have seen, the measurement points themselves are actually mounted within skid blocks on the plank assembly.
This makes me think thermal expansion would actually be a bad thing as you would force those blocks above the plank and into the road surface.
Until, it occurred to me, you may only want to heat certain skid blocks? I see no limit for the number of blocks in the technical regulations, only an individual and total area limit.
Maybe one could put a heated* skid block next to the skid block that is used for the plank measurement and protect it for a portion of the race until the 1st block abrades flush.
*When I say heated, I'm also of the opinion that the wizardry is in the mounting. I just don't see the actual thermal expansion of titanium doing too much.
While the dimension of the infraction is minuscule (tenth of a mm) it represents, among other things, the average duration of contact of the skid with the tarmac. Is it better to think of this as a representation of the average ride height across a lap, or as a representation of the suspension travel window? Ride height too low vs suspension too soft. Or both.
Makes you wonder what the typical post-race minimum skid thickness is that teams usually aim for. If it's something like 10 mm then 8.9 mm would be a big swing. I'd be surprised if teams were always aiming for 9.01 or 9.10mm or whatever. Seems like too much of a gamble.
The thread title I don't think is accurate. In what sense would a skid heater be illegal? If it was illegal, wouldn't we know about it by now? More like the same old rule bending, or just cleverness, often found in F1.
Didn’t Stella say that their tricks were deep under the skin of the car…
That is so crazy, so that Mclaren wasn't the "performance monster" as we all thought. They are more close to the Mercedes and Redbull than previously realized. It's funny because in the back of my mind, whenever I seen the MCL39 during quali or the race, i've always wondered how that McLaren is running so low vs other teams? Now we kinda know.
It's def still a performance monster with an incredible design. No one is on their level with cooling packaging. The margins are slim here in the convergence of 2025. Everyone has an RB20 this year, conceptually. Lose 1/100 of your recipe and you start losing tenths. Other teams, if not as reliant upon skid heating, may have better developed other methods of managing ride height which McLaren might be lacking on.
