Illegal skid block tricks discovered

[organic]

Mclarens disqualified for skid wear 1 race later?

Also FIA report mentions that when the measurements were made later, the wear issue was found to be greater. Shouldn't this alone be a major talking point ?



How can the measurement change between when FIA first inspects and when they inspect later with all representatives are present? Maybe the effects of a device to obfuscate plank wear ? And the longer the car is in parc fermé (eg cooling down) post-race, the less effective said device?

[f1isgood]

Mclarens disqualified for skid wear 1 race later?

Also FIA report mentions that when the measurements were made later, the wear issue was found to be greater. Shouldn't this alone be a major talking point ?

https://i.ibb.co/xScwc1Pg/20251123-181102.png

How can the measurement change between when FIA first inspects and when they inspect later with all representatives are present? Maybe the effects of a device to obfuscate plank wear ? And the longer the car is in parc fermé (eg cooling down) post-race, the less effective said device?

I'm not a material scientist. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were materials that expand quickly upon heat (in this case due to friction as the skid is in contact with the track) but take longer to contract as it cools down.

Today it took a lot of time to redo the checks than usual and hence the discrepancy in measurement?

[AR3-GP]

Mclarens disqualified for skid wear 1 race later?

Also FIA report mentions that when the measurements were made later, the wear issue was found to be greater. Shouldn't this alone be a major talking point ?

https://i.ibb.co/xScwc1Pg/20251123-181102.png

How can the measurement change between when FIA first inspects and when they inspect later with all representatives are present? Maybe the effects of a device to obfuscate plank wear ? And the longer the car is in parc fermé (eg cooling down) post-race, the less effective said device?

It certainly smacks of funny business.

[Farnborough]

Reasonably, any metal measured when hot will be larger than when cold.

It's advantageous to the competitors to measure as soon as possible that component, as it'll never be as big as that after cooling.

They don't say how much smaller it was when measured in front of McL team personnel, unlikely to be much.

The first measurement it seems is recorded for scrutineering purposes.

The micrometer is going to be a 0~25mm range in its gateway. This is effectively "self" calibrating in that at closed position (zero) it can be confirmed It's reading correctly, either digital or vernier scale. This is normal and no obvious suspicious circumstances are apparent from the reported words.

If there were other "device" used at last GP it doesn't look like its within this particular measurement and record.

[Farnborough]

Mclarens disqualified for skid wear 1 race later?

Also FIA report mentions that when the measurements were made later, the wear issue was found to be greater. Shouldn't this alone be a major talking point ?

https://i.ibb.co/xScwc1Pg/20251123-181102.png

How can the measurement change between when FIA first inspects and when they inspect later with all representatives are present? Maybe the effects of a device to obfuscate plank wear ? And the longer the car is in parc fermé (eg cooling down) post-race, the less effective said device?

It certainly smacks of funny business.

No it doesn't, it falls perfectly and plausibly within accepted high accuracy measurement of metals with micrometer. There's nothing hidden here from reported text in account of scrutineering.

See post above this.

[Badger]

I find it funny when people repeatedly assume that the success of a super complex system can be explained by ONE factor. "Ah! We finally found it folks, it's the illegal skid block". Then the next week that theory is inevitably debunked and the faulty process starts all over again with some new speculative theory based on circumstantial evidence. This kind of simplistic reasoning will lead you down the wrong path every time. Accept the complexity and stop looking for silver bullets, they aren't real 99% of the time.

[RonMexico]

How much margin on the plank do teams normally work with?

Were McLaren miles off target?

[vorticism]

I'm not a material scentist. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were materials that expand quickly upon heat (in this case due to friction as the skid is in contact with the track) but take longer to contract as it cools down.

I've been thinking of a simple pad of plastic since the start of this, constrained diametrically, in the chassis, that the skids abut to. TE maxxing. Are the skids measured mounted or dismounted?

If you consider such bodywork as moveable aero then it's the most clever moveable aero ever, because it only has to move around a millimeter (?) to make a significant impact upon the performance of the car, and there'd be no way to observe it directly on-track, unlike, say, bending wings.

The explanation for heating in general needn't even be nefarious. There could have been a genuine interest in maintaining a consistent temperature in the skid across an event. One less variable to worry about if it's x* C all the time.

[leblanc]

I find it funny when people repeatedly assume that the success of a super complex system can be explained by ONE factor. "Ah! We finally found it folks, it's the illegal skid block". Then the next week that theory is inevitably debunked and the faulty process starts all over again with some new speculative theory based on circumstantial evidence. This kind of simplistic reasoning will lead you down the wrong path every time. Accept the complexity and stop looking for silver bullets, they aren't real 99% of the time.

*the SF-90 raises its hand*

[organic]

I find it funny when people repeatedly assume that the success of a super complex system can be explained by ONE factor. "Ah! We finally found it folks, it's the illegal skid block". Then the next week that theory is inevitably debunked and the faulty process starts all over again with some new speculative theory based on circumstantial evidence. This kind of simplistic reasoning will lead you down the wrong path every time. Accept the complexity and stop looking for silver bullets, they aren't real 99% of the time.

*the SF-90 raises its hand*

F1-75 too?

[Badger]

I find it funny when people repeatedly assume that the success of a super complex system can be explained by ONE factor. "Ah! We finally found it folks, it's the illegal skid block". Then the next week that theory is inevitably debunked and the faulty process starts all over again with some new speculative theory based on circumstantial evidence. This kind of simplistic reasoning will lead you down the wrong path every time. Accept the complexity and stop looking for silver bullets, they aren't real 99% of the time.

*the SF-90 raises its hand*

Not really. People think that car was all engine but it wasn't. It was a good chassi with a great (illegal) engine. The problem was that Ferrari as part of their backroom deal with the FIA agreed to lowering their fuel flow for the 2020 engine below the max limit, as a form of punishment. This made the 2020 engine (and car) dreadful. That led people to believe that the illegal engine had contributed way more than it actually did, and that the 2019 chassi was dog water when it was actually quite good. The truth is more complex.

[IntrinsicVoid]

After the engine flow sensors checks and TD039 Ferrari immediately lost competitiveness. But yeah as you say its funny, McLaren basically is honeypot of gray area “cheating” trickeries.

[marcel171281]

I find it funny when people repeatedly assume that the success of a super complex system can be explained by ONE factor. "Ah! We finally found it folks, it's the illegal skid block". Then the next week that theory is inevitably debunked and the faulty process starts all over again with some new speculative theory based on circumstantial evidence. This kind of simplistic reasoning will lead you down the wrong path every time. Accept the complexity and stop looking for silver bullets, they aren't real 99% of the time.

*the SF-90 raises its hand*

Not really. People think that car was all engine but it wasn't. It was a good chassi with a great (illegal) engine. The problem was that Ferrari as part of their backroom deal with the FIA agreed to lowering their fuel flow for the 2020 engine below the max limit, as a form of punishment. This made the 2020 engine (and car) dreadful. That led people to believe that the illegal engine had contributed way more than it actually did, and that the 2019 chassi was dog water when it was actually quite good. The truth is more complex.

You were present in that back room?

[Badger]

*the SF-90 raises its hand*

Not really. People think that car was all engine but it wasn't. It was a good chassi with a great (illegal) engine. The problem was that Ferrari as part of their backroom deal with the FIA agreed to lowering their fuel flow for the 2020 engine below the max limit, as a form of punishment. This made the 2020 engine (and car) dreadful. That led people to believe that the illegal engine had contributed way more than it actually did, and that the 2019 chassi was dog water when it was actually quite good. The truth is more complex.

You were present in that back room?

Nope, it was all kept secret but someone who had insider knowledge of the deal leaked some of the details a year later. Including the bit about the fuel flow restriction. I think it was Mika Salo, former Ferrari driver and steward.

[pantherxxx]

I find it funny when people repeatedly assume that the success of a super complex system can be explained by ONE factor. "Ah! We finally found it folks, it's the illegal skid block". Then the next week that theory is inevitably debunked and the faulty process starts all over again with some new speculative theory based on circumstantial evidence. This kind of simplistic reasoning will lead you down the wrong path every time. Accept the complexity and stop looking for silver bullets, they aren't real 99% of the time.

A single smart trick can easily be worth three to four tenths of a second per lap—or even more. In Formula 1, that margin can be the difference between winning a race and missing the podium entirely. If McLaren had a full one-second advantage, then yes, it would be harder to attribute it to just one breakthrough. But that isn’t the situation here, so your conclusion doesn’t really hold.