Illegal skid block tricks discovered

[napoleon1981]

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.

If there isn't a temperature criteria to the measurement, it should probably be added, to make sure skids are measured sufficiently cooled down.

[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*

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.

special pleading

[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*

F1-75 too?

TD39 meme

[SB15]

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.

Yeah they have a better cooling packages, but after Monza it's pretty much "Just out qualify them" and "stay in front and have as much clean air as possible". The Mclaren struggles the most in the dirty air vs any other car anyway, so the advantage is only truly seen when they're in the cleanest air without any car in front and the car running as low as possible (which may explain their "insane" medium speed performance similar to Ferrari in the China sprint + more downforce means less tyre wear)

[Farnborough]

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.

If there isn't a temperature criteria to the measurement, it should probably be added, to make sure skids are measured sufficiently cooled down.

I believe there maybe some confusion, on here and in general reporting, about whats being measured.

There's three holes in skid assembly specifically to facilitate measurement by placing the micrometer through the hole to "clamp" for want of better word, on the periphery of that hole, and so determine the thickness as we see it stated.

Additional to this are specific "skid" blocks embedded into various point of the plank surface, these not measured as I understand.
The implication, from that Brazil exposè, was that THESE block were somehow being expanded or moved by heating to protrude down below the surface of the plank.
The net effect projected would be these to strike the track BEFORE the measurement holes surfaces, and so protect those critical measurement areas from wearing. Those measurement areas don't appear to be the target of heating claims, spurious or not as they were reported.

Allowing the assembly to cool and having a "target" temp in regulations:- likely impractical as tge ambient temperature around the world is still different at each location raced.
In reality, the teams have a tolerance all of it above 9mm, choosing or not taking into account the affect a race distance has on that material they start with, over and above the 9mm, is in their sole control. They commit to keeping within the regulations the whole time its competing.
They measure all sort of compliance themselves, this just one of them.
Effectively, they "gamed" this dimension for ultimate pace, as do all teams, and failed to conserve enough material. The method of measurement is not at fault.

Maybe just one point of wear being too much could be explained as accidentally heavy curb strike .... but not multiple locations AND across both cars ! that's planning. Also admirable in their setup accuracy, but a step too far. Especially considering the points gap they had in championship coming into this race.

[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.

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.

It can be. But most of the time the speculation people come up with is way wrong. People seem to inherently favour simple answers because they are more easy to understand and could lead to fast turnarounds. There’s a small bucket with examples of times people were right about these things, and a large bucket of times they were completely wrong. Flexi front wings, tyre water, mini DRS, novel brake cooling, flexi rear wings, bib adjusters, flexi floors. Just some of the many theories in recent years where people legitimately believed that the top car was going be reined in, and it never happened. I think this is another one of those.

[kptaylor]

I believe there maybe some confusion, on here and in general reporting, about whats being measured.

There's three holes in skid assembly specifically to facilitate measurement by placing the micrometer through the hole to "clamp" for want of better word, on the periphery of that hole, and so determine the thickness as we see it stated.

Additional to this are specific "skid" blocks embedded into various point of the plank surface, these not measured as I understand.
The implication, from that Brazil exposè, was that THESE block were somehow being expanded or moved by heating to protrude down below the surface of the plank.
The net effect projected would be these to strike the track BEFORE the measurement holes surfaces, and so protect those critical measurement areas from wearing. Those measurement areas don't appear to be the target of heating claims, spurious or not as they were reported.

Allowing the assembly to cool and having a "target" temp in regulations:- likely impractical as tge ambient temperature around the world is still different at each location raced.
In reality, the teams have a tolerance all of it above 9mm, choosing or not taking into account the affect a race distance has on that material they start with, over and above the 9mm, is in their sole control. They commit to keeping within the regulations the whole time its competing.
They measure all sort of compliance themselves, this just one of them.
Effectively, they "gamed" this dimension for ultimate pace, as do all teams, and failed to conserve enough material. The method of measurement is not at fault.

Maybe just one point of wear being too much could be explained as accidentally heavy curb strike .... but not multiple locations AND across both cars ! that's planning. Also admirable in their setup accuracy, but a step too far. Especially considering the points gap they had in championship coming into this race.

This exactly. The blocks are to prevent plank wear. It doesn't matter how much the skid block wears, the plank thickness is what counts.

[search]

If there isn't a temperature criteria to the measurement, it should probably be added, to make sure skids are measured sufficiently cooled down.

The thermal expansion of titanium is very low. With a 240°C temperature change, the 10.00 mm stick would expand to 10.02 mm. To get it to 10.1 mm, you need 1200°C.

https://goodcalculators.com/thermal-exp ... alculator/

Whether the car is back at ambient temperature, or still a bit hotter from the race, basically makes no difference for the post race test.

[chrisc90]

What are the blocks typically mounted to?

[Farnborough]

What are the blocks typically mounted to?

The fixings, with dimensions are included back up th thread.

The blocks are mounted to the skid material (in pocketed relief for this) to my understanding.

[Badger]

From The-Race.

The first thing that can be discounted is some wild rumours that emerged after the Brazilian Grand Prix that the FIA had discovered tricks being done by teams.

Stories suggested that this involved an unspecified number of competitors using expanding titanium skid blocks that would run lower to the ground to help protect the plank.

It sounded like a nice theory, but it was one that was scoffed at by both engineers in the pitlane and the FIA – because the tactic was the complete opposite of what is needed.

The priority for teams when it comes to skid blocks is in trying to protect them, rather than having them run closer to the ground and wear down more. Ultimately how much the plank itself wears down is irrelevant as legality is measured purely on the depth of skid blocks themselves.

You want to skids out of the way rather than taking the brunt of the damage.

In recent seasons, some teams were found to have employed trick systems where one section of the skid would effectively have a degree of movement independent of the plank so it would become hidden when the car hit the ground.

By moving in this way, it would not get worn down as much as the rest of the skid. So, when the FIA measured this section post-race, it fully complied with the 9mm requirement – even if the rest of the skid was worn down further.

It was something that some teams were not happy about after finding their competitors were gaining from this.

Mercedes boss Toto Wolff said at the time: "The reason for skids is that they are the limitation of how much plank wear you can have. And if a skid can disappear miraculously into the floor, that is clearly against the regulations."

The FIA cottoned on to this tactic in 2023 and stamped it out – issuing guidance to teams that measurements for the skid would be taken around a majority of the hole they surround.

What is fair to say is that the FIA has been getting increasingly more sophisticated in its understanding of what teams are doing – and some of the ways they may be trying to get around the rules.

5 pages of speculation and misconceptions based on one bad article from an obscure outlet.

[Gooch]

^^

Is was made clear to be in a IG post by scarbs yesterday, THE SKID BLOCK IS THE MEASURING POINT.

Completely destroys any thought of using thermal expansion to protect them and shows just how clueless we all are.

[search]

Is was made clear to be in a IG post by scarbs yesterday, THE SKID BLOCK IS THE MEASURING POINT.

any idea if they just changed this mid-season, when starting to use new device? I noticed that yesterday's FIA report only refers to a measurement of the "skids", while the same stewards still used "plank assembly" instead when they dsq'ed Hülkenberg in April.

Schmidt from AmuS also said that for the validation check at McLaren yesterday (the one with a slightly different result) they used the "traditional method", which would also indicate that something about the tests changed recently.

[napoleon1981]

If there isn't a temperature criteria to the measurement, it should probably be added, to make sure skids are measured sufficiently cooled down.

The thermal expansion of titanium is very low. With a 240°C temperature change, the 10.00 mm stick would expand to 10.02 mm. To get it to 10.1 mm, you need 1200°C.

https://goodcalculators.com/thermal-exp ... alculator/

Whether the car is back at ambient temperature, or still a bit hotter from the race, basically makes no difference for the post race test.

Clearly it did here...

[search]

If there isn't a temperature criteria to the measurement, it should probably be added, to make sure skids are measured sufficiently cooled down.

The thermal expansion of titanium is very low. With a 240°C temperature change, the 10.00 mm stick would expand to 10.02 mm. To get it to 10.1 mm, you need 1200°C.

https://goodcalculators.com/thermal-exp ... alculator/

Whether the car is back at ambient temperature, or still a bit hotter from the race, basically makes no difference for the post race test.

Clearly it did here...

as mentioned in the post above, according to AmuS, the 2nd test was of different kind, leading to a different (but even more convincing) result.