Illegal skid block tricks discovered

[Farnborough]

"Can someone help me understand what this 'clever mounting' can be ?"

This is my understanding of one way to "change" that dimension, and potentially in TD 039 shakeout.

If the plank was mounted, in it's entirety, to the floor with a substantially inflexible "packer" layer, but the areas around critical measurement holes were of a more "compressible" (we'll call it) substrate, then impact with track would see the overall plank wearing on such a strike .....while the reference material and its area was compressed into its supporting substrate.
Measurements after race will never look at the overall plank material left in place, just the specific reference material at those critical sites, which could have moved under hard impact with track. They test for this movement with static support test, from my understanding. But like wing flex, that's unlikely to be finite in its depth of scope.

I don't know what they changed exactly in absolute detail for 039, but you can see in reading the current notes, back in this thread, that the reference plane, fixings, how those fixings are placed etc, are all defined in absolute terms that to prevent "interpretation from the teams, naturally.

[Farnborough]

Funny thing, never really followed up: The first reports on the trick said we should have seen a drop in performance in Brazil from Sprint to Race as the affected teams had to remove their heaters.

Can you see this drop? I will give it a try:
McLaren: Less dominant in the race than in the sprint and Pia was worse. Not super conclusive.
Merc: No change.
RedBull: Dropped like flies.
Ferrari: Improved.
RB: Improved.
Aston: Dropped like flies.

Looking at this....Aston and RedBull are linked by personal moving. McLaren had its mojos, maybe this was one of them.
I never understood the fuss about the floors RedBull had since Monza. But one idea is now shaping in my mind: What if...the big thing about the Monza floor upgrade was not the minor shape change, but the heated skids? With the heated skids they could just go down. Might also explain their super strong last stint in Mexico, they knew they were safe and went full pace while others did Lico galore for skids.

I don't see immediately the logic of RB loosing race pace in Max car ? It was ultimately faster than most out there.

Second item, discussed on here as to just how it could be achieved .... to draw a blank on that. The description/propaganda from Japanese site quoted in reporting that, appears to not answer, or at least forward, plausible explanation.

[venkyhere]

"Can someone help me understand what this 'clever mounting' can be ?"

This is my understanding of one way to "change" that dimension, and potentially in TD 039 shakeout.

If the plank was mounted, in it's entirety, to the floor with a substantially inflexible "packer" layer, but the areas around critical measurement holes were of a more "compressible" (we'll call it) substrate, then impact with track would see the overall plank wearing on such a strike .....while the reference material and its area was compressed into its supporting substrate.
Measurements after race will never look at the overall plank material left in place, just the specific reference material at those critical sites, which could have moved under hard impact with track. They test for this movement with static support test, from my understanding. But like wing flex, that's unlikely to be finite in its depth of scope.

I don't know what they changed exactly in absolute detail for 039, but you can see in reading the current notes, back in this thread, that the reference plane, fixings, how those fixings are placed etc, are all defined in absolute terms that to prevent "interpretation from the teams, naturally.

Ah, so you mean the keel of the carbon tub has non-homogenous bending strength ; such that the portion above the bow&stern of the plank is 'softer' than the middle keel portion, so that the first few impacts to the bow and stern bend the relevant portions 'upwards' permanently, and make the entire plank sit a bit convex to the road.
Thank you.

[Farnborough]

I can see your theory, but its not what I'm describing.

If you see one close up and personal after a race stint, its clear that the whole plank is not worn evenly, but based on just how strong the support behind it was in reality.

You get a "contour map" (can be seen in some of the lift images) where some parts are clearly more worn from having been pushed against a more robust background, while other sectors have escaped the full force of the strike by flexing out of the way a little.

Its unrealistic to have an absolutely rigid tub floor ( same as wing assembly) with realistic limitations of skin strength against materials weight etc, but if those slightly weaker "attribute" were to be convenient in their location, then you'd undoubtedly get this effect.

There's testing described back up the thread in which ( as I understood it) the car is set onto supports to measure the deflection, I thought through the inspection holes ? This to check for flexing over and above limits. Static testing unlikely to represent peak dynamic load is quite possible, making some flexing at extreme strike a possibility.

[basti313]

Funny thing, never really followed up: The first reports on the trick said we should have seen a drop in performance in Brazil from Sprint to Race as the affected teams had to remove their heaters.

Can you see this drop? I will give it a try:
McLaren: Less dominant in the race than in the sprint and Pia was worse. Not super conclusive.
Merc: No change.
RedBull: Dropped like flies.
Ferrari: Improved.
RB: Improved.
Aston: Dropped like flies.

Looking at this....Aston and RedBull are linked by personal moving. McLaren had its mojos, maybe this was one of them.
I never understood the fuss about the floors RedBull had since Monza. But one idea is now shaping in my mind: What if...the big thing about the Monza floor upgrade was not the minor shape change, but the heated skids? With the heated skids they could just go down. Might also explain their super strong last stint in Mexico, they knew they were safe and went full pace while others did Lico galore for skids.

I don't see immediately the logic of RB loosing race pace in Max car ? It was ultimately faster than most out there.

Second item, discussed on here as to just how it could be achieved .... to draw a blank on that. The description/propaganda from Japanese site quoted in reporting that, appears to not answer, or at least forward, plausible explanation.

Well, the removal of the heaters was before Q. That was the bad bad Q for RedBull, when they could not even get through Q1 with Verstappen.
Coincidence? I do not think so anymore.
They pulled the car of Verstappen from the grid and changed the setup (Ride height? Based on the wear figures they got from Q?). Tsunoda with the original setup was nowhere.

There are also rumors around, that McLaren "escaped" the skid wear in Brazil just closely. No idea if really true, but judging from the issues, I think it makes sense, that both McLaren and RedBull were in the heater game (if there was a heater game).

[venkyhere]

Funny thing, never really followed up: The first reports on the trick said we should have seen a drop in performance in Brazil from Sprint to Race as the affected teams had to remove their heaters.

Can you see this drop? I will give it a try:
McLaren: Less dominant in the race than in the sprint and Pia was worse. Not super conclusive.
Merc: No change.
RedBull: Dropped like flies.
Ferrari: Improved.
RB: Improved.
Aston: Dropped like flies.

Looking at this....Aston and RedBull are linked by personal moving. McLaren had its mojos, maybe this was one of them.
I never understood the fuss about the floors RedBull had since Monza. But one idea is now shaping in my mind: What if...the big thing about the Monza floor upgrade was not the minor shape change, but the heated skids? With the heated skids they could just go down. Might also explain their super strong last stint in Mexico, they knew they were safe and went full pace while others did Lico galore for skids.

I don't see immediately the logic of RB loosing race pace in Max car ? It was ultimately faster than most out there.

Second item, discussed on here as to just how it could be achieved .... to draw a blank on that. The description/propaganda from Japanese site quoted in reporting that, appears to not answer, or at least forward, plausible explanation.

Well, the removal of the heaters was before Q. That was the bad bad Q for RedBull, when they could not even get through Q1 with Verstappen.
Coincidence? I do not think so anymore.
They pulled the car of Verstappen from the grid and changed the setup (Ride height? Based on the wear figures they got from Q?). Tsunoda with the original setup was nowhere.

There are also rumors around, that McLaren "escaped" the skid wear in Brazil just closely. No idea if really true, but judging from the issues, I think it makes sense, that both McLaren and RedBull were in the heater game (if there was a heater game).

what is this 'heater game' ?
Even if we discount that titanium has a low coef of thermal expansion, and consider that it's 'expansion to heat' is similar to something like cast iron or steel , then what ? Can you describe in terms of physics, what might be the 'mechanism of cheating' using heating ? The metal expands more, rubs with the tarmac more, more sparks. Then what ? Once the car is back in parc ferme and cooled down, and the car shut down (killing the heater), how much thermal capacity should it have, to keep the metal 'expanded enough' such that when the FIA guy comes and uses his hands inorder to attach the tool to measure, he doesn't feel the heat, and thinks 'its all fine' while using the metal with larger dimensions to measure the hole depth ; whilst noticing that the portions of wood fore and aft of the skidplate are unscathed/unblemished ?

[basti313]

I don't see immediately the logic of RB loosing race pace in Max car ? It was ultimately faster than most out there.

Second item, discussed on here as to just how it could be achieved .... to draw a blank on that. The description/propaganda from Japanese site quoted in reporting that, appears to not answer, or at least forward, plausible explanation.

Well, the removal of the heaters was before Q. That was the bad bad Q for RedBull, when they could not even get through Q1 with Verstappen.
Coincidence? I do not think so anymore.
They pulled the car of Verstappen from the grid and changed the setup (Ride height? Based on the wear figures they got from Q?). Tsunoda with the original setup was nowhere.

There are also rumors around, that McLaren "escaped" the skid wear in Brazil just closely. No idea if really true, but judging from the issues, I think it makes sense, that both McLaren and RedBull were in the heater game (if there was a heater game).

what is this 'heater game' ?
Even if we discount that titanium has a low coef of thermal expansion, and consider that it's 'expansion to heat' is similar to something like cast iron or steel , then what ? Can you describe in terms of physics, what might be the 'mechanism of cheating' using heating ? The metal expands more, rubs with the tarmac more, more sparks. Then what ? Once the car is back in parc ferme and cooled down, and the car shut down (killing the heater), how much thermal capacity should it have, to keep the metal 'expanded enough' such that when the FIA guy comes and uses his hands inorder to attach the tool to measure, he doesn't feel the heat, and thinks 'its all fine' while using the metal with larger dimensions to measure the hole depth ; whilst noticing that the portions of wood fore and aft of the skidplate are unscathed/unblemished ?

Well, now we are mixing again. It is confirmed, that heaters needed to be removed from the skids on more than one team. Is this agreed?

There are two speculations, that I would separate:
- Which teams were affected? - My last post.
- How does it actually work? - Might even be contraction and I think they did not heat the Titanium, but the mount on the tub.

[venkyhere]

Well, now we are mixing again. It is confirmed, that heaters needed to be removed from the skids on more than one team. Is this agreed?

Where ? kindly post a FIA/media link that testifies to this 'caught red handed' scenario. I am shocked I haven't heard of this, as normally such a 'juicy' piece of news will explode in the congested F1 media world.

- How does it actually work? - Might even be contraction and I think they did not heat the Titanium, but the mount on the tub.

The skid-plate a.k.a ring-jacket is screwed to the wood (possibly extending to the tub even). What are you calling as 'mounts' ? what are they mounting ? the screws or the wood ? And what would happen if it's heated ? We are curious to know the 'physics' of the 'mechanism' that isn't made clear.

[basti313]

Well, now we are mixing again. It is confirmed, that heaters needed to be removed from the skids on more than one team. Is this agreed?

Where ? kindly post a FIA/media link that testifies to this 'caught red handed' scenario. I am shocked I haven't heard of this, as normally such a 'juicy' piece of news will explode in the congested F1 media world.

Well, there is no hotter topic technically after Brazil in the media I would say. Jo Bauer was openly cited, if this would be untrue, there would have been a clear denial.

There is now even a rumor of something coming officially, but I do not think that makes sense as skid rules change for next year as far as I remember.

https://www.autoracing1.com/pl/467011/f ... -in-qatar/

- How does it actually work? - Might even be contraction and I think they did not heat the Titanium, but the mount on the tub.

The skid-plate a.k.a ring-jacket is screwed to the wood (possibly extending to the tub even). What are you calling as 'mounts' ? what are they mounting ? the screws or the wood ? And what would happen if it's heated ? We are curious to know the 'physics' of the 'mechanism' that isn't made clear.

I fear we will not solve this fully, as already mentioned...no one even knows how a current for example McLaren skid looks like in detail and if it changed for example Miami last year. Same for the RedBull skid blocks/rings.

What I mean with mounts is any assembly besides the screws, the screws are regulated.

[Farnborough]

Speaking speculatively, the skid blocks (that are also measured) wouldn't appear to benefit from heating in any tangible way, and so discussed above.

Also, if that were true, it looks that expansion would also cause them to loose more material than less. It doesn't appear to add up whichever side you "stand" in observation.

If the tub floor though were to be heated locally, then to give greater yeald in support immediately above the skid location, that could allow the skid site to be pressed further into that support structure, this to avoid it being worn to extreme under race conditions.

That would potentially "protect" the skid and its ultimate dimension post race, with more material left in place.

[venkyhere]

If the tub floor though were to be heated locally, then to give greater yeald in support immediately above the skid location, that could allow the skid site to be pressed further into that support structure, this to avoid it being worn to extreme under race conditions.

That would potentially "protect" the skid and its ultimate dimension post race, with more material left in place.

Agree, this is the theory that sounds believable to me. Because I am not seeing how heating the very material (Ti) that is going to measured for 'how much material lost from friction' is going to be anything other than counterproductive.

[vorticism]

At some point in this regulation cycle, 3.15.8 Central Floor Flexibility was created, and iirc, had some revisions along the way.

It specifies that three 40mm rams lift the entire car through the three rearmost inspection holes in the plank, which form a long triangle; two forward holes and one near the rear axle, which are visible in all of the plank photos. Since those rams are smaller than the inspection holes, the rams contact the floor itself and its by this that the floor stiffness is tested (0.2mm vertical deflection max at the ram location). To this same test was added 70mm rams in the same orientation. Since they are wider, they cannot pass through the inspection holes and contact the plank assembly and not the floor. A maximum vertical deflection of 2mm at the same ram locations is permitted.

To comply with this, the floor must be very stiff, or at least, merely attach to the chassis in a simple way, with no degrees of freedom. The larger plank deflection tolerance must have something to do with accommodating the compressibility of the plank material and any pocketing of its upper face. Otherwise, you’d think: just sandwich the floor & plank directly to the chassis and apply the 0.2mm tolerance to the entire stack.

This wording changes again into 2026 accordant with various new floor and plank assembly rules. The quantity of inspection holes is reduced to three total (from four) and are inline; no triangles formed. Upon the ram sits a gimballed pad with three radially symmetrical 10mm points of contact is used which will measure, presumably, forces off-axis in addition to the primary vertical axis properties. Since the rams will be in a line and not a triangle, presumably they won’t lift the car entirely off the stand. Fittingly a force limit is spec’d and not a linear deflection dimension.

3.15 in general is interesting as it went from one paragraph in 2022 to it current form of four pages here in 2025.

Tangent: my fave floor hack of this formula was Red Bull’s in 2022. They implemented the edge-wing as a metal strake entirely beneath the floor: the ice skate. Textbook Mateschitz-Horner-Newey era Red Bull. EBD-tier. It limited floor edge bending with a hard stop--no tension stay required. It could be seen sparking occassionally. Then the FIA raised the floor edge 50mm for ’23 and such treatments no longer had any applicability.

[Jambier]

Funny thing, never really followed up: The first reports on the trick said we should have seen a drop in performance in Brazil from Sprint to Race as the affected teams had to remove their heaters.

Can you see this drop? I will give it a try:
McLaren: Less dominant in the race than in the sprint and Pia was worse. Not super conclusive.
Merc: No change.
RedBull: Dropped like flies.
Ferrari: Improved.
RB: Improved.
Aston: Dropped like flies.

Looking at this....Aston and RedBull are linked by personal moving. McLaren had its mojos, maybe this was one of them.
I never understood the fuss about the floors RedBull had since Monza. But one idea is now shaping in my mind: What if...the big thing about the Monza floor upgrade was not the minor shape change, but the heated skids? With the heated skids they could just go down. Might also explain their super strong last stint in Mexico, they knew they were safe and went full pace while others did Lico galore for skids.

Regarding Aston Martin, Alonso said this several times this year: They can't run as low as they need.
Hence they can be fast for sprint, but for real races they are always setting the car higher, and Mclaren ability to run low is one of their key strenth.

He added that some teams are taking more risks to run low and face possible disqualification, but that Aston don't.
He said that BEFORE the Mclaren DSQ.

[Rodak]

Speaking speculatively, the skid blocks (that are also measured) wouldn't appear to benefit from heating in any tangible way, and so discussed above.

Also, if that were true, it looks that expansion would also cause them to loose more material than less. It doesn't appear to add up whichever side you "stand" in observation.

If the tub floor though were to be heated locally, then to give greater yeald in support immediately above the skid location, that could allow the skid site to be pressed further into that support structure, this to avoid it being worn to extreme under race conditions.

That would potentially "protect" the skid and its ultimate dimension post race, with more material left in place.

Thanks for the last few rational comments. It should be noted, however, that it's not the skid blocks that are measured rather it's the actual plank that has to be a minimum of 9 mm thickness at the designated measuring spots.

From the 2025 Technical Regulations, Section 3.5.9 Plank Assembly:

e. The thickness of the plank assembly measured normal to the lower surface must be
10mm ± 0.2mm and must be uniform when new. A minimum thickness of 9mm will be
accepted due to wear, and conformity to this provision will be checked at the
peripheries of the designated holes.
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.

There is no reference to skid block minimum thickness.

[karana]

Speaking speculatively, the skid blocks (that are also measured) wouldn't appear to benefit from heating in any tangible way, and so discussed above.

Also, if that were true, it looks that expansion would also cause them to loose more material than less. It doesn't appear to add up whichever side you "stand" in observation.

If the tub floor though were to be heated locally, then to give greater yeald in support immediately above the skid location, that could allow the skid site to be pressed further into that support structure, this to avoid it being worn to extreme under race conditions.

That would potentially "protect" the skid and its ultimate dimension post race, with more material left in place.

Thanks for the last few rational comments. It should be noted, however, that it's not the skid blocks that are measured rather it's the actual plank that has to be a minimum of 9 mm thickness at the designated measuring spots.

From the 2025 Technical Regulations, Section 3.5.9 Plank Assembly:

e. The thickness of the plank assembly measured normal to the lower surface must be
10mm ± 0.2mm and must be uniform when new. A minimum thickness of 9mm will be
accepted due to wear, and conformity to this provision will be checked at the
peripheries of the designated holes.
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.

There is no reference to skid block minimum thickness.

From the quote: "..., regardless of whether plank or skid material is present".
The teams are allowed to replace plank material with skid material up to a certain total surface with hardly any restriction where. So they put the skids exactly around the holes where the minimum thickness is measured