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.