TD039

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
f1jcw
f1jcw
14
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:15 pm

Re: TD039

Post

Well I hope Merc is currently looking into ways to implement a way to exploit the grey area now that it is out in the open :D

hypocrite? Moi?

User avatar
chrisc90
8
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:22 pm

Re: TD039

Post

How does the extra 4mm even benefit though?

If your bottoming out at 2mm, and flex in the floor allows for a extra 4mm, then the 2mm is still going to be touching the floor.

This deflection is measured at 3 points at the holes on the floor using stands to sit the car on.

I cant see how the flex is going to help, unless im missing a key part of this.
No Mikey Noo! No! Nooo Mikey! That was sooo not riiight!!

TimW
TimW
25
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:07 pm

Re: TD039

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:51 am
The current regulations stipulate a maximum deflection of 2mm at the two middle plank holes and no more than 2mm at its rearmost hole in a bid to ensure that the floor is stiff enough.

However, there were claims some teams have managed to cleverly flex the floors by as much as 6mm in total, which would allow them to run with higher rake and much closer to the ground for increased performance without the risk of suffering the ill effects of ground strikes.

Tombazis made clear that the FIA believed teams having 'excessive deformation' of the floor was being done: "to achieve significantly lower ride heights, and hence an indirect aerodynamic gain."

The 2mm tolerance will be rigorously enforced and the stiffness around the floor hole must now be uniform for a radial distance of 15mm outside the periphery – with a variance not exceeding 10 percent either way.

The FIA added: "Competitors will be required to demonstrate compliance with these provisions by way of a detailed inspection of both the CAD and the physical installation, as well as Finite Element analysis."
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-f ... /10332153/

What's all this about? :?:

Any truth to the rumours that the big springs, found on most of the cars, will also be banned? :?:
The bold part really puzzles me. Extending the 2mm requirement by a 15 mm radius around the floor hole seems very little change. Unless there is a dramatic stiffness change very locally , but the plank itself seems to prevent that at a 15mm scale.
Then I thought maybe the car was supported from within the hole for the test and the entire plank could be a sprung part. But that is not the case, the test specifically says that it is supported from the plank.

Can anybody please solve this puzzle for me? What can make 15 mm radius relevant?

User avatar
214270
13
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:49 pm

Re: TD039

Post

Team ANTI-HYPE. Prove it, then I’ll anoint you.

Polite
Polite
14
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:36 am

Re: TD039

Post

I believe that many people will be disappointed with the new TD: first of all because in my opinion it will concern more the RBR than the Ferrari, since the deflections of the Rbr flat bottom are evident, therefore there will not be a rapprochement of the midfield, because Ferrari will always be distant.
moreover, even if it impacted equally on RBR and Ferrari, then I think it would also impact on the rest of the teams. And the midfield would remain substantially the same distance from the leaders.
so we should ask ourselves: do we want to change the rules during the season to bring faster teams closer to less fast ones? Or for ethical reasons, to respect the spirit of the regulation? in the second case, perhaps it would be better to intervene with changes to the 2023 regulation without trying to apply these rules already this year.

morefirejules08
morefirejules08
2
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:21 pm

Re: TD039

Post

Polite wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:22 am
I believe that many people will be disappointed with the new TD: first of all because in my opinion it will concern more the RBR than the Ferrari, since the deflections of the Rbr flat bottom are evident, therefore there will not be a rapprochement of the midfield, because Ferrari will always be distant.
moreover, even if it impacted equally on RBR and Ferrari, then I think it would also impact on the rest of the teams. And the midfield would remain substantially the same distance from the leaders.
so we should ask ourselves: do we want to change the rules during the season to bring faster teams closer to less fast ones? Or for ethical reasons, to respect the spirit of the regulation? in the second case, perhaps it would be better to intervene with changes to the 2023 regulation without trying to apply these rules already this year.
Why would it impact the rest of the teams assuming they are not employing the same “loophole”

User avatar
214270
13
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:49 pm

Re: TD039

Post

Polite wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:22 am
I believe that many people will be disappointed with the new TD: first of all because in my opinion it will concern more the RBR than the Ferrari, since the deflections of the Rbr flat bottom are evident, therefore there will not be a rapprochement of the midfield, because Ferrari will always be distant.
moreover, even if it impacted equally on RBR and Ferrari, then I think it would also impact on the rest of the teams. And the midfield would remain substantially the same distance from the leaders.
so we should ask ourselves: do we want to change the rules during the season to bring faster teams closer to less fast ones? Or for ethical reasons, to respect the spirit of the regulation? in the second case, perhaps it would be better to intervene with changes to the 2023 regulation without trying to apply these rules already this year.
Vs some of the things that have been brought in mid-season previously, this one is one of the easiest; same test - different plank location. It also addresses something that IMO is not even describable as ‘clever’ interpretation. 2mm is the plank flex limit in the regs and just because they only test in 1 location doesn’t make the 2mm limit disappear in a different plank location.
Team ANTI-HYPE. Prove it, then I’ll anoint you.

DChemTech
DChemTech
44
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: TD039

Post

214270 wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 11:49 am
Polite wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:22 am
I believe that many people will be disappointed with the new TD: first of all because in my opinion it will concern more the RBR than the Ferrari, since the deflections of the Rbr flat bottom are evident, therefore there will not be a rapprochement of the midfield, because Ferrari will always be distant.
moreover, even if it impacted equally on RBR and Ferrari, then I think it would also impact on the rest of the teams. And the midfield would remain substantially the same distance from the leaders.
so we should ask ourselves: do we want to change the rules during the season to bring faster teams closer to less fast ones? Or for ethical reasons, to respect the spirit of the regulation? in the second case, perhaps it would be better to intervene with changes to the 2023 regulation without trying to apply these rules already this year.
Vs some of the things that have been brought in mid-season previously, this one is one of the easiest; same test - different plank location. It also addresses something that IMO is not even describable as ‘clever’ interpretation. 2mm is the plank flex limit in the regs and just because they only test in 1 location doesn’t make the 2mm limit disappear in a different plank location.
But where is it stated that 2mm is the plank flex limit for the entire plank? To my knowledge, that is not stated anywhere. All that is stated is that 2mm is the flex limit for that particular location under those particular conditions. It is not at all clear that that would also put the limit for the entire plank at 2mm. In fact, if the limit for a section of the plank is 2mm, it would seem very odd if the limit for the entire plank is also 2mm - it essentially means the rest of the plank cannot flex at all.

User avatar
chrisc90
8
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:22 pm

Re: TD039

Post

would this not hurt the teams that are bouncing down the track with porpoising or natural bouncing?

We’ve seen cars that have been hammering the floor pretty harsh on the rear at times. So one would presume that it is the plank hitting the floor.

Maybe in terms of Red Bull, the ‘ice skate’ could limit the plank from actually hitting the floor at the rear
No Mikey Noo! No! Nooo Mikey! That was sooo not riiight!!

User avatar
carisi2k
21
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:26 pm

Re: TD039

Post

I think this is all just a bunch of hot air. If the plank was flexible in the manner shown then the FIA should already be able to test it and deem it illegal without needing a technical directive. Correct me if I am wrong but the FIA can impound any car in the field and do all sorts of testing on it after a race. This would seem to be something the FIA could have checked at Silverstone and then disqualified any car found to be cheating in this way.

If this was the case then why hasn't Mercedes protested both the Red Bull and Ferrari at Silverstone.

*MOD EDIT* - Removed some tinfoil hat nonsense

User avatar
214270
13
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:49 pm

Re: TD039

Post

DChemTech wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:06 pm
214270 wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 11:49 am
Polite wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:22 am
I believe that many people will be disappointed with the new TD: first of all because in my opinion it will concern more the RBR than the Ferrari, since the deflections of the Rbr flat bottom are evident, therefore there will not be a rapprochement of the midfield, because Ferrari will always be distant.
moreover, even if it impacted equally on RBR and Ferrari, then I think it would also impact on the rest of the teams. And the midfield would remain substantially the same distance from the leaders.
so we should ask ourselves: do we want to change the rules during the season to bring faster teams closer to less fast ones? Or for ethical reasons, to respect the spirit of the regulation? in the second case, perhaps it would be better to intervene with changes to the 2023 regulation without trying to apply these rules already this year.
Vs some of the things that have been brought in mid-season previously, this one is one of the easiest; same test - different plank location. It also addresses something that IMO is not even describable as ‘clever’ interpretation. 2mm is the plank flex limit in the regs and just because they only test in 1 location doesn’t make the 2mm limit disappear in a different plank location.
But where is it stated that 2mm is the plank flex limit for the entire plank? To my knowledge, that is not stated anywhere. All that is stated is that 2mm is the flex limit for that particular location under those particular conditions. It is not at all clear that that would also put the limit for the entire plank at 2mm. In fact, if the limit for a section of the plank is 2mm, it would seem very odd if the limit for the entire plank is also 2mm - it essentially means the rest of the plank cannot flex at all.
Yeah if you’re looking for the word ‘entire’ it doesn’t exist, but I think the genesis needs to be considered. It was always intended to be the entire plank body, then with evolution of the cars the requirements, tolerances & measurements have been revised to suit. Fast forward to present and we a ruleset which is biased towards the plank front for no good reason given the behaviour of the new cars.

I guess the question to ask is why wouldn’t it apply to the entire plank?
Team ANTI-HYPE. Prove it, then I’ll anoint you.

DChemTech
DChemTech
44
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: TD039

Post

214270 wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:48 pm
DChemTech wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:06 pm
214270 wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 11:49 am

Vs some of the things that have been brought in mid-season previously, this one is one of the easiest; same test - different plank location. It also addresses something that IMO is not even describable as ‘clever’ interpretation. 2mm is the plank flex limit in the regs and just because they only test in 1 location doesn’t make the 2mm limit disappear in a different plank location.
But where is it stated that 2mm is the plank flex limit for the entire plank? To my knowledge, that is not stated anywhere. All that is stated is that 2mm is the flex limit for that particular location under those particular conditions. It is not at all clear that that would also put the limit for the entire plank at 2mm. In fact, if the limit for a section of the plank is 2mm, it would seem very odd if the limit for the entire plank is also 2mm - it essentially means the rest of the plank cannot flex at all.
Yeah if you’re looking for the word ‘entire’ it doesn’t exist, but I think the genesis needs to be considered. It was always intended to be the entire plank body, then with evolution of the cars the requirements, tolerances & measurements have been revised to suit. Fast forward to present and we a ruleset which is biased towards the plank front for no good reason given the behaviour of the new cars.

I guess the question to ask is why wouldn’t it apply to the entire plank?
Why it wouldn't apply to the entire plank is simple: because the rules do not describe it doing so. They describe it applying to a section under a given test condition. How to floor should behave outside of those conditions, the teams should seemingly guess (or find out via mindreading?).

Clear rules have clear wording. The current rules lack that. And we're in a sport where details matter: if one team 'supposes' it applies to the entire plank while it does not,then that team is on the back foot. If a team 'supposes' it does not apply to the entire plank based on the wording, than that team may suddenly find itself penalized (with all due resources spent) because they misinterpreted (or simply guessed wrong) 'the spirit of the rules'. That's not how sporting regulations should work; spirits belong in the liquor cabinet, not in technical regulations. If the 2mm applies to the entire plank, the rules should state that quantitatively and indisputably.

morefirejules08
morefirejules08
2
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:21 pm

Re: TD039

Post

chrisc90 wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:07 pm
would this not hurt the teams that are bouncing down the track with porpoising or natural bouncing?

We’ve seen cars that have been hammering the floor pretty harsh on the rear at times. So one would presume that it is the plank hitting the floor.

Maybe in terms of Red Bull, the ‘ice skate’ could limit the plank from actually hitting the floor at the rear
If teams that are experiencing bouncing are already employing this “loop hole then yes they will be hurt. If they’re plank doesn’t deflect beyond 2mm then the TD will have no effect on them.

morefirejules08
morefirejules08
2
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:21 pm

Re: TD039

Post

DChemTech wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 1:37 pm
214270 wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:48 pm
DChemTech wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:06 pm


But where is it stated that 2mm is the plank flex limit for the entire plank? To my knowledge, that is not stated anywhere. All that is stated is that 2mm is the flex limit for that particular location under those particular conditions. It is not at all clear that that would also put the limit for the entire plank at 2mm. In fact, if the limit for a section of the plank is 2mm, it would seem very odd if the limit for the entire plank is also 2mm - it essentially means the rest of the plank cannot flex at all.
Yeah if you’re looking for the word ‘entire’ it doesn’t exist, but I think the genesis needs to be considered. It was always intended to be the entire plank body, then with evolution of the cars the requirements, tolerances & measurements have been revised to suit. Fast forward to present and we a ruleset which is biased towards the plank front for no good reason given the behaviour of the new cars.

I guess the question to ask is why wouldn’t it apply to the entire plank?
Why it wouldn't apply to the entire plank is simple: because the rules do not describe it doing so. They describe it applying to a section under a given test condition. How to floor should behave outside of those conditions, the teams should seemingly guess (or find out via mindreading?).

Clear rules have clear wording. The current rules lack that. And we're in a sport where details matter: if one team 'supposes' it applies to the entire plank while it does not,then that team is on the back foot. If a team 'supposes' it does not apply to the entire plank based on the wording, than that team may suddenly find itself penalized (with all due resources spent) because they misinterpreted (or simply guessed wrong) 'the spirit of the rules'. That's not how sporting regulations should work; spirits belong in the liquor cabinet, not in technical regulations. If the 2mm applies to the entire plank, the rules should state that quantitatively and indisputably.
Well it seems the FIA intended for their tone no more than 2mm, teams found a way to circumnavigate what was intended and not with the new TD the FIA are attempting to fix that.
It’s as simple as that.

DChemTech
DChemTech
44
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: TD039

Post

morefirejules08 wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 1:44 pm
DChemTech wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 1:37 pm
214270 wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:48 pm


Yeah if you’re looking for the word ‘entire’ it doesn’t exist, but I think the genesis needs to be considered. It was always intended to be the entire plank body, then with evolution of the cars the requirements, tolerances & measurements have been revised to suit. Fast forward to present and we a ruleset which is biased towards the plank front for no good reason given the behaviour of the new cars.

I guess the question to ask is why wouldn’t it apply to the entire plank?
Why it wouldn't apply to the entire plank is simple: because the rules do not describe it doing so. They describe it applying to a section under a given test condition. How to floor should behave outside of those conditions, the teams should seemingly guess (or find out via mindreading?).

Clear rules have clear wording. The current rules lack that. And we're in a sport where details matter: if one team 'supposes' it applies to the entire plank while it does not,then that team is on the back foot. If a team 'supposes' it does not apply to the entire plank based on the wording, than that team may suddenly find itself penalized (with all due resources spent) because they misinterpreted (or simply guessed wrong) 'the spirit of the rules'. That's not how sporting regulations should work; spirits belong in the liquor cabinet, not in technical regulations. If the 2mm applies to the entire plank, the rules should state that quantitatively and indisputably.
Well it seems the FIA intended for their tone no more than 2mm, teams found a way to circumnavigate what was intended and not with the new TD the FIA are attempting to fix that.
It’s as simple as that.
If that was what they intended, then that was what they should have written down! You cannot 'circumnavigate' something that is not stated. And 'from their tone' is not how technical regulations should be interpreted: either something is specified, or it is not.

Now, we're in a situation where some teams seem to have done something that is perfectly legal within the wording of the regulation stated, and these teams suddenly have to change this thing, with all due costs in terms of money (while there is, mind you, a budget cap) and time - that is not a fair situation, teams should not be penalized for operating inside the rules as they were stated, and rules should not be changed in a season because the sporting body deems certain actions 'violating the spirit'. As stressed before, this is the situation as I oversee it now and I might be wrong in this assessment, I am eager to see further news on the developments.
Last edited by DChemTech on Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.