But that's exactly what they do, especially with the teatray area
But easy to police that bit too by specifying how it's attached and to what. Anyone doing anything else is automatic DSQ, driver and team points removed for every race it was run illegally.
Big penalties tend to bring with them higher levels of compliance.
It's actually amazing they don't do this already... Provide entire plank, dictate strict mounting points, and levy heavy penalties for non-compliance.
If they supply the plank, being composite they could incorporate strain gauges into it, so there would not have to be pages of regs, just 'don't bend it' or we know.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
What a fabulous idea! It could also incorporate the vertical g-sensors to measure the porpoising (on the car), would make an interesting comparison with the sensor in the driver’s ear-piece.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
Pipe dreams though, that would require the FIA to actually be competent.
Although it seems Brawn is being very proactive on this stuff, and has said he won't hesitate to release mid season TDs if people are trying to skirt the rules somewhat.
Reading this thread, it might be worth mentioning that the light colored areas of the plank are the abraded areas, not the dark areas. Note the unscraped aft section of the planks are stained dark from soot/rubber/dust.
Have not yet seen a good explanation for what 'floor flexing' specifically means as it relates to proposed FIA mandates.
T-tray flexing is required by the regs hence all teams have under-nose shock absorbers intentionally bridging the chassis to the ground.
Axial twist of the plank makes no sense as it's rigidly attached to the chassis.
Longitudinal flex of the plank likewise is, as stated, required by the regs at least through the t-tray section. That leaves the boat-tail space under the tranny housing as last potential area for flex, with the suggestion being that riding on the boat tail is somehow in violation of the regs, while riding on the t-tray is not.
Presumably the "+25mm" floor edge height proposal is a direct commentary on the ice skates.
Toto claimed 40% (ha) more downforce will be found if the floor edge is not raised, which seems to suggest Merc have developed some kind of mega ice skate.
The final option is that, as some other have already mentioned in this thread, it is simply about the measurement access holes in the plank. See next post.
If it is about the measuring holes in the plank, note that there are two tests involving them. One uses 40mm rams to support the car from the chassis directly without touching the plank (b), the other uses 70mm rams to support the car upon the plank (a). Both tests use the same three hole locations, the two forwardmost test holes and the single rearmost test hole. Call it the test tripod.
The wide ram test is a little more forgiving as it accommodates the t-tray flex stipulation. The narrow ram test does not accommodate this and cross references datums on the forward chassis and the engine mounting points.
Knowing this, where then can excess flex arise from? If pressure is applied from areas other than the test tripod is this what is supposed to initiate flex either within the the floor, chassis, or plank?
RB18 scrapes across the seam of the two piece plank, this would imply that the plank flexes about a rigid pivot centered on the forward test holes, with a force imparted by the lever arm of the forward contact of the t-tray. As such, you could flex the t-tray to the prescribed extent, and maintain the rigid locations of the test tripod, while still bending the plank or floor longitudinally like a leaf spring, thus supplying extra rake angle. Essentially, pivot the t-tray about the forward test holes and not ahead of them. Supposition, correct me if I'm wrong.
3.15.8 Central Floor Flexibility
a. BodyworkwithinRV-PLANKmaydeflectnomorethan1mmatthetwoholesinthe plank at XF=1080 and no more than 2mm at the rearmost hole, when the car, without driver, is supported at these positions. The car will be supported on 70mm diameter pads, centred on the holes, and only in contact with the underside of the plank assembly. The displacement will be measured at the supports, relative to the reference plane at the centre of each hole. Furthermore, there may be up to 1mm additional deflection at the forward positions provided it complies with Article 3.15.2.
b. Bodyworkonthereferenceplanemaydeflectnomorethan0.2mmwhenthecar, without driver, is supported at the two holes in the plank at XF=1080 and at the rearmost hole in the plank. The car will be supported on 40mm diameter pads, centred on the holes, and only contacting the bodywork on the reference plane. For the two holes at XF=1080 the displacement will be measured at the supports, relative to the survival cell datum points detailed in Article 3.2.6. For the rearmost hole the displacement will be measured at the support, relative to the power unit at the uppermost transmission mounting studs detailed in Article 5.4.8.
Last edited by Dernie Ecclestone on Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reading this thread, it might be worth mentioning that the light colored areas of the plank are the abraded areas, not the dark areas. Note the unscraped aft section of the planks are stained dark from soot/rubber/dust.
Have not yet seen a good explanation for what 'floor flexing' specifically means as it relates to proposed FIA mandates.
T-tray flexing is required by the regs hence all teams have under-nose shock absorbers intentionally bridging the chassis to the ground.
Axial twist of the plank makes no sense as it's rigidly attached to the chassis.
Longitudinal flex of the plank likewise is, as stated, required by the regs at least through the t-tray section. That leaves the boat-tail space under the tranny housing as last potential area for flex, with the suggestion being that riding on the boat tail is somehow in violation of the regs, while riding on the t-tray is not.
Presumably the "+25mm" floor edge height proposal is a direct commentary on the ice skates.
Toto claimed 40% (ha) more downforce will be found if the floor edge is not raised, which seems to suggest Merc have developed some kind of mega ice skate.
The final option is that, as some other have already mentioned in this thread, it is simply about the measurement access holes in the plank. See next post.
Personally i think it’s twisting about the x axis. This would allow the outer tunnel/floor to get closer to the ground without wearing the plank
Pictures of the skid blocks around the holes show them split on the x axis, allowing twist flex.
The plank is attached to the floor not the chassis. If the floor can twist relative to the chassis so can the plank.
Sorry for a terse response damaged hand makes typing difficult
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus
Personally i think it’s twisting about the x axis. This would allow the outer tunnel/floor to get closer to the ground without wearing the plank
Pictures of the skid blocks around the holes show them split on the x axis, allowing twist flex.
The plank is attached to the floor not the chassis. If the floor can twist relative to the chassis so can the plank.
In which case the input force is delivered from the ice skate, correct?
And the bib possibly
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus
How many people think this 15mm increase in height is going to help certain teams?
I’d presume most teams are already very very close to the current stated measurements on the floor, if not slightly above it already.
How many teams do we know are running 15mm above this seasons regulations?
What’s interesting to watch is how the Merc floor looks the lowest on the rear in front of the wheel when cornering. It’s practically scraping the tarmac. Others are close, but not as close as the Mercedes’.
I’m wondering if this +15mm will be a blanket for all teams, not favouring any or the other. It might even be on a scale relative to what we have now if everyone needs to go up 15mm next season,
No Mikey Noo! No! Nooo Mikey! That was sooo not riiight!! #33: WDC: 2021 • 2022
How many people think this 15mm increase in height is going to help certain teams?
I’d presume most teams are already very very close to the current stated measurements on the floor, if not slightly above it already.
How many teams do we know are running 15mm above this seasons regulations?
What’s interesting to watch is how the Merc floor looks the lowest on the rear in front of the wheel when cornering. It’s practically scraping the tarmac. Others are close, but not as close as the Mercedes’.
I’m wondering if this +15mm will be a blanket for all teams, not favouring any or the other. It might even be on a scale relative to what we have now if everyone needs to go up 15mm next season,
If the measuring is going to be like Gary thinks (rear axis to 1 or 1.5 meters forward) I don't think many teams will have to change anything in 2023 compared to their current setups. https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-and ... explained/
He Suggests a team might place memory foam beneath plank outside the test hole areas to allow for delayed rebound. Seems unlikely. I think Henry VIII may be right in advocating axial deflection. The ice skate bends the entire floor keeping it and the plank relatively level to the track while the chassis rolls normally. Hence why only the outer edges of the plank are worn in the RB18 plank photo, although not as much as they could be sans flexing.
Last edited by vorticism on Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
