FIA Thread

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
Vanja #66
710
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Stu wrote:
Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:56 am
The logic behind TD039 being introduced mid season now looks either lame or targeted. Effectively it was a mid-season re-interpretation of a technical rule; it is now being released that certain front & rear wing interpretations that were legal were allowed to continue, but will now be outlawed for 2023 on. I’m not sure that I see the where the difference is. All three were ‘technically legal’, all three offered a performance enhancement, all three were trying to circumvent the intent of the regulations, only one was acted upon mid-season.
It was basically a targeted attack by one team wrapped in safety outcries, to hide how bad of a job they did. In the end, they hit the wrong team - and still couldn't beat them.

Running the car on the edge is racing, if that includes some more discomfort to boost performance - any driver will take it. If the discomfort is too big and you need to back off - tough luck, others did a better job with their car. Obviously, some teams didn't want to accept that.
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#Aerogimli
#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

User avatar
SiLo
103
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:37 am
Stu wrote:
Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:56 am
The logic behind TD039 being introduced mid season now looks either lame or targeted. Effectively it was a mid-season re-interpretation of a technical rule; it is now being released that certain front & rear wing interpretations that were legal were allowed to continue, but will now be outlawed for 2023 on. I’m not sure that I see the where the difference is. All three were ‘technically legal’, all three offered a performance enhancement, all three were trying to circumvent the intent of the regulations, only one was acted upon mid-season.
It was basically a targeted attack by one team wrapped in safety outcries, to hide how bad of a job they did. In the end, they hit the wrong team - and still couldn't beat them.

Running the car on the edge is racing, if that includes some more discomfort to boost performance - any driver will take it. If the discomfort is too big and you need to back off - tough luck, others did a better job with their car. Obviously, some teams didn't want to accept that.
This confuses me, I thought there were multiple complaints from drivers of various teams around safety and discomfort. Saying it was a targeted attack by a single team is incorrect. One of those drivers was Sainz from Ferrari.
Felipe Baby!

User avatar
Wouter
94
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:33 am
Vanja #66 wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:37 am
Stu wrote:
Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:56 am
The logic behind TD039 being introduced mid season now looks either lame or targeted. Effectively it was a mid-season re-interpretation of a technical rule; it is now being released that certain front & rear wing interpretations that were legal were allowed to continue, but will now be outlawed for 2023 on. I’m not sure that I see the where the difference is. All three were ‘technically legal’, all three offered a performance enhancement, all three were trying to circumvent the intent of the regulations, only one was acted upon mid-season.
It was basically a targeted attack by one team wrapped in safety outcries, to hide how bad of a job they did. In the end, they hit the wrong team - and still couldn't beat them.

Running the car on the edge is racing, if that includes some more discomfort to boost performance - any driver will take it. If the discomfort is too big and you need to back off - tough luck, others did a better job with their car. Obviously, some teams didn't want to accept that.
This confuses me, I thought there were multiple complaints from drivers of various teams around safety and discomfort.
Saying it was a targeted attack by a single team is incorrect. One of those drivers was Sainz from Ferrari.
.
All the teams whose drivers suffered from it chose not to endanger the health of the drivers themselves by a simple solution
and that was to adjust the car slightly higher. Ferrari also did the same.
However, Mercedes refused to do anything for the health of the drivers themselves and did not want to adjust the cars higher.
They asked the FIA to intervene so they could be sure that everyone had to tune the cars higher.
The Power of Honda!

GrizzleBoy
GrizzleBoy
27
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:06 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

The Ferrari had some of the worst porpoising on the grid until the TD was announced lol.

User avatar
SiLo
103
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Wouter wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:53 am
SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:33 am
Vanja #66 wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:37 am


It was basically a targeted attack by one team wrapped in safety outcries, to hide how bad of a job they did. In the end, they hit the wrong team - and still couldn't beat them.

Running the car on the edge is racing, if that includes some more discomfort to boost performance - any driver will take it. If the discomfort is too big and you need to back off - tough luck, others did a better job with their car. Obviously, some teams didn't want to accept that.
This confuses me, I thought there were multiple complaints from drivers of various teams around safety and discomfort.
Saying it was a targeted attack by a single team is incorrect. One of those drivers was Sainz from Ferrari.
.
All the teams whose drivers suffered from it chose not to endanger the health of the drivers themselves by a simple solution
and that was to adjust the car slightly higher. Ferrari also did the same.
However, Mercedes refused to do anything for the health of the drivers themselves and did not want to adjust the cars higher.
They asked the FIA to intervene so they could be sure that everyone had to tune the cars higher.
This is just all wrong entirely.

TD039 was about setting limits for acceptable levels of vertical oscillations to ensure the safety of the drivers.

As people appear to be insinuating that Mercedes where behind this, why exactly would the team with the WORST porpoising on the grid want to push for that? The only way they could remain vaguely competitive was running them lower and the drivers having to deal with bouncing, so trying to get the FIA to implement a rule that means they can't do that is entirely counter-intuitive.
Felipe Baby!

User avatar
Wouter
94
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:47 am
Wouter wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:53 am
SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:33 am


This confuses me, I thought there were multiple complaints from drivers of various teams around safety and discomfort.
Saying it was a targeted attack by a single team is incorrect. One of those drivers was Sainz from Ferrari.
.
All the teams whose drivers suffered from it chose not to endanger the health of the drivers themselves by a simple solution
and that was to adjust the car slightly higher. Ferrari also did the same.
However, Mercedes refused to do anything for the health of the drivers themselves and did not want to adjust the cars higher.
They asked the FIA to intervene so they could be sure that everyone had to tune the cars higher.
.
This is just all wrong entirely.

TD039 was about setting limits for acceptable levels of vertical oscillations to ensure the safety of the drivers.

As people appear to be insinuating that Mercedes where behind this, why exactly would the team with the WORST porpoising on the grid want to push for that? The only way they could remain vaguely competitive was running them lower and the drivers having to deal with bouncing, so trying to get the FIA to implement a rule that means they can't do that is entirely counter-intuitive.
.
Whatever you want ..... I won't argue with a Mercedes fan, because explaining their request is of no use.
The Power of Honda!

caddy
caddy
2
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:27 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:47 am
Wouter wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:53 am
SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:33 am


This confuses me, I thought there were multiple complaints from drivers of various teams around safety and discomfort.
Saying it was a targeted attack by a single team is incorrect. One of those drivers was Sainz from Ferrari.
.
All the teams whose drivers suffered from it chose not to endanger the health of the drivers themselves by a simple solution
and that was to adjust the car slightly higher. Ferrari also did the same.
However, Mercedes refused to do anything for the health of the drivers themselves and did not want to adjust the cars higher.
They asked the FIA to intervene so they could be sure that everyone had to tune the cars higher.
This is just all wrong entirely.

TD039 was about setting limits for acceptable levels of vertical oscillations to ensure the safety of the drivers.

As people appear to be insinuating that Mercedes where behind this, why exactly would the team with the WORST porpoising on the grid want to push for that? The only way they could remain vaguely competitive was running them lower and the drivers having to deal with bouncing, so trying to get the FIA to implement a rule that means they can't do that is entirely counter-intuitive.
TD039 wasn't about vertical oscillation. It's about the plank stiffness. FIA got to know that some teams are exploiting grey areas of plank flexing. Hence they introduced TD039. Remember George saying, "some teams are cheating and this TD would bring those teams closer to them"?

Porpoising metrics was about vertical oscillation. They are two different things. Porpoising metric came after the drama of Baku. Mercedes were propagating ride height increase/mandatory minimum ride height for all cars to stop porpoising and in turn got an undesired Porpoising metrics that stipulates acceptable vertical oscillations to ensure driver safety. It didn't affect teams that weren't bouncing and forced cars that bounce to increase ride height. This metric pushed Mercedes back by seconds against Redbull, while the combination of TD039 and Porpoising metric completely nerfed Ferrari. Strangely, the porpoising metric was eased for Singapore, just after 3 races!

User avatar
SiLo
103
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

caddy wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:13 pm
SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:47 am
Wouter wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:53 am

.
All the teams whose drivers suffered from it chose not to endanger the health of the drivers themselves by a simple solution
and that was to adjust the car slightly higher. Ferrari also did the same.
However, Mercedes refused to do anything for the health of the drivers themselves and did not want to adjust the cars higher.
They asked the FIA to intervene so they could be sure that everyone had to tune the cars higher.
This is just all wrong entirely.

TD039 was about setting limits for acceptable levels of vertical oscillations to ensure the safety of the drivers.

As people appear to be insinuating that Mercedes where behind this, why exactly would the team with the WORST porpoising on the grid want to push for that? The only way they could remain vaguely competitive was running them lower and the drivers having to deal with bouncing, so trying to get the FIA to implement a rule that means they can't do that is entirely counter-intuitive.
TD039 wasn't about vertical oscillation. It's about the plank stiffness. FIA got to know that some teams are exploiting grey areas of plank flexing. Hence they introduced TD039. Remember George saying, "some teams are cheating and this TD would bring those teams closer to them"?

Porpoising metrics was about vertical oscillation. They are two different things. Porpoising metric came after the drama of Baku. Mercedes were propagating ride height increase/mandatory minimum ride height for all cars to stop porpoising and in turn got an undesired Porpoising metrics that stipulates acceptable vertical oscillations to ensure driver safety. It didn't affect teams that weren't bouncing and forced cars that bounce to increase ride height. This metric pushed Mercedes back by seconds against Redbull, while the combination of TD039 and Porpoising metric completely nerfed Ferrari. Strangely, the porpoising metric was eased for Singapore, just after 3 races!
There appears to be confusion about the TD then:



Also:

https://the-race.com/formula-1/illustra ... directive/
Felipe Baby!

User avatar
SiLo
103
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Wouter wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 12:07 pm
SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:47 am
Wouter wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:53 am

.
All the teams whose drivers suffered from it chose not to endanger the health of the drivers themselves by a simple solution
and that was to adjust the car slightly higher. Ferrari also did the same.
However, Mercedes refused to do anything for the health of the drivers themselves and did not want to adjust the cars higher.
They asked the FIA to intervene so they could be sure that everyone had to tune the cars higher.
.
This is just all wrong entirely.

TD039 was about setting limits for acceptable levels of vertical oscillations to ensure the safety of the drivers.

As people appear to be insinuating that Mercedes where behind this, why exactly would the team with the WORST porpoising on the grid want to push for that? The only way they could remain vaguely competitive was running them lower and the drivers having to deal with bouncing, so trying to get the FIA to implement a rule that means they can't do that is entirely counter-intuitive.
.
Whatever you want ..... I won't argue with a Mercedes fan, because explaining their request is of no use.
I'd love to hear you explain it though, I am always open to having my mind changed when present with facts and figures.
Felipe Baby!

caddy
caddy
2
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:27 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:30 pm
caddy wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:13 pm
SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:47 am

This is just all wrong entirely.

TD039 was about setting limits for acceptable levels of vertical oscillations to ensure the safety of the drivers.

As people appear to be insinuating that Mercedes where behind this, why exactly would the team with the WORST porpoising on the grid want to push for that? The only way they could remain vaguely competitive was running them lower and the drivers having to deal with bouncing, so trying to get the FIA to implement a rule that means they can't do that is entirely counter-intuitive.
TD039 wasn't about vertical oscillation. It's about the plank stiffness. FIA got to know that some teams are exploiting grey areas of plank flexing. Hence they introduced TD039. Remember George saying, "some teams are cheating and this TD would bring those teams closer to them"?

Porpoising metrics was about vertical oscillation. They are two different things. Porpoising metric came after the drama of Baku. Mercedes were propagating ride height increase/mandatory minimum ride height for all cars to stop porpoising and in turn got an undesired Porpoising metrics that stipulates acceptable vertical oscillations to ensure driver safety. It didn't affect teams that weren't bouncing and forced cars that bounce to increase ride height. This metric pushed Mercedes back by seconds against Redbull, while the combination of TD039 and Porpoising metric completely nerfed Ferrari. Strangely, the porpoising metric was eased for Singapore, just after 3 races!
There appears to be confusion about the TD then:



Also:

https://the-race.com/formula-1/illustra ... directive/
Almost all the articles on the web are misleading.

There is a whole thread on this on the forum, started by henry.

viewtopic.php?t=30544

User avatar
SiLo
103
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

caddy wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:44 pm
SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:30 pm
caddy wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:13 pm
TD039 wasn't about vertical oscillation. It's about the plank stiffness. FIA got to know that some teams are exploiting grey areas of plank flexing. Hence they introduced TD039. Remember George saying, "some teams are cheating and this TD would bring those teams closer to them"?

Porpoising metrics was about vertical oscillation. They are two different things. Porpoising metric came after the drama of Baku. Mercedes were propagating ride height increase/mandatory minimum ride height for all cars to stop porpoising and in turn got an undesired Porpoising metrics that stipulates acceptable vertical oscillations to ensure driver safety. It didn't affect teams that weren't bouncing and forced cars that bounce to increase ride height. This metric pushed Mercedes back by seconds against Redbull, while the combination of TD039 and Porpoising metric completely nerfed Ferrari. Strangely, the porpoising metric was eased for Singapore, just after 3 races!
There appears to be confusion about the TD then:



Also:

https://the-race.com/formula-1/illustra ... directive/
Almost all the articles on the web are misleading.

There is a whole thread on this on the forum, started by henry.

viewtopic.php?t=30544
And in that thread there is similar confusion, yet almost everything online, from reputable journalists all say the same thing. Even the F1 website says it.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... uijHP.html
Felipe Baby!

caddy
caddy
2
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:27 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:47 pm
caddy wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:44 pm
SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:30 pm


There appears to be confusion about the TD then:



Also:

https://the-race.com/formula-1/illustra ... directive/
Almost all the articles on the web are misleading.

There is a whole thread on this on the forum, started by henry.

viewtopic.php?t=30544
And in that thread there is similar confusion, yet almost everything online, from reputable journalists all say the same thing. Even the F1 website says it.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... uijHP.html
That's Mark Huges, not an FIA guy.

I had to dig this out as there is no straight forward link to it.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -08-16.pdf
Convention:
Black text: All text from previous versions of the regulations
Pink text: Changes approved by the WMSC on 16 August 2022

3.15.8 Central Floor Flexibility
a. Bodywork within RV-PLANK may deflect no more than 2mm at the two holes in the
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, the stiffness for any load exceeding that defined in the previous
paragraph must be no less than 15kN/mm.
Competitors will be required to demonstrate the local vertical stiffness and design
installation of the skids and plank to the FIA for the regions around the periphery of
each of these three holes. Compliance with Article 3.5.9.e. will only be assessed in the
regions that are at least 90% as stiff as the stiffest part of the periphery. Any designs
intended to protect these regions of the periphery from wear will not be accepted.
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.
My guess as to why they call it TD039 is that, Plank Reference Volume is listed as 39th Reference Volume in the Technical Regulations and hence, this is a technical directive that clarifies the Reference Volume 39, which is Plank Reference Volume (RV-PLANK).

User avatar
SiLo
103
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

caddy wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:03 pm
SiLo wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:47 pm
caddy wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:44 pm
Almost all the articles on the web are misleading.

There is a whole thread on this on the forum, started by henry.

viewtopic.php?t=30544
And in that thread there is similar confusion, yet almost everything online, from reputable journalists all say the same thing. Even the F1 website says it.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... uijHP.html
That's Mark Huges, not an FIA guy.

I had to dig this out as there is no straight forward link to it.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -08-16.pdf
Convention:
Black text: All text from previous versions of the regulations
Pink text: Changes approved by the WMSC on 16 August 2022

3.15.8 Central Floor Flexibility
a. Bodywork within RV-PLANK may deflect no more than 2mm at the two holes in the
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, the stiffness for any load exceeding that defined in the previous
paragraph must be no less than 15kN/mm.
Competitors will be required to demonstrate the local vertical stiffness and design
installation of the skids and plank to the FIA for the regions around the periphery of
each of these three holes. Compliance with Article 3.5.9.e. will only be assessed in the
regions that are at least 90% as stiff as the stiffest part of the periphery. Any designs
intended to protect these regions of the periphery from wear will not be accepted.
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.
My guess as to why they call it TD039 is that, Plank Reference Volume is listed as 39th Reference Volume in the Technical Regulations and hence, this is a technical directive that clarifies the Reference Volume 39, which is Plank Reference Volume (RV-PLANK).
Thanks for finding that, maybe post it in the TD039 thread so others can see it. It's very confusing.
Felipe Baby!

User avatar
RZS10
328
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:23 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

caddy wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:03 pm
My guess as to why they call it TD039 is that, Plank Reference Volume is listed as 39th Reference Volume in the Technical Regulations and hence, this is a technical directive that clarifies the Reference Volume 39, which is Plank Reference Volume (RV-PLANK).
AFAIK the TDs are just numbered in ascending order, meaning this was the 39th technical directive of this season - it's always interesting to know how many of those were issued already since we never learn the content of a majority of them.

They also get referred to as nr./year or nr. - year, which is likely to be the naming scheme at the FIA internally.

Last year TD18 was for rear wings, TD22A was for pit stops, when Hamilton's DRS was broken in brazil the document mentioned "Technical Directive 011-19" etc
Last edited by RZS10 on Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dans79
252
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Yet a Redbull backed driver was the one that needed a major medical check.............
191 103 103 7