I thought about keeping them separate by a ridiculously small amount, but that would have meant playing with you (the rulechecker), rather than with the rules. And the mesh would close a small gap anyway, still making it one piece. So i just went for the double thickness.
I'll admit I've fallen guilty to messing up the thickness of the supports and not having a 'gap'. However I'm curious on the line between handing out warning and penalties. Some cars were issues warnings in the first round for rule breaches, but here we see three cars given penalties for first time infringement too.machin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:17 pm...I hope everyone checks their cars before submitting... so scrutineering shouldn’t be much of a surprise?
But I will say more about the rear wing supports.
The rules say that there must be two supports, one on each side of the car, and each 10mm thick.
Last year the first time we saw it someone came up with the clever idea of locating those two supports very close together on the centreline, making what appeared to be a single support just over 20mm thick; originally I was going to apply a penalty, since there didn’t appear to be TWO supports... but Andre pointed out that there were two, they were just VERY close together (<1mm gap). Very clever.
Now some people “copied” that and placed the two supports so that they were touching, but still a total of 20mm thick, 10mm on each side of the car. Again, I wanted to apply a penalty, but Andre and I agreed that as long as there was a >10mm thick support on each side of the car it would still be legal.
For the latest round a further number of cars “copied” the single support... but they neither had the gap, nor the mandated 10mm thickness on each side of the car... so a penalty has been awarded to 3 cars.
It is an interesting scenario, where the original, very clever, solution was blindly copied without really thinking of the rules.
Other infractions are:
Bodywork outside of legality volumes.
Internal parts not enclosed by user bodywork.
This is my rationale. There is no gap between the 2 sides because meshing would close it anyway. You could also consider it 2 mounts covered in an aerodynamic fairingvariante wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:12 amI thought about keeping them separate by a ridiculously small amount, but that would have meant playing with you (the rulechecker), rather than with the rules. And the mesh would close a small gap anyway, still making it one piece. So i just went for the double thickness.
Warnings are normally only given for instances where a clear aerodynamic advantage hasn't been gained; a small piece of bodywork outside the legality volume for example might be just a warning the first time.. but in all honesty everyone should be checking this as they design a new part anyway... I have the legality volume in my assembly and turn it on and off regularly just to check it's ok. I'm going to be more stringent on this in the future, as it's basically the one major rule we have.
Well the people who made the infraction either missed the rule, or chose to ignore it , I assumed the kinder assumption... but "Ignorantia juris non excusat"...To say the rules hadn't been considered and this 'blindly' is a bit disingenuous too. I'd considered this since last season and wondered how it was legal, but simply missed that EACH support should be 10mm, and it not being 10mm total bodywork minimum width.
That's what made the original "very close together" solution so clever.I'd considered this since last season and wondered how it was legal..
And that's why we don't give a penalty for this arrangement.I'd also argue that if they are modeled as two pieces, but sit against each other on the centre line of the car, they aren't breaching the rules as there is no stipulation of there being a gap between the two supports. So long as they are 10mm each in width (which mine aren't this round)
I agree about being more stringent, but a bit disappointed about my penalty. It was clearly my fault (I updated the diffuser and not the strakes, so there was a gap - may be 1 or 2mm) but it reduced the performance, and I never did that specific violation before (no warning received).
You made a big improvement in aero efficiency... I tried something with my rear wing, and basically had no rear downforce!