That’s not entirely the case. The rules weren’t changed, the way it’s enforced is.DChemTech wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 14:57Not really, because the wing was only explicitly illegal due to a change in the rules (in particular, the rules that state the allowed tolerances for flexing) in the middle of an ongoing season. You cannot blame really blame a team for having a car that was designed based on tolerance A, for not abiding a tolerance B that was never specified when they were designing it.
It's like saying that it's the waiters problem that you got a medium rather than a rare steak, while you never specified that you wanted rare in the first place.
But the rules didn't (and AFAIK, still don't) specify any "measurement-independent" tolerance. There is no "maximum X mm/Y degrees deflection/rotation under any circumstance" or so specified. The only specified tolerances are those related to the test conditions. So, by changing the test requirements, inherently the tolerances are changed - and teams are forced to abide to regulations that they were not aware of when making the initial design.Jolle wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 15:16That’s not entirely the case. The rules weren’t changed, the way it’s enforced is.DChemTech wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 14:57Not really, because the wing was only explicitly illegal due to a change in the rules (in particular, the rules that state the allowed tolerances for flexing) in the middle of an ongoing season. You cannot blame really blame a team for having a car that was designed based on tolerance A, for not abiding a tolerance B that was never specified when they were designing it.
It's like saying that it's the waiters problem that you got a medium rather than a rare steak, while you never specified that you wanted rare in the first place.
The rule (in bigger wording) is that parts on the unsprung parts of the car should be rigid. Because no material is 100% rigid there is, just like every measurement in the car a tolerance is set. A wing that bents for aerodynamic purposes is, in that case illegal.
For such reasons some statement on extrapolation of test conditions would be very valuable. A literal lever that yields above a certain load is pretty cut-and-dry, a designed non-linear response without a true confrontational change is, as you say, a pretty grey area. There's no statement in the current rules that non-linear behaviour is forbidden, and earlier discussions in this thread were about some non-linearity being pretty much inevitable... but where do you draw the line?PhillipM wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 17:38That last paragraph is exactly what they suspected was happening. The wing was much more rigid up to tests loads than it was after that as parts deliberately deflected to reduce the stiffness.
Which is deliberate design for aero elasticity, which is where the grey area comes in and why the FIA clamped down.
Wasn't this the whole schamoozle we went round and round the roundabout on with dans79 with 'deliberate' being coded language for intent, which either was or was not the most important aspect of enforcing the rules, depending on the rules of course.PhillipM wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 17:38That last paragraph is exactly what they suspected was happening. The wing was much more rigid up to tests loads than it was after that as parts deliberately deflected to reduce the stiffness.
Which is deliberate design for aero elasticity, which is where the grey area comes in and why the FIA clamped down.
Exactly! With the computational power available along with FEA analysis of carbon layups the designers are almost pushed into using the testing tolerance as a parameter.nzjrs wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 18:56Wasn't this the whole schamoozle we went round and round the roundabout on with dans79 with 'deliberate' being coded language for intent, which either was or was not the most important aspect of enforcing the rules, depending on the rules of course.PhillipM wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 17:38That last paragraph is exactly what they suspected was happening. The wing was much more rigid up to tests loads than it was after that as parts deliberately deflected to reduce the stiffness.
Which is deliberate design for aero elasticity, which is where the grey area comes in and why the FIA clamped down.
My point being that down that way lies another fractal layer of madness, so eventually for sanity you regress back to the test being the embodiment of the rules.
This is of course not a theoretical sport, but an embodied one.
Yes and no, the FIA uses simple tests, because Thursday inspections would take absolutely forever if they had to do everything as stringently as possible.nzjrs wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 18:56Wasn't this the whole schamoozle we went round and round the roundabout on with dans79 with 'deliberate' being coded language for intent, which either was or was not the most important aspect of enforcing the rules, depending on the rules of course.PhillipM wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 17:38That last paragraph is exactly what they suspected was happening. The wing was much more rigid up to tests loads than it was after that as parts deliberately deflected to reduce the stiffness.
Which is deliberate design for aero elasticity, which is where the grey area comes in and why the FIA clamped down.
My point being that down that way lies another fractal layer of madness, so eventually for sanity you regress back to the test being the embodiment of the rules.
This is of course not a theoretical sport, but an embodied one.
As many have point out before, bodywork flexibility is allow within the rules. So no, you're not againts the rules (as long as you're within articles 3.8 and 3.9 I must say). The only thing that the FIA can do is changing the amount of flexibility that is allow (article 3.9.9).PhillipM wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 18:29I mean the problem is, as soon as you start designing that in, that's against the rules, because you're deliberately designing flexing bodywork for aero gain, whilst compromising the structural side, you can't argue that you're just designing a structure to the minimum weight/stiffness to meet the tests any more.
Proving that however, is incredibly difficult for the FIA without some insider documentation which you can bet the teams are very careful to make sure the flexing is 'incidental' and just as a result of their software optimisation and refinements rather than an outright decision.
The only way around that is to alter the tests. Or rewrite the regulations. No point having a rewrite when everything changes next year, so you change the tests to clamp down on it.