DChemTech wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:12 am
henry wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:30 pm
Here’s the appropriate section of the regs:
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.
b. Bodywork on the reference plane may deflect no more than 0.2mm when the car, 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.
The 0.2mm requirement suggests they expect the floor to be pretty stiff.
That all does sound like conditional regulations - and I do suppose the car(s) meet this regulation under the mentioned conditions (otherwise, it'd really be rather stupid).
If this is all there is, without anything like 'the plank may not deflect more than x mm under any circumstance', it does sound an awful lot like the wings last year. Written-down tests that are being met, 'unwritten rules' that are allegedly being violated, which is then countered by new tests with new criteria that hence change the quantitative rules. So far, it seems the FIA learned very little. But let's see how it plays out; I still cannot claim I have a fully clear picture of the situation, so I may be mistaken.
Two other clauses are also effective.
3.2.2 says all bodywork must be rigid.
3.2.15 says that if they suspect non-conformity with 3.2.2 they reserve the right to introduce new tests.
So now we have new regs and potentially new ways of transgressing 3.2.2.
Personally I think RB may be twisting the floor when cornering. So the floor passes the tests with loads normal to the surface but might fail offset tests. That is not be rigid.
I think the bib and skate may be implicated in this. It’s not clear to me how the skate passes the 3.2.2 prohibition on bridging between car and ground. Perhaps because it meets the letter of the edge wing rules.
I think the FIA is keen, has always been keen, to avoid a bodywork flexibility arms race. No doubt we will see what happens come France.
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