TD039

[f1jcw]

In my opinion they should strive for fully explicit regulations, and avoid anything interpretable like 'should be rigid'. If there is a loophole, close it next year.

If they want rigid, they should state 'no part of the floor may deflect more than x mm during at any time during the race'. It may be a limit that is hard to monitor, but the rule is clear, and then they have the full uncontroversial right to come up with new tests or sensors to monitor.

Loopholes are great. The regulations limit the teams, and part of this sport is to find things that are allowed. Mercedes mirror support wing structure combined with no undercut minipods is a result of a loophole. It was never something the regulations intended to allow. And isn't that one of the standout things this year, that we all love here on this site?

So my opinion on this one: if teams are using a floor flex loophole, just let the other teams also use it. Close it for next year.

This is the thing though, it isn't a loophole, it is out and out going against the rules.

[DChemTech]

In my opinion they should strive for fully explicit regulations, and avoid anything interpretable like 'should be rigid'. If there is a loophole, close it next year.

If they want rigid, they should state 'no part of the floor may deflect more than x mm during at any time during the race'. It may be a limit that is hard to monitor, but the rule is clear, and then they have the full uncontroversial right to come up with new tests or sensors to monitor.

Loopholes are great. The regulations limit the teams, and part of this sport is to find things that are allowed. Mercedes mirror support wing structure combined with no undercut minipods is a result of a loophole. It was never something the regulations intended to allow. And isn't that one of the standout things this year, that we all love here on this site?

So my opinion on this one: if teams are using a floor flex loophole, just let the other teams also use it. Close it for next year.

This is the thing though, it isn't a loophole, it is out and out going against the rules.

Which brings back the question, against which rule exactly?

[JordanMugen]

The current regulations stipulate a maximum deflection of 2mm at the two middle plank holes and no more than 2mm at its rearmost hole in a bid to ensure that the floor is stiff enough.

However, there were claims some teams have managed to cleverly flex the floors by as much as 6mm in total, which would allow them to run with higher rake and much closer to the ground for increased performance without the risk of suffering the ill effects of ground strikes.

Tombazis made clear that the FIA believed teams having 'excessive deformation' of the floor was being done: "to achieve significantly lower ride heights, and hence an indirect aerodynamic gain."

The 2mm tolerance will be rigorously enforced and the stiffness around the floor hole must now be uniform for a radial distance of 15mm outside the periphery – with a variance not exceeding 10 percent either way.

The FIA added: "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."

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-f ... /10332153/

What's all this about?

Same thing it's always about in F1, teams bending the rules to gain a performance advantage, while it takes the FIA a while to cotton onto it. ...

Any truth to the rumours that the big springs, found on most of the cars, will also be banned?

Not heard anything about that, but it wouldn't surprise me if the FIA do decide to ban that. Though I guess the teams might argue they are needed to smooth out the bumps to protect drivers long term health.

I'm still a little confused about the TD. In what direction are the floors or planks (or both) thought to be bending?

Is having a spring on the bib part of the same issue, or a different issue?

The FIA are certainly entitled to introduce additional load tests if they suspect there are designs out there which are flexing more than they would like, likewise they are entitled to require the bib spring to be replaced by a rigid (!!, usual caveats, I guess that could be engineered as a leaf spring) strut if they so wish.

[Stu]

In my opinion they should strive for fully explicit regulations, and avoid anything interpretable like 'should be rigid'. If there is a loophole, close it next year.

If they want rigid, they should state 'no part of the floor may deflect more than x mm during at any time during the race'. It may be a limit that is hard to monitor, but the rule is clear, and then they have the full uncontroversial right to come up with new tests or sensors to monitor.

Loopholes are great. The regulations limit the teams, and part of this sport is to find things that are allowed. Mercedes mirror support wing structure combined with no undercut minipods is a result of a loophole. It was never something the regulations intended to allow. And isn't that one of the standout things this year, that we all love here on this site?

So my opinion on this one: if teams are using a floor flex loophole, just let the other teams also use it. Close it for next year.

This is the thing though, it isn't a loophole, it is out and out going against the rules.

Which ruling exactly?
The click-bait reports of Toto being shocked that other teams are possibly exploiting within the tested definitions could be read in two ways:
1) their floor is uniformly stiff in all directions
2) they thought that no one else had spotted the potential to do so.

As Toto is not an engineer within the technical side of the team, his understanding of the rights, wrongs and complexities of the situation should not be taken as gospel.
An awful lot is being inferred from two teams not approving the changes, I think it best for facts to be established before jumping to conclusions.

[mkay]

In my opinion they should strive for fully explicit regulations, and avoid anything interpretable like 'should be rigid'. If there is a loophole, close it next year.

If they want rigid, they should state 'no part of the floor may deflect more than x mm during at any time during the race'. It may be a limit that is hard to monitor, but the rule is clear, and then they have the full uncontroversial right to come up with new tests or sensors to monitor.

Loopholes are great. The regulations limit the teams, and part of this sport is to find things that are allowed. Mercedes mirror support wing structure combined with no undercut minipods is a result of a loophole. It was never something the regulations intended to allow. And isn't that one of the standout things this year, that we all love here on this site?

So my opinion on this one: if teams are using a floor flex loophole, just let the other teams also use it. Close it for next year.

This is the thing though, it isn't a loophole, it is out and out going against the rules.

Which ruling exactly?
The click-bait reports of Toto being shocked that other teams are possibly exploiting within the tested definitions could be read in two ways:
1) their floor is uniformly stiff in all directions
2) they thought that no one else had spotted the potential to do so.

As Toto is not an engineer within the technical side of the team, his understanding of the rights, wrongs and complexities of the situation should not be taken as gospel.
An awful lot is being inferred from two teams not approving the changes, I think it best for facts to be established before jumping to conclusions.

It's a rule of thumb that the teams most vocally opposed to a change in regulations or FIA testing mechanisms are most likely to be affected (to any degree) by said changes.

[f1jcw]

In my opinion they should strive for fully explicit regulations, and avoid anything interpretable like 'should be rigid'. If there is a loophole, close it next year.

If they want rigid, they should state 'no part of the floor may deflect more than x mm during at any time during the race'. It may be a limit that is hard to monitor, but the rule is clear, and then they have the full uncontroversial right to come up with new tests or sensors to monitor.

Loopholes are great. The regulations limit the teams, and part of this sport is to find things that are allowed. Mercedes mirror support wing structure combined with no undercut minipods is a result of a loophole. It was never something the regulations intended to allow. And isn't that one of the standout things this year, that we all love here on this site?

So my opinion on this one: if teams are using a floor flex loophole, just let the other teams also use it. Close it for next year.

This is the thing though, it isn't a loophole, it is out and out going against the rules.

Which ruling exactly?
The click-bait reports of Toto being shocked that other teams are possibly exploiting within the tested definitions could be read in two ways:
1) their floor is uniformly stiff in all directions
2) they thought that no one else had spotted the potential to do so.

As Toto is not an engineer within the technical side of the team, his understanding of the rights, wrongs and complexities of the situation should not be taken as gospel.
An awful lot is being inferred from two teams not approving the changes, I think it best for facts to be established before jumping to conclusions.

Why bring Toto into it? I am going by the FIA reports that the boards are flexing beyond the permissable level.

I have not inferred anything by two teams not approving the changes, so again why bring that up.
As the only conclusions, I've stated is that the FIA has found that some teams boards are flexing beyond permissable level, so not exactly sure where I am supposed to have jumped to.

[cliffgamerz]

A detailed video on the matter.

[N21]

I still don’t fully understand what the floor flexing does to gain performance. Can someone explain in simple terms?

Also if 2mm is allowed and 6mm is observed; are these not such small measurements that it won’t matter that much? Or is the 4mm in between the difference between a car porpoising or not-porpoising?

[f1jcw]

I still don’t fully understand what the floor flexing does to gain performance. Can someone explain in simple terms?

Also if 2mm is allowed and 6mm is observed; are these not such small measurements that it won’t matter that much? Or is the 4mm in between the difference between a car porpoising or not-porpoising?

In Brazil last year Merc got disqualified from qualifying for such a small amount that was brought on by just damage

[DChemTech]

I still don’t fully understand what the floor flexing does to gain performance. Can someone explain in simple terms?

Also if 2mm is allowed and 6mm is observed; are these not such small measurements that it won’t matter that much? Or is the 4mm in between the difference between a car porpoising or not-porpoising?

In Brazil last year Merc got disqualified from qualifying for such a small amount that was brought on by just damage

Apples and oranges. Merc got disqualified because they exceeded a gap in a case where there was an exact quantification of the allowed gap. Here, the 'transgression' seems to be in a region for which there is, to the best of my knowledge, no unconditional quantification of the allowed margins, just a physically infeasible statement that the part must be rigid.

[MDB983]

I still don’t fully understand what the floor flexing does to gain performance. Can someone explain in simple terms?

Also if 2mm is allowed and 6mm is observed; are these not such small measurements that it won’t matter that much? Or is the 4mm in between the difference between a car porpoising or not-porpoising?

Here's a quote from an article on motorsport:-

Tombazis made clear that the FIA believed teams having 'excessive deformation' of the floor was being done: "to achieve significantly lower ride heights, and hence an indirect aerodynamic gain."

The 2mm tolerance will be rigorously enforced and the stiffness around the floor hole must now be uniform for a radial distance of 15mm outside the periphery – with a variance not exceeding 10 percent either way.

[henry]

I still don’t fully understand what the floor flexing does to gain performance. Can someone explain in simple terms?

Also if 2mm is allowed and 6mm is observed; are these not such small measurements that it won’t matter that much? Or is the 4mm in between the difference between a car porpoising or not-porpoising?

My personal hypothesis is that the floor/plank twists about an x axis. I think it may be possible to run suspension that is softer in roll than on a car with a floor that is stiffer in that axis. At high speed, low ground clearance, when the car rolls in a corner the outer plank will strike the road and reduce the load on the outer tyres. To avoid this it is necessary to run the suspension stiff in roll.

The benefit of this would be that the car could be run with more ground clearance when straight ahead and when it rolls the outer tunnel will reduce its ride height and so generate more downforce.

Of course there needs to be a mechanism that applies the forces that twist the floor. I hypothesise that these forces come from the bib and the skate on cars equipped with them.

It’s just a guess based on observation. The tests on the floor apply forces normal to the reference plane and symmetrically. They would not uncover reduced stiffness to offset forces that would twist the floor.

The latest change to the test, observing the deflection surrounding the test holes probably suggests this is not what the FIA is concerned about. Instead they may think the plank area is being pushed up into the reference plane reducing ride height at speed.

We’ll see.

[N21]

So if I understand correctly: at high speed the suspension is fully dampened causing a low ride height and then the additional 4mm of flexing across the plank would run the car even lower, making the plank touch the track instead of just the skid blocks? (Better floor sealing?)

In an area such as the rear spoiler I can assume that an additional 4mm would have the same affect as a mini-drs by reducing drag.

Over the entire length of the plank, I cannot imagine the 4mm being that significant. Even if the teams are mandated to change the flex, I highly doubt it will cost much performance to be honest

[N21]

I still don’t fully understand what the floor flexing does to gain performance. Can someone explain in simple terms?

Also if 2mm is allowed and 6mm is observed; are these not such small measurements that it won’t matter that much? Or is the 4mm in between the difference between a car porpoising or not-porpoising?

My personal hypothesis is that the floor/plank twists about an x axis. I think it may be possible to run suspension that is softer in roll than on a car with a floor that is stiffer in that axis. At high speed, low ground clearance, when the car rolls in a corner the outer plank will strike the road and reduce the load on the outer tyres. To avoid this it is necessary to run the suspension stiff in roll.

The benefit of this would be that the car could be run with more ground clearance when straight ahead and when it rolls the outer tunnel will reduce its ride height and so generate more downforce.

Of course there needs to be a mechanism that applies the forces that twist the floor. I hypothesise that these forces come from the bib and the skate on cars equipped with them.

It’s just a guess based on observation. The tests on the floor apply forces normal to the reference plane and symmetrically. They would not uncover reduced stiffness to offset forces that would twist the floor.

The latest change to the test, observing the deflection surrounding the test holes probably suggests this is not what the FIA is concerned about. Instead they may think the plank area is being pushed up into the reference plane reducing ride height at speed.

We’ll see.

This would indeed make sense and sounds as a gain. Thanks!

[Stu]

This is the thing though, it isn't a loophole, it is out and out going against the rules.

Which ruling exactly?
The click-bait reports of Toto being shocked that other teams are possibly exploiting within the tested definitions could be read in two ways:
1) their floor is uniformly stiff in all directions
2) they thought that no one else had spotted the potential to do so.

As Toto is not an engineer within the technical side of the team, his understanding of the rights, wrongs and complexities of the situation should not be taken as gospel.
An awful lot is being inferred from two teams not approving the changes, I think it best for facts to be established before jumping to conclusions.

Why bring Toto into it? I am going by the FIA reports that the boards are flexing beyond the permissable level.

I have not inferred anything by two teams not approving the changes, so again why bring that up.
As the only conclusions, I've stated is that the FIA has found that some teams boards are flexing beyond permissable level, so not exactly sure where I am supposed to have jumped to.

Not necessarily yourself, but an awful lot of insinuating remarks were in the RB18 thread until it got cleaned.