TD039

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
chrisc90
11
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:22 pm

Re: TD039

Post

Then I guess you can also question why Toto didn’t know about any possibilities.

If the teams agreed that the plank should be solid, then you would think the possibility of flex would be discussed too or at least the flex for the tolerance to be decided.
No Mikey Noo! No! Nooo Mikey! That was sooo not riiight!!

TimW
TimW
31
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:07 pm

Re: TD039

Post

If you look at the construction of the floor, the central section can be a simple flat plate (from the Alfa Romeo C42 thread):
Image

I don't know how this is mounted to the chassis, but logical locations seem the holes in the plank. Doing so pretty much guaranties that you will have more compliance anywhere else (and 6mm seems sensible if you look at this). It seems actually a challenge to engineer it with a uniform stiffness at the plank, which would come with a weight penalty as well.
Last edited by TimW on Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

DChemTech
DChemTech
43
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: TD039

Post

chrisc90 wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:08 am
Then I guess you can also question why Toto didn’t know about any possibilities.

If the teams agreed that the plank should be solid, then you would think the possibility of flex would be discussed too or at least the flex for the tolerance to be decided.
I disagree; if it was clearly stated in these meetings that 2mm applies to the whole plank, and there is a paper trail that confirms this, it explains why Toto is surprised that teams are using this 'wiggle room', as the FIA -allegedly- explicitly forbade it.

User avatar
chrisc90
11
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:22 pm

Re: TD039

Post

Who knows what the minutes were.

If everyone agreed, why was it not put into the rules to cover it up?

Seems odd to discuss a pretty important part of the car and scrutineering/technical standards, agree a limit, then not write it into the rules
No Mikey Noo! No! Nooo Mikey! That was sooo not riiight!!

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: TD039

Post

Indeed, such a conversation (with that level of rule interpretation), would be worthy of a TD - at that point in time - rather than months later. TD’s tend to be about how to interpret (or allowable interpretations) the regulations.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

DChemTech
DChemTech
43
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: TD039

Post

chrisc90 wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:18 am
Who knows what the minutes were.

If everyone agreed, why was it not put into the rules to cover it up?

Seems odd to discuss a pretty important part of the car and scrutineering/technical standards, agree a limit, then not write it into the rules
That is indeed the suprising part, and all the more suprising if it was explicitly discussed already.

User avatar
chrisc90
11
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:22 pm

Re: TD039

Post

Which brings the question of Mercedes clearly missing something they had knowledge about prior to the season start/car development.

Who’s the biggest mug here? The teams using a legitimate loophole that was missed in the regs that was discussed. Mercedes for completely missing it and then complaining later on by pleading ignorance to the fact such a topic existed. Or the FIA for not writing it down in rules.

I mean if some teams are using a more flexible plank outside the measured sections, good on them IMHO.
No Mikey Noo! No! Nooo Mikey! That was sooo not riiight!!

User avatar
Quantum
15
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:59 pm

Re: TD039

Post

Stu wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:31 am
Indeed, such a conversation (with that level of rule interpretation), would be worthy of a TD - at that point in time - rather than months later. TD’s tend to be about how to interpret (or allowable interpretations) the regulations.
If the FIA have given their express interpretation of that rule, and documented the meeting or have record of it, then any interpretation outside of that remit would obviously warrant a further TD down the line right?
As F1 is an evolutionary sport, it will require a reactionary authority. This has always been the case.
"Interplay of triads"

User avatar
Quantum
15
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:59 pm

Re: TD039

Post

chrisc90 wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:36 am
Which brings the question of Mercedes clearly missing something they had knowledge about prior to the season start/car development.

Who’s the biggest mug here? The teams using a legitimate loophole that was missed in the regs that was discussed. Mercedes for completely missing it and then complaining later on by pleading ignorance to the fact such a topic existed. Or the FIA for not writing it down in rules.

I mean if some teams are using a more flexible plank outside the measured sections, good on them IMHO.
Why would Mercedes have missed it?
If they were at the meeting and it was outlined as not permissible, then that's how it should be interpreted.
It is not a "legitimate loophole" as you put it, IF the FIA can demonstrate that the meeting last year outlawed such development.
"Interplay of triads"

User avatar
chrisc90
11
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:22 pm

Re: TD039

Post

Is it classed as ‘gospel’ and part of the regs if it was only a discussion? Are meetings about standards also treated as part of the regs if not written down?

Merc missed it because they were part of discussions, then didn’t spot it had been omitted in the actual regs.

As far as I know, meetings etc, don’t form part of the rule book.
No Mikey Noo! No! Nooo Mikey! That was sooo not riiight!!

DChemTech
DChemTech
43
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:31 am
Location: Delft, NL

Re: TD039

Post

chrisc90 wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:03 pm
Is it classed as ‘gospel’ and part of the regs if it was only a discussion? Are meetings about standards also treated as part of the regs if not written down?

Merc missed it because they were part of discussions, then didn’t spot it had been omitted in the actual regs.

As far as I know, meetings etc, don’t form part of the rule book.
Well, there is this thing that the FIA has the right to change the rules/interpretation thereof based on ongoing developments as they see fit.
I am heavily against that, as it changes design criteria without any means of anticipation for the engineers and thereby affects competition. However, if there is a particular interpretation of the rules that has been clearly communicated to all teams pre-season, that clarifies what the FIA exactly means with 'rigid', even if not explicitly mentioned in the rulebook, that is in my view a good ground to claim that the intended rule was clear to the teams, and hence the TD does not alter the rules - it just reiterates what was already known.

Note there are ifs in there, which have to be clarified.

User avatar
Quantum
15
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:59 pm

Re: TD039

Post

chrisc90 wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:03 pm
Is it classed as ‘gospel’ and part of the regs if it was only a discussion? Are meetings about standards also treated as part of the regs if not written down?

Merc missed it because they were part of discussions, then didn’t spot it had been omitted in the actual regs.

As far as I know, meetings etc, don’t form part of the rule book.
If the meetings explain how FIA interpret those rules, and they have expressly said to the teams what they view the meaning to be, then I'm afraid anything interpreted outside of that is game for a ban.
Also, I don't quite understand the infatuation with Merc and mugs as it really does distract from the main issues here.

Right now, we know there was a meeting about this last year. We know that flexing of the plank was discussed.
[edited: we dont know 2 teams fell foul of TD.]
And that's critical.

Because we weren't at the meeting. We don't know what was asked but we know according to the race that "stipulated that the rule should be interpreted as the plank should be solid with 2mm tolerance and the way in which the plank and skid and skid blocks are mounted should reflect that".

If this is shown to have been the guidance, and a team contravenes how the FIA have interpreted the rules and then shown the teams how they view it...I don't see how it can be legitimately argued "oh but the rule says..." when it's been said it will be viewed through the FIA interpretation.
Last edited by Quantum on Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Interplay of triads"

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: TD039

Post

Quantum wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:19 pm

Right now, we know there was a meeting about this last year. We know that flexing of the plank was discussed.
We know 2 teams fall foul of what the FIA interpret the rule to be.
And that's critical.

Because we weren't at the meeting. We don't know what was asked but we know according to the race that "stipulated that the rule should be interpreted as the plank should be solid with 2mm tolerance and the way in which the plank and skid and skid blocks are mounted should reflect that".

If this is shown to have been the guidance, and a team contravenes how the FIA have interpreted the rules and then shown the teams how they view it...I don't see how it can be legitimately argued "oh but the rule says..." when it's been said it will be viewed through the FIA interpretation.
Just to point out, we do not KNOW anything of the sort, but we have been informed that two teams opposed the TD; we have been made aware of who those teams are.

Anything other than that is conjecture.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

User avatar
Quantum
15
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:59 pm

Re: TD039

Post

Stu wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:01 pm
Quantum wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:19 pm

Right now, we know there was a meeting about this last year. We know that flexing of the plank was discussed.
We know 2 teams fall foul of what the FIA interpret the rule to be.
And that's critical.

Because we weren't at the meeting. We don't know what was asked but we know according to the race that "stipulated that the rule should be interpreted as the plank should be solid with 2mm tolerance and the way in which the plank and skid and skid blocks are mounted should reflect that".

If this is shown to have been the guidance, and a team contravenes how the FIA have interpreted the rules and then shown the teams how they view it...I don't see how it can be legitimately argued "oh but the rule says..." when it's been said it will be viewed through the FIA interpretation.
Just to point out, we do not KNOW anything of the sort, but we have been informed that two teams opposed the TD; we have been made aware of who those teams are.

Anything other than that is conjecture.
What don't we know?
That there was a meeting last year where this was discussed?
"Interplay of triads"

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: TD039

Post

That two teams fall foul of the fresh TD interpretation.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.