TD018 2023 - clampdown on flexible wings

[dialtone]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... nterboden/

Michael Schmidt with an article about the TDs.

- Teams found ways that the floor plank doesn't wear out too much (insulating material between chassis and plank, or with fastening screws in the plank)
- That's over now with Singapore

I hadn't yet read such a succinct description of what the flexing floors were. Supposedly this was already addressed last year with the floor deflection ram location specs i.e. measuring both with the rams passing through the plank and resting on the plank. What's knew with the Singapore tests in this regard?

I wonder how anyone deduced there was foam between the plank and the chassis. Not exactly easy to directly observe.

This issue is quite easy for the FIA to deal with - mandate how the plank is fixed to the car. Anything other than that method - additional layers, clever fixings, etc., is automatically illegal and a DSQ ensues. Job done, move on. Of course, that would be too easy for F1.

That was already done last year or earlier (at least from what I understand in the article). The issue now is that the plank design is such to itself provide some amount of dampening, so they are mandating more strictly that there must be no gaps in the projections etc.

So… is this “rule exploitation” (cit) cheating?

[chrisc90]

That probably depends who you speak to and which team is foul of the lack of clarification in the rules

[Cs98]

So… is this “rule exploitation” (cit) cheating?

Of course not. This discussion doesn't need to be brought up every time there's a TD.

[basti313]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... nterboden/

Michael Schmidt with an article about the TDs.

- Teams found ways that the floor plank doesn't wear out too much (insulating material between chassis and plank, or with fastening screws in the plank)
- That's over now with Singapore

I hadn't yet read such a succinct description of what the flexing floors were. Supposedly this was already addressed last year with the floor deflection ram location specs i.e. measuring both with the rams passing through the plank and resting on the plank. What's knew with the Singapore tests in this regard?

I wonder how anyone deduced there was foam between the plank and the chassis. Not exactly easy to directly observe.

This issue is quite easy for the FIA to deal with - mandate how the plank is fixed to the car. Anything other than that method - additional layers, clever fixings, etc., is automatically illegal and a DSQ ensues. Job done, move on. Of course, that would be too easy for F1.

Well, the TD should give the same? You have to fix it by fixing it, not put rubber in between

I am a bit surprised by the take on the plank....I would have expected rubber in the front wing mounts or the floor itself...

If it is the plank, then my view changes....for front wing I had Aston and Merc on the list. But plank sounds more red to me...

[chrisc90]

I remember when TD039 originally came out people were shouting from the rooftops that it would be Red Bull that were affected. How wrong they were.

As always, be great to know exactly what is ‘found’ to initiate a Technical directive - but I guess we will never know. ( unless one team takes a ‘hit’)

Personally id be surprised if it was RB - I think you can look wayyy back to the second day of testing under the new regs to see that Red Bull knew how to get the porpoising under control.

[lio007]

A bit offtopic: is there any sensible reason why TD's are not made public by the FIA?

[Just_a_fan]

So… is this “rule exploitation” (cit) cheating?

If one does something specifically to contravene a requirement, then it's cheating. If one makes use of poorly worded requirements to find "loopholes" then it isn't. Which is why the FIA needs to write down very specifically what is required in the mounting of the plank to the car. The plank is a safety feature and so the FIA should be strict with the rules relating to it. Until they do that, the teams will do what they always do - push at the edges to see what gives and what doesn't.

[chrisc90]

So… is this “rule exploitation” (cit) cheating?

If one does something specifically to contravene a requirement, then it's cheating. If one makes use of poorly worded requirements to find "loopholes" then it isn't. Which is why the FIA needs to write down very specifically what is required in the mounting of the plank to the car. The plank is a safety feature and so the FIA should be strict with the rules relating to it. Until they do that, the teams will do what they always do - push at the edges to see what gives and what doesn't.

So it would be safe to say the AMR ‘armchair’ rear wing was cheating as they read the rules and exploited the lack of detail in them?

Presumingly the same for Ferrari for allowing whatever they were doing with the plank and instantly become needed from spa 2022 onwards?

Whatever Merc we’re doing in 2022 in regards to TD039 hit them marginally aswell.

It’s a big circle of what isn’t defined in the rule book vs what teams adventure into what a lack of clarification can give them performance wise.
There is literally countless examples - and it doesn’t need to remain in just car design.

If ANY f1 team can use a loophole or penalty advantage to their advantage - they will

[dans79]

A bit offtopic: is there any sensible reason why TD's are not made public by the FIA?

Imo, the only reason the don't release them, is because they are to worried about protecting their image, and the image of the teams.

[organic]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/hidde ... /10518570/

Nikolas Tombazis:

In the F1 regulations, we have many flexibility criteria: there are loads that we apply and a certain deflection is allowed," he said.

"There are static tests that we do to check, and it is obvious that these tests are never perfect because the direction of the [test] load you apply is always a bit different from the load that is on the track when it experiences genuine aerodynamic force.

"There may be differences and, for this reason, in the regulations, there are some general and conceptual specifications that, in essence, prohibit mechanisms.

"For example, one could draw a wing that, when applying the forces of the FIA test, is fixed but when applying any other load, it could be more flexible. For this reason, we have been clarifying for years that mechanisms are not legal and we have written several clarifications on what we consider a mechanism."

"If under a carbon surface, we have levers that allow a deflection in one direction and not in another, we can consider this a mechanism," he said.

"Another thing we have said in the past is that it's not acceptable when a component has relative motion against an adjacent element, sliding in a different direction [from it].

"What happened recently? Some teams have components adjacent to each other that have a fairly high movement but do not slide [in tandem] because these areas are covered with rubber material. We do not consider this acceptable and, for this reason, we have made a clarification."

"At the track, we will open up one of their components to see what's underneath, or we will look at their drawings in CAD to better understand how the various elements work."

Asked if this was done in collaboration with teams, Tombazis said: "It's not that they want to, but they have to. Lately, we have seen drawings in which things were exaggerated. The trend was evident, so then we intervened with a more severe clarification."

[Just_a_fan]

So… is this “rule exploitation” (cit) cheating?

If one does something specifically to contravene a requirement, then it's cheating. If one makes use of poorly worded requirements to find "loopholes" then it isn't. Which is why the FIA needs to write down very specifically what is required in the mounting of the plank to the car. The plank is a safety feature and so the FIA should be strict with the rules relating to it. Until they do that, the teams will do what they always do - push at the edges to see what gives and what doesn't.

So it would be safe to say the AMR ‘armchair’ rear wing was cheating as they read the rules and exploited the lack of detail in them?

Er, no. They followed the rules exactly. So not cheating.

If ANY f1 team can use a loophole or penalty advantage to their advantage - they will

Yes, that is what I said. Hence the rules need to be worded to remove the loopholes. And if that means the use of what is effectively spec parts in certain places on the car then so be it. Otherwise, just dump any rules that aren't safety related and let the teams have at it. The current system just makes F1 look silly.

[chrisc90]

Where do you draw the line between contravening a requirement and poorly worded regulations?

There is no ‘cheating’ it’s just a case of finding a loop hole in the regulations.

[ringo]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... nterboden/

Michael Schmidt with an article about the TDs.

- Teams found ways that the floor plank doesn't wear out too much (insulating material between chassis and plank, or with fastening screws in the plank)
- That's over now with Singapore

I hadn't yet read such a succinct description of what the flexing floors were. Supposedly this was already addressed last year with the floor deflection ram location specs i.e. measuring both with the rams passing through the plank and resting on the plank. What's knew with the Singapore tests in this regard?

I wonder how anyone deduced there was foam between the plank and the chassis. Not exactly easy to directly observe.

Checo's crash in Monza, did reveal a very thin floor structure; possibly with some insulating material.

[organic]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... nterboden/

Michael Schmidt with an article about the TDs.

- Teams found ways that the floor plank doesn't wear out too much (insulating material between chassis and plank, or with fastening screws in the plank)
- That's over now with Singapore

I hadn't yet read such a succinct description of what the flexing floors were. Supposedly this was already addressed last year with the floor deflection ram location specs i.e. measuring both with the rams passing through the plank and resting on the plank. What's knew with the Singapore tests in this regard?

I wonder how anyone deduced there was foam between the plank and the chassis. Not exactly easy to directly observe.

Checo's crash in Monza, did reveal a very thin floor structure; possibly with some insulating material.

AMuS reported that the teams received the revised TD039 information on August 22nd and it was put in place immediately:

On August 22, teams received mail from Formula One Technical Director Tim Goss. The former McLaren engineer sent out two Technical Directives that have been in existence for a long time but always have to be modified because the teams keep finding new ways to trick the regulations.

TD018 is three pages about the pliability of fairing components. It comes into force in Singapore. TD039 defines the rules for floor panel attachments and aerodynamically generated rocking of the cars.

The adjusted seven-page interpretation of TD039 generally applied as of the date of mailing. The more stringent rules it contains for the front part of the guard rail will not come into force until the race in Singapore

So this means the revised TD039 is supposed to have been active since before Zandvoort (27th August) and Monza (3rd September).

Foam in the interior of floor structures is very common as lightweight bulking material providing structural rigidity and it's easy to form to desired shape of the component.. believe lot of teams use Rohacell

[Just_a_fan]

Where do you draw the line between contravening a requirement and poorly worded regulations?

There is no ‘cheating’ it’s just a case of finding a loop hole in the regulations.

"The plank is to be a single homogenous unit and must be rigidly bolted to the chassis with no degree of freedom in any axis". If you bolt it in such a way that it moves e.g. clever bolts, using a soft interlayer, cutting the plank, etc., then you're cheating.

"The plank must be bolted to the chassis". Bingo, lots of loophole space there so almost impossible to cheat so long as you use bolts to connect plank to chassis.