It was all pushed through under the same TD, TD039
My guess as to why they call it TD039 is that, Plank Reference Volume is listed as 39th Reference Volume in the Technical Regulations and hence, TD039 is a technical directive that clarifies the Reference Volume 39, which is Plank Reference Volume (RV-PLANK).Convention:
Black text: All text from previous versions of the regulations
Pink text: Changes approved by the WMSC on 16 August 2022
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.
Furthermore, the stiffness for any load exceeding that defined in the previous
paragraph must be no less than 15kN/mm.
Competitors will be required to demonstrate the local vertical stiffness and design
installation of the skids and plank to the FIA for the regions around the periphery of
each of these three holes. Compliance with Article 3.5.9.e. will only be assessed in the
regions that are at least 90% as stiff as the stiffest part of the periphery. Any designs
intended to protect these regions of the periphery from wear will not be accepted.
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.
That's what the engine and gearbox (i.e., the rear end of the car) is attached to. Why would you want to make your whole car floppy, wouldn't that make it handle horribly?
Have you ever driven an old Saab convertible?graham.reeds wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 03:24It could make it bounce up and down...
Seriously though, if you can design a front wing to flex enough that it dramatically sheds downforce but strong enough that it passes the FIA tests then you can probably design a chassis that has a little flex to allow the bottom to reach lower to the floor.
I never said crash test. The FIA does loading tests with weights on the wings to measure deflection. That was the test I was referring to.marcel171281 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 14:22Have you ever driven an old Saab convertible?graham.reeds wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 03:24It could make it bounce up and down...
Seriously though, if you can design a front wing to flex enough that it dramatically sheds downforce but strong enough that it passes the FIA tests then you can probably design a chassis that has a little flex to allow the bottom to reach lower to the floor.
The front wing isn't a structural part of the car. The tub however is the most important structural part of the lot. You want an absulute minimum of any form of deformation in that part as it will effect every other element of the entire car, both in terms of geometry and aero.
BTW the wing isn't part of the FIA crashtest, the nose cone is. Nose cones don't flex.
I misread (minor form of dyslexia here).graham.reeds wrote: ↑01 Dec 2022, 08:40I never said crash test. The FIA does loading tests with weights on the wings to measure deflection. That was the test I was referring to.marcel171281 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 14:22Have you ever driven an old Saab convertible?graham.reeds wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 03:24It could make it bounce up and down...
Seriously though, if you can design a front wing to flex enough that it dramatically sheds downforce but strong enough that it passes the FIA tests then you can probably design a chassis that has a little flex to allow the bottom to reach lower to the floor.
The front wing isn't a structural part of the car. The tub however is the most important structural part of the lot. You want an absulute minimum of any form of deformation in that part as it will effect every other element of the entire car, both in terms of geometry and aero.
BTW the wing isn't part of the FIA crashtest, the nose cone is. Nose cones don't flex.
You don't say, FIA bending to the will of Mercedes? No way!“In Baku we saw the worst impact because a team tried something that didn’t work and then went public quite loudly.
“Had they not intervened, the problem would have been solved. Most teams now understand how to control bouncing.”
They did that second year in a row. In 2021, Pirelli changed tyres, again due to what happened in Baku. They cited safety as the issue and changed the tyres that, reportedly, benefitted Mercedes when the new compounds were introduced.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 00:09https://www.racefans.net/2022/12/29/fia ... u-symonds/
You don't say, FIA bending to the will of Mercedes? No way!“In Baku we saw the worst impact because a team tried something that didn’t work and then went public quite loudly.
“Had they not intervened, the problem would have been solved. Most teams now understand how to control bouncing.”
I love the irony of this intervention backfiring and sealing MV title and all the maxxed-out records
This happened as FIA junked Porpoising metrics from Singapore GP.Asthe season progressed teams such as Mercedes increasingly mastered their porpoising problems. However it remained a factor at some circuits, including Yas Marina, scene of the season finale.