Quantum wrote: ↑24 Mar 2022, 16:56
matteosc wrote: ↑24 Mar 2022, 16:08
PhillipM wrote: ↑24 Mar 2022, 13:35
Yes, there must be a loophole we're not seeing yet, as I've been wondering about it since testing.
Unless Merc are just waiting till the right race to protest it....
The FIA specifically allows for a spring-damper system in that area, stating also what can and can't be done. The presence of a damper is therefore definitely not a loophole. If they are using it in a "shady" way that is another story, but just seeing something that is specifically allowed in that area doesn't mean anything.
Do we know what solution did Mercedes use for the t-tray?
Please cite what you are saying.
The front floor ruling is pretty clear, and I've not seen anything to say this is "allowed".
A link to an official source would be ideal.
d. Must not incorporate any component, mechanism or structure whose characteristics
vary with time, velocity, acceleration or temperature. Including, but not limited to
viscous damping, hysteretic damping and hydraulic systems.
e. Must not incorporate any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit
permanent deformation.
f. Must not be designed in such a way, or incorporate any component, mechanism or
structure that can cause it to exhibit anything other than the same load deflection
relationship measured during the test described in Article 3.15.6 whilst on the circuit
(other than minor incidental effects such as those caused by inertia).
These 3 criteria need to be met for any such spring to exist. And if they are not, then there is absolutely zero reason to have a spring in that location.
Which of these criteria was not met with a spring/damper in that location?
As for part "d", does it vary with time, velocity, acceleration or temperature? I'd say no, as it only aborbs the movement of the T-tray caused by aerodynamic load.
As for part "e", does it deform systematically or routinely or rather irregularly?
As for part "f", does it exceed the numbers in the load deflection tests? Obviously no, as it would not be on the car in that case.
That's my interpretation. Please tell me anyone, if or where I might be wrong.