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.Just_a_fan wrote: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.vorticism wrote: ↑11 Sep 2023, 17:40I 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?-wkst- wrote: ↑11 Sep 2023, 17:16https://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 wonder how anyone deduced there was foam between the plank and the chassis. Not exactly easy to directly observe.
So… is this “rule exploitation” (cit) cheating?