Are you familiar with the theory of incomplete contracts? All but the simplest contracts are incomplete. Something like formula 1 is always incomplete. Saying that you can come along and solve the issue for everyone should at minimum feel unbelievable.Just_a_fan wrote:"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.
Paint/anodizing. Those inboard elements are metal. They are narrow and small in section; as such less benefit to laying them up in CF, while saving time and material cost as a machined part. Note the slot gap separators are integral to it.
Also illustrates how hollow the keel is. The center floor area as a whole could deform like a trampoline. Tradeoff is: how much of a gap can be made between the top of the plank and the monocoque/engine block. To make more space implies raising CoG.
It's a simplified example to show that a basic rule is more easily "defeated", not an attempt to write the rules.dialtone wrote: ↑12 Sep 2023, 00:23Are you familiar with the theory of incomplete contracts? All but the simplest contracts are incomplete. Something like formula 1 is always incomplete. Saying that you can come along and solve the issue for everyone should at minimum feel unbelievable.Just_a_fan wrote:"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.
Your definition is obviously lacking as well when it comes to definition of what is homogeneous for example and the obvious physical impossibility of creating a perfectly rigid body when bolting 2 things together, so you end up having to define a method of measurement.
What if I built the bolts themselves, which your rule didn’t specify, in such a way that their head is going to be itself the dampening factor?
again the same old story with the legality questions and calls for DSQFW17 wrote: ↑12 Sep 2023, 07:43I do not understand this TD from the FIA.
If concealed parts and hidden mechanisms were found with sole purpose of flexing the wing beyond the test limits, why has the FIA not disqualified the team where in this device was found? How is that they allow it to happen on multiple occasions, and now issue a TD as to say it is unacceptable now, but was ok in the past 15 race weekends?
it was legal before TD and now it's not. That's how TDs work. 
The fia wants to save face for themselves and whoever they think might be breaking the rules.
It's hilarious (and a bit insane) we have this discussion every time there's a TD. The clarification came for a reason. If a team passed through FIA scrutineering in 15 races previously the FIA can't come in now and say "you're disqualified". The team can just say, "well, there's your FIA signature saying our car was legal to race". New rules are not retroactive.FW17 wrote: ↑12 Sep 2023, 07:43I do not understand this TD from the FIA.
If concealed parts and hidden mechanisms were found with sole purpose of flexing the wing beyond the test limits, why has the FIA not disqualified the team where in this device was found? How is that they allow it to happen on multiple occasions, and now issue a TD as to say it is unacceptable now, but was ok in the past 15 race weekends?
They clearly weren't flexing "beyond test limits", then they would've been caught by the test. As is usually the case with these TDs, the FIA realised their test was inadequate.If concealed parts and hidden mechanisms were found with sole purpose of flexing the wing beyond the test limits
Not talking about DQ now, but at the event where the mechanism was found on inspection of the car.Cs98 wrote: ↑12 Sep 2023, 13:59It's hilarious (and a bit insane) we have this discussion every time there's a TD. The clarification came for a reason. If a team passed through FIA scrutineering in 15 races previously the FIA can't come in now and say "you're disqualified". The team can just say, "well, there's your FIA signature saying our car was legal to race". New rules are not retroactive.FW17 wrote: ↑12 Sep 2023, 07:43I do not understand this TD from the FIA.
If concealed parts and hidden mechanisms were found with sole purpose of flexing the wing beyond the test limits, why has the FIA not disqualified the team where in this device was found? How is that they allow it to happen on multiple occasions, and now issue a TD as to say it is unacceptable now, but was ok in the past 15 race weekends?
They clearly weren't flexing "beyond test limits", then they would've been caught by the test. As is usually the case with these TDs, the FIA realised their test was inadequate.If concealed parts and hidden mechanisms were found with sole purpose of flexing the wing beyond the test limits
