2023 Aston Martin | Aramco | Cognizant F1 Team

[KimiRai]

Any sigh that they've fixed all of the above before the end of the year would be nice.

Krack I believe mentioned the importance of finishing the year on a more positive note, so it's likely that is their goal.

[dialtone]

Yes but I prefer the term "irrelevant".

I’m not sure you are using that word with the right meaning.

You don't need a sensor to measure porpoising if the ride height has been increased so that they can nolonger porpoise to that extent any more.

Updated td39 concerns itself with teams having floors that absorb impact from tarmac. The primary benefit of such a setup is to reduce plank abrasion but still allow the car to run low.

To avoid abrasion the easy solution is to raise the car, but obviously that takes away performance.

[diffuser]

https://formula1news.co.uk/fernando-alo ... on-martin/


Aston Martin driver Fernando Alonso has dismissed any notion of frustration with the team’s performance as they faced a challenging phase in the 2023 season.

Aston Martin, which had initially shown promise as Red Bull’s main contender, witnessed a dip in their performance as more established teams made significant strides in car development.

Singapore proved to be a particularly tough weekend for Aston Martin, but Alonso arrived in Japan with renewed confidence after discovering that his car had suffered suspension damage.

The Spanish driver shifted the focus from temporary setbacks to the bigger challenge of enhancing the team’s in-season development capabilities.

“At the beginning of the year, we had a fast car,” Alonso, 42, commented. “But we always said that it would be difficult to keep up with our main opponents during the year because these are large organisations and top teams. So it was to be expected that Ferrari and Mercedes would catch up and overtake us. And now McLaren is also very strong. We have to accept that we have to make improvements in the way we develop.”

Despite the hurdles, Alonso emphasised his unwavering commitment to the project and the team’s overall optimism. “I’m not frustrated at all,” he stated confidently. “I’m very happy with the project, and even in the difficult races like Singapore or Monza, all of our meetings are very productive.”

Alonso praised the team’s motivation and determination to establish themselves as a leading force in Formula 1.

“The team’s motivation to become a leading team, the resources, and the determination are extraordinary, so I am very happy,” Alonso insisted. “But we have to accept that everyone here has a very high level.”

Acknowledging the challenges that come with being a relatively new team in the sport, Alonso expressed hope for faster development in the upcoming season.

“Our pace of development has to be a little faster next year, but this is a very new team. It’s a new situation for us. It’s not that we accept it and we are ok with it. We just know that it’s a season of learning.”

Alonso also commended the team’s innovative approach to problem-solving, highlighting the wealth of ideas and solutions being considered.

“Honestly, I’ve never seen this kind of scale in terms of ideas and solutions on the table. The motivation the team has to become a top team is just exceptional. I’m very happy.”

I like all this positivity but the reality is ,season is over for AM as a top team. They are back to hometurf as a mid-field team. I am fine with it since team has given some glorious moment at the beginning of the season to cherish.
My only expectation from remainder of the season is for team (Krack or Fallows) to clearly state that ,they have a good understanding of issues with this car & they are able to address those in 24 car. Anything less then that or just beating around the bush means they have no clue yet & 24 season going to be mediocre in mid-field.

yep, agreed...

They're saying that they've never considered themselves as a "top team" in 2023. More a team that has a goal to be a "top team" that isn't quit ready for "Prime Time".

[diffuser]

I’m not sure you are using that word with the right meaning.

You don't need a sensor to measure porpoising if the ride height has been increased so that they can nolonger porpoise to that extent any more.

Updated td39 concerns itself with teams having floors that absorb impact from tarmac. The primary benefit of such a setup is to reduce plank abrasion but still allow the car to run low.

To avoid abrasion the easy solution is to raise the car, but obviously that takes away performance.

No that is wrong.
The plank is allowed to be as close to the floor as you like. The only rule you have is a maximum of 1mm of wear that is permitted under Technical Regulation 3.5.9f. The plank is actually there to prevent a complete loss of DF, it bottoms out before the floor around it does.
They raised the floor in relation to the plank. The plank stayed where it was, everything else around it was raised 15mm. There was an obvious loss of performance.

[dialtone]

You don't need a sensor to measure porpoising if the ride height has been increased so that they can nolonger porpoise to that extent any more.

Updated td39 concerns itself with teams having floors that absorb impact from tarmac. The primary benefit of such a setup is to reduce plank abrasion but still allow the car to run low.

To avoid abrasion the easy solution is to raise the car, but obviously that takes away performance.

No that is wrong.
The plank is allowed to be as close to the floor as you like. The only rule you have is a maximum of 1mm of wear that is permitted under Technical Regulation 3.5.9f. The plank is actually there to prevent a complete loss of DF, it bottoms out before the floor around it does.
They raised the floor in relation to the plank. The plank stayed where it was, everything else around it was raised 15mm. There was an obvious loss of performance.

I'll rephrase again what I wrote to try and see if it's my communication issue:

1. Plank can be as close as you want to the floor, provided you don't wear it for more than 1mm, as you say.
2. It would be extremely convenient if you could make your car run very low, maybe even take impacts, but not wear out the plank.
3. Skid blocks and the bolts for the plank have no regulated minimum thickness, however if they wear out too much they end up not protecting the plank any more.

FIA came out with this note on the updated TD39:

Whilst these designs may comply with the deflection requirements of 3.15.6 and 3.15.8, we would like to remind teams that designs must still comply with the relevant bodywork dimensional constraints.

Designs must not utilise breaks in this surface to facilitate differences in vertical stiffness across the break or to facilitate differential motion across the break that lead to discontinuities in the surface

Pretty clear the update doesn't care about vertical acceleration, but cares about vertical compliance (directly mentioned so hard to dispute). What they care about is that some teams were damaging the plank (discontinuities) to increase flexibility of it in certain areas, specifically the areas where the blocks were bolted.

If the blocks, taking advantage of the plank being flexible in the areas where they are bolted, can just flex, their wear will be decreased, furthering their life and increasing the time they can protect the plank from excessive wear, and thus allowing the car to run lower than it should because plank wear would be reduced as a consequence.

So, all this being said, teams will now be required to stop damaging the plank, or cleverly setting it up such that it's more flexible in specific areas, and thus the only option they have left is to raise the car to prevent excessive wear of the plank. [EDIT: or live with the consequence that a less flexible plank will permanently live at a higher height than what it was when it could flex a few mm down].

Now... I recognize nothing specific is known about this because no team was required to present any update item (not that it would even be needed here since the fix is just to stop damaging the car and raise the plank) and no team was specifically accused of this, so the specific reason for this is still somewhat of a mystery. But similarly I think your certainty about ride height not being involved is a bit (lot) too strong.

EDIT: note the flexibility at bolts area works the other way too, by allowing the plank to be sucked closer to the floor resulting in a similar result as reducing ride height.

[issey]

[AR3-GP]

I think the twitter account has not been very rigorous with this calculation.

[diffuser]

Updated td39 concerns itself with teams having floors that absorb impact from tarmac. The primary benefit of such a setup is to reduce plank abrasion but still allow the car to run low.

To avoid abrasion the easy solution is to raise the car, but obviously that takes away performance.

No that is wrong.
The plank is allowed to be as close to the floor as you like. The only rule you have is a maximum of 1mm of wear that is permitted under Technical Regulation 3.5.9f. The plank is actually there to prevent a complete loss of DF, it bottoms out before the floor around it does.
They raised the floor in relation to the plank. The plank stayed where it was, everything else around it was raised 15mm. There was an obvious loss of performance.

I'll rephrase again what I wrote to try and see if it's my communication issue:

1. Plank can be as close as you want to the floor, provided you don't wear it for more than 1mm, as you say.
2. It would be extremely convenient if you could make your car run very low, maybe even take impacts, but not wear out the plank.
3. Skid blocks and the bolts for the plank have no regulated minimum thickness, however if they wear out too much they end up not protecting the plank any more.

FIA came out with this note on the updated TD39:

Whilst these designs may comply with the deflection requirements of 3.15.6 and 3.15.8, we would like to remind teams that designs must still comply with the relevant bodywork dimensional constraints.

Designs must not utilise breaks in this surface to facilitate differences in vertical stiffness across the break or to facilitate differential motion across the break that lead to discontinuities in the surface

Pretty clear the update doesn't care about vertical acceleration, but cares about vertical compliance (directly mentioned so hard to dispute). What they care about is that some teams were damaging the plank (discontinuities) to increase flexibility of it in certain areas, specifically the areas where the blocks were bolted.

If the blocks, taking advantage of the plank being flexible in the areas where they are bolted, can just flex, their wear will be decreased, furthering their life and increasing the time they can protect the plank from excessive wear, and thus allowing the car to run lower than it should because plank wear would be reduced as a consequence.

So, all this being said, teams will now be required to stop damaging the plank, or cleverly setting it up such that it's more flexible in specific areas, and thus the only option they have left is to raise the car to prevent excessive wear of the plank. [EDIT: or live with the consequence that a less flexible plank will permanently live at a higher height than what it was when it could flex a few mm down].

Now... I recognize nothing specific is known about this because no team was required to present any update item (not that it would even be needed here since the fix is just to stop damaging the car and raise the plank) and no team was specifically accused of this, so the specific reason for this is still somewhat of a mystery. But similarly I think your certainty about ride height not being involved is a bit (lot) too strong.

EDIT: note the flexibility at bolts area works the other way too, by allowing the plank to be sucked closer to the floor resulting in a similar result as reducing ride height.

That sounds right to me. At Spa 2022 the FIA, that verifies the flexion of the board in the three pre-stable points, widened the radius of the three points by 15mm in order to cover a greater area. That was released at the same time as the TD but wasn't part of the TD. By Ferrari's performance drop, they were probably hurt by the new plank test.


I could be wrong but I always though the 2 items, TD39 and changed plank test, were separate. So we're sdtill using the new plank test but not the sensor, TD39.

[diffuser]

I think the twitter account has not been very rigorous with this calculation.

It's really hard to compare these kind of things during races when cars and drivers use different tires and run different races. Some always in clean air some in dirty air, some Flat out some cruising.

[diffuser]

On his final stint on hards, Alonso was flat out, lap after lap till lap 48. Then with Gasly still 7 seconds behind and 5 laps to go, he started to let up and drop down into 1:39s from 1:38.4.

[issey]

I think the twitter account has not been very rigorous with this calculation.

It's really hard to compare these kind of things during races when cars and drivers use different tires and run different races. Some always in clean air some in dirty air, some Flat out some cruising.

Its the same for everyone

[KimiRai]

A Spanish journalist who's usually a good source says in an audio recording that the story of the Singapore front wing that never arrived was something that arose during a private conversation in Belgium, where the two step development plan of Zandvoort and then Singapore was mentioned. But when Singapore came and there was no sight of it he was told that it was never expected, which according to him was an obvious cover.

Who knows why this happened, was it the TD? Back then I apologised for having shared what I believed was wrong information but it looks like it was true until it suddenly changed for unknown reasons. Just so you see I'm not a scam artist haha, or at least I try not to.

He also mentions it's likely upgrades are coming to Mexico. So that would mean probably little to nothing in Qatar and Austin, so we have to calm down if that's what happens but I suspect some won't, in other social media for sure they won't. If there's nothing by Mexico then I'd agree with awkward questions being asked.

In any case, and recent articles confirm this, what in other drivers is motivational and "pushing" it's always frustration and annoyance when it's Fernando who says it. Some were baffled when he has previously pointed at this kind of double standard but it's very apparent if you are aware of it. But you have to ignore this anyways as it won't change.

[diffuser]

A Spanish journalist who's usually a good source says in an audio recording that the story of the Singapore front wing that never arrived was something that arose during a private conversation in Belgium, where the two step development plan of Zandvoort and then Singapore was mentioned. But when Singapore came and there was no sight of it he was told that it was never expected, which according to him was an obvious cover.

Who knows why this happened, was it the TD? Back then I apologised for having shared what I believed was wrong information but it looks like it was true until it suddenly changed for unknown reasons. Just so you see I'm not a scam artist haha, or at least I try not to.

He also mentions it's likely upgrades are coming to Mexico. So that would mean probably little to nothing in Qatar and Austin, so we have to calm down if that's what happens but I suspect some won't, in other social media for sure they won't. If there's nothing by Mexico then I'd agree with awkward questions being asked.

In any case, and recent articles confirm this, what in other drivers is motivational and "pushing" it's always frustration and annoyance when it's Fernando who says it. Some were baffled when he has previously pointed at this kind of double standard but it's very apparent if you are aware of it. But you have to ignore this anyways as it won't change.

I just stopped listening to the noise, they're just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

[diffuser]

I think the twitter account has not been very rigorous with this calculation.

It's really hard to compare these kind of things during races when cars and drivers use different tires and run different races. Some always in clean air some in dirty air, some Flat out some cruising.

Its the same for everyone

it's absolutely isn't. I guarantee that.

[xReVo]

An update has arrived in Singapore or Japan regarding the rear part of the car near the Shark fin. Now it's like Redbull and no longer like Mercedes