Technical Directive: FIA bans with immediate effect special protective plates installed over skid blocks

[collindsilva]

I still don't understand the mechanism. The way it's described in the AMUS article (a literal cover over the skid block) sounds so ridiculous and blatantly illegal that I just can't fathom anyone would be taking the piss like this. So did their skid plates just have no wear on them after the protective plates were removed? Did the FIA not find this suspicious?

While I'm not quite sure Michael Schmidt has reported the mechanism accurately, I don't doubt that some teams would have wanted to delay it. Finding out a week before the GP when the cars were probably already on there way to Las Vegas is fairly disruptive. However, if what has been described is accurate, then it would be so blatantly illegal that the FIA had no choice but to take immediate action.

Where Is the TD documents available..

[scuderiabrandon]

I still don't understand the mechanism. The way it's described in the AMUS article (a literal cover over the skid block) sounds so ridiculous and blatantly illegal that I just can't fathom anyone would be taking the piss like this. So did their skid plates just have no wear on them after the protective plates were removed? Did the FIA not find this suspicious?

While I'm not quite sure Michael Schmidt has reported the mechanism accurately, I don't doubt that some teams would have wanted to delay it. Finding out a week before the GP when the cars were probably already on there way to Las Vegas is fairly disruptive. However, if what has been described is accurate, then it would be so blatantly illegal that the FIA had no choice but to take immediate action.

Where Is the TD documents available..

They are not publicly available.

[scuderiabrandon]

I still don't understand the mechanism. The way it's described in the AMUS article (a literal cover over the skid block) sounds so ridiculous that I just can't fathom anyone would be taking the piss like this. So did their skid plates just have no wear on them after the protective plates were removed? Did the FIA not find this suspicious?

While I'm not quite sure Michael Schmidt has reported the mechanism accurately, I don't doubt that some teams would have wanted to delay it. Finding out a week before the GP when the cars were probably already on there way to Las Vegas is fairly disruptive. However, if what has been described is accurate, then it would be such a clear regs breach that they'd have to take immediate action.

The article provides nothing worth speculating on other than the fact that a TD was issued. Don't see why they'd lie about that.

[_cerber1]

Now that red bull have sorted their car out somewhat and also believe that they've slowed down McLaren sufficiently to fight for wins (via Watergate)

Do you have proof of this? What, McLaren used water in the tires?

[AR3-GP]

I still don't understand the mechanism. The way it's described in the AMUS article (a literal cover over the skid block) sounds so ridiculous that I just can't fathom anyone would be taking the piss like this. So did their skid plates just have no wear on them after the protective plates were removed? Did the FIA not find this suspicious?

While I'm not quite sure Michael Schmidt has reported the mechanism accurately, I don't doubt that some teams would have wanted to delay it. Finding out a week before the GP when the cars were probably already on there way to Las Vegas is fairly disruptive. However, if what has been described is accurate, then it would be such a clear regs breach that they'd have to take immediate action.

The article provides nothing worth speculating on other than the fact that a TD was issued. Don't see why they'd lie about that.

I think Schmidt has made a mess of the technical description (as he's a journalist, not a technical analyst), but the rest of it (existence of a TD and Ferrari's opposition are right up his alley reporting wise. That's the kind of details which are his area of expertise). I don't think either are things that he would make up. AMUS also don't tend to make stuff up (technical inaccuracy is another matter).

[scuderiabrandon]

I still don't understand the mechanism. The way it's described in the AMUS article (a literal cover over the skid block) sounds so ridiculous that I just can't fathom anyone would be taking the piss like this. So did their skid plates just have no wear on them after the protective plates were removed? Did the FIA not find this suspicious?

While I'm not quite sure Michael Schmidt has reported the mechanism accurately, I don't doubt that some teams would have wanted to delay it. Finding out a week before the GP when the cars were probably already on there way to Las Vegas is fairly disruptive. However, if what has been described is accurate, then it would be such a clear regs breach that they'd have to take immediate action.

The article provides nothing worth speculating on other than the fact that a TD was issued. Don't see why they'd lie about that.

I think Schmidt has made a mess of the technical description (as he's a journalist, not a technical analyst), but the rest of it (existence of a TD and Ferrari's opposition are right up his alley reporting wise. That's the kind of details which are his area of expertise). I don't think either are things that he would make up. AMUS also don't tend to make stuff up (technical inaccuracy is another matter).

|

I believe his terrible explanation stems from the fact that he did not have much information to begin with. Had to fill the blanks to put an acceptable (?) article out.

Find it hard to believe only one of the 5 teams opposed this decision. Anyway, they also state the TD was issued one week ago. The opposing might be because they were asked to design and manufacture new parts in a weeks time, kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

[AR3-GP]

The article provides nothing worth speculating on other than the fact that a TD was issued. Don't see why they'd lie about that.

I think Schmidt has made a mess of the technical description (as he's a journalist, not a technical analyst), but the rest of it (existence of a TD and Ferrari's opposition are right up his alley reporting wise. That's the kind of details which are his area of expertise). I don't think either are things that he would make up. AMUS also don't tend to make stuff up (technical inaccuracy is another matter).

Find it hard to believe only one of the 5 teams opposed this decision. Anyway, they also state the TD was issued one week ago. The opposing might be because they were asked to design and manufacture new parts in a weeks time, which is kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

He's not saying only one of 5 teams opposed the decision. He's just reporting the information that he gathered from his sources as of the time that the article went out. As you noted, the TD only went out a week ago.

Also, if teams were able to minimize plank wear via this mechanism, then I think anyone who was doing it would not be in favor of a change, for performance reasons as well as having to react so quickly. Teams wouldn't be doing this for no reason.

[scuderiabrandon]

I think Schmidt has made a mess of the technical description (as he's a journalist, not a technical analyst), but the rest of it (existence of a TD and Ferrari's opposition are right up his alley reporting wise. That's the kind of details which are his area of expertise). I don't think either are things that he would make up. AMUS also don't tend to make stuff up (technical inaccuracy is another matter).

Find it hard to believe only one of the 5 teams opposed this decision. Anyway, they also state the TD was issued one week ago. The opposing might be because they were asked to design and manufacture new parts in a weeks time, which is kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

He's not saying only one of 5 teams opposed the decision. He's just reporting the information that he gathered from his sources as of the time that the article went out. As you noted, the TD only went out a week ago.

Also, if teams were able to minimize plank wear via this mechanism, then I think anyone who was doing it would not be in favor of a change, for performance reasons as well as having to react so quickly. Teams wouldn't be doing this for no reason.

My problem with such an article is exactly this. It lacks critical information, hell, it doesn't even explain it in layman's terms. It's very poor. We can't even begin to speculate what is going on and what the benefits are because he gave us nothing to talk about. I don't doubt there was a TD issued, and I certainly don't see him lying about something like that, despite the fact that we can't even verify it publicly. He was the same person that reported a board meeting with the arrival of Serra which Ferrari themselves denied.

Also, if teams were able to minimize plank wear via this mechanism, then I think anyone who was doing it would not be in favor of a change, for performance reasons as well as having to react so quickly. Teams wouldn't be doing this for no reason.

[Farnborough]

IF ... it has been issued by TD, then there must be contravention at some point, or significant observation of it's presence in teams actions.

I've speculated in other thread about the Mercedes and how low they are running that chassis. Surprised that they have much plank left at all with the amount of debris coming out the back into diffuser expansion.

The demonstration at Cota,, with both GR & LH losing it in uncontrollable status change being an area of real concern in safety aspect (which is why the plank was introduced in the first place) being very suspicious/ borderline behaviour.

Again though, the method used of indicating a protest would be likely to race results to highlight a suspect practice ... a "put up or shut up" stance.... is absolutely standard behaviour to get something marginal or potentially against the rules examined. Ferrari notably, being absolute past masters at this "game".

It'll get sorted out when we see the running pace no doubt.

[AR3-GP]

I'm guessing here but I think the "issue" is surrounding the use of the metal inserts in the floor surrounding the inspection holes. In the Red Bull, the plank material is exposed at the inspection holes. In the Mercedes, the plank material is not exposed. Only the metal insert is. Maybe some interpretation there?

Mercedes:


Red Bull:

[scuderiabrandon]

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/red- ... clampdown/

The FIA has issued a new technical directive clarifying the way in which skids may be attached to the floor, resulting in a number of Formula 1 teams making changes for this weekend’s Las Vegas Grand Prix.

The plank assembly under the floor consists of the plank itself but also skids, which help manage how much the plank is worn down by contact with the track surface, and mountings.

There are specific limitations on the skid material that may be used, covering where it can be placed and how much may be fitted in place of plank material.

The new technical directive, which was first reported by Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport, clarifies not only what is in the technical regulations but also tackles potential ambiguity in a previous TD addressing this area.

Some teams pushed back on the introduction of the new TD, arguing that it should be deferred to the end of the season. However, the FIA has pressed on given the TD clears up existing regulations and guidance.

Ferrari is among the teams which have made tweaks as a result, but Red Bull is also understood to have made minor alterations despite ultimately being supportive of the change.

At least half of the grid is believed to have taken action in response. This doesn’t necessarily mean the cars would have been considered illegal prior to this latest TD, something that could only have been tested if a protest were lodged, but the response suggests the move has had the desired effect.

The current ground-effect cars produce prodigious downforce when running close to the ground.

Being able to run low without running the risk of excess plank wear is therefore key to car performance.

The regulations stipulate that the underfloor plank has a thickness of 10mm (± 0.2mm) and that “a minimum thickness of 9mm will be accepted due to wear, and conformity to this provision will be checked at the peripheries of the designated holes”.

There are also limitations on floor flexibility, scrutineered using static load tests, in the regulations.

It is understood the relevant TD here is conceived to ensure that there is no opportunity to exploit ambiguity in the wording to allow a car to run lower than it otherwise would, through ingenious fasteners or other means, without falling foul of these rules.

If, and to what extent, this will impact the competitive order is unclear at this stage, although it is potentially a disadvantage for Ferrari, which is expected to be strong on the long straights and in the slow corners of Las Vegas, where running low on the bumpy track runs the risk of excess plank wear. Red Bull could perhaps take a small hit, although its apparent support for the TD suggests it sees it as a net gain.

All of that could be good news for McLaren if it wasn’t among those taking advantage.

However, given the changes are small it might not make any dramatic difference - although with margins so tight at the front it doesn’t take much of a swing in performance to make the difference between winning and losing.

How different the tone is when it isn't a mouthpiece writing the articles. Anyway, what exactly is being done is still unclear. All we know is what it concerns.

[Vanja #66]

Yeah, another nothingburger incoming... AMuS putting up a clickbait behind a paywall, did not expect that of them tbh

[AR3-GP]

Yeah, another nothingburger incoming... AMuS putting up a clickbait behind a paywall, did not expect that of them tbh

AMUS said the same thing as the race for the most part. That up to 50% of the grid had been affected. That Red Bull supported it and that Mclaren was not involved (although the race remains unsure).


It's not a "nothingburger" because teams have to make changes. There will be performance consequences.

[Vanja #66]

It's not a "nothingburger" either because teams have to make changes. If you have found a way to reduce plank wear and you no longer can use this, there will be consequences to ride height and performance.

There's no magic material that outright prevents any wear and tear on the plank. If there was, teams would already have been using it and FIA would have subsequently banned it of course Other than using slightly harder materials where they can (still not sure, but this seems to be one of the things declared illegal now), they can play around with flexible materials and bushings between bolts, skid blocks, plank and chassis. Effects of this are very limited and there have been several interventions to prevent loophole exploitations

These changes now will have a small and 99% immeasurable effects. They won't be seen due to typical track-based performance swings across the grid. For me that's a nothingburger, like RB bib and water in tyres.

The only thing that wasn't a nothingburger recently was illegal McLaren rear wing

[Farnborough]

It's not a "nothingburger" either because teams have to make changes. If you have found a way to reduce plank wear and you no longer can use this, there will be consequences to ride height and performance.

There's no magic material that outright prevents any wear and tear on the plank. If there was, teams would already have been using it and FIA would have subsequently banned it of course Other than using slightly harder materials where they can (still not sure, but this seems to be one of the things declared illegal now), they can play around with flexible materials and bushings between bolts, skid blocks, plank and chassis. Effects of this are very limited and there have been several interventions to prevent loophole exploitations

These changes now will have a small and 99% immeasurable effects. They won't be seen due to typical track-based performance swings across the grid. For me that's a nothingburger, like RB bib and water in tyres.

The only thing that wasn't a nothingburger recently was illegal McLaren rear wing

We all know though, most on here, that left open these are highly likely to be further exploited by "tacit " permission existing without intended control under the written rules, however permeable those rules are written.

Many personnel in the teams are paid significantly to do this, take things right to the rules limitations.

And they wouldn't be worth paying if they couldn't do just that. It's part of a manufacturer type championship.