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

[organic]

How long have they been able to get away with this? These are teams that won races...The FIA are utterly useless.

To me it's conceivable that Red Bull themselves have known for a while. Until now it has been thoroughly beneficial for red bull that Ferrari became fast just as their car had issues, and took a lot of points from Norris by denying wins.

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), Ferrari being fast is no longer as beneficial.

I'm just saying this is plausible if we look at the timing.

It's normal at this point for the teams to be helping to police the rules like this. I think it's always been the case

... That red bull themselves were exploiting this loophole and threatened the FIA with a protest at Vegas lends credence to this theory

[chrisc90]

Horner will likely be asked about it this weekend.

I guess he would have openly said if RBR would protest it if it was true

[Waz]

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:
https://i.postimg.cc/Bn83GKw1/image.png

Red Bull:
https://i.postimg.cc/15f2gZ0k/image.png

I think the metal inserts have been allowed for a while. Isn't that how they create the spark shower? For The Show (TM)

Maybe the loophole is that there was no specific definition of whether the metal inserts may protrude beyond the plank surface? I guess if you are allowed 1 mm wear on the plank at the insert holes, then an insert protruding 3 or 4 mm beyond the surface allows a lower ride height by 5mm or so?

The insert wears down during the race beyond the protrusion and is then undetectable during inspection.

[KimiRai]

Roberto Chinchero's article

A new technical directive has created havoc in the Formula 1 paddock. On the eve of the Las Vegas weekend, the FIA informed the teams that, starting this weekend, protections that limit the wear of the skid pad placed to protect the bottom will not be allowed. We are talking about a crucial area for the performance of the single-seaters, which has been the subject of studies and experiments since the first day of the regulation that reintroduced the ground effect.

The skid must be 10 millimetres thick, and a maximum wear of one millimetre is allowed. The headache that engineers are grappling with on this generation of single-seaters is linked precisely to the height from the ground. The closer the floor is to the asphalt, the greater the aerodynamic load developed, but there is a limit imposed by the wear of the skid in contact with the track. The fastening screws, sliding against the road surface, can shrink by a millimetre at most, and on this front the teams have used various solutions to limit wear.

There had already been rumours in the paddock about ‘protective’ treatments for some time, rumours that were never confirmed. The suspicions were, however, enough for Red Bull to put pressure on the FIA asking for a clarification on what is allowed and what is to be considered forbidden when it comes to skid protection, and the FIA responded with a directive sent to all the teams pointing out that no treatment, or material to protect the skid, is allowed by the regulations.

Two teams (one is supposed to be Ferrari) reportedly asked to postpone the directive until the Qatar Grand Prix weekend, but the FIA did not relent. There are many question marks with which several teams will start the weekend in Las Vegas, as a directive in such a sensitive area of the single-seater can have a major impact.

The time available to prepare was practically nil, with all the risks involved. ‘Some will have to raise the car’, revealed a team principal, ‘and this could lead to significant aerodynamic imbalances, especially on a track like Las Vegas.’

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-la ... /10674800/

[hollus]

I think the metal inserts have been allowed for a while. Isn't that how they create the spark shower? For The Show (TM)

This is also how I remember it, and it is frankly ridiculous.
You put a “soft” polymer plank under the car to detect excessive proximity to the ground by wear. Primitive, but OK and effective.
Then you allow much harder elements to take much of the asphalt rubbing that is supposed to cause the wear… er… what?!


Taking this cynical take to the limit, if a metal part is hard enough that it touches the ground instead of the plank touching the ground, then that metal part is also defining the geometry on the car relative to the asphalt, and then that metal part becomes part of the suspension. Which would make it illegal on multiple grounds.

[Vanja #66]

Maybe the loophole is that there was no specific definition of whether the metal inserts may protrude beyond the plank surface? I guess if you are allowed 1 mm wear on the plank at the insert holes, then an insert protruding 3 or 4 mm beyond the surface allows a lower ride height by 5mm or so?

The insert wears down during the race beyond the protrusion and is then undetectable during inspection.

All skid blocks (inserts) need to be flush with plank surface in static conditions for inspection. Their purpose is to slow down the wear locally on critical points, compared to fairly soft materials that the plank is made of. Same for bolts for connection along the perimeter. Otherwise, you'd need full titanium plank and that's a weight and cost penalty

[ScuderiaLeo]

A previous technical directive gave teams further scope to add supportive skids, also known as satellite skids, on the plank further away from the four measuring points.

Those support skids were understood to be legal as long as they had the same vertical stiffness as the main skids, but they didn't reference thickness.

In recent weeks some teams, including Ferrari but not Red Bull's other rival McLaren, were deemed to have taken advantage of the provision to go beyond what is intended and come up with thicker protections that help protect the main skids.

The FIA accepted Red Bull's argument that Ferrari and some other teams are exploiting a loophole in the rules. Rather than wait until Qatar to give teams more time to react, it therefore issued a technical directive that is active with immediate effect, starting from this weekend's Las Vegas Grand Prix.

The directive effectively takes out the reference allowing these additional protective skids, which means teams will likely have to take extra margin with their ride heights to reduce the risk of exceeding the 1mm of plank wear allowance.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10674832/

[Sevach]

How long have they been able to get away with this? These are teams that won races...The FIA are utterly useless.

To me it's conceivable that Red Bull themselves have known for a while. Until now it has been thoroughly beneficial for red bull that Ferrari became fast just as their car had issues, and took a lot of points from Norris by denying wins.

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), Ferrari being fast is no longer as beneficial.

I'm just saying this is plausible if we look at the timing.

It's normal at this point for the teams to be helping to police the rules like this. I think it's always been the case

It also has the possible advantage of compromising their next year car.
If someone called this halfway through the season while teams were still working in 2024, whatever fixes or paths they implemented would be integrated into the 2025 design.

Now we are heading for a triple header to end the season and teams were deep into 2025 projects.

[hollus]

The directive effectively takes out the reference allowing these additional protective skids, which means teams will likely have to take extra margin with their ride heights to reduce the risk of exceeding the 1mm of plank wear allowance.

So… they were part of the suspension, clearly.

[Waz]

Maybe the loophole is that there was no specific definition of whether the metal inserts may protrude beyond the plank surface? I guess if you are allowed 1 mm wear on the plank at the insert holes, then an insert protruding 3 or 4 mm beyond the surface allows a lower ride height by 5mm or so?

The insert wears down during the race beyond the protrusion and is then undetectable during inspection.

All skid blocks (inserts) need to be flush with plank surface in static conditions for inspection. Their purpose is to slow down the wear locally on critical points, compared to fairly soft materials that the plank is made of. Same for bolts for connection along the perimeter. Otherwise, you'd need full titanium plank and that's a weight and cost penalty

That's what I was trying to say. That maybe the skid block is thicker than the plank originally and wears down during the race to be level with the plank surface plus a further 1 mm of wear.

My reasoning is that surely if the skid block is (example) 4mm thicker than the plank at time of installation, then that should give the team a total of 5mm wear before the plank is illegal, instead of 1mm. So they can lower the suspension 5mm.

And because it wears down during the race, it wouldn't be detected by inspection afterwards.

[scuderiabrandon]

Maybe the loophole is that there was no specific definition of whether the metal inserts may protrude beyond the plank surface? I guess if you are allowed 1 mm wear on the plank at the insert holes, then an insert protruding 3 or 4 mm beyond the surface allows a lower ride height by 5mm or so?

The insert wears down during the race beyond the protrusion and is then undetectable during inspection.

All skid blocks (inserts) need to be flush with plank surface in static conditions for inspection. Their purpose is to slow down the wear locally on critical points, compared to fairly soft materials that the plank is made of. Same for bolts for connection along the perimeter. Otherwise, you'd need full titanium plank and that's a weight and cost penalty

That's what I was trying to say. That maybe the skid block is thicker than the plank originally and wears down during the race to be level with the plank surface plus a further 1 mm of wear.

My reasoning is that surely if the skid block is (example) 4mm thicker than the plank at time of installation, then that should give the team a total of 5mm wear before the plank is illegal, instead of 1mm. So they can lower the suspension 5mm.

And because it wears down during the race, it wouldn't be detected by inspection afterwards.

For starters, parc fermé checks happen after qualifying. The skids need to sit flush with the bottom of plank, which is binded by a reference plane. Secondly, how do you expect a team to accurately wear down a skid to the millimetre? What happens when it rains and the speeds decrease? What happens when there is less racing laps due to red flags or safety car laps? Sure they'd be caught by now? 4 mm extrusion from the bottom of the plank is crazy work my man. Come on.

[AR3-GP]

All skid blocks (inserts) need to be flush with plank surface in static conditions for inspection. Their purpose is to slow down the wear locally on critical points, compared to fairly soft materials that the plank is made of. Same for bolts for connection along the perimeter. Otherwise, you'd need full titanium plank and that's a weight and cost penalty

That's what I was trying to say. That maybe the skid block is thicker than the plank originally and wears down during the race to be level with the plank surface plus a further 1 mm of wear.

My reasoning is that surely if the skid block is (example) 4mm thicker than the plank at time of installation, then that should give the team a total of 5mm wear before the plank is illegal, instead of 1mm. So they can lower the suspension 5mm.

And because it wears down during the race, it wouldn't be detected by inspection afterwards.

For starters, parc fermé checks happen after qualifying. The skids need to sit flush with the bottom of plank, which is binded by a reference plane. Secondly, how do you expect a team to accurately wear down a skid to the millimetre? What happens when it rains and the speeds decrease? What happens when there is less racing laps due to red flags or safety car laps? Sure they'd be caught by now? 4 mm extrusion from the bottom of the plank is crazy work my man. Come on.

The post from Scuderia Leo above indicates that there were additional skid plate sections that were NOT flush with the bottom of the plank, but instead protruded and functioned as "wear protection" with respect to the main inspection holes.

viewtopic.php?p=1259219#p1259219

[Farnborough]

The directive effectively takes out the reference allowing these additional protective skids, which means teams will likely have to take extra margin with their ride heights to reduce the risk of exceeding the 1mm of plank wear allowance.

So… they were part of the suspension, clearly.

Indirectly, I think so too and particularly for MB chassis in just how hard it's been hitting the ground.

If they were to "attenuate" travel by allowing it to hit the ground more of the time under spike load compression phase, then it's dispatched directly through the chassis to floor ..... importantly, bypassing the suspension and tires to avoid that spike being rebounded through the mass, effectively to avoid the worst part of porpoise manifestation. That specific chassis having a notable, and brutally severe, action that the drivers comment about. Heated buttocks too

Will produce unintended release of grip too, when facing a bigger track variable in local height change, this also is evident.

[Vanja #66]

The post from Scuderia Leo above indicates that there were additional skid plate sections that were NOT flush with the bottom of the plank, but instead protruded and functioned as "wear protection" with respect to the main inspection holes.

viewtopic.php?p=1259219#p1259219

That's not what it's about actually. There are tight specifications on titanium alloys allowed for use as skid blocks and hardening or chemical treatment of skid blocks isn't allowed. Additional "sections" could refer to that, or there could be softer, compliant sections that flex and absorb the deformation to reduce wear. The latter is very hard to gauge and easy to exploit and there's basically zero chance that any team is missing a chance to use it to their advantage

Skid blocks are always flush with plank surface and it's impossible for scruteneers to miss this kind of deviation. Every photo of any floor would have shown such deviation if there was any

[AR3-GP]

The post from Scuderia Leo above indicates that there were additional skid plate sections that were NOT flush with the bottom of the plank, but instead protruded and functioned as "wear protection" with respect to the main inspection holes.

viewtopic.php?p=1259219#p1259219

That's not what it's about actually. There are tight specifications on titanium alloys allowed for use as skid blocks and hardening or chemical treatment of skid blocks isn't allowed. Additional "sections" could refer to that, or there could be softer, compliant sections that flex and absorb the deformation to reduce wear. The latter is very hard to gauge and easy to exploit and there's basically zero chance that any team is missing a chance to use it to their advantage

Skid blocks are always flush with plank surface and it's impossible for scruteneers to miss this kind of deviation. Every photo of any floor would have shown such deviation if there was any

It's written in the article: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10674832/

A previous technical directive gave teams further scope to add supportive skids, also known as satellite skids, on the plank further away from the four measuring points.

Those support skids were understood to be legal as long as they had the same vertical stiffness as the main skids, but they didn't reference thickness.

In recent weeks some teams, including Ferrari but not Red Bull's other rival McLaren, were deemed to have taken advantage of the provision to go beyond what is intended and come up with thicker protections that help protect the main skids.

If you have supporting evidence that suggest this is not true, then share it.

The issue here seems to be that some teams were using the supportive skids as a means to reduce wear at the inspection holes and others were not. That may explain why Red Bull was happy to protest it. They realized others were using the supportive skids for reasons that directly contravene 3.15.8. It seems that the TD issued permitting the supportive skids was actually in violation of the FIA's own technical regulations when it was used in this manner.