Flexing floors?
Discussion
Interesting that FIA have issued a TD around stiffness of the floors, which will take effect from France onward.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-flexi-floor-e...
Suggested that some teams are avoiding porpoising by an interesting interpretation of the rules around permitted deformation of the floor.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-flexi-floor-e...
Suggested that some teams are avoiding porpoising by an interesting interpretation of the rules around permitted deformation of the floor.
Apparently Red Bull are the primary target of this TD. A lot of people have been questioning how they've managed to run such a high ride height while still being the fastest out there.
A lot of very smart people at RB, they've constantly over the years designed their cars that break the rules but still pass the FIA tests. No doubt they will have a new design for France that replaces their flexing floor and keeps them at the top.
A lot of very smart people at RB, they've constantly over the years designed their cars that break the rules but still pass the FIA tests. No doubt they will have a new design for France that replaces their flexing floor and keeps them at the top.
WonkeyDonkey said:
Apparently Red Bull are the primary target of this TD. A lot of people have been questioning how they've managed to run such a high ride height while still being the fastest out there.
A lot of very smart people at RB, they've constantly over the years designed their cars that break the rules but still pass the FIA tests. No doubt they will have a new design for France that replaces their flexing floor and keeps them at the top.
Red Bull did exactly the same during the blown diffuser era, their car was head and shoulders above everyone else and Vettel made full use of his ability to drive it. I might not like Max but full credit to him, their car works and he is making full use of it and this just smacks of penalising them for being better at designing a car around the rules than everyone else, i'm looking at you Ferarri & MercedesA lot of very smart people at RB, they've constantly over the years designed their cars that break the rules but still pass the FIA tests. No doubt they will have a new design for France that replaces their flexing floor and keeps them at the top.
slopes said:
Red Bull did exactly the same during the blown diffuser era, their car was head and shoulders above everyone else and Vettel made full use of his ability to drive it. I might not like Max but full credit to him, their car works and he is making full use of it and this just smacks of penalising them for being better at designing a car around the rules than everyone else, i'm looking at you Ferarri & Mercedes
They're designing this car outside the rules though, critically also outside if the current testing procedure. It's the same as with VW and the diesel scandal, the car was completely uncompliant but it adhered to the usual static tests. slopes said:
this just smacks of penalising them for being better at designing a car around the rules than everyone else, i'm looking at you Ferarri & Mercedes
Feb 17, 2022 : The FIA has warned Formula 1 teams that it will have no hesitation in clamping down on any flexi-floor tricks in 2022 if it feels the rules are being "abused".https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-wont-hesitat...
Smacks of teams not following the rules, even after being warned.
ChocolateFrog said:
Si1295 said:
slopes said:
this just smacks of penalising them for being better at designing a car around the rules than everyone else
Same with Ferrari in 2019?angrymoby said:
rscott said:
some teams
it'll be the teams moaning that the FIA shouldn't step in & the other teams should just build a better car& by teams ...i mean 'team'
i think we all know which one
Mercedes were not aware of it.
WonkeyDonkey said:
slopes said:
Red Bull did exactly the same during the blown diffuser era, their car was head and shoulders above everyone else and Vettel made full use of his ability to drive it. I might not like Max but full credit to him, their car works and he is making full use of it and this just smacks of penalising them for being better at designing a car around the rules than everyone else, i'm looking at you Ferarri & Mercedes
They're designing this car outside the rules though, critically also outside if the current testing procedure. It's the same as with VW and the diesel scandal, the car was completely uncompliant but it adhered to the usual static tests. https://the-race.com/formula-1/mercedes-surprised-...
It does seem that merc were not even aware.
The teams that are not doing it face a dilemma - do they copy as it's "in the rules", or get the FIA to clarify/test/regulate more carefully as it seems to be outside the intention of the rules even if the plate deflection is only measured in two places, really only at / near the front of the plate. Hence the RB plate may be very stiff within the 2mm rule at the front but could be quite different further back.
The basic role of an F1 team is to design the fastest car and that means the car that makes the most out of the letter, not the spirit of the rules. This has always lead to a cat and mouse game between the teams/designers and the FIA with the FIA writing the rules, the teams finding loopholes and the FIA tweaking the rules to make things either explicitly legal or explicitly illegal.
Now Red Bull/Adrian Newey are very good at this but far from the only people playing the game, either now or across the history of motorsport. In fact there's a very good chance Mercedes radical floor breaks the spirit of the rules - it's just nobody complains when a team does it and the result is a dissadvantage!
Now Red Bull/Adrian Newey are very good at this but far from the only people playing the game, either now or across the history of motorsport. In fact there's a very good chance Mercedes radical floor breaks the spirit of the rules - it's just nobody complains when a team does it and the result is a dissadvantage!
TonyToniTone said:
Feb 17, 2022 : The FIA has warned Formula 1 teams that it will have no hesitation in clamping down on any flexi-floor tricks in 2022 if it feels the rules are being "abused".
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-wont-hesitat...
Smacks of teams not following the rules, even after being warned.
So in February the FIA defined it as cheating, yet have done nothing about it, smacks of a Ferrari style agreement in the offing,https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-wont-hesitat...
Smacks of teams not following the rules, even after being warned.
Saying that, It must be incredibly difficult to measure
TDK-C60 said:
Another article.
https://the-race.com/formula-1/mercedes-surprised-...
It does seem that merc were not even aware.
The teams that are not doing it face a dilemma - do they copy as it's "in the rules", or get the FIA to clarify/test/regulate more carefully as it seems to be outside the intention of the rules even if the plate deflection is only measured in two places, really only at / near the front of the plate. Hence the RB plate may be very stiff within the 2mm rule at the front but could be quite different further back.
No dilemma, they can't copy it as a TD will be coming in from France I believe to crack down on it. I guess RB better find some performance elsewhere in short order as they might struggle from Paul Ricard onwards.https://the-race.com/formula-1/mercedes-surprised-...
It does seem that merc were not even aware.
The teams that are not doing it face a dilemma - do they copy as it's "in the rules", or get the FIA to clarify/test/regulate more carefully as it seems to be outside the intention of the rules even if the plate deflection is only measured in two places, really only at / near the front of the plate. Hence the RB plate may be very stiff within the 2mm rule at the front but could be quite different further back.
//j17 said:
The basic role of an F1 team is to design the fastest car and that means the car that makes the most out of the letter, not the spirit of the rules. This has always lead to a cat and mouse game between the teams/designers and the FIA with the FIA writing the rules, the teams finding loopholes and the FIA tweaking the rules to make things either explicitly legal or explicitly illegal.
Now Red Bull/Adrian Newey are very good at this but far from the only people playing the game, either now or across the history of motorsport.
Red Bull/AN were very vocal about 'the spirit of the rules' when they missed the double diffuser + also have form for finding ways of appearing to comply (with the test) but fail to follow the written rules, but in ways that are difficult to prove as they can only be tested when static rather than at speed. The moral high-ground on bending rules (or floors, wings....) is not in Milton Keynes!Now Red Bull/Adrian Newey are very good at this but far from the only people playing the game, either now or across the history of motorsport.
//j17 said:
The basic role of an F1 team is to design the fastest car and that means the car that makes the most out of the letter, not the spirit of the rules. This has always lead to a cat and mouse game between the teams/designers and the FIA with the FIA writing the rules, the teams finding loopholes and the FIA tweaking the rules to make things either explicitly legal or explicitly illegal.
Now Red Bull/Adrian Newey are very good at this but far from the only people playing the game, either now or across the history of motorsport. In fact there's a very good chance Mercedes radical floor breaks the spirit of the rules - it's just nobody complains when a team does it and the result is a dissadvantage!
I would go further and say that it's the job of the team to design/build the fastest car possible that passes scrutineering - utilising any/all loopholes they can find. Now Red Bull/Adrian Newey are very good at this but far from the only people playing the game, either now or across the history of motorsport. In fact there's a very good chance Mercedes radical floor breaks the spirit of the rules - it's just nobody complains when a team does it and the result is a dissadvantage!
Mercedes' DAS was deemed legal because it was activated by a movement of the steering column rather than a separate discreet activation mechanism. The rules surrounding what components the steering system could influence was tweaked for the following year to basically limit it to changing the direction of the wheels (you know...a steering system) rather than any components affecting toe angle or camber etc. Tacitly admitting that it was actually dynamically alterable suspension. It passed scrutineering though (so job done)!
It is also a team's job to try and get other teams' innovations banned or get them penalised to either preserve or forward your own competitiveness. This can sometimes backfire on you though!
As far as RBR is concerned, the FIA approved their car and their floor the same as Mercedes car and DAS was approved. I would feel aggrieved if the regulations were changed to ban it mid-season rather than the same as Merc's which was disallowed for the following season.
TypeRTim said:
I would go further and say that it's the job of the team to design/build the fastest car possible that passes scrutineering - utilising any/all loopholes they can find.
Mercedes' DAS was deemed legal because it was activated by a movement of the steering column rather than a separate discreet activation mechanism. The rules surrounding what components the steering system could influence was tweaked for the following year to basically limit it to changing the direction of the wheels (you know...a steering system) rather than any components affecting toe angle or camber etc. Tacitly admitting that it was actually dynamically alterable suspension. It passed scrutineering though (so job done)!
It is also a team's job to try and get other teams' innovations banned or get them penalised to either preserve or forward your own competitiveness. This can sometimes backfire on you though!
As far as RBR is concerned, the FIA approved their car and their floor the same as Mercedes car and DAS was approved. I would feel aggrieved if the regulations were changed to ban it mid-season rather than the same as Merc's which was disallowed for the following season.
You're conveniently ignoring that the FIA green lit DAS prior to pre-season testing in 2020. Plus it was well understood that it was only banned in order to not cause undue cost and time on other teams as the sport approached a cost cap era. That's the difference with Red Bull. RB design their car to pass static tests but exceed limits under normal running. Very dieselgate of them. Mercedes' DAS was deemed legal because it was activated by a movement of the steering column rather than a separate discreet activation mechanism. The rules surrounding what components the steering system could influence was tweaked for the following year to basically limit it to changing the direction of the wheels (you know...a steering system) rather than any components affecting toe angle or camber etc. Tacitly admitting that it was actually dynamically alterable suspension. It passed scrutineering though (so job done)!
It is also a team's job to try and get other teams' innovations banned or get them penalised to either preserve or forward your own competitiveness. This can sometimes backfire on you though!
As far as RBR is concerned, the FIA approved their car and their floor the same as Mercedes car and DAS was approved. I would feel aggrieved if the regulations were changed to ban it mid-season rather than the same as Merc's which was disallowed for the following season.
Snappy89 said:
TypeRTim said:
I would go further and say that it's the job of the team to design/build the fastest car possible that passes scrutineering - utilising any/all loopholes they can find.
Mercedes' DAS was deemed legal because it was activated by a movement of the steering column rather than a separate discreet activation mechanism. The rules surrounding what components the steering system could influence was tweaked for the following year to basically limit it to changing the direction of the wheels (you know...a steering system) rather than any components affecting toe angle or camber etc. Tacitly admitting that it was actually dynamically alterable suspension. It passed scrutineering though (so job done)!
It is also a team's job to try and get other teams' innovations banned or get them penalised to either preserve or forward your own competitiveness. This can sometimes backfire on you though!
As far as RBR is concerned, the FIA approved their car and their floor the same as Mercedes car and DAS was approved. I would feel aggrieved if the regulations were changed to ban it mid-season rather than the same as Merc's which was disallowed for the following season.
You're conveniently ignoring that the FIA green lit DAS prior to pre-season testing in 2020. Plus it was well understood that it was only banned in order to not cause undue cost and time on other teams as the sport approached a cost cap era. That's the difference with Red Bull. RB design their car to pass static tests but exceed limits under normal running. Very dieselgate of them. Mercedes' DAS was deemed legal because it was activated by a movement of the steering column rather than a separate discreet activation mechanism. The rules surrounding what components the steering system could influence was tweaked for the following year to basically limit it to changing the direction of the wheels (you know...a steering system) rather than any components affecting toe angle or camber etc. Tacitly admitting that it was actually dynamically alterable suspension. It passed scrutineering though (so job done)!
It is also a team's job to try and get other teams' innovations banned or get them penalised to either preserve or forward your own competitiveness. This can sometimes backfire on you though!
As far as RBR is concerned, the FIA approved their car and their floor the same as Mercedes car and DAS was approved. I would feel aggrieved if the regulations were changed to ban it mid-season rather than the same as Merc's which was disallowed for the following season.
Red Bull's car also passed any/all of the FIA's tests and approvals pre-season. So therefore it is legal.
In the same way that Merc using the 'crash spar' as a mirror mount and having the turning vanes on it passed, even though is technically illegal.
There are many many examples up and down the paddock of little devices which are or have been borderline legal/illegal through the years (Mclaren F-duct, Merc double DRS) which passed initial inspection but got banned after protest. It's how F1 works.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff