dialtone wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 00:55

I absolutely can. RBR and MCL are 2 different cars than Mercedes and Ferrari, setup differently thus introducing a variable than even at equal accelerometer values could lead to different results. And obviously a good large chunk of the paddock shares the same opinion, including Max. So yeah, I can conclude that and I will.

No you can't. Simply arguing "different cars" when you have no access to the data, and don't even know what the sensor shows, isn't conclusive in any way.

The entire paddock argument also doesn't hold up if they don't understand the procedure and haven't been told the test isn't "random". They aren't data experts.

The thing here is also i think you guys fail to think about how an oscillation sensor might work. A car bottoming - no matter the car and the setup - will give a very distinct readout on such a sensor. So it's very easy to read when a car is bottoming, how much and how hard.

It's therefore very easy to imagine that the readout on the sensor and the wear has a very precise corrolation.

dialtone wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 00:55

It may surprise you but I don't need proof, I just need to point out the experiment was bad and I've already done it. A proper experiment has 1 control variable. They NEVER did it.

This may surprise you, but you haven't. That's purely your opinion, and I've given plenty of explanation for why that isn't the case.

The problem with your argument is that you assume that they need a control variable for the US GP alone because that was the only race where cars went below the limit and was disqualified. But the thing about data is that data doesn't care about the limit. To the data, the limit is completely irrelevant. The entire dataset dating back to when the FIA got these sensors in the first place is the control values. They've tested the entire field extensively for the past year - that's their control values.

TFSA wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 00:49

That's not a post-race scruteneering check they implemented. That's a pre-race procedure that strengtens the FIAs knowledge.

Ironically, it's also data based, just like these oscillation sensors are, so the FIA have data to make sure they know they are doing the correct checks.
So what's your point again?

It's not data based, they manually checked the fuel left in the tank, did the math, and compared it to what the sensor said. Imo, that's was the figurative smack in the face that finally got the FIA to act.

Teams have already been playing games in this regulation set with the floor and the plank. If the fia is basis plank checks purely on the z axis accelerometer, teams will eventually figure out a way to game it just like they have everything else.

Checking everything all the time drastically limits the chances of the system being gamed.

Hence why the rear wings are monitored at all times now, you can't game something when you are being watched like a hawk!

dans79 wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 01:15

It's not data based, they manually checked the fuel left in the tank, did the math, and compared it to what the sensor said. Imo, that's was the figurative smack in the face that finally got the FIA to act.

From the very article you linked:

When the FIA investigated Leclerc’s car, they found there was a difference of 4.88kg between what Ferrari declared and the FIA measured.

Ferraris declaration is a pre-race datapoint that they use, and then they measured the final fuel. Article says nothing about what the sensor said - the word "sensor" doesn't even appear in that article.

It's a simple weight measurement of the fuel vs. pre-race Ferraris declaration.

There's still absolutely nothing there that supports that scrutineering checks aren't extensive enough.

The real issue is that the teams run the ‘in event’ scrutineering on their own cars, with the FIA performing the random weight checks and random post-race checks of random items from the rule book.
It’s like asking school kids to mark their own homework and then the teacher randomly picking a few to ‘check their methods’.

TFSA wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 01:35

There's still absolutely nothing there that supports that scrutineering checks aren't extensive enough.

If you ignore the fact that 2 teams have not had their planks checked at all this season.

ValeVida46 wrote:

TFSA wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 01:35

There's still absolutely nothing there that supports that scrutineering checks aren't extensive enough.

If you ignore the fact that 2 teams have not had their planks checked at all this season.

Again, if the oscillation sensors don't show them bottoming out extensively, then they don't need to check them. The FIA is using a data driven approach here.

I seriously struggling to figure out why that is so hard to understand.

Is there a purpose of the plank in F1?

The original intent in 1994 was to prevent the flat bottomed cars from stalling when floor runs with zero gap to the tarmac. But from 1995 onwards a step of 50mm was introduced with all aero/car parts above this step. which i believe made the plank redundant.

The step is still part of the regulation in 2022/2023 but the floor edges were allowed to 10 mm above the bottom of the step (increased by another 15 mm for 2023). The lowest section of the tunnel (throat) was also increased form 25mm in 2022 to 40 mm in 2023.

When there has been so much redundancy built into the regulations to counter the stall since 1995, is there any reason for the plank to still be used in F1. Why not go back to only skids to protect the floor.

1992 - Before plank


1994 - after plank


1996 - after step


2020 - modern step last generation


2022 - GE tunnel step


Original indycar DW12 without a plank


Revised Indycar domed floor skid plank 5 mm rounded plank to prevent flipping from 2016 onwards