I think I owe you guys an explanation of my frustration.

Let's start with flexi floors. In a technical design process one must start with definitions. So, let's define a flexi floor. The definition at the beginning of the season was: if a 50 newton force is applied and it moves less than 6 mm, it is not a flexible floor. That was the definition.

The definition now is: if a force of 200 newtons is applied, and all supporting devices are removed, and it moves less than 6 mm, it is not a flexible floor.

My frustration: The changing definitions of the meaning of flexible. The standard changed. As a designer, this is absurd. All cars were legal in Oz. Most had to be redesigned due to the changing baseline standard. This is not Ferrari's fault for doing their thing, or Mclaren's fault for pointing it out, but the FIA's fault because they changed the standard

Another example. To set the cooling apparatus on the fueling rig, one must choose a setpoint that is no more that 10 degrees C cooler than the ambient temp. The ambient temp is the baseline standard. But, the source of the standard was not identified. The standard was identified in concept, but was not identified by source device. Two different sources were identified, and the two did not agree with each other.

These standards are the responsibility of the FIA. They have failed to provide fixed standards in these two cases, resulting in confusion for teams, scrutineers, stewards, and others.

It is the FIA that pisses me off. This first pissed me off when the 1999 Ferrari barge board debacle came up. In that case, the scrutineers had no method or procedure to accurately measure the barge boards for compliance in the field. Absurd! And it's not the scrutineers fault, but poor leadership from the home office.

I would like to see a matrix where infractions and their punishments are codified. I don't like the 10 position engine change penality, but it is clear what punishment is mandated, and we've never had a case where the punishment was inconsistant or subjective.

If the matrix said, "If any team is caught with info belonging to another team, the team holding the info and their drivers will be excluded from the championship," then we wouldn't be fussing over this stuff. Both Spyker and McLaren would have been tossed out.

All of us tend to defend our team favorites when the rules and punishment are "iffy."

The inconsistancies lead many to cry "favoritism," and it leaves open the possibility for favoritism.

The FIA should fix this, and maybe Max's departure is necessary to make it happen.

So, I'm am frustrated because it is impossible to design a car and operate it legally if there are these types of uncertainity.

Every team will, at one time or another, be declared in violation of one of the rules because of the "black art" of interpreting the FIA's intent.

Great post - sums up the reasons for inconsistencies perfectly <thumbsup>

100% agree with you!! <thumbsup>

Me too, especially with:

"If the matrix said, "If any team is caught with info belonging to another team, the team holding the info and their drivers will be excluded from the championship," then we wouldn't be fussing over this stuff. Both Spyker and McLaren would have been tossed out."

Toro Rosso might fall into this category too, for the fact that their drawings are seemingly prepared by the same people who design the 'real' Red Bull car (which Spyker pinched a drawing of).

The basis for the flexible floor rule is that no aerodynamic device should move enough as to affect aerodynamic performance (a loose definition, I admit). It is the test that checked whether the floor was flexible enough to do this. The test isn't the rule, it is just a way of ensuring that the car passes the rules. Designers can devise ways of passing these tests but still break the rules, like flexi wings. That eventually lead to mid spacers in the wings because a strict enough test couldn't be devised to check against wings flexing.

YAWN.... <sleep> <sleep> <sleep> <sleep> <sleep>

John, it's not a dig at ferrari, it is just the most recent example. Just like Brabhams hydraulic suspension, designed to circumvent minimum ride height rules or tyrrell's car at the Monaco GP that was dismantled before the scrutineers could get at it (can't remember the year, could have been 84).

I know what you mean Andy, but the standard you speak of is not science or engineering. How does the FIA know that the floor aids the car's performance? How do you know this? You don't and neither do they.

True, it is only assumed to aid performance and to be fair, it hasn't really made any noticable difference to ferrari this year.

Again, this is an areas FIA could easily learn from talking to Nascar. They have created templates for the cars (prior to the COT, it was per specific car) and if you deviate from the template, your car fails and you get penalized. Failure before a race is starting position and $; Failure after the race is points and $ -- egregious failure can lead to crew chief banning.

It's clear and set in stone. You may hate it when your guy gets hit with what seems a inconsequential change but there are no exceptions.

It's sad and stupid that FIA can't do the same thing with F1 cars.

The thing is, the flexi floor could be made to fit the template but it bends and changes shape under the air pressure, produced by the cars movement at high speed, supposedly into a more areodynamically beneficial shape.

The FIA likes an air of mystery of it's rules so we get a few disputes every year.

the template isn't just shape - it includes parts. so if you are using a part that doesn't meet specs (one that allows for flexibility) then you're penalized. These guys have been doing it for a number of years and although I'd say the Nascar crew chiefs are the best in the world at pushing the limits, the examiners tend to find most everything.
Each cars initial exam can take 4-6 hours - they are fairly thorough.

The only way to check the flexibility of a floor of a car is by load testing it. Not even specified minimum material thickness would work because then all the team would do is just use weaker weave in the carbon fibre. The old load test was insufficient to prevent the floor flexing under pressure, that is why they quadrupled the test load.

If the rule states that the floor must not move x amount under a specific load, then that is what the teams will design to. The teams will always design to pass the tests, not conform to the rules. If the tests were capable of enforcing the rules to the absolute limit, then these things wouldn't crop up. The trouble is that the tests can't (or couldn't) replicate the racing conditions accurately enough to prove that Ferrari were (allegedly) bendsing the rules with their floor. After the change in the test, most teams had to redesign their cars to pass the new test, and that didn't really benefit anyone....

The problem is that the scrutineering test is poor at replicating the running conditions for the cars. The original 50N load was probably an educated guess. Obviously, as the car designs advance, the loading condidtions the cars experience change too. It is the job of the FIA and scrutineers to keep up with design developments and prevent the rules being contravened. In this case the test was inadequate to ensure the legality of the cars.

Andy, how do you test concrete to prove it has adequete strength? You crush the test cylinders at 7, 14, and 21 days to determine it's compressability.

The FIA's rules are equivalent to saying, "Make the concrete hard enough that the structure won't collapse." Civil engineering concludes that 3000 PSI is adequete, and the inspector promulgates the test procedures. On the 22nd day after the pour, after the cylinder passes the 3000 # test, the inspector says, "We will now change the test to 12,000 PSI to be really, really sure it's strong enough.

Surely as an engineer you understand that design standards and QA/QC tests are directly related. My students do. If not, they would fail.

I proposed this issue to my students, and each and every one concluded that if you change the test values, then you have changed the design criteria. And, some of them hate Ferrari too.

My wife is an analytical laboratory chemist. She writes test standards and she is my "truth table." Even she agrees with me, which seldom happens. <flirt>

But what really happens with concrete in the UK is that in crush tests you usually achieve far higher than the designed strength requirement (I should know, I'm a structural engineer). The FIA's test is purely a control which is meant to simulate what happens to the car at speed. If the FIA feels that their test is not adequate to check the rules, it is well within their rights to change the test (upon adequate notice).

AndyW76, this has been an interesting discussion. I also learned another aspect of the flexible floor that I think you might find interesting, and to a degree it supports your argument of the Ferrari's "illegalness."

As I've mentioned before, the splitter is very heavy and is used for ballast. The spring from which it hangs allows it to flex up and down. In that way it acts as a mass damper when on the bumps. It serves to counteract the bouncing frequency of the tires.

It was suspected that the movement of the floor was aerodynamic in nature, but it's possible that it provided a mechanical advantage as well. The static test of 200N may have been necessary to match the forces seen when bouncing over the curbs.

Now that is an interesting point, bearing in mind that mass dampers were banned last year.

McLaren's Illegal Flexi Floor (Ferrari Too)

Andy, I have apparently won this point with the latest news prompted by Damon Hill's comments. According to the FIA, both Ferrari and McLaren had what you would describe as illegal floors at Australia.

My definitions of compliance are based on scientific methods. The test requirements are the only way to measure compliance. You and I both have impressive credentials to support our points of view, but I do not make scientific conclusions based on team preferences or team prejudices, and I don't think you do either. No read of my posts would indicate who my team favorites are.

I enjoy our conversations because you have an understanding of the tech stuff, and few do.

According to the FIA:

My, my, my! McLaren and Ferrari both had an illegal flexible floor by your definition. However, by my definition, both were legal based on the tests.

And, the FIA agrees. And so it goes.