15 replies to this topic

[AustinF1]

FIA wants standard F1 plank amid ride-height concerns https://speedcafe.co...eight-concerns/

 

The legality plank dimensions are already standard, right? So are they possibly talking about standardizing the composition of the plank? I thought that was already standard too. This part was pretty interesting, too, imho. I wonder if this means they intend to start being a little tougher in terms of holding the tracks to a higher standard regarding track conditions.

“We do need to make sure circuits, generally speaking, avoid features which may cause that,” noted Nikolas Tombazis, the FIA’s head of single seaters.

“It’s a thin line between when it may be the responsibility of a circuit to sort out some features or detail and when the teams may just need to raise the car up more.

“We obviously will try to fix these areas with the circuits.

Edited by AustinF1, 14 December 2023 - 18:38.

[PayasYouRace]

No need to tack this onto an old discussion. Split into its own thread.

[Clatter]

If they had said it was for cost savings, or the believe teams are doing something dodgy with the floors, I could see it's purpose, but to use it to attack the circuits seems ridiculous. Why is there this expectation that curcuits have to be billard table smooth? Bumpy circuits are road relevant, as we have to cope with them everyday.

[ensign14]

So it's not about cloning.  Disappointed.

[loki]

I’m all for a standard plank.  

 

The question is who walks it first Torger or Whinger Spice…

[IrvTheSwerve]

Isn’t Mohammed Ben Sulayem the FIA’s standard plank?

[Wuzak]

If they had said it was for cost savings, or the believe teams are doing something dodgy with the floors, I could see it's purpose, but to use it to attack the circuits seems ridiculous. Why is there this expectation that curcuits have to be billard table smooth? Bumpy circuits are road relevant, as we have to cope with them everyday.

 

Is it about bumpy circuits, or circuits that have kerbs that allow the cars to run off track?

 

It seems to me that standardising the plank could be part of the 2026 rules.

[Primo]

I thought that the plank was standard. Since it is the wear that is measured the strength, the wear resistance, should should be near identical.

[AustinF1]

Is it about bumpy circuits, or circuits that have kerbs that allow the cars to run off track?

 

It seems to me that standardising the plank could be part of the 2026 rules.

Given what was said after the COTA DSQs, it seems to be about the bumps, but it's not clear to me from reading the article whether they want to focus on ride height, or the bumps, or a combination of both. I suspect it's both.

[Burai]

I thought that the plank was standard. Since it is the wear that is measured the strength, the wear resistance, should should be near identical.

 

Yeah, chalk me up as surprised that this wasn't already a standard, FIA-supplied part.

[Beri]

The dimensions as well as the substance the plank is made of are standard. Yet teams can chop it up into pieces like a mosaic if they want to. Thus enabling the possibility for dreaded and discussed flexing of the bottom. Fixed positions of mounting points prevent this nowadays. But a standard plank would be best for all parties involved.

[Clatter]

Is it about bumpy circuits, or circuits that have kerbs that allow the cars to run off track?

It seems to me that standardising the plank could be part of the 2026 rules.

I took it as looking at bumpy tracks. The kerbs are not part of the track, so any excessive wear to the plank caused by them is down to the driver.

[PlatenGlass]

I'm not sure I really see the point of the plank. A car can still scrape the ground as long as it doesn't wear more than 1mm anyway so it doesn't stop that. And if bottoming out is such a going off risk, it's kind of self-policing. I don't think the additional risk of disqualification adds much as a safety feature.

Plus it's a very much push-your-luck rule anyway because teams can only guesstimate how much wear their plank will get, which I don't think is generally a good starting point for a rule. Sure, there will always be guesstimates, but you don't need to go out of your way to add to it.

[pdac]

I'm not sure I really see the point of the plank. A car can still scrape the ground as long as it doesn't wear more than 1mm anyway so it doesn't stop that. And if bottoming out is such a going off risk, it's kind of self-policing. I don't think the additional risk of disqualification adds much as a safety feature.

Plus it's a very much push-your-luck rule anyway because teams can only guesstimate how much wear their plank will get, which I don't think is generally a good starting point for a rule. Sure, there will always be guesstimates, but you don't need to go out of your way to add to it.

 

I think the idea is to avoid the teams from dropping the ride height so much that it risks the drivers safety. If the car occasionally scrapes the track, then the plank will not wear down enough to flag a problem. But if, at the end of the race, the plank is worn down too much, then it's an indication that the team were risking their drivers safety. So the idea is to shift the risk/reward point a bit.

[PayasYouRace]

Additionally, if the entire plank does end up in contact with the track, it means there will be a guarantee of some airflow still under the car, around the plant. Probably less relevant in today’s ground effect era, but vital in the flat bottomed designs of the time the plank was introduced.

[RedRabbit]

Surprised it's taken so long. I'd actually be ok with all the safety aspects of the car being a controlled and supplied part.