by Red Bull is at the center of Formula 1’s latest technical controversy, admitting it has a device to adjust the height of the number plate at the front of the ground, but denying it has ever been used or ever should have been used can make changes during parc ferme.
However, I would say that Red Bull designed something like this may “contravening the regulations”, whether used in this way or not, means that the thought pattern may have been intended to address the gray areas within the regulations.
All teams have versions of this adjustment tool, but Red Bull’s proposal is unusual because it allows the adjustment to be made without external tools and without dismantling any part of the car. While optimizing the number height brings a clear performance advantage, Red Bull says this cannot be changed when assembling the car.
The big question, however, is the exact meaning of assembled – and whether there might be ways to make changes if the car is temporarily not fully assembled under parc ferme. After all, “Parc Ferme” means that you are not allowed to change the setup or parts, but in practice it does not mean that you are not allowed to touch the car in any way.
We need to know if this was an accidental option that came from a design concept that was not intended to allow customization, or if it was specifically designed to allow customization outside of acceptable regulations. Finally, there are significant potential performance benefits, and there are several ways to take advantage of them.
In the FIA’s load test for the front of the floor, the force is applied upwards. To reduce damage to the chassis when the driver drives over one of those stupid yellow curbs, there is a preloaded spring and damper unit for the bib mount. The preload can be adjusted so that they can easily pass this test, but this preload will still be broken in the event of a curb impact. It is a very complicated and elaborate system designed simply to reduce chassis damage when a driver makes a mistake, and in doing so it opens the door to different interpretations.
However, there is no downward stress test in this area that teams must pass.
What I would consider is another light spring that would be overcome by the low pressure under the section of the floor that is near the ground and by the load created by that small wing section on the keel section of the bib support cover can .
If that load were enough to overcome the spring force holding it, the bib section of the floor would be lower at low speed – say five, maybe even 10, 15, 20 millimeters, depending on how brave you were. Then, when it hit the ground, it could easily glide across the track surface with very little force, but this greatly improved the performance of the subfloor.
From what we saw on TV when the mechanic was adjusting something with a “tool”, it could be that they were changing the amount of deflection or perhaps the spring stiffness. If this were possible, it would mean that the plank and reference plane would not be flat (as represented by the red line) as required by the regulations (this requirement is represented by the blue line).
This would mean that the race number section would be lower and could bend upwards as the car’s distance from the ground decreases before it reaches its upper stop, which is the position for which the FIA would conduct its upward load test.
And that would mean that the underbody bib area would/could produce more downforce as this area is closer to the ground at low speeds, reducing understeer as load increases. As a result, you wouldn’t have to set the front ride height as low or the front suspension as soft – and the load from the launch area would also be much more even with different ride heights of the car.
This is because the bib would be able to follow the track surface by maintaining its distance from the track surface more consistently.
It would also allow a team to drive the car slightly higher in qualifying as the downward deflection of the floor would compensate for this. So if a lot of fuel is consumed, the wear on the planks would not be critical.
All in all, it’s not unlike the twin-chassis Lotus 88, which was famously banned from competition.
The design aimed to separate the suspended chassis, which carried all mechanical components, and the aerodynamic surfaces that generated downforce.
Actually the intention was to replace the skid skirts by bringing the aerodynamic surfaces closer to the ground without the need for a very, very rigid structure.
