The issue first came up in the technical directive on porpoising that was published by the FIA ahead of the British GP , which also detailed plans for tighter control of ground flex.
The technical directive also gave details of how the highest body would use an aerodynamic oscillation metric (also called AOM), to measure porpoising and rebound.
Those new requirements were to be imposed at the French GP , following two research races in Great Britain and Austria.
However, after a debate in the F1 Commission this Friday, it was confirmed that this Technical Directive will not apply until the Belgian GP, the first race after the summer break.
Meanwhile, in the technical advisory committee they will reconsider the definitive wording of that directive.
Interestingly, Mercedes director Toto Wolff says he would have preferred the technical directive to be applied at Paul Ricard, as originally planned.
“I would have liked it to be applied immediately,” he told Motorsport.com. “Because it can have an impact on performance. So good, that’s fine.”
In previous statements to Sky, Wolff had made it clear that he believes some rivals have taken advantage of the flexing of the ground.
“I think so,” said the Austrian. “I haven’t been able to apply force to certain teams’ skates [to see their flex], but we looked at our competitors.”
“And probably, I would have liked the technical directive to come a little earlier, but it is what it is. So at Spa we won’t see that anymore.”
Horner , director of Red Bull Racing, made it clear that the main focus of the technical directive is the control of porpoising , something that his team has not suffered as much as its rivals.
“The technical directive is obviously focused on rebound and porpoising which certain cars have struggled with,” Horner told Sky F1 .
“I think more should be discussed in the technical advisory committee, which is the right forum for it.”
“Obviously we saw at Silverstone that no cars were really affected by it. The argument is: is it the competitor’s duty to make sure his car is safe, or is it the FIA’s duty to make sure the competitor runs his car safely? safe?”.
As for Wolff ‘s hints about resilient flooring, he said: “That’s total rubbish. Total nonsense. I think we’re confusing the issues.”
“Maybe it’s referring to, I don’t know, the cars that are near them at the moment. I have no idea, but I have absolutely no issues or concerns with our floor.”
Red Bull chief engineer Paul Monaghan said that, like its rivals, the Milton Keynes outfit would have to take on the requirements of the technical directive.
“I don’t think we can ignore it, that would probably be a bit naive of us,” he said when asked by Motorsport.com.
“Some new limitations are being applied. We’ve only had the data from Silverstone for a while now to see how our interpretation compares to the FIA’s.”
“So we’ll tackle that first. And then whether or not we’re more effective than everyone else, that’s for someone else to determine.”
“The only thing we can control is our two cars. And if we change and adopt and meet the FIA AOM criteria, we’ve got the job done. The trick for us will be that if changes need to be made, and they cost you performance, We’ll have to minimize it.”
“Otherwise we’ll just have to keep doing what we’re doing, and keep the car going as fast as we can. It’s a judgment more about our rivals than about our performance.
Meanwhile, AlphaTauri technical director Jody Egginton isn’t expecting to see any significant impact on his team.
“I think right now we’re comfortable with that metric,” Egginton said.
“We’ve been monitoring it, it hasn’t set off any alarm bells about what we have to do in the car physically to meet the requirements of the technical directive. Just a few things, but I’m not going to go into details.” .
