Originally Posted by AndyL
According to the post-race technical report, they didn't check the plank thickness on Lewis's car (they did on all the other top 10 finishers). I guess they'd decided that he would be given the benefit of the doubt over any excess plank wear due to the damage, so there was no point measuring it.
That the damage itself might have been performance-enhancing seems doubtful to me. The "flexi floors" of the past have been designed to flex upwards, not downwards - to lower the front wing and increase the rake of the whole floor. Granted Hamilton's damaged floor could have flexed in either direction, but the suspension would have been set assuming a rigid floor.
Or, should I say, assuming a floor as rigid as originally designed. It does seem an odd part to fail, doesn't it? Unless it was deliberately designed to be less rigid than it could be. That sort of failure risk is exactly why technical regulation 3.15 was put in the rule book, and exactly why the FIA should have enforced it last year :mad: