Scarbs T-Tray proposal

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I think Mercedes need to look at this:

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/1 ... -solution/

Its not secret Red Bull run the highest forward biased front rake, and this proposal by Scarbs(quite brilliant is must be said- danke scarbs) is something that would certainly benefit Mercedes.

Having this would allow the team to run closer to the ground at speed where every millimeter counts towards aero points.

[Dragonfly]

Viewing the pictures there I didn't understand how the weight of the car is preventing the flex, except if the back part behind the supposed fulcrum is also supported by a rigid stay from below.
But my guess is that this belongs to a different thread.

[PlatinumZealot]

Well the rules say no moveable body work. This means in mechanical terms, moveable joints.

e.g pins, pivots, threads, gears, wheels, cv joints, sliders, chains, springs etc.

These devices have one thing is common, almost 100% of their motion is results from external forces. Rigid objects.

So Scarbs proposal would not pass scrutineering.

the theory is OK.. but I can show how you would do it.

The key is that there is no mechanical joint. but simply a flexture in place of the mechanical pivot. A Flexing object's body deforms due to imbalances of internal forces, so you can get away without using rigid, and visible mechanical joints. As long as that deformation lies within the rules.

A flexible joint may be a thick ply of carbon surrounded by thinner plies, a strip of metal (some parts, thin thick etc.).

So Scarbs, you can append the article with that.

[PlatinumZealot]

Viewing the pictures there I didn't understand how the weight of the car is preventing the flex, except if the back part behind the supposed fulcrum is also supported by a rigid stay from below.
But my guess is that this belongs to a different thread.

Dragonfly, good observation. I only the weight held the car, and the assumed center of gravity near the firewall, assuming the bib is 1.5m from that and the rear wheels 2m from that, 43% of the weight would be over the bib in the testing exvercise. Now If the car is without driver the weight could be 550kg. That would be 236kg over the bib. If the car is ballasted up it would need 236kg.(620kg weight of car).

So the hydraulic ram with 200kg of force would not lift up the car.

But this is too variable depending on the car, because unless they add ballast or add a driver to make up the 620kg the cars would all be different (differen bib lengths etc.) I think the bibs must be clamped down or something to properly do the test - So think Scarbs need to check that out (whether the floor is clamped down in the test).

[shelly]

My two cents on scarbs hypotesis: it seems that both t-tray flexing and front wing flexing share the same issue of the proof test being only on one side (i.e. at the front for the tea tray) while the operational flexibility happens when the device is loaded on both sides (i.e. front and back for the t-tray)

The strong pivot-bib plays the part of the wing pylons.

[aral]

I may be wrong, but I think that this all total speculation. As far as I am aware, the front of the plank does not extend under the bib. And even if it did, it would have to be a solid plank, devoid of any break, so it could not be articulated. Also, as most cars actually use a stay at the front of the bib, the leading edge would not be able to flex either way.

[PlatinumZealot]

That is another good point Gilgen. But all materials have some flexture.

The engineering way, is to find out how much flex is needed to run the front wing at the height you want - then see if the rigidity of the Plank + Bib will deflect to that amount.

ALSO, there is the matter of the force that flexes the bib, scarbs made no mention of the the upward force need to flex the bib arrangement he has drawn.

So, there are a number of points both for and against his design, and the context of his design is also unclear. I do not mind just beating ideas around in any context as was done above, but at the end of the day we have to keep a clear context and scenario in our minds

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Scarbs piece on the flexing T-tray.


http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/1 ... -solution/

[beelsebob]

I don't get how Scarbs says this is legal...

- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I'm not so sure Scarbs thinks it legal per se.


He does write this on his blog:

Moveable aerodynamic devices are banned, as is deflection of bodywork. But the FIA have set a precedent by saying if it passes the test, then its legal!

In my personal view this solution would be illegal.

[scarbs]

The car is sitting on its plank on top of a flat metal FIA set up plate. the car is not bolted down, its merely held down by its own weight ~580kg. I should point out the current test with a rigid splitter does not lift the car up.

When the test pushes up the leading edge of the splitter, the ram is trying use the splitter as a lever. The trailing edge of the splitter becomes the fulcrum and the load of the car is exterted midway along the splitter where the pivot point is. A large proportion of the cars total mass is exerted on splitters pivot point, the balance of its mass being supported by the tail end of the floor\plank roughly inline with the rear axle.

With just a 200kg load being pushed up and ~50% of the cars weight on the splitter, its impossible that the test load will lift the car. Thus the only deflection in the splitter will be the bending of the front half of the splitter. In some respects we can redraw the load case as a fixed splitter mounted as a cantilever. Very similar to the load case for the normal type of splitter.

[scarbs]

With this idea, I am playing devils advocate, the set up could be considered legal.

I don't get how Scarbs says this is legal...

- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

That is the over-riding rule, there are sub rules (i.e. 3.17.5) and deflection tests. these set out what deflection is permissible. Asi pointed out twice in my blog, there woudlnt be some massive bearing in the middle. Even a simple machined alloy block, solidly bolted to the chassis and pair of bolts side-by-side in the metal splitter section. Would appear to be solid and yet still flex.

[beelsebob]

With this idea, I am playing devils advocate, the set up could be considered legal.

I don't get how Scarbs says this is legal...

- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

That is the over-riding rule, there are sub rules (i.e. 3.17.5) and deflection tests. these set out what deflection is permissible. Asi pointed out twice in my blog, there woudlnt be some massive bearing in the middle. Even a simple machined alloy block, solidly bolted to the chassis and pair of bolts side-by-side in the metal splitter section. Would appear to be solid and yet still flex.

I see, that seems sane, though I suspect that the FIA would quickly invoke the "we get to invent new load tests" rule and wibble the thing to see if it sea sawed.

[hardingfv32]

This is a wonderful way around the rules and the test used to enforce them. BUT, how does this system work when the car is on track? What is providing the upward force to flex the splitter? Contact with the ground??

The plank runs to the leading edge of the splitter and is subject to wear limits. How much contact do you think they can get away with? Are we not talking about contact through most turns? Where is the plank smoke from this contact?

I do not think this is the secret to a high rake setup.

Brian

[siskue2005]

brilliant Scrabs
this is really some out of the box thinking
The wear pattern on the RBR plank is exactly as you pointed out
I have no doubt some of theteams have taken a look in this,,,as waas reported in AMUS after Monza GP
i think this is the secret behind RBR (i really hope [-o< )