Scarbs T-Tray proposal

[myurr]

Okay so the dark patch is possibly a depression - that kinda explains that, although I'm not 100% convinced due to the wear marks either side, the regular but irregular nature of the 'depression' and the fact that the dark patch with a light border can look 3d due to the way our eyes process the information even though it's a 2d surface.

This still doesn't explain why the wear marks are even throughout that front section and then drop off to zero (effectively) at a sharp edge. This is NOT explained by rake, which would give a linear reduction in wear, and can only be explained if that front section of the plank is running parallel to the track with the rest being raked.

My maths may be a little rusty but I believe that if the front section of the plank is 1m in length and the plank varies in thickness by 2mm, and presuming that the wear on the plank is linear (I believe it is not), then the maximum rake the car could be running is 1.1 degrees. Any more would have to be taken up by flex in the plank.

Also, presuming that wear is linear, there wouldn't be any margin for there to be a depression in the plank that far from the front.

[ringo]

With all this talk about rake, we are ignoring the suspension movement.

The rake angle is not constant, and the car can rotate about the vertical plane in any manner desired by the suspension.

I still say the wear is linear enough as well, if we ignore the streaks which may be from on track debris, curbs or stones.

Look how flat the car is sitting in the picture. This could easily be the position of the car in a turn or under braking based on suspension stiffness and geometry alone.

We can't assume the rake is constant.

[xpensive]

Xcuse me for barging in, but I was thinking about the testing method again, 2000 N and an allowed a flex of what, 5 mm?

And how long is the splitter cantilever-wise, 500 mm perhaps?

A "flat-flexed" splitter, would thus mean a "rake" of 28 mm if the wheel-base is 2800, less for the W02, but when 2000 N is not much in relation to the car's vertical load, perhaps the splitter could flex enough to accommodate the rake as it is?

[hardingfv32]

Tim

"I don't agree with this. If the test instrument says 11.1mm, you are too thick."

No, the rule does not indicate any values to the right of the decimal are to be read. The inspector could correctly make this measurement with an instrument that showed no decimal information. If they want accuracy to the 10th they would have specified 10.0 +/- 1 mm. This is standard industrial and racing practice.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

myurr

Yes, this is an assumption based on other racing experience.

The car will be tested as raced or comes off the track unless the rules specify an exception. What would be the logic in doing otherwise? How could you design or inspect with anything other than this assumption?

Brian

[hardingfv32]

1) The depression or dark "no wear" area is not a manufacturing error. It's shape is too regular. How does one explain that location and thickness of this "flaw" is exactly where the "see saw" theory predict?

2) Viewing a photo of a RB leaving the pit box and using the wheel rim as a know dimension, I ESTIMATE that the rake of the plank at 50 mm. Can we agree that RB has generally run the greatest amount of rake this season?

Ringo

3) Yes, the rake might not be constant, but this is a weak argument for an anti "see saw" position. We have no data about where and when the plank hits the ground or how the rake is affected at these locations. Saying the rake is not constant brings no new information supporting either side of this issue as it would be pure speculation.

4) "I still say the wear is linear enough as well" We can not argue over how ones views a photo. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. We often see what we want to see.

But if your were to ACCEPT that the wear is greater at the REAR of the splitter, would you then agree that this is a sign of a "see saw" system?

5) "Look how flat the car is sitting in the picture. This could easily be the position of the car in a turn or under braking based on suspension stiffness and geometry alone."

This is another very weak argument.

A) I could just as well say, 'look the splitter is rocking in a "see saw" fashion and lying flat'.
B) This photo does not provide a view of the complete car showing the height of the rear of the car.
C) Would you not expect the plank to be angled upward by design with a bend at the base of the splitter to take maximum advantage of the reference plane and plank tolerances?

Now before you go off in frustration, try and come up with some useful retorts to further the discussion.

Brian

[ringo]

Usefull retorts eh?


It's a spring horsey not a see saw!

Like a little horsey with springs the splitter squats under the squash created between the 2 axles compressing the tub while braking and the aero load over the car as the rider, thus bowing the splitter upward and laying it flat on the track.

You dont have any evidence to rebut my theory do you?
It's too deep and technical.

in fact i'll ask Charlie if such a system is legal, as i suspect HRT to be using it in the indian GP to get a 5 second a lap performance boost.

jokes aside. Others have provide some reasonable evidence, though a little bland, as to why the car may be behaving normally.

Outside of the techy theories, where is the see saw evidence?

And where are the pictures of other car floors to put the suspicions into perspective?

[myurr]

I gave you a picture of the Williams a few pages back but you conveniently ignored it. It had a totally different wear patter to the Red Bull and was consistent with the linear wear you keep saying the Red Bull has. It doesn't. It is anything BUT linear and you have proffered no explanation as to why the front part of the splitter has constant wear and then suddenly drops off. Just saying over and over that it's normal doesn't make it so.

[myurr]

In case you don't feel inclined to go looking for the picture, here it is:



That's Pastor Maldonado's car and has done 73 laps of the Monaco GP, pretty much the entire race distance. As you can see there is some scuffing and wearing along the entire length, which is consistent with a stiff plank and a car with enough rake to keep all but the leading edge of the plank off the ground the majority of the time. The wear you do see is from the bumps and knocks you'd expect the car to take over a race distance from both bumps in the road and from riding the kerbs.

This is utterly different from the wear pattern on the Red Bull which shows constant wear in two sections - the front metre or so and then the rest of the plank. This is, to me, consistent with a plank that is free to assume a shape like this brilliant piece of ascii art: \_

Obviously that is extremely exaggerated but shows what I think is happening. The front section of the plank is running parallel to the ground with the rear section being raised via the rake of the car.

So in this example at least the wear patterns on the Red Bull are very different to the Williams. I believe that this cannot be explained within the tolerances given in the FIAs rules given the amount of rake we can see the Red Bull running, and therefore must conclude that there is some illegal flexing of the plank involved.

I look forward to your rebuttal along with pictures of other cars planks showing how the Red Bull wear pattern is common.

[hardingfv32]

Ringo

May I assume that because of your failure to respond to my precise challenges of your previous statements that you consider my challenges correct? Your style of response does not lead to any understanding.

On to your latest rambling...

Your hobby horse thought is valid but it's application to this discussion depends on how one views wear as seen in the plank photos. As we are not going to come to agreement of what we are seeing for wear on the plank, this argument has no merit to the discussion.

To successfully argue your opinion you must provide something that does not rely on our judgement of the more subtile aspects of the plank wear patterns.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

"therefore must conclude that there is some illegal flexing of the plank involved."

There is nothing illegal about a flexing plank. In this area where there are no tolerances stated in the rules in regard to flexing only a test that is currently successfully passed. IF RB has used this system to win a race then can we no expect that the plank/splitter was tested and passed?

Brian

[ringo]

why is the middle worn?

Is the middle flexing?
Ironically this better reflects the see saw than the redbull.
The tip is clean as if the front see sawed upward, and the middle is scrubbed as if the other side of the see saw came down, Akin to richard leeds drawings.

This really, is no different than the redbull in the cuase of the wear. Uneven surfaces and debris. Different suspension setup,different wear.

The redbull's doesn't maintain it's rake under braking, the floor has some flex beyond the forces experienced during the test, and that is the explanation.

The horse thing was a joke by the way. It was reflecting on the whole basis for the see saw.

[MIKEY_!]

RBR's floor seems to have the same pattern each time we see it. this car will not be the same other times i suspect. Anyway are you sure the RBR won't maintain it's rake under braking? I would have though the front bogs down under braking increasing rake via the leverage.

[hardingfv32]

Ringo

But again you present a argument with an image that can have various interpretations based on one's opinion. How can we progress from this basis? Do you do this on purpose because you have nothing better? Should we disregard you posts for having no value?

This example would use a light meter viewing various lateral strips of plank surface area along the longitudinal axis. In the case of the photo above, if one was to measure the amount of lighter surface area and brightness, then plotted them over the length of the plank, I would say the wear is completely equal at all longitudinal points/locations on the plank surface. I assume level of lightness of the plank surface is a indication of the level of wear. My opinion.

Brian

[PlatinumZealot]

Get some pictures of the front of the RBR splitter hitting the ground. Then see how if it is flexing.