Scarbs T-Tray proposal

[bill shoe]

Yea, I think I see an image of the Virgin Mary on that legality plank.

On a serious note, scarbs has an update--

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/2 ... directive/

[Richard]

I'm more concerned about how the FIA measure the floor tolerance after it has been flattened under 650kg load.

[kalinka]

The ferarri has a more flatter wear patten in the front than the redbull. In fact it looks like the ferrari sits on the splitter more than the Bull.

And? What's your point? One of the goals of the see-saw system is that it could even-out the wear on the splitter(plank), because the tip of the splitter doesnt hits the ground as hard as without see-saw. It can distribute the wear to the front and rear of the see-saw part of the plank. Therefore if a car doesn't have a see-saw splitter, it should wear the plank exactly like the Ferrari ( considering a pretty high rake, which is now almost common at top teams ). (IMHO)

[pocketmoon]

2) "does the plank have to be straight ?"

The reference floor that the plank is mounted to has to be flat, +/- 5 mm. So the plank could be curved with in this tolerance.
Brian

So the front of plank, under the splitter could be raised 5mm ?

3) "Could the front section be lifted by the connector that's visible between the t-tray and the body ?" Not sure there is any benefit to this. What was your thought? Remember, it probably must be tested in a pull up condition if that is how it is raced.
Brian

To pull the splitter and front section of plank up 5mm Which sounds legal.

With a high rake it would be beneficial to have the splitter as horizontal as possible (or simply at less of a rake than the rest of the car).

[myurr]

You raise some good points, and as you say this is one single piece with wear on it.

Now this is not different than the ferrari. In fact it's more linear.

You keep using that word linear. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The Ferrari shows a perfectly linear gradation. The tip is most worn, the rest of the plank is progressively less worn the further from the front you go. There are no sudden bands of wear or changes to this linear progression. That shows a stiff plank where the amount of wear follows the amount of rake.

The Red Bull, as you point out in your own diagram, has asymmetrical wear. The tip features a lot of wear, although some of the features you identify as wear are mud smeared from the front of the plank by the crash. This is relatively constant over a much larger area of the plank and does NOT linearly reduce with distance from the tip. We then have a patch of extreme wear followed by a band of no wear at all followed by more extreme wear. The wear on these two extreme patches is MORE than at the tip.

Thus the Red Bull has NON linear wear compared to the linear wear from both the Ferrari and Williams. This means that the amount of wear on the plank is not related to it's height from the ground due to rake IF the plank were stiff and rigid.

This leaves the explanation as being either asymmetry in the plank itself - which from my calculations I believe cannot allow for the level of rake seen in the car, but I'm happy to be proven wrong - or the plank is bending far more than that on the Ferrari or Williams. I would also contend that the force to make the plank bend that much is also relatively low otherwise we would see more wear at the front of the plank.

[myurr]

2) "does the plank have to be straight ?"

The reference floor that the plank is mounted to has to be flat, +/- 5 mm. So the plank could be curved with in this tolerance.
Brian

So the front of plank, under the splitter could be raised 5mm ?

3) "Could the front section be lifted by the connector that's visible between the t-tray and the body ?" Not sure there is any benefit to this. What was your thought? Remember, it probably must be tested in a pull up condition if that is how it is raced.
Brian

To pull the splitter and front section of plank up 5mm Which sounds legal.

With a high rake it would be beneficial to have the splitter as horizontal as possible (or simply at less of a rake than the rest of the car).

I believe that the plank forms the reference plane and has to be straight. Thus bending the plank in such a way is illegal. That said someone else quoted a rule where by the bib stay could be removed before the car is tested, so that if that were bending the plank upwards then it could potentially be removed before the car is tested. hardingfv32 contends that the car is tested as raced so that this other rule must be specific to the flex test and not the test of the flatness of the plank / reference plane.

[hardingfv32]

1) "So the front of plank, under the splitter could be raised 5mm ?"
Actually as much as 10.98 mm.

2) "To pull the splitter and front section of plank up 5mm :) Which sounds legal."
I'm am not sure there is an advantage to pulling the splitter up vs. manufacturing it in the raised position. Do have a special reason to use a pull-up method? That it is easier is not valid for F1!

3) "I believe that the plank forms the reference plane and has to be straight."
No, the very first sentence of the section dealing with the reference plane, 3.12.1 says the plank is removed when discussing the reference plane.

4) "That said someone else quoted a rule where by the bib stay could be removed before the car is tested," The rule says "may be present", I would say it is the option of the team to remove the stay, not tech. I THINK the the team would not want to remove the stay even if it is not in tension.

Brian

[siskue2005]

Has anybody considered that Mark's front wing got caught under his car before he crashed, and that caused some exaggeration of the plank wear?

[myurr]

Has anybody considered that Mark's front wing got caught under his car before he crashed, and that caused some exaggeration of the plank wear?

Crash damage is naturally a possibility. However we've also seen other shots of the Red Bull where the plank has worn in the same way.

[hardingfv32]

Isn't it much more interesting to assume the Scarbs is right AND that this is what RB is doing. Theorize about how the wear pattern would be affected, what the how the parts we have been able to view work with this system, how the rules come into play, etc....

Brian

[imightbewrong]

From practice in suzuka, so not very worn.

[hardingfv32]

Note the no wear area wear a stay/strut might be mounted towards the front. Are the outsides pulled down by aero loads? The would cause the wear not to fill in the space between the no wear area and the outside edges?

Brian

[ringo]

From practice in suzuka, so not very worn.

But why is it worn so far down? ahhh!!
Should it not be worn at the tip only according to the theory of the tip touching down first?

[hardingfv32]

Ringo

A) Do you have a clear explanation that you can provide to the F1 Chief Designers that proves that the system is not possible or in use? It seems someone with a little more knowledge of F1 design than you thought that it was a viable design and asked the FIA about it.

B) Why has the FIA issued a technical directive on the subject?

C) Is there even a remote chance that you know anyone in currently working in F1? Scrabs been contacted by several personnel within F1 teams on the subject, but then you probably don't believe him.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

But why is it worn so far down? ahhh!!
Should it not be worn at the tip only according to the theory of the tip touching down first?

Because of the tolerances involved, the plank can be raised as much as 10.98 mm at any location.
The tip could not be warm because it is raised as much as 10.98 mm. I assume this is what you mean by the wear being "so far down"; back from the tip or leading edge.

Brian