Scarbs T-Tray proposal

[ringo]

That is not enough of a tolerance to justify that, if you use some trigonometry.
The rake change while the car squats, the fact that the track is not perfectly flat, debris, curb riding is a more logical and easier to accept explanation.

[myurr]

[...] You asked for pictures of other cars planks, we gave you them. But they showed something you didn't want to see so now they're not good enough and you want very specific shots of the Red Bull that are likely impossible to get. The only way you'd ever get that shot of the Red Bull would be to be down low on the circuit in one of the high speed sections of track - something the FIA are never going to allow you to do for safety reasons.

[myurr]

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?

Well there's one REALLY obvious solution if you look closely enough. Right where it's worn you can still see smears of red and white paint from where that car has hit the curbs (or something else) really hard. That easily explains the localised patch of wear that is getting your knickers in a twist.

[hardingfv32]

1) There is no basis for saying your logic is correct. A raised splitter leading edge is a valid explanation for this photo.

2) "the fact that the track is not perfectly flat, debris, curb riding" These issues apply to all circuits. The value of the "see saw" system is that regardless of the circuit characteristics or random damage event, it will always be subject to less wear because of the additional flexing. This assumes equal ride height.

Or, the "see saw" system can run less ride height with equal wear.

The track conditions are just a constant that both a "see saw" and cantilever splitter systems must be evaluated against.

Are you able to challenge this statement.... or is it back to more vague photos?

Brian

[siskue2005]

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?

Maybe coz it was dragged across the gravel trap?

[Richard]

Ringo - You seem to have it all upside down.

The tray needs to be lifted up in order to allow a steper rake that puts the front wing closer to the ground. This will put the tray parallel to the ground. What we see on the Red Bull is that all the wear takes place in the area of the tray and no wear on the rest of the plank. This is consistent with the theory.

Once again, have a look at this sketch. The bottom arrangement is pretty good match for the Red Bull wear pattern this year. There is a high amount of wear on the kink in the plank (as highlighted in yellow on your mark up), plus impact damage on the leading edge.

[ringo]

It's a pretty good match for ferarri's as well.
I am not disputing how the wear pattern is produced. I am disputing the connection to system that works like a seesaw.
I am trying to show that the wear is no different with the other teams that also have raked cars.
But as i said earlier, the suspension rotates in the longitudinal plane as well and this is being ignored by bryan.

There is no real evidence for a see saw system. The wear is not good enough evidence.
The suspension dynamics, the track topography have a bigger effect on wear than this see saw thingy.

In fact it would be better off and more direct if we just say the floor is a cantilever with some kind of shape memory alloy as ballast that heats up from floor friction then bends when it comes up to temperature.
Something like that would be more convincing.

[hardingfv32]

Well, since judgments about wear from photos can not be agree on, maybe we can take a different approach.

Can you provide any reason to demonstrate that the "see saw" system is not possible?

Would you agree that system has benefit if it functions as has been proposed?

Brian

[ringo]

I didn't say it's not possible. It just may not likely to real, due to the lack of evidence and especially evidence relating to suspension movement, suspension forces, splitter forces, and other factors like curbs and topography.
I just dont like jumping onto bandwagons without some concrete evidence.

Same thoughts for the octopus exhaust, up to now i have no clue what it really is supposed to be.

[thatnoone]

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?

Maybe coz it was dragged across the gravel trap?

This is a Williams right? RAC on mirrors

[ringo]

some perspective.

[hardingfv32]

Of what?

Brian

[Richard]

Just found this quote about Stepney and Ferari's 2007 flexing front floor in one of Scarbs' blogs

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/category/red-bull-rb6/

So the old saying that there is very little new in F1 is true ...

Quote from Racecar-engineering.com

“One of the defences used by McLaren was that Stepney, the former Ferrari employee, was ‘whistle blowing’ – something the court struggled to accept covered the whole affair, but it did certainly have an effect at the Australian Grand Prix. Ferrari won the race, but the FIA later outlawed the car’s floor. McLaren contended that the Ferrari that won was illegal, and a letter from Stepney to the FIA sent after the hearing revealed that it may well have been, as it was in effect a mass damper. Such devices were banned last season as they were controversially deemed to be a moveable aerodynamic device.

Stepney reveals in detail the exact workings of the floor that was used at the race: ‘The front floor is attached to the chassis via a mechanical hinge system at its most rearward point. The most forward support is a body with one compression spring and one tension spring inside which can be adjusted according to the amount of mass that is fitted to the front floor. There is also a skirt that seals the floor to the chassis, which is made out of rubber and Kevlar to help flexibility and reduce friction in the system.

‘If the system had been allowed it could have meant a huge cost of development for other teams in such areas as chassis and under trays etc to make way for the provision for storing the system and the variable quantity of mass. The possible long-term consequences of such a system would be quite substantial because the system is in a crude state of development.’

The system detailed by Stepney allowed the F2007 to ride kerbs harder due to the 14-15mm deflection at the leading edge of the floor, which means the Ferraris could straight line chicanes more than other chassis. Front plank wear would also be reduced, allowing the car to run lower at the front, giving an aerodynamic gain.

Stepney also explains the dynamic behaviour of the car, and the advantages the flexing floor gives: ‘From around 160-180km/h (100-112mph) the car is about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the floor, which multiplies up to nearly 19-20mm lower front wing height. The benefits in terms of ground effects and efficiency would be gained all around, with components like turning vanes and front wings at a reduced height relative to the ground.’ “

[myurr]

It does sound like Red Bull are doing something along those lines but with flexing carbon fibre instead of mechanical hinges. It would help explain the unusual wear patterns on their plank.

[ringo]

that 2007 thing is totally unrelated.
The goal is the same, and we all knew that. No one would apporach the FIA with the seesaw if it was basically the same thing as the ferrari flexi floor with rubber and Kevlar.
Those little tricks can't work against these regs.

So before we jump into another conspiracy trip, let us get back to the original question of the forces involved to bend a completely rigid carbon fiber form which is the floor and a completey rigig plank. Kevlar and rubber padding cannot be compared to this. Very unrelated by the function.

The FIA have run over all attempts to spring the splitter last year as well, so this too is redundant to the current discussion.