Scarbs T-Tray proposal

[myurr]

Ringo, is that just like the FIA have run all over any attempts to make the front wing flex?

If Ferrari can build a front wing that can flap all over the place yet still pass the flex tests then Red Bull can make a splitter that bends and flexes as they require. Whether or not the seesaw is the mechanism being used, and whether or not it is a physical mechanism or the lay of the carbon, the fact remains that the Red Bull has a different wear pattern on the plank compared to all the other teams that we've seen so far.

Why do you find it so hard to accept that they have found a way to make their t-tray flex upwards, allowing greater rake, lower front ride height, and distributing wear over a larger area of the plank?

[Richard]

t-tray flex upwards... distributing wear over a larger area of the plank?

That last point is incorrect.
IF the idea is true, we'd see wear concentrated on the tray part of the plank that is parallel to the ground. The rest of the plank is angled up in the air, hence a lot less wear.

A team with a straight plank and less rake would have wear going further along the plank over a greater area.

[ringo]

Ringo, is that just like the FIA have run all over any attempts to make the front wing flex?

If Ferrari can build a front wing that can flap all over the place yet still pass the flex tests then Red Bull can make a splitter that bends and flexes as they require. Whether or not the seesaw is the mechanism being used, and whether or not it is a physical mechanism or the lay of the carbon, the fact remains that the Red Bull has a different wear pattern on the plank compared to all the other teams that we've seen so far.

Why do you find it so hard to accept that they have found a way to make their t-tray flex upwards, allowing greater rake, lower front ride height, and distributing wear over a larger area of the plank?

Do you see it flapping all over the place?

I find it hard to accept something that doesn't exist, is not apparent or isn't supported with evidence.
There is more proof that aliens exist that this seesaw. I'm willing to believe if i see the evidence.

[hardingfv32]

More useless opinion, as you would say.

"I find it hard to accept something that doesn't exist"
You have provide nothing that scientifically rules out the existence of this system. What have you got to back up your statement?

"is not apparent"
Of coarse not... what is in F1

"isn't supported with evidence"
The RB plank wear pattern is evidence, but you do not find it compelling.

Show your brilliance and present some engineering that proves this system cannot work.

Brian

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Ringo, is that just like the FIA have run all over any attempts to make the front wing flex?

If Ferrari can build a front wing that can flap all over the place yet still pass the flex tests then Red Bull can make a splitter that bends and flexes as they require. Whether or not the seesaw is the mechanism being used, and whether or not it is a physical mechanism or the lay of the carbon, the fact remains that the Red Bull has a different wear pattern on the plank compared to all the other teams that we've seen so far.

Why do you find it so hard to accept that they have found a way to make their t-tray flex upwards, allowing greater rake, lower front ride height, and distributing wear over a larger area of the plank?

Do you see it flapping all over the place?

I find it hard to accept something that doesn't exist, is not apparent or isn't supported with evidence.
There is more proof that aliens exist that this seesaw. I'm willing to believe if i see the evidence.

Yeah, thats why a Techincal Directive went out after Scarbs article. Coincidence eh? If it helps you sleep better at night, fine with me...

[ringo]

No, the thread is just right.

It's interesting that i have to prove that something does not work.
Should it be the other way round?

There needs to at least be quantitative proof that this can work, even if the numbers are just representative.
There also needs to be some strong visual evidence outside of an image of prophet eziekel haphazardly etched into the splitter plank by faith or chance over a 2 hour race.
Something like a weak spot, creases or the pivot fixture.

Nonetheless, i can still imagine a stiffer sprung front will squat at a lower rate that a softer sprung rear, resulting in the rear rotating clockwise relative to the front. This movement would make the floor approach horizontal at lower ride heights.

Imagine the rear sinking faster than the front. The bottom of the car will lose some rake.

[ringo]

Ringo, is that just like the FIA have run all over any attempts to make the front wing flex?

If Ferrari can build a front wing that can flap all over the place yet still pass the flex tests then Red Bull can make a splitter that bends and flexes as they require. Whether or not the seesaw is the mechanism being used, and whether or not it is a physical mechanism or the lay of the carbon, the fact remains that the Red Bull has a different wear pattern on the plank compared to all the other teams that we've seen so far.

Why do you find it so hard to accept that they have found a way to make their t-tray flex upwards, allowing greater rake, lower front ride height, and distributing wear over a larger area of the plank?

Do you see it flapping all over the place?

I find it hard to accept something that doesn't exist, is not apparent or isn't supported with evidence.
There is more proof that aliens exist that this seesaw. I'm willing to believe if i see the evidence.

Yeah, thats why a Techincal Directive went out after Scarbs article. Coincidence eh? If it helps you sleep better at night, fine with me...

I submitted a technical directive to Charlie as well. I believed the dog on the indian track in free practice was being used by ferrari to fetch redull front wings.
I asked if it would be legal to have dogs as one of the 47 team members allowed in the circuit. Charlie says this is legal but not in the spirit of the rules. Though the dog is a worker and not a pet, he is still an animal.
Ross Brawn says it's quite interesting and he'll be looking into getting a whippet for Abu Dhabi.
Now because i submitted this plausible inquiry it makes it perfectly realistic that ferrari is definitely using a dog to fetch front wings, doesn't it?

Makes you sleep at night knowing where the redbull front wing went.

We need to get down to the meat of the matter. Is this see saw being used by redbull?

[Dragonfly]

No, the thread is just right.
Nonetheless, i can still imagine a stiffer sprung front will squat at a lower rate that a softer sprung rear, resulting in the rear rotating clockwise relative to the front. This movement would make the floor approach horizontal at lower ride heights.
..................
Imagine the rear sinking faster than the front. The bottom of the car will lose some rake.

Ringo, I was also thinking about the effect of suspension and how it works, but it's not easy to formulate it in English with my limited engineering knowledge. Because the first part to meet a kerb are the front wheels and IMHO the way the suspension works plays a role which part of the floor will come into contact when the wheels are already over the highest point of that kerb or other surface irregularity.

[myurr]

Do you see it flapping all over the place?

What an irrelevant distraction.

I find it hard to accept something that doesn't exist, is not apparent or isn't supported with evidence.
There is more proof that aliens exist that this seesaw. I'm willing to believe if i see the evidence.

I've never said that it has to be a seesaw mechanism - all I've ever argued with you is that Red Bull are doing something different and that the wear on their plank is different to ALL the other examples you (and others) have been able to find.

Your whole argument is that the Red Bull plank has the same wear patterns and characteristics as the other cars, something demonstrably false as evidenced by the numerous photos in the rest of this thread.

To argue that it's just suspension is also probably incorrect, and you have done nothing to show how practical this would actually be. For a start this would affect the Red Bulls performance in high speed corners and would help their top speed due to reducing the angle of incidence of their wings, which is not backed up by any real world data. Second you also have to say that the Red Bull front end is much softer than McLaren's, for example, which would make their rear end even softer. Do we have any evidence of this at all?

Mathematically what angle of rake would be required to support 75cm - 1m of wear along the plank without breaching the wear rules? Given that Red Bull are running the highest level of rake out of all the cars how much would this mean the Red Bull would have to 'squat'? Do we have any photo's at all showing clearly that the Red Bull does this at speed? How does this compare to other teams?

You give this idea as something that solidly explains the wear patterns but have not given any evidence to back up your claims. I would counter that the more logical explanation, the one that fits the evidence seen so far, would be that the Red Bull's plank is flexing more than any other teams. The seesaw is just one mechanism that could allow this. Whether or not it is the correct one is open to debate but if you want us to believe that their plank is not flexing to any greater degree than any other team then you're going to have to produce some evidence and detail to support your claim.

[JAllen]

Afternoon all, first post on here but have been reading and enjoying for a while.

I came across this picture of a Toro Rosso, which I believe shows a similar wear pattern to that of the Red Bull. I think this is from pre season testing, but not sure. Similar idea or just flexing?

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp-c ... TR6upp.jpg

[PlatinumZealot]

First up. Are you the James Allen or some other Allen?

[ringo]

Don't scare him away if he's the real deal. Let's pretend he's Joe public Allen.

Either way he makes a good point. We have only seen a williams in this thread, at a different track than Monza, most notably.
Now we start to widen the spectrum with other cars, myurr is starting to sweat bullets.

[Richard]

The way that Torro Rosso wear stops abruptly at the first inspection hole supports the idea of a kink in the plank.

I've embedded the image below

[ringo]

What an irrelevant distraction.

No it's quite relevant. In order forit to behave like the ferrari wing, it must have similar charcteritics. Obviously a plank fastened to a solid tub and splitter won't flex like a foam filled wing.

I've never said that it has to be a seesaw mechanism - all I've ever argued with you is that Red Bull are doing something different and that the wear on their plank is different to ALL the other examples you (and others) have been able to find.

Their brake wear is also different too. What can we say about that?
It can be related to so may different things, there is no way to relate it to something as specific as a mechanized floor.

Your whole argument is that the Red Bull plank has the same wear patterns and characteristics as the other cars, something demonstrably false as evidenced by the numerous photos in the rest of this thread.

To argue that it's just suspension is also probably incorrect, and you have done nothing to show how practical this would actually be.

so you have something practical to show about your suspicion?
In fact it is quite easy to show how the softer suspension in the rear could effect the level of the floor. It's also very easy to imagine.

For a start this would affect the Red Bulls performance in high speed corners and would help their top speed due to reducing the angle of incidence of their wings, which is not backed up by any real world data.

Well what if the wings were designed for that? And what kind of F1 data do you have?
This behavior is probably quite normal. Rear spring rates are usually softer than the front. So this will happen. You also want the back to squat on corner exit for traction. Perfectly feasible suspension setup.

Second you also have to say that the Red Bull front end is much softer than McLaren's, for example, which would make their rear end even softer. Do we have any evidence of this at all?

No we don't have to compare cars. They can have the same spring rates and one has twice the downforce, giving twice the suspension movement.

Mathematically what angle of rake would be required to support 75cm - 1m of wear along the plank without breaching the wear rules?

It is not 1m of wear. The wear is about 600mm. The holes are 750mm from the edge and the wear stops at about 15 cm from the holes.
Mathematically with strict constraints on suspension movement, there is no rake angle for the board to wear evenly to that length.
If the wear is 650mm and lets say the rake angle is at 1.5 degrees. The deepest wear should be 17mm deep. This would fail instantly. In fact in order to have just 2mm of wear, the rake angle would be 0.176 degrees if we strictly ignore suspension movement and plank toughness.
This doesn't happen in reality though, because the plank is not cheese, and the suspension is independent front to rear. The force on the splitter will simply push back on the car till some arbitrary rake angle is arrived at depending on the shear strength of the plank fibers, the stiffness of the plank/splitter combination.

Given that Red Bull are running the highest level of rake out of all the cars how much would this mean the Red Bull would have to 'squat'? Do we have any photo's at all showing clearly that the Red Bull does this at speed? How does this compare to other teams?

You give this idea as something that solidly explains the wear patterns but have not given any evidence to back up your claims. I would counter that the more logical explanation, the one that fits the evidence seen so far, would be that the Red Bull's plank is flexing more than any other teams.

You just can't say that. Suppose redbull have softer suspension? or.... more downforce?... ahhh!!

The seesaw is just one mechanism that could allow this. Whether or not it is the correct one is open to debate but if you want us to believe that their plank is not flexing to any greater degree than any other team then you're going to have to produce some evidence and detail to support your claim.

No you have to support your claim. I'm not the conspiracy theorist here.

[ringo]

that plank is visually thicker at the worn parts.
especially in the middle of the floor.

Hmm i wonder, could the board have warped by any chance? The track is quite hot most of the time.

Maybe each team has a composite warp model for their plank?

The same models used for the CFRP may be tweeked for the plank.

It's these little things why the cynicism about flexi floors is premature.