Scarbs T-Tray proposal

[CMSMJ1]

@ richard - yes.

Imagine this..(gruesome it may be)

A belt sander..

Your fingers.

If you strike the moving sander with your finger tips and do not bend them.

If you strike it but allow the fingers to bend.

You get less gore from the bending fingers eh?

[hardingfv32]

:!:



1: the splitter, with additional flex, can touch the ground more often for less overall wear.

@ Brian - you are not wrong to state that it can run closer more of the time with a flexy stay.

To be precise, you do mean 'flex tray', correct?

Assuming two identical RB7's (including ride height) , one with a "see saw" system and one without, why would you need the additional flexibility of the "see saw" system? Maybe my statement should read: 'it can run less ground clearance all the time'. Is that better?

Brian

[CMSMJ1]

1: the splitter, with additional flex, can touch the ground more often for less overall wear.

@ Brian - you are not wrong to state that it can run closer more of the time with a flexy stay.

To be precise, you do mean 'flex tray', correct?

Assuming two identical RB7's (including ride height) , one with a "see saw" system and one without, why would you need the additional flexibility of the "see saw" system? Maybe my statement should read: 'it can run less ground clearance all the time'. Is that better?

Brian

I mean a flexy bib, front of floor, however you wish to call it - I think we are talking the same kit

I agree that all other things being equal, the flexy car can run lower as the damage to the plank will be less(or not as severe) when running lower.


Can we put this to bed now?

anyone seen the flexy front wings...

[hardingfv32]

richard leeds wrote:
"Not quite. Wear is not a finite amount that can be spread over an area.

For example, take a key to your car bodywork, scratch for 1m, then scratch for 2m. you'll find that the wear is not spread out.

I can see that it is possible that the leading edge is possibly less damaged on a plank that is at a shallower angle, but that is about angle of impact."


I am not sure how well the drivers retrace their path each lap, but let us say within 150 mm. So we have to consider the plank strikes within this 150 mm range at a given longitudinal point on the track to be random within that zone. So, certain zones of the plank can be considered to have wear that is spread out within that zone. The location of these zones is going to be track and driver dependent, etc. Now this does not speak to the issue of the quality and quantity of random events, something only the team's history would help solve.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

The "see saw" systems possible advantage related to plank wear.

The logic for my thoughts about plank wear:

1) Assuming some rake in a car's setup, one COULD expect the greatest wear of a "cantilevered" plank to take place at the rear of the splitter assembly where it meets the front of the chassis. This assumes impacts that on AVERAGE that are strong enough to flex the splitter and allow the "hard point" to strike. With such events the flexing splitter should wear less than the no flex "hard point".

2) Having no written guidance, I am going to ASSUME that plank wear is ONLY measured at the FIA specified test holes. Why else would they specify a hole in the floor? Being voids, they do possibly represent high wear zones after all. You MIGHT legally be able to wear through the plank in other non tested areas based on the test procedure.

3) The rules specify the exact location and size of each test hole in the plank. I think it is LOGICAL to ASSUME that there is some reason for their location and size based on plank wear history before the rules were formulated. That said the largest test holes are located close to the "hard point" i am talking about, 750 mm back from the leading edge of the plank.

So my thesis is that it would be useful to locate the high wear "hard point" zone away from the these two large test holes. The "see saw" system COULD be a way of relocating this wear. Maybe too many parts of the puzzle are unknown to make a judgement.

If you have to hard a time with the premises, then disregard the post.

Brian

[MIKEY_!]

OK I'll use some exaggeration to get my point across but as I see it:
When an infinitely rigid T-tray strikes a curb for example it will not move out of the way and will suffer more damage because the car is pushing down on it suddenly rather than the wheels (it's a really high curb ).

With a highly flexible T-tray and plank (the see-saw) the tip of the plank will lift upwards as it strikes the curb. This means that the plank 'rests' on the curb surface and slides over it. Nothing except itself is pushing down on it so less damage is received.

To take an earlier example imagine resting your hand on that belt sander for a second vs putting your whole weight on it (through your hand) for the same amount of time.

[ringo]

1: the splitter, with additional flex, can touch the ground more often for less overall wear.

@ Brian - you are not wrong to state that it can run closer more of the time with a flexy stay.

To be precise, you do mean 'flex tray', correct?

Assuming two identical RB7's (including ride height) , one with a "see saw" system and one without, why would you need the additional flexibility of the "see saw" system? Maybe my statement should read: 'it can run less ground clearance all the time'. Is that better?

Brian

Less ground clearance for what benifit?
Less ground clearance doesn't help if the floor is stalled in the process.

Any car you see today that has a broken splitter scraping on the ground, will lose performance. Hamilton Australia 2011. If the see saw is doing that, then it's a failed concept.
That's just how it is with concepts. Sometimes it takes a little discussion to debunk them. No point in forcing it to work.

I really don't see the benefit of this thing it it requires that the floor scrape on the ground for the splitter to bend.

Ideally the splitter should bend up on its own, then the car comes closer to the track; without touching the boundary layer.
Or: The splitter bends down without touching the boundary layer.

Wear is not an issue. F1 is about lap time, it's not a lumberjack competition to see who has the less wear. I see no point in discussing wear if it's obvious that the concept is promoting the splitter to be dragging on the ground.

There is one exception to letting the splitter run on the ground; with a certain bodywork, but i must investigate it in CFD before i open my mouth.

[ringo]

The "see saw" systems possible advantage related to plank wear.

Why???

Why not relate it to lap time. That's how much me, smikle, richard have you reeling against the ropes.
The thread is still young man.

[Richard]

The "see saw" systems possible advantage related to plank wear.

Why???

Why not relate it to lap time.

The whole premise of the discussion about tray and wing flexing is that being lower to the ground results in better lap times. Since a major factor in regulating ride height is the limitation on plank wear, then any method to reduce plank wear will allow the car to be positioned lower down.

[ringo]

The whole premise of the discussion about tray and wing flexing is that being lower to the ground results in better lap times.

Yes without touching the ground.

Since a major factor in regulating ride height is the limitation on plank wear, then any method to reduce plank wear will allow the car to be positioned lower down.

Any method to reduce plank wear will not prevent the car to be positioned lower. The car cannot get any lower than touching. The car can ride at a hair's thickness and not scratch the plank.

Plank wear isn't inextricably linked to lap time. In fact there isn't a direct relationship.

The whole idea behind reducing plank wear, is really a safety issue stemming from running a car in a range of suspension movement, that there is a high chance that the floor may stall when at the lower limits of that range.

A team doesn't want the car to touch the track at all. They don't want to wear the plank to some how get lap time. The plank wear rule isn't about that.

What a team may do is set the suspension at a desired rate which may invadvertently allow a range of movement with a minimum height that sets the floor bellow the wheel's contact surface (floor contiguous to the ground).
The team doesn't want the car to touch the ground however, but they may choose a suspension setting that say, is fitting for 98% of the lap, but not hard enough to prevent bottoming in 2% of the lap. That 2% is a side effect not a desire, but they'll live with it.

That 2% may not happen at sections of track where downforce is very important, in fact the 2% may be 0% under certain fuel levels, or tyre pressures.
And it may be 5% at certain tyre temperatures and pressure, and with heavy fuel.

So touching the track with the floor isn't a goal. The goal like many things in F1 is to be at the limit but not go over it. Running the plank on the ground is over the limit.

The FIA doesn't want to give the teams too much liberty with that 2% negligence. The FIA is avoiding a safety hazard, more so than some attempt to dampen performance.
And we know the history behind stalled floors and the nature of the cars back then that provoked this ruling.

All of this comes to mind when i think of setting a car up to run near the ground.

I still don't get the logic of a ground activated floor. And why the team should care about reducing wear, when the plank has to first be grating off on the asphalt to cater for such concerns.

Make the floor bend up on it's own, free of external contact with the ground so the car can run closer but not touch, then i will agree with such a system warranting the attention by the FIA.

Make it touch the ground so it bends yet is still touching the ground anyway,loses the plot.

[bill shoe]

The #1 thread is people arguing that Scarb's see-saw T-tray is implausible.

The #2 thead is people arguing with themselves about the nature of hp vs torque.

I'm all about discussion and debate, but these threads have become exhausting and silly.

I'm just happy the #3 thread does not involve autogyro's transmission.

We are late in the season, new development has dried up, and Vettel/Red Bull have already run away with everyting. I think F1T has run out of intellectual capital for the moment. It will probably get better when the new cars are revealed this winter.

[thisisatest]

ringo,
i think the main flaw in your argument is that you believe if the t-tray is to touch the ground, it must be dragging there the whole time. i believe the car can be run low, very low, with the intent that the t-tray will not strike the ground most of the time, but when it does, due to a larger bump or kerb or sharp dip, the local wear on the front of the plank wont exceed the fia regulations.
the cars dont spend that much time at top speed, and their fuel tanks get lighter and lighter as the race goes on. so the opportunities for the plank to contact the ground purely due to downforce is practically nonexistent. if the diffuser did stall, all i see happening is the downforce will be lost, the car's body (not the wheels) will rise up, the gap will return, and downforce will be restored. i doubt that is happening, as you dont see cars porpoising down the straights, except for McLarens under braking but that's something else...
so again, the t-tray concept is to reduce plank wear due to occasional contact with the ground due to bumps or kerbs or other obstructions.

[CMSMJ1]

ringo,
i think the main flaw in your argument is that you believe if the t-tray is to touch the ground, it must be dragging there the whole time. i believe the car can be run low, very low, with the intent that the t-tray will not strike the ground most of the time, but when it does, due to a larger bump or kerb or sharp dip, the local wear on the front of the plank wont exceed the fia regulations.
the cars dont spend that much time at top speed, and their fuel tanks get lighter and lighter as the race goes on. so the opportunities for the plank to contact the ground purely due to downforce is practically nonexistent. if the diffuser did stall, all i see happening is the downforce will be lost, the car's body (not the wheels) will rise up, the gap will return, and downforce will be restored. i doubt that is happening, as you dont see cars porpoising down the straights, except for McLarens under braking but that's something else...
so again, the t-tray concept is to reduce plank wear due to occasional contact with the ground due to bumps or kerbs or other obstructions.

Winner =D>

So, has anyone seen the ESERU yet? I miss Autogyro..I would buy that man a pint and talk about the old times..

[Richard]

SO what you are saying is that IF the tray hits the ground, there is enough flexibility for it to bounce up, as opposed to dig in?

So it is about mitigating the consequences of impact. That then allows the team to take greater risk with lower the ride height because the damage from impact is less. The bounce up also minimises the chances of blocking the underfloor airflow.

This is a completely different scenario to deliberately engineering the tray to frequently hit the floor, that would cause more damage than a "normal" tray and also block the air flow.

[hollus]

After Ringo posted that the floor, if set as low as possible, will touch the ground for, say, 2% of the time, it has become clear that
a) Ringo understands every technical detail of what the others are trying to say
b) Everybody else gets the technical details of what Ringo is trying to say.

Now adults would agree to disagree and stop discussing about semantics, carbon fiber with soul and intentions, and arguments so convoluted that we discuss about how to deconvolve them so we can then discuss about them.

Now, to add something new:

Has anybody ever been disqualified for excessive plank wear other than after a mechanical failure of some sort?