Scarbs T-Tray proposal

[ringo]

This is what is implied.

This happens if the plank is not attached at the 1m line and is only attached to the freely moving part of the splitter.

In real life, the plank which is fixed to the tub at the fixed end would be under tension as it is being stretched by the force from the ground trying to bend it about the pivot.



It's still a cantilever, and it still doesn't reduce wear. It probably increases it.

Also there is the aeroudynamic aspect of effectively rendering 700mm of floor area useless because it's scraping the ground.

Which parts of a lap will the see saw be useful? for those who believe it.

[hardingfv32]

Excellent rendering of the "see saw" system. Exactly what is implied.

1) Can we conclude that there is benefit to the teams in having flexing splitter/tray based of the past history of teams developing splitter flexing system and the FIA's subsequent splitter flex test requirement?

2) As you state, both are cantilever systems. The standard cantilever splitter (no compression strut at the front) by definition must have enough strength at it's base where it joins the chassis to pass the splitter flex test. The "see saw" system must be equally strong at its pivot point but does not need to be joined to the chassis but instead relies on the plank being seated on the test plane/surface to prevent rocking and a test failure.

In reality there could be a continuum in the flexibility of the stiffest splitter system to the most flexible system. For our discussion we should choose the stiffest vs the most flexible to make the distinction clear.

3) Can we conclude that the "see saw" assembly (black section above) is located in the large hole found in the RB7? If so, it is POSSIBLE that the plank is the only part restricting the movement of the rear of the "see saw" assembly. Can we agree to this? Now this represents the weakest floor condition we can achieve, but in a real on track application it might be too weak. We are using it as a simple extreme.

4) So again as you rightly state, with the plank being fixed to the different parts of the floor it will be in tension or required to stretch if the "see saw" assembly is to move at the rear. So at this point we are left to estimate the elongation properties of say Jabroc, a form od beach plywood. My experiment with birch plywood indicated it is very easy to stretch the plywood without permanent deformation.

5) The aerodynamic implications are limited to those events or parts of the track that cause the plank to contact the ground. I am going to conclude that the teams long ago determined that the benefits of low ride height out way the negatives of more frequent contact with the track. This goes back to the conclusion required from statement 1).

Brian

[MIKEY_!]

Need to take rake into account:

[MIKEY_!]

I'm sure I have read of a rules that states 'no air should be able to flow between the floor's low surface and the plank'. In this arrangement the plank comes away from the floor. Unless the floor can flex enough as well, which i doubt.

[hardingfv32]

I'm sure I have read of a rules that states 'no air should be able to flow between the floor's low surface and the plank'. In this arrangement the plank comes away from the floor. Unless the floor can flex enough as well, which i doubt.

This rule is currently only tested when the car is static. So it is not an issue.

This is the whole point of this exercise, to develop a system that takes advantage of the way the cars are tested.

Brian

[ringo]

the point is, this is not a see saw. It is still a cantilver, thus it is no different than a normal floor.

The animation i have above, is with a plank that is seperated from the floor.
The floor being multi piece as well.

1) Can we conclude that there is benefit to the teams in having flexing splitter/tray based of the past history of teams developing splitter flexing system and the FIA's subsequent splitter flex test requirement?

Nope. Why are you forcing it?

The splitter flexing system in the past is totally different to what is being discussed hear. In fact those were floor flexing sytems that didn't need to rub on the ground to work.

3) Can we conclude that the "see saw" assembly (black section above) is located in the large hole found in the RB7? If so, it is POSSIBLE that the plank is the only part restricting the movement of the rear of the "see saw" assembly. Can we agree to this? Now this represents the weakest floor condition we can achieve, but in a real on track application it might be too weak. We are using it as a simple extreme.

No we cant!
The tub goes there, nothing else. There is a reason why the redbull is like that, and it is tub design related.
How can you make these bold statements?

5) The aerodynamic implications are limited to those events or parts of the track that cause the plank to contact the ground. I am going to conclude that the teams long ago determined that the benefits of low ride height out way the negatives of more frequent contact with the track. This goes back to the conclusion required from statement 1).

What are you saying here really?
Can you plainly say what the seesaw is doing to give the car performance?

This is why there is so much back and forth. Just use bullet points. The see saw is doing X so the floor can do Y full stop.

[timbo]

Which parts of a lap will the see saw be useful? for those who believe it.

Where it doesn't touch the ground.

the point is, this is not a see saw. It is still a cantilver, thus it is no different than a normal floor.

The difference is how it will behave at the testrig.

[hollus]

This discussion is semantic. Both solutions would be "cantilever like". What both parts are trying to say is like this (both design possibilities depicted at maximum deflections, vertical scales not absolute):

Standard cantilever: ‾‾‾‾------_________________________

See-saw cantilever: ‾‾‾‾--------____--------------------------------

Regarding wear: when the car hits a bump/kerb, if will be pushed by a certain amount of force for a certain amount of time until it no longer contacts the obstacle. The absolute amount of force x time in contact with the obstacle (suffered by the plank) is more or less the same independently of how the floor is designed. If such force x time is spread over a larger area of the plank, the damage (wear) per area unit will be less, while the total amount of wear will be about the same.

What the see-saw type of cantilever would try to achieve is to spread the the wear over a larger area by first creating two areas of higher wear (the second away from the testing holes) and a larger wear suffering surface, in overall more flexible that the just cantilevered option, so that also the area in between will suffer some of the wear.

Now, people, remember, the see-saw is a proposed system, just a theory, and nobody is trying to pass it for fact, much less did Scarbs originally.
We can discuss the theory.
We simply cannot know the facts.

[Reca]

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for comments on what this is (same pic already posted pages ago, further enhanced):

[ringo]

Which parts of a lap will the see saw be useful? for those who believe it.

Where it doesn't touch the ground.

But that's like an oxymoron. The see saw only works if it is in contact with the ground.
It is driven by external contact. So you cannot say it works when the car doesn't touch the ground, you see what i am saying?

I've been watching the abudahbi sessions and haven't seen any time when the car is scraping the ground. Over curbs is also a non issue.

[timbo]

But that's like an oxymoron. The see saw only works if it is in contact with the ground.
It is driven by external contact. So you cannot say it works when the car doesn't touch the ground, you see what i am saying?

You want to run diffuser as close to the ground as possible for as long as possible. It means that any system that would allow scraping without damaging the floor too much at the lowest speed possible.

I've been watching the abudahbi sessions and haven't seen any time when the car is scraping the ground. Over curbs is also a non issue.

On the contrary on the run to turn 17 you can see wear marks on the asphalt.

[hardingfv32]

Ringo

1) I clearly stated that it is a cantilever system. We could change the name if that is causing you grief. The 'High Flex Cantilever' or HFC splitter system. Fine with me.

2) You have every right to disagree with any premise and thus fail to come to the conclusions the rest of us have about this system. Nothing wrong with that.

Question: What is wrong with the premise that it there is more aero performance to be gained by reducing ground clearance? Now, I am not stating that there is constant aero improvement all the way to the ground, but just that the cars now sit higher than desired because of the plank wear restrictions.

Or stated another way: Why is there a plank and it's wear requirements?

3) If you feel the system in the past is different than what you see on this page, so be it. Use your latest illustration (page 23) as the baseline for all future discussions.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

Reca

1) There is crash data recorder located somewhere on the floor per the rules. Probably towards the front with the fuel cell and seat taking up everything in the rear half.

2) How about a sensor to measure the force of the impacts at the high wear point of the plank? The teams could correlate this with past history of impacts vs wear to guide in the adjustments of ride height.

Brian

[ringo]

You want to run diffuser as close to the ground as possible for as long as possible.

Yes.

It means that any system that would allow scraping without damaging the floor too much at the lowest speed possible.

No.

And i don't quite understand why you included lowest speed at the end of the sentence.

There is no reason for the floor to touch the ground, it does nothing.
The whole idea behind wearing the floor is that it progesively reduces the thickness of the plank so that the reference plane can be closer to the ground, while at the same time not touching it.

One aspect of the rule is an attempt to prevent teams from wearing the plank so that the car can ride lower without touching the track.

Here is an example:

plank is 10mm thick and car's max down-force requires a 5mm ground clearance(5mm air gap to the ground).
This means the distance to the step plane from the ground is: 50 + 10 + 5 = 65mm

Now suppose a team purposely chose to wear the plank down by 2mm to ride lower.

Gap to ground will now be 50 + 8 + 5 = 63mm

Note that the air gap is not reduced but the car is brought closer to the ground still. That air gap must be maintained for max DF.
So wearing the floor is more about being able to bring the car closer.
This is only done with trick suspension.

Plank wear is a safety issue not performance. The rule removes a liberty that teams will exploit while at the same time embracing the risk that comes with that exploitation.

Scraping the ground is not necessary. Reducing the plank thickness so you can ride lower gives performance. If a team could scrape a plank to 2mm thickness over 40 laps then adjust suspension accordingly they would.

The see saw, admittedly by its supporters, reduces wear which has nothing to do any thing. Points are not handed out for reduced wear.
If it increased wear even more than normal, then it would have some use, as the car could ride lower without touching the ground.

So i am still waiting for the bullet points of what this thing is supposed to achieve in terms of lap time.

Does it work on the long straight in the braking zone?
It can't work in slow corners because the down-force is too low to press the car.

I only see it working on curbs. Nowhere else.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJKmSunup40[/youtube]

And if it's just curbs alone, then what does it do on the curbs?
make the car slide over easier?

[timbo]

I only see it working on curbs. Nowhere else.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJKmSunup40[/youtube]

That is example of the car riding a cubs at a low speed chicane. Now, tell me, what would happen at the top-speed?

No.

And i don't quite understand why you included lowest speed at the end of the sentence.

There is no reason for the floor to touch the ground, it does nothing.

OK, think about this: say, you have a floor that allows 5mm flex. So, you set up a car that at 300 kph the floor is compressed most of the time, wouldn't this allow to have a floor at 5mm lower at 200kph, and a floor that can't flex would be 5mm higher at 200kph. So, the lower the speed that you can set your floor into flexing, the more usable DF you have at the medium speed range.