Scarbs T-Tray proposal

[timbo]

Yeah, and that curb riding thing is also VERY useful. Look for Alonso vs Vettel comparison at Canada and Button vs Vettel in Japan, at both occasion Vettel won by being more aggressive AND stable thru the final chicane.

[hardingfv32]

Ringo

Your last post only adds more uncertainty to everyones understanding of your position. You are not answering our questions directly. You THINK you are answering, but you are only creating new premises that require agreement. You are drawing out the discussion by not discussing with precision the premises that have clearly been stated in last couple of days.

1) "So wearing the floor is more about being able to bring the car closer.
This is only done with trick suspension."

This is a new premise never before proposed in this discussion. Without arguing the this exact premise, I would state our position on the "see saw" system as:

'the goal of the system is lower static ride height with acceptable on track plank wear'

2) "The see saw, admittedly by its supporters, reduces wear which has nothing to do any thing. Points are not handed out for reduced wear."

We apologize for any misunderstanding you might have about any statements using the term 'reduced wear'. It would be our position from this point on that:

'with this system, plank wear is acceptable while using a setup of less static ride height.'

The premise is that a car using a stiff splitter AND this 'less static ride height' setup is going to have UNACCEPTABLE plank wear.

3) 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.'

Brian

[ringo]

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,

Not really, because the ride height is determined by the suspension, at 200kph the see saw is useless, as the floor is too high to touch the ground.
You would need a suspension that sets the car on the ground at low speeds. I haven't seen this at all.

and a floor that can't flex would be 5mm higher at 200kph. /quote]
Remember a seesaw floor and a typical floor is the exact same thing until they hit the ground.. with a lot of force.

So, the lower the speed that you can set your floor into flexing, the more usable DF you have at the medium speed range.[

You mean the lower the speed you can set your car on the ground. And setting the car on the ground is not a goal.
The downforce wont be usable, it will be compromised by disturbed flow under the car.

So the see saw doesn't make sense at high speeds; as when the car is fully compressed by downforce, touching the track may not be a good idea and it doesn't make sense at low speed; as the springs aren't compressed enough for the floor to touch the ground. It only makes sense on the curbs.

And the reason why it makes sense on the curbs is because riding curbs is independent of spring stiffness. The car doesn't have to lower to touch the curb, as it runs right into the curb.
Now maybe flexing at a curb helps the car stay stable over it. But this feat is achievable with a cantilevered suspension.

[ringo]

Ringo

Your last post only adds more uncertainty to everyones understanding of your position. You are not answering our questions directly. You THINK you are answering, but you are only creating new premises that require agreement. You are drawing out the discussion by not discussing with precision the premises that have clearly been stated in last couple of days.

This is a new premise never before proposed in this discussion. Without arguing the this exact premise, I would state our position on the "see saw" system as:

'the goal of the system is lower static ride height with acceptable on track plank wear'

No, i am saying the goal is not defined as it is contradictory. Remember i don't think wear is relevant if it gains nothing.

'with this system, plank wear is acceptable while using a setup of less static ride height.'

Maybe it's my poor linguistic skills, but i don't think you all see it. I may need to make another gif, showing why seesaw wont allow you to lower the rideheight, as it only works from external contact.

The premise is that a car using a stiff splitter AND this 'less static ride height' setup is going to have UNACCEPTABLE plank wear.

But the premise is wrong. Both splitters have the same exact shape until one touches the ground. Static ride height is the same for both.
I'll make the Gif and end this.

3) Question:

'What is wrong with the premise that it there is more aero performance to be gained by reducing ground clearance?

That is a strawman, i don't disagree with this statement. I disagree with the idea that there is a gain if the floor is scraping on the ground.

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.'

Not really, they sit just the same. It's the spring rates that are higher.
Plank wear rules prevents overly adjustable suspension.

Imagine i have a race team. I tell the driver to scrape of 2mm off the floor in 15 laps on the curbs.
The car goes from an air gap of 5mm to 7mm. Plank goes from 10mm to 8mm, distance to step plane is the same at 65mm.

When he comes into the pits I crank down the suspension stiffness (or i change the geometry) returning the floor to the optimal 5mm air gap subsequently lowering the distance to step plane to 63mm. I keep doing this every pitstop till i have 2mm of plank and 57mm to the step plane. I effectively have increased my aero performance.

This is all hypothetical, but it's this kind of thing the FIA was clamping down on. Active suspension, or passively intricate suspensions that cause increased costs and safety risks.

I'll make the GIF to demonstrate.

[Paul]

If you have a splitter that can move upwards on impact, you can either lower the car and gain more downforce at low speed while doing same lines through the chicanes with high kerbs, or keep the same ride height, but attack kerbs more aggressively and gain time by cutting the chicanes more.

[timbo]

Not really, because the ride height is determined by the suspension, at 200kph the see saw is useless, as the floor is too high to touch the ground.

At the 200kph the floor is not touching the ground. The see-saw allows to run floor lower at 200kph, because it flexes more at 300kph.

You mean the lower the speed you can set your car on the ground. And setting the car on the ground is not a goal.

Yes, it is not a goal. The goal is to run the car lower at the widest range of speed possible. That means sacrificing the top range.

as when the car is fully compressed by downforce, touching the track may not be a good idea and it doesn't make sense at low speed; as the springs aren't compressed enough for the floor to touch the ground.

If the see-saw allows for less negative effects with the floor touching the floor at the top range, you can run car lower at the lower speed.

Now maybe flexing at a curb helps the car stay stable over it. But this feat is achievable with a cantilevered suspension.

The question is whether you can achieve HIGHER flexibility under current TEST PROCEDURE with a See-Saw. If the answer is YES than the system is potentially beneficial.

[ringo]

At the 200kph the floor is not touching the ground. The see-saw allows to run floor lower at 200kph, because it flexes more at 300kph.

Ok i see what you are saying. You are saying that the plan is ride lower than usual so at high aero loads you knowingly bend the floor on the ground at 300kph knowing that the floor can flex.

But you do agree that when it flexes at 300kph the flexing is from contacting the ground?

So now that is clear let's move from there. I'll hold you to the above sentence.

Where are 300kph speeds experienced and also how long a duration do you want your flexy floor to be scraping the ground? Remember that section is basically stalled once it's flush with the ground.
That length of time when the car is compromised determines whether or not this is pointless you see.

Because the ride height at 200kph that you say you can set with a flex floor still can be set with a non flex floor. Keep in mind spring rates.

It's only at the speed at with they touch the ground will we see a difference between the two.

The question is whether you can achieve HIGHER flexibility under current TEST PROCEDURE with a See-Saw. If the answer is YES than the system is potentially beneficial.

As for this, i was never arguing test procedures. That's the boring part, because at the end of the day moving aero is illegal and that rule trumps all.

[hollus]

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.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed.

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

Agreed.

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

Nothing by itself, it allows to run the car lower the other 98% of the time.

No, i am saying the goal is not defined as it is contradictory. Remember i don't think wear is relevant if it gains nothing.

The gain is simple. If you run too low, you'll wear too much (in that 2% of the time you refer to yourself).
If you wear your plank too much, you will get disqualified.

The objective of this hypothetical system is not to gain anything by itself, is to avoid the very low, very raked car from getting disqualified.

[hardingfv32]

Ringo

'What is wrong with the premise that it there is more aero performance to be gained by reducing ground clearance?

That is a strawman, i don't disagree with this statement. I disagree with the idea that there is a gain if the floor is scraping on the ground.

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.'

Not really, they sit just the same. It's the spring rates that are higher.
Plank wear rules prevents overly adjustable suspension.

This is progress: You agree 'that it there is more aero performance to be gained by reducing ground clearance' That is the most important premise of this discussion. We can build from there.

A STATEMENT OF FACT: There is no nothing performance gained WHEN the floor is scraping on the ground... Agreed

There is no need or purpose for bring up spring rates or adjustable suspension. Accurate conclusions can be made using two cars with everything the exactly the same EXCEPT the ride height and splitter flexibility levels. One car with a stiff splitter has a high static ride height required to barely passes the plank wear test and the other car with a flexible splitter has a lower ride height which also barely passes the plank wear test. Which car has better aero performance?

Brian

[hardingfv32]

Ringo, you wrote:

"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."

A STATEMENT OF FACT: (using your numbers above as an example)

The "see saw" splitter does NOT come in contact with the track surface 96% of the lap, but does come in contact with the track 4% of the lap causing X amount of plank wear. A car with a stiff splitter will be setup to contact the track 98% of the lap and come in contact with the track surface 2% of the lap and have the.. SAME ..X amount of plank wear.

Again this assumes the cars are exactly the same except for ride height and splitter flexibility.

The conclusion to be drawn, is that the car hitting the track surface 4% of the lap is operating at lower ground clearances. Which you AGREED was a possible benefit.

Brian

[timbo]

Where are 300kph speeds experienced and also how long a duration do you want your flexy floor to be scraping the ground? Remember that section is basically stalled once it's flush with the ground.
That length of time when the car is compromised determines whether or not this is pointless you see.

Yes, just another setup variable.

Because the ride height at 200kph that you say you can set with a flex floor still can be set with a non flex floor. Keep in mind spring rates.

And you say stiff suspension doesn't have tradeoffs?

It's only at the speed at with they touch the ground will we see a difference between the two.

No, we have another potentially useful area of setup to explore.

As for this, i was never arguing test procedures. That's the boring part, because at the end of the day moving aero is illegal and that rule trumps all.

But actually a lot of performance can be gained from the boring parts.

[hardingfv32]

1) A discussion about plank contact with the track at 300 kph for any extended time period SEEMS beyond the wear capabilities of known plank materials even using the "see saw" system.

2) Does stalling the floor produce less drag?

3) This is not moving aero, it is FLEXING aero. Have they DQ'd Ferrari during the last two events? You design to the way the rules are interpreted by the officials.

4) Is this not really all about getting the front wing closer to the ground? The plank wear issue is what is stopping that goal from being achieved?

Brian

[ringo]

1) A discussion about plank contact with the track at 300 kph for any extended time period SEEMS beyond the wear capabilities of known plank materials even using the "see saw" system.

Ok
So what's the use of the see saw then?

2) Does stalling the floor produce less drag?

nope it's not a wing. the floor wont stall completely if it's raked though. It will lose efficiency.

3) This is not moving aero, it is FLEXING aero. Have they DQ'd Ferrari during the last two events? You design to the way the rules are interpreted by the officials.

So you are telling me that a pivot is not part of a mechansim? Flexing is moving aero. It is clearly written in the regs that surfaces should be rigid, hard and continuous. A flexi wing is one thing, a pivoted floor is overboard.

4) Is this not really all about getting the front wing closer to the ground? The plank wear issue is what is stopping that goal from being achieved?

The way how this discussion was going i thought it was about plank wear.

It's difficult to say what is better, a partially stalled floor with a slight improvement with wing performance. Last time i checked, floors made more downforce with less drag penalty.

anyhow ferrari have flex wings and they don't have pivoted floors.

[MIKEY_!]

A mechanical linkage like a pivot is certainly movable aero and would not be allowed. However we have seen the FIA accept that components cannot be infinitely rigid. Flexing is different from a pivot. Scarbs said in his article that a pivot would be illegal but a flexing connection would be ok (basically it must be one piece rather than the two of a hinge). How this could be achieved since it appears to involve stretching and compressing (or bucking) of quite a large section of bodywork in another matter.

[hardingfv32]

Ringo

1) "So what's the use of the see saw then?"

This is the kind of broad question that you are not capable of discussing. You do not view the big picture properly. You need to take small steps if you are to understand the point of this discussion.

2) Yes, I would argue that there is no pivot, only two objects in contact flexing around each other.

All of this is about an interpetation of the rules that you can be proud of when discussing with other competitors during a protest. The majority of your competitors might disagree and rule against you, but they do not view your interpretation as a fraud.

3) "It is clearly written in the regs that surfaces should be rigid, hard and continuous"

How rigid or hard? I require a tolerance, as all measurements are subject to tolerances unless specified as absolute. You do plan a testing for rigidity and hardness, or are they empty words?

4) The same rules apply to wing and splitter flexing. Clearly both are allowed to flex based on what there respective load tests allow for in the way of displacement.

And then we have the Ferrari that is still merrily fluttering around track this weekend.

5) "The way how this discussion was going i thought it was about plank wear"

This is a clear indication you don't see the big picture. We have been trying to keep it simple for you, but it has not helped.

Brian