Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
hardingfv32
hardingfv32
35
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

MIKEY_! wrote: 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.
Re-read the last couple of pages. With Ringo's illustrations and my clear statements, it has been established that there does NOT have to be a large section of bodywork to flex, only the beach plywood plank. I have provide data on birch plywood flexing in the past. The forces are not that great in regards to the plank.

Brian

User avatar
MIKEY_!
7
Joined: 10 Jul 2011, 03:07

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

Did the FIA give a reason why it would illegal?

User avatar
Pierce89
60
Joined: 21 Oct 2009, 18:38

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

ringo wrote:
hardingfv32 wrote: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. :lol:

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.
the original reason for scarbs see saw wasn't a lower overall ride height but greater rake hope that helps clear some things up. It was supposed to reduce plank wear with greater rake. That's why it was supposed to help downforce not because it hepled the floor get closer. I'm not saying it's creditable only trying to clean up the disagreement.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

Yeah, i know the original purpose for it, but since it has some flaws becuase the floor has to scrape the groud, these guys are finding other purposes for it.
I'm just going along with the discussion.

There is a way to possibly mitigate flow losses with a scraping floor. I'll have to investigate it before i say what it is though.
It has to do with 3 things currently on the redbull. I'm putting them on the F1 model, that's the only hint for now. One is already on it.
For Sure!!

User avatar
Pierce89
60
Joined: 21 Oct 2009, 18:38

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

I like Ringo's curb riding idea. That's what Ferrari's flexi t-tray was for in 07.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher

hardingfv32
hardingfv32
35
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

In all the confusion that Ringo's responses create, I failed to catch that idea. Can you restate it please.

Brian

shelly
shelly
136
Joined: 05 May 2009, 12:18

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

Pierce89 wrote:I like Ringo's curb riding idea. That's what Ferrari's flexi t-tray was for in 07.
IIRC the 07 ferrari flexi floor was for lower die height, not only for kerbs.

There should be Stepney transcipt for its use somewhere
twitter: @armchair_aero

timbo
timbo
111
Joined: 22 Oct 2007, 10:14

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

shelly wrote:
Pierce89 wrote:I like Ringo's curb riding idea. That's what Ferrari's flexi t-tray was for in 07.
IIRC the 07 ferrari flexi floor was for lower die height, not only for kerbs.

There should be Stepney transcipt for its use somewhere
More than that. It was argued it acted as a mass damper.

hardingfv32
hardingfv32
35
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

In that regard, could the front wing assembly serve the function of a mass damper?

Or would the aero loads throw a wrench into that idea?

Brian

Richard
Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

Way back on page 16 ...

viewtopic.php?p=286985#p286985
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.’

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

The curbs are the only possible purpose.

Richard what was the ferrari floor activated by?

Aero loading?
For Sure!!

User avatar
MIKEY_!
7
Joined: 10 Jul 2011, 03:07

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

If the aero load was greater at the rear of the t-tray than at the front then it could be made to flex when not going over curbs. Maybe. I think.

Richard
Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

Ringo - The Stepney quote refers to tuning mass and springs, so I suspect any impact on the leading edge caused the tray to hop up out the way over the kerb.

It may also have had a mass damper effect so the impact was absorbed by the mass in the tray moving up and down hence the body of the car stays closer to level.

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

Is there any more quoted information online about the floor?
For Sure!!

Richard
Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: Scarbs T-Tray proposal

Post

ringo wrote:Is there any more quoted information online about the floor?
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/category/red-bull-rb6/