Jumping in into this discussion
regarding the bending of the lower redbull rb9 t-tray,i theorized into 2 scenarios:
1st scenario [Which I think is what's actually happening]:
- It has been like this all along the season.
Remember, these 'thermal' camera's have only been added recently to the
'show', and thus revealing information to which we previously have either
not been paying attention to, or simply hasn't 'caught the eye'.
The supposed 'increase' in performance compared to the competition might
just be simply due to fine-development of the RB9 itself as supposed to
the competition, like Ferrari, abandoning development of the 2013-spec
vehicles as their ambitions for this year have faded - same may be said
for Mercedes.
In addition, these tracks might have suited the RB9 more then other tracks
throughout the year, and the whole Pirelli aftermath should not be taken
out of that equasion either. Which all just might be enough to explain the
possible 'leap' of dominance of Vettel and the RB9 of late (mind you, Mark
has not been up to Vettel's league the entire year, so don't rule out driver
influence either].
* Anyway, IF this is what it has been up to all season long, but only has
catched the eye because of the thermal imaging, then the explenation could
easily be as following:
The front of the T-tray doesnt 'flex' at all, but is is just merily scraping
the ground due to it's setup - and it can be just the tiniest of setup changes
to bring in this effect. Let's 'enhance' what happens a bit. Start of the race,
RB9 is fueled to the bone and thus heavier. Tires are cold, thus slightly smaller
in diameter. This could essentially mean that, when the RB9 is either under braking
or due to corner 'squatting' is getting closer to the ground -
So close, that this combined might just make the front of the t-tray [or the titanium
bracket] slightly skid the track [due to the rake of the RB9's floor]. When increasing
velocity, rear downforce will slightly 'level' the RB9 = lessen the total rake of the
vehicle, thus in essence, 'raising' the front of the t-tray so it will not skid or
scrape the track when higher speeds occur.
Question raised is thus: when do these 't-tray thermal anomalies' occur?
- If, at the tail end of the race, fuel weight has decreased significantly, thus
actually 'raising' the RB9's ride height just a tad, then we could expect these t-tray
'heating' can't occur during final stages of the race - do we know the exact timescale
of these 't-tray anomalies' of RB9?
- secondly, might the 't-tray' heating only occur when tires are either worn [thus lowering
ride hight slightly] or fresh out of the pitlane? Tires 'design' have played a great role
in the decline and rise for certain teams after the 'pirelli-silverstone issue', since the
shape between kevlar and steel belted tires - as i understood - differ. Therefore, the effect,
either on it's own, or combined with other aspects - should not be ruled out as effecting the
entire RB9 setup.
The result thus simply may be that the t-tray 'just gets hot' due to the circumstances - being,
the RB9 is built riding a little lower, but just not low enough that it would compromise the
wearing on the wooden plank.
If this is the case, then indeed, all FIA testing of the T-tray will show the RB9 is built within
legal boundaries - thus heating or putting weight on the t-tray will not alter it's shape - since
it's shape simply doesn't alter.
The thermal imaging camera actually supports this idea - let's say the tires heat up to between
70 - 100 Centigrades, and the radiator [visible through the car's sidepod intakes] is somewhere
around these figures aswell. Since the front of the t-tray lights up in a similar 'bluepurplish'
shade, then it's temperature must lay somewhere between these same numbers. I read however, that
the FIA actually conducted a test up to 300 degrees centigrade, that is 3 times hotter then the
FIA's thermal imaging camera's actually showed - and nothing happened. It would be quite doubtfull
to 'assume' RedBull would be 'sneaky enough' to let it come to effect in 310 degrees, or when under
'air pressure' combined. Again - it is 3 times the heat spotted during the race in Korea.
in conclusion: Theory 1 holds that we are simply spotting as how RB9 is built: to just scrape
the tarmac at times to make it run as low as possible, and thus no flexing occurs -
I genuinly believe this to be the case.
--
2nd Scenario
- Somewhere recently, the RB9's t-tray floor has been 'modified' to flex [or, it has been like that all along
and we has just spotted it thanks to the thermal imaging camera]
The flexing theory isn't too far-fetched since of all teams, RedBull has shown in past seasons to have
been 'flexing' their front wing somehow, as various onboard video's have undoubtfully proven.
I however, differ of opinion in the way the floor is actually 'flexing' as has been theorized by f.e. Gary
Anderson [Mind you, I have no doubt about Anderson's qualities and knowledge].
The theory raised is that due to the floor getting hot, it somehow 'bends' upwards and thus improves ride
height capability, possibily gaining an advantage of up to 0.5 - 0.7 seconds a lap.
FIA's 300 centigrade heating of the T-tray test supposedly has thrown that idea into the garbage as nothing
happened, proving RB9's 'legalty'.
However, that may not be entirely true.
It was theorized the materials used in the tea-trey would, due to the heat, deform [think of a bi-metal that gets
heated] and thus 'raise' the front of the t-tray, creating the supposed aerodynamic benefits. The FIA test showed
that under heat, the t-tray did not 'lift up' - but that doesn't mean nothing happens down there.
The material used to 'reinforce' the t-tray might not bend under heat by itself, but that doesn't mean it doesn't
become 'softer' or doesn't bend with a little 'force'.
IF the front of the t-tray gets hot enough by scraping the track [due to whatever reason], it might heat up a certain
material down there [could hold various parts of the t-tray] enough that it becomes 'soft', and the weight or downforce
of the RB9 itself pressing onto the tarmac could be just enough 'force' to actually 'deform' thus 'flex' the front of the
t-tray. This would still result in the aerodynamical advantages raised by G. Anderson.
Only difference is, the t-tray isn't flexed due to heat, it's flexed due to the heat softening the material so the 'track'
essentially 'pushes' the t-tray upwards, instead of it 'flexing by itself', and the test the FIA conducted is not able to
prove this - or at the very least, legalty of this scenario has not been tested. =D>
I am sure Adrian Newey has enough knowledge to make this theory work, especially since the RB-lineup of past years has a
signature of 'flexing' at various parts of the car.
A picture of the RB9's underside shown below [Japan] could even back this story up, as the front part of the T-tray shows
various 'grinding' scratches, up to a sudden point where it stops and there are hardly any scratches, and that's exactly
over the lenght of the front t-tray. Apart from that, RedBull has been notorious of trying to 'hide' their floors from public
and media and in previous years didn't enjoy too much when their floor got catched by the media.
here is the picture [from auto motor und sport]:
http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Red ... 545521.jpg
* anyway, even though the 2nd scenario could be possibile, I still have my doubts. Basically because as mentioned before, 'natural'
car development, driver input, and 'track suitability', versus the decline or halt in development of the competitor teams, could
just as easily explain the supposed 'leap' of dominance over the past few races. And even more, this possible 'flexy t-tray' might
have been present on the RB9 from the start of the season [perhaps even from past years] - we just didn't spot it due to the
inexcistence of thermal image camera's giving away this little 'secret'.
---------------
let's discuss
