hardingfv32 wrote:1) The wear pattern on the car above and the RB at Monza is simply the wear you see from occasional contact with the track surface. The force of the impact is strong enough to cause the splitter/tea tray to flex where it meets the chassis. The splitter/tea tray is cantilevered and will simply bend if the enough force is applied. The wear pattern we see fits this "simple" scenario.
2) It is stated that this "see saw" theory does NOT include or account for the current use of support strut between the chassis and the nose of the splitter/tea tray. This is clearly visible on the RB. This would an add more resistance (greater plank wear?) to flexing under a "see saw" system.
3)The splitter must flex to make to make the "see saw" high rake system function. It must be flexed at all times that you require a high rake setting. Thus, the leading edge of the splitter must be in constant contact with the track surface. Even if you use carbide to line the nose of the splitter you are going to generate great heat. The carbide might not smoke, but what ever the plank is made of will eventually smoke. Why are we not finding unusual marking on the track?
Brian
3) Not true. It allows you to run closer to the ground knowing that if it does bottom out then you're not going to wear the front of the plank too much. We're not talking about constant contact, but the ability to run closer to the ground more of the time. Don't forget that only specific parts of the plank are tested, not the whole thing.
2) The strut (bib stay) was used previously on other cars to control the amount of flex - it was even a sprung member. Its presence doesn't support or contradict the theory. For the record the bib stay on the RB is not exactly the sturdiest looking to ever grace F1!
For example see this article
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2007/0/396.html
1) The wear pattern *could* show that the splitter is flexing upwards from that second wear point; BUT I believe this type of movement would show more consistent wear across that whole front section. If it is flexing around that point then you could see wear at the very front of the plank from when it first rubs, and then the pivot point could rub more as it effectively becomes the front of the plank when the rest flexes upwards. However I would expect the wear mark to be more graduated and less sharp if this were the way it was happening, as the rest of the plank wouldn't leave contact with the track, it would just not rub as hard.
My belief is that with the explicit pivot that the wear lines would be sharper and more defined as we are seeing on the Red Bull.
So all in all there's nothing to here to prove it one way or the other. I guess all I'm hoping for is that the FIA adjust their test procedures to make sure that this isn't happening. There's nothing unfair or wrong in the FIA doing so and it'll stop there being any doubt that Red Bull are taking advantage of the specifics of the test.
