Yea, I think I see an image of the Virgin Mary on that legality plank.
On a serious note, scarbs has an update--
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/2 ... directive/
And? What's your point? One of the goals of the see-saw system is that it could even-out the wear on the splitter(plank), because the tip of the splitter doesnt hits the ground as hard as without see-saw. It can distribute the wear to the front and rear of the see-saw part of the plank. Therefore if a car doesn't have a see-saw splitter, it should wear the plank exactly like the Ferrari ( considering a pretty high rake, which is now almost common at top teams ). (IMHO)ringo wrote: The ferarri has a more flatter wear patten in the front than the redbull. In fact it looks like the ferrari sits on the splitter more than the Bull.
So the front of plank, under the splitter could be raised 5mm ?hardingfv32 wrote: 2) "does the plank have to be straight ?"
The reference floor that the plank is mounted to has to be flat, +/- 5 mm. So the plank could be curved with in this tolerance.
Brian
To pull the splitter and front section of plank up 5mm Which sounds legal.hardingfv32 wrote: 3) "Could the front section be lifted by the connector that's visible between the t-tray and the body ?" Not sure there is any benefit to this. What was your thought? Remember, it probably must be tested in a pull up condition if that is how it is raced.
Brian
You keep using that word linear. I do not think it means what you think it means.ringo wrote:You raise some good points, and as you say this is one single piece with wear on it.
Now this is not different than the ferrari. In fact it's more linear.
I believe that the plank forms the reference plane and has to be straight. Thus bending the plank in such a way is illegal. That said someone else quoted a rule where by the bib stay could be removed before the car is tested, so that if that were bending the plank upwards then it could potentially be removed before the car is tested. hardingfv32 contends that the car is tested as raced so that this other rule must be specific to the flex test and not the test of the flatness of the plank / reference plane.pocketmoon wrote:So the front of plank, under the splitter could be raised 5mm ?hardingfv32 wrote: 2) "does the plank have to be straight ?"
The reference floor that the plank is mounted to has to be flat, +/- 5 mm. So the plank could be curved with in this tolerance.
Brian
To pull the splitter and front section of plank up 5mm Which sounds legal.hardingfv32 wrote: 3) "Could the front section be lifted by the connector that's visible between the t-tray and the body ?" Not sure there is any benefit to this. What was your thought? Remember, it probably must be tested in a pull up condition if that is how it is raced.
Brian
With a high rake it would be beneficial to have the splitter as horizontal as possible (or simply at less of a rake than the rest of the car).
Crash damage is naturally a possibility. However we've also seen other shots of the Red Bull where the plank has worn in the same way.siskue2005 wrote:Has anybody considered that Mark's front wing got caught under his car before he crashed, and that caused some exaggeration of the plank wear?
But why is it worn so far down? ahhh!!imightbewrong wrote:
From practice in suzuka, so not very worn.
Because of the tolerances involved, the plank can be raised as much as 10.98 mm at any location.Ringo wrote:But why is it worn so far down? ahhh!!
Should it not be worn at the tip only according to the theory of the tip touching down first?