Scarbs T-Tray proposal

[shelly]

Schumacher spa 1994 was the first. I do not remember if there have been others since.
maybe a toyota?

[CMSMJ1]

Some DQs from Brazil..

I'll find 'em.

Brazil 2000 - top 5 cars all failed scrut on the plank. They were re-instated though I know not why.

The crux of this is that even a 1mm ride height drop without the additional plank wear that would usually create is a good thing.

[timbo]

Make it touch the ground so it bends yet is still touching the ground anyway,loses the plot.

I argue that teams would want to maximize that 2% you are talking about. They happen on the max loading (top speed) where you have more than enough downforce already.

The logic of the see-saw is in the FIA test, as the car lays on the whole length of the floor with wheels not touching the ground. In that scenerio the inside part of the moving see-saw section would add to apparent stiffness. Apply the same force with the racked car sitting on it's wheels and the floor would bend more.

[hardingfv32]

Has anybody ever been disqualified for excessive plank wear other than after a mechanical failure of some sort?

To be very precise the concern is about wear at the front of the plank caused by rake which is desired because it lowers the front wing.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

SO what you are saying is that IF the tray hits the ground, there is enough flexibility for it to bounce up, as opposed to dig in?

So it is about mitigating the consequences of impact. That then allows the team to take greater risk with lower the ride height because the damage from impact is less. The bounce up also minimises the chances of blocking the underfloor airflow.

This is a completely different scenario to deliberately engineering the tray to frequently hit the floor, that would cause more damage than a "normal" tray and also block the air flow.

Yes, it has ALWAYS been about mitigating the consequences of impact.... the damage in the form of WEAR from impact is less.

They ONLY person insisting on a scenario to deliberately engineer a tray to frequently hit the ground is Ringo.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

Make it touch the ground so it bends yet is still touching the ground anyway,loses the plot.

Apply the same force with the racked car sitting on it's wheels and the floor would bend more.

For Ringo your statement must be a little more precise:

'Apply the same [test] force with the car on the track and the floor would bend more [easily or beyond the test limit]'

Brian

[ringo]

SO what you are saying is that IF the tray hits the ground, there is enough flexibility for it to bounce up, as opposed to dig in?

So it is about mitigating the consequences of impact. That then allows the team to take greater risk with lower the ride height because the damage from impact is less. The bounce up also minimises the chances of blocking the underfloor airflow.

This is a completely different scenario to deliberately engineering the tray to frequently hit the floor, that would cause more damage than a "normal" tray and also block the air flow.

You see that things are being made up as we go along. That's why i like these threads.
People are forced to think, instead of gobbling up stuff meted out to them.

Now we are seeing a whole new purpose for a see saw tray. And i still don't see the need to reduce wear if it has nothing to with performance.

[ringo]

Yes, it has ALWAYS been about mitigating the consequences of impact.... the damage in the form of WEAR from impact is less.

They ONLY person insisting on a scenario to deliberately engineer a tray to frequently hit the ground is Ringo.

Brian

Where is your evidence of this?

[Lurk]

Not sure it will help (you lost me at some point ) and not sur either if it was already discuss but front of the plank is usually not flat but bevel. The main goal is to reduce AoA of the plank when hitting kerbs, in order to reduce risks of damage.

Plus, planks are usually painted in black by the team in order to see quickly the wear.

So :
Painted plank with not much wear


Painted plank with massive wear at the front, and some burns too.


Painted plank except at the rear end, with some wear.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/bild ... ow_item=15

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/bild ... ow_item=13

And a plank only painted in the front.


The few other black marks are mainly due to marbles.

[hardingfv32]

Ringo

I am sorry, but you don't seem to understand how most of the technical threads work. They are a form of deductive logic.

"Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is reasoning which constructs or evaluates deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypotheses. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e., if the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true. A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, sound or unsound. Deductive reasoning is a method of gaining knowledge."

I do not see any mention of evidence in the above statement.

You don't find it strange you are the only one having difficulties with the conclusions that have been developed so far.

Brian

[ringo]

Technical?

don't make me laugh. Your just blowing smoke, not 1 digit, not 1 number, not 1 image. Just persuasive writing.

Sorry Brian, but i have't felt a knock out punch. Only numbers can give you that, or diagrams, when it comes to a technical discussion.
Objectivity, not speculation and bravado.

Your reeling on the ropes, and being pummeled, as you are yet to say in clear sentences (without all the distracting alphabet soup) what the see saw is, how it is activated, and why the floor scraping on the ground gives it more downforce to get more lap time.

Just give me in bullet points please.

I am being open minded here. You simply can't bow down and gobble stuff up if it is not proven or demonstrated to be feasible and logical.
There has been nothing in here to suggest this is real, if it works, and what purpose it serves.
I just can't accept something that is driven by internet gossip and conspiracy.

It's millions of pounds sterling you guys are unknowingly playing with in here.
Some guy even went as far as to ask Charlie whiting if this thingamajig, that doesn't work by the way, is legal.
It's the same thing when i asked charlie if the wing fetching dogs in India were from the ferrari stable. You just can't accuse a team like that, or sidetrack other teams with such unfounded conspiracies.

[hardingfv32]

I see no challenges to the conclusion that have been drawn in your last statement.

Reads more like a "tap out".

Brian

[machin]

Ringo, you know why the plank was introduced? To stop teams running the cars very low. This clearly shows there to be a desire to run low otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with the rule, agree?

So there's the why. Now for the how:

Take a rubber/eraser firmly in your hand and drag it across your paper. It wears down, right? Now hold the eraser lightly at one end such that it can swing freely between thumb and finger. Move your hand across the paper such that the free end of the eraser drags on the paper. No matter how low you move your hand you will not get the same amount of wear as when you held the rubber firmly. Right?

So there's the principle.

The see-saw brilliantly allows this flexibility whilst still passing the FIA test. Even if the teams aren't using this method, surely you've got to agree it is ingenuis?

[ringo]

Yes, but you are applying the wrong principle.

Nothing on the see saw system is freely hanging. Remember it is still a cantelevered system as the plank is fixed to the floor.

Can a see saw supporter please draw the system in Microsoft paint so it can be scrutinized?

I'll just used these then redraw them in a deflect position. Let's go through this step by step.




Ready?

[hardingfv32]

OK, step by step, but you ask precise questions that can be answered and then agreed to before jumping ahead. Remember a set of premises that show a conclusion. One premise at a time.

I will stipulate that the drawing you have provided is representative of a "see saw" system.

1) The pivot bearing is just two separate surfaces in contact and free to move in relation to one another.

2) The rocker assembly, never seen in public, looks similar to the gray area in the illustration and is located in the large hole located near the front of the RB7 floor. I can not provide an opinion about the location of the pivot point in relation to the longitudinal axis of the rocker assembly.

3) The central precise is that you do not need to move the floor at the rear of the rocker assembly that forms a perimeter around the large hole, only the plank which is Jabroc (wood fiber). To be precise the rocker assembly is a section of floor and is required to move as is any section of floor forward of the pivot point (cantilever situation).

Yes, this is still a cantilever system, but it is a system that lacks an unspecified amount of strength while the plank if off the ground. To pass the FIA plank test the plank must be lying on a test plane to prevent movement of the rocker system.

Brian