Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
It looks like they are talking about the splitter at the front of the floor. I believe many of these (all?) are made of heavy material (ballast) and are a separate component to the main floor, attached to it.
The rules allow for some upward flex in these parts to reduce the chances of having them knocked off on kerbs etc. (heavy material flying all over the place).
Ferrari and BMW use a similar system (some form of spring pushing down on the splitter) - I presume other cars brace the floor in other ways, but still using a device that can flex.
Easy to measure and part of the tests they do.
It seems to me that we have an FIA driven problem here. If people were substituting the splitter for a lump of ballast - why not make a rule that says the splitter should be homogenous with the floor and that all ballast should be fully contained within the car chassis (meaning not in the nose section either)
dumrick wrote:Side note: I'm happy Scarbs made no remarks to my theory relating Ferrari's increased wheelbase to exploring illegal underfloor flexibility to make it stall. It seems that I may be right...
You don't want to stall the floor!!!
Ever!
What happens if it stalled when your driver is halfway through 130R?
You find yourself a new driver and keep your head down during the inquest.
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.
At first, the appearance of a sprung mounting for Ferrari's front splitter was alarming, once again raising the spectre of flexible aerodynamics. But this feature is not unique to Ferrari and is known and accepted by the FIA. The splitter's installation is not to gain aerodynamic advantage but to make sure the exposed splitter is not damaged when contacting the ground.
The front splitter - or shadow plate - is the flat section protruding underneath the raised part of the chassis. Legally, this part is required to meet the flat bottom regulations. Technically, the teams use this component to split and direct the flow around the floor and sidepods.
As the front section of the chassis has been progressively raised by the designers, this splitter is now very large and mounted on the reference plane, which is the lowest part of the car (plank excepted).
When front wings were allowed to be lower, teams running very low ride heights would let the splitter drag on the ground. This allowed the front wing to be even closer to the ground during braking, thus improving downforce. As this practice developed, the splitter was designed to flex upwards to prevent damage and ease the wear on the skid blocks.
Too much wear on the skid blocks is in contravention of stepped floor/plank rules and therefore would lead to exclusion from the results. In response, the FIA created a test that checks the splitter does not flex upwards, and this is routinely carried out on the FIA's scrutineering rig by a ram projecting upwards and measuring the flex.
As is usual with the FIA's flex tests, there is a maximum movement for a given load, and movement over or above that load is allowed.
As teams now make the splitter almost entirely from a tungsten alloy, as part of the car's ballast, they are obviously concerned for its security when going off track or hitting debris. Thus, the teams create a flexible mounting that will pass the FIA deflection test.
The FIA is aware of the practice and is not as concerned, as the front wing ride heights are much higher nowadays and little benefit is to be gained from running extra-low ride heights. http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/805
It seems reasonable, in line with the rules and concurring with RH1300S.
On the other hand I raised the issue, discussed already in this Forum about the advantages that magnetic-rheological (MR) dampers could bring to the car.
Given that the straight speed of Ferraris wasn't the best (thanks to MikaPup at the same "other" forum), I wonder: what is happening? I say again: something is not adding. 15 seconds in 18 laps is way too much.
I wonder why F1 suddenly becomes boring when ferrari wins?
Why wasn't it "boring" when renault won the first five or six races of 2005?
It seems to me as a disadvantage..
Active suspension raises the ride height in straights, so u get LESS downforce.. If ferrari were using a spring to attach the floor or the splitter to the chassis, then it would be protected from breaking or cracking if the car went off track, but on the other hand it would lower the topspeed in straights as the air pressure would cause the floor to get closer to the ground..
I don't understand how a lower floor would cause higher topspeed... it's the complete opposite...
Last edited by allan on 20 Mar 2007, 21:29, edited 1 time in total.
kilcoo316 wrote:What happens if it stalled when your driver is halfway through 130R?
What allegedly happened to Schumacher the 17th July 2001, allegedly testing an illegal flexing undertray, allegedly used in race since Hockenheim 1999, information which Irvine has alledgely confirmed.
This is what I picked up googling for 5 minutes and checking some forums. Maybe the truth is not that simple...
I don't post hyperlinks, because I too doubt of the reliability of the sources.
Ciro - Without looking it up - I remember Lorenzo Bandini won a GP in a Ferrari during the 1.5 litre formula. My most enjoyable period of Grand Prix was the 60's - the most innovative era of chassis and engines Nothing compares to the sportsmanship of those years ( in my opinion). Lorenzo Bandini was of course - Italian.
Just putting a spring/damper there is a brilliantly simple solution, lowering the floor during aerodynamic load. Reminds me of Renault when they introduced their mass dampers. Obviously it should be banned.
trap speeds don't tell the whole story if the alleged advantage allows ferrari to run more downforce than other teams at any given speed.
I haven't seen or compared the Melbourne wings and wouldnt know how to anyway, but is this something others have seen? Also, how are corner speeds measured and is there any data on this for Melbourne?
Ciro Pabón wrote: I wonder: what is happening? I say again: something is not adding. 15 seconds in 18 laps is way too much.
That's less than a second per lap. What was the difference between Toyota and Red bull per lap? How about Williams and Spyker? The engineering makes a big difference. Ever thought, just maybe, that Ferrari designed a significantly better car than its rivals? Or can only Renault have the best car?
Renault's car was dominant and much faster the last two years. Ferrari overtakes them and they're all of a sudden cheating according to MANY threads on this forum. There were ten times less of them when it was Renault in front.
As i see it, we, as in Scuderia Ferrari followers, should get used to people making false accusations regarding sportsmanship and/or illegal parts, its useless to fight it, when i first joined this forum i wasnt used to people making so many accusations, in front of my face pretty much, but now, i dont even reply to all the comments made against them, i dont care nor do i get bothered by them, its just as well if they make an accusation, because as far as i know, Ferrari dominated last weekend in OZ, Kimi sped away with the lead from the start untill the very last second, and i definately wont forget to mention Felipe, he simply plowed through the field without any real problems, the only setbacks he encountered were the slow earth-mobiles, and to be honest, from the back of the grid to 6th isnt to shabby, so i will keep on ignoring the crap and concentrate on the success my team is having,
and yes, Ferrari did simply design a better chassis than the rest of the teams,so imagine, Felipe/Kimi + F2007, thats an amazing combination, i dont know how people are surprised by their performance, (you were forewarned since bahrain)
and to say the least,renault are nothing without alonso anymore, they are falling backwards at an amazing speed, bmw will most surely take their place in the top 3, so they are not a worry anymore, only mclaren, who i do respect, have a chance against the Scuderia, and as mclaren have commented, they think they will catch up to Ferrari within the next few races, well, i dont agree, they arent the only ones who will keep on working and progressing untill the next gp, Ferrari will definately make improvements, most importantely on reliability though, as they cant afford anymore mechanical glitches as the one on Massa's car this weekend,
thats all for now, i believe i have "vented" enough of my opinions for the time being, and i did so without blaming any one what so ever, something many people should learn to do
Both Ferrari and BMW Sauber use a sprung device to mount the front section of floor on their cars. In Ferrari's case, at least, this part was already in use at the end of last season, as pointed out in autosport.com's 2006 Brazilian GP Technical Review.
On the other hand I raised the issue, discussed already in this Forum about the advantages that magnetic-rheological (MR) dampers could bring to the car.
Ciro that is a rotary damper. And MR dampers have alot of issues in real-world testing. The ferromagnetic particles do fall out of the fluid over time, and the changing viscosity isn't needed in f1 very much, after all, they don't even use adjustable dampers for f1 cars, the rebuild the dampers for each track specifically. although, koni's Frequency Selective Damping does have some serious potential, as reviewed in the Feb issue of Racecar Engineering
Whoa. I leave this thread for a day and come back to this...
Has anybody been through the Sachs damper catalogue to try and identify the damper?
kilcoo/aerogt3, you are the aero blokes so I'll direct this to you - I think this might not necessarily be to stall the underbody but rather to add some consistency to the flow of air beneath it. I can imagine that if this leading edge of the underbody is flopping up and down undampened (perhaps as a result of additional ballast in 2007) the air beneath it would be subject to pressure variations which would have detrimental effect to underbody performance.
We know how seriously they take pitch control.
Do you think this sounds like a more viable reason for the existence of this thing?
