Scarbs T-Tray proposal

[timbo]

one turn. a left turn, with the camera looking on the right side of the car.
It could even be in the slow down lap after the race too.

So, your certainty that the floor does not scrape at the top speed is based on a single turn footage?

[ringo]

You are not reading my posts fully.
I am certain that the floor does not scrape based on watching every single lap and every single car.
I know though, that the floor kicked upward when webber went over a curb.
That is what i was pointing out.
The splitter did not come to ground, it actually deflected up when impacted by a curb; the curb obviously at a higher level than the track surface
.
I didn't see any flexing at any speed, low, mid or high. I only saw what happens when the splitter collides with a curb.

[imightbewrong]

From last year:
http://axisofoversteer.blogspot.com/201 ... icane.html

[machin]

I am certain that the floor does not scrape based on watching every single lap and every single car.
I didn't see any flexing at any speed, low, mid or high. I only saw what happens when the splitter collides with a curb.

I think you are absolutely right; they don't want the floor scraping because it would mean: flow under the car is choked off (reduced downforce), and less vertical load on the tyres (less grip). The problem is the curbs -as you say; they're higher than the rest of the track. Preferably the splitter wouldn't scrape on the curbs either, but if it does then the next best thing is for the splitter to be really flexible so that it doesn't take much away from the vertical loads on the tyres (and doesn't wear away very much when it does).

The FIA tried to take away the flexible option. That leaves the teams with two further options:- 1, tell their drivers to avoid high curbs (i.e. take a slower line through the corners), or 2, set the ride height high enough that the splitter doesn't scrape on the curbs either (bad for c.g. height, hence more lateral load transfer and reduced corner speed).

The see-saw (or however RedBull are doing it) is a way of circumventing the flexible splitter testing procedure, and therefore effectively allows the teams to set the optimum (lower than would otherwise be possible) ride height (or allows the drivers to ride higher curbs than would be possible for a given ride height).

Brilliant!

[thisisatest]

in the video post by imightbewrong, at the end of vettel's run, he hits top speed. there, the splitter contacts the ground during undulations. at regular speed, it does look like it would only contact curbs, or maybe the ground during an especially large undulation.

[aleks_ader]

With this splitter see saw solution they just allow to constant maintain the optimun ride height, without any compromises

brilliant

[michl420]

Suppose the solution is allowed, then you could even use this system for the entire first half of the underbody or even more. The reglement prescribe a minimum
length of 1000mm for the plank in front, no maximum length. So you can split the Plank and the front could tilt whatever you want.
This makes it possible to lower the front wing without so much rake.

And I don`t see why this should be illegal. On the test rake it would not be seen,
so from this point it must be legal. It is the same like the front wing, everbody see it but from the testing point it`s legal.

I enjoy being at fault point in the Theory

[MIKEY_!]

I agree. It appears they are saying "well we can't test this currently and we're not going to change the test to catch you if you do use it but if we ever do catch you (which we can't/won't) you will be in trouble."

It sets a bad precedent considering their stance on flexy front wings.