ringo wrote:hardingfv32 wrote:Ringo
Your last post only adds more uncertainty to everyones understanding of your position. You are not answering our questions directly. You THINK you are answering, but you are only creating new premises that require agreement. You are drawing out the discussion by not discussing with precision the premises that have clearly been stated in last couple of days.
This is a new premise never before proposed in this discussion. Without arguing the this exact premise, I would state our position on the "see saw" system as:
'the goal of the system is lower static ride height with acceptable on track plank wear'
No, i am saying the goal is not defined as it is contradictory. Remember i don't think wear is relevant if it gains nothing.
'with this system, plank wear is acceptable while using a setup of less static ride height.'
Maybe it's my poor linguistic skills, but i don't think you all see it. I may need to make another gif, showing why seesaw wont allow you to lower the rideheight, as it only works from external contact.
The premise is that a car using a stiff splitter AND this 'less static ride height' setup is going to have UNACCEPTABLE plank wear.
But the premise is wrong. Both splitters have the same exact shape until one touches the ground. Static ride height is the same for both.
I'll make the Gif and end this.
3) Question:
'What is wrong with the premise that it there is more aero performance to be gained by reducing ground clearance?
That is a strawman, i don't disagree with this statement. I disagree with the idea that there is a gain if the floor is scraping on the ground.
Now, I am not stating that there is constant aero improvement all the way to the ground, but just that the cars now sit higher than desired because of the plank wear restrictions.'
Not really, they sit just the same. It's the spring rates that are higher.
Plank wear rules prevents overly adjustable suspension.
Imagine i have a race team. I tell the driver to scrape of 2mm off the floor in 15 laps on the curbs.
The car goes from an air gap of 5mm to 7mm. Plank goes from 10mm to 8mm, distance to step plane is the same at 65mm.
When he comes into the pits I crank down the suspension stiffness (or i change the geometry) returning the floor to the optimal 5mm air gap subsequently lowering the distance to step plane to 63mm. I keep doing this every pitstop till i have 2mm of plank and 57mm to the step plane. I effectively have increased my aero performance.
This is all hypothetical, but it's this kind of thing the FIA was clamping down on. Active suspension, or passively intricate suspensions that cause increased costs and safety risks.
I'll make the GIF to demonstrate.
