F1technical.net

Ok if anyone else is reading this.
CHime in, what makes more sense base on what you are reading so far?

Brian doesn't want to admit that the seesaw intention is set the plank flush with the track.
WHich is counter productive to downforce creation.
Can anyone else see that he is avoiding the fact that wear only happens when the floor touches the track?

If 650mm is touching the ground, according to see saw theory, isn't this basically a stalled, defunct floor?
The very thing the heave springs are preventing?

Worse yet a drop in top speed because of the friction between plank and track?

Wouldn't you all agree that the see saw can only work if it touches the track as it works by application of force?

And brian cannot squirm around these questions by saying the plank only touches momentarily with the seesaw, as that would not make sense. The front wing will only lower momentarily, which doesn't improve performance.

Your serve brian.

I agree with you on that point ringo. The idea of the tray flapping around seems counter productive. There has to be some stiffness to keep it in the up position.

Ringo

So now we are to believe that you know the true intention of the "see saw" system, when to this point you denied it's existence.

I state that the correct intention of the "see saw" system is to provide a splitter that is more flexible than the standard cantilever unit. It is that simple.

I believe it is perfectly logical to expect that the teams wish to set their ride height lower than they presently can with the current plank rules. A lower ride height would provide better performance which the rules are designed to prevent. The goal of the plank rule is less aero performance. So, while you don't want to close off flow at the front of the splitter, the logic of the above circumstances would indicate that there is nothing to be lost by running the floor lower. A lower front wing could be the main benefit.

So simply stated, the "see saw" plank achieves wear by the exact same phenomena as a cantilevered plank. The "see saw" system can be used with less ground clearance because it has a more favorable wear rate do to its flexibility.

There is no requirement for the system to be so flexible as to flap. There is plenty of flex available for use in the range set by the very stiff cantilever design and a design the flapped uncontrollably. Concern about flapping is a very weak argument.

Why are you rehashing early parts of this thread, have you nothing new to add? Still responding with statements that signal a loosing position.

Brian

Yes, I'm reading your posts from the beginning

The main goal of see-saw would be indeed to allow a constantly lower front ride height. The plank would scrape the ground more if the car runs over a kerb or a bump, but the see-saw doesn't enable excessive wear to occur (compared to others ). So you can run with lower ride height and no need to worry about wear. Without see-saw, on a super-smooth track other cars could run lower ride height too, but often smooth surface tracks requires riding the kerbs aggressively too, so the see-saw is clearly a big benefit an all places. At high speeds, the plank only gets very close to the surface, without touching it, so it has no effect on top speed.
I'm not convinced too, that RBR is running that system though all the signs (not evidence) are pointing towards it. For me it's no question that it would be a great benefit for a team if they can implement this idea.

hardingfv32 wrote:Ringo

So now we are to believe that you know the true intention of the "see saw" system, when to this point you denied it's existence.

I state that the correct intention of the "see saw" system is to provide a splitter that is more flexible than the standard cantilever unit. It is that simple.

Let me cut you short.

I am asking you. How can the see saw work if it does not come in contact with the track?

By definition of the see saw, the track is what makes it work. It does not flex the floor by any other means but contact force.

The see saw does nothing if the the floor doesn't touch the track.

Correct?


As for this:

I believe it is perfectly logical to expect that the teams wish to set their ride height lower than they presently can with the current plank rules.

Yes they want to set the ride height lower, but they don't want the bottom of the floor to rub on the track. The ride height must be as low as possible, but it must not be in the boundary layer, or worse, it must not touch the track.

The see saw does nothing if the the floor doesn't touch the track.
In fact the floor touching the track is undesirable.

If i were going to make the floor touch the track there is one work around that i would use to prevent the floor from stalling. This is only if i desperately need the floor to touch the track to benefit something else.
As we agreed that the flow would be cut off if the splitter touches down.

So i am going to hijack this thread to explain it. It will be very revealing about the redbull. I could save it for end of year "redbull secrets revealed" but i'll spill these beans here. Ironically the whole see saw thing thing made me realise something about another part of the car.
I don't want to see it on any other blogs unless i am going to get payed. Pound Sterling too, as it changes out nicely with my dollars.
Ok Scarbs? you owe me some Pounds for the mercedes damper revelation.

More desperation....

Have I stated that the "see saw" plank does not contact the ground? Please provide the post.

Who has stated/provided YOUR definition of the "see saw" system? Please provide a post or quote.

Your concern about stalling the floor is based on a false definition of the "see saw" system.... or an effort to bring up a false concern because you clearing have a losing position on this subject. This is clearly represented by a wish to hijack this thread with more chest-pounding babble.

Your observations hold little weight after your performance with this discussion.

Brian

Your concern about stalling the floor is based on a false definition of the "see saw" system.... or an effort to bring up a false concern because you clearing have a losing position on this subject.

On the contrary.
I'm charlie sheen right now.

So tell me, what is the see saw system and how does it work?

I you feel you need to know, then do some homework and read the tread from the beginning. It is all there.

Good luck
Brian

Relax guys..we've another race to go yet. Save the frustration

My tuppence worth..

It is not as difficult to explain as you guy are making it seem.

1: the splitter, with additional flex, can touch the ground more often for less overall wear.

So - the teams can run it lower (but not scraping the ground)

Why is it that hard to get across?

@ Ringo - You are not wrong to state it doesn't want to choke the underbody as that is obvious.

@ Brian - you are not wrong to state that it can run closer more of the time with a flexy stay.

So, there you go...like Charlie Sheen..you're both Bi-Winning

I'm amazed you guys have expended so much effort feeding a troll. It's quite clear that the see-saw concept is worthy of investigation and the FIA's statement confirms this. It's a simple concept that allows the floor to flex to a greater degree when not on the FIA test bed, thereby reducing wear. Any notion that the 10mm plank is infinitely stiff and rigidly fixed to the similarly infinitely stiff tub is plain daft. We know it flexes; that's evident in the wear patterns.

It doesn't reduce wear.
It creates more wear.

Brian - you are not wrong to state that it can run closer more of the time with a flexy stay.

The reason he is wrong, is that saying the floor runs closer is disingenuous.
It doesn't run closer to the ground. It simply runs on the ground with the see saw.

What you want is the floor to run as close to the ground as possible. This is what the ferrari 2007 flex floor was doing correct?

That is where there is disagreement. I prefer if posters state clearly what is logical instead of trying to mold a discussion for argument sake.

1: the splitter, with additional flex, can touch the ground more often for less overall wear.

This needs to evaluated. I believe the wear is the same, but simply it covers more floor area. The wear of the plank is based on force. Force which shears the material.
The force required to bend the floor into the ground will still shear the plank at the contact areas.
There is no logic to suggest that the floor will wear less. See what i am saying?

ringo wrote:In fact the floor touching the track is undesirable.

It depends on when it touches the track.

right...

@ ringo - the wear issue. isn't that a simple one?

floor hits the ground with x area. it wears.

ditto but with greater than x area. it wears...but...over more area and so can wear more before it is illegal.

So - it does run closer to the ground and why not?

CMSMJ1 wrote: floor hits the ground with x area. it wears.

ditto but with greater than x area. it wears...but...over more area and so can wear more before it is illegal.

+1
And beside that, if it can flex, it hits the ground with less force than a perfectly rigid setup, because the felxing can absorb a great deal of impact energy, especially if it hits a kerb.

CMSMJ1 wrote: ditto but with greater than x area. it wears...but...over more area and so can wear more before it is illegal.

Not quite. Wear is not a finite amount that can be spread over an area.

For example, take a key to your car bodywork, scratch for 1m, then scratch for 2m. you'll find that the wear is not spread out.

I can see that it is possible that the leading edge is possibly less damaged on a plank that is at a shallower angle, but that is about angle of impact.