F1technical.net

=D>

very good observation ..Slowly Neweys secrets are coming up to the surface..but then surely they are already busy on the next things.

Non-sparking could be tungsten carbide?
I agree with the observation that the wear pattern we have seen is all the way along the bib section & not front & back as in Scarb's diagram. It matches with the whole structure bending as a unit to all drag along the track - it conforms to the track over the full bib length.
Has there been a picture of the bib conforming to the track on a car on track?

I think it's a very plausible solution. Also notice that with this system the plank wear would be much less than on other cars, because if the front touches the ground, it didn't have to support such a big weight as a non see-saw solution. It's only the force required to flex the plank. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Can we get some pics up of the wear on the RB plank that would back this up?

Surely when the tea tray is in the 'lowered' position i.e., the front of it is scraping te ground it will choke the floor of airflow?

I'm struggling to understand how the car's weight counteracts the force from the test rig...? Wouldn't the weight act through the pivot (and therefore give no resistance to the splitter see-sawing...????

This what your looking for?


From last year, seems to be a similar pattern. Credit to scarbs of course for both, for those not reading his site.


machin: the car also rests on the back edge of this section of plank (not just the pivot) as the car is resting on its floor not the wheels as on the track.

machin wrote:I'm struggling to understand how the car's weight counteracts the force from the test rig...? Wouldn't the weight act through the pivot (and therefore give no resistance to the splitter see-sawing...????

I had a similar question but it appeared that during the test the floor is fixed on a solid base.

Even then the car is much heavier than the force being applied upwards.

I was implying the same. Why you say "even then".
In fact, depending on the length of the shoulders of the sea-saw if they are not symmetrical, resultant force may be higher (or less too).

during the test the floor is fixed on a solid base.

Aahh, I see!



Why don't they just test the cars with their weight on their tyres..?

Scarbs was talking that the pivot was in the middle so I when on that. (its also the best place to put it as the vertical section of the splitter would have to deform more with a pivot mounted further back.

machin the rig is multi purpose i think but it would be better if they did test it as you say.

... I guess you could argue that testing the car on its tyres wouldn't test the degree of freedom of the tee tray relative to the rest of the sprung part of the car... only relative to its tyre contact patches...

Oh yes... oops not that the suspension has much movement in it.

scarbs wrote:One of the contemporary planks I saw was nothing like wood, more like a vinyl wood product.

Wouldn't that contravene this:

3.13.1 b) be made from an homogeneous material with a specific gravity between 1.3 and 1.45;

due to the fact that such a plank isn't made from a homogeneous material?.

I also didn't realise that the plank can be in three bits, provided each bit is a metre long. That would allow some flexibility for the tea tray section.