F1technical.net

I'm surprised that the plank isn't in one piece.

Here's a crude illustration of the advantage of lifting the plank up to allow the front to drop a bit closer to the ground, without having to lift the rear up in the air.

two things there..using the tolerances to the max you could build the bottom of the tub with a longitudinal curvature starting in the middle of the car..and build some counter rake in the middle section allowing you to run the car closer to the ground (+/-5 mm allowance)a nose up design of the splitter area does make sense ...it may even help to get the COP a bit further back as well ..with this you have gained quite a bit in terms of running the wing closer to the ground already....
bur it would be quite obvious on the grid then as of course the splitter height would be quite high compared to others +5mm ..you could se that.
And we were amazed how low the thing was always..


funny that you can see the plank worn most under the drivers butt..

maybe some of you like this:

richard_leeds wrote:I'm surprised that the plank isn't in one piece.

Here's a crude illustration of the advantage of lifting the plank up to allow the front to drop a bit closer to the ground, without having to lift the rear up in the air.

yeap, nice illustration Richard =D> =D>
I think shows the effect very nicely.

Not sure if all 3 are in the same point of their driving sequence.. but it is obvious that Mclaren rake is considerably less...but less also because their rear
rideheight is a lot lower than the other two-akin to their new found love for stiff setups.that´s 20mm almost ?

the splitter does not really come in contact with the ground ..with that rake and the front wing so close to the ground.. amazing .

maybe let´s have a look at the inboard from Webbers Valencia crash again (0:30 min),
IMO you can see some "wing flapping" in the downwash flow from the Lotus, similar
to what we saw at the gif, when he was driving behind the Ferrari.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bpZkBWq ... r_embedded[/youtube]

All im gonna say is i just wish that the FIA would just say; right, if theres any loopholes in the regs, its up to teams to develop their cars to incorperate such loopholes for the remainder of the season.

Basically meaning that once the rules for a season are aggreed, thats it, they cannot be changed untill the following season. Means teams have to play cattch-up, but also means if a small team stumbles uppon something and rocket to the front, the big teams have to spend resource to catch up.

For this; the F-Duct, Flexable Wings, EBDs and Leaky Damper systems would be areas that teams would have to catch up on.

Id rather that happens than stuff getting banned mid season, unless there is a specific saftey requirement is raised in the mean time.

I told you guys the wing wasn't anything special; the soft front suspension and the bowed floor board is the key. I said it before!

On the flexing floorboard.. The down-force wants to push the front splitter down more and that is the opposite of what you want when you want to lower the front wing. Some of us agree that the floorboard has to the opposite, it has to bend upwards to get the desired result.

Now, the question is what is the mechanic behind this method?

Using richard's image.

The difference with these wings is the split in the lower element.
Their new wing will bend less because of a greater Ixx, it should be able to pass the new tests.

Concerning a design of a forward rear wing by cars Red Bull and
Ferrari. Probably, they have taken advantage of the next thin
treatment of rules, as last year in the history with double
диффузором. It is not connected with rigidity of a rear wing. The
bottom is rigidly connected with коклитом and the chassis, and nasal
обтекатель together with a forward rear wing and a casing of the case
of the car are mobile and during movement can be displaced from each
other upwards and downwards, depending on passage of this or that site
of a line. At passage of turns the casing with nasal обтекателем and a
rear wing is displaced downwards creating increase of clamping force,
and on straight lines clamping force rises also decreases. I do not
think that at them other variant.

Get accustomed to a place of fastening of a wheel to the chassis. At Ferrov and РБ they obviously differ from the others. I here have drawn for descriptive reasons, yes to insert into the text somehow it is impossible, so I throw off the reference http://vkontakte.ru/photo265459 0_173502255 in general, all that can be displaced and accurately isn't registered in rules - movably, the bottom and the chassis are connected rigidly, and here the bottom and a nasal fairing (I to tell the truth, didn't read a rule, so, the impudent assumption) and if there are variants here it.

yes if Rigo´s photo is from the new wing,
the split in the lower plane is gone, and IMHO
the transition to the mandatory centre section
also looks more uniform, where before it had a quite
distinct "step" in the thickness of the profile.

along the lines of Richards drawing:

ok..but
with the splitter leading edge cannot touch the ground first.. it would abrade in no time.either the shape of the plank (as a result of the shape of the floor is providing this or the tub is buckling up in the splitter support area.
so at the very least the plitter area start off with a nose up attitude and the plank itself is only flat for the rearmost say 2000mm and the rest inclined towards the 5mm tolerance.If your clever with the tolerances you might be able to make this 10...

ESPImperium wrote:All im gonna say is i just wish that the FIA would just say; right, if theres any loopholes in the regs, its up to teams to develop their cars to incorperate such loopholes for the remainder of the season.

Basically meaning that once the rules for a season are aggreed, thats it, they cannot be changed untill the following season. Means teams have to play cattch-up, but also means if a small team stumbles uppon something and rocket to the front, the big teams have to spend resource to catch up.

For this; the F-Duct, Flexable Wings, EBDs and Leaky Damper systems would be areas that teams would have to catch up on.

Id rather that happens than stuff getting banned mid season, unless there is a specific saftey requirement is raised in the mean time.

Yes, but there is another view of these things, which I think FIA tends to follow : If one team develops a thing that uses a loophole in the regs, others must folow up , and it leads to enormous extra spending at each team. We can assume that the smaller teams would be less effective doing this....and here we are again in the circle. Bigger teams becomes bigger, smaller team become smaller...So why to spend that money for things that anyway will be banned next year. Then it's better to ban them ASAP. This is how I think FIA acts, but I very much blame FIA for not be able to produce clear rules.

On felxiwings : We saw pictures from winter testing when they run those front-wing supporting wires connected to nosecone. Maybe they were experimenting how much lap time they loose if the wing is not allowed to flex.Does it worth the money they will spend for develop the felxi-wing. Obviously it does.