McLaren went on to argue that this was something they had 'thought of themselves'. ho hum.....
Printable View
McLaren went on to argue that this was something they had 'thought of themselves'. ho hum.....
Can you say any more about the McLaren floor design? I have never seen anything about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valve Bounce
My understanding of the Ferrari floor is that it was fixed at the rear edge, though able to hinge, and at the front edge was fixed by springs with preload. At speed the front of the floor would be pulled down by the airstream, and run closer to the track surface. Any more to add, anyone?
No, I have not seen any diagrams or photos of any of the devices, just various descriptions of how it might work, but it would seem to me that there would be a number of different ways to accomplish the same thing, such that the ferrari "device" and the mac "device" would be completely different in design and operation, yet produce the same result of the floor moving down at speedQuote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
hence the mac hope might have well been to have the FIA rule the ferrari device to be outside the rules, but in the absence of knowledge as to the mac device and how it worked, would not have bothered with the mac device.
However, when the test was changed, must be that mac, red bull and ferrari "got caught with their floors down" and so changes to all three cars were made..................as basically the ferrari design managed to pass the original test without a problem, but the new test/specification in the regs would not permit it to pass, and probably the same was true of the red bull and mac floors as well in that they could also pass the old test but not the new one......
Will wonders never cease. I agree with markabilly on something!
Sorry I will be more careful in the future......Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy Drifter
Good to see a "technical" debate on the forum again.
I will however take part in it only when those willing to discuss it will know that:
1. rigidly fixed =/= hinged
2. moving =/= flexing
because previous attempts showed that many don't understand this.
PS: =/= means "different".
OK that is a good start. I hope a lot of people will take part, to help agree the meaning of the key words. Could I beg you to read this post thoroughly if you are going to reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The regs are here... http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html
Each year's regs are in a separate file, and the changes are highlighted.
There are three clauses that apply, unless anyone knows different...
I have bolded the key words.
2.4 Compliance with the regulations:
Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at
all times during an Event.
3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used
in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
3.17 Bodywork flexibility:
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when etc etc. The details of the load/deflection tests are not important.
3.17.6 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are
respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further
oad/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to
be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.
This clause was added between 2005 and 2007, I am not sure exactly when.
I will do a new post with my interpretation of these regs.
So, for me...
2.4 means cars must comply with all clauses, ie. both 3.15 and 3.17, in parc ferme and at speed on the track.
3.15 means the floor must be "rigidly mounted" to the chassis.
and must "remain immobile" in relation to it.
3.17.6 refers back to 3.15, but it is a test of "bodywork flexibility" - bending of the part itself - not of the mounting rigidity. (Even if this clause applied at Melbourne 07, which I am not quite sure about).
The spring mounting cannot be considered "rigid" or "immobile". Movement is intrinsic to a spring, and you would only use one in order to allow movement. Otherwise you would use a bolt or bonding. The floor was designed to move, and therefore deliberately contravened the regs.
The springs were visible, at least from the side or below, so a car with a sprung floor should have failed scrutineering.
Spanner, works and in.........Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
What if Ferrari can demonstrate the spring only allowed the floor to move/flex by 5mm?
I still think it was/is illegal, but allaya (abe?) are making some good arguments for each perspective...
We really do not have the deatils to really know how it worked. And Max says similar devices on the other two, but we really do not know what similar actually means. The quote:
"This device fully satisfied the tests which were in place up to and including the Australian Grand Prix. It was therefore completely legal at that event.
"On learning how the device functioned, the FIA concluded that although it complied with the letter of the rules, it was outside the spirit. Ferrari were therefore asked to modify it as were McLaren and Red Bull who were running similar devices."
Now what is similar devices? Similar in terms that they permitted flex or lowering of the floor at speed? Otherwise completely different?
what he says is the test was changed or revised, and as a result, the three teams had a floor problem. The Mac design could have been totally different, may not have lowered as much, may not have relied on springs, the floor and bonding may have used some special composite material that flexed/deflected at speed (just like the wings that were flattening and lowering themselves closer to the ground due to flex and aero loading from speed).......
there has never really been much of an explanation for how the ferrari floor actually operated, and its design details. Same for the Mac and RB floors.
So one can not really say much that really matters as to whetehr the floor was actually sprung or violated some letter of the regulation, until one has far more evdience about all three devices. Otherwise this stuff is just speculation of no meaning....