Given that first they used those devices to protect the floor from the curbs I would say that the floor moves upwards, so I see no way to reduce the ride hight of the car that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
Printable View
Given that first they used those devices to protect the floor from the curbs I would say that the floor moves upwards, so I see no way to reduce the ride hight of the car that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
So the reason Fefe used the spring action floor was protection, not controlling how it bends in airflow? Where did you read that? BTW, a spring can move in either directions, so it could very easily handle movements in both directions, so having the floor too low and the cushioning impacts from a curbs is completely feasible.
I am skeptical as to how this device has cost them their superiority. The removal of the mass-dampers on the Renault last year was blamed for a poor performance in Hockenheim, whilst Alonso later said it didn't affect driving and performance of the car - it was just a bad day at the office.
Same goes here for Ferrari.
There was a lot of things Ferrari did wrong on race day. Their strategy was poor, one of the drivers was on limited revs and the other driver just drove dumb.
McLaren just did a better job of conducting themselves as a team over the past week and in the race, hence why they won.
I still think Ferrari will be superior next weekend - although by a lesser margin than in Melbourne. Both drivers will have new engines and hopefully Massa will have been slapped back together.
The floor moving downwards would give more downforce on a straight, and they were going for more speed not downforce.Quote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
Also the floor is not only attached to a spring but they use pivots too.
Plus the whole floor was not moving, just bending and only at the front end, so I fail to see how you get a lower ride height out of this.
Isn't minimum ride height measured at the lowest point of the car?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Than it would be 0! :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
Jokes aside I didn't understood the point of your question.
What is the lowest point of the chassis and is the minimum ride height measured from that point? If the lowest point is the tip of the floor that is able bend downwards, you may end up having a a ride height under the minimum allowed. :)
The floor is built to be able to bend a little bit upwards to avoid being broken when going over the curbs. It can't bend downwards because of the spring and pivot device.Quote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
And don't worry, the moment it will bend downwards Ron will contest it. :D
Are you abslutely sure about the direction? http://www.formula1latest.com/2007/0...rom-melbourne/Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Quote:
The point is that, if the floor moves downwards at speed, it can alter the under-car aerodynamics and lessen drag, thereby allowing more speed on the straights.
It seems a bit weird that it lessens drag if it bends downward.
But it might be given that it interferes with the air flux going towards the diffuser.
I still doubt that they get to the point of illegal ride height.