|
|
Post by worthless on Jun 23, 2003 17:59:08 GMT -5
*Disclaimer: This is not a MS/Ferrari-bashing thread. My intentions are purely technical and while I may be implying that Ferrari has in the past 'bent' the rules, it is solely hypothetical and for the purposes of the question below. With that said: I was talking with a friend about the F2002 and its dominance last year. He mentioned that he had read an article in a magazine (F1 Racing, I believe) that stated that the the reason that the F2002 was not entered into the championship at the start of the season was because it was somewhat controversial. The team "didn't enter the car until Brazil because there it could be 'sneaked' past scrutineering." The reason being, that it had a floor that flexes under high aerodynamic load. This flex would allow for greater downforce at higher speed. The article went on to mention that engineers from another team (unnamed of course) took video of the car and measured the bargeboards moving up to 40mm at Imola. Okay, got your pencils ready? Given that the above is true (remember the disclamer): 1. Why wait until Brazil? Is there something about Brazil that would allow for a lack of scrutineering? The article didn't clarify 'why'....just curious 2. More importantly, is this 'flexible floor' possible? 3. How is this possible? 4. What material(s) could the floorboards possibly be made of? Is it several materials? 5. Wouldn't this cause excess strain/torque on critcial geometry throughout the car? 6. How would this be legal (given the ban on moveable aero devices)? Is there a loophole somewhere? 7. What is the capital of Belize? 8. Why is the sky blue? 9. What is the record number of questions in one post? 10. Am I close? 11. How about now? And like I said, I could care less about the 'cheating' aspect. I am more interested in the thought, science, and technology behind this. Ready......discuss.... I'll be over here  , my head hurts from trying to figure this one out.....  |
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Jun 23, 2003 19:02:00 GMT -5
I'll give these a shot worthless: - 1. Why wait until Brazil? Is there something about Brazil that would allow for a lack of scrutineering? The article didn't clarify 'why'....just curious
[glow=red,2,300]Ferrari weren't ready with other aspects of the car (engine reliability, chassis & suspension development, etc ...) prior to Brazil. Also the possiblity that scrutineers / Marshalls of Ferrari's choosing were scheduled to be at Brazil, and not the earlier two races *insert STIR here*[/glow]
- 2. More importantly, is this 'flexible floor' possible?
[glow=red,2,300]Yes!![/glow]
- 3. How is this possible?
[glow=red,2,300]By making the floor(pan) out of a seperate piece that flexes, then attaching it stratigically to the underside of the chassis so that it does flex (down) at speeds[/glow]
- 4. What material(s) could the floorboards possibly be made of? Is it several materials?
[glow=red,2,300]Carbon Fibre[/glow]
- 5. Wouldn't this cause excess strain/torque on critcial geometry throughout the car?
[glow=red,2,300]No, not at all. In fact Ferrari have experience in this, go back to 99(?) and look at the stories of Michael's flexing undertray at Suzuka (as opposed to Eddie's - which wasn't tricked out  [/glow]
- 6. How would this be legal (given the ban on moveable aero devices)? Is there a loophole somewhere?
[glow=red,2,300]There is no loophole - it's strictly against the rules. However, it's one thing to accuse them, and quite another to catch them.[/glow]
- 7. What is the capital of Belize?
[glow=red,2,300]Dangriga [/glow]
- 8. Why is the sky blue?
[glow=red,2,300]Blue light, because of it's frequency, gets scattered about the atmosphere far more than any other colour (wavelength). *known as Rayleigh Scattering*. As the blue light tries to pass thru O and N molecules, it scatters due to collisions. This scattering is what makes the sky appear Blue. Add to that the fact that the human eye is ultra-sensative to blue light [/glow]
- 9. What is the record number of questions in one post?
[glow=red,2,300]Couldn't possibly be more than 10 ....[/glow]
- 10. Am I close?
[glow=red,2,300]Very[/glow]
- 11. How about now?
[glow=red,2,300]I'll give it too you ..... SCAFMQAIAP award [/glow]
CFF |
|
|
|
Post by worthless on Jun 23, 2003 22:00:24 GMT -5
Wow. Thanks CFF.  ...and here's one for answering the 'Belize' question. Okay, so it IS possible.  Well, how are the carbon fibre pieces assembled? By that, I mean is it like a suit of armor where 'plates' or pieces are overlaid to each other? Or is it that there is an elastic 'glue' (for a lack of a better term) that binds the pieces of the carbon fiber. What about the construction method of the carbon fiber? Is that where the flexing occurs? Or is all this a top secret trade secret? What about other teams? Has anyone else tried this? What is the second largest ocean? What's my favorite color? Is there a record for the most follow-up questions in a post? Thanks again....my head is feeling better... ....don't know why, but ..definitely.... ......better.....  |
|
|
|
Post by pabs on Jun 23, 2003 22:37:24 GMT -5
I would have guessed that the flexible undertray was made of some sort of piezo-elastic material...makes a lot more sense, to me at least.
Also, a few corrections about Rayleigh scattering: the light is not scattered due to collisions but actually due to the sole interaction of the light with the molecules themselves. In fact, Rayleigh scattering is also responsible for the red color of sunsets due to its strong dependence on wavelength.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick1776 on Jun 23, 2003 22:54:44 GMT -5
Everything is flexible if you apply enough force!!
If the flex undertray is true you would need to know how the tray is measured for flex. ie take tray A and position it into B. Apply a force of X at position Z and measure deflection at Y. Pass/Fail.
You then design the tray to flex such that it passes the test but still performs the same function. Maybe ferrari got around the loophole while other teams didnt.
I do not call that cheating. It meets the rules as they are set down. Forget about the spirit of the law crap. Nobody operates by those value based ieals anymore.
cheers
rick1776
|
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Jun 24, 2003 5:24:23 GMT -5
*Disclaimer: This is not a MS/Ferrari-bashing thread. My intentions are purely technical and while I may be implying that Ferrari has in the past 'bent' the rules, it is solely hypothetical and for the purposes of the question below. A thinnly disguised MS bashing thread starter then..... The teams were mcLaren and Williams and they had a vested interested in drawing atention to Ferrari's car. As the logic goes, "they're faster so they must be cheating...." prejudice, move to strike! The technical delegates are present at every GP. Also the F2002 would have been scrutineered by the FIA's Charlie Whiting BEFORE teh GP Weekend in order to provide Ferrari with a certificate of eligability. ie a rubber stamp approval to say yes it's legal. Brasil was perfect place to race new car because nobody expected the car to be there untilit was announced the wednesday before the race. Yes By either employing a mechanical device, like an hydraulic ram to forcefully flex the floor or through the use of Peizo electric materials in the carbon fibre substrate. However an electronic circiut connected to teh floor would have to be present and would be as obvious as your thread  In order to support the weight of the car and the donforce generated you would need a pretty powerful electric current to generate sufficient force to support the floor. This would need to be generated by the enfgine via an alternator which would suck power and add weight. it would have to resemble the floor of any other F1 car so Carbon fibre and epoxy resin would be used. Aluminium honey comb would be the sandwhich material. However these materials are not peizo electric. No Things flex,you have define the limits in which they have to flex. It' pretty darn difficult to prove something was designed to flex. You'll need some mind reading skills... see above see above this forum or the www? see above [quote11. How about now?[/quote] Did school close early this year??? More form the pounding you'll be getting if T3 sees this... |
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Jun 24, 2003 5:40:33 GMT -5
As a footnote to the above,
I fFerrari had incorporated a flexing floor I cannot see how they could have implemented it without the FIA catching them.
If only a flexing skin was fitted to the underside, it would need to be able to stretch as well as bend.
If teh entire floor flexed then the structural rigidity of the car would be compromised.
discussion on this would be welcomed
|
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jun 24, 2003 7:13:19 GMT -5
Nice answer Raptor!
However, with regards to:
There is presedence of Charlie approving something, only later to have this new development declared illegal by scrutineers at a race. I suppose the most obvious example of this being the extra brake pedal in the Mclaren. Seeing as this debacle happened in Brazil as well, was worthless just also trying to incorporate an additional flaming element in his origonal post?
Now as to the actual technical side of this matter, I'm afraid I can't really comment as I have no idea how the desired effects could be acheived, and only a very vague idea as to what possible benefit they could provide.
|
|
|
|
Post by worthless on Jun 24, 2003 7:34:57 GMT -5
"I fFerrari had incorporated a flexing floor I cannot see how they could have implemented it without the FIA catching them." Rapt22, I couldn't agree more. That's why I was curious. All I can do is assure you that I'm not interested in bashing MS (although I'd have to admit that the topic doesn't look too favorably upon him - or me for that matter - lol). "Seeing as this debacle happened in Brazil as well, was worthless just also trying to incorporate an additional flaming element in his origonal post?" No 'flaming' elements at all, Henrik -lol. I swear guys, I'm not trying to start an F1-live thread - lol. In all seriousness, I didn't think it was possible -(see raptor's "structural rigidity of the car would be compromised" explanation.) I thought that the entire balance of the car would be thrown off and with that, the handling capabilities. But that goes to show what I know. Thanks for answering, guys |
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Jun 24, 2003 7:38:36 GMT -5
Yes the extra brake pedal is an excellent example of having an initial ruling overturned.
I view the process as follows.
Charlie reviews new technologies on the cars and monitors development progress.
As far as I know he visits the factories and witnesses construction and safety testing or has a delegate of his department visit. They then review the purpose / application of the technology agianst the rules as they are written.
However the teams can protest this ruling, nothing is cast instone. If another teams interpretation is different and they can convince the FIA that their interpretation is more aligned with the spirit of the rules, then they can have a ruling overurned. This is what happened with the 3rd brake pedal. It served no purpose but to circumvent the TC rules.
With Ferrari's alleged flexy floor, nobody was able to prove that any flex in the floor was intended to produce a lower effective ride height. or that it was happening at all.
The barge boards moving up and down can be accounted for by the heavy ballast flexing the splitter.
A flexy floor is a nice idea but I think that if you're going to do it, a mm here and there is'nt much benefit vs the compromise in structural integrity.
|
|
|
|
Post by pabs on Jun 24, 2003 8:52:35 GMT -5
piezo-electric! that's what I meant...not piezo-elastic. I gotta stop posting late at night.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadCat on Jun 24, 2003 13:32:46 GMT -5
Pabs,
I’ve for quite some time now wondered about the array of applications for piezoelectrics on an F1 car where wing settings are a balance between to top end speed and aerodynamic down force during cornering.
They are also practically invisible until of course someone cracks open the wing and is then able to identify the offending material. (And don’t tell me they need wires for this, it’s well known that a small radio transmitter could do the same thing.)
Basically, piezoelectrics are capable of modifying a wings shape (not the angle) on the fly and at very fast speed.
Now as I understand the FA18 and other top fighter aircraft use an active piezoelectric system in their rear stabiliser, there is no reason to think that this technology would not be a huge plus to an F1 car.
Albeit highly against the regulations....
This is what I thought (I stress thought) BAR were doing a couple of years back on their highly illegal test car to help figure out wing designs on the track.
Just my 2 cents worth…
(DeadCat)
|
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Jun 24, 2003 17:20:36 GMT -5
F/A18 piezo electric stabilisers??? Shes my cousin I would know The piezo electric actuators they use in those aircraft are almost as large as your leg!! and weigh at least 30-40kg each if not more. and they consume quite a bit of energy. You may be able to hide the wires but using a small radio transmitter may get the commands to the actuator but isomehow you still need to apply a pretty strong electric current to get the material to change it's shape and to have a significant effect on performance. A large are like a cars wing or flat bottom would require a lot of energy to bend and maintain rigidity. Where i do believe the team are using piezo electrics is in the valving of the suspension dampers. you can change the characteristics of the dampers almost instantly, on the fly,in effect changing the cas performance through every turn. |
|
|
|
Post by worthless on Jun 24, 2003 18:04:36 GMT -5
Piezo electrics, hmm? Very interesting. I always thought that high mechanical stresses could depolarize a piezoelectric. But are the stresses high enough on an F1 car? If an F/A-18 can handle it, I would think a Minardi could. Maybe I am misunderstanding 'mechanical stresses.' And I would think that high temperatures could certainly effect its ability to function. Right? Now, of course, on a wing heat might not matter, but on components near the engine bay, it might. But even then, wouldn't it have to hit its curie (sp?) point before becoming ineffective? This is fasinating to me.....I think I need to get out more. |
|
|
|
Post by pabs on Jun 24, 2003 21:37:06 GMT -5
DeadCat and R22,
I also believe that the use of a piezoelectric flat bottom in an F1 car would require a huge amount of energy and it can't be hidden easily. However, I'm not really aware of any other materials that can be used to achieve a noticeable change in performance as, it was suggested, Ferrari were doing.
Regarding the heating of an airplane wing, it matters a lot. At Mach 2, the recovery temperature of the flow is around 200 C, which is one of the many reasons that the first stealth fighters were not supersonic.
|
|
Don't Die Before You Live...