Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

The Plank, time to go?


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#51 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,600 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 06 April 2013 - 21:41

They could make the plank area smaller, but then diffuser downforce is reduced and it becomes harder to follow another car closely. :(

It all went wrong in 1968(?) with no wings on unsuspended parts rule and 1983 with the flat bottom rule. Lotus 88 type car would be great. Stable ground effect and no need to compromise suspension for aero.



Wrong, the difuser is the reason these cars have problems following. They disrupt the air flow to the front wing of the following car and they pull the aero ballance way too back, making the cars too understeery.

That's why some, me included, argue that regulated underbody tunnels with the presure center aligned with the CG would improve racing.

Advertisement

#52 ashley313

ashley313
  • Member

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 06 April 2013 - 22:10

Humans are depriving us of more wet running; not the plank, not the tires. Today's drivers don't show a lot of wet capability - meaning a lot of the field goes out there and pushes rather than driving to the conditions (the reasons for this are many, ranging from less fear to sponsor-ensured contracts and lack of practice because they have so few wet/inter tires for a weekend and no in season testing) so with cars all over the place Charlie has no choice but to park them, and most project a desire to NOT run in really wet conditions. Visibility will always be a problem. The current attitude of the officials to standing water is a consequence/evolution based on ALL of the sporting and technical regs and how they have developed over time, not just one part of the car like the plank.

#53 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,935 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 06 April 2013 - 23:04

To the OP...Just imagine 'the plank' is not really there...problem solved! :D


#54 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,600 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 April 2013 - 00:00

Humans are depriving us of more wet running; not the plank, not the tires. Today's drivers don't show a lot of wet capability - meaning a lot of the field goes out there and pushes rather than driving to the conditions (the reasons for this are many, ranging from less fear to sponsor-ensured contracts and lack of practice because they have so few wet/inter tires for a weekend and no in season testing) so with cars all over the place Charlie has no choice but to park them, and most project a desire to NOT run in really wet conditions. Visibility will always be a problem. The current attitude of the officials to standing water is a consequence/evolution based on ALL of the sporting and technical regs and how they have developed over time, not just one part of the car like the plank.


There, kept what makes sense.

Edited by saudoso, 07 April 2013 - 00:02.


#55 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,305 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 07 April 2013 - 10:46

Hi,

No doubt I'll be attacked by the usual ones here but what the heck, The Plank on F1 cars is my topic.

I am probably wrong but if I remember correctly it was introduced in 95 or maybe mid 94 as a safety measure and to stop cars riding too low?

Well almost 20 years later and still F1 cars run a plank along the underside, it seems a little silly when compared to the rest of the car?

Perhaps its time to find another less silly measure or maybe I'm the only one who thinks a plank looks stupid on the bottom of an F1 car?


Do you understand the reason for the plank? If so what would you suggest as an alternative? A high tech extremely expensive piece of carbon fibre? Just so it looks nicer? It's not there for looks, it's there to measure how much grounding the car has undergone to allow the teams a tolerance. Wood is a good density to achieve this. It's on the bottom of the car where you can't see it, it has zero effect on the spectacle, it's a rule. You really need to get out more and stop worrying such inconsequential things.

#56 Longtimefan

Longtimefan
  • Member

  • 2,881 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 April 2013 - 11:18

You really need to get out more and stop worrying such inconsequential things.


and again, attacked for simply talking about something. Perhaps I should simply not post here anymore.

I guess I should apologise for wasting forum space with a stupid and useless question.

#57 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,894 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:05

Wrong, the difuser is the reason these cars have problems following. They disrupt the air flow to the front wing of the following car and they pull the aero ballance way too back, making the cars too understeery.

That's why some, me included, argue that regulated underbody tunnels with the presure center aligned with the CG would improve racing.

The diffuser itself isn't the problem imho, but the overall aero rules. I'd say that it's more down to not enough dirty air resistant g/e downforce, the fact that the undertray relies now too much on complex vortex structures etc. and that the front wing has a too big impact on aerodynamic balance.
The diffuser isn't the only source of turbulance - wheels create a lot of it, the RW contributes.
But the conclusions are the same :)

#58 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 837 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 07 April 2013 - 15:16

Maybe they should go back to 2m track width then, so that the wheels are pushed further sideways from the downforce generating devices?

#59 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,306 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 07 April 2013 - 15:21

and again, attacked for simply talking about something. Perhaps I should simply not post here anymore.

I guess I should apologise for wasting forum space with a stupid and useless question.


Take no notice.

Everyone is free to make a topic about whatever they want. If the mods choose to, they might delete it.

Other than that.. either people reply.. or they don't and it will sink to the bottom. No harm, no foul.

Advertisement

#60 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,716 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 April 2013 - 17:25

wider track would mean punching a bigger hole in the air, which would be good for drafting...

#61 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,186 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 April 2013 - 19:35

Wrong, the difuser is the reason these cars have problems following.


Nope. If the downforce comes from the upper side surfaces, it will work in the car ahead and not in the car behind. If the downforce comes from the bottom, it sort of works for better for both.

Think about pre 2008 vs post 2009 cars. Pre 2008 had really narrow and small difusers but winglets everywhere, when they were close, the winglets wouldn´t work in the car behind and the performance difference would be huge. Post 2009 have much wider and bigger difusers and not too many devices in the upper side, and they can follow much closer.



#62 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,375 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 April 2013 - 19:53

But then the tires give way. Wider cars mean more stability and so easier to follow each other. The plank is not really an issue, only to rig a result once.

#63 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,305 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 07 April 2013 - 22:23

and again, attacked for simply talking about something. Perhaps I should simply not post here anymore.

I guess I should apologise for wasting forum space with a stupid and useless question.


Sorry if you took this as an attack but your OP makes no sense. Care to explain any of your assertions such as why the plank is silly for example? I can't see how anyone could take exception to it and half the posts here are absolutely nothing to do with it.