I suppose the question then becomes how can the FIA measure the wing in relation to the reference plane while the car is on the track. It's not just a matter of how high it is off the ground...
I think i'm right in saying that the front wing is supposed to be above the plank at all times (by a specific amount most likely). If i can see the front wing scraping the tarmac at high speeds then they don't need a test. Unless the plank and floor are undeground then the wing is illegal.
@sennasational has, IMO, given the correct answer to @acosmichippo's question. The FiA stewards see that it is too low and make a decision.
.......
The wing must remain above the reference plane. Horner says that the rear of the car is high so the reference plane isn't parallel with the ground, it slopes down towards the front of the car and if the plane is projected forward from the plank then the plane could possibly be underground by the time it gets to the wing.
It definitely wouldn't be, considering that the minimum ground clearance allowed for the floor is (i think) 85mm, that means that if the very front of the floor is 85mm off the ground it would have to be a pretty severe plane to then be underground when extended to the front wing.
All it needs is confirmation from the FIA. At the moment they are treating fans of F1 like morons, I can SEE the front wing move, telling me it passes the test is like watching someone take performance enhancing drugs before a sporting event and then hearing they passed a drugs test. Or like watching a Charlie Sheen interview and then hearing he passed a drugs test; evidence my brain has collected says otherwise.
The plank is 10mm thick, the top surface is on the reference plane. The bodywork on the underside of the car also lies on that plane.
I'm not really sure what the typical height is but say the front edge of the plank is 20mm off the ground then the rear edge would maybe have to be 80mm, possibly less, off the ground for the reference plane to intersect the ground at the front wing.
I thought the plank was 5mm thick? I'm not entirely sure though but 10mm seems a bit thick. I'm also not sure if the plank can go lower than the 85mm, but the bodywork certainly isn't supposed to. I think that the wing is supposed to be 20mm above the plane. The distance from the front of the floor to the back of the front wing is probably around 600mm, to allow the wing to scrape the floor the plane would have to lower 105mm in that 600mm. This would mean the plane is at an angle of around 10 degrees. Judging from the length of an F1 car i'd guess that the floor is around 3200mm, if the front is 85mm off the ground and the plane is at an angle of 10 degrees inclining towards the rear, the rear would have to be more like 570mm off the ground, which it aint. My maths is rusty though and i don't know the precise measurements so it might be me who is way off, if i have made a mistake, please point out my stupidity (it's also possible that i've completely misunderstood the rules lol)
The plank is 10mm thick +/-1mm, the lowest bodywork can be is in line with the planks upper surface, the plank almost (and at times does) touches the ground but there's a maximum amount of wear allowed to the plank.
Not unless the car is moving it doesn't. The forces acting on the car mean that at times the floor does touch the ground but at a standstill the clearance rules apply however, its not usually airflow that lowers the car, as far as im aware that isn't allowed and seems to be the cause of the front wing going south. I guess i'm misunderstanding the rules, looking at the wing in transit but still applying the plane from the immobile car. There is still no way the front wing should ever be allowed to scrape along the tarmac however and seeing it move massively contradicts the rules that state it isn't supposed to.
At standstill the wing is well above the reference plane, when moving at speed it could be possible that the suspension is compressed (by the downforce from the wings) so that the reference plane intersects the ground at or behind the front wing. The reference plane moves with the sprung part of the car body.
Perfectly true, which pretty much negates my ground clearance and wing position arguments. So i have a new one lol. If at a standstill the wing is 100mm or so from the ground as it should be and down a straight at top speed the wing is scraping the tarmac, does that not prove absolutely that something has lowered. I think it's the nose caused by airflow, but it's entirely possible that the front wing flexes. The movement is at least 100mm. If they have figured out a way to make this movement legal, then the FIA should say that, not just pretend like it doesn't actually happen.
First, all I was saying is that just because the wing is touching the ground it doesn't necessarily mean it's below the reference plane, whether it is or not I have no idea.
As for the wing dropping 100mm (or whatever), part of that's the suspension compression, part of it's the wing flexing and even though the tests which appear to be done from the mounting point allow for 10mm or 20mm, the forces used are less than what is generated in downforce, and some flexing of the bodywork behind the mounting point is also allowed (and tested to be within limits) so adding all that up the amount of drop seen might actually be within the limits.
To use my phone in the car I deleted all my German contacts, it's now Hans free.
