![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1 | ||
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 12,053
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I have a bit of a question about "the plank" used in F1..
now I understand the old system of ground effects and how that worked and then the FIA decided to ban ground effects and introduced the plank..fair enough ..but what does the plank do and why did they choose this big piece of wood in this modern day of carbon fibre and kevlar and space age materials ..so i dont understand why they introduced this thing.. can anyone explain what the plank is for and what it does please ??? |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 5,549
![]() ![]() ![]() |
The plank is a means of forcing teams to maintain the minimum ride height THROUGHOUT the race. It wears away on contact with the gorund at a measured rate, so by measuring the thickness of the plank at the end of the race the scrutineers can tell how close to the ground the car was during the race. Also, the plank leaves no debris as it wears and does no damage to the track.
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
![]() Veteran
Join Date: May 1998
Posts: 11,005
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
During a recent day out I had cause to inspect the underside of one of the latter Rothmans-Williams (unsure which year) and was admiring the quality of the carbon fibre, the effort which had gone into the exhaust systems, etc... It looked most odd to see a bit of shuttering ply attached to the underside of this multi-million pound machine with no.8 woodscrews!
Get rid of it - we want the cars back which used to kick up all those sparks when the car bottomed out - was so much more dramatic! ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 5,549
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Yeah, the sparks were waaay cool, but bottoming out created a whole 'nother set of problems.
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
![]() Veteran
Join Date: May 1998
Posts: 11,005
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
They still bottom out now - they just leave sawdust instead of sparks...
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | ||
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 12,053
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
I used to love the sparks ..especially on the first couple of laps when the cars were all close ..it was like fircracker night..and then of course there was Mansells tyre blow at Adelaide in 86 ..spectacular or what ??
so the only thing it is there for now is simply ride height..I can remember Schumacher being DSQ'd in belguim back in 94 for to much wear on the plank...what is the amount of wear allowed on the plank ...anyone know that ??? silly question ..but does it stiffen the chassis in any way at all??? I think i have seen smoke coming off the bottom of a few cars these days and no it wasnt from locking a brake ..so i guess they were right on the limit of ride height and the plank was rubbing and generating a hell of alot of heat to make it smoke. thanks anyway guys ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 727
![]() |
if the plank has worn more than 1mm in any area its illegal.
well its attached to the car so it would make it slightly more rigid yes.. but thats not its intention. wood was used because its cheap, easy to see where the plank has worn (cos its ply). and circuit damage limitations. 1mm, is quite a lot of wear really. and the car will only wear it out if its bottoming out a lot. like a whole straight for a whole race. this is why in qualifying u see more dust coming off the back of the cars. as they run them lower. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 17
![]() |
I dont know if im right in saying this, but if i remember from the summer when Martin Brundle had his mini series on the regulations on the ITV,s race coverage he discussed on this topic and he said that the material used was not in fact wood but a fibreglass composite type material which is similar to wood. Correct me if I,m wrong.
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 1,291
![]() |
I believe the plank is made of compressed wood.
It was introduced in the aftermath of Imola 1994, and was essentially a means of reducing the car's speed. This was because the plank would increase the gap through which air flows under the car, effectively reducing downforce. Originally, the plank was just that - a plank of wood. Outsiders laughed that F1, the most sophisticated sport on the planet, a sport where 1/1000th of a second can be the difference between winning and losing, was reduced to using a thin piece of wood as a safety measure. As time has gone on however, certain teams have modified their 'wooden' planks out of all proportion. Certain F1 teams are using expensive metals in their planks - which is having the opposite effect to that originally intended - it's helping the cars to go faster! By introducing a metal (such as tungsten) into the plank, you increase it's weight. At the same time, you are further lowering the car's centre of gravity - thus making the car more stable and consequently faster through corners. Normally, a F1 car's centre of gravity is approximately 25cm off the ground. With the right plank, this can be reduced by a further 1mm - effectively 1 second a lap! It's believed that Ferrari, Williams and McLaren are the guilty parties, with smaller teams claiming they can't afford the high costs involved - said to be in the region of £90,000 a plank. As an afterthought the small teams claim that if detached in an accident, the 'metal' planks would be more dangerous. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,058
![]() ![]() |
There were allegations of teams not using wood, and the plank is not 100% wood but there is a maximum density for it.
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,101
![]() ![]() |
That's what I thought as well, elephino, Gerard and duckers. The rules are sharpened since last year if I am correct. It has to be a certain lenght, width and height with a maximum density. Indeed to prohibid teams to use tungsten or wolfram blocks with a 1 mm layer.
Not that they don't use tungsten or wolfram blocks but there minimum height is specified this way. Some teams (yeah the rich ones ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,316
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
why don't they just use a titanium plank?
If they used a metal plank it would still increase the ride height, but just forget the rule anout minimum wear. This would probably increase downforce slightly so just to reduce it, make the max number or rear wing elements to 1.
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,101
![]() ![]() |
The height of the car remains the same in absolute terms, whatever material the plank is made of, that's right Sodemo.
With the plank being at the lowest point of the car it's a very interesting point to bring the virtual Centre of Gravity(CoG) - the lower the CoG, the better the handling of the car - down by using very high density materials instead of the low density wood in that position. So titanium is just the opposite metal one should prefer in that position coz it's way too light per volume. Instead of that teams use very high density metals like tungsten or wolfram. [Edited by Dino IV on 2nd January 2001] |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Plank | Edmonton | Formula One | 21 | 25 Dec 2003 17:18 |
Quote "Coudn't drive a nail into a plank of wood " | Billy_Hunt | Formula One | 8 | 1 Apr 2001 12:35 |