It's the little details like this that make LFS.

I was messing around in the CMX viewer after I'd finished my skin, and I notice that Scavier had gone put a plank on the bottom of the BF1, just like the real thing.

For those who haven't heard of the plank, it's attached to the bottom of every F1 car, and the thickness measured at the end of the race to make sure the cars aren't running too low to the ground. When ride height rules were first enforced, teams would still make their cars run extremely low at speed, but on the last lap the drivers would bounce the cars around on the kerbs to get them up to the legal height. The plank stops this because if the cars run low in the race, it scrapes on the track and gets thinner.

I wonder if plank physics are modelled? Will we see "legal" and "illegal" sets?

Yeah, I had noticed it too. Nice detail

Quote from spookthehamster :

I wonder if plank physics are modelled? Will we see "legal" and "illegal" sets?

That would be awesome. And not too difficult, me thinks (although not very high up on the priorities list )

So I understand ( correct me if I am wrong as I am no F1 freak ) the "plank" as you called it, is very much part of the total cars physics. If this isn't modeled, then there would be room for expliots, like the current nose in the air and ass on the floor bug

As I said, no expert, just hazarding a guess here

^^ Real Formula Renault/F3000/GT series all have a minimum ride height which LFS ignores so why is it different for the BF1?

The wooden plank is 10mm thick and was introduced purely to control ground clearance as the op stated. I think I'm right in saying that if the plank is worn more than 1mm when measured after the race then it's an instant disqualification.

Wasn't the plank introduced about the same time as the temporary track modifications such as the removal of Spa's Eau Rouge and reduction of airflow to the engines by way of various slices or holes cut in the engine cover - all as a result of Ayrton Senna's death at Imola in 1994?

10 mm ground clearance? That's nothing.

Quote from ajp71 :

10 mm ground clearance? That's nothing.

its alot when your ass is only inches off the ground? You measure 10mm, and then think of the F1 technology? i think you will find thats a considerable amount

Well 10mm clearance may be nothing but they must run sufficiently higher than that to avoid any kind of contact with the ground or risk disqualification. Like Schumacher who spun over a kerb at Spa 94 I think it was - he took a few pieces out of his "plank" and that was that.

Here you go - just found this link which tells the story and also confirms that indeed the plank was introduced at the German GP of 1994 as a result of the tragic Imola race.

http://www.gpracing.net192.com/races/reports/559.cfm

Right yes didn't think the car had to keep at least 10mm off the ground. If the minimum ride height was 10mm then they'd be bottoming out all over the place.

Sometimes in race footage you can actually see the spray of sawdust when the plank bottoms out. Of course, the plank being oriented along the axis of the vehicle, designers still allow the car to theoretically drop low enough to grind it off because in turns, lateral roll can lower the outside edge of the car below 10mm without the plank in the middle dragging.

Im yet to see a formula 1 game without planks so its hardly suprising.

Quote from Interceptor :

I think I'm right in saying that if the plank is worn more than 1mm when measured after the race then it's an instant disqualification.

That is correct. 1mm wear is all they allow.

Yeah, in GP2 and GP3 (and presumably GP4, havent got it) you could 'inspect plank' when you got back to the pits and it told you how much it had been worn down, so you could tune your ride height.

Quote :

all as a result of Ayrton Senna's death at Imola in 1994?

Nobody ever remembers Roland Ratzenberger :/. 1994 was an insane year, but yes this is when the plank was introduced. For once all the teams actually agreed on emergency rules in an effort to make the cars less lethal.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Nobody ever remembers Roland Ratzenberger :/.

Yes I do, and I always get upset if poeple are talking of the tragic Imola weekend and the death of A. Senna without mentioning Ratzenberger.
One could ask the question if something would have changed in F1 if "only" R. Ratzenberger have died. Probably if Senna would not have died, nobody would talk of this year and race. It`s sad but I think that`s the way it would be.

I'm probably going to be shot now, but what happened to Ratzenberger?

Front wing broke off at about 300kph through a flat out right hander. He hit the wall so hard it broke his neck. The wing was damaged due to a spin on the previous lap.

As a result of the Ratzenbergers accident Sauber increased the side of their cockpits and in '95 the FIA enforced a rule that all cockpits had to have a higher cockpit side. A rule that was reworked for several times over the years.

Yes. THat year was a strange year for F1, a year that they still havn't fully recovered from. I think Coulthard spelt it out in an ITV interview he did. He said (Loosly, I can't remember these things verbatim) that F1 has become almost too safe. That racing drivers race with the understanding they are treading a very fine line between control and the wall, that that line is steadily being eroded (particularily in F1) away so that even the drivers feel they are just robots performing for the sponsers.

In a way I agree. If you become a racing driver you accept that there is a possibility that you will, nay a probable out come that you will, die or at least injure yourself severly whilst racing. I should think to the true racing driving that is as much as part of the thrill (Whether they can admit it or not) as the actuall racing. I jump out of planes. And althought the actuall jumping part, the falling part and the landing safetly with a parachute part are all extremly thrilling if I'm honest the risk that the landing saftely part might not happen is always a factor in my mind. That is what gives you that real adrenalin buzz.

If these things where perfectly safe then nobody would want to race, and nobody wants to watch.

Less lethal/severe crashes . . . . Lower viewer figures . . . A conincedence, I think not.

If it wasn't for the fact that nothing in life is equal I would could see an arguement for deregulation of formula one. Brings back the days of showmanship and the union of man and machine; of too much power and not enough grip; of collisions, clashes and struggling across the winning line with your rear wing hanging off after having driven 10 laps; and of death. Formula one has been synomonous with a good death every once in a while. IT keeps the punters watching and the sport in the news.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not out to kill every racing driver out there and cetain sensibilites should always be taken to lessen certain racing risks, like not placing a spike in the middle of the steering wheel fr'instance. But like the gladiators in the circus, drivers need that edge to race and people need that edge to watch. Otherwise you might as well have a conveyor belt of loud noise . . . .

Edit - Not that I don't morn the loss of any good racing driver. But like a warrior in battle if it happens then where better than doing the thing you love. (all things considered)

^^ Totally agree.

Bah, get rid of wings and T/C and F1 is fixed imo (said as a non-fan with few clues about the sport ) As for the jumping out of planes thing, I did it once... never again :vomit:

I would only jump out of a plane if it were firmly on the ground

As for formula 1, it should be as safe as possible, but it would become as popular again if there were more crashes... even if the driver has no injuries... nobody has to die!

They should make the cars harder to drive to bring back the 'edge' but make sure the driver is well protected by cocooning him in a fireproof, shatterproof ( you get the idea ) shell, which limits his head movements too.

The there would be more thrills and spills but it would be reasonably safe

I think F1 is too safe atm. That's due to the modern tracks with massive run offs. I think that safety should be improved where possible, however, I would have said that F1 should still run on the older less safe circuits.

To make any top level motorsport a lot safer on dangerous tracks you've got to change the drivers attitude and encourage clean racing.

Is there something like too safe? I think not, look at Silverstone '99 when Schumacher crashed due to brake failure. Cars were expected to be safe and still he broke his legs. Or Ralf Schumachers crashes at Indy? Motorsport will never be a 100% safe. Problem atm is that the FIA worked out the rules to make safe cars (in the last decade) but did forget about the competition. Back before 95 we saw many exciting races (just as an expample: Mansell-Senna in Barcelona driving tyre by tyre at 300kph on the straight). I think that it would have possible to make safe cars and still have great competition. Well the result of all the regulations over the past years led to car aerodynamics that are surely fantastic but due to this cars can't drive close behind someone in a corner without loosing a huge amount of downforce. At least the FIA is reacting to that and came up with this new wing, return to real slicks (which should improve mechanical grip) and some other things. No matter if this wing looks weird, if it will improve the race action it would be great.

Nordschelife

i agree with you there ajp though you do need runoffs i think, they are vital when something goes wrong with the car or when an accident happens. I think that f1 has always been trying to strike a balance between speed and safety. It is a fine balance to find. You want a fast car but you dont want your drivers to get injured. But f1 should still be a motorsport with an edge, cars should be difficult to drive.. etc

you last line i partly agree with, yes clean racing should be encouraged but accidents do happen and always will even if drivers racing was clean. We are only human and therefore prone to mistakes...

I dont think people need to die for it to more interesting. Just less safe. I dont mean less safe that the drivers will get hurt but less safe so that the car wont be easy to drive (not saying its easy but easier than 10 yrs agoo for example) like TC theres no danger now of just foot to the floor coming out of a corner.The tarmac run off areas now means hardly anyone hits the wall, they can recover and carry on. Just these things make it so the cars do just go round and round, theres no action anymore.
I no how to describe it - theres no risk anymore.

Thats why i like btcc so much - i dont agree with the big shunts etc, but when they are rubbing side to side as long as stay clean and both drivers carry on its great.