Williams 2008

[Sawtooth-spike]

My intuition insists their new direction will be a suspension development.

Yeah. I was thinking about that today. You're not allowed reactive-type suspension... but what about ones which alter to a set known acceleration bracket? Would this still be against the rules? Is there any work-around?

(Such as softening up of the rear end when the car was in 1st-3rd gears)

Rob W

Would that be Classes as active suspension?

I worry when Williams think outside the box, Lets not forget the Walrus!

[Carlos]

Here is one of my novel suspension obssesions. Maybe Williams has something like this in mind...or something else

viewtopic.php?t=4157

[Belatti]

I remember hearing that in 96-97 seasons, Williams had 10% less aero drag that any other team, because of its awesome mechanical grip.
Maybe Mr. Head took of the dust from his big head and comes up with something good!

Now, back to reality, as some arround has already said, it is just a sponsor attracting gimic. Almost every team uses to do that when they talk about their next year car.

The only posibility for Williams to win again is if they rob Newey and Renault from RedBull... JUST JOKING !!

[Jersey Tom]

I'll be very interested to see what it is. I wouldn't be making huge claims if I didn't have something very very substantial to back it up.

[Rob W]

The only posibility for Williams to win again is if they rob Newey and Renault from RedBull... JUST JOKING !!

Yeah... if only Williams were as awesome as Redbull .

Sorry, but Newey hasn't really come up with the goods for a couple of years.. even when still at McLaren he didn't. (as technical director he is in charge of it all - you can't just blame the engine/gearbox guys or reliability - he's still in charge)

Rob W

[checkered]

My intuition insists their new direction will be a suspension development.

Well, my intuition was persuaded by your intuition. The engines are homologated (to a significant degree), the gearboxes are seamless shift (any further improvement would propably be in the lowest single hundreths of a second). Hardly a revolution there, then; if there is a comprehensive revolution, the design philosophy originates somewhere. Aero is an ongoing revolution following a curve that is more or less predictable. Of the major physical elements that leaves suspension.

If it isn't traditional double wishbone (with accompanying gimmickry), it's gonna affect everything else connected to it thus potentially forcing pretty significant changes on the vehicle itself. Basically there are two avenues of development I'm aware of that can be considered "passive enough" according to current F1 rules. (Both have been discussed here sporadically and it might well be that the links below are a repost. If so, sorry about that.)

1) New (or reapplied) mechanical multi-link systems

DAX (link) for example have their own innovation, the so called CC&AR (the camber compensation and anti-roll suspension system).

(Edit: I can't get the image to load ... just browse the dax website)

Image routed from DAX website

For a huge database of different mechanical arrangements, visit Cornell Uni's KMODDL (kinematic models for design digital library, link). It's pretty huge and takes getting used to getting around, but I guess Watt linkages aren't that hard to find for example. People have thought about these things, well forever basically, so there's no shortage of ideas.

If one is serious about testing mechanical susp ideas, multibody system simulation software (link) is one way to do that. Some commercial and some academic stuff in those links.

[checkered]

2) Hydraulic suspension developments

A couple of recent examples of these, too. Tenneco's Kinetic (link) systems (RFS, H2 and X) replace one or more mechanical linkages with passive hydraulic arrangements, with certain advantages, apparently.


Image routed from Tenneco website

Then there's the Creuat Suspension Technology's (link) LMP1 Dome S101 Judd hydraulic suspension project from 2005. Follow the "Le Mans" link, it's not too obvious.


Image routed from Creuat website

They've also posted Racecar Engineering's article (link) on the subject online. Don't know if it's with permission, but there it is. It's a pretty hefty pdf file.

The recent magneto-rheological stuff is also a good realized F1 example, of course.

....

All speculation of course, until we see the FW30. But in a way it's better before, I guess, for the possibility of imagining solutions instead of being given a specific one.

[tarzoon]

I don't think there is room enough for complete revolution. There are dramatic evolutions, just like 96 Ferrari or McLaren MP4-18, just to mention two recent ones. True these weren't very successful cars, but there are better examples.

Maybe they decide to make more comfortable cars, who knows!

[modbaraban]

The most recent is RB3.

[tarzoon]

The most recent is RB3.

Ferrari dropped the "revolution" the following season, McLaren continued and was quite successful. Let's see what Red Bull has to offer!

[FLC]

...the gearboxes are seamless shift (any further improvement would propably be in the lowest single hundredths of a second). Hardly a revolution there, then;

I don't remember exactly who said it, maybe Gascoyne, I'm not sure, but the new 4 races per gearbox rule is giving the teams a considerable amount of trouble, in terms of reliability of course. If I remember correctly, he even implied that some of them might roll back from the seamless idea. So that area might worth a little more than a few hundredths overall.
But I agree that this is prob. not where Williams will gain a significant advantage.

[modbaraban]

I don't remember exactly who said it, maybe Gascoyne, I'm not sure, but the new 4 races per gearbox rule is giving the teams a considerable amount of trouble, in terms of reliability of course. If I remember correctly, he even implied that some of them might roll back from the seamless idea. So that area might worth a little more than a few hundredths overall.
But I agree that this is prob. not where Williams will gain a significant advantage.

Not just that! Setting up the car would be a BIG problem if you have to use the same gearbox in Monaco and Montreal!

[scarbs]

The gearbox rules are surprisingly more open than you imagine. The hydraulics are exempt from the 4 race rule, this is where most of the race failures occur.

Also the ratios can be changed in between races, but they cannot be altered over a race weekend.

The rules have an odd point (sporting regs rule 87.d) that a ratio or dog ring can be changed over a weekend without a penalty if the ratio or dog ring is broken? The rule does add that changing broken rations cannot be carried repeatedly.

The F1 engineers I’ve spoken to are quite comfortable with the rule (admittedly I haven’t spoken to Red Bull Technology). They tell me the casing, shafts and bearings are not prone to wear over the 4 race period, it is the mainly the ratio\dog rings that wear. Thus a change between races alleviates mos tof the reliability fears.

Scarbs

[modbaraban]

Oh I though it'll be like with the engines 'do not open till Christmass'

[FLC]

Interesting. I've found the exact quote and it was Gascoyne indeed:

The gearbox has been designed as a four-race gearbox - it complies with next year's reg changes. So mechanically, this is the car for next year. It's not seamless - I think a lot of people might struggle with four-race gearboxes and their internals next year.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61458

Maybe he was just trying to create a better impression of what they did at Spyker, considering the obvious limitations of their budget, as he then admits that "We don't think that's value for money for Spyker". Thanks for the info.