Ferrari F14T

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Post Reply
User avatar
PlatinumZealot
550
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

trinidefender wrote:Well you all can say what you want but designing sports cars or any car that uses mostly mechanical grip the designers always aim for flat or very nearly flat suspension arms. This is to minimise track width change under suspension compression and extension.

Another, probably major effect of having your suspension arms at a large angle from parallel to the ground is that you change the roll centre of the car. Generally designers aim to get the roll centre just below or as close to the centre of gravity as possible. While I am no suspension expert there is a lot of information about this. Having the roll centre closer to the centre of gravity by using flatter suspension arms/geometry means that for the same roll rate you can run softer anti roll bar springs or less roll by using the same anti roll bar springs.

Any suspension experts please feel free to correct me and can you provide some sources so I can learn more for next time.
I understand what you are saying still. I would design a car with near level arms too. It is a good practice because the vertical loads are more directly taken by the springs and dampers. On the flip-side with steeply sloped arms a larger portion of the vertical loads go into the arms them selves which may not be desirable.
๐Ÿ–๏ธโœŒ๏ธโ˜๏ธ๐Ÿ‘€๐Ÿ‘Œโœ๏ธ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ†๐Ÿ™

flyboy2160
84
Joined: 25 Apr 2011, 17:05

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

Try not to get too deep into a generic suspension design debate and away from the 14T. There are specific suspension threads.

trinidefender
317
Joined: 19 Apr 2013, 20:37

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

n smikle wrote:
trinidefender wrote:Well you all can say what you want but designing sports cars or any car that uses mostly mechanical grip the designers always aim for flat or very nearly flat suspension arms. This is to minimise track width change under suspension compression and extension.

Another, probably major effect of having your suspension arms at a large angle from parallel to the ground is that you change the roll centre of the car. Generally designers aim to get the roll centre just below or as close to the centre of gravity as possible. While I am no suspension expert there is a lot of information about this. Having the roll centre closer to the centre of gravity by using flatter suspension arms/geometry means that for the same roll rate you can run softer anti roll bar springs or less roll by using the same anti roll bar springs.

Any suspension experts please feel free to correct me and can you provide some sources so I can learn more for next time.
I understand what you are saying still. I would design a car with near level arms too. It is a good practice because the vertical loads are more directly taken by the springs and dampers. On the flip-side with steeply sloped arms a larger portion of the vertical loads go into the arms them selves which may not be desirable.
You missed my point totally about the roll centre of a car and how suspension geometry effects it. Go do some reading on roll centre buddy.

Saying that having horizontal arms means that "vertical loads are more directly taken by springs and dampers" actually doesn't make sense. To get the least stress as possible on the chassis you want the pushrod or pullrod as vertical as possible. I was referring to the angle of the wishbones in the suspension which I was saying are generally better when horizontal. But yes this is my last post on the topic here. If you want we can move this to a new topic or pm.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
550
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

trinidefender wrote:
n smikle wrote:
trinidefender wrote:Well you all can say what you want but designing sports cars or any car that uses mostly mechanical grip the designers always aim for flat or very nearly flat suspension arms. This is to minimise track width change under suspension compression and extension.

Another, probably major effect of having your suspension arms at a large angle from parallel to the ground is that you change the roll centre of the car. Generally designers aim to get the roll centre just below or as close to the centre of gravity as possible. While I am no suspension expert there is a lot of information about this. Having the roll centre closer to the centre of gravity by using flatter suspension arms/geometry means that for the same roll rate you can run softer anti roll bar springs or less roll by using the same anti roll bar springs.

Any suspension experts please feel free to correct me and can you provide some sources so I can learn more for next time.
I understand what you are saying still. I would design a car with near level arms too. It is a good practice because the vertical loads are more directly taken by the springs and dampers. On the flip-side with steeply sloped arms a larger portion of the vertical loads go into the arms them selves which may not be desirable.
You missed my point totally about the roll centre of a car and how suspension geometry effects it. Go do some reading on roll centre buddy.

Saying that having horizontal arms means that "vertical loads are more directly taken by springs and dampers" actually doesn't make sense. To get the least stress as possible on the chassis you want the pushrod or pullrod as vertical as possible. I was referring to the angle of the wishbones in the suspension which I was saying are generally better when horizontal. But yes this is my last post on the topic here. If you want we can move this to a new topic or pm.
You are telling me to do reading on roll centers? I see you haven't heard about me.. anyway.
I think you need to do some more reading on front roll centres in modern Formula 1 and see that Roll center talk is old school stuff.
๐Ÿ–๏ธโœŒ๏ธโ˜๏ธ๐Ÿ‘€๐Ÿ‘Œโœ๏ธ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ†๐Ÿ™

User avatar
diffuser
207
Joined: 07 Sep 2012, 13:55
Location: Montreal

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

trinidefender wrote:Well you all can say what you want but designing sports cars or any car that uses mostly mechanical grip the designers always aim for flat or very nearly flat suspension arms. This is to minimise track width change under suspension compression and extension.

Another, probably major effect of having your suspension arms at a large angle from parallel to the ground is that you change the roll centre of the car. Generally designers aim to get the roll centre just below or as close to the centre of gravity as possible. While I am no suspension expert there is a lot of information about this. Having the roll centre closer to the centre of gravity by using flatter suspension arms/geometry means that for the same roll rate you can run softer anti roll bar springs or less roll by using the same anti roll bar springs.

Any suspension experts please feel free to correct me and can you provide some sources so I can learn more for next time.

I went back to look at pictures of cars from 2009 thru 2014 (where there were fewer restrictions on nose height). What I found was all kinds of variations in the angle of attack of the suspension. I believe the only reason we're seeing a trend to flatter front suspensions this year is cause of the nose height restrictions. I get the feeling that the suspension geometry angle of attack that is chosen, is simply to meet some other goal they're trying to achieve. That might be getting more air under the nose, aero benefits, ease of access, familiarity or cost(to name just a few).


I will add that Red Bull's front suspension angle of attack appeared to have changed little over that same time.


Actually when you look at the 2011
Image


and compare it to 2014

Image


the angle is almost the same.

f1universe
-1
Joined: 06 Nov 2012, 08:51

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

Do you guys think that the car will perfrom worse without FRIC?, and will it make any impact on Kimi's driving?, good or bad.

User avatar
The Moderator
-1
Joined: 30 Oct 2012, 18:21

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

f1universe wrote:Do you guys think that the car will perfrom worse without FRIC?, and will it make any impact on Kimi's driving?, good or bad.
both cars doesn't have FRIC :?

User avatar
Kiril Varbanov
147
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 15:00
Location: Bulgaria, Sofia
Contact:

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

The Moderator wrote:
f1universe wrote:Do you guys think that the car will perfrom worse without FRIC?, and will it make any impact on Kimi's driving?, good or bad.
both cars doesn't have FRIC :?
Both cars do have FRIC system on board, though shaped to a different extent, compared to the rivals. Indeed, Lotus, Merc and Ferrari were the early adopters of the concept.

Personally I don't think it will have large effect, such as half a second per perfect lap. Replace the hydraulic chamber with third heave element and test; adjust suspension parameters and bit of aero. OK, not that simple really, but sort of.

Moreover, teams would have been frantic about the ban has the order had dramatic and immediate imminent effect.

f300v10
185
Joined: 22 Mar 2012, 17:13

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

New version of the front wing with only 1 slot in the mainplane:

Old:
Image

New:
Image

Hovepeter
1
Joined: 30 Aug 2013, 14:10

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

f300v10 wrote:New version of the front wing with only 1 slot in the mainplane:

Old:
http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Fer ... 794918.jpg

New:
http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Fer ... 794919.jpg

can someone tell me why they are doing that? i heard that these slots helps the cars aero during cornering to get more efficient downforce is that right? is there anything these slots does that makes the car less efficient at a straight line and there for not suits hockenheim? sorry for the bad english.

User avatar
elFranZ
15
Joined: 27 Mar 2012, 14:00

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

adding slots on a wing is everything but "efficient". You may gain some DF points, but this will also add some drag.
Given the 4 straights in Hockenheim, this may be a wise choice for them.

Hovepeter
1
Joined: 30 Aug 2013, 14:10

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

elFranZ wrote:adding slots on a wing is everything but "efficient". You may gain some DF points, but this will also add some drag.
Given the 4 straights in Hockenheim, this may be a wise choice for them.
oh okay. i must have misunderstood something then! thank you :)

wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

Those slots are in the wing to give a more consistent level of downforce. By getting more air under the wing the flow under the wing is more consistent, thus, there is less loss in downforce.

The wings change a little in that aspect. The one with one slot in the main plane also has the main plane raised overall, improving flow under the wing.

Changes like these (raising the mainplane or more slots in the wing) give more consistent levels of downforce at the expense of peak downforce.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

User avatar
ringo
225
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

Slotted wings are more efficient in terms of L/D ratios.
Though there may be instances where it may not be true, considering the different kinds of drag, skin, form etc. that may be predominant and certain speeds. So yes in this case it may be for less drag, but not most of the time for slotted wings.
For Sure!!

User avatar
elFranZ
15
Joined: 27 Mar 2012, 14:00

Re: Ferrari F14T

Post

ringo wrote:Slotted wings are more efficient in terms of L/D ratios.
Though there may be instances where it may not be true, considering the different kinds of drag, skin, form etc. that may be predominant and certain speeds. So yes in this case it may be for less drag, but not most of the time for slotted wings.
thanks for clarifying.

Post Reply