2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter does not belong here.
godlameroso
151
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by godlameroso » Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:32 am

So how does this mass heave damper work? Does it nullify the suspension's resonant frequency, while also maintaining a precise ride height despite roll pitch or heave?
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

n_anirudh
26
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:43 am

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by n_anirudh » Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:32 am

This is just my hypothetical proposal with this hydraulic energy store which can act as a FRIC system.

Suppose there are these hydraulic systems which store energy from the front and rear suspension and are mounted in the right and left sidepods. What if there is energy/fluid transfer between these two hydraulic systems (by disconnecting the cables etc from the suspension) and maintaining a certain pressure in the cylinders needed as a reserve? Is this legal. This would still act as FRIC, but then the front and back suspensions are never inter-connnected, but behave independently?

Could the left and right hydraulic systems "talk" with each other (or via an intermediate master cylinder) balancing their pressures while temporarily disconnected from the suspensions and then disconnected the link between them - and - reconnecting to the suspensions. This would be somehow like FRIC but not FRIC legally?

bhall II
859
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by bhall II » Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:30 am

Just_a_fan wrote:Some of us remember Ferrari doing this many years ago. It's not unusual for them to do it in an attempt to gain an advantage. The system is there so why not use it? All's fair. It's not "hating" to point out that some teams use the system more than others.
I remember the investigation of fuel flow rates that Mercedes ("allegedly") triggered in 2015 to counter Ferrari's flow rate workaround.

I also recall the ban of reactive ride height in 2012; the backhanded protest over F60's exhaust layout; McLaren's request for "clarification" that nullified F2007's flexible tea tray/bargeboard assembly; Honda's request for "clarification" that nullified 248F1's flexible rear wing, etc, etc. Techno-political wrangling doesn't discriminate in the "me, me, me" world of F1.

Beyond that, everyone should know by now that Charlie Whiting will always err toward directives that ban any mechanical solutions suspected of conferring an aero advantage. Regardless of the mental gymnastics frequently needed to justify the FIA's position in those matters, it's consistent, and teams that follow such a development path do so at their own risk, yanno?

LookBackTime
613
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by LookBackTime » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:39 am

Ferrari's suspicions on rivals’ suspensions: the story

http://en.f1i.com/magazine/85749-ferrar ... sions.html

The third part provide new info:

...
WHAT COULD BE THE IMPACT OF FERRARI’S LETTER?

The FIA’s reply to Ferrari’s quest of information remains a technical directive: it underlines the technical delegate's opinion but does not make the system illegal per se. However, it could entice teams to lodge an appeal with the 2017 Australian Grand Prix stewards, who would then be likely to use Whiting’s response to base their opinion and ultimate ruling on.

All the teams concerned are now faced with two choices: either move forward with their current suspension design and run the risk of disqualification in Australia, or drop it and revert to a safer option, which seems to be Ferrari’s end goal. Indeed, it might seem naïve to think that the Scuderia does want to add the system on its 2017-spec challenger during the season if it is deemed legal.

This kind of strategy is not new in F1, as teams often seek clarity from the FIA with a specific agenda. But why would Whiting outlaw a design that was judged to be in compliance with the regulations last year? Did the race director have a change of mind in the light of the new information brought forward by Ferrari?

To qualify the impact of the Italian team’s letter and potential aftermath, one should remember that the banning of FRIC in July 2014 did not slow down Mercedes en route to its first championship double in the latest 1.6-litre V6 turbocharged era.

What’s more, it is not the first time that its suspension design has come under scrutiny, which suggests the German manufacturer has a contingency plan and more conventional system available should its hydraulic-only heave element be outlawed.

Mercedes’ dominance does not boil down to a silver bullet but is the combination of a series of well-mastered factors (power unit, aerodynamics, engine-chassis integration, tyre management, etc.).
...

WaikeCU
61
User avatar
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by WaikeCU » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:58 am

How much have Merc been thinking about their crucial designed high performance parts? I mean if they have used FRIC and it got banned and it still barely impacted their performance. It would mean they had this clever suspension design as a workaround/Plan B. To me this clever suspension is within a grey area of the technical regulations, because it's now banned after scrutineering it. So Merc must have known that there's a real chance this is probably getting banned as well.

So would that mean they still have some kind of work around calculated after FRIC and after this clever suspension design. I hope so.
Creator / Artist of Magnified Official
Celebrating the greatest
FB: https://www.facebook.com/magnified.official
IG: https://www.instagram.com/magnified.official/

My latest work (in progress): https://www.behance.net/gallery/5516661 ... by-Sam-Siu

LookBackTime
613
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by LookBackTime » Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:29 pm

Analysis: What's behind F1's suspension controversy

By: Giorgio Piola, Technical Editor
Co-author: Matt Somerfield, Assistant Technical Editor

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... sy-863068/

...

This infers the use of hydraulic accumulators that are designed to store and dispense energy under certain conditions, creating a sort of high pressure hydraulic computer. This fluid logic system would rely and react to inputs, as the car undergoes various conditions around a lap.

Think then of the heave element and ancillary remote accumulators as a three-dimensional map, rather than just the cylindrical elements they outwardly appear to be - with small and large chambers interspersed to accommodate the various inputs, loads and conditions.

Imagine that as an an F1 car approaches a corner - the driver will commence the braking phase, at which point the weight of the car should shift forward and the aerodynamic loads are altered.

If a team fully understood the inertia from a mathematical perspective you could model a reactionary response from the front and rear suspension that would keep the platform of the car within an acceptable tolerance, improving both mechanical (including the tyre's response) and aerodynamic performance.

The knock on effect is that the driver can carry more apex speed and will accelerate out of the corner earlier than is ordinarily the case.
...

...
The Red Bull philosophy revolves around perfecting aerodynamic structures that emanate from the front wing and tie in with the floor and diffuser. The obstacle to its performance is always the tyres, with neutering the airflow that is spilt from them critical in creating the necessary rear end downforce to complement what's going on ahead.

The use of a well tuned HPC (Hydraulic Pitch Control) suspension system, as some of the teams have called it, is something that has been part of Red Bull's success throughout 2016 as it overtook Ferrari.

For a team that usually had an abundance of aerodynamic updates at each Grand Prix, Red Bull was surprisingly quiet on that front last season. Instead at each GP it honed its set-up, perhaps trialling a different front or rear wing on occasions, in order to maximise the car's operating window.

Whilst it's understood that it sacrificed some of its resource early on to focus on the 2017 car, it's perhaps its mooted acquisition of a full chassis dynamometer that has seen it make further strides.

The VTT (Virtual Test Track) as it is known replicates its car in every aspect and allows it to run the car in the simulator loop, including the power unit.

Suspension actuation is also conducted and helps the team to make some decisions about the set-up, both aerodynamically and mechanically, before getting to the track.

This has led to what has been interpreted as a hunching over of the car on the straights, causing a drop off in downforce and drag and boosting straightline speed, helping the team to overcome some of the deficit of its the Renault power unit.

Red Bull's use of HPC is different in its approach to Mercedes, but both systems are aimed at improving the relationship between all aspects of the chassis to improve overall lap time.
...

bill shoe
164
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:18 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by bill shoe » Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:24 pm

Just_a_fan wrote:
Pierce89 wrote:Wow the Ferrari haters have downvoted me twice in this thread.Mods?
Could it possibly be Just-a-Fan downvoting me? Surely not, as he normally presents as a rational human being.
Not me! I've been down voted too. Shame that anonymous voting occurs rather than debate.

Actually, looking at the down votes (2), they state "lies" which suggests one person doing the down voting. Ah well.
Can we write to Charlie Whiting questioning the validity of the downvotes?

dans79
114
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by dans79 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:35 pm

bhall II wrote:
Beyond that, everyone should know by now that Charlie Whiting will always err toward directives that ban any mechanical solutions suspected of conferring an aero advantage. Regardless of the mental gymnastics frequently needed to justify the FIA's position in those matters, it's consistent, and teams that follow such a development path do so at their own risk, yanno?
That's why I can't wait till the old fart retires, the day can't possibly come soon enough.

hardingfv32
28
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by hardingfv32 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:23 pm

Have some technical fun with this subject. Discussions about legality teach us nothing.

How might it work?

So we save up pressure in an accumulator.... how is the release of this pressure accomplished? Under the current rules would the release of pressure have to be a fixed function (say a jet) or could it be varied by some kind of independent assembly/unit?

Does a independent control assembly/unit make it a form of active suspension?

Brian

henry
52
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by henry » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:43 pm

I don't think the regulations make any mention of "active" or "passive". They simply require that the only forces driving the suspension system come from the road. A system that has a secondary, external, source of forces ( and energy ) I tend to think of as "active", and whilst it would need a control system of some sort it is not the controller that makes it active.

What these systems appear to be doing is delaying, and controlling, the response of the suspension to road inputs, over time periods of seconds versus the milliseconds response more normally expected.

I imagine that the control system will have "sensors" for some of position, acceleration, pitch (perhaps) and speed ( using a surrogate such as overall downforce). The Piola piece then identifies to what use these may be put.

hardingfv32
28
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by hardingfv32 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:27 pm

I am uncomfortable with the use of a control system that uses sensors to release the accumulated pressure.

I say this because to this point as an example.... the shock absorbers have never been adjusted by any type of external control system while on track. I am not even sure that the traditional driver shock adjustments are allowed.

Before I can theorize how these new systems work we need a clear idea what restriction apply to the control mechanisms.

Brian

Pierce89
93
User avatar
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Pierce89 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:29 pm

Pierce89 wrote:Wow the Ferrari haters have downvoted me twice in this thread.Mods?
Could it possibly be Just-a-Fan downvoting me? Surely not, as he normally presents as a rational human being.
I exonerate Just a Fan he's a good dude. I realized the one downvoting is more Hide a Troll.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher

Just_a_fan
246
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Just_a_fan » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:41 pm

henry wrote:I don't think the regulations make any mention of "active" or "passive". They simply require that the only forces driving the suspension system come from the road.
Isn't it simpler than that? Isn't it just that the suspension must only be used to isolate the car from road imperfections. Although they accept that there is an aerodynamic effect from the suspension (because there is no way that there can't be), the system must not be designed for aerodynamic benefits.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools."

hardingfv32
28
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by hardingfv32 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:13 pm

The argument about aerodynamic benefits is a political issue. A call that we have no position in.

If we are to learn something here we must assume that the aerodynamic benefits are not an issue with the new systems. That Mercedes and RedBull would prevail in a protest relative to possible aero benefit.

I am going to further assume that the control system they are employing is something that the clearly feel is legal using a conservative rule interpretation.

Patty Lowe is boasting about the complex manner in which the new systems respond. What are the possibilities for the control system?

Brian

henry
52
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by henry » Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:24 pm

Just_a_fan wrote:
henry wrote:I don't think the regulations make any mention of "active" or "passive". They simply require that the only forces driving the suspension system come from the road.
Isn't it simpler than that? Isn't it just that the suspension must only be used to isolate the car from road imperfections. Although they accept that there is an aerodynamic effect from the suspension (because there is no way that there can't be), the system must not be designed for aerodynamic benefits.
All the regulations say is:

10.1 Sprung suspension :
10.1.1 Cars must be fitted with sprung suspension.
10.1.2 Any suspension system fitted to the front wheels must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in load applied to the front wheels.
10.1.3 Any suspension system fitted to the rear wheels must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in load applied to the rear wheels.

(From the October 2016 version of the 2017 regs)

If the front wheels get a load applied the front suspension may respond to it. No mention of conservation of energy or timescales for the response.



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bigpat, CCBot [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Nicola11 and 10 guests