10.1.2 The suspension system must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in load applied to the wheels.
10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.
Fairly black and white. No brake bias-controlled (i.e. driver operated) adjustments to suspension seems possible.
Hmm. then what do you think about this?
n smikle wrote:
scarbs wrote:
ForMuLaOne wrote:Well, seems like when they developed their interlinked suspension, an aero guy had a beer with one of the suspension guys and thougth.....interconnect front and rear....wait....i can do something about it as well
Or rather Renaults engineer joined Mercedes and introduced what Renault, Ferrari and McLaren have had for several years?
I am going to agree with Scarb's here. Hydraulic interlinked suspension is nothing new and it has not the implications of the mercury suspension.
-An important section is the chassis and suspension. Brawn said that the car literally "think" when accelerating and braking. The damping system is interconnected four-wheel hydraulically compensates for the imbalance produced under braking and acceleration. The system already introduced last year, but this season they have perfected a new level, because last year it added a posteriori, and this time is fully integrated into the car.
Raptor22 wrote:since we are already sensitised to secondary effects, ......similar that provide electricity within the suspension could be used to polarise a ferrofluid...
it would fall within the intension of harnessing KERS energy but in an application not used for drive
just a thought, load the guns. shields at 100%
Good thought. Suspension systems cannot be powered by external sources, but they could (possibly) be powered by electricity generated by the suspension itself. An electric and/or magnetic damper could generate power that was then simultaneously applied to an efficient ferrofluid device, that kind of thing. Hmmm.
Thanks for this diagram Smirkle as it helps me explain a thought I had.
If the red square was a weight (the ballast) linked to hydraulic pistons then there would be variable pressure in the green hydraulic lines proportional to the acceleration & braking of the car. That hydraulic pressure could be fed to the suspension to prevent dive or squat.
The idea is just a variation on the mercury suggestion.
what about aq linear generator integrated into the damper -providing electricity to open or close valves inside the damper ? If you´d interconnect the hydraulic paths front rear -side -side you could create a system that is depending on damper speed and position... without having external logic governing it -so it would be passive and legal.
ForMuLaOne wrote:Well, seems like when they developed their interlinked suspension, an aero guy had a beer with one of the suspension guys and thougth.....interconnect front and rear....wait....i can do something about it as well
Or rather Renaults engineer joined Mercedes and introduced what Renault, Ferrari and McLaren have had for several years?
I am going to agree with Scarb's here. Hydraulic interlinked suspension is nothing new and it has not the implications of the mercury suspension.
-An important section is the chassis and suspension. Brawn said that the car literally "think" when accelerating and braking. The damping system is interconnected four-wheel hydraulically compensates for the imbalance produced under braking and acceleration. The system already introduced last year, but this season they have perfected a new level, because last year it added a posteriori, and this time is fully integrated into the car.
I tried to explain how someone might have come up with the F-duct idea. Because both systems are passive, and interlinked. Seems like this is the new area teams have to think about. Passive interlinked systems.
as the computer boffins now go from coupled interdiscipline simulations towards cosimulation it seems more and more feasible to venture into really complicated multi physics interactions ..
Why do you all think of such a complicated mechanism?
A simple mass could close a hydraulically valve activated by deceleration which then block fluid flow from front to rear.
forgive my stupidity, wouldnt an interlinked suspension be classed as "active suspension" because of how its maintaining ride hight / roll / pitch etc?
i understand it isnt computer controlled al la the early 90's, however to me it seems active.
I think all of the discussion about mecury etc is fun but silly. Race Tech magazine had an article about the Merc DDRS system which makes much more sense because it's so simple (this is paraphrased from memory):
1. With DRS alone, there is a forward movement of the centre of pressure when the DRS is operating. This means that the rear suspension unloads slightly and the front dips slightly.
2. In order to prevent the front ride height being too low, the teams need to increase the front ride height slightly to compensate. This reduces the downforce produced by the front slightly but that's one of the compromises of setup in F1.
Note that the front dips under braking too so the teams will have taken this in to account slightly already.
3. With the DDRS, as the rear is unloaded, the front is also unloaded so the car stays flatter. Under braking the rear DRS will close and the rear will start to generate downforce again before the front does (because of the finite time it takes for the system to "talk" to the front wing). Thus as the driver hits the brakes the nose dips slightly but the front wing is still in "low downforce" mode so it doesn't dip fully. As the front wing comes back in to "downforce" mode, the car's speed is already dropping (about 0.5seconds after hitting the brakes but that's enough to have dropped the speed a bit in these cars) so the dip isn't as big as it would normally be - the ride height change is less.
4. Because the system allows the average front ride height to be controlled better (you don't get the big front end dip) the team can run the front ride height slightly lower. This then gives better downforce all the time. The really clever thing is that if the car isn't using DRS then you don't lose out anyway - which is why Rosberg could be so quick in Q3 and the race in China.
I think the system is most useful at high efficiency tracks like China though where the long straight and fast corners need a particular set up. At general "thug" tracks, the traditional approach is probably not at too great a disadvantage.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Just_a_fan wrote:... The really clever thing is that if the car isn't using DRS then you don't lose out anyway - which is why Rosberg could be so quick in Q3 and the race in China. ...
This I don't really understand. How come in the race they can suddenly get away with lower ride height compared to qualifying?
I think the DRS system is not a reason for not using the interlinked suspension it rather makes it even more usefull.
The interlinked suspension can keep the rake of the car constant when downforce on one end of the car drops because front and rear are connected to each other.
The point is that the front DRS does away with the need to plumb a system in to the suspension - it changes the downforce on the front end which is what the suspension is trying to deal with in the first place. Why design a system to deal with downforce changes when you can more easily design a system that deals with the downforce directly. Simple, effective and very cheap.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Just_a_fan wrote:... The really clever thing is that if the car isn't using DRS then you don't lose out anyway - which is why Rosberg could be so quick in Q3 and the race in China. ...
This I don't really understand. How come in the race they can suddenly get away with lower ride height compared to qualifying?
The car's ride height is determined by the front end ride height becuase the cars run with rake. If you can reduce the amount that the front end dips then you can run less front end ride height.
As the cars brake the front dips - good old fashioned load transfer and something that has been used to set front ride height for years. Add DRS and the rear lifts when the DRS is used - this means the nose runs closer to the ground because the car pivots around the front axle. Add braking nose dip and you need to add ride ehight to compensate. But you have to carry this ride height all the time so it's a "bad thing". By reducing the front wing's downforce you raise its ride height when the DRS is used. Thus the car raises in balance front and rear. Hit the brakes and the nose dip doesn't then tuck the front end in to the tarmac. So you can afford to run slightly lower at the front end.
It's the nose dip when the DRS is employed that determines ride height. By doing away with it you can effectively set up the car as if it doesn't have DRS. It's very clever and very simple.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
