CBeck113 wrote:I don't think that marcush wants to extend it, but to attach the suspension to it
I am sure he said to extend it. Will have to look back.
CBeck113 wrote:which means with a joint - that should get through the regs, and it would function nicely as a tray extension because of the necessary profile.
I think the profile would be woeful for aerodynamics. There are restrictions on the shape and angle attack of suspension components.
If you have a join you will need another member to control its motion.
If it is rigidly mounted to the floor, does it count as suspension? Or is it bodywork? If t is bodywork, you are realy quite restricted as to where it can be.
Also, the floor is not supposed to flex. They do, but the FIA impose limits on that. The suspension flexing the floor may not be such a great thing for aero either.
CBeck113 wrote:Joining it to the nose would be interesting - you could have a tray that extends to the front wing, and have the joints on the wing mounts.
No, you cannot. See the rules below.
Additionally, the front wing mounts won't be as rigid as the tub. When the twin keels first came out some teams had issues with their flexibility. These were shorter and stiffer than the front wing mounts, The teams that didn't have issues with them found that they became quite heavy (relatively speaking).
CBeck113 wrote:My point about the trailing wheel is that there will be higher forces working on the suspension, forcing the engineers to strengthen the arms and joints. On second thought that may not be too bad - the lower (heavy) arm would sit so low that it may be a positive addition. By using the nose for the front joint this issue would be solved too...
Yes, the steering components would have to be more sturdy.
My impression of Marcush's idea is that there would be only one suspension member. In which cas it would be large and heavy.
Anyway, here are some suspension rules for 2014:
10.1.1 Cars must be fitted with sprung suspension.
10.3.1 With the exception of minimal local changes of section for the passage of hydraulic brake lines, electrical wiring and wheel tethers or the attachment of flexures, rod ends and spherical bearings, the cross-sections of each member of every suspension component, when taken normal to a straight line between the inner and outer attachment points, must :
a) Intersect the straight line between the inner and outer attachment points.
b) Have a major axis no greater than 100mm.
c) Have an aspect ratio no greater than 3.5:1.
d) Have no dimension which exceeds 100mm.
The major axis will be defined as the largest axis of symmetry of any such cross-section. The length of the intersection of this axis with the cross-section must not be less than 95% of the maximum dimension of the section.
{b and c seem to say the same thing.]
10.3.2 Suspension members having shared attachment points will be considered by a virtual dissection into discrete members.
10.3.3 No major axis of a cross section of a suspension member, when assessed in accordance with Article 10.3.1, may subtend an angle greater than 5° to the reference plane when projected onto, and normal to, a vertical plane on the car centre line with the car set to the nominal design ride height.
10.3.4 Non-structural parts of suspension members are considered bodywork.
10.3.5 There may be no more than six suspension members connecting each suspension upright to the fully sprung part of the car.
Redundant suspension members are not permitted.
[This relates to an earlier post where it was suggested that a second suspension member will be mounted behind the first for aerodynamic purposes. If the second member does not have a distinct suspension function then it would be deemed illegal.]
So, to summarise.
- You could probably have a suspension member connecting to the floor and the front wing mounts, but since each arm has a maximum dimension of 100mm you would not get the desired extra "tea tray" length.
- With such a wide base the steering angle would be somewhat restricted. That would mean a kink in the suspension arms is probably required, just so you can race at Monaco. Kink = less strength = more weight.
- Your suspension would not have a rigid base and thus would not work properly. At present the suspension members are mounted to the tub directly, and is there is unlikely to be a more rigid structure to which the suspension could be attached.
- Aerodynamically the idea is dubious. At best it would be no worse than the current conventional designs.
