Flexing chassis

[gambler]

I keep catching glimpses of several cars that appear to be flexing
(like the center is belling down under heavy bumps.) It could be an
illusion,with the tires bouncing instead.
Anyone else notice?

[autogyro]

I keep catching glimpses of several cars that appear to be flexing
(like the center is belling down under heavy bumps.) It could be an
illusion,with the tires bouncing instead.
Anyone else notice?

Is it near the join in the middle they need to get round Loews hairpin?
Seriously though, it is to be expected with such long wheelbases.

[gambler]

With the way the tub is assembled in an upper and lower half,
glued together...it would seem logical to make it in one piece
like a tapered rectangle, then have aero panels over that.
for no other reason than predictability.

[Mystery Steve]

With the way the tub is assembled in an upper and lower half,
glued together...it would seem logical to make it in one piece
like a tapered rectangle, then have aero panels over that.
for no other reason than predictability.

You mean lay up the tub as one piece, rather than two pieces joined together?

[WhiteBlue]

I keep catching glimpses of several cars that appear to be flexing
(like the center is belling down under heavy bumps.) It could be an
illusion,with the tires bouncing instead.
Anyone else notice?

I think that is an optical illusion. Todays cars are incredibly stiff. They have to be to pass the crash tests. Making the monocoque from longitudinally split molds is probably without sensible alternative. Glueing those parts together does not reduce the stiffness if it is done properly. The only concern of a split design are shear forces which are extremely unlikely to occur in the vertical direction. It is a different matter if the split is vertical as in the 1999 Ferrari F399. Horizontal shear forces can crack that chassis as we saw in Kroymans 2004 accident in the historical run at Laguna Seca.

[Tim.Wright]

There is absolutely no way you would see flexing of the chassis with the naked eye.

There was definately a lot of suspension movement over the bumps on the infield section though.

Tim

[tommylommykins]

I'm far from an expert here, so what I say is entirely speculatory.

Hmm, I certainly think there's a lot more flex in road cars than is apparant at first. It'd be quite hard to measure, and definately invisible to the naked eye.

Important and impactful chassis might not necessarily only occur on bumps, either. I imagine going hard around a corner as fast as possible in an average family car could probably budge 'solid' things enough to measure with a 30cm ruler and a keen eye.

F1 cars have to be a lot stiffer than road cars. Not only to survive crashes, but also to make them easier to drive. Suspension systems are hard enough to set up already, Adding other weird twists and bends in the chasses isn't going to be easy.

The back of an f1 car has got quite a few big lumps of metal in... Engine, gearbox, suspension mounts, etc. Those are things that certainly can't be made bendy without catastrophic and comical consequences... Imagine how reliable a rubbery engine would be.

[The_Man]

The Formula One cars are incredibly stiff for anyone to notice flexure without a dial gauge. But even I have noticed this apparent flexing visible. This is probably an illusion. It is just because The front wing visibly flexes and you can see it even the wing vibrations after a serious bump. This probably causes the illusion. Also, in case of the Red Bull Team the surprising heat haze on the sides of the car causes some illusionary flex.

[connollyg]

The stiffness of a modern F1 car is very well illustrated in the shots of the Lotus three-wheeling round after losing its front wheel in practice at Bahrain. Even with the wheel missing there was very little droop on that side, and obviously very little of the car was touching the ground.