F1 active suspension

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.

allow active suspension: yes or no

YES
29
44%
NO
37
56%
 
Total votes : 66

Post Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:33 pm

Cost - you said its an issue. I say not becuase they will spend what theyve got anyway. This system will give tangible benefits to racing (a more aero stable car is easier to over take with). Unlike the silly money they are pumping into make a bracket slightly better or something like that.


It costs money to design, implement, and test the system, during a time when there is barely any testing. There will also need a bespoke ECU for it, or just get Mclaren Engineering to make a new one for everyone. How can you possibly argue that cost across the whole board?


Safety - you said AS can be dangerouns. Thats not an arguement as normal suspension can be dangerous. The active ride system after development is no more dangerous when it fails as any other type of suspension. They all lead to huge accidents.

AS ha a single point of failure, being the computer or hydraulic accumulator. Passive suspension can lose one corner. A small failure in a suspension component is not always catastrophic, but AS has a single point of failure. Again, your point is easily disputed,and easily disproven.. AS is more dangerous than regular suspension in a failure, and we can't exactly NOT have suspension on cars.


Takes focus from driver skill - I responded with "so do other technologies that are allowed (eg semi auto grear box)".

You agreed that it does take away from driver skill. But defended it with some BS about because it didnt affect handling. Who gives a --- what the system affects? A driver aid is a driver aid.

Again, shifting gears is not as important to the whole of driving a race car as when and where to brake and feeling the dynamic loading and unloading of the car. AS cars ARE easier to drive, and require less skill to operate. MX made a good point that while drivers don't have to use the clutch and gear lever, they do have all kinds of other knobs and stuff to contend with.

You keep talking about TC and other driver aids. i told you three posts ago that they are apples and oranges, ut you still think i am going on about them. Be less wrong.


I just completey explined everything again
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute
Giblet
 
Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Location: Downtown Canada

Post Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:41 pm

Giblet wrote:It costs money to design, implement, and test the system, during a time when there is barely any testing. There will also need a bespoke ECU for it, or just get Mclaren Engineering to make a new one for everyone. How can you possibly argue that cost across the whole board?


I dont give a crap about the cost frankly, I never disputed it would cost a shed load of money. So it takes KERS money to make? At you will at least see a racing benefit from it which is surely the whole point.

Or you could make a spec system, the majority of most would still come from programming it though, which would require a mega amount of testing milage.

Frankly, I want to see cars roll into a corner, banking like aircraft. That my fired would be cool.

Giblet wrote:AS ha a single point of failure, being the computer or hydraulic accumulator. Passive suspension can lose one corner. A small failure in a suspension component is not always catastrophic, but AS has a single point of failure. Again, your point is easily disputed,and easily disproven.. AS is more dangerous than regular suspension in a failure, and we can't exactly NOT have suspension on cars.


You do realise that when the AS is switched off or springs a leak the cars don't just hit the deck dont you? They had a spring over the actuator to keep it off the ground (at least they did on the williams unit). That spring will be fine to keep a car limping back to the pits in a low to medium speed crash, and at medium to high speed. In the Eau Rouge crash with the speed and downforce would have wrecked anything.

You keep banging on about 1 corner going on a passive car. Ok hypothetic scenario (I hate them). Zanardi had passive on his car. Fatigue in the spring causes it to fail, meaning you have no resistance to compression on the front right of his car. Eau Rouge, 180 mph. What is the result? (Hint: it also involved him hitting the wall.)

The problem with active ride can be countered by having an active/passive suspension. The electronic acutators contol the suspenension, if a hydraulic leak occurs the acutaors obviosly stop working. A monoshock and spring combo will allow safe riding in the event of a failure, obviosly not to race but to limp home. You can use a hydraulic pressure regulation system similar to that used on the 06 Focus WRC cars. They could choose to run it in 2 or 4 wheel drive, but when hydraulic pressure was lost it locks the diff into 4 wheel mode. The only problem with this would be that it would weight a ton and be a pita to set up.

Giblet wrote:Takes focus from driver skill - I responded with "so do other technologies that are allowed (eg semi auto grear box)".

You agreed that it does take away from driver skill. But defended it with some BS about because it didnt affect handling. Who gives a --- what the system affects? A driver aid is a driver aid.

Again, shifting gears is not as important to the whole of driving a race car as when and where to brake and feeling the dynamic loading and unloading of the car. AS cars ARE easier to drive, and require less skill to operate. MX made a good point that while drivers don't have to use the clutch and gear lever, they do have all kinds of other knobs and stuff to contend with.

You keep talking about TC and other driver aids. i told you three posts ago that they are apples and oranges, ut you still think i am going on about them. Be less wrong.


Just becuase you said they are apples and oranges doesnt make it so. There is no real way to put an argument against this as its your opinin.

The only reason you can argue that its apples and oranges is because of the system it affects.

Driver aid A, makes the car easier to drive by not having the driver think about shifting.
Driver aid B, makes the car easier to drive becuase it is more predictiable.

That is NOT apples and oranges from the point of view of the principle behind the systems. Both are tehcnologies that make a drivers life easier and that reduce the human part of the mistake.

Your argument for not bringing it back was on the PRINCIPLE beehind AS (makes the driver life easier). Not the fact it affects handling.


Before I die of having to keep going round this merry go round. I agree 100% with you... you win. Well done have a gold star.


EDIT: The post below is right. You misses the awesomeness of the late 80's and early 90's.
93 was a quality season. Easpecially the first 4 races.
92 was just awesome too... if you were a Mansell fan :D:D:D
Last edited by xxChrisxx on Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
xxChrisxx
 
Joined: 18 Sep 2009

Post Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:47 pm

Giblet wrote:I wasn't trying to patronize, that is why I sued the words "Maybe" it's an age thing. You assumed I was patronizing, and that is your problem of perspective, not me ridiculing you. I am sorry you saw it that way.

If I told you that it WAS an age thing, consider yourself patronized.

I am 36, and I got into the sport in 1996, so like I said, the age could make a difference. I was a teenager and you were still not. I was able to take things more seriously when I was 16 than when I was 10. S'truth.

The age statement was a generalization. I was not pointed at anyone I was merely wondering aloud.

Don't take stuff personally here or turds fly


Im 34 but have been watching GP's since 86' (yep, Adelaide Boy) and I still disagree with you!

Frankly, you missed the late 80's and early 90's and are the poorer for it!
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.
djos
 
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:24 am

I personally would not consider AS a true driver aid, like ABS or TC. Since currently the driver cannot adjust things like ride height or wing AofA. They can adjust brake bias or roll stiffness, but those adjustments don't have big effects.
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"
riff_raff
 
Joined: 24 Dec 2004

Post Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:09 pm

For a number of years Formula 1 is focusing on fuel-efficiency and close racing. By some, particularly on this discussion board, technologies including active suspension and active aerodynamics are proposed. Yesterday I came across this topic and read it entirely. Some interesting points are made, by both parties. However, after reading the entire topic I tend to agree active suspension should be re-legalized.

Active aero
Active suspension cannot be separated from active aerodynamics. Active suspension is effectively active aerodynamics or at least closely related. Therefore the question whether active suspension should be re-legalized or not, cannot be isolated.
There is nothing wrong about active aerodynamics. One could argue that with passive aerodynamics teams will always have to look for the best possible compromise between downforce and cornering speeds on one hand and drag and straight line speeds on the other hand, while active aerodynamics would enable teams to get the best of two worlds. This could be true, depending on Formula 1's legal framework. As proposed by other members, I think Formula 1 should start focussing on limiting consumables and performance parameters instead of geometrics. If the amount of downforce is to be limited, there would be no reason not to (re-)legalize active suspension and active aerodynamics.

Cost
Active suspension is thought to be too expensive. I doubt the hardware will be expensive, but developing the software may indeed require quite a number of (financial) resources.
However, Formula 1 has always been a very expensive exercise and I very much doubt regulations banning specific technologies or development work can help teams to reduce costs. Despite regulations such as the banning of mid-season testing, any development work to the engine, standardizing electronics and tyres, semi-standardizing aerodynamics and outlawing any work to the car between qualifying and race, teams still think self-regulation in the form of a tightening RRA is necessary - although some criticism about its enforcement is possible. Those kind of regulations only force teams to convergent and set new priorities.
Something else that deserves mentioning is the value for money stakeholders receive for their presence in the sports. If (potential) stakeholders (could) receive good value for their money, their participation would worth. Active suspension could a great technological, social and commercial asset: it would emphasize Formula 1 high-class engineering and it fits in the Formula 1's ambition for more relevancy, fuel-efficiency and close racing.

Driver aid
Active suspension is argued to be a driver aid. I fail to see it this would be the case: active suspension does not, in contrast with anti-lock braking systems, launch control, traction control and semi-automatic gearboxes, veto any driver input.
However, if it would be a driver aid, would that make this technology necessarily undesirable? I don't think so. Rev-limiters, drive-by-wire, engine maps for off-throttle balancing - currently used for blowing exhaust gases through the diffuser too -, semi-automatic gearboxes and even tyre warmers are undoubtedly driver aids but widely accepted.
Apart from this, it could be argued that the use driver aids is inevitable to a certain extent. When the standardized engine control unit (SECU) was introduced, driver aids like traction control and engine braking - a form of rear wheel anti-lock braking - went out and thus teams had to look for new technologies to control traction and stability. Since then teams have optimized their drive-by-wire, electronic clutch management, active differentials and engine maps for going off-throttle. The net result is not very different from the pre-2008 situation.

Conclusion
Considering all, there is no reason not to re-legalize active suspension. Let engineers show us what they can do!
Pingguest
 
Joined: 28 Dec 2008

Post Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:59 am

I agree with Pingguest. AS is a "designer" or "race engineer" aid, rather than a driver aid. I think if you were to ask drivers, they would reply that AS actually makes a vehicle more difficult to drive.
DaveW
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2009

Post Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:23 pm

Pingguest wrote:Conclusion
Considering all, there is no reason not to re-legalize active suspension. Let engineers show us what they can do!


There's one very fundamental reason, the same reason it was banned, saftey.

It's why they keep having to slow the cars down year after year with more and more restrictive regulations...
PhillipM
 
Joined: 16 May 2011
Location: Over the road from Boothy...

Post Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:37 pm

PhillipM wrote:There's one very fundamental reason, the same reason it was banned, saftey.

It's why they keep having to slow the cars down year after year with more and more restrictive regulations...

Oh, come on... Do u really think safety is a reason? If it was safety isn't it much more easier to reduce wing surface area and tyre width rather than reduce technology that makes F1 so attractive? And if safety is so important to FIA why they ignored aircraft-like bell, even after Senna's death?
numbers don't lie
Sonic59
 
Joined: 7 Sep 2011

Post Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:23 pm

PhillipM wrote:
Pingguest wrote:Conclusion
Considering all, there is no reason not to re-legalize active suspension. Let engineers show us what they can do!


There's one very fundamental reason, the same reason it was banned, saftey.

It's why they keep having to slow the cars down year after year with more and more restrictive regulations...


Arguably it makes them safer. I think it was banned on cost-grounds and politics.
William
 
Joined: 25 Jul 2011

Post Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:43 pm

They were banned on grounds of cost and danger.

Curious how a system that has a single point of failure can be safer than non active suspension. If the hydraulics fail at 200mph it will become a sled.
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute
Giblet
 
Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Location: Downtown Canada

Post Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:28 pm

Giblet wrote:They were banned on grounds of cost and danger.

Curious how a system that has a single point of failure can be safer than non active suspension. If the hydraulics fail at 200mph it will become a sled.


True I thought they were pneumatic actuated my bad. But assuming they wouldn't fail , they'd make the car more stable and henceforth safer was what I had in mind especially if we are going towards a return of under-body aero if they want to increase aero efficiency.
William
 
Joined: 25 Jul 2011

Post Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:48 pm

Giblet wrote:They were banned on grounds of cost and danger.

Curious how a system that has a single point of failure can be safer than non active suspension. If the hydraulics fail at 200mph it will become a sled.


Apologies, Giblet. I don't wish to defend the safety of AS, but I should point out that the two Lotus 99T suffered one active suspension failure during the season. It was a hydraulic leak (failed coupling) at Imola, the system ran out of fluid six laps before the end of the race, but the vehicle managed to finish.

I might just mention, in passing, a sudden sharp right under breaking by Raikkonen at Monza, & a certain spring impact with Massa, both following inerter failures, I believe.
DaveW
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2009

Post Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:06 pm

They could be made to work safely, but in modern terms the AS from that era wouldn't fly today on safety grounds.

I would expect a proper AS system now would have magnetic fluid instead that can controlled at each corner damper, instead of a central hydraulic system. It could be made safe, it just wasn't then.

If the cars natural position was raised, and the AS did the lowering, then a failure would mean the driver could brake and pull off, or finish the race if it was drive-able.

Some things that would be interesting with a rethink would be that we no longer have dampers in the rear, just heave and ARB. AS would mean going to a less tightly packaged rear to provide controllable dampers in the rear corners. This might negate some of the aero gained over recent bulimic purges over the years.

What I didn't like about AS is took away much of the sense of speed for the viewer and driver. The changes of direction looked like nothing, as if it required no thought, just a video game like crisp line.

Some drivers might excel with AS that suffer now with feel. I feel Button would be an insane AS driver, as he knows the line he wants to take, and tries to set up the car to accommodate him.
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute
Giblet
 
Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Location: Downtown Canada

Post Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:10 pm

djos wrote:
Giblet wrote:I wasn't trying to patronize, that is why I sued the words "Maybe" it's an age thing. You assumed I was patronizing, and that is your problem of perspective, not me ridiculing you. I am sorry you saw it that way.

If I told you that it WAS an age thing, consider yourself patronized.

I am 36, and I got into the sport in 1996, so like I said, the age could make a difference. I was a teenager and you were still not. I was able to take things more seriously when I was 16 than when I was 10. S'truth.

The age statement was a generalization. I was not pointed at anyone I was merely wondering aloud.

Don't take stuff personally here or turds fly


Im 34 but have been watching GP's since 86' (yep, Adelaide Boy) and I still disagree with you!

Frankly, you missed the late 80's and early 90's and are the poorer for it!


Replying to an ancient post here, but I meant to type 1986.
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute
Giblet
 
Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Location: Downtown Canada

Post Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:26 am

Giblet wrote:They could be made to work safely, but in modern terms the AS from that era wouldn't fly today on safety grounds.

I would expect a proper AS system now would have magnetic fluid instead that can controlled at each corner damper, instead of a central hydraulic system. It could be made safe, it just wasn't then.

If the cars natural position was raised, and the AS did the lowering, then a failure would mean the driver could brake and pull off, or finish the race if it was drive-able.

Some things that would be interesting with a rethink would be that we no longer have dampers in the rear, just heave and ARB. AS would mean going to a less tightly packaged rear to provide controllable dampers in the rear corners. This might negate some of the aero gained over recent bulimic purges over the years.

What I didn't like about AS is took away much of the sense of speed for the viewer and driver. The changes of direction looked like nothing, as if it required no thought, just a video game like crisp line.

Some drivers might excel with AS that suffer now with feel. I feel Button would be an insane AS driver, as he knows the line he wants to take, and tries to set up the car to accommodate him.



Suspension of today's cars are not so relavent to mass car industry, why not use a standardized system rather than each team flushing millions on it each year. As the ECU was standardized, the suspension as an reliable AS unit also can be standardized.

And Williams get the supply contract :)
WilliamsF1
 
Joined: 6 Jan 2010

PreviousNext

Return to Aerodynamics, chassis and tyres

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], wgknestrick and 4 guests