Raikkonen performance on R30

[bosanac1]

seems someone got pretty good photo from todays test

very interesting

[ringo]

front ride height is in reference to what?
The splitter or the front wing?

32 at front 60 at rear.

[thisisatest]

the thing that stands out to me about the setup pic is that they use no heave spring, only outer springs and anti-roll bars. so it is sprung stiffer in roll than in heave, not what i would expect from an f1 car.
on top of that, there are center dampers and roll dampers, without individual "outer" dampers. which is fine, you should be able to do whatever combination of damping you want with those two, but it sure seems unusual.

[raymondu999]

front ride height is in reference to what?
The splitter or the front wing?

32 at front 60 at rear.

I would suspect the ride heights would be in terms of the axles; as you would be adjusting the suspension to adjust the ride height; no? Otherwise if you changed the rear suspension to crank up the rake; you'd have to change the figure on the front. It would be simpler to record the heights at the axles for future reference.

[mx_tifoso]

Is the front axle 3.2cm off the ground? Or is the rear axle 6cm up?

[raymondu999]

Both. I'm intrigued though. What benefit would you get from having rear toe in; and toe in at the rear with toe out at the front?

[xpensive]

I believe that to be 32 and 80 respectively actually, some rake that.

Fascinating shot anyway, does anyone know for certain what "PPS" is in reference to, obviously something hydraulic,
might it have something to do with reactive ride height? If so, the area 4.960 mm^2 and 6 cc volume is most interesting,
when that translates to a 25 mm diameter with a 12 mm displacement, pretty close to the numbers myself and an inactive member has been toying around with.

[raymondu999]

I believe that to be 32 and 80 respectively actually, some rake that.

Actually if you zoomed in it's actually 60... it just looks 80 when viewed from an unzoomed state

[mx_tifoso]

I meant that if the axle is only that high up? As in might it actually be the floor, splitter/fw?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_%28automotive%29

[raymondu999]

I think it might be the floor; measured at the point below the suspension? Something like that? Not sure though.

[piast9]

I think that if these number were zero then the car would sit flat with the plank on the ground. Then they rose the front by 32 and rear by 80 mm.

BTW, in my opinion it is 80 not 60. Compare that first digit with another '8' and '6' in the picture. The '6' has smaller bottom loop than that first digit in rear ride height.

[shelly]

I think the reference for ride heights is the reference plane. Could be the plank also

[raymondu999]

Shelly - would it not be easier to use your suspension as a reference? I mean after all that's what you would usually do to change the ride height setup; no? You'd need to do some trigonometric crunching before you could get the correct springs etc

[shelly]

I think taking the plane is easier; I do not know how it works in detail, but I think the kinematics can be calculated once and for all in a lookup table if thy are needed

[ringo]

Shelly - would it not be easier to use your suspension as a reference? I mean after all that's what you would usually do to change the ride height setup; no? You'd need to do some trigonometric crunching before you could get the correct springs etc

32mm is too short for it to be referenced really. And the pick up points dont change relative to ride height. Just the body.
So we can assume that it is either they are using the homologated center wing section at the front, or the front of the splitter and something else in the rear possibly the edge of the plank.

Well at least this debunks the whole myth of most teams not using corner springs.
Though i could be wrong at taking that judgement since setup depends on a lot of things.