Adrian Newey: "The only reason to do it like this (pull rod front suspension) is to make it differently."
bhallg2k wrote:I'm actually a little surprised he would say something like that. He, of all people, should know that things aren't always as they seem.
Aside from the fringe aerodynamic and CoG benefits, I think there's a very real possibility that the choice of a pullrod front suspension was made to utilize the change in geometry, however subtle it might be, in an attempt to quicken the warm-up of the tires, something Ferrari hasn't been able to do for what seems like ages.
It's really the control arm and tie rod layout that determines the kinematics of the wheel movement. Whether it is pull rod or push rod doesn't change the wheel movement.bhallg2k wrote:I'm actually a little surprised he would say something like that. He, of all people, should know that things aren't always as they seem.
Aside from the fringe aerodynamic and CoG benefits, I think there's a very real possibility that the choice of a pullrod front suspension was made to utilize the change in geometry, however subtle it might be, in an attempt to quicken the warm-up of the tires, something Ferrari hasn't been able to do for what seems like ages.
This was either posted earlier in this thread, or somewhere in the "pullrod vs. pushrod" thread:PaulB wrote:It seem to me that such a suspension is much more difficult to set up because of the very low movement. The angle of the pull rod is so low, that the geometrical movements musst be very low compared to a conventional push rod at the front.
Crucial_Xtreme wrote:I don't believe so, they've been visible all pre-season. I think it's just the lack of light.n_anirudh wrote:
Are they trying to hide the wheel nut design??
Here's the launch wheel nutsF1.Ru wrote:Crucial_Xtreme wrote:I don't believe so, they've been visible all pre-season. I think it's just the lack of light.n_anirudh wrote:
Are they trying to hide the wheel nut design??
Crucial its not about lack of light. i just changed the exposure level of light and the wheel nut really seems different and changed. Like they r trying something new.........
I did a geometrical analysis. what I found is that:bettonracing wrote:This was either posted earlier in this thread, or somewhere in the "pullrod vs. pushrod" thread:PaulB wrote:It seem to me that such a suspension is much more difficult to set up because of the very low movement. The angle of the pull rod is so low, that the geometrical movements musst be very low compared to a conventional push rod at the front.
http://www.vivaf1.com/blog/?p=10280
Whether or not they're back to the same motion ratio of last year's pushrod is debatable w/o the actualy geometry, but it's clear that they're at least approaching the same motion ratios.
Regards,
Kurt
Also, the primary benefit of pull rod at the rear is nothing to do with mechanical grip โย it's aerodynamics โ it provides cleaner flow to the beam wing.Diesel wrote:Wrong. He is a technical engineer, and he currently holds the chief technical officer position at Red Bull. He's worked as a designer, aerodynamicist, race engineer and technical director in various racing disciplines. Adrian Newey is 1000x more qualified than you to make observations about a pull-rod front suspension.Moanlower wrote:And as far as I know Newey is an aerodynamicist and not a technical engineer.
Your correct, beel as well as digging in the mud a bit a comment earlier your right the Fry/Byrne floor showed its face at Barca hopecully there are a few more shiny wafer thin floorsbeelsebob wrote: Also, the primary benefit of pull rod at the rear is nothing to do with mechanical grip โย it's aerodynamics โ it provides cleaner flow to the beam wing.