Honda RA106

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter does not belong here.
Guest
Guest
0

Post

I don't undertand why they have the trackrod there either? Last year they did say they were designing radical suspension, maybe this results from something they are trying to achieve?

Mr T

Guest
Guest
0

Post

Anonymous wrote:I don't undertand why they have the trackrod there either? Last year they did say they were designing radical suspension, maybe this results from something they are trying to achieve?

Mr T
It lowers the CofG. So you get the aero benefits of the higher wishbones but less of a penalty for weight higher-up.

User avatar
Spencifer_Murphy
0
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: London, England, UK

Post

I'm not sure the improvement of the CofG is really going to be more than the defecit of the aero caused by the Track-rod being located seperately. I'm quite undecided about the track-rod issue, maybe it is there to help clean/smooth the airflow coming off of the front wing?

Other than that the car looks sound. It may have large sidepods, and an aero penalty as a result, but by finishing races they stand a better chance of scring pionts than Red Bull, who have chosen aero over engine cooling.

Although, I think the car is quite neat at the front (apart from the track-rod issue), but fom the cockpit back the car gets very messey. Too many flicks etc which look like they've been bolted on to re-capture lost downforce due to poor design. I said the same about the Ferrari F2005 and it turned out to have all the aerodynamic properties of a block of flats!

I really do belive that, as a rule of thumb, messy car means poor aero, obviously there are exceptions, and I hope this car is one, as I like both Rubens & Jense!
Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.

DiESEL[P]
DiESEL[P]
0

Post

It's got one large flipup, 1 small mini flipup/wing and a chimney, too many? wtf? All cars are like that now... The livery doesn't help because it's got very defined colours so it's hard to pic out parts. Looks fine if you ask me, the front looks a lil odd, but then so did the McLaren at first, and that's grown on me....

That track rod is just behind the front wing, just underneath it actually, it looks almost like the air would just miss it, I don't think it's going to have a huge aero impact, the car has set some decent times today.

DiESEL[P]
DiESEL[P]
0

Post

are we 100% sure thats a track rod? there was a similar lil' bar like that on the 04 car :wink:

User avatar
Spencifer_Murphy
0
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: London, England, UK

Post

It's got one large flipup, 1 small mini flipup/wing and a chimney, too many? wtf? All cars are like that now...
It's got one large flipup, 1 small flipup, it has a sidepod mounted winglet, it has the airbox wing, and it has the little wings/flicks infront of the sidepods (whoch are now even larger than last year). I'm not just talking about how many aero-devices are on the car, but also their integration on the car as a whole, the Renault R26 has a similar number of aero-parts, but they seem to "blend" better, the Honda just looks messy.

Don't get me wrong, I think it looks much better than the BAR 007 from last year, but still not "up-to-scratch". Put it this way:

Last year Ferrari's F2005 & BAR's 007 were aerodynamic disasters, relative to what the team was expecting, they were a let down. This year I expect the F248 & the RA106 to be much better than their predecessors, but I expect the F248 to be a greater improvement over its predecessor than the RA106 over its predecessor
Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.

DiESEL[P]
DiESEL[P]
0

Post

If you ask me it looks perfectly fine, the only thing that looks out of place is those wings infront of the pods.

And anyway, it probably won't race exactly as it is now, the team is likely to develope more parts for the car before Bahrain and there are probably loads of different aero configurations ready for different types of circuit...

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
54
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:02 am

Post

We need to ask the question as to why they decided to have the rod mid point of the suspension, instead of in line with a suspension arm. Obviously, it's aerodynamically advantageous to eliminate one strut hanging out in the air. So Honda decided that they had an issue that forced some sacrifice of positive aero advantages. Lowering the rod does lower the center of gravity, especially the steering gear inside the chassis. As well, structurally, having a rod push or pull from the middlle balances the loads, and you have better chances of avoiding unwanted flex. Maybe they had problems with bump steer or something, and discovered the uprights were being fed assymetric loads, which caused unwanted flex.
The front end is interesting though. It seems to qualify as a no keel design, although where the lower arms attach appears quite messy and almost an afterthought. This also illustrates how difficult it is to get an optimum compromise between the needs of suspension geometry and aerodynamic benefits. To me, it appears that the lower arm is as high as the suspension engineers were willing to go, and that the nose was as low as the aeroodynamicists would allow. So they settled at their design points, and just built in a fairing to attach the lower arms. I don't see any other reason.

Guest
Guest
0

Post

Don't know if you'd call those knife edges under the pod plates a shadow plate, as they appear larger than the square area necessary to meet the letter of the law, and they began sprouting out earlier than the advent of pod plates in general--in this respect it does lend a certain multi plane symmetry. With the rear wing brought further forward it should help to condition the flow off the turbulent wheels, so they may be onto something. We'll soon know if they begin sprouting out around the paddock like chinmeys, winglets and such.

User avatar
kkobayash
0
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:52 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post

Found this: (at http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s169/st89345.htm)

The first track test of a V8 was conducted last April at Mugello, to confirm the various characteristics of a V8 and its interaction with the chassis. Intensive dyno work on further prototypes followed, first in Japan and, since October, in the UK. The team also ran the engine in its Concept car at three tests before the end of 2005.

During the course of development, Honda has been able to draw on its experiences in developing engines for racing in North America. The 10,300 rev limit on engines in the IRL meant that it was work in the 1990's on CART engines (which have no such restrictions) that gave the more useful pointers. In particular, at a certain rev range, resonance frequencies can cause problems with vibrations in a V8, and Honda's CART experience helped it get over this particular hurdle.



I dunno, car looks abit messy compared to other new cars but who knows, maybe there onto something. Plus don't underestimate the Honda engine...

Anyways, from initial tests, car seems to be both quick and reliable.
Hope this cars fast this season!!!

manchild
manchild
22
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:54 am

Post

Another brick in the wall... :-k

Looks like their aero team was devided in 4 groups, working on different continents without mutual communication.

Guest
Guest
0

Post

Maybe they are doing something clever with ackerman, they couldn;t achieve with the usual rack position?!

Mr T

DiESEL[P]
DiESEL[P]
0

Post

can someone post a close up pic of that lower wishbone mounting your all moaning about...?

Guest
Guest
0

Post

DiESEL[P] wrote:can someone post a close up pic of that lower wishbone mounting your all moaning about...?
This is the closest I have seen so far.

Image

ginsu
ginsu
0
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:23 am

Post

Obviously, it's aerodynamically advantageous to eliminate one strut hanging out in the air. So Honda decided that they had an issue that forced some sacrifice of positive aero advantages. Lowering the rod does lower the center of gravity, especially the steering gear inside the chassis. As well, structurally, having a rod push or pull from the middlle balances the loads, and you have better chances of avoiding unwanted flex. Maybe they had problems with bump steer or something, and discovered the uprights were being fed assymetric loads, which caused unwanted flex.
Yes, it seems like the aero penalties would be pretty severe, but it is tucked behind the front wing, so it's in somewhat dirty air.

I was looking on McLaren's site and found this on trackrods:
The component is manufactured from carbon fibre for extra stiffness and strength. To appreciate why, you need look no further than the slow-motion replays of the cars’ wheels banging over the kerbs in a grand prix.

“If you look at a telemetry trace of the loadings on a track rod, you can clearly see the peak loads as it hits the kerb,” reveals Robinson. “It has a very severe fatigue cycle because the loadings switch from compression to tension very quickly.”
It is obviously ideal to have it mounted in the center, but it could also help
relieve some bump steer by being so low.

Didn't Jense have a problem with some of the kerbs last year? In Canada he crashed out because he hit the previous two kerbs so hard. What did they call that 'The Wall of Champions' or something? Because Alonso hit it
the previous year, I think.

Maybe Honda's just trying to make the part bulletproof. They have a
tendency to do that.
I love to love Senna.