2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

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.
Greg Locock
146
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Greg Locock » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:23 am

The upshot is that a typical damper causes the car to suck down on rough surfaces. Serious offroaders might consider more symmetrical shock settings. LandRover are well aware of this.

roon
124
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by roon » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:49 am

So in an F1 context, excess or specifically tuned rebound resistance in the heave damper could enable the heave unit to ratchet down upon itself. Hypothetically, as speed increases and downforce achieves a certain level, this ratcheting function would begin to engage, exaggerating & maintaining a drop in rear ride height—until the rear end is unloaded via weight shift under braking and/or the car slows down enough to reduce rear downforce.

If such a phenomenon is happening I should think it would be set to only engage at levels of heave-unit-displacement found at speeds higher than the highest cornering speed for a given track. To prevent the car ratcheting down amid a high speed aero loaded corner.

Blackout
497
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:12 am

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Blackout » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:36 am

lio007 wrote:
RedNEO wrote:
lio007 wrote:Ok, that's interesting:

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/819130168543428610
Edit: Ok it seems to me like if they were affected they would say the opposite anyway despite a couple of teams already knowing the full story.
https://twitter.com/bgarloff/status/819216863368454144
Red Bull and Mercedes do not store the energy of the movement, but only forward it from one side to the other
:?:
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/formel-1 ... 29821.html

Giando
29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:56 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Giando » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:01 am

I do apologize in advance if my question may result stupid.

Any chance that these suspension systems could be mechanically connected to the steering wheel and therefore driven by steering degrees?

Gerhardsa
7
User avatar
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 1:35 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Gerhardsa » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:35 am

Zynerji wrote:
godlameroso wrote:I guess then that means suspension can be as complex as you like as long as it's not externally powered to adjust ride height. In other words active suspension isn't prohibited as long as it functions by purely passive and mechanical means.

...and the whole time, I thought this was obvious.
I don't know hey...

Why did they ban the flexi front wings from a couple of years back then?

They acted like "active" aero pieces, but were activated passively, yet they got banned. Shouldn't the same apply in this case all be it to "active" suspension?

zac510
29
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:58 am

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by zac510 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:05 pm

Gerhardsa wrote: I don't know hey...

Why did they ban the flexi front wings from a couple of years back then?

They acted like "active" aero pieces, but were activated passively, yet they got banned. Shouldn't the same apply in this case all be it to "active" suspension?
They didn't ban them. They just changed the scrutineering test in a way that makes flexible wings less likely to pass.
You might think "well that's banning them" but it's not actually and the distinction is important when working out what's legal and what's not.
Saying they're banned is a lazy, poor use of English, mostly perpetuated by the F1 media.

roon
124
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by roon » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:41 pm

Yep. They were load testing the wings before the flexing wings controversy of 2011(?), afaik. Bodywork deflection rules have been in the regs since at least 2009, and likely prior.

Big Mangalhit
23
User avatar
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 2:39 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Big Mangalhit » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:13 pm

if i recall correctly they discovered a special layering in the carbon fibre of the RB car of 2013 that was made in a special way that the wing would bend under horizontal load and thus would pass the vertical loading tests. That was considered cheating by the governing agencies because it was against the intention of the rules that there should be no moveable aero. So in regards to that, this passive system could still be considered agains the intention of the rule that bans moveable aero.

Shooty81
16
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Shooty81 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:28 pm

Big Mangalhit wrote:if i recall correctly they discovered a special layering in the carbon fibre of the RB car of 2013 that was made in a special way that the wing would bend under horizontal load and thus would pass the vertical loading tests. That was considered cheating by the governing agencies because it was against the intention of the rules that there should be no moveable aero. So in regards to that, this passive system could still be considered agains the intention of the rule that bans moveable aero.

No. They had a preload spring assembly inside the wing which was illegal. It was only beginning to become flwxible when a certain load threshold was reached.

Zynerji
10
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Zynerji » Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:55 am

Gerhardsa wrote:
Zynerji wrote:
godlameroso wrote:I guess then that means suspension can be as complex as you like as long as it's not externally powered to adjust ride height. In other words active suspension isn't prohibited as long as it functions by purely passive and mechanical means.

...and the whole time, I thought this was obvious.
I don't know hey...

Why did they ban the flexi front wings from a couple of years back then?

They acted like "active" aero pieces, but were activated passively, yet they got banned. Shouldn't the same apply in this case all be it to "active" suspension?
Are you equating flexible aero surfaces with energy storing suspension?

That's a reach.

Gerhardsa
7
User avatar
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 1:35 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Gerhardsa » Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:14 am

Zynerji wrote:
Gerhardsa wrote:
Zynerji wrote:

...and the whole time, I thought this was obvious.
I don't know hey...

Why did they ban the flexi front wings from a couple of years back then?

They acted like "active" aero pieces, but were activated passively, yet they got banned. Shouldn't the same apply in this case all be it to "active" suspension?
Are you equating flexible aero surfaces with energy storing suspension?

That's a reach.
Its a reach saying that I am referring to that cause you didn't read properly.
I think its pretty obvious that I was talking about "active" suspension and "active" aero, whether it is activated passively or via direct intervention, its still active, because lets face it.. that was/is the intention of the "device".

anyhow...
Great innovation? Sure.
Great rulebook interpretation? Sure.
Is it outside the intention of the rule? Apparently, yes.

They got rid of the flexi front wings, mass dampers (back in the day), FRIC etc, so the same should apply here.

Will make the field closer in any case, which is what we all want right? No? :?

Zynerji
10
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Zynerji » Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:01 am


Its a reach saying that I am referring to that cause you didn't read properly.
I think its pretty obvious that I was talking about "active" suspension and "active" aero, whether it is activated passively or via direct intervention, its still active, because lets face it.. that was/is the intention of the "device".

anyhow...
Great innovation? Sure.
Great rulebook interpretation? Sure.
Is it outside the intention of the rule? Apparently, yes.

They got rid of the flexi front wings, mass dampers (back in the day), FRIC etc, so the same should apply here.

Will make the field closer in any case, which is what we all want right? No? :?
It's not active if self contained, it's reactive, and perfectly legal.

Read the rule. It's not difficult to see how wide open it is.

You can't use "intention" to disqualify a design that is clearly not breaking any technical rule.

Greg Locock
146
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Greg Locock » Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:37 am

Giando wrote:Any chance that these suspension systems could be mechanically connected to the steering wheel and therefore driven by steering degrees?
Yes. Of course you could argue that turning the steering wheel already modifies the relative steer of the front wheels, and the camber and the castor and maybe even jacks the car up or tilts it side to side. If you are allowed more finesse you can also adjust the scrub radius (why would you bother) and other things by using a double ball joint lower arm.

So to some extent you can already do that, but not by much and not without upsetting other things.

You can imagine on a narrow tire trying to pull the top ofthe outside tire inwards as the wheel turns, wasn't that the MX1 camber car?

DaveW
242
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:27 am

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by DaveW » Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:58 pm

Zynerji wrote: It's not active if self contained, it's reactive, and perfectly legal.
Interesting. What, exactly, does "self-contained" mean?

Pierce89
93
User avatar
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Pierce89 » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:50 pm

Shooty81 wrote:
Big Mangalhit wrote:if i recall correctly they discovered a special layering in the carbon fibre of the RB car of 2013 that was made in a special way that the wing would bend under horizontal load and thus would pass the vertical loading tests. That was considered cheating by the governing agencies because it was against the intention of the rules that there should be no moveable aero. So in regards to that, this passive system could still be considered agains the intention of the rule that bans moveable aero.

No. They had a preload spring assembly inside the wing which was illegal. It was only beginning to become flwxible when a certain load threshold was reached.
Source please? The closest I remember to what you're saying was a flexible wing adjustment bracket.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher