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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

bill shoe wrote:This goes a bit off-topic, but why did the 1987 Lotus 99T car get its butt kicked by the 1987 Williams? ... Any other insights into what exactly made the 99T weak? It only won on the two street circuits (Monaco and Detroit).
I really don't know, but there were clues:

The active system was designed by Lotus Engineering/Cranfield and installed in the vehicle by Team Lotus, who were responsible for the geometry. For the first three tests the car had a mind of its own - until we discovered that the front geometry was massively non-linear, and the set-up procedure meant that the front suspension motion ratio was set more or less randomly between 1.2 & 2.0. Then things settled down, but we still struggled to find a set-up that Senna liked.

In the end we gave him a lateral balance control under his right foot (understeer proportional to longitudinal acceleration). It kind of worked. It was the only change made that I didn't first validate (I normally ran a road car with the F1 code installed) - inevitably, I got the sign wrong and gave him massive oversteer. Curiously, he stayed out for several laps and arrived back with a smile and an intact car...so much for car control...

On one occasion, the Team arrived with a new rear wing that generated "19% more downforce". In the event, downforce changed by less that 2%, but longitudinal acceleration was affected, & Senna claimed that he couldn't get the car to turn-in.

Once settled the car ran reasonably competitively, winning the two events where a "proper" car wouldn't be expected to work. However, he should also have won at Monza (a low down-force circuit) but fell off when in the lead overtaking a lapped vehicle. He finished second (he said later that the active system threw him off, but then allowed him to recover). There was nothing obvious in the data. He did reasonably well at Imola (with two massive chicanes which he did like & one high speed corner he didn't) - a first or a close second was in prospect until a leak caused him run with no hydraulic fluid for 5-6 laps - but he did finish...

Later, in Mexico, a cold start after a red flag suggested that we were not working the tyres hard enough, perhaps caused by us or tyre developments.

You might conclude that we didn't know what we doing (true), that dividing responsibility was not the best idea (also true), that we started well, but finished poorly (clearly), and our collective understanding of aerodynamics was rather primitive (definitively).


I can't talk about the 1988 car. It ran with Team's active system.
Last edited by DaveW on Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jolle
Jolle
186
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Sevach wrote:
Jolle wrote:
FW17 wrote:
Are any of the systems comparable to the F1 systems? Aren't most adaptive?
No. Most road systems are partly (hybrid) active compared to the hay days of F1 active suspension. A FB14B had no springs or coils. They actively pulled and pushed the wheels up and down. No pressure in the system was all four wheels up in the air! On a road car it's used to cope with different kinds of bad roads without loosing the sporty stiff setup. They are systems to loosen or tighten up the springs and dampers. The suspension itself (mostly) still comes from the springs (air or steel).
I think the Mclarens are true active, Porsche has active anti roll bars combined with normal springs and dampers.
McLaren still uses a hybrid setup, the system still got springs (just google and you'll see them very clearly)

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Guys, I will put a sticky on this topic (yes, that sounds wrong). I have a feeling we are going to see a lot of controversy around this.
#AeroFrodo


lio007
lio007
312
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Austria

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Christian Horner on RBR's Suspension System:
Meanwhile, Horner believes Red Bull's suspension system is within the regulations after the outfit consulted the FIA.
There has been debate among teams readapting the legality of clever hydraulic suspension systems in F1 since Ferrari sought clarification of the rules late last year, with race director Charlie Whiting expected to issue a technical directive.
"The FIA appear to be happy with the way we have interpreted the rules," said Horner.
"If anybody has a problem with that, they have the right to protest.
"We can only go on the advice we receive from the governing body.
"Certainly all the feedback we've had has been - [there is] no issue."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... n-loophole

Enstone
Enstone
31
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:20 pm
Location: Malaga/Paris

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Did we know wich are the other teams who use this kind of suspensions ? Mercedes, maybe Ferrari, McLaren and FI this year ?
Go Ricci !

makecry
makecry
39
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Enstone wrote:
Did we know wich are the other teams who use this kind of suspensions ? Mercedes, maybe Ferrari, McLaren and FI this year ?
I think it's Mercedes, Redbull, Mclaren( they did say something on the lines of "we have a system which we think is legal" a few days back ) and FI. We have no idea about Ferrari yet.

bill shoe
bill shoe
252
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:18 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

From Autosport article on shark-fins (suspension content at end of it)--
There has been debate among teams readapting the legality of clever hydraulic suspension systems in F1 since Ferrari sought clarification of the rules late last year, with race director Charlie Whiting expected to issue a technical directive.
Yea, I thought we were promised yet another clarifying Technical Directive from Mr. Whiting et al. at the beginning of testing.

roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Comparison: Merc & TR.

Image

Image

Image

Image

roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Image
Image

f1rules
f1rules
334
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:34 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post


Zynerji
Zynerji
78
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Now they have to "explain" their suspension designs?

This is total horseshit.

I would show up to the track and compete with the designs that were cleared. When they protest, I would immediately push the EU investigation on fair practices in F1 to bring the entire series to a grinding halt.

There is WAY too much money invested in green lit tech for it to be changed later.

This pisses me off enough to skip 2017!

bill shoe
bill shoe
252
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:18 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Here is latest FIA guidance:
The directive addresses five classifications:

1) Any system that changes its behaviour in response to accelerations of the car in any direction (including vertical and lateral) would not be considered permissible.

2) There can be no direct coupling between the ride height function of the suspension and the braking or steering of the car.

3) There can be no ride height control as opposed to ride height reaction.

4) Storing of energy by any means for later deployment would not be permitted. There is energy store in any damper, spring or a tyre but to store that (as a hydraulically-controlled damper could be made to do) would not be allowed.

5) There cannot be any direct coupling between the heave (vertical force) and roll elements of the suspension.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opini ... d-bull-not

roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

#1 would rule out inertia valves. How to enforce #4? Perhaps a limit to the fluid or gas volume per damper. Or dimensional regulation which would limit reservoir size & distance from the plunger.

User avatar
CmdrVOODOO
5
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:35 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

bill shoe wrote:Here is latest FIA guidance:
The directive addresses five classifications:

1) Any system that changes its behaviour in response to accelerations of the car in any direction (including vertical and lateral) would not be considered permissible.

2) There can be no direct coupling between the ride height function of the suspension and the braking or steering of the car.

3) There can be no ride height control as opposed to ride height reaction.

4) Storing of energy by any means for later deployment would not be permitted. There is energy store in any damper, spring or a tyre but to store that (as a hydraulically-controlled damper could be made to do) would not be allowed.

5) There cannot be any direct coupling between the heave (vertical force) and roll elements of the suspension.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opini ... d-bull-not
I'm sure the FIA believe the catchall is #4.

Basically #4 is "it doesn't matter why you're doing it, if the very type of system that exists on your car that could allow you do any of the other things, it's illegal."
Last edited by CmdrVOODOO on Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.