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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

CmdrVOODOO wrote:
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
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 the other things, it's illegal."
Did this come from Ross Brawn or Charlie Whiting?

Controlling the movement of the unsprung mass is the point of the suspension. Full optimization takes all variables into account.

This directive is like saying you can never have a fully optimized system on the car if it contributes to its aero performance.
Last edited by turbof1 on Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: language please

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Zynerji wrote:
CmdrVOODOO wrote:
bill shoe wrote:Here is latest FIA guidance:

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opini ... d-bull-not
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 the other things, it's illegal."

More horseshit.

Did this come from Ross Brawn or Charlie Whiting?

Controlling the movement of the unsprung mass is the point of the suspension. Full optimization takes all variables into account.

This directive is like saying you can never have a fully optimized system on the car if it contributes to its aero performance.

Idiocy.
I'm surprised to see that in there.
Last edited by CmdrVOODOO on Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LookBackTime
LookBackTime
622
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

What FIA's trick suspension warning means for Formula 1 teams
By Gary Anderson


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... -for-teams

The row over trick suspension in Formula 1 took a new twist on Tuesday when the FIA issued a warning - GARY ANDERSON examines the potentially messy implications

Things have changed a lot since my days designing Formula 1 cars, but the basic principles are still the same: get as much downforce as you can and make sure it is as stable and consistent as possible.

A car with peaky downforce is difficult for a driver to get confidence in and normally it ends up with them being pitched off the road somewhere, but give them consistency and they can get on with exploiting their talents and using the car to the maximum.

To achieve that, the teams have been attempting to control the aerodynamic platform via some very sophisticated suspension systems that stabilise the car's movement through varying suspension loads during braking and accelerating.

Some of these systems have been brought to the FIA's attention, and the thinking is that perhaps they go that little bit too far, leading to the issuing of a technical directive clarifying what the FIA considers acceptable.

The technical directive lists several characteristics or components that are deemed not to be legal. Here is my interpretation of those key points:

Direct response to body accelerations

From my point of view, "direct response to body accelerations" refers to dampers because that's what they do.

However, as the compression resistance force compared to the extension resistance force can be varied, they also control the car's ride height - and by doing that they control the aerodynamic platform.


By slowing down the damper extension rate, the front ride height will be kept lower for longer - which is just what you want as you initially start to apply the throttle.

Direct coupling between the ride height function and the braking system and/or the steering system

With these high-position front wishbones, most teams will attach the front pushrods to the front upright.

Depending on its attachment position, the ride height will change with steering lock, again altering the aerodynamic platform. Every car in the pitlane probably has that.

Added to that, all cars have what is called 'anti-dive' or 'anti-squat' built into their suspension geometry.

This is there to reduce the dive under braking and/or the squat under acceleration, both of which are, in turn, reducing the extremities of the movement of the aerodynamic platform.

Ride height control via self-levelling or some sort of feedback loop

This is, to me, what the FIA is out to stop but I don't think anyone is really going down that route.

If anyone is, it should have been discovered a long time ago and outlawed then.

Such a system would effectively be active, or at least semi-active, suspension that is reacting to a direct command, which has been banned since 1994.

The storing of energy via any means for delayed deployment, or any suspension system that would result in a non-incidental asymmetry (eg hysteresis, time dependency etc) in the response to changes in load applied to the wheels

This is the other thing the FIA is trying to outlaw, and it could be directed at a specific team.

Teams have had hydraulic actuators linked to the suspension, and when the car compresses the suspension in the braking area hydraulic oil is pushed through a valve.

It can get through at a certain rate, but can't get back as quickly unless something else releases and lets it back.

This keeps the front of the car down for longer, reducing understeer by controlling the aerodynamic platform.

Direct coupling between roll and heave units

A normal suspension system with springs/torsion bars, anti-roll bar and central heave are mechanically connected together and this then couples roll and heave. Every team has this in one form or another.

Overall, it's fortunate there are only 10 teams in Formula 1, as every technical director will be queued up outside the FIA technical delegate's office seeking clarification of this.

I doubt very much if any team actually complies with this directive as it's written.

But it is not a black and white ruling, so in the end it will be down to the opinion of individuals.

We all have noses and they are like opinions - all different - so a can of worms has been opened, meaning it is going to get very messy before it is all sorted.

bonjon1979
bonjon1979
39
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:16 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

This could get pretty messy...

dans79
dans79
225
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

bonjon1979 wrote:This could get pretty messy...

All thanks to the imbecile who can't seem to write a clear directive to save his life!

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Zynerji wrote:Controlling the movement of the unsprung mass is the point of the suspension.
This isn't being precluded. They're cracking down on devices that go beyond this function, namely clever heave elements. They might have to ban them outright to be consistent with their own wording, because heave elements exist primarily to react to aerodynamic forces rather than vehicle mass, and thus the "system is altered" based on an aerodynamc input i.e. downforce pushing on the vehicle actives the 3rd element.

I think they want to instill use of relatively simple dampers with only compression & rebound settings. Without saying as much. Perhaps this is a long game towards ending the long-standing aero-era, by mandating pre-aero-era suspension design.

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

bonjon1979 wrote:This could get pretty messy...

Mercedes feel like they were well within the regulations with their system but....

"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."

....that's the very essence of how any of these systems work.

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

roon wrote:
Zynerji wrote:Controlling the movement of the unsprung mass is the point of the suspension.
This isn't being precluded. They're cracking down on devices that go beyond this function, namely clever heave elements. They might have to ban them outright to be consistent with their own wording, because heave elements exist primarily to react to aerodynamic forces rather than vehicle mass, and thus the "system is altered" based on an aerodynamc input i.e. downforce pushing on the vehicle actives the 3rd element.

I think they want to instill use of relatively simple dampers with only compression & rebound settings. Without saying as much. Perhaps this is a long game towards ending the long-standing aero-era, by mandating pre-aero-era suspension design.

What did they expect?

If you double the down force through the rules, the teams will need to find ways to handle it.

I would say that there is a point that it is SAFER for the cars to be consistent at these speeds and these systems are necessary.

I hope someone doesn't pay for this lunacy with their life.

dans79
dans79
225
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Zynerji wrote: I hope someone doesn't pay for this lunacy with their life.

Though it's poorly worded in the technical directive, you completely missed the point.

They have no problem with the suspension responding to aero, acceleration, brake, & turning forces. Every suspension system in history does that, because it just reacts to a force, it doesn't know what generated the force.

what they don't want it is responding in a way that is intentionally designed to yield an aerodynamic advantage.

PhillipM
PhillipM
358
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 2:18 pm
Location: Over the road from Boothy...

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

CmdrVOODOO wrote:
bonjon1979 wrote:This could get pretty messy...

Mercedes feel like they were well within the regulations with their system but....

"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."

....that's the very essence of how any of these systems work.
Yeah, very badly worded, there's energy stored within every suspension component, regardless of intent.

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

dans79 wrote: what they don't want it is responding in a way that is intentionally designed to yield an aerodynamic advantage.
If the aerodynamic advantage is what?

Are the teams compromising their cars by using their suspension to yield an aero advantage?

Is the car a complete system?

Does this make the cars less safe if taken off now that the entire vehicle is tuned around it?

mrluke
mrluke
124
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:31 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Why change the rules to make the cars faster but at the same time tie yourself in knots trying to slow them down.

dans79
dans79
225
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Zynerji wrote:
dans79 wrote: what they don't want it is responding in a way that is intentionally designed to yield an aerodynamic advantage.
If the aerodynamic advantage is what?

Are the teams compromising their cars by using their suspension to yield an aero advantage?

Is the car a complete system?

Does this make the cars less safe if taken off now that the entire vehicle is tuned around it?

Examples:
1. if under breaking the nose dives and doesn't immediately start to rise as the deceleration subsides, that's not legal as it could yield an aero advantage. Namely a stronger ground effect on the front wing that generates more down-force and thus the ability to take turns faster.
2. a suspension that collapses. If a suspension has 10 cm of travel and it takes 500kg to compress it 5cm, they don't want to see the last 5 only take 100kg. This could be used to stall the diffuser on the straits and reduce drag, and increase top speed.

I don't know if any team is compromising safety, but they definitely could. Example 2 is something that could be triggered by a wind just if the margins are to small. think of going through parabolica, and a wind gust collapses the suspension and you loose all the down force from the floor (not good).

It shouldn't make them less safe, it would just make them slower.

dans79
dans79
225
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

mrluke wrote:Why change the rules to make the cars faster but at the same time tie yourself in knots trying to slow them down.
It's not about slowing them down, its about following the rules.

mrluke
mrluke
124
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:31 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

dans79 wrote:
mrluke wrote:Why change the rules to make the cars faster but at the same time tie yourself in knots trying to slow them down.
It's not about slowing them down, its about following the rules.
Except it isn't is it.

The whole car is a move able aerodynamic device, suspension design has been compromised to maximise aero benefit for a very long time.