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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

mrluke wrote:
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.
It isn't black and white like many want it to be. Just like with FRIC, Charlie think they (whoever they are) have gone, or are going to go, to far hence the directive.

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

dans79 wrote:
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.
1. The rebound settings of the 3rd spring have done this since their inception.

2. Rising (or falling) rate springs have done this since their inception.

It is simply moving from mechanical to hydraulic. Not computers.

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Zynerji wrote: 1. The rebound settings of the 3rd spring have done this since their inception.
Springs respond immediately, if you are using hydraulics to delay the response some period of time that's an issue. Note i said the response, not the rate of response.
Zynerji wrote: 2. Rising (or falling) rate springs have done this since their inception.
coil springs either have a linear constant, or an increasing constant. belleville washers can have a constant that falls of beyond a certain point, but the fia is going to take issue if you are specifically using the fall off to gain an aero advantage.

ForMuLaOne
ForMuLaOne
6
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:01 am

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

SUCH A PITY!

To me this is one of the most interesting fields in F1 since teams are building sophisticated systems without cpu´s and software running them. It is all about valves, pressure, micro-flow rates, interconnections e.g.. So to me it seems that F1 engineers are on the edge of having created analog computers which carry their algorithms in their materials and the way they are utilized. This is why FIA is struggling in drawing clear lines, to define clear boundaries. The systems used by teams just include their essential premises in a perfect way. They are evolutions of their very essence which means if you forbid what they do, you forbid suspensions at all. It needs smarter brains at the FIA to find a viable directive.

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

dans79 wrote:
Zynerji wrote: 1. The rebound settings of the 3rd spring have done this since their inception.
Springs respond immediately, if you are using hydraulics to delay the response some period of time that's an issue. Note i said the response, not the rate of response.
Zynerji wrote: 2. Rising (or falling) rate springs have done this since their inception.
coil springs either have a linear constant, or an increasing constant. belleville washers can have a constant that falls of beyond a certain point, but the fia is going to take issue if you are specifically using the fall off to gain an aero advantage.
The rebound setting controls the speed of the return from compression, regardless of spring. I was doing that myself in rFactor in a 2008.

The suspension, as long as no energy is added to the system, is passive, and good under the rules, no matter what the intent of the settings.

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Zynerji wrote: The rebound setting controls the speed of the return from compression, regardless of spring. I was doing that myself in rFactor in a 2008.
I'm not talking about the rate or response, I'm talking about the initiation of the response.

take a coil spring, if you apply a force it compresses, if you remove or reduce the force it extend immediately (for all intensive purposes). If you add a damper to the system, you can change the rate it compresses and extends, but it still reacts to the change in forces immediately. both these examples are legal.


Given the right mechanical/hydraulic setup, you can delay the response, or limit it so substantially, that it is essentially delayed.

Example:
Under breaking the suspension compresses 20mm, but after the driver lets off the breaks, it takes half a second for the suspension to start to un-compress. (Not legal)

Zynerji wrote: The suspension, as long as no energy is added to the system, is passive, and good under the rules, no matter what the intent of the settings.
No, you are wrong as far as the FIA is concerned, as they will say it violates rule 3.15. The FIA will use the word Intent to incriminate you.

rule: 3.15
With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car
system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the
aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

dans79 wrote:
Zynerji wrote: The rebound setting controls the speed of the return from compression, regardless of spring. I was doing that myself in rFactor in a 2008.
I'm not talking about the rate or response, I'm talking about the initiation of the response.

take a coil spring, if you apply a force it compresses, if you remove or reduce the force it extend immediately (for all intensive purposes). If you add a damper to the system, you can change the rate it compresses and extends, but it still reacts to the change in forces immediately. both these examples are legal.


Given the right mechanical/hydraulic setup, you can delay the response, or limit it so substantially, that it is essentially delayed.

Example:
Under breaking the suspension compresses 20mm, but after the driver lets off the breaks, it takes half a second for the suspension to start to un-compress. (Not legal)

Zynerji wrote: The suspension, as long as no energy is added to the system, is passive, and good under the rules, no matter what the intent of the settings.
No, you are wrong as far as the FIA is concerned, as they will say it violates rule 3.15. The FIA will use the word Intent to incriminate you.

rule: 3.15
With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car
system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the
aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.
For your example, please provide the article that prescribes the response rate of the suspension to be greater than zero.

Also, interpreting 3.15 in your manner would effectively outlaw the brake pedal and the steering wheel.

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Zynerji wrote: Also, interpreting 3.15 in your manner would effectively outlaw the brake pedal and the steering wheel.
No, it outlaws using them as a way of triggering a system that gives an aerodynamic advantage. Like I said, intent is what matters.

read this, as it is what started this entire ordeal.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... ension-row
"2) a means by which some of the energy recovered from the forces and displacements at the wheel can be stored for release at a later time to extend a spring seat or other parts of the suspension assembly whose movement is not defined by the principally vertical suspension travel of the two wheels."

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

dans79 wrote:
Zynerji wrote: Also, interpreting 3.15 in your manner would effectively outlaw the brake pedal and the steering wheel.
No, it outlaws using them as a way of triggering a system that gives an aerodynamic advantage. Like I said, intent is what matters.

read this, as it is what started this entire ordeal.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... ension-row
"2) a means by which some of the energy recovered from the forces and displacements at the wheel can be stored for release at a later time to extend a spring seat or other parts of the suspension assembly whose movement is not defined by the principally vertical suspension travel of the two wheels."
Brake pedal is a driver operated method of loading the front suspension, thus lowering the wing, thus gaining an aerodynamic advantage.

According to your interpretation.

Your down votes show that this is more about stopping anyone that is not your favorite team than any real discussion over the fact that the "intent" of any system is like the 'spirit" of the rules... Unenforceable without specifics, and arguable because of the lack thereof...

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

So is your interpretation of a compliant car one that does not pitch or roll at all in relation to driver input? I. E. The aero platform does not change at all regardless of what the driver does?

Isn't that exactly what the fia are trying to prevent?

I return to my first post, what is the point? They want the cars to be faster so let them get on with it, this is such an unenforceable grey area it's not worth the hassle.

User avatar
henry
268
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Notwithstanding the technical detail of this I wonder what the motivation for this attempted restriction is.

I can think of a few:

1. Concerns about the cost of developing such systems further increasing the gap between rich and poor teams.

2. Concerns that one team is particular has a technology lead that unbalances the competition.

3. Concerns that the technology makes the cars more stable, removing skill from the drivers and spectacle from the spectators.

4. Concerns that these more complex systems have more failure modes and so might generate more safety related incidents.

5. A concern that the letter of the law is being breached and they need to exert authority.

Given that these systems have been around last season leads to

6. They are trying to disrupt the preparations of the leading teams to add some spice to the early part of the season
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Zynerji wrote:The suspension, as long as no energy is added to the system, is passive, and good under the rules, no matter what the intent of the settings.
....but energy is always added to the system (if the system is the suspension). Ultimately, energy that is consumed for a vehicle to negotiate a flat road surface is supplied from the fuel tank.

It is possible to estimate the suspension consumption during a rig test. Here is an example I posted some time ago. The work done by the suspension at 4.7Hz (the heave mode of this particular vehicle) is listed as "W.D". in the legends. The total of 2,230W was split 142/146/419/1,345 (front/rear tyres & front/rear dampers respectively). A minor proportion (136) was dissipated by the vehicle (i.e not the suspension). The plot shows that individual values vary widely with frequency.
Last edited by DaveW on Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

hemichromis
hemichromis
21
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 2:00 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post


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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

FIA begins F1 suspension system checks, one team making changes
By Jonathan Noble Published on Wednesday March 1st 2017


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/128316

"
...
Though the identity of that team is not yet known, sources suggest that Red Bull - which has been singled out as having a design that could be impacted by the latest directive - has not yet been looked at.
...
"

User avatar
FrukostScones
192
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: European Union

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post

Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.