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.
FrukostScones
156
User avatar
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: European Union

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by FrukostScones » Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:40 am

set-up problems for RB... mmmm?

AMUS:
Ferrari lands a hit.

Redbull has to disarm.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 49683.html
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 49683.html

and maybe another hit:
Mercedes puts trick suspensioin voluntarily on hold.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 49686.html
Game Over! NVWSSV is here.

LookBackTime
621
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by LookBackTime » Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:40 am

FrukostScones wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:40 am
set-up problems for RB... mmmm?

AMUS:
Ferrari lands a hit.

Redbull has to disarm.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 49683.html
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 49683.html

and maybe another hit:
Mercedes puts trick suspensioin voluntarily on hold.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 49686.html
From Mercedes article:

"... The technique is too complicated. A Mercedes engineer told us that even in our own team, a maximum of 10 engineers understand the system in its entirety. ..."

Phil
248
User avatar
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Phil » Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:04 am

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 49686.html

I assume this has already been posted above, but here are some of my own translations (that may be relevant to other topics surrounding the Mercedes team):
  • apparently, RedBull used their trick suspension in the first week of testing, not in the 2nd
  • Mercedes apparent troublesome 2nd week of testing wasn't due to suspension, but the aero package
  • Toto: There's nothing in the clarification of the suspension rules that would force them to change anything [about their trick suspension] or hamper their performance
  • Mercedes never used the trick suspension during testing in Barcelona
  • Mercedes apparently wouldn't have used the trick suspension in Melbourne even if the suspension rules hadn't been clarified because the system doesn't bring any advantage at this track
  • To the contrary: due to added hydraulic connections and valves, the system would add ~1.5kg. The W08 however is already 5kg over the weight limit (car = 728kg+5kg = 733kg). Also, using the system would have added the risk that a team may protest.
  • Mercedes confident their system is still legal. The question is, if protested by another team, they could convince the stewards***
  • *** a FIA technicians admits that the [suspension] systems are so complicated, that it is difficult to assess if prohibited things could be done with them.
  • A Mercedes technician said even within the [suspension] team, there are only roughly 10 who understand the system in its entirety.
  • In 2016, apparently, the trick suspension was only used at 5 venues. It is unclear if the system will be used this year or not. Apparently RedBull used theirs quite a bit more often.
Last edited by Phil on Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. (Ask the average Vettel fan what that's like.) --- bhall II
#Team44 supporter

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

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by DaveW » Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:47 am

A few pages ago I asked for people's ideas the meaning of Charlie Whitings comment as reported in Autosport. I received an interpretation by Mr.G (which I didn't like much, although it may be true) and a comment by JT who said, "How Silly" (which I agree with).

So I would summarise the position on F1 Suspension design as follows:

The vehicle attitude (ride height & rake) can be tailored to match aerodynamic requirements by "shaping" front & rear spring & bump rubber characteristics. This is perfectly legal and has happened (with varying success) since the introduction of ground effect aerodynamics.

The result was suspension set-ups that were increasingly hard on tyres (particularly after "active" suspension was banned). This led to short tyre life and reduced "grip" though low/medium speed corners. This was the problem faced by Pirelli when the became sole supplier to F1. A problem that they have yet to master, apparently.

F1 engineers at some Teams discovered that they could contribute by changing the static ride height of the suspension as a function of speed more or less legally, which implied that the aero. requirements could be met with a less extreme spring stiffnesses. This made the tyres perform better, and improve life.

As with any innovation, the "inventor" had a head start, and competing teams frequently attempt to ban the invention (the fear factor), particularly since track testing is currently limited to race weekends. The excuse, in this case, was "it affected aerodynamics", which was translated to become Charlie Whiting's "silly" statement.

In my view, it should not be difficult to devise a set of rules that both regulators and competitors are content with - and stick with that (getting Charlie Whiting off the hook), reviewing them only occasionally. Innovations will happen and should be tolerated (all teams have grown up engineers to call upon). Incidentally, why do Mercedes require three pitot tubes?

SiLo
40
User avatar
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by SiLo » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:58 pm

Phil wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:04 am
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 49686.html

I assume this has already been posted above, but here are some of my own translations (that may be relevant to other topics surrounding the Mercedes team):
  • To the contrary: due to added hydraulic connections and valves, the system would add ~1.5kg. The W08 however is already 5kg over the weight limit (car = 728kg+5kg = 733kg). Using the system would have added the risk that a team may protest.
Where did you get this info that their car is overweight? I know that the FI is meant to be overweight, but not read anything about Mercedes.
Felipe Baby!

Phil
248
User avatar
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by Phil » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:03 pm

It's in that article i translated by AMuS.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. (Ask the average Vettel fan what that's like.) --- bhall II
#Team44 supporter

shady
18
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:31 am

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by shady » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:13 pm

It is a minimum weight, they are allowed to be above. It is entirely disadvantageous however.

turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Post by turbof1 » Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:17 pm

Moved posts about politics in F1 to a new thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26198