2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

[henry]

Another part of the regulation pertinent to the discussion is:

3.14 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car
influencing its aerodynamic performance :
a) Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
b) Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).

Assuming an implied AND for these two clauses if the systems under discussion fall foul of this then pretty much any suspension system that does anything other than let the wheels go up and down in relation to road imperfections is illegal. It mustn't allow pitch, or roll, or warp, or jounce, or anything that presents the aero surfaces at different attitude to that which they had before the road input.

If there is an OR then maybe they don't fall foul of (b) depending on what a "specific part" is. If the specific part is a heave actuator it might be ok if it's any of the bits internal to the heave actuator then maybe it's not ok.

[roon]

Have some technical fun with this subject. Discussions about legality teach us nothing.

How might it work?

So we save up pressure in an accumulator.... how is the release of this pressure accomplished? Under the current rules would the release of pressure have to be a fixed function (say a jet) or could it be varied by some kind of independent assembly/unit?

Does a independent control assembly/unit make it a form of active suspension?

Brian

Thinking on this some more, there might be more to this than the third-element. Imagine if you want to alter ride height while the car is moving, without altering spring preloads. One way to do this would be to rotate the fixed-end of the torsion bars. Indexing the fixed end clockwise or counterclockwise would displace the pullrod, altering the ride height.

This "torsion bar indexer" would be actuated by a hydraulic piston. That piston would be powered by pneumatic pressure accumulated in a reservoir. The reservoir would be pressurized by actuation of the corner dampers or the third-element damper.

The third-element would be the controller for this "torsion bar indexer." Once the third-element is compressed in squat beyond a set amount (due to downforce), it triggers the "indexer" piston. When downforce decreases the third-element is relieved, switching the "indexer" piston back to its static/low speed position.

The whole system would be powered & actuated passively through normal suspension movement.

A system like I describe would also avoid 'compressing' the torsion bars in order to make the suspension squat.

[thisisatest]

The Red Bull has another third element in crosswise action relative to the heave spring. It is actuated only in roll, and is stationary in heave.
My idea is that the heave element has a mechanical (or hydraulic) way of building up pressure and increasing front ride height (or lowering rear height). When there is enough roll, the other element releases the build up.
In this manner, the longer the straight, the flatter the car ends up for greater top speed. You also have greater front height during the main braking point. In the corners, the car car reverts to a high downforce angle.
I haven't gone back to read all of what was recently posted, so sorry if someone already mentioned this idea.

[roon]

The Red Bull has another third element in crosswise action relative to the heave spring. It is actuated only in roll, and is stationary in heave.
My idea is that the heave element has a mechanical (or hydraulic) way of building up pressure and increasing front ride height (or lowering rear height). When there is enough roll, the other element releases the build up.
In this manner, the longer the straight, the flatter the car ends up for greater top speed. You also have greater front height during the main braking point. In the corners, the car car reverts to a high downforce angle.
I haven't gone back to read all of what was recently posted, so sorry if someone already mentioned this idea.

It might be dangerous to use roll as the trigger. You'd be initiating direction changes before downforce was regained. As opposed to a vertical/heave force, which could funtion on the straights.

[Just_a_fan]

One might argue that the response isn't solely from loads applied to the wheels. That is one argument against these systems. However, as you say, the rule doesn't mention time so one might argue that the response is solely from loads applied but that there is a delay in the response.

That's a charter for the lawyers to argue for hours at $silly/hour.

[dans79]

One might argue that the response isn't solely from loads applied to the wheels. That is one argument against these systems. However, as you say, the rule doesn't mention time so one might argue that the response is solely from loads applied but that there is a delay in the response.

That's a charter for the lawyers to argue for hours at $silly/hour.

Everything has a delay though, because nothing is perfectly rigid, or incompressible, It really all comes down to response time.

For example since you designed the car, you can easily correlate the loads on the suspension, to the speed the car is going. If you know that you could build a secondary hydraulic system that controls the stiffness of the primary system for a given speed. The tricky part is when you start dealing with edge cases like going over a curb at speed. In that case you need to ignore that the car is at speed and make the system compliant. Thus you need to some how factor in response time, and that probably spirals into a research black hole quickly.

[shady]

Does anyone have a copy of the TD issued by Charlie, the exact wording? I ask because theres a LOT of speculation about whole suspension systems when I havent seen wording on what specifically (not abstractly; "oh it stabalizes the aero platform") was deemed illegal, specifically what about their setup is illegal, its not a separate system but working tangentially so how do you tease them apart in the regs.

All the comments about performance and we have no idea, either how they work wrt each team, OR what about it specifically runs afoul of the regulations, it may turn out neither team has to actually change anything.

[bill shoe]

If the front wheels get a load applied the front suspension may respond to it. No mention of conservation of energy or timescales for the response.

We know from the Ride-Height controversy a few years ago that there is an effective timescale limit for the response. Unfortunately it's not written in the rules, only implied in a Technical Directive "clarification" of the rules.

The ride-height controversy came about when refueling was first banned, this meant that car weight would go thru a range equal to a full race of fuel instead of the previous 1/3 of a race of fuel (depended on exact number of pitstops for refueling, etc.). The bigger weight change during the race causes a larger ride height change during the race. Some teams considered using Nevomat-type shocks to reduce this ride-height variation. These shocks use very low-frequency valving to drive ride height toward the same average position over long time periods, say 30 seconds. This valving is in parallel to more conventional quick-response valving.

The classic use for Nevomat shocks on road cars is for the rear of SUVs so they can maintain equal rear ride height regardless of empty vs. loaded rear-seat and trunk. However, when several large people suddenly get in the backseat the rear does sink down until the car drives for 20-40 seconds, then the shocks get enough energy and time to return to "normal" ride height.

This Nevomat principle did not violate the simple wording of the suspension rules, but the ensuing Technical Directive said it was a moveable aero device (primary purpose was to control aero platform rather than controlling/enhancing tire grip) therefore it was not legal.

I think we're coming toward the end of the era where the FIA tries to police suspension parts based on intended functionality. It's just unenforceable. I think one or two more seasons of this is the max, then the rules will change to something else. Not sure what.

[henry]

Have some technical fun with this subject. Discussions about legality teach us nothing.

How might it work?

So we save up pressure in an accumulator.... how is the release of this pressure accomplished? Under the current rules would the release of pressure have to be a fixed function (say a jet) or could it be varied by some kind of independent assembly/unit?

Does a independent control assembly/unit make it a form of active suspension?

Brian

Thinking on this some more, there might be more to this than the third-element. Imagine if you want to alter ride height while the car is moving, without altering spring preloads. One way to do this would be to rotate the fixed-end of the torsion bars. Indexing the fixed end clockwise or counterclockwise would displace the pullrod, altering the ride height.

This "torsion bar indexer" would be actuated by a hydraulic piston. That piston would be powered by pneumatic pressure accumulated in a reservoir. The reservoir would be pressurized by actuation of the corner dampers or the third-element damper.

The third-element would be the controller for this "torsion bar indexer." Once the third-element is compressed in squat beyond a set amount (due to downforce), it triggers the "indexer" piston. When downforce decreases the third-element is relieved, switching the "indexer" piston back to its static/low speed position.

The whole system would be powered & actuated passively through normal suspension movement.

A system like I describe would also avoid 'compressing' the torsion bars in order to make the suspension squat.

You are describing a means to alter the torsion bar preload.

The torsion bar is a spring and when you twist it , "index" it's fixed end, you change the load it exerts.

In comparison with using the third element this is less useful because it changes single wheel load as well as axle load and would require duplication and synchronisation of two sets of components.

[henry]

This Nevomat principle did not violate the simple wording of the suspension rules, but the ensuing Technical Directive said it was a moveable aero device (primary purpose was to control aero platform rather than controlling/enhancing tire grip) therefore it was not legal.

I think we're coming toward the end of the era where the FIA tries to police suspension parts based on intended functionality. It's just unenforceable. I think one or two more seasons of this is the max, then the rules will change to something else. Not sure what.

In terms of the rules:

3.14 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car
influencing its aerodynamic performance :
a) Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
b) Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).

Some part or parts of the self-levelling system must need to be interpreted as a specific part not rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part. A damper valve perhaps?

I don't think the rules try to police suspension with regards to functionality at all. They just say you can connect the sprung part to the unstrung part. It imposes some size and shape restrictions for parts that could obviously be aerodynamic and that's it. The TDs are famously not part of the regulations and if this matter ever got to court the judges would regard them as one interpretation of the rules to weigh against others that might be offered.

if the rules were written functionally it might be easier to see when devices or systems try to defeat their requirements.

[LookBackTime]

Very interesting! You have to read the whole article!

F1 2017: è illegale la sospensione con attuatore idraulico sull'anteriore di RedBull(F1 2017: it is illegal suspension with hydraulic actuator on the front of RedBull)

http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2017/01 ... e-con.html

...


Google translate: "Thanks to photography at the top we can unveil a preview of how it was made the front suspension of the Red Bull RB12. What many thought was a simple damper RHS with so RedBull solution single-damper or with a non-symmetric solution (damper vertical LHS) was actually a hydraulic actuator, component does not directly connected to the true third element but only indirectly through the rocker suspension."

...

[Zynerji]

Awful.

They should always offer the teams the option to share tech to level the playing field before banning it outright.

Imagine the 2017 cars with TMD, FRIC/LRIC, triple diffusers, F-ducts and AWD KERS.

I follow f1 PRECISELY because of this type of ingenious overcoming of an obstacle.

The more they keep banning things like this, the more I tune out. Regardless of what team has it.

Sadly, my dream of them using computer HDD sized flywheels placed around the chassis, and harnessing the gyroscopic effects will never become a reality.

#shareb4ban

[tok-tokkie]

Regarding intelligent valving in the third element. Some years ago one team (Lotus, RBR?) had a system where the front brake hydraulic pressure closed a valve in the front shocks thereby altering the dive of the car. It did not break any written technical rule but it was queried by another team & ruled to contravene the active aerodynamic rule. My recollection is not clear.

However if these third suspension elements have valving that responds to outside forces then they can be ruled inadmissible in the same way.

For this ruling to come in so close to the start of the season is a big impediment to the teams intending to use it. But something very similar happened a few years back. Something RBR had to abandon I think but I don't recall what (the tea tray?).

[Just_a_fan]

Very interesting! You have to read the whole article!

Interesting stuff. Also interesting that although people have linked Mercedes with this story, it seems that the RedBull system is more obviously an aerodynamic control. The Mercedes system seems to be more about suspension for tyre benefits. If that is the case, then Mercedes might be able to run their system in 2017. If so, expect them to be at some advantage, initially, unless Ferrari have developed a similar system themselves.

[LookBackTime]

Very interesting! You have to read the whole article!

Interesting stuff. Also interesting that although people have linked Mercedes with this story, it seems that the RedBull system is more obviously an aerodynamic control. The Mercedes system seems to be more about suspension for tyre benefits. If that is the case, then Mercedes might be able to run their system in 2017. If so, expect them to be at some advantage, initially, unless Ferrari have developed a similar system themselves.

I read somewhere (in Italian press I think ) that Mercedes are very confident in their system and will continue to use it in 2017. They think that they are respecting all the regulation. So, not back up from them.