FW26, MP4/18 front geometry.

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
coaster
16
Joined: 30 Jun 2012, 05:10

FW26, MP4/18 front geometry.

Post

I was hoping for insights on how the wide twin keel would produce an increasing roll rate and acceptable scrub radius with far longer upper wishbone.
Should'nt the lower arm be longest to get acceptable roll rate and scrub radius?
Was it simply a just a flawed design?

User avatar
coaster
16
Joined: 30 Jun 2012, 05:10

Re: FW26, MP4/18 front geometry.

Post

Is it as simple as an outrigger on the upper wishbone with an aero modesty panel?
Seems like it would invite flexing and be inferior to a surface mounting.

User avatar
Tim.Wright
330
Joined: 13 Feb 2009, 06:29

Re: FW26, MP4/18 front geometry.

Post

coaster wrote:
16 Jun 2019, 00:35
I was hoping for insights on how the wide twin keel would produce an increasing roll rate and acceptable scrub radius with far longer upper wishbone.
Should'nt the lower arm be longest to get acceptable roll rate and scrub radius?
Was it simply a just a flawed design?
Scrub radius is not really dependent on the wishbone lengths as it's calculated based on the 2 upright points and their relation to the contact patch. Roll rate has a lot more to do with the pushrod kinematics than the wishbone kinematics.

A shorter lower wishbone will give you a regressive camber curve like a Macpherson and a roll centre height which is more sensitive to wheel travel. God knows why you'd want either of these so my guess is the geometry was set like this for aerodynamic reasons.
Not the engineer at Force India

bill shoe
151
Joined: 19 Nov 2008, 08:18
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: FW26, MP4/18 front geometry.

Post

As a first approximation-
* during small amounts of suspension travel, the suspension geometry is dominated by the a-arm angles (and not the relative lengths of upper vs lower a-arms).
* Relative a-arm lengths become important during longer suspension travel.

For a long time (90's, 00's?), F1 cars had only very small suspension travel, so only the angles mattered.

That being said, over the last several (10?) years, aero rake has increased which also increases the available rear suspension travel. This longer rear suspension travel seems to have led to new emphasis on the length and position of the upper a-arms as opposed to simply their angle. All current cars have rear suspension layouts with upper a-arms that are much shorter than the lower a-arms.

User avatar
coaster
16
Joined: 30 Jun 2012, 05:10

Re: FW26, MP4/18 front geometry.

Post

Newey took the philosophy to Redbull for first of his cars after the Jaguar chassis was phased out, that car is well documented.
Must be an outrigger, geometry is sacred in racing.

Post Reply