Raikkonen performance on R30

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
bosanac1
bosanac1
3
Joined: 25 Jan 2007, 01:08

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

seems someone got pretty good photo from todays test

very interesting



Image

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

front ride height is in reference to what?
The splitter or the front wing?

32 at front 60 at rear.
For Sure!!

thisisatest
thisisatest
18
Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 00:59

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

the thing that stands out to me about the setup pic is that they use no heave spring, only outer springs and anti-roll bars. so it is sprung stiffer in roll than in heave, not what i would expect from an f1 car.
on top of that, there are center dampers and roll dampers, without individual "outer" dampers. which is fine, you should be able to do whatever combination of damping you want with those two, but it sure seems unusual.

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

ringo wrote:front ride height is in reference to what?
The splitter or the front wing?

32 at front 60 at rear.
I would suspect the ride heights would be in terms of the axles; as you would be adjusting the suspension to adjust the ride height; no? Otherwise if you changed the rear suspension to crank up the rake; you'd have to change the figure on the front. It would be simpler to record the heights at the axles for future reference.
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

mx_tifoso
mx_tifoso
0
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 05:01
Location: North America

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

Is the front axle 3.2cm off the ground? :? Or is the rear axle 6cm up?
Forum guide: read before posting

"You do it, then it's done." - Kimi Räikkönen

Por las buenas soy amigo, por las malas soy campeón.

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

Both. I'm intrigued though. What benefit would you get from having rear toe in; and toe in at the rear with toe out at the front?
Last edited by raymondu999 on 25 Jan 2012, 07:26, edited 1 time in total.
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

xpensive
xpensive
214
Joined: 22 Nov 2008, 18:06
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

I believe that to be 32 and 80 respectively actually, some rake that.

Fascinating shot anyway, does anyone know for certain what "PPS" is in reference to, obviously something hydraulic,
might it have something to do with reactive ride height? If so, the area 4.960 mm^2 and 6 cc volume is most interesting,
when that translates to a 25 mm diameter with a 12 mm displacement, pretty close to the numbers myself and an inactive member has been toying around with.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

xpensive wrote:I believe that to be 32 and 80 respectively actually, some rake that.
Actually if you zoomed in it's actually 60... it just looks 80 when viewed from an unzoomed state :lol:
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

mx_tifoso
mx_tifoso
0
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 05:01
Location: North America

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

I meant that if the axle is only that high up? As in might it actually be the floor, splitter/fw?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_%28automotive%29
Forum guide: read before posting

"You do it, then it's done." - Kimi Räikkönen

Por las buenas soy amigo, por las malas soy campeón.

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

I think it might be the floor; measured at the point below the suspension? Something like that? Not sure though.
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

piast9
piast9
20
Joined: 16 Mar 2010, 00:39

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

I think that if these number were zero then the car would sit flat with the plank on the ground. Then they rose the front by 32 and rear by 80 mm.

BTW, in my opinion it is 80 not 60. Compare that first digit with another '8' and '6' in the picture. The '6' has smaller bottom loop than that first digit in rear ride height.

shelly
shelly
136
Joined: 05 May 2009, 12:18

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

I think the reference for ride heights is the reference plane. Could be the plank also
twitter: @armchair_aero

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

Shelly - would it not be easier to use your suspension as a reference? I mean after all that's what you would usually do to change the ride height setup; no? You'd need to do some trigonometric crunching before you could get the correct springs etc
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

shelly
shelly
136
Joined: 05 May 2009, 12:18

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

I think taking the plane is easier; I do not know how it works in detail, but I think the kinematics can be calculated once and for all in a lookup table if thy are needed
twitter: @armchair_aero

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Raikkonen performance on R30

Post

raymondu999 wrote:Shelly - would it not be easier to use your suspension as a reference? I mean after all that's what you would usually do to change the ride height setup; no? You'd need to do some trigonometric crunching before you could get the correct springs etc
32mm is too short for it to be referenced really. And the pick up points dont change relative to ride height. Just the body.
So we can assume that it is either they are using the homologated center wing section at the front, or the front of the splitter and something else in the rear possibly the edge of the plank.

Well at least this debunks the whole myth of most teams not using corner springs.
Though i could be wrong at taking that judgement since setup depends on a lot of things.
For Sure!!