F1technical.net

if formula 1 wants to be the ''pinnacle'' of motorsports, then they are needed to have an at least as advanced suspension as the mercedes S class with magic body control, or like mclaren's newest cars. you could argument for as a ''bernie ecclestone'' man that a real active suspension would help developing road cars in the future, could you not? sorry for my bad english

WilliamsF1 wrote:

SectorOne wrote:And that is because of costs entirely or is there another reason?

Cost has nothing to do with it.

It is FIA's fascination/obsession to reduce down force (or rather make down force expensive) that we will not see active ride controls (which almost entirely aims at stabilizing aero of the car in a simple manner) incorporated into the new active suspension system.

I don't think they'll introduce active suspension only to outlaw all the useful functionality.

WilliamsF1 wrote:The new active suspension of 2017 is not going to be anything like the 1993 type.

As per CW, it is going to be a system with simple suspension functions, with no active ride controls which influences aero.

I think it will be more along the lines of the ferrari electro magnetic suspension which were used some time in the last 10 years for finding the best mechanical set up.

Charlie said a standard system, I didn't read any of what you are saying.

Will be interesting to see, a real shame if they don´t go all out in the active suspension department.
I´d rather not see it at all but if they are gonna do it might as well go big or go home.

Pierce89 wrote:

WilliamsF1 wrote:The new active suspension of 2017 is not going to be anything like the 1993 type.

As per CW, it is going to be a system with simple suspension functions, with no active ride controls which influences aero.

I think it will be more along the lines of the ferrari electro magnetic suspension which were used some time in the last 10 years for finding the best mechanical set up.

Charlie said a standard system, I didn't read any of what you are saying.

I never said that Charlie said what i wrote. I simply put down thoughts of what one could expect from CW and FIA based on past trend.

A good set of imagery on the MP4/8 suspension

http://www.modelersite.com/Mar2002/Engl ... _8_Eng.htm

WilliamsF1 wrote:

SectorOne wrote:What sort of features can we expect that the suspension will do?

Anti-dive during braking?
Lean into corners?
Always maintain a near perfect distance from the ground?

Probably none of that. Might not even be active in qualifying and race. A system with hydraulics which helps find a good setup with probably a few adjustments from the driver like the movable front wing.

I'm sorry, but you will have to explain your thoughts, WF1. How can an hydraulic system not be active. Most vehicles (even non-aero vehicles) require springs and dampers to control the sprung & unsprung masses. These can be passive (as per the Dernie system) or active. CW stated that "you can throw away all your springs, dampers and roll bars", so it follows that he thinks that springs, dampers and bars can be simulated actively. They certainly can, as was demonstrated by the Lotus system, but there are consequences some of which I referred to above. Over to you....

p.s. the MP4/8 was full of springs and dampers, apparently. It looked to me suspiciously like a "Mumford" system - roughly equivalent to a powered "FRIC"....

I wonder what would Colin Chapman would think.

Active suspension would cost more material but because its easier to get by a solution simulation and development cost will drop unless some engineer somewhere finds a new way of tinkering with the set of rules.

Powerslide wrote:Active suspension would cost more material but because its easier to get by a solution simulation and development cost will drop unless some engineer somewhere finds a new way of tinkering with the set of rules.

I can tell you right now that simulation etc will be far more expensive trying to do the active thing.

Jersey Tom wrote:
I can tell you right now that simulation etc will be far more expensive trying to do the active thing.

But as i posted on Page 7 the teams already have active suspensions up and running. Making it race-ready isn't that big of a step then. They don't have to re-invent the whole Thing.

presumably Thunders' current active systems have springs ?

an active system with springs as a primary mechanism should be cheap, because very high frequency response actuation is not needed
such a system can still be more intelligent (eg in car control) than F1 rules will allow

an active system without such springs will be expensive as servo-hydraulic struts are needed for a suitably high frequency response
(as we seem to be replacing 13" tyres of high aspect ratio with 18" tyres of very low aspect ratio)

The article sadly doesn't state what kind of suspension they are using.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/07/g ... -f1-tyres/

Jersey Tom wrote:I can tell you right now that simulation etc will be far more expensive trying to do the active thing.

I can't disagree with JT, if the teams are allowed free reign to optimize the system. It took us many days of rig testing & several days of track testing in 1987 to optimize the Lotus active system (mainly to understand the vehicle, as it happens).

Tommy Cookers wrote:An active system with springs as a primary mechanism should be cheap, because very high frequency response actuation is not needed such a system can still be more intelligent (eg in car control) than F1 rules will allow... an active system without such springs will be expensive as servo-hydraulic struts are needed for a suitably high frequency response (as we seem to be replacing 13" tyres of high aspect ratio with 18" tyres of very low aspect ratio)

Agreed, but CW specifically stated that springs, dampers & bars would not be required. Actually, I think that you have overstated the bandwidth issue. You might like to compare some of the on-board camera footage shown here (qualifying, 2014) with this (Nakajima 1987). Many differences, but a lack of bandwidth is not one of them. The EHSV's used in 1987 were similar to those still used widely in F1 today.

Thunders wrote:But as i posted on Page 7 the teams already have active suspensions up and running. Making it race-ready isn't that big of a step then. They don't have to re-invent the whole Thing.

True, but as TC pointed out the precise details of the architecture are unknown, and there would be no requirement to use the SECU. I suggest that the control laws for maximizing aerodynamic data gained from a straight line test are probably a little different from those required to optimize track performance.

Jersey Tom wrote: I can tell you right now that simulation etc will be far more expensive trying to do the active thing.

Thinking in the line of having a mechanical suspension trying to do so many job at once whereby with active suspension it could be dialed in and done. Would not quite have a third spring, anti-roll bar, FRIC, J-damper or a number of dampers localized or interconnected and the amount of work to tune that bit of interconnection maze is never ending. How long did it take Mercedes to get use to FRIC and all those time cost a good fortune. With active suspension, after all the math is dialed in, its just a matter of tuning it because it opens up a whole lot of variations rather than going through a never ending labyrinth