F1technical.net

Tim.Wright wrote: ...it would also render the 3rd springs illegal as it's primary function it to balance aero loads to allow the cars to run a lower static ride height .

Not sure I can agree with that statement, Tim. The reason for the adoption of "third springs" is fairly complex and will differ for the two axles. I might argue that the primary reason for using third springs is usually to decouple the suspension vertical & roll stiffnesses.

That's clear but is there any non-aerodynamic reason to have this decoupling?

I could understand that line of reasoning on cars which have only a heave spring and anti-roll bar. But I don't see any reason why you would want a wheel spring, a heave spring and an arb together if not to balance out downforce.

It is called the heave spring so I presume it has some effect during braking (and a bit less during acceleration).

Tim.Wright wrote:... But I don't see any reason why you would want a wheel spring, a heave spring and an arb together if not to balance out downforce.

It would be fun to argue that, I suppose, but you also stated "...to allow the cars to run a lower static ride height". That I questioned (although it is off topic, I guess).

DaveW wrote:

Tim.Wright wrote:... But I don't see any reason why you would want a wheel spring, a heave spring and an arb together if not to balance out downforce.

It would be fun to argue that, I suppose, but you also stated "...to allow the cars to run a lower static ride height". That I questioned (although it is off topic, I guess).

You don't agree that the primary use of the heave springs are to allow the car to run lower without overly stiffening the roll and warp modes?

Tim.Wright wrote: .... without overly stiffening the roll and warp modes?

That would be one reason for running a third, but not necessarily to run lower.

A few years ago, the race engineers in a team running LMP cars ran different suspension strategies. One used front thirds, the other didn't. The two cars qualified for Le Mans within a second or so, & they finished the race 1 & 2. I don't think that ride height was much of an issue for them (actually, the car running the third might have had some problems, but that is a different story.)

DaveW wrote:

Tim.Wright wrote: .... without overly stiffening the roll and warp modes?

That would be one reason for running a third, but not necessarily to run lower.

A few years ago, the race engineers in a team running LMP cars ran different suspension strategies. One used front thirds, the other didn't. The two cars qualified for Le Mans within a second or so, & they finished the race 1 & 2. I don't think that ride height was much of an issue for them (actually, the car running the third might have had some problems, but that is a different story.)

With La Sarthe you have a straight with an incredibly high speed compared to the corner speeds, something quite extreme compared to a lot of tracks. The cars run lower downforce configurations there as well.

Porsche curves are very high speed, with the entry to the first right hander easily 230kph.

godlameroso wrote:Porsche curves are very high speed, with the entry to the first right hander easily 230kph.

Turns 1 and 4-7 are all damn quick too. (7 is Tetre Rouge) Not to mention the mind bendingly fast right going into Indionapolis.

Here is a thing. Ferrari is now seeking to have self-levelling suspensions banned:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... ension-row

A quick search revealed that the Nivomat design is used by "Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Jaguar, Kia, Mitsubishi, Saab, Volvo and other OEMs. The system is also available on the GM Suburban and Tahoe as part of ZW7 Premium Smooth Ride Suspension. Replacement units are available from Monroe, ZF Sachs and OES suppliers."

Why ban the technology? Fear, I suppose.... Just like mass dampers...

DaveW wrote:Why ban the technology? Fear, I suppose.... Just like mass dampers...

The FIA side is very difficult to understand, because its definition of "moveable aero" should preclude the use of springs, dampers, inflatable tires, and so on. Ferrari's angle is much easier to understand.

Does it make more sense to adopt a solution or to have it taken away from rivals?

Since both Mercedes and Red Bull used the system in 2016, it's entirely reasonable to suspect that the system is (was) integral to their 2017 designs. In such a case, it makes more sense to cripple the competition, because even if Ferrari implemented the system perfectly, the best outcome they could reasonably hope to achieve is parity with their rivals, not an advantage over them.

The same thing happened to Lotus and Ferrari in 2012 when reactive ride height was banned.

DaveW wrote:Here is a thing. Ferrari is now seeking to have self-levelling suspensions banned:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... ension-row

A quick search revealed that the Nivomat design is used by "Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Jaguar, Kia, Mitsubishi, Saab, Volvo and other OEMs. The system is also available on the GM Suburban and Tahoe as part of ZW7 Premium Smooth Ride Suspension. Replacement units are available from Monroe, ZF Sachs and OES suppliers."

Why ban the technology? Fear, I suppose.... Just like mass dampers...

Thanks for the link. If I understand correctly: this design basically adds a pneumatic spring inside the damper to augment the primary coil spring. Beyond a certain range of travel within the damper, a pumping action initiates to pressurize the air spring, increasing the effective spring rate of the whole system. Damping speed/rate is unaffected throughout the operation.

Presumably in the F1 context, the jacking/pumping action would be set to occur beyond a certain amount of suspension compression. Rather than simply holding the unladen ride height as in the road car example, the pumping action would be set to operate within a ride-height range that is below the low-speed ride height. Thus the third-spring is only augmented with an increased rate at the end of its travel i.e. when the rear end is squatting enough to choke the diffuser. At which point it begins to quickly & predictably increase the rate of the third-spring, allowing the car to safely run close to the road at high speed and return to a severe rake angle at lower speeds. Effectively offering two different wheel travel envelopes; one with a lower spring rate & greater travel for low speed use, and a second with a higher rate & less travel for high speed use. Aero load pushing down on the car acts as the trigger which forces operation within the second mode. Similar to a progressive/stacked spring arrangement but with finer control. Am I on the right track?

roon: Don't take the diagrams too seriously. An F1 installation will probably look like a coil-over with a variable spring platform.

bhall: Good post, but still suspect fear is the issue, fear that they don't understand the problem, fear that they haven't reverse-engineered the solution correctly, and/or fear that their simulations are not correct (& they can't track test). The FIA should simply tell them the whole world has found a solution, and they should just get on with it... but will they?

DaveW wrote:roon: Don't take the diagrams too seriously. An F1 installation will probably look like a coil-over with a variable spring platform.

bhall: Good post, but still suspect fear is the issue, fear that they don't understand the problem, fear that they haven't reverse-engineered the solution correctly, and/or fear that their simulations are not correct (& they can't track test). The FIA should simply tell them the whole world has found a solution, and they should just get on with it... but will they?

Sound logic from Charlie Whiting and the FIA is a very rare commodity.