Chassis Flex, Significance?

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Monstrobolaxa
Monstrobolaxa
1
Joined: 28 Dec 2002, 23:36
Location: Covilhã, Portugal (and sometimes in Évora)

Post

West wrote:
Monstrobolaxa wrote:Like Ross Brawn says: "Everything flexes the secret of F1 is knowing exactly how much each part flexes and preventing it"

I read it somewhere!
Steve Matchett has quoted this also, so I'm going to assume it was The Chariot Makers
That's where I got it... :lol:

MrT
MrT
1
Joined: 17 Jan 2006, 11:32

Post

Quote:
"Ask any engineer, and they would love a chassis with zero flex. It's the holy grail of chassis engineers. Of course, you could built one, but it would probably weigh ten metric tonnes. "

You couldn;t build a chassis with zero flex, as no material is infinetly rigid.... One question that seems to be looked over here is chassis have a torsional stiffness yes, but they also have an internal damping..... this is just as important with regards to transient behaviour, and we all know transients are whats occuring.

Chassis tend not to be the main source of flex these days, as the crash saftey rules require a design which is naturally very very stiff. Wishbones, uprights etc are a massive area into which research is conducted into their complience and flexture.

User avatar
King of Spades
0
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 17:59

Post

Monstrobolaxa wrote:
King of Spades wrote:To what extent is chassis flex due to aeroelasticity, do you think?
Aeroelasticity and bending due to structural forces is not exactly the same thing.
I appreciate that, but that wasn't quite what I meant. Aeroelasticity is dynamic loading of a structure due to surrounding fluidic flow, and structural forces cause a static loading. They both cause structural flex (although aerodynamic effects would be more of a vibration, its amplitude at any point in time is a contribution to overall flex).

At a guess I'd say that, on an F1 car, flex due to structural forces is of the order of 100 times more important than aeroelasticity - but as I say, this is just a guess.
3rd year student, reading Aeronautical Engineering to Masters level at Loughborough University, UK.

A proud Maxthon user since 02-Oct-2005

מלך של עלהים

User avatar
m3_lover
0
Joined: 26 Jan 2006, 07:29
Location: St.Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Post

I have a question, when a F1 car go over a kerb the less chassis flex the car has the better the car will be able to gain traction and power after going over the kerb?
Simon: Nils? You can close in now. Nils?
John McClane: [on the guard's phone] Attention! Attention! Nils is dead! I repeat, Nils is dead, ----head. So's his pal, and those four guys from the East German All-Stars, your boys at the bank? They're gonna be a little late.
Simon: [on the phone] John... in the back of the truck you're driving, there's $13 billon dollars worth in gold bullion. I wonder would a deal be out of the question?
John McClane: [on the phone] Yeah, I got a deal for you. Come out from that rock you're hiding under, and I'll drive this truck up your ass.