AlphaTauri AT04

[SiLo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fr15mpJWAAE ... ame=medium

Is there any explanation for what this does?

Couldn't it be a pressure tank for the pneumatic valves that they've relocated?

I guess if there is floor bulk in that area, makes sense to fill it with something to free up space elsewhere.

[AR3-GP]

Is there any explanation for what this does?

Couldn't it be a pressure tank for the pneumatic valves that they've relocated?

I guess if there is floor bulk in that area, makes sense to fill it with something to free up space elsewhere.

I wonder if the side impact structure is hollow and if they could put oil vessel inside of it. Although you risk writing off the chassis if hidden tank develops a leak. So it is probably a sensible risk to take....

[vorticism]

AT running a longbow (continuous front arm) this season. You heard it here first.

motorsport.com

They also have the most pronounced swan neck RW support:


motorsport.com

[AR3-GP]

AT running a longbow (continuous front arm) this season. You heard it here first.
https://cdn-3.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... eta-1.webp
motorsport.com

They also have the most pronounced swan neck RW support:

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... eta-1.webp
motorsport.com

Interesting. The construction looks quite different to RB.

It looks almost square sided where it passes through the chassis. On the RB is looks more like it is rounded with a bushing holding it in place.

[vorticism]

Yeah they have it screwed down tight to the bulkhead directly. Both have a relief underneath it in the center which probably accommodates deflection.

[ing.]

Yeah they have it screwed down tight to the bulkhead directly. Both have a relief underneath it in the center which probably accommodates deflection.

Great evolution of the original J. Barnard metal flexures.

The thicker section portion at the center—with wide based anchoring pins—makes for a solid base with reasonable load reactions.

The flexing seems to be starting at the section change (just at the outer edge of the chassis) but not sure if limited to a small distance along the bow or if the flex is distributed all along the bow. Not sure what advantage the latter would offer?

[vorticism]

Yeah they have it screwed down tight to the bulkhead directly. Both have a relief underneath it in the center which probably accommodates deflection.

Great evolution of the original J. Barnard metal flexures.

The thicker section portion at the center—with wide based anchoring pins—makes for a solid base with reasonable load reactions.

The flexing seems to be starting at the section change (just at the outer edge of the chassis) but not sure if limited to a small distance along the bow or if the flex is distributed all along the bow. Not sure what advantage the latter would offer?

A twice fixed symmetrical cantilever could offer some roll resistance. Whether they're doing that here I can't say for sure; like you said it does look like most of the bending would occur outside of the chassis which is to say along the main span of the arm. Until we see them sans aero covers we're guessing at whether a waisted portion provided localized flexibility, or whether the entire arm bends uniformly.

[AR3-GP]

Yeah they have it screwed down tight to the bulkhead directly. Both have a relief underneath it in the center which probably accommodates deflection.

Great evolution of the original J. Barnard metal flexures.

The thicker section portion at the center—with wide based anchoring pins—makes for a solid base with reasonable load reactions.

The flexing seems to be starting at the section change (just at the outer edge of the chassis) but not sure if limited to a small distance along the bow or if the flex is distributed all along the bow. Not sure what advantage the latter would offer?

A twice fixed symmetrical cantilever could offer some roll resistance. Whether they're doing that here I can't say for sure; like you said it does look like most of the bending would occur outside of the chassis which is to say along the main span of the arm. Until we see them sans aero covers we're guessing at whether a waisted portion provided localized flexibility, or whether the entire arm bends uniformly.

To me, it would offer roll resistance but it's a secondary effect. It's not working truly like an anti-roll bar. It's a bit like saying that a traditional coil spring suspension offers roll resistance. Nominally, it does because it resists compression on the wheel corner, but a true "anti-roll bar" is one that works by transferring load to the opposite wheel. This double pinned cantilever can't transmit loads from left to right (it's not apparent right now that it can).

[vorticism]

A uniform leaf spring held by two pivots will transfer some displacement to the opposite side in the same direction. In this application it potentially could, that's what I interpret the inclusion of a recess as (in reality it may simply be reducing stresses on the assembly). It's more pronounced on the RB18 arrangement which has pillow mounts of some sort.

[ing.]

To me, it would offer roll resistance but it's a secondary effect. It's not working truly like an anti-roll bar. It's a bit like saying that a traditional coil spring suspension offers roll resistance. Nominally, it does because it resists compression on the wheel corner, but a true "anti-roll bar" is one that works by transferring load to the opposite wheel. This double pinned cantilever can't transmit loads from left to right (it's not apparent right now that it can).

A uniform leaf spring held by two pivots will transfer some displacement to the opposite side in the same direction. In this application it potentially could, that's what I interpret the inclusion of a recess as (in reality it may simply be reducing stresses on the assembly). It's more pronounced on the RB18 arrangement which has pillow mounts of some sort.

I also think that the deflection from one side of the bow is not transmitted to the opposite side as the two flanged fasteners look to be used to clamp down the center section as well as react fore/aft + lateral loads in the bores of the beam.

Not really sure why they would have created the relief at the top of the chassis bulkhead (under the center section) but it’s most likely to have two discrete supports under each “clamp” in order to better predict and calculate the reaction loads.

There may be some bending of the section between the two clamps but given the the section is here looks beefier than at the outer sections, I would expect the the bending to be minimal. The thick section and wide-based clamping is likely more to create a solid base for the bow extremities.

[Farnborough]

Looking at the beam suspension type as a whole concept and its implementation into the chassis, there seems potentially a function going toward a mass damper effect.

If the spring frequency is tuned (section, sculpting, fix point etc) it could be in opposed range of tyre carcass frequency, and so making the tyre upright dynamic movement less problematic to wear etc. That gap under centre section would affect the spring's frequency, and be moving in that plane, making it specifically undesirable to constrain it.

Overall strategy with the whole suspension, it gives completely different and separately adjustable component over and above torsion bars, anti roll torsion, dampers etc. Raises possibility of tuning the overall chassis performance to optimise tyre use with an extra component.

[KAIZEN]

AUS GP
OLD


NEW



Floor

[vorticism]

+1 Kaizen
I'd say vaguely RB looking tunnel but this would be a lot of conjecture on my part.

[KAIZEN]

No, I think it's just a normal floor.
The red arrow indicates the final exit of the fence.
The RB features a length of fence that supports the discharge from the tunnel.



The underside of the sidepods are not curved to encourage downwash and outwash.
It also has no aspect to sustain it.
The AT04 is a lousy machine with everything going crazy.



The center flat area doesn't look big.

[vorticism]

By tunnel I didn't mean to imply the entire floor, only the tunnel. Looks like the RB18 tunnel in shape although I'll reuse my "lot of conjecture." The reference plane width is probably similar to other cars, iirc that dimension is essentially prescribed. The detail of the floor generally are of course different; no notches/mini diffusers, edge wing completely different, etc.