That's cool. I believe some road cars are now using electrolitics for the ride stiffness changes in "sport" buttons etc.autogyro wrote:In the 1980s I was involved with some experimental work with electrolitic fluids.
These were fluids designed to change viscosity when an electric current is passed through them. At that time the application was for clutches in transmissions and direct engagement clutches, although damping and ride height was briefly looked into.
Of course for F1 this would be an 'active' system.
I haven't really looked into the fluids available, though I think you're right about custard (cornflour based fluid) itself, there may be some suitable materials out there. That said, both vibration & G-force are likely to make the fluid more viscous and that would need to be accounted for in setup.autogyro wrote: I do not believe that the 'custard' idea would have sufficient energy within the chemical reaction to work in this high load application.
I figured this might be the case. Using a valve on/in the damper that restricts flow under pressure would provide similar effects & be more tunable, but my inspiration came from custard, so I thought I'd share...autogyro wrote: Designing a pasive system within a damper is easy anyway and IMO would still be within the regulations even with gas under pressure as a control force.
If the teams cannot figure this out, then it proves to me just how dominating the aero aspect of F1 is and just how desperate a change is needed to limit DF, so as a sensible competitive balance can again be achieved.
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/“This was to stop people changing springs and ride heights,” according to Lowe. “Where this has got a little bit tricky is that you can design suspensions that self adjust during that period. There are all sorts of physical means to do that. Imagine a suspension where without any human intervention it changes its set up. You could argue that as you haven’t touched it, it’s not been changed. But what the FIA have now clarified is that even if you don’t touch it, if you have programmed it to change you have effectively made a change of set up.
“They will inspect the cars (in China) and look at what equipment is there and how it works,” in light of the new clarification.
All in all, i believe that even if a team does not have an adjustable suspension; they do have some interesting suspension dynamics. I think i put a silly drawing of a redbull car where the car pitches down as the ride height increases. This is one idea, but there could be other very ingenious ideas used by the teams to get the most out of qualifying and the race aerodynamically.“We got the feeling we were rather late to the game, relative to some others.” said Lowe. “We don’t know if anyone has been racing anything in the nature of ride height control systems. We definitely got the feeling that others were further advanced in development.”
Isn't that because the fuel tank is empty so the car is very high? That doesn't prove anything. How does the RB ride height in parc ferme compare to other cars?bill shoe wrote:It will be interesting to see if Red Bull continues their strong qualifying pace, and if their cars are still so high in parc ferme that the undertray scrapes the leading edge of the rear tires. If so, then what are they doing?
Please forgive the dumb question, but what are I, J, & K type dampers?pgj wrote:Could the RBR system be as simple as variable springs and variable dampers (I,
J or K type)?
http://www.f1technical.net/features/10586DaveW wrote:Please forgive the dumb question, but what are I, J, & K type dampers?pgj wrote:Could the RBR system be as simple as variable springs and variable dampers (I,
J or K type)?
Many thanks, pgj. Actually, inerters are not dampers (not intentionally, at least), & I had forgotten McLaren's distracting code name. It clearly worked on my small mind....pgj wrote:Hope this helps. I and K dampers were, broadly speaking, a variation on a theme.