2014 front suspensions.

[xpensive]

There has been speculation that Ferrari and McLaren introduced front pull-rods to earn xperience in preparation for 2014,
is it obvious that pull-rods will be the way to go for next year with lower noses, or is that just hype for a very small gain?

[trinidefender]

There has been speculation that Ferrari and McLaren introduced front pull-rods to earn xperience in preparation for 2014,
is it obvious that pull-rods will be the way to go for next year with lower noses, or is that just hype for a very small gain?

Tough question to answer. Remember that while the noses will be higher, the suspension mounted just behind the bulkhead won't be to much lower than it is currently.

550mm vs today's 650mm if I remember correctly. Somebody please correct me if I am wrong.

This will place the suspension lower and give the pullrod a better angle to work with vs the nose height seen this year. A gut feeling tells me that both McLaren and Ferrari will stick to using the pullrod next season. What are other peoples thoughts? Also wonder if other teams will go the same route.

[Blackout]

If I was a designer, and for an even lower centre of gravity with the lower nose, I would opt for pull rods at the front and 'integrate' the steering arms in the lower wishbones (like the R30 did, or the MP4-25) but that would be difficult ot package.
: P
Maybe the more horizontal and larger lower leading arm of the wishbone can improve the aero a bit too ?

[Lycoming]

There has been speculation that Ferrari and McLaren introduced front pull-rods to earn xperience in preparation for 2014,
is it obvious that pull-rods will be the way to go for next year with lower noses, or is that just hype for a very small gain?

No matter how you slice and dice it, pullrod vs pushrod is makes for very small gains either way.

If it becomes possible to move the suspension down a little bit, then that just makes things a little bit neater from a structural perspective (read: slightly lighter).

[Jersey Tom]

Small gains are sometimes the most dangerous ones, IMO. Everyone gets into the mindset of, "Well if you add up enough small things and stack enough pennies it will add up to something big!"

In theory, that's true.

In practice, sometimes it's true. Sometimes you have to stop and ask yourself... this tiny gain I'm getting... is there some detriment I'm overlooking? Am I gaining a penny while giving up a nickel? That's the real challenge in highly competitive fields. Otherwise you can fool yourself into thinking you'v made some small gains when really you've given up something big for it.

[mep]

Around the suspension will the noses of next years cars still be high. The biggest change is at the tip of the nose. For the suspension it does not really make a difference. Neither does a pull-rod really lower gravity in case of a F1 car. If anybody things so, could you please state where you think its possible to gain lower CoG? Inside of the nose are the current suspensions so complex and consist of so many different components that you struggle to place them.
Aerodynamics should not be kept out of this comparison. The change from push to pull can cause some vortices in places where you don’t want them.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

There has been speculation that Ferrari and McLaren introduced front pull-rods to earn xperience in preparation for 2014,
is it obvious that pull-rods will be the way to go for next year with lower noses, or is that just hype for a very small gain?

Rumor from Italian media says Ferrari will return to pushrod and focus on other elements of the car. The Italian analysis of the Ferrari front pullrod is that the added difficulty in setup changes hasn't been worth the CoG & Aerodynamic advantage the pullrod front suspension can give. Will be interesting to see what Maranello & Woking decide on.

[wuzak]

There has been speculation that Ferrari and McLaren introduced front pull-rods to earn xperience in preparation for 2014,
is it obvious that pull-rods will be the way to go for next year with lower noses, or is that just hype for a very small gain?

Rumor from Italian media says Ferrari will return to pushrod and focus on other elements of the car. The Italian analysis of the Ferrari front pullrod is that the added difficulty in setup changes hasn't been worth the CoG & Aerodynamic advantage the pullrod front suspension can give. Will be interesting to see what Maranello & Woking decide on.

I thought that the refinements from 2012 to 2013 were mainly about accessibility and adjust-ability of the system.

[xpensive]

Regarding McLaren, I find it difficult to believe that the same design-team can go from a winner to a loser from one season to another under the same rules, without a specific mistake made, which I still believe was the front suspension in this case.

With Lowe gone, even if he had little to do with it, I wonder if they will revert to push-rod, if nothing else to make a statement?

[wuzak]

Regarding McLaren, I find it difficult to believe that the same design-team can go from a winner to a loser from one season to another under the same rules, without a specific mistake made, which I still believe was the front suspension in this case.

With Lowe gone, even if he had little to do with it, I wonder if they will revert to push-rod, if nothing else to make a statement?

They also changed from a low nose to a high nose.

[DaveW]

Sometimes you have to stop and ask yourself... this tiny gain I'm getting... is there some detriment I'm overlooking?

"Installation stiffness" affects the efficiency of a vehicle suspension. I have yet to see a pull rod suspension that doesn't give away installation stiffness compared with an equivalent push rod layout (mostly F1 & Indy). I'm not completely sure why, but I did invite a FFord designer to bring his pull rod car (he claimed better c.g. height with no loss in suspension stiffness) to my rig a couple of years ago (I think). He didn't, but I haven't noticed too many pull rod cars in UK FFord grids recently.

F1 designers always insist that no lap time was ever gained by mechanical suspension changes, and they have biased regulations to ensure that is unlikely to happen soon. This is stark contrast with teams running junior series who pay great attention to mechanical set-up - but their ability to make aerodynamic improvements is limited.

[Blackout]

Around the suspension will the noses of next years cars still be high. The biggest change is at the tip of the nose. For the suspension it does not really make a difference. Neither does a pull-rod really lower gravity in case of a F1 car. If anybody things so, could you please state where you think its possible to gain lower CoG? Inside of the nose are the current suspensions so complex and consist of so many different components that you struggle to place them.
Aerodynamics should not be kept out of this comparison. The change from push to pull can cause some vortices in places where you don’t want them.

Hmmm, with pul rods, the rockers, the torsion bars, the ARB and some of the dampers and springs should be placed lower in the nose and the nose itself (monocoque/cocpit) will be 100mm lower or almost, so there should be a small gain regarding CoG. (+more gains if you manage to place the stering rack lower like some teams tried to do in the pas years)
That's what Fry himself says: ''According to Ferrari technical director Pat Fry, this set-up is a little lighter and has a slightly lower centre of gravity''

[marcush.]

I´d think the CofG reasoning at the front is lame as all the parts are high up anyways in that area .The effect is totally overruled by any Ballst you are able to place in the splitter teatray area.
I think anything you can do to make things light in the area of the raised nose is worth a lot but less so the actual placement within that 300x300 crossection.

If there was a solution to actually place heavy parts (dampers ,rockers ,springs ,steering rack and hydraulics much lower but still retaining the high nose it would be something -but as things stand the pull rod layout does not score benefits here.

I ´m still intrigued by the idea of abandonning the double A arm layout at the front and I´m surprised nobody even tried something different ,considering the massive knowhow in designing and fabricating stiff yet flexible CF products.
In crude words:elongate the teatray a bit forward and attach a crossbeam to it -voila -front suspension done the flxure to mount it to the car floor could double up as ride spring leves only the question whrer to put the dampers and still get a decent motion ratio ....that approach could help to move a lot of parts away from the high up position without disturbing the flow (the beam could be an airfoil shape and help flow coming from the front wing?)

[wuzak]

I´d think the CofG reasoning at the front is lame as all the parts are high up anyways in that area .The effect is totally overruled by any Ballst you are able to place in the splitter teatray area.
I think anything you can do to make things light in the area of the raised nose is worth a lot but less so the actual placement within that 300x300 crossection.

If there was a solution to actually place heavy parts (dampers ,rockers ,springs ,steering rack and hydraulics much lower but still retaining the high nose it would be something -but as things stand the pull rod layout does not score benefits here.

I ´m still intrigued by the idea of abandonning the double A arm layout at the front and I´m surprised nobody even tried something different ,considering the massive knowhow in designing and fabricating stiff yet flexible CF products.
In crude words:elongate the teatray a bit forward and attach a crossbeam to it -voila -front suspension done the flxure to mount it to the car floor could double up as ride spring leves only the question whrer to put the dampers and still get a decent motion ratio ....that approach could help to move a lot of parts away from the high up position without disturbing the flow (the beam could be an airfoil shape and help flow coming from the front wing?)

A couple of points:

• The "tea tray" is not supposed to be flexible
• Quite sure that the "tea tray"cannot come any further forward than they have them now (rules)
• You have a swing arm with a horrible angle to the wheel
• You have no control over camber
• You still have to mount steering arms from teh rack, which will still be in front of the driver's feet

[marcush.]

there is no definition of a teatray in the rules.there is a definition of a flat bottom -if you decide to put your suspension in that area there is nothing to stop you doing that as long as you can place the plank where it is defined to be .
I cannot see where a current formula 1 car has any advanatge in terms of swing arm or camber control - teams seem to deliberately introduce horrible scrub and things in bump and with paralell equal length wishbones your cambers in roll are all over the place -my reasoning here is -suspension geometry and change ander dynamic loads is a low priority.

As with the steering still up there I do not think this is a given .Obviously such a radical design is far more than we will ever see in F1 ,maybe rightly so but i would still love to see a team taking a bold step ..


Fittingly Mr.wirth and his designs were epic fails at least in formula 1 ....I did not miss that little detail...