Challenges in designing the new ground effect cars for 2022

[henry]

It's just another avenue to pour money into. Bump stops have varied designs, materials, hardness, deformation properties. Considering torsion bars tend to be linear, adding progressive rates to them via bump stops can make damper tuning interesting. It kind of forces you into strange compromises. Since dampers control oscillations and bump stops also have their own internal damping.

Any spring elements must be linear by regulation

10.4.3 The only permitted suspension elements are :

a. Springs-the primary purpose of which is to absorb and release energy in a monotonically increasing load relationship with relative deflection between its nodes (or increasing torque with twist). Multiple springs may be combined in series or parallel to generate a single spring element entity between its nodes providing the result, as measured at the nodes, conforms to the monotonic requirement above and no part of the design has the purpose and/or effect of altering this relationship. Spring elements using a fluid medium are not permitted.

b. Dampers–the primary purpose of which is to dissipate energy by generating an opposing force to the direction of motion as a function of the relative velocity between its nodes. Utilisation of heavily asymmetric damping forces for the purpose and/or effect of contravening Article 10.2.6 is not permitted. A gas spring as part of the functionality of a damper element, for the purposes of anti-cavitation, is acceptable as long as the spring rate as measured between the nodes does not exceed 10N/mm.

Also, I can’t find the part in the regulations that bans heave elements. Can you point it out please.

[Tommy Cookers]

this is very interesting

Any spring elements must be linear by regulation

10.4.3 The only permitted suspension elements are :
a. Springs-the primary purpose of which is to absorb and release energy in a monotonically increasing load relationship with relative deflection between its nodes (or increasing torque with twist). Multiple springs may be combined in series or parallel to generate a single spring element entity between its nodes providing the result, as measured at the nodes, conforms to the monotonic requirement above and no part of the design has the purpose and/or effect of altering this relationship. Spring elements using a fluid medium are not permitted.
b. Dampers–the primary purpose of which is to dissipate energy by generating an opposing force to the direction of motion as a function of the relative velocity between its nodes. Utilisation of heavily asymmetric damping forces for the purpose and/or effect of contravening Article 10.2.6 is not permitted. A gas spring as part of the functionality of a damper element, for the purposes of anti-cavitation, is acceptable as long as the spring rate as measured between the nodes does not exceed 10N/mm.

Also, I can’t find the part in the regulations that bans heave elements. Can you point it out please.

and .....afaik ....
no car has heave springs (that would require front:rear interconnection)
they have what we might correctly call axle-common-mode springs

[godlameroso]

It's just another avenue to pour money into. Bump stops have varied designs, materials, hardness, deformation properties. Considering torsion bars tend to be linear, adding progressive rates to them via bump stops can make damper tuning interesting. It kind of forces you into strange compromises. Since dampers control oscillations and bump stops also have their own internal damping.

Any spring elements must be linear by regulation

10.4.3 The only permitted suspension elements are :

a. Springs-the primary purpose of which is to absorb and release energy in a monotonically increasing load relationship with relative deflection between its nodes (or increasing torque with twist). Multiple springs may be combined in series or parallel to generate a single spring element entity between its nodes providing the result, as measured at the nodes, conforms to the monotonic requirement above and no part of the design has the purpose and/or effect of altering this relationship. Spring elements using a fluid medium are not permitted.

b. Dampers–the primary purpose of which is to dissipate energy by generating an opposing force to the direction of motion as a function of the relative velocity between its nodes. Utilisation of heavily asymmetric damping forces for the purpose and/or effect of contravening Article 10.2.6 is not permitted. A gas spring as part of the functionality of a damper element, for the purposes of anti-cavitation, is acceptable as long as the spring rate as measured between the nodes does not exceed 10N/mm.

Also, I can’t find the part in the regulations that bans heave elements. Can you point it out please.

Monotonic means it increases at a fixed rate curve, not that the rate increase is linear. You can have a progressive rate and still be monotonic. I guess Motorsport was wrong, you can use "anti-dive" "anti-squat" "anti-lift" suspension geometry.

[henry]

…..

Monotonic means it increases at a fixed rate curve, not that the rate increase is linear. You can have a progressive rate and still be monotonic. I guess Motorsport was wrong, you can use "anti-dive" "anti-squat" "anti-lift" suspension geometry.

Yes, you’re right. Monotonic means it must always go up, not necessarily linearly.

Any luck with the “heave” element ban?

[Just_a_fan]

b. Dampers–the primary purpose of which is to dissipate energy by generating an opposing force to the direction of motion as a function of the relative velocity between its nodes. Utilisation of heavily asymmetric damping forces for the purpose and/or effect of contravening Article 10.2.6 is not permitted. A gas spring as part of the functionality of a damper element, for the purposes of anti-cavitation, is acceptable as long as the spring rate as measured between the nodes does not exceed 10N/mm.

Nice to see that a loop hole has been left in the regulation. Define "heavily asymmetric". And there's a few weeks of back and forth between the teams and the FIA wasted whilst the try to figure out what they can get away with.

[godlameroso]

The only benefit from heavily asymmetrical damping forces is an ill handling car... Kinematic rules apply no matter what.

What is interesting is that multiple elements can be placed in series or parallel to create the spring forces on each individual rocker. It may be necessary to do so considering the increase in un-sprung mass(bigger wheels, fairings, revised rates of suspension travel considering the lower profile tires).

[godlameroso]

…..

Monotonic means it increases at a fixed rate curve, not that the rate increase is linear. You can have a progressive rate and still be monotonic. I guess Motorsport was wrong, you can use "anti-dive" "anti-squat" "anti-lift" suspension geometry.

Yes, you’re right. Monotonic means it must always go up, not necessarily linearly.

Any luck with the “heave” element ban?

None, I saw it in a Motorsport article, but after having read the regulations I see no mention of it, so I was wrong on that one.

[Greg Locock]

" heavily asymmetrical damping forces is an ill handling car."
Yet, of course, most road cars use heavily asymmetric shock curves. /The/ John Miles wrote about it once in vehicle dynamics international.

[PhillipM]

I think they mean more in the way that they were used in F1 and Nascar, etc, a couple decades back, where they were running low speed rebound damping at an order of magnitude higher than compression purely to pull the car to the floor.

[Just_a_fan]

The only benefit from heavily asymmetrical damping forces is an ill handling car... Kinematic rules apply no matter what.

If it makes the car bad, there's no reason to include it in the rules. Ergo, if they choose to ban it, it's because it's something the teams could use to good effect. The issue, as ever with the FIA's rules, is a grey definition rather than a black and white one.

Who defines what "heavily asymmetric" is and when does it get defined? And what is meant by "heavily"? 50%? 100%? Some other "picked at random from the bag" figure? It's set up for another round of protests between two or more teams at some point during the season. It's set up for "the show".

[godlameroso]

" heavily asymmetrical damping forces is an ill handling car."
Yet, of course, most road cars use heavily asymmetric shock curves. /The/ John Miles wrote about it once in vehicle dynamics international.

Most road cars have little compression damping and are biased on rebound for driver comfort. If you go extreme rebound the car jacks down over bumps.

[Greg Locock]

Yup, we measure the sucking down of the car as it rides over low frequency bumps.

[Marty_Y]

A couple of interesting videos about the basics of the new cars,

The new rear wing,


This is a very good overview with Scarbs,

Everything you need to know about F1 cars in 2022

[Big Tea]

I am completely out of my depth here, so probably asking a stupid question.

Two parts to the same question. Is there any stipulation of surface finish on wings, or anywhere really, and could this surface be 'roughened' at say the outside edges of the wing to create a vortex 'seal' or ramp?
As in the vid above, 'air forced upwards gives force downwards( paraphrased )' would it mean a disturbance at the wing ends redirects this airflow upwards?

Apologies if it is a stupid question, or if I have not stated it well

[jjn9128]

I am completely out of my depth here, so probably asking a stupid question.

Two parts to the same question. Is there any stipulation of surface finish on wings, or anywhere really, and could this surface be 'roughened' at say the outside edges of the wing to create a vortex 'seal' or ramp?
As in the vid above, 'air forced upwards gives force downwards( paraphrased )' would it mean a disturbance at the wing ends redirects this airflow upwards?

Apologies if it is a stupid question, or if I have not stated it well

There’s no stipulation I’m aware of on surface finish. But you won’t get much vorticity to “seal” anything