Richard C wrote: ↑29 Apr 2024, 22:22
I have an idea on how to implement Active Suspension and am curious as to people’s thoughts regarding the viability. I have read over this thread and much of it is over a decade old. It seems that concerns are around the following:
- Active Suspension is a driver’s aid (or not). Depending upon your perspective this is a good or bad thing.
- Issues around safety such as the potential loss of control as part of a total system.
- Cost would be high due to various factors such as bespoke parts, complexity of solutions and potential for expensive development war between teams without it being a real performance differentiator.
I think the first issue is somewhat a philosophical question that can’t be answered one way or another objectively. I think F1 in total can’t decide what exactly it is. Is it sport or entertainment, is it high tech or not, etc. The second, I think, can be mitigated well enough but not fully. Nothing in F1 is without some level of risk, but the solution should require safe failure modes. In short, think the first two can be addressed. My idea focuses on challenges much closer to the third item.
What if an active suspension solution utilized a core strategy of using spec and fixed number of components?
- Items such as sensors, actuators, pumps, etc. would both be spec components and with a fixed number of each/type.
- ECU for the solution would be a spec/homologated unit much like used for the power unit.
The idea is that it moves suspension design away from trying to create complex mechanical solutions into the future. I feel that given the level of technical concept that have been banned (i.e. Tuned mass damper, Inerter, FRIC) that the solutions have become more and more esoteric and costly. F1 suspension is costly mechanical watches living in an age of cheap quartz watches that keep better time.
As to cost, we are in a cost cap era. Teams don’t want new areas of development that will not be differentiators. However, I think teams might like something new that should level the field and maybe stabilize costs. This should move design, development and prototyping away from costly physical components and into software solutions that can be designed, developed and prototyped virtually. I think this would reduce overall development costs and should produce more performance parity between teams.
Beyond the core concept of spec physical components, the regulations can have other limitations to help prevent development in undesired areas or other unintended consequence.
- Address head on topics such as using active suspension as part of active aero such as changing ride height or rake to impact the level of drag (such as lower drag on long straights). Maybe it’s allowed to be part of active aero? Or maybe not!
- Allow or prevent such things as “track learning.”
- Allow or prevent solution from working directly with engine ECU. (Potentially combine active aero and engine ecu into one if that makes sense.)
- Fixed number of “driver modes” (require more driver input vs. automatic solutioning by the system)
- Unobfuscated code would be provided to governing body for examination (as needed)
- Clearly define where suspension movement can exist (to prevent creation of solutions that work alongside of, but outside of the boundaries defined above)
In short, the regulations can decide how smart or dumb and interconnected the solution can be. F1 has a history of taking parts that are not significantly visible to the fans and making these as spec parts to save money. Suspension internals can be done the same.
What concerns do I have? Switching to this would have an initial up-front cost. But that is not too different than any new concept (such as active aero). But it would be an issue. Cars have gotten heavier since the last time active suspension was allowed. Solutions will need to be more powerful (heavier?) than before. Will a move to active suspension be a net neutral, positive or negative weight impact? I “hope” that an active solution can be built to weigh less than current solutions and yet outperform them. There is also the potential for unexpected areas of development. The regulations would have to be clear that playing outside of the defined box is not allowed.
