F1 active suspension

[scarbs]

Zanardis big crash was at spa in a Lotus.

[djos]

Zanardi had a really bad crash when his AS system had a leak causing his car to bottom and hard into the wall. There were other issues aside of cost and performance. How would that keep from happening again?

How is an AS failure any different to any other physical suspension failure?

[xxChrisxx]

Stuff

I can tell you what i'd do.

Reallow active ride and ventri tunnels.

The ground effects gives much cleaner downforce, than the wings diffuser combo. The only reason ground effects was dangerous was becuase the cars bottomed out. Active ride would essentailly stop that.

For all those saying, but they'll be going mega fast in the corners and everyones head will drop off. The answer to that is simple, reduce downforce levels significantly, very simple wings for low speed downforce and you can control ground effect downforce by specifying minimun ride height and ventrui tunnel size.

Cut downforce to 30% of current levels, (you'd have to assume that the engineers will claw at least half of what was lost). Leaving more aero efficent cars in terms of lift to drag ratio, less turbulence allowing closer running.


Yes its expensive, but F1 teams have money to spend and they will spend it come what may. At the moment true innovation has basically been shut down and tems are spending vast amounts of money on evolution of designs. It's a cours ethat takes you down a road of diminishing returns.

As oppsed to them spending silly amounts of money on an equally silly endeavour that noone will ever know about suc has shaving a few grams off a wheel nut or coaxing a few more Nm torque out of the engine with 'reliability upgrades'. Let them spend it on something that will give more recognisable results.

On the other hand, teams have money, they will spend it no matter what

[Giblet]

Zanardi had a really bad crash when his AS system had a leak causing his car to bottom and hard into the wall. There were other issues aside of cost and performance. How would that keep from happening again?

How is an AS failure any different to any other physical suspension failure?

The difference is if on damper/spring fails, one corner of the car unloads. An F1 car can usually limp back to the pits on 3 wheels. There is still some semblance of control. In an AS setup, the hydraulic pressure holds the car "up", so if one line goes, the whole system fails, and the car becomes a 180mph sled. Not very cool when trying to take a corner. This is also what happened to Senna, although not because of the AS. Cars bottoming out is one of the most dangerous things that can happen. The kind of accident that MS had when he broke his legs was similar. Massa recentlty going straight off into the wall, again, not because of AS, but an AS like straight off hit.

This is why I wonder why people think it is such a good idea to bring back, nobody here is listening to what we learned in the past, which is why I brought up Zanardi in the Lotus with the AS. Just testing the system can be dangerous to the driver, because when there is an AS failure, it can be catastrophic.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3HsAFz5cEs[/youtube]

I'm sure there could be a way to stop this from happening, but again, it will cost money that the sport doesn't have right now.

[xxChrisxx]

This is why I wonder why people think it is such a good idea to bring back, nobody here is listening to what we learned in the past, which is why I brought up Zanardi in the Lotus with the AS. Just testing the system can be dangerous to the driver, because when there is an AS failure, it can be catastrophic.

You can't let a single incident (or even some isolated incidents) taint an entire technology. The point is going through Eau Rouge flat out, a spring/damper fails on a standard car, you are going to to be in a pretty mighty accident. The point is the active system still had springs to keep the car up in the event of a failure and whilst the system was off. It's just under the massive aero loads they werernt enough. Apart from Zanardi's crash, I can't think of another crash directly caused by active ride failure.

I can't see any justification as to why it would be banned, or not brought back apart from scare mongering over a potential accident. If you applied that logic to grand prix racing, you might as well just pack them up and send them all home and draw the winner out of a hat. We could point out that wheels are unsafe becuase of Surtees, or that passive springs are unsafe because of Massa or that rear wings are unsafe because I remember a few of them falling off.

The fact is an active system is inherently safer than a passive suspension becuase it can do everything else a passive system can do, but also adapt on the fly. It makes the car more stable. It would have also (possibly?/probably?)prevented Senna's crash by jacking the car up when the tyre pressures dropped.

[flynfrog]

[youtube]hTckyf4uT64[/youtube]

No AS involved


You talk about things we could learn from it is that a knee jerk reaction is never a good one. Look at the rules put in place after Senna crashed. Most of them did not make the cars any safer

[Giblet]

Yes it was AS, it was Lotus's active car. Look it up before you debate it, like I did. I'm not spouting crap here bud That crash was a direct result of his AS hydraulics failing.

I read about in one of this months current mags.

By the end of 1991 he had also been blooded in Formula One: two starts for Jordan his reward for a strong F3000 campaign.
For 1992 Zanardi had to be content with guest drives for Minardi, replacing the injured Christian Fittipaldi. In the off-season, he tested for Benetton, but contracted with Lotus for 1993. Zanardi compared reasonably to teammate Johnny Herbert and was important in fine-tuning the team's active suspension system, scoring his first ever F1 point at the Brazilian Grand Prix. However, his season ended prematurely after he suffered a terrible crash during practice for the Belgian Grand Prix.

[xxChrisxx]

Yes it was AS, it was Lotus's active car. Look it up before you debate it, like I did. I'm not spouting crap here bud That crash was a direct result of his AS hydraulics failing.

I read about in one of this months current mags.

By the end of 1991 he had also been blooded in Formula One: two starts for Jordan his reward for a strong F3000 campaign.
For 1992 Zanardi had to be content with guest drives for Minardi, replacing the injured Christian Fittipaldi. In the off-season, he tested for Benetton, but contracted with Lotus for 1993. Zanardi compared reasonably to teammate Johnny Herbert and was important in fine-tuning the team's active suspension system, scoring his first ever F1 point at the Brazilian Grand Prix. However, his season ended prematurely after he suffered a terrible crash during practice for the Belgian Grand Prix.

I think the point he was making was referring to the link he posted. It's basically Massa onboard when he gets clouted by the spring.

[Giblet]

[youtube]hTckyf4uT64[/youtube]

No AS involved


You talk about things we could learn from it is that a knee jerk reaction is never a good one. Look at the rules put in place after Senna crashed. Most of them did not make the cars any safer

Not a single driver has lost his life since Imola 1994, and before that it was a semi regular occurrence. in fact, the majority of major crashes involve walking away, or minor injuries.

I could make a big list of drivers who would likely be dead right now if it wasn't for the changes put in place. Kubica, Schumi, Rubens, Massa,etc....

Raikonnen would likely also be dead or a quad right now if wheel tethers weren't introduced.

[xxChrisxx]

Not a single river has lost his life since Imola 1994, and before that it was a semi regular occurrence. in fact, the majority of major crashes involve walking away, or minor injuries.

I could make a big list of drivers who would likely be dead right now if it wasn't for the changes put in place. Kubica, Schumi, Rubens, Massa,etc....

The changes were mostly to do with trackside saftey, HANS (probably the biggest life saver) and improved helmets and cockpit protection.

You seriouly can't be trying to say that getting rid of a suspension technology that caused 1 noteworthy accident was what saved everyone from certain doom.

You arguments are trying to argue around the point of active ride being as safe as passive suspension, not with it.


EDIT: forget the above, I fail at reading. I just read that he said that changes after Sennas death made the cars no safer. Which is wrong.

[Giblet]

For the record, AS was not banned as part of the sweeping changes made after 1994. It was banned for all the reasons I have already stated

I've made my points of :AS too pricey in modern F1 climate to implement for everyone, AS can be dangerous, as proved in the past, AS takes focus away from driver skill (Makes them easier to drive)

I don't need to argue them anymore, that's it

1994 rule changes
Ban on electronic driver aids such as active suspension,[32] traction control,[41] launch control, ABS, 4 wheel steering[42] at the beginning of the season, mid race refueling allowed for the first time since 1983,[43] post Imola sweeping changes introduced to slow cars down, between the Spanish Grand Prix and the German Grand Prix these changes are phased in and include a reduction in the height of the rear wing of 10 cm, an increase in the height of the front wing, no front wing trailing assemblies to extend behind front wheel, a 10 mm wooden plank fitted to the under tray (permitted to be worn by no more than 1 mm by the race end), a ban on rear wing assemblies extending beyond the rear axle line to sidestep the new wing restrictions, depressurising the engine airbox to reduce power, minimum headrest thickness of 75 mm introduced, more stringent fire extinguisher regulations and driver helmet criteria implemented,a pit lane speed restriction of 80 km/h in practice and 120 km/h in race conditions introduced. also for first two rounds the parade lap was to be completed behind safety car (abandoned from Imola onwards), pit spectator area to be fire shielded, 27 corners identified as very high risk and as a result changes to circuit layouts implemented to remove or modify these parts of the track.[38]

EDIT: Welcome to the world of reading what we want to hear, and hearing what we want to read

[xxChrisxx]

I've made my points of :AS too pricey in modern F1 climate to implement for everyone, AS can be dangerous, as proved in the past, AS takes focus away from driver skill (Makes them easier to drive)

I don't need to argue them anymore, that's it

I disagree, but fair play .

Edit: I do have just one thing to say about this. If AS is considered a driver aid, purely beecause it makes the car easier to drive, what about semi auto boxes?

[flynfrog]

Ill agree to disagree with you but argue one last point

the banning of : Ban on electronic driver aids such as active suspension,[32] traction control,[41] launch control, ABS, 4 wheel steering[42]

did nothing to make the cars safer.

Fixing the corners did however.

To bad there is not a buy the other poster a pint button I would pitch in a few for you Giblet

[xpensive]

For the record, AS was not banned as part of the sweeping changes made after 1994. It was banned for all the reasons I have already stated

I've made my points of :AS too pricey in modern F1 climate to implement for everyone, AS can be dangerous, as proved in the past, AS takes focus away from driver skill (Makes them easier to drive)

I don't need to argue them anymore, that's it

With that last statement giblet, I guess you mean that you have made your opinion clear?

No system is ever guaranteed, I think we should have learned this by now, remember the entire rear bodywork on Jaques' new BAR came loose when testing in 1999 among so many other xamples.

[toto1041]

Wrong place to have this pole mate;

It'll be pretty one sided NO.

Active suspension should remain banned for the same reason FIA banned traction control. Let these highly paid drivers earn their salary.

looks like its pretty even nearly 50 / 50.