F1 active suspension

[Giblet]

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?

Semi auto boxes affect shift times, they don't change the handling. The removal of a clutch pedal hardly compares to a complete shift in the driving and handling dynamics of the car.

[gridwalker]

Not a single driver has lost his life since Imola 1994, and before that it was a semi regular occurrence.

I'm sorry, but I have to dispute this. Prior to that fateful weekend in 1994, the last death in an F1 car had been 8 years previously (Elio De Angelis testing a Brabham at Paul Ricard in 1986) and the last death in a race had been 12 years previously (Ricardo Paletti at the 1982 Canadian Grand Prix) ...

That is not a semi-regular occurrence in my book, although they do become much more frequent before that large gap.

So what caused the sudden decrease in the death rate? The biggest factor in technical specifications that took place around this time was the widespread adoption of carbon composite technology in the survival cell, supplanting the aluminum honeycomb that had been standard beforehand.

Back on to topic ...

It could be argued that active suspension could have saved Senna's life, raising the ride height to partially compensate for the decrease in tyre pressure behind the safety car.

[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?

Semi auto boxes affect shift times, they don't change the handling. The removal of a clutch pedal hardly compares to a complete shift in the driving and handling dynamics of the car.

Thats a pretty dubious distinciton to make. You're definition of driver aids keeps changing. It's not no longer something that makes the drivers life easier, its only something that affects handling.

I'd argue that not having to do the clutch and rev matching yourself is more of a drivers aid than a more controlable suspension system. Especially if you include the auto down shift systems in the early 2000's. It also partially killed overtaking as its now impossible for a driver to miss a gear (with a fully working box). Merely flicking a lever requires no skill compared to the art of a well executed gearshift.


The point is drivers aids for me is something that had veto over a driver input. TC, LC, ABS, 2 way telemetry all do this. AS doesnt veto any driver input, the car still does what its told only in a more controllable and predictable way, exactly like semi auto boxes.

[Giblet]

It's not a dubious distinction at all.

The way car shifts does not change it's handling. The lack of a clutch pedal and gated shifter does not make the car handle differently. And for the record, I think that drivers who had to shift gears had more to think about, and could possibly be considered better all around drivers.

I am not talking about all kinds of driver aids, I am talking about the topic of the post, Active Suspension, and how it is a game changing technology.

If I was a professional unicycler (I am reaching a bit, but bear with me), and I bought anew unicycle with a computer that automatically balanced itself like a Segway, I wouldn't need to be as skilled in balancing and weight shifting on my unicycle would I? I could even be an inferior unicycler and look really good.

Add some more gears to my unicycle, and I can go faster, but It doesn't change the fact I no longer need to feel what my unicycle is doing.

If you understood my distinction and the fundamental difference between the two (one is drive-line, the other suspension/handling) you would see I have no interest in comparing apples and oranges.

[Giblet]

Not a single driver has lost his life since Imola 1994, and before that it was a semi regular occurrence.

I'm sorry, but I have to dispute this. Prior to that fateful weekend in 1994, the last death in an F1 car had been 8 years previously (Elio De Angelis testing a Brabham at Paul Ricard in 1986) and the last death in a race had been 12 years previously (Ricardo Paletti at the 1982 Canadian Grand Prix) ...

That is not a semi-regular occurrence in my book, although they do become much more frequent before that large gap.

So what caused the sudden decrease in the death rate? The biggest factor in technical specifications that took place around this time was the widespread adoption of carbon composite technology in the survival cell, supplanting the aluminum honeycomb that had been standard beforehand.

Back on to topic ...

It could be argued that active suspension could have saved Senna's life, raising the ride height to partially compensate for the decrease in tyre pressure behind the safety car.

The Senna argument is silly. 3 drivers in 12 years is an average of one every 4 years. Add another driver 8 years prior, and you have an average of one driver every 5 years. That is a semi regular occurance, using your numbers.

The legality plank was added to ensure the cars meet a minimum ride height, keep in mind the cars back then were designed to bottom out and had titanium spark strips for just this purpose. There are 50 things we could bring up that could have saved his life, and Active Suspension would be one of the more complicated ones. The fact that an F1 car at the time was too dangerous to be able to follow a safety car for two laps without becoming a moving coffin says a lot as well. Things were too on edge then.

Wheel tethers would have saved his life for far cheaper, and the odds of a wheel tether KILLING someone are near zero, but AS almost killed Zanardi at Spa, and opennd everyones eyes to the dangers of Active Suspension.

I understand you guys don't see these dangers, but they are tangible, and well documented. Maybe it's an age thing, but I remember the horror of Imola, and it still scares the hit out of me. Rubens flying into barriers at head height, it's amazing he's still with us.

[mx_tifoso]

And for the record, I think that drivers who had to shift gears had more to think about, and could possibly be considered better all around drivers.

But now instead of shift levers you have many many dials and buttons on the steering wheel. And with each dial comes a multitude of settings which are constantly being changed.

Just throwing it out there...

[xxChrisxx]

Stuff

Oh I understand you alright, I just think you are wrong.

[gridwalker]

Not a single driver has lost his life since Imola 1994, and before that it was a semi regular occurrence.

I'm sorry, but I have to dispute this. Prior to that fateful weekend in 1994, the last death in an F1 car had been 8 years previously (Elio De Angelis testing a Brabham at Paul Ricard in 1986) and the last death in a race had been 12 years previously (Ricardo Paletti at the 1982 Canadian Grand Prix) ...

That is not a semi-regular occurrence in my book, although they do become much more frequent before that large gap.

So what caused the sudden decrease in the death rate? The biggest factor in technical specifications that took place around this time was the widespread adoption of carbon composite technology in the survival cell, supplanting the aluminum honeycomb that had been standard beforehand.

Back on to topic ...

It could be argued that active suspension could have saved Senna's life, raising the ride height to partially compensate for the decrease in tyre pressure behind the safety car.

The Senna argument is silly. 3 drivers in 12 years is an average of one every 4 years. Add another driver 8 years prior, and you have an average of one driver every 5 years. That is a semi regular occurance, using your numbers.

The legality plank was added to ensure the cars meet a minimum ride height, keep in mind the cars back then were designed to bottom out and had titanium spark strips for just this purpose. There are 50 things we could bring up that could have saved his life, and Active Suspension would be one of the more complicated ones. The fact that an F1 car at the time was too dangerous to be able to follow a safety car for two laps without becoming a moving coffin says a lot as well. Things were too on edge then.

Wheel tethers would have saved his life for far cheaper, and the odds of a wheel tether KILLING someone are near zero, but AS almost killed Zanardi at Spa, and opennd everyones eyes to the dangers of Active Suspension.

I understand you guys don't see these dangers, but they are tangible, and well documented. Maybe it's an age thing, but I remember the horror of Imola, and it still scares the hit out of me. Rubens flying into barriers at head height, it's amazing he's still with us.

It may be an age thing???

How old are you? To even suggest that our difference of opinion could be down to age is not only spurious but needlessly patronising.

I am 30 and have been watching F1 since 1987 ... I remember that weekend vividly & can even remember my first words after Senna's crash HALF MY LIFETIME AGO! My father also happened to be one of the top dynamic balancers in the UK, who frequently worked short-term contracts for a number of F1 teams and suppliers (occasionally pulling me out of school so that I could watch him at work), so I have been exposed to many aspects of the sport throughout my entire living memory ... Age has nothing to do with this.

I also remember the issues with AS back in the 90s : I note that nobody has yet mentioned the AS failure that pitched a Ferrari straight into a wall upon leaving the pits during Monaco 93.

Ferrari were deemed by many commentators of the time as having one of the weaker AS systems and the development war forced them to field systems that weren't thoroughly tested. Given that the FIA aren't above standardising components these days (and Max has been seeking to standardise more), I'm surprised that a spec AS system hasn't been contemplated.

Considering the aerodynamic sensitivity of modern cars, I'd have thought that enabling the cars to maintain the optimum pitch and roll under acceleration/braking/cornering would have been essential to increase overtaking opportunities. Speccing the system would ensure that only a thoroughly developed system is used and that necessary failsafes could be included (which may not be the case with a non-specced, weight critical unit).

I'm not for technology JUST for technology's sake (like the emasculated KERs specification), but there has to be some middle ground where this technology can benefit everyone for the sake of the show.

[Giblet]

I wasn't trying to patronize, that is why I sued the words "Maybe" it's an age thing. You assumed I was patronizing, and that is your problem of perspective, not me ridiculing you. I am sorry you saw it that way.

If I told you that it WAS an age thing, consider yourself patronized.

I am 36, and I got into the sport in 1996, so like I said, the age could make a difference. I was a teenager and you were still not. I was able to take things more seriously when I was 16 than when I was 10. S'truth.

The age statement was a generalization. I was not pointed at anyone I was merely wondering aloud.

Don't take stuff personally here or turds fly

[Giblet]

Stuff

Oh I understand you alright, I just think you are wrong.

So you do think gearboxes effect the dynamic loading and unloading of tires, and you don't agree that apples and oranges are different.

Your last statement tells me your tank is empty, and you are coasting to a stop.

[xxChrisxx]

Stuff

Oh I understand you alright, I just think you are wrong.

So you do think gearboxes effect the dynamic loading and unloading of tires, and you don't agree that apples and oranges are different.

Your last statement tells me your tank is empty, and you are coasting to a stop.

I have plenty of argument left in me, I dont really see the point of it. Neither of us is ever going to convince the other. I don't view active ride as a driver aid, you do.


You also keep changing your mind and point of argument, or the goal posts when a clear counter to your paper thin arguments arises.

First your argument was cost. But F1 temas will spend the moneythey have got on something. Surely its better to give nan area with real development opportunities.

Then you were against it active ride because of a rather knee jerk reason to safety. When it was pointed out that standard suspensions can fail and cause pretty big accidents you changed tac.

Then it was becuase it was banned under the all sweeping 'driver aids' business. You pointed out that it made the cars easier to drive. Which is exactly what an electronically controlled gear change does.

Then you switched again, to the fact that you only consider systems that affect handling to be worthy of banning.

There is no argument that active ride affects handling, however you essentially make it sound like the active system drives the car. The active ride simply makes the aero more stable, which in an era of cars not being able to get remotely close to one another becuase of aero instability i'd say a call for active ride is a good one.


Lets summarise:

Active ride is expensive. Yes, but not overly so for F1 standards.
Active ride is unsafe. Well no more unsafe than standars suspension systems.
Active ride is a drier aid. Depends on the definition of driver aid.
Active ride makes cars more stable. In an era of cars not being able to follow and overtake due to stability poroblems, i'd say active ride would be a good thing.


"So you do think gearboxes effect the dynamic loading and unloading of tires, and you don't agree that apples and oranges are different."

No I dont because that would be stupid. It's not a case of apples and oranges its a case of I consider both Breburn and Cox to be apples. I am focusing on the fact that both AS and electronic gearchange systems offer a level of control of a system over a purely mechanical system controlled by the driver.

You are building a stawman by trying to force it to be an apples and oranes case by focusing on an area of control that clearly suspension controls and the transmission doesnt. Then claiming victory.

You seem to be obsessed by what is controlled, rather than the issue of control itsself.

Electronic flappy paddles, elimintes driver error from gear changes. In the highly unlikely even of shifting up 2 gears they just flick the switch the other way *POP* back in the correct gear, no penalty.
Active ride doesnt eleiminte driver error from handling. It merely improves stability on bumpy surfaces at low speed and makes aero more efficient at higher speeds.

Bottom line is: they banned to wrong system.
Show would be better with manual geaboxes, making the possilbity of missing a gear more likely (overtaking increases). Active rise improves aero stability (overtaking increases).

[RacingManiac]

I'd mention that rarely any suspension system on a road going vehicle is fully "active". Even with all the MR shocks and adaptive dampers most are still "reactive", in that MR/adaptive damping is capable of altering the damping characteristic based on needs, but not capable of physically altering wheelend/chassis attitude. A fully active system such as that on the early 90s F1 cars will require more energy input to actively control chassis's position(we are talking orders of magnitude greater). Which in the current age of limited engine size and power and fuel concious era will be less desirable. There are cars with such systems obviously , but they aren't all that common(Mercedes's ABC for instance). BMW have done studies I believe on their active roll control that it drains as much as 80 horsepower in cornering maneuver, so not insignificant.

[Giblet]

I don't move the posts you put words in my mouth. AS systems of the past had a single point of failure completely unlike traditional suspension. How does that make it less safe? Re read my posts, and understand more clearly what is being said.

[xxChrisxx]

Double post.

[xxChrisxx]

I don't move the posts you put words in my mouth. AS systems of the past had a single point of failure completely unlike traditional suspension. How does that make it less safe? Re read my posts, and understand more clearly what is being said.

"Your last statement tells me your tank is empty, and you are coasting to a stop."

Like I said I perfercly understood your points, I just dont agree with them one bit. Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding. I also know that we are never going to see eye to eye on this and was bowing out. You being all superior about it and gloating like your reasons had won is like a red rag to a bull.

I see you didnt respond to the acutally points I was making. So i've highlighted them below.

Giblet wrote: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)

Cost - you said its an issue. I say not becuase they will spend what theyve got anyway. This system will give tangible benefits to racing (a more aero stable car is easier to over take with). Unlike the silly money they are pumping into make a bracket slightly better or something like that.

Safety - you said AS can be dangerouns. Thats not an arguement as normal suspension can be dangerous. The active ride system after development is no more dangerous when it fails as any other type of suspension. They all lead to huge accidents.

Takes focus from driver skill - I responded with "so do other technologies that are allowed (eg semi auto grear box)".

You agreed that it does take away from driver skill. But defended it with some BS about because it didnt affect handling. Who gives a --- what the system affects? A driver aid is a driver aid.

My point was, why are you making that distinction? If semi auto gearboxes are ok (even though you admitted they take from driver skill)h why are you singling out active ride to not be brought back for the same reason?

That is called double standards.