Go-karts have no suspension because they are so lightweight and that allows their tyre pressure to be around 0.7 which enables some absorption capabilities. F1 has 605 kg… end of story.
Well, you have to observe the F1 car as large go-kart. It weights as much as it does and suspension it currently has is as stiff as possible. It would have to weight as much as real go-kart to so that suspension-less design can be concerned.
Karts have a degree of suspension by controlled flex of the chassis, which can be tuned to different tracks. I don't know the rules, but I suspect that the reason karts don't have suspension is that it is part of the rules package and the makers use chassis flex and steering geometry to minimise the disadvantages of a rigid chassis.
The main purpose of suspension in an F1 car is to manage weight transfer (amount and speed of....) and help the tyres do their job. With a suspension system the engineers can adjust and balance the car to track conditions and to affect behaviours to make the drivers job easier. Also, suspension systems let them pay careful attention to ride height and pitch to get the most out of the aero package.
F1 chassis would also flex if it was suspension-less in a way that it resembles on go-kart with wheels attached to the four corners of the chassis. Or, it can be said that go-kart chassis is made deliberately flexible which is something F1 can’t afford just as it can’t afford low pressure tyres for same purpose.
Anyway I think that talking about this is pointless since it is so far from reality.
I think a suspension less car was once tried by Colin Chapman at Lotus.
Can't find it at the moment but I think I can recall something about the cars being too demanding for the drivers.
Unless you race on a billiard table, you need some form of "suspension". As a tire contacts a road irregularity, be it a depression or a dip, it can lose contact with the road surface. If you're not in contact, you're not in control, nor are you going as fast as you can. Also, any movement by the chassis would impart geometry change or vector forces that could be undesirable.
When you discuss suspensions, two important parameters are unsprung weight and sprung weight. The broad idea is to have the unsprung weight of the wheels and suspension uprights, shocks, etc. have as low mass as possible, and follow the road surfact, while allowing the sprung weight (chassis) to ride along unbothered. The chassis, where the suspension components locate, is usually as rigid as possible, not only for safety, but to be consistent, so that the suspension isn't subject to unwanted forces. I really put it in simplistit terms, but you have to have a stiff chassis, and you have to allow the wheels to move independant of the chassis to have proper performance.
As mentioned in previous posts, karts have some form or partial suspension action, even though the chassis and wheels are rigidly mounted to each other. It's good enough for the speeds and surfaces they run on, and hey, one of the appeals of karts is that they are simple.
Tomba wrote:I think a suspension less car was once tried by Colin Chapman at Lotus.
Can't find it at the moment but I think I can recall something about the cars being too demanding for the drivers.
I think that it had suspension but incorporating aerodynamics and body work sprung separately from the cockpit.
Is this the one? Lotus 86
Last edited by manchild on 06 Nov 2005, 23:29, edited 2 times in total.
It is best possible according to specific regulations. In general, go-kart’s steering response and handling is completely different because there is no differential on the rear axle and that makes huge difference in driving style.
Tomba wrote:I think a suspension less car was once tried by Colin Chapman at Lotus.
Can't find it at the moment but I think I can recall something about the cars being too demanding for the drivers.
I think that it had suspension but incorporating aerodynamics and body work sprung separately from the cockpit.
