From what I understood he is braking slightly into the turn, at that moment the inside wheel has less contact with the surface thus it is more lock up sensitive on that wheel.timbo wrote:Sure, but he didn't lock fronts as often mid season as he did in last race.Jersey Tom wrote:Hamilton certainly has been known to lock inside fronts. Hard to say from us just watching on TV how much is him versus how much is car setup.
Scarbs: I have no issue with your second sentence. However, & with apologies, I do with your first.scarbs wrote:I'm told that some engineers don't warm to the idea, wanting to keep the individual wheel rates under seperate control from pitch. Also it seems the dynamics of soft rear and stiff front roll rates don't suit every driver\car\aero package. Lastly the set up doesn't suit all tracks.
Maybe some guys just don't want to commit optimizing their setup for another design?DaveW wrote:I think that, if installation stiffnesses are sufficiently high, any combination of bars, corner springs & 3rd spring that yields the same values of Kh & Kr (see my earlier post) will, if all else remains the same, cause a vehicle to respond identically to a disturbance, whatever the source. The problem with a "decoupled" spring layout is often fitting the elements into an envelope (high stiffness bars with sufficient linear stroke are a particular problem, I think). Achieving an adequate installation stiffness can also be difficult.
You may be right. As I understand its not the specifc rate of the different spring elements they want to control, rather than differing rising rate between the wheel springs and the heave spring.DaveW wrote:Scarbs: I have no issue with your second sentence. However, & with apologies, I do with your first.scarbs wrote:I'm told that some engineers don't warm to the idea, wanting to keep the individual wheel rates under seperate control from pitch. Also it seems the dynamics of soft rear and stiff front roll rates don't suit every driver\car\aero package. Lastly the set up doesn't suit all tracks.
I think that, if installation stiffnesses are sufficiently high, any combination of bars, corner springs & 3rd spring that yields the same values of Kh & Kr (see my earlier post) will, if all else remains the same, cause a vehicle to respond identically to a disturbance, whatever the source. The problem with a "decoupled" spring layout is often fitting the elements into an envelope (high stiffness bars with sufficient linear stroke are a particular problem, I think). Achieving an adequate installation stiffness can also be difficult.
This is a quote from my source within F1, I think it echoes your comment perfectly "Some 'engineers' I have worked with can't get their heads around this for some reason, perhaps they can't think from first principles"timbo wrote:Maybe some guys just don't want to commit optimizing their setup for another design?DaveW wrote:I think that, if installation stiffnesses are sufficiently high, any combination of bars, corner springs & 3rd spring that yields the same values of Kh & Kr (see my earlier post) will, if all else remains the same, cause a vehicle to respond identically to a disturbance, whatever the source. The problem with a "decoupled" spring layout is often fitting the elements into an envelope (high stiffness bars with sufficient linear stroke are a particular problem, I think). Achieving an adequate installation stiffness can also be difficult.
Requirements (no corner springs), materials & geometry have all matured since then. With the larger diffusers of recent years (and the resulting decreased pushrod angles) I wouldn't be surprised that flexures are being used to absorb more of the spring rate to minimize rocker arm loads & friction.Jersey Tom wrote: And as for flexures, they do contribute to the ride rate of the car but it's surprisingly low. I have an old, steel flexure ChampCar a-arm around somewhere. When the chassis-side mounts are clamped down, you can get a lot of travel out of the wheel-side point with very little effort.