Williams FW33

[FrukostScones]

I love the Wiliams, but maybe the back is not stiff enough.
Found this on youtube:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtzgTDlx0BE[/youtube]

I assume it is not KERS. Is it for the starter or the jack? For what is it?

[djos]

I love the Wiliams, but maybe the back is not stiff enough.
Found this on youtube:

I assume it is not KERS. Is it for the starter or the jack? For what is it?

That video just shows Williams mechanics changing batteries for the external engine starter.

[marcush.]

Camber compliance? no ,thats not the only issue if the Wing pillar is moving under load the rear will experience side load steering as the front wishbone fixing points will reamin where they are ,just both rear inside top mounting points will flex giving some negative camber to the outer wheel (positive camber on the inner one,but also toe out on the outer and toe in on the inner one -with the toe links fixed to the same pillar .(maybe one could look into Arnings concepts and make use of all this?)
But how much of flexing will it show? the thing(pilar) is a bolt on to the gearbox and the leverage is considerable..

[LoudHoward]

It's certainly an interesting car, the back end is eye opening.

Enough to get Williams out of the midfield though?

[Crafty]

With regards to the driveshaft angles, is it possible the components of the diff are canted at the same/similar angle ? If you think of a single diff with two ring gears that are upright, would it be possible to lean them in ? thus reducing the extreme angle for the driveshaft joint to run at
Or have they just made some drivesahft joints that can handle running at such an angle ?

I agree with the other posters though, seems a much more interesting car than the competitors, sort of harks back to Williams of old when they were up front.

[csponton]

REAR SUSPENSION WILLIAMS FW 33

http://spontoncristiano.wordpress.com/2 ... ams-fw-33/
Great novelty introduced in the test at Valencia yesterday, the Williams FW33, which was one of the most spied on by auto technicians opponents, particularly intrigued by the attack of the upper triangle of the rear suspension integrated into the rear wing support. Such a thing had never been seen in Formula 1. Williams has managed to achieve thanks to the rebuilding of the gearbox which, according to engineers is the smallest ever in the history of Formula 1. At first sight, the rear of Williams is the lowest among all those seen so far. Better even than Red Bull, Newey.

[nacho]

Take a look at this big picture of the rear-end:



Lot of things to see.

[RacingManiac]

With regards to the driveshaft angles, is it possible the components of the diff are canted at the same/similar angle ? If you think of a single diff with two ring gears that are upright, would it be possible to lean them in ? thus reducing the extreme angle for the driveshaft joint to run at
Or have they just made some drivesahft joints that can handle running at such an angle ?

I agree with the other posters though, seems a much more interesting car than the competitors, sort of harks back to Williams of old when they were up front.

The pic just posted seems to indicate the CV is still upright, so I think the angle is from the joints themselves. Besides even if the output from the diff is leaned, the side on the wheel will still be angular....

[Tim.Wright]

Camber compliance? no ,thats not the only issue if the Wing pillar is moving under load the rear will experience side load steering as the front wishbone fixing points will reamin where they are ,just both rear inside top mounting points will flex giving some negative camber to the outer wheel (positive camber on the inner one,but also toe out on the outer and toe in on the inner one -with the toe links fixed to the same pillar .(maybe one could look into Arnings concepts and make use of all this?)
But how much of flexing will it show? the thing(pilar) is a bolt on to the gearbox and the leverage is considerable..

You've got a few things backwards there Marcush. Like you said, the only point moving signifcantly would be the rear point on the upper wishbone. This will make the outside wheel go towards positive camber and the inner wheel go negative I.e. the compliance will tilt the tops of the wheels away from the turn centre which is completely unwanted.

The toe compliance is minimised by placing the toe link on the same mounting point as the upper wishbone. That way if the upper arm flexes, the toe link follows it keeping the toe angle close to zero.

I'm sure the support is stong enough, I have no doubt about that. But in terms of compliance, it will definately be the weakest link in the chain and will therefore be the main player in the compliance characteristics of the axle.

Tim

[joseff]

Slot below the crash structure - looks like they're also exploiting the starter hole as a mini upper deck.

[marcush.]

You've got a few things backwards there Marcush. Like you said, the only point moving signifcantly would be the rear point on the upper wishbone. This will make the outside wheel go towards positive camber and the inner wheel go negative I.e. the compliance will tilt the tops of the wheels away from the turn centre which is completely unwanted.

The toe compliance is minimised by placing the toe link on the same mounting point as the upper wishbone. That way if the upper arm flexes, the toe link follows it keeping the toe angle close to zero.

I'm sure the support is stong enough, I have no doubt about that. But in terms of compliance, it will definately be the weakest link in the chain and will therefore be the main player in the compliance characteristics of the axle.

Tim[/quote]´

I know ,germans can be stubborn,but anyways let´s give it a try.
Tim I see where you are coming from .You are looking just at the pilar with those two links attached to it...In my view that is about half the story going on here.
I´m not sure if you have played around with multi adjustable double wishbone shim arrangements and if there is a displacement of the rear pickup point in x it would have a rather drastic influence on the whole geometry ,caster, bumpsteer and what have you,as the upright svivel has to move as well. This is not a single plane camber stiffness thing -if it is one at all in real world.I ´d think they have a few guys to do the maths before teasing us with the sight of this .

[Florio]

Take a look at this big picture of the rear-end:



Lot of things to see.

Blimey thats low!

[ringo]

You've got a few things backwards there Marcush. Like you said, the only point moving signifcantly would be the rear point on the upper wishbone. This will make the outside wheel go towards positive camber and the inner wheel go negative I.e. the compliance will tilt the tops of the wheels away from the turn centre which is completely unwanted.

The toe compliance is minimised by placing the toe link on the same mounting point as the upper wishbone. That way if the upper arm flexes, the toe link follows it keeping the toe angle close to zero.

I'm sure the support is stong enough, I have no doubt about that. But in terms of compliance, it will definately be the weakest link in the chain and will therefore be the main player in the compliance characteristics of the axle.

Tim

´

I know ,germans can be stubborn,but anyways let´s give it a try.
Tim I see where you are coming from .You are looking just at the pilar with those two links attached to it...In my view that is about half the story going on here.
I´m not sure if you have played around with multi adjustable double wishbone shim arrangements and if there is a displacement of the rear pickup point in x it would have a rather drastic influence on the whole geometry ,caster, bumpsteer and what have you,as the upright svivel has to move as well. This is not a single plane camber stiffness thing -if it is one at all in real world.I ´d think they have a few guys to do the maths before teasing us with the sight of this .[/quote]



Are you concerned about the tower deflecting along the longitudinal axis of the car, or the Z rod layout itself?

[Tim.Wright]

I know ,germans can be stubborn,but anyways let´s give it a try.
Tim I see where you are coming from .You are looking just at the pilar with those two links attached to it...In my view that is about half the story going on here.
I´m not sure if you have played around with multi adjustable double wishbone shim arrangements and if there is a displacement of the rear pickup point in x it would have a rather drastic influence on the whole geometry ,caster, bumpsteer and what have you,as the upright svivel has to move as well. This is not a single plane camber stiffness thing -if it is one at all in real world.I ´d think they have a few guys to do the maths before teasing us with the sight of this .

Im talking about lateral deflections since thats the weakest direction.

I spent all last year working in Germany. Germans are stubborn because they are usually right. And I now agree with you that the toe will change when the vertical post flexes.

I'm sure that the vertical post is stiff. But to the people saying the deflection is negligble I simply don't believe it. Deflections of the mountings to a solid gearbox casing are perhaps negligble because of the massive area moment of interia it has against bending. But this thing does not have that, PLUS its made of titanium which is half as stiff as steel. However, I'm sure that the overall design deals with it adequately.

BTW Marcush, what system of reference are you using when you say X? To me that means the longitudinal direction (Being a user of Adams, veDYNA, Carsim...) but we are talking about lateral deflection of the beam nicht wahr?

Tim

[marcush.]

Im talking about lateral deflections since thats the weakest direction.

I spent all last year working in Germany. Germans are stubborn because they are usually right. And I now agree with you that the toe will change when the vertical post flexes.

I'm sure that the vertical post is stiff. But to the people saying the deflection is negligble I simply don't believe it. Deflections of the mountings to a solid gearbox casing are perhaps negligble because of the massive area moment of interia it has against bending. But this thing does not have that, PLUS its made of titanium which is half as stiff as steel. However, I'm sure that the overall design deals with it adequately.

BTW Marcush, what system of reference are you using when you say X? To me that means the longitudinal direction (Being a user of Adams, veDYNA, Carsim...) but we are talking about lateral deflection of the beam nicht wahr?

Tim

What a faux pas.. I had a word with a CAD guy about this just this day and I do the very same here ..apologies. I´m done.