The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
RacingManiac
RacingManiac
9
Joined: 22 Nov 2004, 02:29

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

It still not just ONE solution that is the answer to 2011 F1 design though. The post Jersey Tom did with the fancy and pretty graphs tries to explain that. There is no one right answer here, unless at the end of the day you are going to count the championship result as the one true solution(which is fair, I suppose in a way). 10 teams converged to one type of solution(and mind you, they are not the same solution neither, its not as if all pullrod suspension were created equal, McLaren today used theirs very differently to how RBR used theirs, or the rest), does not mean that the one that didn't was wrong. Engineering is never a majority rule thing. Pullrod is not a DDD or a F-Duct where a team invented something out of nothing and will gain a critical advantage over the rest, RBR was not fast last 2 year just because of it. Its not as if Ferrari were to win the championship this year means that Pushrod is the king and all should follow next year, the logic that justified pullrod this year will still justify it next year.....

I still find it hilarious, that you find mating an engine to a gearbox is such a trivial matter....

But hey...all we are doing here is this:
Image

If nothing can make us agree before, nothing will from here on neither...I am just getting entertainment between meetings out of F1T....

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
559
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

LOL... So the pieces are set. The game hasn't begun yet though. It will be very interesting to see how the suspension type plays out. I admit it is going to be very difficult to isolate the performance of the suspension type so how does one evaluate it?
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

Racing Green in 2028

User avatar
Tim.Wright
330
Joined: 13 Feb 2009, 06:29

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

Unless you're plugged into the teams telemetry there is absolutely no way.

Tim
Not the engineer at Force India

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

The thread would be more useful during or after the season in truth. It's basically a back and forth at the moment. We can't know exactly what's going on with each car.
I still find it hilarious, that you find mating an engine to a gearbox is such a trivial matter....
Come on man, no seriously... It's the same for all teams.

And stop the "F1 is so advanced it's beyond your imagination" fantasizing, it's a flipping hunk of metal held on by bolts with a few lines and wires connected!!!!
Nothing more nothing less. :lol:
For Sure!!

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

ringo wrote:... it's a flipping hunk of metal held on by bolts with a few lines and wires connected!!!!
Nothing more nothing less. :lol:
Sure. It costs 1 billion dollars to produce and mantain two cars for a year, but probably it is because they put too many lines and wires. This people charges too much, if I may put it that way.

Now, I will go to drive my kart and if I feel it is the same as an F1 (hey, it HAS pull rod suspension after all!), then probably it is the same, ain't it? Relativity is everything, or so said Einstein.

On the other hand this thought crossed my mind: perhaps the world is neither black nor white. Nah, just joking: if you look carefully, this thread looks like a zebra. You're wrong, Racing Maniac, it's not a horse what this people is beating, it's another ungulate.

Has the "Beating a Dead Horse" image been used too many times in forums? This meme of the beaten horse is... well, like beating a dead horse in itself! So, stop beating that horse! I say "Let's pounce a zebra"! ;)
Image

P.S. Watching this picture, I wonder... is there a synonym for donkey in English? You know, any of several hoofed mammals of the genus Equus, resembling and closely related to the horses but having a smaller build and longer ears, and including the domesticated donkey? That's what I want to pounce.
Ciro

RacingManiac
RacingManiac
9
Joined: 22 Nov 2004, 02:29

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

I'll keep pouncing a zebra if that is the zebra we are talking about....I'll pounce that zebra any day....:D

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

... and you can pull or push the rod, nobody is going to devise fancy theories about it.

Now, myurr, ringo, is that black stripes on white background or white stripes on a black background? I'm dying to hear that discussion (as long as you do not beat the cavallino any more... THAT would be rampant, after all).
Ciro

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

Black or white?

It is what it is. :wink:

If what you feel is,
Truly is.
And what you're feeling is comes true.
Chances are your is
Truly is true
The ratio is ten to two

It is what it is. :mrgreen:

Ignoring my crappy deep poetry, I guess we can get into the analysis of what ferrari's push rod layout is all about; just to change the polarizing tone.
Majority of the teams change, some stay the same, no problem lets move on.
For Sure!!

Arunas
Arunas
4
Joined: 29 Oct 2010, 22:14

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

Ciro Pabón wrote:... and you can pull or push the rod, nobody is going to devise fancy theories about it.

Now, myurr, ringo, is that black stripes on white background or white stripes on a black background? I'm dying to hear that discussion (as long as you do not beat the cavallino any more... THAT would be rampant, after all).
+1
post of a year!

Giblet
Giblet
5
Joined: 19 Mar 2007, 01:47
Location: Canada

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

Ciro Pabón wrote: P.S. Watching this picture, I wonder... is there a synonym for donkey in English? You know, any of several hoofed mammals of the genus Equus, resembling and closely related to the horses but having a smaller build and longer ears, and including the domesticated donkey? That's what I want to pounce.
Ass.
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute

DaveW
DaveW
239
Joined: 14 Apr 2009, 12:27

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

Now the shouting has died down, perhaps it is possible to have a sensible discussion about pull vs push rod suspension layouts for open wheel racing cars.

I spend much of my time rig-testing a wide range of race cars, & have done so since 1994. During the whole of that time I have seen (so far as I can recall) just two pull rod open-wheelers (both at the front axle). The mechanical performance of both was, in my view, compromised by a poor pull rod installation stiffness.

More recently, a Danish manufacturer (Aquila) produced a pull-rod FFord. The manufacturer claimed "No current Formula Ford is more compact and has a lower center of gravity and smaller frontal area than the Aquila Formula Ford". Impressive claims, but I have yet to see the vehicle make serious inroads into the push rod dominated field, even though the designer claimed that the installation stiffness of his design was adequate.

My experience suggests that a push rod layout is likely to offer the advantage of increased installation stiffness, & hence better mechanical control of an open wheeled race vehicle. As always, I would be happy to be proved wrong (after all, a sample of 2 is not significant statistically).

Ringo suggested that the RBR layout offered a more forward & lower c.g. So far as F1 is concerned, teams have elected to run with a fixed longitudinal c.g. position for 2011, so I can't think that would be a consideration. A lowered c.g. is a possibility (as claimed by Aquila), but that would suppose the volume occupied by the suspension could not be filled by something of greater density in a push rod layout. I don't think it is possible to make that claim without a detailed knowledge of the layout of all (or, at least, several) competing cars (It is a question of "packaging" as several have noted).

So, what is left, I think, is aero. Certainly the 2010 RBR had the lowest rear deck height of the field & was impressively quick. However, I would suggest that the push rod Ferrari became competitive in the hands of Alonso after it had acquired a working version of the blown diffuser. I wonder, in passing, if the airflow is still attached at the rear of the car to justify such an extreme rear deck height? Certainly, when we installed an oil cooler just above the rear deck a few years ago, it turned out to be useless. It had no measurable effect on drag, & did nothing to reduce oil temperature.

It is true that F1 is dominated by aerodynamicists, who subjugate all else to extract the last ounce of downforce. I suspect that they sometimes throw out the baby with the bath water in their single-minded chase after perceived perfection & this is the reason why, despite a veritable mountain of performance disadvantages, the GP2 grid sometimes overlaps the F1 grid....

A rear pull rod installation does make suspension components inaccessible. Thus, if suspension changes are required during a race weekend, a team struggling with a pull rod layout is likely to be at a serious disadvantage. I guess that is part of the reason Ferrari chose to stay with a rear push rod layout (that, & the fact that they didn't appear to suffer a performance disadvantage once their blown diffuser was working).

So, why did most teams choose a pull rod layout this year? My guess would be the "Fear Factor" - the certainty that novelty will be blamed for a lack in performance, regardless.

csponton
csponton
7
Joined: 08 Sep 2009, 17:02

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

http://spontoncristiano.wordpress.com/
In the 2009 season, the DT Red Bull, Adrian Newey has shown in Formula 1 a concept of suspension, which was no longer used for several years: the so-called pull-rod suspension.

About 20 years ago, the suspensions were all pull-rod and were introduced by Murray. Evolution of the suspensions were a rocker. With the increase in torsional rigidity of the car, the balance of the suspension becomes too flexible so that the elastic component of the suspension was made by the budget. And this is harmful because it does not control. Murray decided to do, then, a very short barbell. The motion was given by a strut inclined. As a material is subjected to stretch does not cause (within limits), an inclined strut suspension gave much greater stiffness.
But given the limits given by the diameter of the rim fixed by regulation 13 inches, the strut could not be tilted too much. At that point, they decided to reverse the drift, and to raise the frame front of the pilot. In this way, the strut angle became more and more diminished force component that generates flexion. All this was helped by the fact that since the 90's, the F1 had begun to lift the front of the case for aerodynamic reasons. So the new push-rod solution is perfectly in keeping with this need.
Little by little all the stables converted the front suspension and rear push-rod.
At the beginning of the year 2000, the designer Amidji Arrows brought back the pull-rod front suspension. This was done for aerodynamic reasons. In fact, since a strut supports better traction than the compression strut can have a smaller cross-sectional pull a suspension. This was supposed to help the aerodynamics combined with a muzzle lower than usual. But the solution was unsuccessful and returned to the push.

Sketch of pull rod suspension
Image
Sketch suspension push rod
Image
Why has returned to the pull rod suspension?

With the advent of double decker speakers introduced by Williams, Toyota and Brawn at the beginning of the 2009 season, this suspension solution was the most likely to create more space in the back and make sure that the speakers is the most effective possible. Note that the only Red Bull and the "sister" Toro Rosso use this suspension system, in fact, have the rear speaker much more effective than the other teams that use the push rod suspension system. In my opinion, next year, even if the speakers double decker will be banned by regulation, many teams remember well a pull rod suspension system. As described can be understood better by looking at the drawings below, you see the free space above the gearbox that can be used to go to feed the speaker by increasing the downforce in the rear.





What is it and how does a suspension?




First, the term "suspension" means the so-called "unsprung weight", ie the set of bodies interposed between ground and car body (sprung mass). The suspension, in a vertical direction, have the task of absorbing the undulations of the ground accelerations, to transmit to or from the soil weight, aerodynamic measures, the transfer of cargo. In most people the task of transmitting, horizontally, or from the ground to the braking, aerodynamics, engines, centrifuges. Second, suspensions retain and control the trim of the car (for example, the height of the bottom of the track). The suspensions also interact directly with the steering linkage and steering angles (toe, camber, caster spindle is longitudinal and transverse steering, trail, etc..), Which should not vary in roll, pitch, shaking and all driving conditions.

How do the suspension?

The push-rod has a kickstand, working in compression: it transmits the drive and connects the bottom of the upright to the bar (or rocker) which controls the spring-damper and torsion bar / damper. The pull-rod, in contrast, presents a tie, who works in traction and drives the spring-damper or shock absorber of torsion-bar: it transmits the drive and connects the top of the upright to the bar (or rocker) which controls the spring-damper and torsion bar / damper.

All this is available in classic double wishbone pattern. It is now general practice for some years, spring to install two sets \ torsion-bar front and rear shocks (in the past, the shock was also used), connected to a third element, a third shock in charge of monitoring the height and the inclination of the car from the ground. This third element, which is inherited from Indy cars (just to reiterate that it is not the only F1 to export ideas and technology ...), was introduced for the first time in F1 in 1994 by Alan Jenkins on Arrows. To this, add the ever-useful anti-roll bars, the size very small.

The location of the spring groups \ torsion bar / damper is one of the most obvious differences between push-pull-rod and rod. The push-rod, which provides a strut and thus the need to place the groups spring \ torsion bar / damper above the rider's legs (by binding to the body and placing them lengthwise or just apart), goes well with so-called "musical high, "in vogue in F1 since the early 90's, in the wake of the revolutionary Tyrrell 019. The need to free the bottom of the muzzle, so that you face a sheet of air to flow more abundant and less perturbed towards the bottom of the car, is one factor that has contributed, from the 90's, to phase out all the pull-rod ' Anterior to the push-rod.

The push-rod also allows rapid control measures and less complicated, it is sufficient, in fact, remove the upper body of the snout to access the strut \ torsion bar / damper, an operation that, in contrast, requires a lot more work for a pull-rod.

The pull-rod, for its part, has the advantage of very small dimensions, so much for the linkage (which section is much thinner than a push-rod strut) and for the general height of the entire system, thus resulting in benefits the center of gravity. The pull-rod, in fact, draws a very clean, aerodynamic, tapered and tapered.

It is for this reason that Newey, for his Red Bull RB5 and RB6, opted for a pull-rod rear aerodynamic cleaner, less disturbed airflow directly behind the rear wing, lower sides at the rear Coca Cola and more tapered, lower center of gravity. All this, without affecting the efficiency of the car and the bottom of the extractor.

On the current Formula 1 cars, take a pull-rod front operation would now be almost impossible. The musical, in fact, are too high (even uphill!) And dug too inferiorly to accommodate groups spring \ torsion bar / damper. Not by chance, that released later the lower area of the snout to accoglirere also possible aerodynamic and flow direction, has been eliminated as a central keel attachment for the lower triangle of the suspension. The latter, therefore, are bound directly to the body: it is for this reason that the triangles are on the downside. Not only that: the rod, in addition, is practically level (actually, more like a push-rod strut!), Ineffective and therefore subjected to abnormal stress, more than they are already in "normal" pull-push rod with respect to the strut -rod, which due to its marked inclination, is able to withstand higher stresses.

Later, however, as there is more space, you can sbizzarrisrsi: push-rod and pull-rod, but also the positioning of strut \ torsion bar / damper very different and original.

In addition, Red Bull RB6 take extreme geometries in terms of suspension. For example, the strut front push-rod is not anchored to the ends of the lower triangle, but directly to the upright. Solution that, combined with other "found" by Newey (calipers lying horizontally at the bottom, etc..) Means that in this area are concentrated loads and stresses which are relevant.

Ultimately, it is the best push-rod or pull-rod?

There is no right answer and final. Both types are reliable, functional, profitable equivalent. As often happens, the choice of either scheme depends only on the will and eslusivamente and Evaluation of the project. And, as often happens when it comes to car technology, there are no dogmas, but only alternative.
[youtube]B1x0tAV0w9A[/youtube]

Jersey Tom
Jersey Tom
166
Joined: 29 May 2006, 20:49
Location: Huntersville, NC

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

ringo wrote:And stop the "F1 is so advanced it's beyond your imagination" fantasizing, it's a flipping hunk of metal held on by bolts with a few lines and wires connected!!!!
Nothing more nothing less. :lol:
That's true. Tires are pretty simple too. Just a bag of fabrics wrapped around two rings and all cased in rubber. Nothin to it.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.

User avatar
ringo
230
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

Tom, i purposely over exaggerated that post. But to be serious we have a resident Honda F1 car with gearbox. If the bolting pattern of the engine matches the box it will fit, clutch and shaft heights being the same.
A 2011 Torro Rosso gearbox will fit any 2011 Ferrari engine becuase it was designed around the F150 engine. That's what they are supplied with Agree?
I was using this to debunk the packaging myth.
DaveW wrote:
I spend much of my time rig-testing a wide range of race cars, & have done so since 1994. During the whole of that time I have seen (so far as I can recall) just two pull rod open-wheelers (both at the front axle). The mechanical performance of both was, in my view, compromised by a poor pull rod installation stiffness.
Were these torsion bar suspensions ?
Why were they compromised by poor installation stiffness, restrictions in geometry?


My experience suggests that a push rod layout is likely to offer the advantage of increased installation stiffness, & hence better mechanical control of an open wheeled race vehicle. As always, I would be happy to be proved wrong (after all, a sample of 2 is not significant statistically).
I think theoretically a lower COG offers better tyre wear. The tyre pros can comment on that, i have no real experience to confirm it.
Ringo suggested that the RBR layout offered a more forward & lower c.g. So far as F1 is concerned, teams have elected to run with a fixed longitudinal c.g. position for 2011, so I can't think that would be a consideration. A lowered c.g. is a possibility (as claimed by Aquila), but that would suppose the volume occupied by the suspension could not be filled by something of greater density in a push rod layout. I don't think it is possible to make that claim without a detailed knowledge of the layout of all (or, at least, several) competing cars (It is a question of "packaging" as several have noted).
Well it's a small difference in distribution before ballast is placed in, but it's still a noted difference that wouldn't be unwelcome.
No one here as knowledge of what the pull rod looks like on the inside, but again looking on two cars using the same Ferrari engine and KERS but different gearbox layouts, it's difficult to say if there is something packaged between the interface of gearbox and engine between F150 and STR6 cars. If you follow my logic here.
So, what is left, I think, is aero. Certainly the 2010 RBR had the lowest rear deck height of the field & was impressively quick. However, I would suggest that the push rod Ferrari became competitive in the hands of Alonso after it had acquired a working version of the blown diffuser. I wonder, in passing, if the airflow is still attached at the rear of the car to justify such an extreme rear deck height? Certainly, when we installed an oil cooler just above the rear deck a few years ago, it turned out to be useless. It had no measurable effect on drag, & did nothing to reduce oil temperature.
The F150 was slower still, even though if it was very competitive. Not to say that is blasphemy if the Redbull is somehow slower at a track, becuase they were at a few, though those were drag related. Not only that there are a million and one other reasons why the F150 could be a better car on any day.

Mclaren have their oil cooler on their new clean top gearbox and it seems to be ducted sensibly.
It is true that F1 is dominated by aerodynamicists, who subjugate all else to extract the last ounce of downforce. I suspect that they sometimes throw out the baby with the bath water in their single-minded chase after perceived perfection & this is the reason why, despite a veritable mountain of performance disadvantages, the GP2 grid sometimes overlaps the F1 grid....

A rear pull rod installation does make suspension components inaccessible. Thus, if suspension changes are required during a race weekend, a team struggling with a pull rod layout is likely to be at a serious disadvantage. I guess that is part of the reason Ferrari chose to stay with a rear push rod layout (that, & the fact that they didn't appear to suffer a performance disadvantage once their blown diffuser was working)
.

That's what i think this is all about with ferrari, pressure to perform and be reliable. The suspension can't be changed in qualifying, so the setup speed isn't very critical there. It's probably the practice and setup on Friday night.
So, why did most teams choose a pull rod layout this year? My guess would be the "Fear Factor" - the certainty that novelty will be blamed for a lack in performance, regardless.
You can't say that. That's not engineering, that's malarkey!

I get your point and i think that selecting the trendy but proven suspension eliminates one more factor in a trouble shooting process during the season.
The benefits are very visual, though being the suspension expert you could get into the details of the difference with the layouts mechanically.

Ferrari's swept rods certainly have some implications on the forces in the suspension as Sam Micheal pointed out.
For Sure!!

myurr
myurr
9
Joined: 20 Mar 2008, 21:58

Re: The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension in 2011

Post

ringo wrote:
So, why did most teams choose a pull rod layout this year? My guess would be the "Fear Factor" - the certainty that novelty will be blamed for a lack in performance, regardless.
You can't say that. That's not engineering, that's malarkey!
And yet that reason has been given repeatedly as an excuse as to why Ferrari chose the push rod system, including by yourself (if memory serves).