Williams FW33

[PlatinumZealot]

Torro rosso is the one that channels exhaust through the floor.

RB have also tried ducting the exhaust along the floor

viewtopic.php?p=221745#p221745

Because he said "through" the floor, as in inside it. So I think Torro Rosso and Renault. Redbull just gouged out the top of the floor, which is not exactly through the floor.

[PlatinumZealot]

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..

The wing pillar doesnot see much of the side load during cornering.

The side forces are handled by the lower control arm, the pull rod and the drive axle.
The upper wishbone sees very little side force. It merely acts as a upper control arm

The upper control arm of the pull-rod suspension has more load in it than the upper control arm of a pushrod suspenion. So I see why Marcush was concerned. Still, that tree trunk looks freaking strong.

[RacingManiac]

I don't know, freaking strong is one thing, extra deflection vs a more conventional style is another. Extra mm or tenth of a millimeter movement at 4 G of cornering on your rear suspension can be pretty disconcerting I am sure....and its not just the the tree trunk itself deflecting, it can be twisting the whole case at its bolt circle, seeing how far it cantilever off the rest of the structure.

I am sure it was designed with all that in mind, but it certainly looks very unorthodox in how it was done normally...

[Raptor22]

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..

The wing pillar doesnot see much of the side load during cornering.

The side forces are handled by the lower control arm, the pull rod and the drive axle.
The upper wishbone sees very little side force. It merely acts as a upper control arm

The upper control arm of the pull-rod suspension has more load in it than the upper control arm of a pushrod suspenion. So I see why Marcush was concerned. Still, that tree trunk looks freaking strong.

Whatever. The wheel is fixed at the drive shaft and the lower control arm is sufficiently beefy to take the necessary load.
Its not a concern.
Driveshafts do not float in and out of the final drive do they.

[horse]

Isn't it feasible to think of this arrangement as just a deformed version of what has gone before. In that you've extended the gearbox casing up into a vertical structure. I can see that the new shape will have different properties, but they will know how much rigidity, etc they needed in the gearbox housing, so they can also calculate what they need from this spar.

Do you think it weighs a lot? I was wondering if the materials required would make it heavier than the old gearbox?

[RacingManiac]

Whatever. The wheel is fixed at the drive shaft and the lower control arm is sufficiently beefy to take the necessary load.
Its not a concern.
Driveshafts do not float in and out of the final drive do they.

Do F1 cars don't run any driveshaft plunge like normal cars?

[Raptor22]

Nope.

[747heavy]

Nope.

are you sure about this Raptor22?
Cant talk for sure about F1, but any other driveshaft/tri-pod design I have seen in race cars including LMP´s, does have float (axial movement).

Can you show some designs about your F1 driveshaft please, I would be interested to see and understand how this would work.

[ringo]

Why are we even discussing deflection in this thing?
The know how much deflection is tolerable for their design and i am sure they tested it.
That stumpy thing can feel right at home on a 747 (not refering to 747heavy) landing gear for all we know.

[lotus7]

The side forces are handled by the lower control arm, the pull rod and the drive axle.

Does the drive axle carry side force? I thought it is designed to move sideways ?

[RacingManiac]

Why are we even discussing deflection in this thing?
The know how much deflection is tolerable for their design and i am sure they tested it.
That stumpy thing can feel right at home on a 747 (not refering to 747heavy) landing gear for all we know.

I am sure they have tested it, but then we all know that is not how engineering works. Much like how Ferrari must have tested their pushrod design to made sure that worked....

Sorry, can't resist...

[Tim.Wright]

Driveshafts do not float in and out of the final drive do they.

Every driveshaft I've ever seen on an independent suspension does. Otherwise the system is over constrained, think about it.

Tim

[shynsy]

I believe that early f1 porsches of 1950s had drive shafts with no lateral movement
Mind you that was a swing axle, not quite modern state of the art!!!
Tim

[Raptor22]

Tim I think you're correct, in the case of the Williams the drive shafts would be overconstrained. On previous designs the drive shafts are in fact quite constrained simply because there is not much suspension movement due to the stiffly sprung nature of those cars. However there is a trend to eliminate the rear springs making the rear end softer. They ran a gas controlled damper where an air chamber provides the spring action.
With the Acute angle the Williams drive shafts are laid at it would appear that I am very much mistaken and in this case they do have some float. in a more conventional layout with the final drive mounted at close to wheel centre height there is almost zero float and even universal joints can be used.

However I still contend that the wing upright does not see much of the load since the pullrod actuator rod and the lower control arm will be designed to take much of the load. This is how mcPherson Struts work. Strong hub, strong lower control arm with a track rod of sorts (in the case of the Williams the upper arms) to control the direction of contact patch movement with bump. So during cornering the forces that want to deflect the upper control arm laterally will also want to deflect the pullrod which is resisting that force via the spring.
The forward mount of the upper control arm seems to be either the front of the gearbox or the back of the engine which are more than capable of resisting the forces as well. As long as the uppercontrol arm is laterally stiff it will transfer the suspension load evenly

It is also conceiveable that some degree of spring is built into the upper control arms themselves

Its a non issue really

[RacingManiac]

The pullrod shouldn't take on much(if any) cornering load at all though. Its designed to be a tensile member only and in this case it should be just the spring/suspended mass load. Your cornering force will be resolved with the A-arms and toe-link. While the lower should see majority of that load, there will still be load to that joint(plus it also takes on the alignment load due to the toe-link also feeds in there).

There is no reason to suspect them to have overlooked this, but its just not something that is normally done, feeding side load to a cantilevered beam. Its not unlike the single keel of the front suspension, just that this cantilevers even further....