Williams FW33

[Tim.Wright]

I doubt it will be a problem on the final product as we see it, but I'm sure it was far from a non issue at the design stage. No-one ever suggested that this car has a problem with camber compliance. I only said it would have been an issue to address at the design stage and that is what I think is worth discussing.

As I mentioned before (when I regretfully brought the topic up) is that the matching of the compliances in different parts is what makes this an interesting design problem. Regardless of how stiff the titanium beam is, it will never be as stiff as the forward or lower control arm mounts because of the moment area of inertia of the structure its bolted. If you don't understand this concept, you shouln't be commenting.

So, unless you engineer in some compliance into the other mounts, you are guaranteed that the rear upper joint will be the 'softest'.

Now the train of thought I can see is that the toe link was delibrately placed at this same joint so that it moves with the flexing part. This might seem funny, but due to the geometry the compliance toe would be a lot worse if the toe rod was in that typical position at axle height because the upper ball joint (on the hub) would be moving but the toe joint not.

Tim

[Raptor22]

The size of the bearings in the suspension members is always a clue as to the designed forces the individual members should relatively see.

[Raptor22]

I doubt it will be a problem on the final product as we see it, but I'm sure it was far from a non issue at the design stage. No-one ever suggested that this car has a problem with camber compliance. I only said it would have been an issue to address at the design stage and that is what I think is worth discussing.

As I mentioned before (when I regretfully brought the topic up) is that the matching of the compliances in different parts is what makes this an interesting design problem. Regardless of how stiff the titanium beam is, it will never be as stiff as the forward or lower control arm mounts because of the moment area of inertia of the structure its bolted. If you don't understand this concept, you shouln't be commenting.

So, unless you engineer in some compliance into the other mounts, you are guaranteed that the rear upper joint will be the 'softest'.

Now the train of thought I can see is that the toe link was delibrately placed at this same joint so that it moves with the flexing part. This might seem funny, but due to the geometry the compliance toe would be a lot worse if the toe rod was in that typical position at axle height because the upper ball joint (on the hub) would be moving but the toe joint not.

Tim

correct, its just an interesting design problem and the wing beam will never be as stiff as conventional gearbox type mount for the upper control arms.
it is also completely plausible that the upper control arm also provides the "spring" i.e. a leaf spring sprung suspension. Changing the spring rate is as simple as bolting on a new uer control arm. easy access and less complex to maintain (not to produce)

[humble sabot]

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

well that was the quote "modern era" of design so technically...

welcome aboard!

[shynsy]

Thanks, never really felt qualified to comment before, being only a simple biologist.
Mind you the talk about constrained driveshafts also bought to mind the rubber rotoflexes used on lotuses in the 60's, and also found on elans, like the one in my garage. Don't see them returning to f1 though!
Tim

[thisisatest]

about drive shafts in F1

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=11363

second picture down shows the tripod half shaft, and there is nothing constraining it on the diff side.

[FrukostScones]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIlWYsxzbF0&[/youtube]

[kalinka]

Very good video. One of the rare when the riporter is not involved too much, and lets the designer to speak what he wants
Interesting that as SM says, they begin the design of the new transmission as far as last march, and they tested it rigorously on dyno, so he thinks too, that that kind of driveshaft angle design is qiute extreme. But if we can trust him ( and why not ) it's proved to be OK.

[Lindz]

Saw this video on James Allen's blog... seems like he shot it, so that makes sense to why Sam Michael would be so forthcoming and at ease... James has quite the decent reputation around the paddock, no?

Anyways, great video. He seems very forthcoming and frank in the video, which is refreshing to see in today's F1.

[Francesc]

What is this thing inside the sidepod? I don't think that's a radiator.

[scarbs]

It a blanking plate for the radiator. They fit this carbon screne in front of the rad to reduce the cooling effect in colder conditions, the team have these in differign sizes. Its a bit more high-tech than the age old method of taping up the rad'.

[segedunum]

Maldonado gets into the car after four hours and then bins it after three minutes.......

Their hard work on this car is going to be lost if this is going to happen.

[Francesc]

Maldonado gets into the car after four hours and then bins it after three minutes.......

Their hard work on this car is going to be lost if this is going to happen.

Something broke in the car, not his fault

I guess if that rear suspension has been the cause.

[Seamus]

What a shame.. : (

[ESPImperium]

Interesting the engine that Williams is using isn't the CA2011, but the CA2011k, meaning they are using a KERS ready engine.

http://www.attwilliams.com/news/view/1695