The relative benefits of a pull rod suspension

[Formula None]

[Formula None]

[raymondu999]

I wonder if anyone can make a scaled image of all the cars showing the rake they all ran at Silverstone, as that Ferrari now seems comparably-raked to Red Bull, though I can't for the life of me remember when they last did that.

[Jeffsvilleusa]

Those picture comparisons make it very clear the advantage Newey had in mind: it's like night and day next to the Ferrari. Combined with the ever tightening restrictions (banned DDD) this does well to scrape together a few hundredths/tenths or whatever.

Apropos to the thread title, I think it is a little arrogant for any of us to criticize Ferrari in their choice of pushrod unless you have access to their data. It's the suspension/aerodynamic trade-off. Given Ferrari's most recent performance, their design package is also able to kick in.

[ringo]

Well if you considered they changed the geometry. You can say it was not optimal in the beginning.
I don't mean a little setup change like most teams do, but a whole new upright is a drastic change.

Those pictures show well how redbull's upper control arms are fairly level compared to the new A arms for the ferrari.
We can look on the angle of the pushrod as well. It is compromised by the small volume it has to crammed into on top of the gearbox.

Ferrari were lacking in the geometry, and made some changes to improve it.
Haven't seen much change with the redbull or Mclren in terms of new uprights to move the outer joint up by an inch.

[shelly]

I did not notice yet that the rear wing of ferrari was so much bigger than rbr. I knew that rbr has had smaller rear wing al year, but I di not realise they were that smaller

[hardingfv32]

Does the bottom of the RB floor seem closer to the rear axle than Ferrari, thus more rake?

The beam wing also seems higher above the axle than the on the RB. Does this imply a critical relationship between the top of the diffuser and the beam wing? Is this a controlled measurement?

Brian

[PlatinumZealot]

Does the bottom of the RB floor seem closer to the rear axle than Ferrari, thus more rake?

The beam wing also seems higher above the axle than the on the RB. Does this imply a critical relationship between the top of the diffuser and the beam wing? Is this a controlled measurement?

Brian

The RedBull gearbox is lower that's why. Almost as low as the Williams.

The Rear wings are definitely smaller, Shelly. Must be RB is making more downfroce from the Body, they can cut back on the wings.

Ferrari was quick today despite their push rod "disadvantage" Just have to wait and see how the seasons pans out, especially since Hot blown EBD's are allowed again.

[Formula None]

I still wonder if having the area clear of suspension rods below the lower arm is advantageous vs. intersecting it with a pullrod.

I'm also surprised the pullrod still has no fairing this year. Pretty sure the RB5 & 6 had this. Guess its diameter is small enough to not be an issue. Might be one of those areas where being directionally neutral is an advantage.

[Formula None]

Regarding rake, its pretty clear, using the sidewall of the tire and the lower lip of the wheel as a reference, that the outside corner of the floor on the RB is higher. Axle height from the floor I would say is not necessarily due to rake, although its all taken into consideration I'm sure during the design phase (the height of the differential CL from the reference plane).

[RacingManiac]

Well if you considered they changed the geometry. You can say it was not optimal in the beginning.
I don't mean a little setup change like most teams do, but a whole new upright is a drastic change.

Those pictures show well how redbull's upper control arms are fairly level compared to the new A arms for the ferrari.
We can look on the angle of the pushrod as well. It is compromised by the small volume it has to crammed into on top of the gearbox.

Ferrari were lacking in the geometry, and made some changes to improve it.
Haven't seen much change with the redbull or Mclren in terms of new uprights to move the outer joint up by an inch.

Considering no one has run on these tires before, I doubt anyone can fully optimize their suspension geometry to the Pirelli. The amount of changes a team might be willing to undertake is team dependent, and IMO little to do with what they had to start with....

Also, it really doesn't seem they move it by that much....

http://www.motorsport.com/#/f1/photo/ma ... id=1079412

http://www.motorsport.com/#/f1/photo/ma ... id=1079413

That was the shakedown test...

[hankalis]

Well if you considered they changed the geometry. You can say it was not optimal in the beginning.
I don't mean a little setup change like most teams do, but a whole new upright is a drastic change.

Those pictures show well how redbull's upper control arms are fairly level compared to the new A arms for the ferrari.
We can look on the angle of the pushrod as well. It is compromised by the small volume it has to crammed into on top of the gearbox.

Ferrari were lacking in the geometry, and made some changes to improve it.
Haven't seen much change with the redbull or Mclren in terms of new uprights to move the outer joint up by an inch.

According to Scarbs the change of rear suspension's geometry has more to do with the way tires are (mechanically) worked than aero benefit
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/07/1 ... e-upgrade/

[hardingfv32]

Ringo's point is if the geometry is being changed then the team must think it was not optimal. Would that not be the correct assumption?

Brian

[hardingfv32]

The majority of the distance between the RB axle and the Gurney on top of the diffuser is not caused by the angle of the axle. There is not that much angle.

Does the depth of both diffusers looks about the same?

Brian

[ringo]

Well if you considered they changed the geometry. You can say it was not optimal in the beginning.
I don't mean a little setup change like most teams do, but a whole new upright is a drastic change.

Those pictures show well how redbull's upper control arms are fairly level compared to the new A arms for the ferrari.
We can look on the angle of the pushrod as well. It is compromised by the small volume it has to crammed into on top of the gearbox.

Ferrari were lacking in the geometry, and made some changes to improve it.
Haven't seen much change with the redbull or Mclren in terms of new uprights to move the outer joint up by an inch.

According to Scarbs the change of rear suspension's geometry has more to do with the way tires are (mechanically) worked than aero benefit
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/07/1 ... e-upgrade/

Yes, but this is because they forced the pusrods' bell cranks to be much closer to the center of the car and also with a agressiv forward sweep. This was for aero reasons, but it affected the mechanical side of things due to the rod angles. If you follow what I am saying.

The pull rod being near the base of the car which is wider, doesn't have this issue.
Reading the regulations it can be seen that after a certain height the body works narrows. The higher the suspension the more it obstructs this narrow and smooth body.
Last year's W01 had 2 ugly bumps on top of the bodywork. Ferrari avoided this by pushing the cranks further to the center.