Lotus's braking attitude compensator is now illegal

[hardingfv32]

I think the whole discussion of the device misses the point that this is a political decision. The leading teams want such development and the FiA does not see a conflict with its objectives. So they allow the thing until someone protests. Potential protests will probably use all the points mentioned in this thread.

Then why the pages of argument over other legal issues. This is a feeble response. Have you met your match with rule 10.2.3? It is about time.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

WB is kinda right here guys... in a way.

It may well be allowed for political reasons, making the nuts and bolts of it somewhat trivial, but the point of this thread is to discuss the technical issues and their legality (as I see it).

In other words, we like trivia. What's the betting that everyone on here is pretty good at Trivial Pursuit?

1) WB changes his tune when the going get tough under 10.2.3.

2) Technical issues are not trivial. Are arguing over a gray rule is only useful if it furthers your understanding of the technical issue. I doubt this rule argument has furthered our understanding of this system.

3) So here we have a system that was used on motorcycles in the 80'. No need for any brilliant F1 engineer to come up with the idea. Why do they wait 20 or more years to implement it on a car? Are aero ground clearance issues more important now than then? I think not.

Brian

[SiLo]

Could this be done in the opposite way? So the rear is lowered instead of the front raised to compensate for the dive of the car?

[WhiteBlue]

Could this be done in the opposite way? So the rear is lowered instead of the front raised to compensate for the dive of the car?

The whole purpose of the Lotus device is to be able to run the front lower. When the nose used to dip under braking the front wing is prevented from touching the ground. That is more beneficial than lowering the rear.

I think some similar system could be used to keep the rear up when the car accelerates.

[WhiteBlue]

I think the whole discussion of the device misses the point that this is a political decision. The leading teams want such development and the FiA does not see a conflict with its objectives. So they allow the thing until someone protests. Potential protests will probably use all the points mentioned in this thread.

Then why the pages of argument over other legal issues. This is a feeble response. Have you met your match with rule 10.2.3? It is about time.

Brian

10.2.3 really seems to be a killer for the Lotus system. At least I expect any team lodging a protest to use exactly that §. But as I have already pointed out the time is ripe for more clever suspension and drive train development. If there are old §§ that stand against the direction of the rule evolution the teams and the FiA will clarify or modify them.

[xpensive]

Losing my sleep over this, let's try and see it linearly, forget about the torque;

- The bottom joint of the upright is allowed a certain forward - rearward movement.

- Default position of the joint is forward.

- When brake-force is applied, joint travels rearward, activating a hydraulic cylinder.

- Fluid from this cylinder is activating another cylinder in the push-rod, xtending the length of the same.

This does not have to be mechanically-digital, it could be designed in a such way that more brake-force generates more movement and as a consequence a longer push-rod, even if it probably would have to involve an adjustable orifice between the cylinders, though I wonder about the legality of the latter.

[hardingfv32]

Loosing my sleep over this, let's try and see it linearly, forget about the torque;

- The bottom joint of the upright is allowed a certain forward-rearward movement.

- Default position of the joint is forward.

- When brake-force is applied, joint travels rearward, activating a hydraulic cylinder.

- Fluid from this cylinder is activating another cylinder in the push-rod, xtending the length the same.

1) You could allow a joint to move, but why not the caliper on the hub.

2) Either way we have movement or force applied to a master cylinder.

3 Then that force is applied to the slave cylinder that 'adjusts' the length of the push-rod.

All agreed, but you are in violation of 10.2.3 because you have adjusted the length of the push-rod.

But forget the rules and discuss some possible problems. I don't know how many of you are familiar with a good racing brake system, but the drive gets a lot of information about the braking situation though his foot on the pedal. I just do not see how the driver delineates the track condition, as presented through the push-rod, from the braking sensations in this situation.

Brian

[timbo]

Losing my sleep over this, let's try and see it linearly, forget about the torque;

How about this -- remember the fluid inerter? Now, think about what happens when you have front and rear suspension interconnected with a hydraulic line. What will happen with the fluid if you do 5g deceleration?
There has to be a pretty straighforward way to alter suspension stiffness at the axles if you have them connected.
And actually you don;t need rideheight change. You need front to become stiffer at the peak deceleration.

[xpensive]

Not much tim, if you use the static Rho * g * h analogy, a 2 meter horizontal line under 5 g acceleration will result in a pressure of less than one Bar, which is pretty close to nothing with a 100 Bar system.

[timbo]

Not much tim, if you use the static Rho * g * h analogy, a 2 meter horizontal line under 5 g acceleration will result in a pressure of less than one Bar, which is pretty close to nothing with a 100 Bar system.

What if you put some valve system which is triggered by deceleration?
I'm sure there is a way!

[DaveW]

I think it might be an idea to discuss the requirement, rather than the legality of the device. Some of the ideas presented in this thread are seductive, but are undoubtedly misleading. For example, the link contained in the following suggests that most height loss will be caused by suspension deflection:

Here is a write up on the system and how it works.
http://www.boxgp.com/tecnica-f1/item/15 ... Js.twitter

The front spring rate will actually be increasing without limit (caused by bump stops) when supporting a down force of around 140 kph. It follows that the majority of platform height loss at any reasonable speed will be caused by tyre, rather than suspension deflection. I suspect that the implication of this will have a bearing on the actual mechanism of the device (negative spring stiffness, anybody?).

[hardingfv32]

And actually you don;t need rideheight change. You need front to become stiffer at the peak deceleration.

That is what bump rubbers are for. Nothing creative about that or locking/stiffening the front shocks while braking. Those ideas are probably in use. This Lotus system is a big improvement because it does not alter the spring rate. It also compensates for tyre deflection.

Assuming that we are having difficulty with the 'no adjustment' rule how do we change the ride height under braking without adjustments. Could we do something with the shock pressures that would not be considered an 'adjustment'?

Brian

[marekk]

How about allowing for some degree of movement of either whole hub/upright or just pushrod's joint to the hub (with mechanical link between this joint and moving calliper).
Not considered part of the suspension afaik, so no legality issues.
Have to admit i'm complete layman in this area, so feel free to have LOL on this idea

[Giblet]

Let's stop arguing about each of your perception of the other.

Attack the post, not the poster.

You are both arguing about arguing. Please cease so we don't have to lock the only thread around with anything remotely new in the technical side of F1 during the off season due to what amounts to a small few bickering over who knows more.....or less.

Now lets delete the BS, shall we?

Thanks.

[hardingfv32]

We would like to raise the nose of the car under braking without making a suspension 'adjustment'.

Can we do anything with the shock pressures? As they vary during operation, would this be a way around the no adjustment rule?

Brian