F1 active suspension

[RideRate]

I say bring back all active suspensions and all driver aids. Slow down cars with hard parts and let the technology thrive. To me F1 is about the cars and the tech, not the drivers. All the other series are more spec and about the racing and drivers. I like both, but what makes F1 the best is the tech. What makes NASCAR fun is the bump drafting and short tracks. Just my opinion.

[Pingguest]

This morning I was reading about electronic stability control systems (ESC/ESP) and suddenly it got to my mind, that active suspension could be some sort of toned electronic stability control system. The system actively reacts on roll and pitch, actively helping the driver if he drivers too fast and needs to correct.
Now, if a racing series wants to ban electronic stability control, is it inevitable that active suspensions must thrown out the window as well or do I misunderstand anything?

[WhiteBlue]

Now, if a racing series wants to ban electronic stability control, is it inevitable that active suspensions must thrown out the window as well or do I misunderstand anything?

I do not agree. ESC is about the angular velocity and torque of the wheels under power and acceleration. Active suspension is about attitude and ride hight. There is a small overlap but you can clearly divide the two technologies by the use of the sensors.

In a controlled environment of the F1 SECU you can ban all ESC effects from the active suspension program. This means you can be more liberal in terms of active ride hight and attitude control. You can exploit the ground effect much more efficiently if it suits the general strategy of the rule making. And this is the core of the issue.

In a green sport approach you always strive to minimize the power and energy need to achieve a certain performance. Active suspension can make a big contribution to this. More downforce would come from ground effect and drag would be reduced.

This approach can be exploited if the desirable performance is limited by other means. Preferably that would be done by limiting fuel consumption and downforce by suitable rules. Under those conditions I would be all for it. I would even allow the use of tunnels to achieve a better distribution of floor generated downforce. The current floor configuration is biased towards the rear in terms of downforce generation. This could be alleviated by tunnels.

[bhall]

And an active suspension can also be something as easy as magnetorheological dampers.

I think things in F1 have a tendency to get more complicated than they need to be due to the often schizophrenic timing of various components being introduced and others being banned. After a few years of being pulled in many different directions for many different reasons, F1 cars just sort of stop making sense, if that makes any sense.

I guess all of this is to say that it's entirely possible to have one thing without having the other.

[Pingguest]

Now, if a racing series wants to ban electronic stability control, is it inevitable that active suspensions must thrown out the window as well or do I misunderstand anything?

I do not agree. ESC is about the angular velocity and torque of the wheels under power and acceleration. Active suspension is about attitude and ride hight. There is a small overlap but you can clearly divide the two technologies by the use of the sensors.

In a controlled environment of the F1 SECU you can ban all ESC effects from the active suspension program. This means you can be more liberal in terms of active ride hight and attitude control.

Just as I thought: there is an overlap, albeit a small one. Just as with the active/electronic differentials currently used in Formula 1.

In past you have advocated Formula 1 to adopt regulations that would make the series more (road) relevant. I agree with that, although it raises a number of fundamental issues.
One of those is the existence and necessity[1] of standardized electronics, which were introduced in order to enforce the ban on traction control (hereafter: TC), engine braking and variable differential locking. That regulation severely limits the teams' and their manufactures' room for innovation. For example, even with physically unregulated kinetic energy recovery systems (hereafter: KERS) teams are forced to use those technologies in ways manufactures would not use it in their road cars. In terms of (road car) relevancy a lot of potential has therefore been lost, due to its force application. And one could argue that with KERS being unlimited physically and in application, there would still be no TC and anti-lock braking systems (hereafter: ABS): just as with continuously variable transmissions, KERS makes those systems simply unnecessary. If that outcome makes certain technologies or applications undesirable, do we oppose driver aids or the inevitable consequences of innovation then? This concerns the very nature and the fundamental principles of Formula 1. If Formula 1 wants to stay what it thinks to be the ultimate drivers' challenge, a lot of Formula 1's potential in terms of relevancy will be lost.
However, if it will be decided to allow innovation a re-legalisation of driver aids becomes inevitable. That is not necessarily a nightmare, I think. If ineffective tyres are introduced - such as all-weather tyres that need to last the entire race distance - would not the driver aids be designed to work moderately?

[1] For many years in the WTCC the FIA seems to be able to enforce the ban on driver aids without standardized electronics.

[Ferrari_Ivan]

I think that the form1 needs more "pilots" and less "electronic". the fascination of electronics and technological progress must be put aside. if we make the car more difficult to drive, we will see the skill of the drivers on the track and a magnificent spectacle.

active suspension is a brilliant idea. the problem is that the cars make it easier to drive. if all have the same type of active suspension could, however, ....
is a big problem!

[WhiteBlue]

if we make the car more difficult to drive, we will see the skill of the drivers on the track and a magnificent spectacle.

active suspension is a brilliant idea. the problem is that the cars make it easier to drive. if all have the same type of active suspension could, however, ....
is a big problem!

I do not entirely agree. F1 cars will always be difficult to drive at the highest possible performance level.

I do agree with the ban of traction control and anti lock breaks. As I have said before it has practically no bearing on active suspension. All you get is an optimum of ground effect and more traction due to more stability. The torque at the wheel is still controlled by the driver as long as we have the SECU. And in my opinion this must remain a firm feature of F1 regulations.

The active exhaust blowing shows that teams can still develop clever electronics with a SECU in place. But we need a very sharp eye of the FiA on the ABS, TC and launch control technologies to avoid those. From 2014 we will also have full dual torque mode of the MGUK and that would be impossible to police without SECU.

[Richard]

WB - Restoring ground effect will mean drivers will never need to lift off the throttle on fast bends, every car will be flat out through ever fats bend.

I'd rather fast corners were challenging to divers. Some will dare to go full throttle, others will lift off a little bit.

[bhall]

I might be making this up, but wasn't (more) ground effect downforce recently proposed and quickly rejected by the teams?

[Pingguest]

The active exhaust blowing shows that teams can still develop clever electronics with a SECU in place.

It was just a matter of not disallowing it. As Adrian Newey pointed out: from 2012 the engine maps controlling stability and allowing exhaust gases to be blown through the diffuser will be banned and nothing will come in place.

But we need a very sharp eye of the FiA on the ABS, TC and launch control technologies to avoid those. From 2014 we will also have full dual torque mode of the MGUK and that would be impossible to police without SECU.

That sounds like the FIA determining the car set-ups then.

[Ferrari_Ivan]

if we make the car more difficult to drive, we will see the skill of the drivers on the track and a magnificent spectacle.

active suspension is a brilliant idea. the problem is that the cars make it easier to drive. if all have the same type of active suspension could, however, ....
is a big problem!

I do not entirely agree. F1 cars will always be difficult to drive at the highest possible performance level.

I do agree with the ban of traction control and anti lock breaks. As I have said before it has practically no bearing on active suspension. All you get is an optimum of ground effect and more traction due to more stability. The torque at the wheel is still controlled by the driver as long as we have the SECU. And in my opinion this must remain a firm feature of F1 regulations.

The active exhaust blowing shows that teams can still develop clever electronics with a SECU in place. But we need a very sharp eye of the FiA on the ABS, TC and launch control technologies to avoid those. From 2014 we will also have full dual torque mode of the MGUK and that would be impossible to police without SECU.

okay. drive an F1 car is difficult. I think if you limit the electronics, the level of difficulty becomes even greater. electronics makes it relatively "easy" to drive the cars. I do not know if I can explain.

to drive an F1 car is one of the hardest things to do. a normal person can not tell the difference between a car with a lot of electronics that helps, and a machine with little electronic. a pilot but can also understand the presence or not of a minimum of electronic assistance. This can make it a little '"easier" driving these cars to the limit.

reasoning is a bit general, however, in my opinion correct.

[jenkF1]

I might be making this up, but wasn't (more) ground effect downforce recently proposed and quickly rejected by the teams?

Yes, it was proposed recently and I really supported it =D> - it would be in conjunction with removing a lot of over body downforce (i.e wings) so the aim would be to have similar downforce levels.

The problem is the front wing is the single most important component on the cars right now, and also the component that gets most affected by the 'dirty air' of the car in front - meaning overtaking is difficult

But, the teams rejected the proposal, stating it would mean a fundemental redesign of the cars costing a lot of money. A real shame if you ask me...

[johnny comelately]

Was this use of active damping in anticipation of cornering used in the origial active suspensions?

Steering-Suspension Coordinated Control
This is an advanced technology that improves cornering agility and stability without compromising ride comfort by exchanging information between the EPS (electric power steering) and IECAS (electronic control damper). The system sends signals from the EPS to IECAS, which controls the vehicle's position by individually adjusting the damping force of the four dampers during steering operation, thereby improving the vehicle's agility while cornering. Signals from the EPS are sent to IECAS, which control the vehicle attitude by adjusting the damping force of the four dampers individually during steering operation, thereby improving agility during cornering. In addition, the stability of the vehicle is improved by sending vehicle status signals from the IECAS to the EPS to compensate for changes in the EPS operating force due to vehicle characteristics during steering.
1. ESP signal → IECAS Control ：Synchronize roll pitch → Improved nimbleness and sense of unity in the early stages of turning
2. IEDAS signal → EPS control ： Correct EPS steering force from virtual SAT → Steering stability under transient steering
https://www.hitachiastemo.com/en/technologies/rd/#rd03

[Richard C]

I have an idea on how to implement Active Suspension and am curious as to people’s thoughts regarding the viability. I have read over this thread and much of it is over a decade old. It seems that concerns are around the following:

• Active Suspension is a driver’s aid (or not). Depending upon your perspective this is a good or bad thing.
• Issues around safety such as the potential loss of control as part of a total system.
• Cost would be high due to various factors such as bespoke parts, complexity of solutions and potential for expensive development war between teams without it being a real performance differentiator.

I think the first issue is somewhat a philosophical question that can’t be answered one way or another objectively. I think F1 in total can’t decide what exactly it is. Is it sport or entertainment, is it high tech or not, etc. The second, I think, can be mitigated well enough but not fully. Nothing in F1 is without some level of risk, but the solution should require safe failure modes. In short, think the first two can be addressed. My idea focuses on challenges much closer to the third item.

What if an active suspension solution utilized a core strategy of using spec and fixed number of components?

1. Items such as sensors, actuators, pumps, etc. would both be spec components and with a fixed number of each/type.
2. ECU for the solution would be a spec/homologated unit much like used for the power unit.

The idea is that it moves suspension design away from trying to create complex mechanical solutions into the future. I feel that given the level of technical concept that have been banned (i.e. Tuned mass damper, Inerter, FRIC) that the solutions have become more and more esoteric and costly. F1 suspension is costly mechanical watches living in an age of cheap quartz watches that keep better time.

As to cost, we are in a cost cap era. Teams don’t want new areas of development that will not be differentiators. However, I think teams might like something new that should level the field and maybe stabilize costs. This should move design, development and prototyping away from costly physical components and into software solutions that can be designed, developed and prototyped virtually. I think this would reduce overall development costs and should produce more performance parity between teams.

Beyond the core concept of spec physical components, the regulations can have other limitations to help prevent development in undesired areas or other unintended consequence.

• Address head on topics such as using active suspension as part of active aero such as changing ride height or rake to impact the level of drag (such as lower drag on long straights). Maybe it’s allowed to be part of active aero? Or maybe not!
• Allow or prevent such things as “track learning.”
• Allow or prevent solution from working directly with engine ECU. (Potentially combine active aero and engine ecu into one if that makes sense.)
• Fixed number of “driver modes” (require more driver input vs. automatic solutioning by the system)
• Unobfuscated code would be provided to governing body for examination (as needed)
• Clearly define where suspension movement can exist (to prevent creation of solutions that work alongside of, but outside of the boundaries defined above)

In short, the regulations can decide how smart or dumb and interconnected the solution can be. F1 has a history of taking parts that are not significantly visible to the fans and making these as spec parts to save money. Suspension internals can be done the same.

What concerns do I have? Switching to this would have an initial up-front cost. But that is not too different than any new concept (such as active aero). But it would be an issue. Cars have gotten heavier since the last time active suspension was allowed. Solutions will need to be more powerful (heavier?) than before. Will a move to active suspension be a net neutral, positive or negative weight impact? I “hope” that an active solution can be built to weigh less than current solutions and yet outperform them. There is also the potential for unexpected areas of development. The regulations would have to be clear that playing outside of the defined box is not allowed.

[Tommy Cookers]

over 10 million sets of FRIC or TMD were in cheap cars eg in the 1950s-70s etc

driver aid is the mantra chanted by the FIA when it's banning something regardless of the above