A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
xpensive wrote:As little as we can demonstrate that Santa doesn't xist, but a suspension geometry dependant on a a change of track-with, will never and ever co-xist with my fundamental mechanical engineering understanding.
So what?
Besides, (a) your track width is all over the place anyway with tire deformation. (b) Look at their front control arm geometry from last year. No f'in different. Same high swing arm inclination = mechanical track width change with travel. It's not exactly an uncommon thing. Red Bull RB7 had it too. They didn't do too shabby last year eh?
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
Everything counts in my humble engineering xistance, John barnard came up with what he at the time called "knife-edge" pick up points to get rid of clearances and friction, now Ferrari 20 years later seems to have forgotten everything John ever said?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
"Everything counts" is a dangerous mindset, IMO. It's one that I had in college doing the FSAE thing.. but often can lead to just chasing every bit if minutiae that comes into your head.
"Everything counts, but some things count more than others" is what I abide by. You just don't have time to do everything or do all the things you want to do perfectly. Time is such a huge constraint in racing that you have to prioritize and figure out what's most important to you and will give you the most bang for the buck. As an aside, I'd say this is one reason why consumer technology and development can frequently be so far ahead of motorsport... more time and more money.
Anyway. Look at the F1 grid. Lot of front suspension geometry with the high jacking control arms with the big inclination and thus track width change with travel. Isn't just Ferrari. Find me a team that uses purely horizontal control arms like a car from decades ago. I don't think there are any. Why go that route? There are other advantages to be had. Even if you DO take some sort of knock with track width change.. if you get an aero benefit from cleaning up flow under the car and it makes you go faster - then so be it! You've come out on top in the compromise!
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
Jersey Tom wrote:"Everything counts" is a dangerous mindset, IMO. It's one that I had in college doing the FSAE thing.. but often can lead to just chasing every bit if minutiae that comes into your head.
...
This is of course as true as I'm alive, but at the same time details makes the picture and going the Ferrai route you have to rely on quite a number of mechanical details to make it work. Imagine a force of 30kN on those joints, I'd think twice?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive wrote:As little as we can demonstrate that Santa doesn't xist, but a suspension geometry dependant on a a change of track-with,
will never and ever will, co-xist with my fundamental mechanical engineering understanding. JT might think otherwise.
And how that is relevant to push-vs-pull? It's the wishbone angles that matter for that. And they had pretty much same angles last year with a push-rod. Where you'd been?
the difference:last year they had the same scrub ,true but this year the scrub is the base of all spring damper movement when last year the layout added at least some pushrod movement due to bump travel.
just look at the graphic someone posted here how the already miniscule bump travel at the wheel is translated into practically nothing at the pullrod end .lets assume you got 25mm wheel vertical travelin bump and you translate this to an estimated 5mm at the pullrodend -add to this say 0.1mm slag /give/ play and translate it to a reasonable damper travel figure of 50 mm ...think about and hoo you got how much give in that system?
This of course is correct, on the other hand, with a weight penalty, you can restore the stiffness etc.
Ther are more than one way to translate a small movement into a bigger...you can shorten one side of a rocker, you can also elogate the other. And use thicker torsional springs.
All these things are quite "standard" mechanics and can pretty easily be simulated and also tested on a rig.
It's not like aerodynamics, where you have some limits in simulation and even in wind tunnel.
I can't believe that the pull rod is something which has to be changed to push rod on this car in order to become more competitive.
Although, given the price for a pull rod (especially weight) i'm not sure it will give eough returns in terms of aerodynamics amd maybe COG.
raymondu999 wrote:Huh? Why would pull rod be beneficial in the rain?
We seem to be moving from one extreme to another here
Why? ask Jenson!
because is easier to put heat in front tires!
I don't ever remember Jenson EVER driving a pull-rod front car. And I don't understand how you could even attribute any heating characteristics to the pull rod.
raymondu999 wrote:Huh? Why would pull rod be beneficial in the rain?
We seem to be moving from one extreme to another here
Why? ask Jenson!
because is easier to put heat in front tires!
I don't ever remember Jenson EVER driving a pull-rod front car. And I don't understand how you could even attribute any heating characteristics to the pull rod.
listen to team radios from Malaysia!
THE F2012!
THE CAR THAN WON 2012 WORLD F1 CHAMPIONSHIP WHIT A TILTED ENGINE!
raymondu999 wrote:Huh? Why would pull rod be beneficial in the rain?
We seem to be moving from one extreme to another here
Why? ask Jenson!
because is easier to put heat in front tires!
I don't ever remember Jenson EVER driving a pull-rod front car. And I don't understand how you could even attribute any heating characteristics to the pull rod.
when it was VERY VERY wet in Malaysia Alonso was easily qickest even Massa was fast in that period!
THE F2012!
THE CAR THAN WON 2012 WORLD F1 CHAMPIONSHIP WHIT A TILTED ENGINE!
marcush. wrote:just look at the graphic someone posted here how the already miniscule bump travel at the wheel is translated into practically nothing at the pullrod end .lets assume you got 25mm wheel vertical travelin bump and you translate this to an estimated 5mm at the pullrodend -add to this say 0.1mm slag /give/ play and translate it to a reasonable damper travel figure of 50 mm ...think about and hoo you got how much give in that system?
Look at the picture I posted, where I compared pull- to push- on same wishbone geometry.
