A new way to drive an F1 car? "3D driving"

[notsofast]

I can't upvote yet, so let me say that I very much enjoy this type of brainstorming about future possibilities for F1. Few ideas will ever turn to reality, but that's the whole point of brainstorming. When ideas get shot down right away, then we're kind of back in the middle ages.

[Cam]

Can I take a half-step back? I have no doubt that the top F1 drivers are great drivers. But their challenge is too straightforward and they execute their tasks too consistently to really show their stuff.

A great baseball player might have success in 30% or 40% of his at-bats. A great quarterback makes maybe 70% of his passes over a season. A great football/soccer player may play for hours at a time without scoring. The great players in these sports are intrinsically good, but the extreme difficulty of what they attempt makes the situation great.

Then we have Hamilton, Vettel, etc. who can reel off 70 laps without a flaw. If they have a brief "off" this minor imperfection is extremely noteworthy, but it rarely happens. If they can regularly reel off 70 great laps then something about the situation is too easy. It lacks struggle.

I think concepts like 3D driving are a useful way to give them struggle. Make them really work to even get to the end of the damn race much less win it. The winner should more frequently be the guy who really wanted it more, took risks, and did something great rather than the driver who put in a clean pole lap, got a good start, and managed the tires well.

Concepts like this are definitely needed. At the end of a race, drivers get out of the car looking like they just had their feet up sucking back a few cold ones. They're so fit, 70 laps at 270kph is nothing to them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say there's nothing really separating any of them in terms of fitness. So what does that prove? We need new ideas that can separate the drivers - show off their real skills and give those drivers, who are actually better, a chance to mix it up in cars that are not so good. At the moment we all pray for rain as the leveller, simply because the driver skill comes back into the drivers seat (excuse the pun) - so having ideas like 3d driving, also give the driver ways they can show off their abilities.

Is 3D driving the answer, I don't know, however with everyone bemoaning the Red Bull and Newey, I would have thought introducing anything that can promote actual driver skill would be well received. Guess I simply wasn't 'realistic' about that.

[Jersey Tom]

Don't be put off by the haters simply looking at the negative aspects.

Some might call it that. Others might call it being a realist.

Some also may say you just proved my point.

A 'realist' is a person too scared or too dumb to admit that everything is possible.

So it's possible to change lead into gold then?

A realist is by definition a person who tends to view or represent things as they really are. Not a pessimist. Not necessarily a cynic. IMO someone with enough practical experience to know what's realistic and what isn't, and one of the most important attributes an engineer needs to have.

The reality is that a GP car is not a motorcycle. While there is in theory an advantage of being able to roll a car into a corner and get the camber benefit, in reality the teams are already setting the cars up to run at max camber anyway - limited more by durability concerns than performance. That's my assessment anyway based on Red Bull blistering tires due to aggressive camber and then there being fallout of revised max camber rules or guidelines.

Beyond that, the reality is that GP cars are platform sensitive. An immense amount of work goes into precise control of body attitude for aero, by means of springs, dampers, ARBs, inerters, etc. I see driver-adjusted body attitude as giving the potential to screw that up.

In any event, it's pretty blatantly an active suspension at that point - no longer reacting purely to road inputs - ergo illegal.

[Tim.Wright]

I think the main beef that the "realists" (which includes myself) have is that you have presented a solution but no problem. What problem exactly are you trying to solve?

Once you know this, then you can set about finding a solution.

Again, like I said originally, why are you changing spring stiffness on the left and right sides? I don't see any advantage to this.

What you have presented will offer no advantage, and if you were to allow changes to spring stiffness' on the fly, there are simpler (even passive) methods to do this which could be much better than putting it in the drivers hands.

[Cam]

So it's possible to change lead into gold then?

A realist is by definition a person who tends to view or represent things as they really are. Not a pessimist. Not necessarily a cynic. IMO someone with enough practical experience to know what's realistic and what isn't, and one of the most important attributes an engineer needs to have.

The reality is that a GP car is not a motorcycle. While there is in theory an advantage of being able to roll a car into a corner and get the camber benefit, in reality the teams are already setting the cars up to run at max camber anyway - limited more by durability concerns than performance. That's my assessment anyway based on Red Bull blistering tires due to aggressive camber and then there being fallout of revised max camber rules or guidelines.

Beyond that, the reality is that GP cars are platform sensitive. An immense amount of work goes into precise control of body attitude for aero, by means of springs, dampers, ARBs, inerters, etc. I see driver-adjusted body attitude as giving the potential to screw that up.

In any event, it's pretty blatantly an active suspension at that point - no longer reacting purely to road inputs - ergo illegal.

No-one is saying you can perform the impossible and again you've taken this so far down negative lane that you've lost any chance of finding your way back. The 3D controls don't have to be about active suspension, or torque vectoring or any other specific legal or illegal thing - the concept (keyword here) was to introduce a system whereby the driver could actively control more features on a car. That's it. Pretty simple hey. Now a good discussion would be to see what things could be done. Everyone here has taken a negative aspect and run off with it - that's the disappointing part. Stop. Come back to the original concept and see if there is positive possibilities for F1 and the wider racing community.

[PlatinumZealot]

think the main beef that the "realists" (which includes myself) have is that you have presented a solution but no problem. What problem exactly are you trying to solve?

Sometimes.. you have to create a problem... See Steve Jobs and his apple empire.
The problem is the Formula 1 car is too conventional and accessible - too easy to master for an inexperienced driver. It's a top level car, but it's not the top level of driving.
Any young GP2 whipper-snapper can jump into an F1 car and wring its neck to blazing lap-times in a few testing sessions. It drives just the same as their GP-2 cars they say, it just brakes better (Hey this car is damn fast! but it sure is easy to drive at the limit! Hey my tyres are blistering because I'm driving to fast! Yep lemme slow down to 70% of the cars capability!).

I am proposing to make driving more interesting and challenging for the worlds greatest drivers by implementing some system that makes the car feel like an extension of their bodies and that will increase the capabilities of the car if mastered. The Limit of the car is now augmented by the limit of the driver.

Once you know this, then you can set about finding a solution.

My solution is give the driver live augmented control over the boundaries of the suspension system.

Again, like I said originally, why are you changing spring stiffness on the left and right sides? I don't see any advantage to this.

There doesn't have to be an advantage. Remember when traction control was removed? Twice? And ABS was removed? And variable throttle maps? These were removed to make driving harder to differentiate the drivers.

What you have presented will offer no advantage,

Why do you think that there is no advantage to be had? Indeed the objective is to have a system that does give an advantage if used with mastery. I would like to hear why you think there can be no advantage.

and if you were to allow changes to spring stiffness' on the fly, there are simpler (even passive) methods to do this which could be much better than putting it in the drivers hands.

Even though In the opening post I said left and right stiffness, I am not narrowing it down to that. That just came to my mind when I got the idea, but Ideas develop!
And I know I never proposed a specific design to the system - because I was half a sleep when I got the idea. Perhaps it could be adjustable stiffness, adjustable damping or even actuators that push on the suspension. I think a system can be engineered to give the desired result.

Why have the system passive? That goes against the philosophy of the whole thing.

[flynfrog]

want to create a problem double the hp half the tire width.

[Jersey Tom]

No-one is saying you can perform the impossible

A 'realist' is a person too scared or too dumb to admit that everything is possible.

I see.

The 3D controls don't have to be about active suspension, or torque vectoring or any other specific legal or illegal thing - the concept (keyword here) was to introduce a system whereby the driver could actively control more features on a car.

In 3D driving is like regular driving but in addition there the active suspension is controlled by the driver.

Sounded pretty clearly that the concept was driver-controlled (as opposed to computer-controlled) suspension. That particular item I still see as equally illegal as ECU-controlled suspension in that one way or another it is active rather than passive. Conversely, if a controlled suspension were allowed I would rather it be computer controlled or not at all on a vehicle so aero and ride height dependent as a GP car. Maybe more viable on a Formula Ford.. but even then, to Tim's point I don't see what it's necessarily achieving or what problem it's addressing.

I do like having driver-accessible controls, and as it stands the driver has an immense amount of control on the car. Engine map, brake bias, differential lock on entry, middle, and exit, ARB stiffness (in some series anyway), etc etc. Those are all there to serve different needs as tires fall off and balance changes, or varying race strategy, whatever. Driver controlled active suspension... I dunno, it's different certainly, but I'm just not excited about it.

On the topic of negativity, believe it or not there have frequently been times I've been criticized or observed to be overly optimistic.

[PlatinumZealot]

I do like having driver-accessible controls, and as it stands the driver has an immense amount of control on the car. Engine map, brake bias, differential lock on entry, middle, and exit, ARB stiffness (in some series anyway), etc etc. Those are all there to serve different needs as tires fall off and balance changes, or varying race strategy, whatever. Driver controlled active suspension... I dunno, it's different certainly, but I'm just not excited about it.

That's just turning a knob and leaving it alone till the next corner. That's easy stuff - not what I was thinking. I'm talking about analog, Live, on the fly, infinitely variable control of the properties of the suspension at any time - just like the throttle and steering is, Just like a sailor on a yacht, like Tony Hawk on his skateboard, like a aerobatics pilot... live continuous Manual control at any time anywhere.

If the driver is not skilled enough to operative this manually controlled suspension - he can only use it for a few straights/turns and get the benefit there, or just leave those functions alone altogether.

[Lycoming]

The problem is the Formula 1 car is too conventional and accessible - too easy to master for an inexperienced driver. It's a top level car, but it's not the top level of driving.
Any young GP2 whipper-snapper can jump into an F1 car and wring its neck to blazing lap-times in a few testing sessions. It drives just the same as their GP-2 cars they say, it just brakes better (Hey this car is damn fast! but it sure is easy to drive at the limit! Hey my tyres are blistering because I'm driving to fast! Yep lemme slow down to 70% of the cars capability!).

Ok, sure, why not I guess. Having never driven either of these cars, I can dispute that as much as you can argue for it. Unless you have taken one of those for a lap or two.

My solution is give the driver live augmented control over the boundaries of the suspension system.

Why suspension? On an F1 car its so damn stiff it doesn't really do anything.

There doesn't have to be an advantage. Remember when traction control was removed? Twice? And ABS was removed? And variable throttle maps? These were removed to make driving harder to differentiate the drivers.

I dispute that by saying they were removed to stop the car from driving itself. I would argue it was less about making it more about the driver, and more about making it less about the car.

If that makes sense.

Additionally, consider this: with the control schemes you've listed, you've talked about leaving the option to use or not use it, and those who could use it more would benefit more. But nobody has yet seen an advantage to being able to modulate any of the things that have been suggested. So, why would anybody want to be changing those things on the fly? It wouldn't be faster around a lap. So, nobody would use it beyond perhaps adjusting between some static settings, as is possible now with things like brake bias. And so it would ultimately defeat your purpose of forcing them to use more skill.

As I see it, this discussion won't actually get anywhere until you come up with an example of something that somebody would want to control on the fly around a lap that would bring them an actual advantage.

[raymondu999]

While this particular solution might not be the right design - the initiative to brainstorm should be applauded.

Smikle - I think the long idea brief you just gave behind the reasoning for the concept should be edited into the opening post, to help clarify things.

Rather than criticising this particular concept suggestion, it is far more productive to discuss ways of improving the solution, or perhaps proposing solutions that better fill the brief.

Personally I don't think suspension tuning on-the-fly like this is the right direction, given safety issues and the times that a driver is not holding the wheel in the normal position (either manipulating buttons/knobs on the steering wheel, brake bias, or in tight hairpins where one hand might just be pushing the wheel using the thumb, such as Loews. Also it would perhaps shift the component of success derived by driving skill also slightly towards the driver's knowledge of vehicle dynamics - some drivers might better understand what suspension response to give to a particular corner, for example.

It's an interesting idea though, and an interesting avenue to explore.

I think bringing back a clutch, and maybe even an H-pattern gearbox or at least sequential (upshift, downshift) spring-loaded shifter would be better suited to the brief though.

[Tim.Wright]

The problem is the Formula 1 car is too conventional and accessible - too easy to master for an inexperienced driver. It's a top level car, but it's not the top level of driving.

My argument is that you could bring back all of this lost skill in a more "road relevant" and simpler way by bringing back throttle cables, clutch pedals and gear sticks. Possibly fiddle brakes if you want to be a bit adventurous

At a stretch, you could give him a pedal to change the diff locking (and outlawing active diffs).

Why do you think that there is no advantage to be had? Indeed the objective is to have a system that does give an advantage if used with mastery. I would like to hear why you think there can be no advantage.

I was talking specifically about the left/right stiffness adjustment. There is no direct handling advantage to be had. If you let the driver mess with this mid corner, it will only upset the ride height and bugger up your aero. If you want to give the driver something in the suspension to control, let him control the ARB settings. BUT like I said, this has been available to drivers for years in F1 (earlier) and tin top racing (now) and no-one are using it mid corner.

For me its still not clear if you want to a. make things more difficult, or b. make the car faster, or c. make the car slower.

There doesn't have to be an advantage...

Indeed the objective is to have a system that does give an advantage if used with mastery.

Anyway, I'm up for any discussion that has nothing to do with the RRA, the teams or the drivers...

Tim

[PlatinumZealot]

Since this is a "NEW" way to drive an F1 car. Bringing back clutch and throttle won't be the same because those were actually done already.

[flynfrog]

Just thinking through this. Its really no different than adjusting the anti roll bars. A stiffer ARB will have the same result as stiffening up only on side of the car in a corner. You are just preventing roll. If a driver really wanted to he could adjust the ARBs mid corner if he really wanted to but as stated before he would probably just upset the balance. More could be done with the brakes and throttle.

[PlatinumZealot]

Adjusting the ARB is still passive. You set it and forget it, it's not really the driver modulating it and the opposite sides are pysically linked with it too.

I remember the DTM E30 M3's had adjustable ARB blades....

Anyway, since this new, conceptual system could only exist in F1 time in the future, it is very possible that F1 cars will not have roll bars then. Think of the Mclaren MP-12C, it has no roll bars.... i don't know if you are thinking what I am thinking.

There is a lot of possibilities with having the driver modulate the suspension.