2014 front suspensions.

[theWPTformula]

Re: extending the "tea tray"...

Rules state that the floor must not extend forward beyond the radius of the front tyre.

[wuzak]

Re: extending the "tea tray"...

Rules state that the floor must not extend forward beyond the radius of the front tyre.

As in behind the front tyre.

[thisisatest]

I´d think the CofG reasoning at the front is lame as all the parts are high up anyways in that area .The effect is totally overruled by any Ballst you are able to place in the splitter teatray area.
I think anything you can do to make things light in the area of the raised nose is worth a lot but less so the actual placement within that 300x300 crossection.

If there was a solution to actually place heavy parts (dampers ,rockers ,springs ,steering rack and hydraulics much lower but still retaining the high nose it would be something -but as things stand the pull rod layout does not score benefits here.

I ´m still intrigued by the idea of abandonning the double A arm layout at the front and I´m surprised nobody even tried something different ,considering the massive knowhow in designing and fabricating stiff yet flexible CF products.
In crude words:elongate the teatray a bit forward and attach a crossbeam to it -voila -front suspension done the flxure to mount it to the car floor could double up as ride spring leves only the question whrer to put the dampers and still get a decent motion ratio ....that approach could help to move a lot of parts away from the high up position without disturbing the flow (the beam could be an airfoil shape and help flow coming from the front wing?)

one rule working against this is the limit to the size of suspension members. the tea tray, if it becomes a suspension member, would be limited to 100mm width and would have to be very thick with a 3.5 - 1 aspect ratio.

this doesnt rule out your thought, but it sure puts a damper on things.

[wuzak]

I´d think the CofG reasoning at the front is lame as all the parts are high up anyways in that area .The effect is totally overruled by any Ballst you are able to place in the splitter teatray area.
I think anything you can do to make things light in the area of the raised nose is worth a lot but less so the actual placement within that 300x300 crossection.

If there was a solution to actually place heavy parts (dampers ,rockers ,springs ,steering rack and hydraulics much lower but still retaining the high nose it would be something -but as things stand the pull rod layout does not score benefits here.

I ´m still intrigued by the idea of abandonning the double A arm layout at the front and I´m surprised nobody even tried something different ,considering the massive knowhow in designing and fabricating stiff yet flexible CF products.
In crude words:elongate the teatray a bit forward and attach a crossbeam to it -voila -front suspension done the flxure to mount it to the car floor could double up as ride spring leves only the question whrer to put the dampers and still get a decent motion ratio ....that approach could help to move a lot of parts away from the high up position without disturbing the flow (the beam could be an airfoil shape and help flow coming from the front wing?)

one rule working against this is the limit to the size of suspension members. the tea tray, if it becomes a suspension member, would be limited to 100mm width and would have to be very thick with a 3.5 - 1 aspect ratio.

this doesnt rule out your thought, but it sure puts a damper on things.

Good point.

The extra width would require a very thick section, and thus any aero advantage would be lost.

[xpensive]

...
Good point.

The extra width would require a very thick section, and thus any aero advantage would be lost.

Unless you connect it to the nose with a profiled rod of course, wouldn't disturb anything and stiffness would be right there.

I've thought about that myself actually, but so must every F1 designer, why there's surely something wrong with the idea.

[wuzak]

...
Good point.

The extra width would require a very thick section, and thus any aero advantage would be lost.

Unless you connect it to the nose with a profiled rod of course, wouldn't disturb anything and stiffness would be right there.

Wouldn't that just be normal suspension then?

[CBeck113]

When you mount the suspension arm completely on the T-tray, you will be pushing your wheels (there's a technical term for this, I just can't remember it), which makes any suspension reaction very unpredictable - it will try to return to a trailing position, leading to a very nervous car. The simple physics behind this are shown in a steerable shopping cart wheel - the natural position it takes is trailing the cart, which is also the stable position - "self aligning". The Citroen CV2 was the first street car to use this effect on its rear suspension, but the design has been around for quite a while, and minimises the street/track influences on the handling characteristics. Comes down to the influence of forces which are not exactly on the x&y-axis of the wheel, and how to use them to make the vehicle easy to drive. Here is a good article, from road cars, but the physics are the same: http://www.rqriley.com/suspensn.htm

[xpensive]

...
Wouldn't that just be normal suspension then?

Connect the teatray to the nose structure from below.

[wuzak]

...
Wouldn't that just be normal suspension then?

Connect the teatray to the nose structure from below.

I think I need to see a concept sketch.

[Jersey Tom]

I cannot see where a current formula 1 car has any advanatge in terms of swing arm or camber control - teams seem to deliberately introduce horrible scrub and things in bump and with paralell equal length wishbones your cambers in roll are all over the place

High aero open wheel cars tend to have quite high wheel rates / roll stiffness / etc. It's not like the car is going to have immense amounts of suspension travel going around. So ultimately I don't see the camber control etc. being a big deal.

Could even question what precision of camber control is necessary or what the gain would be, given that the tires are such a moving target.

[marcush.]

Í think the correct term for it would be "dead "front axle -a combination of a longitudinal swingarm combined with a solid beam .
i doubt it would be nervous or uneasy to follow the track -as this is mainly a thing of caster and trail geometries which could be readily integrated.

the 100mm ruling is also not a restriction as the rules do not state you cannot run more than one suspension member in the same direction .You are just restricted to 6 points of contact to the tub -per wheel-! plenty.

so lets say we got a 100mm wide maximum crossection per beam and feed 4 of them parallell into the floor that suspension member would only need to be 35 mm high to meet the regs -I´d think a teatry is not slimmer these days.

More so that suspension beam is NOT floor so it can extend forward of the mandatory flat bottom nor problem if that´s your wish.you just have to be able to mount the plank in the relevant area which is not a big deal ethinks (the front suspension does not provide droop worth speaking of so all you need is a hollow teatray to slide the suspension beam inside providing gap for suspension bump travel ...

The whole thing would feed suspension forces very differently into the tub -but again i think formula 1 ihas not been a playing field for new ideas for decades .....sadly.

looking into 2014 rules they now even restrict the size of the upright as well ...doing away with potential wild extravaganza in terms of placing your pickup points ...eg outruling swanneck uprights that is...

The whole idea of it all is reducing the blockage between tub and tyre i `d think having a high nose is removing a big obstacle at the front axle -removing suspension members at chassis height would cleanup flow between the tub and tyre even more -the horizontal pullrod of Ferrari and Mclaren does not reduce blockage at all...it just does away with a diagonal beam that does not really fit in any flow patterns coming from the front wing one could think.

[wuzak]

You cannot extend the "tea tray" (ie, the floor) past where it is.

The bodywork ahead of a line 330mm behind the front wheel centreline must be a minimum of 75mm above the reference plane, which is 50mm above the step plane, which the bottom of the "tea tray" falls on. Basically any "extension" forward of that point will be part of the tub.

[xpensive]

That's what I'm trying to suggest, connect it to the nose with a beam or whatever, the new rules should open up for that?

[wuzak]

That's what I'm trying to suggest, connect it to the nose with a beam or whatever, the new rules should open up for that?

You mean to have a rigid structure?

As in no suspension complience?

I don't think that would be very good.

[CBeck113]

You cannot extend the "tea tray" (ie, the floor) past where it is.

The bodywork ahead of a line 330mm behind the front wheel centreline must be a minimum of 75mm above the reference plane, which is 50mm above the step plane, which the bottom of the "tea tray" falls on. Basically any "extension" forward of that point will be part of the tub.

I don't think that marcush wants to extend it, but to attach the suspension to it, which means with a joint - that should get through the regs, and it would function nicely as a tray extension because of the necessary profile. Joining it to the nose would be interesting - you could have a tray that extends to the front wing, and have the joints on the wing mounts. The drawback here is that the suspension can be damaged by a simple touch, and the wing element alone would have to be replaceable, not the whole nose.
My point about the trailing wheel is that there will be higher forces working on the suspension, forcing the engineers to strengthen the arms and joints. On second thought that may not be too bad - the lower (heavy) arm would sit so low that it may be a positive addition. By using the nose for the front joint this issue would be solved too...