xpensive wrote:Let me enlighten you WB, it was part of your old favourite MrM's brainless kneejerk at anything after Senna's death. Another xample of his restauranttable-engineering was an open scoop. Ingenious.
I prefer to believe it was part of the effort to slow the cars down. But think what you want. These things are more about opinion than anything else. And I believe that everybody should follow his own pet theory. If you think that Mosley was dumb you are a bit preoccupied IMHO.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
The belief is that the electronic technology would actually be more cost effective for teams in terms of achieving the optimum car set-up than the current complicated mechanical-only systems.
Are you kidding me??? I don't even know where to begin...
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
The banning of the active suspension was what created the environment of 1994 that saw 2 drivers killed, and another two nearly killed through only 4 races. WhiteBlue is just being disingenuous as usual since it doesn't really fit with his agenda of spreading the idea that the FIA is all-knowing, and can do no harm. It was another one of their absolutely moronic, and short-sighted moves. But that's what happens when you elect a wannabe-engineer-know-nothing-jackass named Mosley President.
While the ban was announced at Canada in 1993, it was nowhere near enough time for the teams to come to grips with having to redesign a whole new car around a passive suspension. Though Williams suffered a bit more than most as they had spent 1991, 1992, and 1993 focused solely on active suspension.
The smart move would have been to announce the ban when they did, but to have it's effective date for the 1995 season, and I don't say that with hindsight.
Oh and yes, the ban is what killed Senna.
But anyway, I don't see this being reinstituted back into F1 to be perfectly honest, and it won't cut costs one bit. More mouth service.
"I don't want to make friends with anybody. I don't give a sh*t for fame. I just want to win." -Nelson Piquet
Some very strange assertions about Senna. Would running an active car have prevented the accident? Hmm.
How many other cars bottomed and went off at Tamburello that weekend?
Did Newey, or anyone else ever claim springs and dampers caused that accident?
Would active cars have prevented Ratzenberger & Barrichello? Impossible to say. They were both the result of a loss of control.
There were clues that Prost did not like the active FW15C at some circuits. I specifically remember him being very uncomfortable in it through Eau Rouge on light fuel. Hill also remarked it could bite.
The point is the cars of the period were just very quick, and very sensitive, active or not.
I like the bits with the active suspension and 18" rims.
Though i didnt like this bit "They include efforts to simplify parts of the car where there is currently vast expense, including in the fuel system, crash structures, the front wing design, inter-connected front and rear suspension, and brake ducts.". Sounds like they are looking at more or less standardize those parts.
F1 active suspension was once seen as offering necessary capabilities beyond the scope of mechanical suspension
does this still apply ?
F1 has now had 20 years of getting mechanical suspension to do things that we had thought it could not do
and we have had 20 years of getting the F1 tyre to do most of the suspension's job
maybe stopping this is part of the new interest in active ?
F1 does not allow the substantial potential of our hybrid (mgu-k) drive to aid the driver in car control
how are they to stop active suspension doing this ?
(that's so attractive, for road use some would make it mandatory)
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on 16 Apr 2014, 10:31, edited 1 time in total.
xpensive wrote:Point is that your idol at the time wanted to give world the impression that he was doing something, however pointless or costly.
As if speed was what killed Senna or Ratzenbeger.
Excuse me? So you think the old Tamburello was properly safe and had no influence in the death of Senna? That sounds pretty naive to me. Tamburello almost killed Berger only a few years ago in a fiery crash and to the day there is not enough run off to make that corner safe for the speed they were driving at the time. Speed in some dangerous corners definitely was an issue in 1994. Car safety was given enough attention from a priority point of view at the time to avoid fatal accidents, or so they thought. It doesn't matter in my view which was the reason why Senna failed to make the corner. He could as well have had a suspension, tyre or wing failure. All of these would have killed him equally sure because the speed through Tamburello was much too high for the unforgiving concrete wall which loomed there with an almost ninety degree angle of impact and no speed scrubbing traps. Speed almost killed Karl Wendlinger in the next race at Monaco when he came out of the tunnel into the harbour chicane and hit the armco very hard. Tracks were very dangerous at that time and the FiA did the right thing to look at all measures to save lives.
Active suspension can make the cars faster for very little money by making them aerodynamically more efficient. That should be exploited. Today it is very simple to curb unwanted performance. You simply cut away more fuel. If the teams can also save a lot of man power I'm all for it.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
