Return of active suspension - 2017

[gray41]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motors ... doned.html

The entire grid would be given an “FIA standard active suspension”. Along with a host of other measures it is hoped that would reduce the number of staff needed trackside during race weekends.

[WhiteBlue]

Active suspension can make the cars faster for very little money by making them aerodynamically more efficient.

I don't see how it's "very little money."

It is generally thought that active suspension will be used to minimize ride height in a safe way. The cost for the technology is minimal compared to the expenses the teams have for simulation and setup work before and at the different GPs and the number of parts that are developed to cope with different track properties.

[Lycoming]

You make it sound like active suspension doesn't require simulation or setup work.

[Phillyred]

[Pierce89]

Will active suspension make discerning a good driver from a great easier?

They still drive the car the same way.

Active ride will iron out some of the DF variations and make grip more consistent. That IMHO will bring lesser drivefs closer to the greats.

[Tim.Wright]

Active suspension can make the cars faster for very little money by making them aerodynamically more efficient.

I don't see how it's "very little money."

It is generally thought that active suspension will be used to minimize ride height in a safe way. The cost for the technology is minimal compared to the expenses the teams have for simulation and setup work before and at the different GPs and the number of parts that are developed to cope with different track properties.

Who generally thinks this?

[langwadt]

You make it sound like active suspension doesn't require simulation or setup work.

but it would cut down on the number of parts that have to be developed, manufactured and installed for each race

[TEHNOS]

You make it sound like active suspension doesn't require simulation or setup work.

It makes sense that it would cut costs, being much simpler system than trying to achieve complex behaviour with conventional mechanics.
Also much simpler to change the setup, just load a different software setting... they can test multiple settings on one run, no need to develop, produce and bring that many mechanical parts and no need for mechanics to work like crazy to make a small change.

[xpensive]

It is generally thought that active suspension will be used to minimize ride height in a safe way. The cost for the technology is minimal compared to the expenses the teams have for simulation and setup work before and at the different GPs and the number of parts that are developed to cope with different track properties.

Who generally thinks this?

It means; "This is what the FIA thinks"

[Pingguest]

In case active suspension would be re-introduced, it would make sense to (re)introduce movable aerodynamics as well. However, that would make a downforce limit probably necessary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motors ... doned.html

The entire grid would be given an “FIA standard active suspension”. Along with a host of other measures it is hoped that would reduce the number of staff needed trackside during race weekends.

GrandPrix.com is also reporting about a standardized system as well. So far for Formula 1's relevance. It would throw away a lot of the potential of the active suspension systems.

[prokopi]

Active suspension, ABS, ASR were banned in order to
1) lower somewhat the costs down for the low-end teams, reducing the technological complexity of development of the cars. In that way they left mainly the aerodynamics as an expensive part of development, in other words fewer things to spent money for remained.
2) put more weight on driver's performance and adding more unpredicted performance between them

It is also worth to comment of lower reliability of active suspension compared to pure mechanical springs.

More safety for drivers?? - false!

[Sevach]

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.

Prost disliked the active suspension becauise with it he had no "feel" for the car, he was used to the slight roll/pitch of the cars telling him what was going to happen next, the active suspension didn't have this (it could even be setup to behave like a bike on corners).
It was a car that needed top be driven on "faith".

Ratzenberger lost part of the front wing on fastest point of the track, that's why he crashed, regardless of that i don't think Pacifc (?) could afford an active suspension even if the rules allowed it.


I saw an interview of Paddy Lowe last year where he said (this is off the top of my head i might make a feel mistakes) "the active suspension was banned because the smaller teams couldn't afford it, but now it wouldn't be so expensive..."
"it is weird to have such a sophisticated car with a suspension that is still in the dark ages".

[WhiteBlue]

It is generally thought that active suspension will be used to minimize ride height in a safe way. ....

Who generally thinks this?

Basically all the tech reports which I read about the first use of active suspension in F1. In 1993 they had active suspension and it was banned in 1994. The Senna accident made it clear that keeping active suspension might have been safer with regard to the ride height. The drivers in 1994 could go over the top with lowering ride height so that cold tyres could catch them out.

Automatic suspension is mass produced automotive technology now and that is usually dirt cheap, or the auto guys would not use it. Even if they make it a homologated F1 technology it should not cost more than five to ten thousand € per car. That is nothing in F1. A new wing with nose cone cost more. And you have the benefit of having always the minimum ride height. That could save you hundreds if not thousands of engineering hours per year. Those resources are very expensive and will not be needed any more.

[WilO]

Without knowing anything about the nature of the active system being proposed (if there is such a thing):

-a failure mode that allows stable operation of the vehicle would not be difficult to achieve, possibly using some spring-like device(s) to support the chassis while the system is off or in the event a failure occurs.

-if the system were truly active, could it not be programmed to behave as a passive system does? So the argument regarding driver feel may not be valid, or at least have great significance. I would submit that any driver that can manage to work a modern F1 car around a track, can probably learn to cope with an active system. I think it will continue to be as it always has been; talented drivers will learn to make use of the advantages of an optimal setup, while less capable drivers will have a setup compromised in order to accommodate them.

[Lycoming]

but it would cut down on the number of parts that have to be developed, manufactured and installed for each race

It makes sense that it would cut costs, being much simpler system than trying to achieve complex behaviour with conventional mechanics.
Also much simpler to change the setup, just load a different software setting... they can test multiple settings on one run, no need to develop, produce and bring that many mechanical parts and no need for mechanics to work like crazy to make a small change.

So active suspension will simplify the car as well as reduce parts count and cost by replacing a few metal bars with a an entire electromechanical subsystem.

Seems legit.

-if the system were truly active, could it not be programmed to behave as a passive system does?

If you're going to make your active system behave like a passive one... why don't you just stick with the passive system?