2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

[Zynerji]

It's not active if self contained, it's reactive, and perfectly legal.

Interesting. What, exactly, does "self-contained" mean?

Without outside addition of energy.

As long as all work done within the front- coupled suspension system is done with energy that was generated and stored by the same system, there is no ability to call it an active suspension system. It would therefore be reactive to the input forces of the system.

[DaveW]

Without outside addition of energy.

It is often neglected (or forgotten), but energy is always input from the "outside". Fuel is used to drive the vehicle & it's suspension.

As long as all work done within the front- coupled suspension system is done with energy that was generated and stored by the same system, there is no ability to call it an active suspension system. It would therefore be reactive to the input forces of the system.

Why front coupled? The suspension is used to attach the sprung mass to the (normally) four unsprung masses. Dampers extract disturbance energy, but their relative "effectiveness" varies widely with frequency, depending upon the vehicle, tyre, and spring properties. There is no meaningful way the axles can be considered separately.

[Zynerji]

Front coupled because the rules allow it. And there are always technicalities, like rims that are movable aerodynamic devices, and the break pedal shifting the weight, lowering the front wing.

The rules say the front system can be coupled, with no limitations on energy storage, or redistribution.

They could have stipulated a standard 3 spring system front and rear in the regulations if they didn't want trick systems.

This is the natural evolution of the rules, not a bannable philosophy.

[DaveW]

I have to admit that I quite like your version, an improvement over the Formula One Technical Regulations (TR). However, I think several caveats are required.

The concept of a front and rear suspension "system" (which you share with the TR) makes no sense to me. The "system" is the whole suspension, because changes to front parameters affect the way the rear reacts, and vice versa. I suspect that makes FRIC difficult to disallow, but then why should it be disallowed anyway. I have tested several samples of FRIC, and none worked as the designer intended (not even Alex Moulton's prototype). I confess that I never did fully understand the Kinetic demonstrator (600+N of rear "friction" seemed a bit excessive).

The idea of a brake pedal shifting the weight is a bit startling (I think you mean load distribution), and the concept of a "bannable philosophy" requires thought.

[Zynerji]

I only follow F1 for these types of technology.

Banning a philosophy, like killing all things that improve aero performance (instead of the aero itself :-/).

F1 is

Man vs. Nature first, Man vs. Man second, and Man vs. Himself third.

The last 2 are simply drama to me, the first one pioneers concepts that move mankind forward in his collective understanding of his world.

And that is what is interesting to me.

[CriXus]

Scabrs explaining about the suspension controversy. https://drivetribe.com/p/f-S9gOlGRvq7Bz ... jXnhvr9JOw

[nevill3]

Interesting that Scarbs said the accumulator is banned.

[DaveW]

Scabrs explaining about the suspension controversy. https://drivetribe.com/p/f-S9gOlGRvq7Bz ... jXnhvr9JOw

Thank you & Scarbs for that. I thought the metaphor was good, but not quite accurate.

Interesting that Scarbs said the accumulator is banned.

I don't think that's quite correct. Hopefully not, because very F1 damper I have seen has an accumulator.

In more detail, Scarbs introduced the idea of a spring supported by a bump rubber - effectively a rising rate spring with the rate approaching infinity at the extreme. At the extreme, dampers do no work (zero relative velocity) so the tyres have to do more (energy must always be dissipated). The ability to dynamically offset the spring seat can delay the point where damper does no work. This implies that the damper is allowed to dissipate energy for more of the lap, and the tyres are helped by needing to do less.

It follows that these solutions are not about controlling aero (that happens anyway), but are very much about helping to work the tyres less, improving tyre life.....

[CriXus]

Here is another video with Peter Windsor and Scarbs. The interesting thing is that here he is saying that banning of that type of suspension won't have much of affect on Mercedes and Red Bull, because last season they did not gain much after they installed it in the mid-season. And i am not sure that is correct. It is quite the opposite, till the mid-season Ferrari was ahead of Red Bull and not so far back behind Mercedes, but after that Mercedes gained more on Ferrari and Red Bull did pass them.

[bill shoe]

Scarbs raises a good point about enforceability. The "mechanical-active" or "energy-storing" systems are not banned directly in the technical regs, they are only indirectly banned by a Technical Directive. The TD is an interpretation by Charlie Whiting that Charlie himself has emphasized has no direct enforcement power. A team must protest another team to the stewards of a particular race, and then those stewards can be (or not) guided by the Technical Directive.

If something is not directly banned by technical regs, then a team can continue running it, and if ever caught they'll claim their interpretation of the tech regs was different than Charlie Whiting's interpretation via his Technical Directive. They could face a penalty as severe as being excluded from one race weekend, but if they've run the system for 8 race weekends before any team had the confidence the protest, it was all worthwhile. No penalty for the previous 8 races.

Of course, how does a team know if another team is even running the banned flavors of suspension? If they protested another team, how would the stewards know how a suspension is intended to work just by looking at the parts?

The intent of the FIA is clear in theory, but practical application quickly turns into an energy-storage rabbit-hole.

[Pieoter]

Regarding the technical directive - people here should read the FIA court of appeal case re:Red Bull and the fuel flow sensors

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 0(web).pdf

Sections 40 to 45 in particular.

Basically, the TD are much more enforceable than people here seem to believe. Basically, unless a team can prove a TD to be incorrect and their own interpretation is 100% correct then they will lose any protests.

[Cold Fussion]

Regarding the technical directive - people here should read the FIA court of appeal case re:Red Bull and the fuel flow sensors

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 0(web).pdf

Sections 40 to 45 in particular.

Basically, the TD are much more enforceable than people here seem to believe. Basically, unless a team can prove a TD to be incorrect and their own interpretation is 100% correct then they will lose any protests.

You have to use the url tag when posting links otherwise the hyperlinking can fail if it isn't correctly parsed.
(ICA-2014-01)-2014-04-14-ICA decision-EN (web).pdf

[bauc]

I only follow F1 for these types of technology.

Banning a philosophy, like killing all things that improve aero performance (instead of the aero itself :-/).

F1 is

Man vs. Nature first, Man vs. Man second, and Man vs. Himself third.

The last 2 are simply drama to me, the first one pioneers concepts that move mankind forward in his collective understanding of his world.

And that is what is interesting to me.

Perfectly said! =D>

[DaveW]

Regarding the technical directive - people here should read the FIA court of appeal case re:Red Bull and the fuel flow sensors.

What a fascinating read...Legalese is wonderful - I particularly liked "no objection....was raised by anyone."

I can't think I would be happy to be a supplier to the FIA. It's not strictly relevant, but has the flowmeter design or its firmware been updated?

[godlameroso]

What effect will having increased motion ratios have on suspension design for this year? The wider track means the outside tire will have a faster arc than last generation. What effect will this have on yaw forces, especially as cars are so dependent on controlling such forces from an aero perspective? How will the wider tires affect a car's slip angle? Does that mean less sensitive steering racks? Maybe another reason to have a longer wheelbase?