BAR front suspension

Timstr · Post 24 Jul 2004, 12:32

Am I seeing things, or does BAR have an additional linkage running along the axle center line to the chassis.
Check out these pictures from Hockenheim.
(slightly copper-coloured bar)

This is the older setup

bernard · Post 24 Jul 2004, 12:39

That is very weird indeed, changing the suspension setup in the middle of the season. Can anybody explain?

Timstr · Post 24 Jul 2004, 12:44

On BAR's website there was twice a hint that they were testing an 'innovative' front chassis system. This could be it.

Spencifer_Murphy · Post 24 Jul 2004, 17:55

I think that Timstr is right. It is very innovative. To me it seems like a twin-keel...just without the twin-keels LOL.

See every team with the resourses have probably tested the twin-keel design in the windtunnel, no doubt BAR are one of those teams. But the structual problems that come with it are well documented. Bar have now got what they believe is the perfect solution. Firstly this setup eliminates the single keel (The aim of the twin-keel) but by mounting the lower front wishbone arms to the monocoque directly without the use of two keels solves the stuctual problems that are inherant with the twin-keel design.

Very clever indeed...I'm just not too sure whether it will fully workout for the best...surely Mclaren/Williams/Ferrari maybe Renault too have tried this idea in the windtunnel?

Timstr · Post 24 Jul 2004, 18:58

AtlasF1 is now running a story about this device. The FIA has banned it. Apparently it is a some sort of torque transfer system. Benneton had a similar system years ago but it did not work properly.

bernard · Post 24 Jul 2004, 19:45

Yeah, it's a computer based device aimed to improve handling in the curves. But why did it get banned? Did FIA mention any reason besides their general spirit of killing innovation?

Silver-Arrowz · Post 24 Jul 2004, 19:47

I think it's the electro-hydraulic device that the FIA said was illegal.

http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlines/ ... 3717.shtml

bernard · Post 24 Jul 2004, 19:55

But why is such a torque transferring device illegal when it includes electronics and hydraulics? The decision isn't based on any certain rule by the FIA, that would have been mentioned in the technical regulations, but stubborn opinion: if you include electronics or hydraulics in the device it will get banned. Is that killing of innovation and technological progress or what?

bernard · Post 24 Jul 2004, 20:00

By the way, the suggestion by Spencifer that the lower wishbones would infact be moulded inside the nosecone, thus eliminating the keel, both single and twin, seems very interesting... could this work in reality too? In paper it sure seems promising. After all, the whole twin keel got its start from eliminating the keel under the nose.

Reca · Post 24 Jul 2004, 20:34

With or without you...

http://www.crash.ne.jp/individ/sawada/g ... 72408L.jpg
http://www.crash.ne.jp/individ/sawada/g ... 72409L.jpg

Benetton tried in the ’99 a similar system called FTT (Front Torque Transfer I believe), that one was mechanical but it was too heavy (11 kg) and very soon they stopped to use it because the problems it caused, including requiring a very long wheelbase, were way bigger than the advantages.

Timstr · Post 24 Jul 2004, 20:56

According to Roos Brawn there was a clarification that with electronics it would become illegal. Which rule from the technical rule book applies here then?

Guest · Post 24 Jul 2004, 21:23

...there was a clarification that with electronics it would become illegal. Which rule from the technical rule book applies here then?

My point exactly.

Reca · Post 24 Jul 2004, 21:27

Maybe this one :

FIA Technical Rules wrote: 11.1.3 Any powered device which is capable of altering the configuration or affecting the performance of any part of the brake system is forbidden.

bernard wrote: By the way, the suggestion by Spencifer that the lower wishbones would infact be moulded inside the nosecone, thus eliminating the keel, both single and twin, seems very interesting... could this work in reality too?

The keels (single or twin) are there because the chassis of a F1 of the recent years is a lot higher than the point were the lower wishbones (that are about horizontal and starts in the lower part of the wheel rim) would end so you need a part low enough. Obviously if the chassis was lower (as it happens in almost all the single seater cars and was normal in F1 just few years ago) there wouldn’t be the need of the keel and the suspensions’ mounts are directly on the chassis.

bernard · Post 24 Jul 2004, 22:54

bernard wrote:

By the way, the suggestion by Spencifer that the lower wishbones would infact be moulded inside the nosecone, thus eliminating the keel, both single and twin, seems very interesting... could this work in reality too?

The keels (single or twin) are there because the chassis of a F1 of the recent years is a lot higher than the point were the lower wishbones (that are about horizontal and starts in the lower part of the wheel rim) would end so you need a part low enough. Obviously if the chassis was lower (as it happens in almost all the single seater cars and was normal in F1 just few years ago) there wouldn?t be the need of the keel and the suspensions? mounts are directly on the chassis.

Yes I know that, but what I'm after here is isn't it possible to mount the lower wishbones to the nosecone? The car being just as it is now, just mounting the lower wishbones higher.
I understand this would give some trouble in suspension as the wheel would turn in an angle during a drop and this would create excessive tyre wear, but the issue exists with twinkeel suspension also, so this shouldn't be a problem.

sharkie17 · Post 25 Jul 2004, 04:46

looks like BAR got reprimanded by FIA for running the set up on friday.