Scuderia Ferrari SF90

[henry]

I still disagree about the weight thing . The car weight does not change and nor does its distribution. If the car weighs 800kg and the weight is distributed 54%/46% rear/front before braking it is exactly the same during braking.

If you define weight very strictly (i.e. load produced by the gravitational interaction with the Earth) then yeah, it's not shifting (much, there can be miniscule differences due to car's attitude changes, fuel sloshing etc).
The load on the tyres does change and so is the force acting on the springs/dampers.

I do define it like that. If I consider the loads on the axles as the sum of three terms, weight, aerodynamic downforce and inertial load transfer then it helps me understand their relationships. For instance if I wanted to consider the effect of road incline I need only consider the weight and decompose it into forces normal to the road surface and parallel to it.

I could also use the same technique on attitude change. It affects aero and, through CoG change, it affects inertial load transfer. It doesn’t affect weight.

I like to keep things simple.

[henry]

What exactly do you mean with the timing of the movement? And what would the damping respond to other than simple movement?

By timing I mean how fast or slow the suspension movement is, and in the case of the SF90 how it is displaced in time from the initiating event.

Obviously the damping has to respond to movement, the regulations require it, I was struggling to express the more complex possibilities involved in the time shifting of such events. Maybe I could have found better wording.

Why do you think that the suspension movement is displaced in time from the initiating event? If possible, could you give an example, please?

If there were no dampers if I applied a braking force the load transfer would happen instantaneously and the suspension would move so that the spring loads matched the new loads. With dampers the transferred load is shared by the springs and the dampers, which depend on movement to create their force, so the suspension moves more slowly to the position where the transferred load is supported by the springs only. The time this takes is the time shift I mention.

In the SF90 case there appears to be a very sudden reduction in the share of force taken by the dampers. So the force s are applied, there is a pause, and then the suspension moves to its new equilibrium position.

[MtthsMlw]

In this clip nothing particularly interesting happens. Something that can be turned on and off?

[wesley123]

In this clip nothing particularly interesting happens. Something that can be turned on and off?
https://media.giphy.com/media/YBILZlnFh ... /giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/45ddjFIej ... /giphy.gif

Yeah it can be turned on/off in the pitbox. If driver controlled it would very likely be illegal

[Tzk]

Well, testing is to find the best setup. So maybe just different damper setup?

[Mr.G]

In this clip nothing particularly interesting happens. Something that can be turned on and off?
https://media.giphy.com/media/YBILZlnFh ... /giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/45ddjFIej ... /giphy.gif

Yeah it can be turned on/off in the pitbox. If driver controlled it would very likely be illegal

May it be constructed that way that spring is not matched with dumper (length wise)? If the spring is longer than the dumper, then the spring react fast, the car squat and then the dumper smooth out the transition. It would be passive and mechanical. If you want to turn it off, you replace spring and dumper with same length.

[matteosc]

In this clip nothing particularly interesting happens. Something that can be turned on and off?
https://media.giphy.com/media/YBILZlnFh ... /giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/45ddjFIej ... /giphy.gif

Yeah it can be turned on/off in the pitbox. If driver controlled it would very likely be illegal

May it be constructed that way that spring is not matched with dumper (length wise)? If the spring is longer than the dumper, then the spring react fast, the car squat and then the dumper smooth out the transition. It would be passive and mechanical. If you want to turn it off, you replace spring and dumper with same length.

I think that would create very bad vibrations in any other situation, it is for sure something more complex.... Or maybe they just hit a road bump that one time and we are talking of nothing!

[Polite]

https://media.giphy.com/media/45ddjFIej ... /giphy.gif

Leclerc seems to close the drs manually, infact when it closes the car squats the rear more. Then leclerc brakes and the rear lift up accordingly

[Blackout]

[Mr.G]

https://i.imgur.com/YtuhBpE.jpg

I'm glad that those vortexes are back. I remember them from childhood...

[CriXus]

https://twitter.com/UpdatesFerrari/stat ... 7539771393

[LM10]

https://i.imgur.com/YtuhBpE.jpg

The relatively low rake due to the high speed is nicely visible on the Ferrari.

[paddyf1]

https://i.imgur.com/YtuhBpE.jpg

The relatively low rake due to the high speed is nicely visible on the Ferrari.

You can really see how low the rear wing gets under load.

[ESPImperium]

Ive just thought of a theory, based partly on two things, my visual sightings at Monza in 2013 and 2015 when the DRS saw the Marussia in 2013, the Lotus in 2015 when the DRS was failed (The default position for DRS is in fact the fail position) the car noticeably moved downward on the rear.

Now with this, I am coming to an idea, an idea that is probably an area of grey in the regulations, and with the banning of the FRIC system i am thinking this may be coming back. Say, for talking sakes Ferrari still have a hydraulic front and rear suspension that are not connected in any way as per the regulations, but for talking sakes the DRS Actuation System, that is hydraulic right? If the Activation System is connected to the rear suspension, like the FRIC system used to be, less the F but a ASRIC say? A system that jacks the rear up once the Activation System is failed, the hydraulics then do the suspension a help, jack it up what looks to be 20-30mm, maybe its half than that, but it slams the front wing closer to the floor giving better ground effect, and also increases the volume at the diffuser at the rear, thus more rear downforce?

It may be my brain running wild, but could Ferrari have found a loophole to give the car a cornering advantage, especially when transitioning with DRS?

[dankane24]

Ive just thought of a theory, based partly on two things, my visual sightings at Monza in 2013 and 2015 when the DRS saw the Marussia in 2013, the Lotus in 2015 when the DRS was failed (The default position for DRS is in fact the fail position) the car noticeably moved downward on the rear.

Now with this, I am coming to an idea, an idea that is probably an area of grey in the regulations, and with the banning of the FRIC system i am thinking this may be coming back. Say, for talking sakes Ferrari still have a hydraulic front and rear suspension that are not connected in any way as per the regulations, but for talking sakes the DRS Actuation System, that is hydraulic right? If the Activation System is connected to the rear suspension, like the FRIC system used to be, less the F but a ASRIC say? A system that jacks the rear up once the Activation System is failed, the hydraulics then do the suspension a help, jack it up what looks to be 20-30mm, maybe its half than that, but it slams the front wing closer to the floor giving better ground effect, and also increases the volume at the diffuser at the rear, thus more rear downforce?

It may be my brain running wild, but could Ferrari have found a loophole to give the car a cornering advantage, especially when transitioning with DRS?

Doesn't Ferrari have an elaborate Drs actuator this year? Just thought I throw fuel on the fire!