Mercedes-AMG F1 W10 EQ Power+

[ringo]

I don't think the push rod connection is as complicated as we want it to seem. Mercedes simply a placing it in a certain region relative to the upright connection to result in a certain load as the geometry changes. If the push rod was more inboard of the hub, the motion to force ratio would probably be higher than what they would have liked going through the tyres. We don't know what Mercedes are looking for in terms of geometry and tyre load and wear etc. but i think think it's anything tricky.
The car pretty much virtually has shorter control arms. I guess we can look what benefits there are to shorter control arms.

[stevesingo]

Traditionally, the front pushrod is connected to a point which is does not rotate about the steering axis such as being co-located at the outer mounting point of the lower wishbone. This prevents the steering angle having influence on the distance between pushrod outer mounting and suspension bellcrank.

If the outer pushrod mounting point is located on the rotating part of the hub, on the opposite side of the steering axis to the track rod, when the track rod pulls the rear of the wheel toward the chassis, the pushrod mounting point moves away from the suspension bellcrank, increasing the distance and lowers the car.

[mmred]

Traditionally, the front pushrod is connected to a point which is does not rotate about the steering axis such as being co-located at the outer mounting point of the lower wishbone. This prevents the steering angle having influence on the distance between pushrod outer mounting and suspension bellcrank.

If the outer pushrod mounting point is located on the rotating part of the hub, on the opposite side of the steering axis to the track rod, when the track rod pulls the rear of the wheel toward the chassis, the pushrod mounting point moves away from the suspension bellcrank, increasing the distance and lowers the car.

Fact is this was banned for Ferrari and Redbull two years ago

I didn't even know the rule was abolished this year, did you know?

[F1NAC]

Traditionally, the front pushrod is connected to a point which is does not rotate about the steering axis such as being co-located at the outer mounting point of the lower wishbone. This prevents the steering angle having influence on the distance between pushrod outer mounting and suspension bellcrank.

If the outer pushrod mounting point is located on the rotating part of the hub, on the opposite side of the steering axis to the track rod, when the track rod pulls the rear of the wheel toward the chassis, the pushrod mounting point moves away from the suspension bellcrank, increasing the distance and lowers the car.

Fact is this was banned for Ferrari and Redbull two years ago

I didn't even know the rule was abolished this year, did you know?

The rule is still there I think. Although I don't understans how this suddenly complies with it. Is it because it is pure mechanics and aero is not playing role in lowering the ride height or?

[mmred]

Traditionally, the front pushrod is connected to a point which is does not rotate about the steering axis such as being co-located at the outer mounting point of the lower wishbone. This prevents the steering angle having influence on the distance between pushrod outer mounting and suspension bellcrank.

If the outer pushrod mounting point is located on the rotating part of the hub, on the opposite side of the steering axis to the track rod, when the track rod pulls the rear of the wheel toward the chassis, the pushrod mounting point moves away from the suspension bellcrank, increasing the distance and lowers the car.

Fact is this was banned for Ferrari and Redbull two years ago

I didn't even know the rule was abolished this year, did you know?

The rule is still there I think. Although I don't understans how this suddenly complies with it. Is it because it is pure mechanics and aero is not playing role in lowering the ride height or?

No the ban was exactly on the mechanical activation that couldn't produce more than 5 mm height difference between opposite wheel rotation

Now that s at least 5 cm
So the rule must ve been abolished, I guess

The effects yes are both mechanical and aero

[Don Ciccio]

Renault re-introduced the bracket too, but with a less extreme caster.

I found nothing in the technical rules (maybe because it is/was just a directive?), I remember just Charlie's interview.
It would courious to know that the directive has been abolished.

[mmred]

Renault re-introduced the bracket too, but with a less extreme caster.

I found nothing in the technical rules (maybe because it is/was just a directive?), I remember just Charlie's interview.
It would courious to know that the directive has been abolished.

Yes it was a directive about the interpretation of the rule about active/movable aerodinamic ... The wheel beside the mechanical benefit acted as a rake implementation device in turn where usually the weight transfer brings the car front up so it was limited to 5 mm

It is strange

[stevesingo]

Fact is this was banned for Ferrari and Redbull two years ago

I didn't even know the rule was abolished this year, did you know?

The rule is still there I think. Although I don't understans how this suddenly complies with it. Is it because it is pure mechanics and aero is not playing role in lowering the ride height or?

No the ban was exactly on the mechanical activation that couldn't produce more than 5 mm height difference between opposite wheel rotation

Now that s at least 5 cm
So the rule must ve been abolished, I guess

The effects yes are both mechanical and aero

It looks tome like on he GIF, that both sides of the car a lowered on lock.

The distance between upright end of of the pushrod and the bellcrank will depend upon the radius the of the upright mounting in relation to the steering axis, that does not necessarily mean it sits in front of the steering axis. It could sit inboard of the steering axis and the lowering effect would be equal on both sides.

[mmred]

The rule is still there I think. Although I don't understans how this suddenly complies with it. Is it because it is pure mechanics and aero is not playing role in lowering the ride height or?

No the ban was exactly on the mechanical activation that couldn't produce more than 5 mm height difference between opposite wheel rotation

Now that s at least 5 cm
So the rule must ve been abolished, I guess

The effects yes are both mechanical and aero

It looks tome like on he GIF, that both sides of the car a lowered on lock.

The distance between upright end of of the pushrod and the bellcrank will depend upon the radius the of the upright mounting in relation to the steering axis, that does not necessarily mean it sits in front of the steering axis. It could sit inboard of the steering axis and the lowering effect would be equal on both sides.

You are right
I should have wrote when wheel rotation is activated or the opposite (not) so the difference is between any rotation and zero

[PhillipM]

If the front end has a lot of dynamic castor gain away from ride height that would allow you to pass the 5mm regulation static in the pits but give you the massive change when underway with some downforce/loading.

You could also strap the front suspension short if you have soft enough springs/enough front downforce so it's limited to the 5mm regulation by the droop stops in the pitlane.

It'd need a careful look at what the suspension is doing but that should be detectable with enough video/pictures that we have with some time.

[SuperCNJ]

A video of it in action can be seen here

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bx0J12yIhcz ... jwck73o4lp

Sorry for my ignorance but I still don't understand how this mechanism (as clever as it seems) equates to better performance on slow corners?

This mechanism lowers the front of the car through slow corners. When the front end drops closer to the track the front wing will produce more downforce due to the ground effect from the bottom of the front wing. It is sort of like a mini diffusor at the front of the car. This added front downforce will move the aerodynamic center of pressure slightly forwards, increasing oversteer. F1 cars are normally set up in such a way that they understeer at low speeds thus increasing the oversteer characteristics of the car will help it rotate through short radius turns. Also, it appears that this mechanism helps increase the contact patch of the tire on the track, increasing front end grip further.

At least that what I think is going on!

Thanks. I think the bit I didn’t quite understand was that there isn’t much benefit from downforce on slow corners due to the slow speeds. I thought it’s largely mechanical grip that dominates in slow corners - hence why it didn’t make sense to me how lowering the car would make it grip more.

[Don Ciccio]

Sorry for my ignorance but I still don't understand how this mechanism (as clever as it seems) equates to better performance on slow corners?

This mechanism lowers the front of the car through slow corners. When the front end drops closer to the track the front wing will produce more downforce due to the ground effect from the bottom of the front wing. It is sort of like a mini diffusor at the front of the car. This added front downforce will move the aerodynamic center of pressure slightly forwards, increasing oversteer. F1 cars are normally set up in such a way that they understeer at low speeds thus increasing the oversteer characteristics of the car will help it rotate through short radius turns. Also, it appears that this mechanism helps increase the contact patch of the tire on the track, increasing front end grip further.

At least that what I think is going on!

Thanks. I think the bit I didn’t quite understand was that there isn’t much benefit from downforce on slow corners due to the slow speeds. I thought it’s largely mechanical grip that dominates in slow corners - hence why it didn’t make sense to me how lowering the car would make it grip more.

Lowering front axle (and front wing) of the car in corners gives advantages in terms of both dynamics and mechanical grip (center of gravity and mass transfer), as well as aerodynamics.
In super slow corners the aerodynamic effect is reduced, but already in the medium slow corners it becomes more relevant. We see a great excursion (2-3 cm?) because the steering wheel is turned almost to the maximum, but in the fastest corners a fractional value is enough to give a considerable advantage.

[One and Only]

This mechanism lowers the front of the car through slow corners. When the front end drops closer to the track the front wing will produce more downforce due to the ground effect from the bottom of the front wing. It is sort of like a mini diffusor at the front of the car. This added front downforce will move the aerodynamic center of pressure slightly forwards, increasing oversteer. F1 cars are normally set up in such a way that they understeer at low speeds thus increasing the oversteer characteristics of the car will help it rotate through short radius turns. Also, it appears that this mechanism helps increase the contact patch of the tire on the track, increasing front end grip further.

At least that what I think is going on!

Thanks. I think the bit I didn’t quite understand was that there isn’t much benefit from downforce on slow corners due to the slow speeds. I thought it’s largely mechanical grip that dominates in slow corners - hence why it didn’t make sense to me how lowering the car would make it grip more.

Lowering front axle (and front wing) of the car in corners gives advantages in terms of both dynamics and mechanical grip (center of gravity and mass transfer), as well as aerodynamics.
In super slow corners the aerodynamic effect is reduced, but already in the medium slow corners it becomes more relevant. We see a great excursion (2-3 cm?) because the steering wheel is turned almost to the maximum, but in the fastest corners a fractional value is enough to give a considerable advantage.

It doesn't seem to be the case here. At least this video doesn't show it. As you can see upper wishbone travels up relative to the wheel which would indicate car goes down, but it also moves compared to front wing in the background. Doesn't mean front of the car didn't squat at all, but for sure not as much as upper wishbone moved. Moving like this wouldn't bring too much aero benefit. To me it seems it is increasing contact patch of the tire. Increasing contact patch in every corner by just a little bit would bring big difference in laptime.
It would be interesting to see suspension behavior of other cars as well.

EDIT: It crossed my mind... Upper wishbone moves relative to the wheel, but it doesn't seem to change ride height(if we compare wishbone movement to the front wing which is fixed to chassis). In that case it means it has to move relative to the chassis as well in order not to change front ride height. If it moves that much relative to the chassis wouldn't that make it movable aero device? Can someone who knows rules better than me clarify?

[zibby43]

Fact is this was banned for Ferrari and Redbull two years ago

I didn't even know the rule was abolished this year, did you know?

The rule is still there I think. Although I don't understans how this suddenly complies with it. Is it because it is pure mechanics and aero is not playing role in lowering the ride height or?

No the ban was exactly on the mechanical activation that couldn't produce more than 5 mm height difference between opposite wheel rotation

Now that s at least 5 cm
So the rule must ve been abolished, I guess

The effects yes are both mechanical and aero

Isn't it 5 mm when stationary? You have to account for additional travel when the suspension is under load?

Guys, come on, let's please remember that scrutineering exists. And let's also remember to maybe look up the rules before discussing them.

[Don Ciccio]

...

EDIT: It crossed my mind... Upper wishbone moves relative to the wheel, but it doesn't seem to change ride height(if we compare wishbone movement to the front wing which is fixed to chassis). In that case it means it has to move relative to the chassis as well in order not to change front ride height. If it moves that much relative to the chassis wouldn't that make it movable aero device? Can someone who knows rules better than me clarify?

Both wheel go together up and down, usually this has the consequence of changing ride height .
Probably in my video this movement is not so visible, streamable compression is too high.
I should have used another video streamer.