2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

[Greg Locock]

The upshot is that a typical damper causes the car to suck down on rough surfaces. Serious offroaders might consider more symmetrical shock settings. LandRover are well aware of this.

[roon]

So in an F1 context, excess or specifically tuned rebound resistance in the heave damper could enable the heave unit to ratchet down upon itself. Hypothetically, as speed increases and downforce achieves a certain level, this ratcheting function would begin to engage, exaggerating & maintaining a drop in rear ride height—until the rear end is unloaded via weight shift under braking and/or the car slows down enough to reduce rear downforce.

If such a phenomenon is happening I should think it would be set to only engage at levels of heave-unit-displacement found at speeds higher than the highest cornering speed for a given track. To prevent the car ratcheting down amid a high speed aero loaded corner.

[Blackout]

Ok, that's interesting:

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/819130168543428610

Edit: Ok it seems to me like if they were affected they would say the opposite anyway despite a couple of teams already knowing the full story.

https://twitter.com/bgarloff/status/819216863368454144

Red Bull and Mercedes do not store the energy of the movement, but only forward it from one side to the other

http://www.autobild.de/artikel/formel-1 ... 29821.html

[Giando]

I do apologize in advance if my question may result stupid.

Any chance that these suspension systems could be mechanically connected to the steering wheel and therefore driven by steering degrees?

[Gerhardsa]

I guess then that means suspension can be as complex as you like as long as it's not externally powered to adjust ride height. In other words active suspension isn't prohibited as long as it functions by purely passive and mechanical means.

...and the whole time, I thought this was obvious.

I don't know hey...

Why did they ban the flexi front wings from a couple of years back then?

They acted like "active" aero pieces, but were activated passively, yet they got banned. Shouldn't the same apply in this case all be it to "active" suspension?

[zac510]

I don't know hey...

Why did they ban the flexi front wings from a couple of years back then?

They acted like "active" aero pieces, but were activated passively, yet they got banned. Shouldn't the same apply in this case all be it to "active" suspension?

They didn't ban them. They just changed the scrutineering test in a way that makes flexible wings less likely to pass.
You might think "well that's banning them" but it's not actually and the distinction is important when working out what's legal and what's not.
Saying they're banned is a lazy, poor use of English, mostly perpetuated by the F1 media.

[roon]

Yep. They were load testing the wings before the flexing wings controversy of 2011(?), afaik. Bodywork deflection rules have been in the regs since at least 2009, and likely prior.

[Big Mangalhit]

if i recall correctly they discovered a special layering in the carbon fibre of the RB car of 2013 that was made in a special way that the wing would bend under horizontal load and thus would pass the vertical loading tests. That was considered cheating by the governing agencies because it was against the intention of the rules that there should be no moveable aero. So in regards to that, this passive system could still be considered agains the intention of the rule that bans moveable aero.

[Shooty81]

if i recall correctly they discovered a special layering in the carbon fibre of the RB car of 2013 that was made in a special way that the wing would bend under horizontal load and thus would pass the vertical loading tests. That was considered cheating by the governing agencies because it was against the intention of the rules that there should be no moveable aero. So in regards to that, this passive system could still be considered agains the intention of the rule that bans moveable aero.

No. They had a preload spring assembly inside the wing which was illegal. It was only beginning to become flwxible when a certain load threshold was reached.

[Zynerji]

I guess then that means suspension can be as complex as you like as long as it's not externally powered to adjust ride height. In other words active suspension isn't prohibited as long as it functions by purely passive and mechanical means.

...and the whole time, I thought this was obvious.

I don't know hey...

Why did they ban the flexi front wings from a couple of years back then?

They acted like "active" aero pieces, but were activated passively, yet they got banned. Shouldn't the same apply in this case all be it to "active" suspension?

Are you equating flexible aero surfaces with energy storing suspension?

That's a reach.

[Gerhardsa]

...and the whole time, I thought this was obvious.

I don't know hey...

Why did they ban the flexi front wings from a couple of years back then?

They acted like "active" aero pieces, but were activated passively, yet they got banned. Shouldn't the same apply in this case all be it to "active" suspension?

Are you equating flexible aero surfaces with energy storing suspension?

That's a reach.

Its a reach saying that I am referring to that cause you didn't read properly.
I think its pretty obvious that I was talking about "active" suspension and "active" aero, whether it is activated passively or via direct intervention, its still active, because lets face it.. that was/is the intention of the "device".

anyhow...
Great innovation? Sure.
Great rulebook interpretation? Sure.
Is it outside the intention of the rule? Apparently, yes.

They got rid of the flexi front wings, mass dampers (back in the day), FRIC etc, so the same should apply here.

Will make the field closer in any case, which is what we all want right? No?

[Zynerji]

Its a reach saying that I am referring to that cause you didn't read properly.
I think its pretty obvious that I was talking about "active" suspension and "active" aero, whether it is activated passively or via direct intervention, its still active, because lets face it.. that was/is the intention of the "device".

anyhow...
Great innovation? Sure.
Great rulebook interpretation? Sure.
Is it outside the intention of the rule? Apparently, yes.

They got rid of the flexi front wings, mass dampers (back in the day), FRIC etc, so the same should apply here.

Will make the field closer in any case, which is what we all want right? No?

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

Read the rule. It's not difficult to see how wide open it is.

You can't use "intention" to disqualify a design that is clearly not breaking any technical rule.

[Greg Locock]

Any chance that these suspension systems could be mechanically connected to the steering wheel and therefore driven by steering degrees?

Yes. Of course you could argue that turning the steering wheel already modifies the relative steer of the front wheels, and the camber and the castor and maybe even jacks the car up or tilts it side to side. If you are allowed more finesse you can also adjust the scrub radius (why would you bother) and other things by using a double ball joint lower arm.

So to some extent you can already do that, but not by much and not without upsetting other things.

You can imagine on a narrow tire trying to pull the top ofthe outside tire inwards as the wheel turns, wasn't that the MX1 camber car?

[DaveW]

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

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

[Pierce89]

if i recall correctly they discovered a special layering in the carbon fibre of the RB car of 2013 that was made in a special way that the wing would bend under horizontal load and thus would pass the vertical loading tests. That was considered cheating by the governing agencies because it was against the intention of the rules that there should be no moveable aero. So in regards to that, this passive system could still be considered agains the intention of the rule that bans moveable aero.

No. They had a preload spring assembly inside the wing which was illegal. It was only beginning to become flwxible when a certain load threshold was reached.

Source please? The closest I remember to what you're saying was a flexible wing adjustment bracket.