This is what I was thinking but was beat to the post.DaveW wrote:scarbs, They appear to be solid, with no connections. The front bar is centered using jubilee clips, apparently. I guess they could be rigging bars.
This is what I was thinking but was beat to the post.DaveW wrote:scarbs, They appear to be solid, with no connections. The front bar is centered using jubilee clips, apparently. I guess they could be rigging bars.
True if the pull rods don't change length.christopera wrote:It appears as though camber change under heave would be minimal...
Perhaps that is the source of some of the eight seconds...christopera wrote:...it looks like it would be a disaster from a camber standpoint under roll.
Not sure about that... The rear bar looks fairly conventional, complete with adjustable arms. The front looks to be a combined bending/torsion bar, curiously with no adjustment - but it could be stiffest bar, I suppose.christopera wrote:Additionally, given the position that the ARB is in, even given the stoutness of the ARB itself, roll stiffness must be quite low.
The 10 picture in the carsales sequence does suggest that the front bar supports the trailing edge of the front wing. On the other hand, the first picture in the sequence suggests otherwise. Perhaps two alternative wing configurations are shown.bill shoe wrote:The solid bars are structural supports (spars) for some of the extra wing elements that are in unusual locations....
The suspension of any aero vehicle must pay deference to the requirements of aero. Certainly since 1994, however, teams running F3 vehicles also took care over mechanical setup if they wanted to be competitive.hardingfv32 wrote:So what would have been his main goal in a 94' F3 car, aero or mechanical grip?
Well let see if the specs from the carsales page can change your doubting mind;Jersey Tom wrote:Not sure I'd want anything to do with that.
What do you say about that??Front Suspension: excellent--black
Rear Suspension: excellent--black
Shocks: special
I think the 1-picture shows a relatively stock Ralt aero package, and the 10-picture shows the same aero package with the addition of the full-on batman pieces. Maybe the photographer wanted to show that the additional aero parts can be easily removed but did not bother to remove the corresponding spars.DaveW wrote:The 10 picture in the carsales sequence does suggest that the front bar supports the trailing edge of the front wing. On the other hand, the first picture in the sequence suggests otherwise. Perhaps two alternative wing configurations are shown.bill shoe wrote:The solid bars are structural supports (spars) for some of the extra wing elements that are in unusual locations....
The boxes also show a number of sleeves that would help the small springs nest inside the large springs. It would make for a small strut shaft as you point out.thisisatest wrote: in the other photos in the car-sales site, there were extra springs, the large ones clearly for the strut part. there were also much smaller, much-higher-rate ones in there too, and i'm not sure they would fit along with the strut, where would it go? i would assume the strut shaft would need to be larger in diameter than the I.D. of the small springs... so they could go along with the pull rods, allowing a mechanism to slide..
That's a big assumption.hardingfv32 wrote:Can we assume that the designer, Martin Ogilvie of Lotus, had some comprehension of the complication he was creating with this design?
Maybe there was. Doesn't mean it worked.There had to be a "reasonable" theory or purpose for it's design.
I think kinematically this is quite conventional to the Double wishbones used currently in F1.hardingfv32 wrote:
The is a 1994 Pilette F3 car with a very unique suspension design (same front and rear). What are the possible benefits of this design? All I can come up with is packaging. No rockers or coil overs on the chassis.
http://www.race-cars.com/carsales/other ... 4046ss.htm
Brian