F1 2010: Ride height adjustments during pit stops

[autogyro]

Difficult to work out unless there are more details but unlikely.
Of course Charlie Whiting would be more likely to give a definite answer.
IMO the regulations are not specific enough in this area.

[OO7]

Hello

I've been wondering, rather than allowing the fuel cell to be placed on a dynamic mount, couldn't a baffle within the fuel be used to adjust the ride height in a similar fashion. Rather than worrying about the cg shift of a large amount of fuel, in this case you'll only be concerned with the baffle?

A fuel tank is part of the sprung mass and it would be supported by the suspension. nothing active about that.

A baffle would be a breach of the fuel cell construction regs. It would be a safety issue if suspension control has to pass through the cell wall.

Thanks for clearing that up ringo.

[RacingManiac]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82763

Well I am guessing Red Bull had no such thing.....They might just be able to run a much lower rideheight for quali and maybe has a really stiff packer/bump rubber on the ride spring to take on the 200kg of fuel and not bottom....

[roost89]

I was wondering. It may be a bit daft but could RBs advantage of ride-height be an advantage of having their pull-rod as opposed to Push-rod?

Admittedly not that with it in terms of the pros and cons of each. But is it possible?

[RacingManiac]

Doubt it. Other than the fact that it muddies the picture since its harder to see whats going on, the method of how the suspension works is the same, and CG advantage is probably negligible....

[marcush.]

it cannot be a packer or bumpstop thing ,as it would inevitably lend itself to a harsh and bumpy ride as soon as the weight goes away..
One could think of a excentric mechanism to move the leverarm centre ,effectively changing the leverarm length .This would make possible a softer actuation with lower fuellloads. no suspension settings would be altered .the question is how would you move the excentric mechanism? By heat ? or with a charged /discharged pressure vessel?

[ernos5]

Confirmed via FIA, Ride Height Control Systems are Illegal


http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/formula-1-new ... e-illegal/

[pgj]

I was wondering. It may be a bit daft but could RBs advantage of ride-height be an advantage of having their pull-rod as opposed to Push-rod?

Admittedly not that with it in terms of the pros and cons of each. But is it possible?

I was thinking along the same lines.

I believe that whatever RBR is using is connected to the 'offer' for two mandatory pitstops.

Whatever solution is envisioned, it always stumbles on the advantage in performance that RBR has in Q3 and at the start of the race. Could it be that the suspension system employed by RBR is a simple manually adjusted system with the brilliance of the car's performance being that it is in a class of its own bar none?

[hollus]

RedBull's advantage at the beginning of the race is easy to explain. First they tend to start ahead, in clean air. But also, the Renault engine is probably the less frugal, so at the beginning of the race they also have a weight advantage.
I don't think it is by chance that the Red Bulls are better at the beginning of the race than at the end and Ferraris are better at the end than at the beginning. In the last race, towards the end, Alonso, Massa and also Alguersauri were getting faster compared to everyone else, all with Ferrari engines.
So while there might be something helping with Q3, fuel weight could go a long way into explaining relative race paces.

[forty-two]

Confirmed via FIA, Ride Height Control Systems are Illegal


http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/formula-1-new ... e-illegal/

The headline of that page is perhaps a little misleading (perhaps GPUdate employ some ex currant-bun hacks??).

Any system device or procedure, the purpose and/or effect of which is to change the setup of the suspension while the car is under Parc Fermé conditions, will be deemed to contravene article 34.5 of the sporting regulations," reads the FIA message received by Autosport.

This is quite specific to "while the car is under Parc Fermé conditions", it says nothing about "while the car is RACING" nor does it mention "while the car is completing it's in lap at the end of Q3" (although I'm not sure if this forms part of parc fermé or not. Advice anyone??).

As is so often the case, the "spirit" of the rules is not the letter of the law. I'm very keen to watch this story unfold...

[antrock]

I believe that car is under a Parc Ferme rules when it first leaves the pits in qualifying.

[high-on-octane]

My net is too slow for me to read this whole thread so I don't know if this thought has been posted already, and having not read the regulations, I don't know if it would be legal, but...

Would it not be possible to use load sensors on the suspension input to the 3rd springs, and then (electronically or hydraulically, I'm not sure on how the 3rd springs stiffness is changed) change the the 3rd spring stiffness to control the ride height according to the load being input from the suspension members?
As the fuel burns off, the load input to the 3rd springs would reduce, and then the 3rd springs reduce in stiffness to lower the ride height?

The control system would have to be based on an average load of an entire lap to use as a reference pressure though to avoid load spikes from accel/decel changes etc effecting the 3rd spring stiffness mid-lap.

[forty-two]

OR, how about a really off the wall suggestion...

The wheels are turning as the car completes a race distance, how about a worm drive gearing is set up to shorten the suspension members as the race continues?

This doesn't explain how the RBs are so low at end of Q3 and then apparently also still low at the start of the race, but I don't think this would qualify as "ACTIVE" suspension... at least not in the sense that the writer of the regulations meant when they wrote the causes in question.



Sorry all, having a silly 5 minutes!

[Richard]

[It's interesting that the Red Bull system appears to pull the car down to a dynamic ride height unlike most production Nivomat systems that push the car up to a dynamic ride height. This Red Bull reverse direction may have something to do with getting to dynamic ride height most efficiently on the warm up lap. Or maybe it's just a practical matter where you can't push the damn car around the pits if it has lowered onto the plank...

The rules state a minimum ride height at all times, enforced by the plank. So if you had a conventional set up that lifts the car, then it would fail scrutineering when stationary for a while or if the system failed. Also a component failure would drop the car to the floor in the race. By reversing convention, the car is always going to comply with the ride height rule, and any failure would allow the car to keep on racing (alebit rather high).

[Richard]

Confirmed via FIA, Ride Height Control Systems are Illegal


http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/formula-1-new ... e-illegal/

The headline of that page is perhaps a little misleading (perhaps GPUdate employ some ex currant-bun hacks??).

Any system device or procedure, the purpose and/or effect of which is to change the setup of the suspension while the car is under Parc Fermé conditions, will be deemed to contravene article 34.5 of the sporting regulations," reads the FIA message received by Autosport.

That's a misleading headline, it only refers to Parc Ferme.

The ride height could still be adjusted in a pit stop, apparently this was confirmed by Charlie Whiting in the close season. It was widely predicted, but has anyone actually seen this happen on camera?

IMHO - The Nivomat system (or similar) would still be legal.

Edit to add ...

I can't find a copy of the letter online, but the BBC site is reporting

The letter added that the FIA believed "any self levelling damper system is likely to contravene (article) 3.15 of the technical regulations".

[quote"F1 Tech Regs"]3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :

- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;

- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having anydegree of freedom) ;

- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and theground is prohibited under all circumstances.

No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.[/quote]

All the suspension parts exert an influence on aerodynamic performance because they control ride hide, pitch and yaw. I'm not sure how a self levelling damper could fall foul of rule 3.15 compared to a normal damper.