F1 2010: Ride height adjustments during pit stops

[Professor]

Just a technical point, I think that pit to car telemetry is not allowed. The garage can see what's going on in the car, but I think two way interface is illegal. If true, then the garage cannot change any settings on the car via telemetry.

This has nothing to do with the suspension adjustments convo, but I thought I would point it out. Note: I don't presently have the time to study the rule book, so I may be wrong.

Please advise....

[pgj]

Would variable damping help here?

I was thinking about the J-Damper family that was a hot topic a few years ago. From memory the damper was doubled back on itself with a rack and pinion mechanism running in fluid carrying out the damping. All of the diagrams that I saw had a uniform tooth distribution on the rack. Would it be possible to have a graduated tooth distribution on the rack, bearing in mind the small amount of travel involved?

[forty-two]

Just a technical point, I think that pit to car telemetry is not allowed. The garage can see what's going on in the car, but I think two way interface is illegal. If true, then the garage cannot change any settings on the car via telemetry.

This has nothing to do with the suspension adjustments convo, but I thought I would point it out. Note: I don't presently have the time to study the rule book, so I may be wrong.

Please advise....

Hi Prof,

My understanding is indeed that you are correct. The telemetry is indeed one way only (from car to pit). The point I was making is that they could easily radio Seb to ASK him to change to "mix 7" or whatever. I didn't mean the team could remotely do this from the pit.

[RacingManiac]

Would variable damping help here?

I was thinking about the J-Damper family that was a hot topic a few years ago. From memory the damper was doubled back on itself with a rack and pinion mechanism running in fluid carrying out the damping. All of the diagrams that I saw had a uniform tooth distribution on the rack. Would it be possible to have a graduated tooth distribution on the rack, bearing in mind the small amount of travel involved?

That certainly is an interesting idea, I think it might have some merit. Seeing how Inerter works primarily based on frequency of the track surface undulation to reduce their effect on the tire contact patch because of the limited effectiveness of normal damper on F1 cars with very little travel(if damper does not move, it does no damping), I'd imagine it'd have to deal with car mass, how stiff the car is sprung vs the track surface. Which is why it has to be tuned(and when its wrongly tuned, you have Ferrari's Monza damper failure a few years back). What if RBR does run a helper spring such that when the car is low to the ground it has a stiff spring rate, which would compromise traction, but runs as you said a variable pitch "rack" on the inerter such that at different range of travel its tuned to a different "inerter rate" to improve grip....

[autogyro]

I cannot see how that idea could help maintain a constant ride height with or without fuel mass.
Damping is a side issue.

[RacingManiac]

The RBR did not have constant ride height, in fact I am pretty damn sure the car assumes a different ride height at different speed base on down force. They are speculated by other teams to be able to run the car with some kind of ride height devices such that with full fuel race setup and light fuel quali setup with no detriment from the setup compromises. The other teams SPECULATED that they were running some kind of ride height devices. When in reality if they can find any kind of advantage to opimize the car for both mode of running without breaching the rule would have gained them time. Rate and damping is another thing you compromise when you are dealing with a varying weight. So you can gain advantage also from suspension tuning.

So far its all smokes and mirror, and no need to dig yourself into a corner to think that it can only be some kind of ride height devices....

[forty-two]

Thanks RM, but I for one like to see what ideas are out there.

For example, if you take a look at the MP4/25 thread, especially in the earlier pages you will find a fascinating story unfolding where people noticed little things which eventually added up into a complex theory about the whole F-Vent/Rear wing stalling concept. The same is true with that, none of us KNOW for sure whether the McL system works as described on these pages but we find it interesting to try to add things up.

If you don't want to play, there's nobody making you read this thread.

[marcush.]

The RBR did not have constant ride height, in fact I am pretty damn sure the car assumes a different ride height at different speed base on down force. They are speculated by other teams to be able to run the car with some kind of ride height devices such that with full fuel race setup and light fuel quali setup with no detriment from the setup compromises. The other teams SPECULATED that they were running some kind of ride height devices. When in reality if they can find any kind of advantage to opimize the car for both mode of running without breaching the rule would have gained them time. Rate and damping is another thing you compromise when you are dealing with a varying weight. So you can gain advantage also from suspension tuning.

So far its all smokes and mirror, and no need to dig yourself into a corner to think that it can only be some kind of ride height devices....

In fact you surely don´t want to assume a constant rideheight with regard to just where you are and at what speed you are travelling....but of course this was not
the point we debated.

in fact you would want to have considerable rake rear up to optimise for underfloor
and wing angle of attack in Braking areas and of course in corners.
On a straight you would of course prefer to run nose up to minimise angle of attack from the wings and get rid of any drag you could possibly shed.As these things can be tailored by damping and springs (third spring/bump stop use)we all considered the only part of real importance the static ride height for the empty tank a real issue as you will inevitably compromise your possibilities to keep the car in the required (optimum ) part of the aeromap as speed (and downforce decreases from maximum and the weight of the car becomes equally important for rideheight )..Obviously RedBulls 2010 contender is running visibly lower than its
competitors in qualy and at the end of the race and for sure it is not bouncing around as others ..so it is out of question they have put in a suspension harsh and stiff enough to get away with ultra low rideheights not scraping the plank away at the start of the race..
How could you possibly achieve something like that with damping? You can actively lower the car by running excessive Rebound damping ,yes but then how would that help you with the changing weight of the car..I do not see that .

On the other side I could imagine the following :

build into the dampers a small pump ,acting like a piston ,with a check valve only letting air in .Drive as normal the car will lift itself by the normal suspension movement.No fuzz there it will just raise itself till it reaches a mechanical stop.
Now think of having a bleed just at the desired rideheight ...presto the car will raise itself by the pumping action till it reaches the bleed and will not be able to raise above this no matter how much weight you loose..It is simple ,contained into the dampers ,not adjustable...you do not need to even touch it.

[autogyro]

Replace the pump with gas under pressure and you are getting close marcush.
Exactly what we used with the modified hyralastic system in the racing mini.
The car had over 150 bhp and 9 inch wide slicks on 13inch revolution wheels so no slouch. Also a clutch less automatic five speed box with electric shift and in 1976!

The point is that this gives a constant BASE for ride height within the suspension and can easily be designed into the dampers in an F1 suspension geometry using seperate gas containers. These would not need to be large.
The conventional sprung or torsion bar suspension would still be part of the design but because there is then no need to design ride height needs into this part of the system, it can be used with softer springs for better mechanical set up and also be designed to give the pitch and roll characteristics needed to give increased DF under braking, less drag on acceleration and a far better controlled roll in corners such that the outside edge of the undertray comes close to the ground establishing what would be in effect a DF 'tunnel' under the car on the outside to further increase DF during high lateral loads (corners).
If RB are not doing it then perhaps other teams would like to?

[rifrafs2kees]

There is a damper made by a group called nivomat. You'd find some old volvos and more recently, some dodges, chrylers and gm trucks using this damper(shock absorber if that's what u call it).It is a self leveling damper that has the whole damping and leveling mechanisms right in the tube itself; basically the same size as an ordinary damper. I will do my best to explain how it works. When there is a load and the shock moves out of it's "level position", a control valve is open giving a piston type pump access to oil. When the vehicle oscillates up and down as happens over bumps etc, energy is captured by the pump which takes oil from a resevoir(also in the damper) and pumps it up the chamber thereby raising the vehicle up. When the damper gets back to it's right height, the control valve is closed simply by design,(no computers or intelligent stuff going on). When the shock is overextended(say during fuel burn) an orifice is opened and the oil bleeds back out. I believe this is the best way to go about any ride height adjustment system. Does anyone know whether such a damper is permissible under the rules?

[autogyro]

There is a damper made by a group called nivomat. You'd find some old volvos and more recently, some dodges, chrylers and gm trucks using this damper(shock absorber if that's what u call it).It is a self leveling damper that has the whole damping and leveling mechanisms right in the tube itself; basically the same size as an ordinary damper. I will do my best to explain how it works. When there is a load and the shock moves out of it's "level position", a control valve is open giving a piston type pump access to oil. When the vehicle oscillates up and down as happens over bumps etc, energy is captured by the pump which takes oil from a resevoir(also in the damper) and pumps it up the chamber thereby raising the vehicle up. When the damper gets back to it's right height, the control valve is closed simply by design,(no computers or intelligent stuff going on). When the shock is overextended(say during fuel burn) an orifice is opened and the oil bleeds back out. I believe this is the best way to go about any ride height adjustment system. Does anyone know whether such a damper is permissible under the rules?

This is the problem, the regulations. There appears to be no definition of ride height control, so there is no way of knowing where this, (which everybody has in one form or another) ends, and active (which is illegal) begins.
Self levelling (which is fairly easy to design into an F1 suspension system and would look the same as without it), does not seem to be regulated.

[gambler]

There may be handling issues with this, it would have to
work independant of the shock. (so the driver would know
what the had under him going into the next corner)

[autogyro]

There may be handling issues with this, it would have to
work independant of the shock. (so the driver would know
what the had under him going into the next corner)

Self levelling can easily be designed into a damper, retaining the dampers primary purpose and not give any unpredictable suspension changes.
You are missing the point. All cars have to have some form of self levelling, otherwise the suspension would not work.
It is the definition that is lacking.

[avatar]

EDIT: Sorry to revive the rideheight speculation, but the concept below has more in common with bump-stops than legally questionable "active" rideheight control.

Something I've not seen discussed anywhere (I posted yesterday on Scarb's blog) is a 2-stage damper - the secondary stage being filled with instant Custard (or a more suitable non-newtonian fluid).

This could allow totally passive ride height changes - no intervention required.

Posted on Scarb's blog:

“Custard Dampers”
(stick with me on this – it’s not totally insane!)

A 2 stage damper:

1st stage=standard spring/damper (ride)
2nd stage=custard damper (ride height)

The “custard damper” contains a non-Newtonian fluid (like instant custard – hence the name).



Resistance of the fluid is proportional to the pressure applied. The force exerted on the fluid will drop as fuel burns off (nothing abnormal there).

The fluid being instant custard however, the resistance offered will reduce as the load decreases, causing the damper to compress, up to the the point where (due to the container volume reducing) the pressure reaches a critically high level and the resistance firms to the point where the compression is halted.
- effectively reducing rideheight in it’s adjustment to the new load.

– As fuel burns off, the ride height is reduced…

(just a brainwave – feel free to pick holes)



Notes:

The custard damper must be sprung (relatively weakly) to allow ridehight recovery between Qually and race and not under aero load.

As the majority of load absent until in motion & with the standard spring/damper smoothing the bumps, the [relatively] weakly sprung damper should hold up until the non-Newtonian effects take over under load.

Setup would be relatively knife-edge with instant custard, but then that’s often the norm in high-end motorsport.
Particularly setting avoiding inadvertent rideheight changes under differing loads around a lap, though low rideheaght for ground-effect should be more critical in high aero load in highspeed corners, so setup could target those conditions.

The “custard effect” could of course be achieved with some valve system that chokes/closes off based on the pressure exerted, which would be more tunable, but is a bit more than I can design without putting pen to paper.

[gambler]

There is a damper made by a group called nivomat. You'd find some old volvos and more recently, some dodges, chrylers and gm trucks using this damper(shock absorber if that's what u call it).It is a self leveling damper that has the whole damping and leveling mechanisms right in the tube itself; basically the same size as an ordinary damper. I will do my best to explain how it works. When there is a load and the shock moves out of it's "level position", a control valve is open giving a piston type pump access to oil. When the vehicle oscillates up and down as happens over bumps etc, energy is captured by the pump which takes oil from a resevoir(also in the damper) and pumps it up the chamber thereby raising the vehicle up. When the damper gets back to it's right height, the control valve is closed simply by design,(no computers or intelligent stuff going on). When the shock is overextended(say during fuel burn) an orifice is opened and the oil bleeds back out. I believe this is the best way to go about any ride height adjustment system. Does anyone know whether such a damper is permissible under the rules?

Could you energise this system with the power steering pump by the rules?