Benefit of Pilette suspension design

[ubrben]

[
To be honest Brian it comes across that you are not being objective in this "analysis." Continually seems like you are latched onto the idea that just because it was done, this must have been a good idea to pursue and we're just not seeing the reason why.

Awfully big assumption.

To be very precise it would be my premise that:

A) Martin Ogilvie was/is an accomplished designer.
B) Count Van der Stratten was an accomplished car owner who knew a "reasonable" design when he say it.

It would be my conclusion that "they" thought it was a good idea and yes, we have not determined why "they" thought is was worth pursuing.

Is this not a valid assumption?

Brian

Like I said, in the era before decent engineering analysis tools people were allowed to do this type of thing on reputation. If you are assuming because MO had a decent reputation it's a good design, rather than articulating an engineering reason it has any merit whatsoever you're falling into the same trap.

Ben

[hardingfv32]

Many things seem like a good/reasonable idea at the time. Doesn't mean that they are. I don't care who the person is or what their history entails. Not everything that Ross Brawn or Adrian Newey comes up with is going to be gold either. You have an idea for something, you try it, maybe it works maybe it doesn't.

I think trying to get into someone else's head and figure out their thought process from years ago is often an exercise in futility.

My last statements have been very precise. These two people were capable of making good design choices in the time period that this car was built. There is no reason to doubt that they did not have a valid objective or goal in mind. I am not arguing that the car was a design success, only that it attempted to meet a valid or legitimate goal proposed by Martin Ogilvie.

It is this design goal that I am interested in. It is puzzle that I feel interested in solving and this forum is a reasonable place to accomplish that. You guys have done a very thorough job in evaluating any possible suspension benefit. Since you found none, I feel the next best place to look is the aero design.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

Like I said, in the era before decent engineering analysis tools people were allowed to do this type of thing on reputation. If you are assuming because MO had a decent reputation it's a good design, rather than articulating an engineering reason it has any merit whatsoever you're falling into the same trap.

Ben

I would disagree that this is about reputation. 'In the era before decent engineering analysis tools people' could make big mistakes because they did not have a good comprehension of the engineering challenges of their proposals.

I would "only" argue that because of Martin Ogilvie's reputation and who his customer was, that it can be concluded that he did in fact 'articulating an engineering reason' for his design.

Brian

[DaveW]

'In the era before decent engineering analysis tools people' could make big mistakes because they did not have a good comprehension of the engineering challenges of their proposals.

IN F1! Tell me it ain't so.......

Nothing much really changes. Not strictly on topic, but I offer you the Renault exhaust solution....

Apologies to all those engineers who think 'out of the box' - and occasionally have to admit they were mistaken.

[aldof4]

Hi , my name is Aldo and I am the new owner of the Pilette F3 . I know zero about the suspension and in the future change it to Rt 41 if posible . Im open to input and any knowledge of used or new parts .I am a tool maker so I am capable.I am one of the first to put a motor cycle engine in a 1992 vandemien. I curently race a f4 mark 2 at mossport in canada one or my cars is for sale and can be seen at http://www.three liter.com

[aldof4]

Sorry I made a mistake http://www.three quarter liter.com

[PlatinumZealot]

Aldo, can you tell these guys they are making a big deal out of what seems to be a regular pull rod suspension, only with the anti-roll mechanism on the opposite side of the torsion bars...

It's interesting but kinematic ally convenstional. An advantage I can guess, is that it's more compact and allows you to make the chassis narrower (for a pull-rod setup at least).

[thisisatest]

Aldo,
if you could be so kind as to take a picture of whatever it is the pullrods connect to, that would be great. it seems that is the biggest mystery.

thanks

[hardingfv32]

aldof4

Could you post some close up pictures of one of the upright?

This is your ticket to Goodwood Festival of Speed.

Thanks
Brian

[bill shoe]

http://www.formulafour.com/4sale.htm

This seems to be the website and car-for-sale that Aldof4 mentions.

If Aldof4 does convert the car back to conventional Ralt spec then he can always use the current uprights with rigid spacers mounted in the mini-struts. I think he will have to find (or make) some inboard bits that were lost in the conversion.

@n smikle, you are suprising!!, do you really think that springs located between the upright and the wishbone are a "regular pull rod suspension"?

[aldof4]

I had a conversion with Martin Ogilvie and the shocks and springs in the up rights allow the wheels to stayin full contack with the road and if the there way to link the 2 front and the 2 back shocks with a sold tube to allow the fluid to travel back and forth it would ack as a sway bar .but it needed more time and $ because of some of the problems that needed to be addressed but the plug got pulled