autogyro wrote:I cannot see any connection between limiting downforce with a maximum figure and a lap time limit.
F1 is not a race for the aero guys with the winner having the highest downforce.
This is what I think you mean Dave.
I tried to suggest two things, auto.
First, any measure that is intended to limit (perhaps artificially) the performance of a race car can be arranged to generate a required output without interfering with the transducer(s), SCU, or static calibration results. Second, if the limit is artificial (i.e. the vehicle is capable of more performance), then the imposed limit is a nonsense even if the measure is not "fixed" in any way.
I should, perhaps, add that no transducer measures what it says on the tin.
Hence, for example, a lateral accelerometer does not measure the centripetal acceleration of the vehicle c.g., it measures the relative displacement along a local axis of a spring-restrained mass (or, for the rich, the current required to force a mass to maintain position within its case), the case being attached to local vehicle structure. Any engineer who has tried will tell you how difficult it is to obtain meaningful results. He would also be able to suggest several ways to obtain non-meaningful results, pretty much to order.
Yet again, Lotus active cars used suspension loads as primary inputs. We designed bespoke load cells that were as "pure" as we knew how to make them but, in use, we had to correct measurements both for components that were present (& were not required) & were not present (& were required) - & that had wishbones that were not designed to carry bending loads....
p.s. Just to illustrate the accelerometer problem, if the transducer is attached at the ideal location, but is arranged to "roll in" at 7.5 deg/gn, then the output will under-read by 16%, 20%, & 25% at lateral accelerations of 2, 3, & 4 gn, respectively (assuming my calcs are correct). Hence an actual 4 gn would read just under 3 gn - quite a useful return for a very modest investment, you might think....
