Lotus's braking attitude compensator is now illegal

[hardingfv32]

Sorry to be pedantic WB, but I understood that the brakes of F1 cars were NOT servo assisted.

Is my belief incorrect anyone?

Yes, which makes WB's position pointless as there is no reason to use such a design. There is no way that the engineers are going add the extra effort required to raise the front end to the driver's braking effort.

Brian

[Richard]

................

[forty-two]

The way I understand this system;

- A torque applied on the upright from the brake disk gives a certain movement to a radially mounted hydraulic cylinder.

- This cylinder is feeding another cylinder inside the push-rod, xtending the same and compensating the ride-height.

Brilliant.

Please correct me if and where I went wrong?

Your understanding of the supposed solution is the same as mine, but I have to question whether the hydraulics are actually necessary.

Surely, if you have a force derived from torque being converted into linear motion in order to push on a piston which in turn drives another piston to increase the ride height, surely you could contrive a far simpler system which would instead of using pistons and hydraulics, directly adjust the ride height?

Pistons, associated plumbing, hydraulic fluid etc. are both a weight penalty and something else to go wrong, and if they were to go wrong, I imagine it's likely that it would end the race for the driver in question.

[xpensive]

Sorry guys, still working on this a bit;

The way I understand this system;

- Brake-disk torque on the upright gives a certain rotational movement to the latter.

- This movement activates a tangentially mounted hydraulic cylinder.

- This cylinder is feeding another cylinder inside the push-rod, xtending the same and compensating the ride-height.

Brilliant.

Please correct me if and where I went wrong?

[hardingfv32]

Brilliant.

Please correct me if and where I went wrong?

Correct the 'brilliant' statement? It was stated that motorcycles had this system available in the 80's on their bikes. Why is F1 only getting around to it in the 2000's?

Brian

[WhiteBlue]

A system that moves the suspension from energy delivered by the driver would be illegal. One that uses the energy of a moving car to do so would be legal.

Opinion of course. The Lotus system uses brake energy which is controlled by the driver and provided by the servo assist hydraulics.

Sorry to be pedantic WB, but I understood that the brakes of F1 cars were NOT servo assisted.

Is my belief incorrect anyone?

You may be right. I have not looked into such systems for a long time. I happen to know that the steering is servo supported and may have jumped to the conclusion that the breaks are as well. Still it does not change my point of view. The yaw compensation is activated by the driver pushing the brake pedal. It is still irrelevant IMO that they are using other mechanical amplification and transmission systems between the brake pressure and the pull rod cylinder. It could be an arrangement of hydraulic amplifiers only and it would be legal as well.

[lotus7]

- Brake-disk torque on the upright gives a certain rotational movement to the latter.

A question here...
Wouldn't rotational movement of the upright change castor , even if slightly, with a few other side effects , such as ackerman , toe...

[hardingfv32]

With all the rumour about RB having ride height control back in 2010, i wonder whether RB had this sort of system all along from the beginning of 2010 and others (namely Mclaren and Ferrari) were napping all this time. Maybe LRGP just got the hint from them (RB)? It could explain why Mclaren or Ferrari were always just shy of the bulls even when their cars were at their best. Such a system would go so well when coupled with a flexing nose/fw/floor too. And it is a well known fact RB were (still are ?) the best when it comes to flexing parts.

Very good point Shreiker.

The ride height control discussion of 2010 would not relate to the system in this discussion. While this system on all for corners would give you a lifting system, you still lack a non-driver controlled activation system. A signaling method of raising the car our while entering the pits and lower when leaving the pits.

Brian

[forty-two]

With all the rumour about RB having ride height control back in 2010, i wonder whether RB had this sort of system all along from the beginning of 2010 and others (namely Mclaren and Ferrari) were napping all this time. Maybe LRGP just got the hint from them (RB)? It could explain why Mclaren or Ferrari were always just shy of the bulls even when their cars were at their best. Such a system would go so well when coupled with a flexing nose/fw/floor too. And it is a well known fact RB were (still are ?) the best when it comes to flexing parts.

Very good point Shreiker.

This could actually explain a few things in addition to this.
- I seem to remember that the RB6 at some point (launch??) was unusual in that it had it's brake callipers mounted at the 6 o'clock position. At the time this was presumed by many on here to be in order to lower CofG, but perhaps it needed to be there in order to allow room for kit and clobber to carry out this reactive anti-dive system?
- Also on the RB6, mid season, I remember Vettel had a problem during a race whereby he reported on the radio "Loss of power" for a few seconds but then everything was fine. At the time, I believe that this was put down to his brakes having been locked on by some foreign object. After this, the callipers were moved back toward the more conventional position. Perhaps by this time they had found a way to lay things out to allow a more normal calliper position?

I was wrong, it was originally on the RB5, but also re-discussed about the RB6 thread on 2nd April 2011:

Still no full pics of the gearbox yet...

Interesting location for the caliper. I thought they had decided putting it low down, while offering a CofG advantage, made it more likely for debris to get lodged in it following Sebs issues last year?

It wasn't a problem with debris: on the front, there was insufficient stiffness with the wishbones closer together, leading to pad knock-off, especially when going over kerbs.

So, they had a problem with unusual brake calliper mounting location, especially for the front of the car.... precisely where one might want to adjust ride height the most....

[WhiteBlue]

WB - on that definition we can argue that everything on the car is controlled by the driver. The deflection of the wing is determined by the speed of the car, and the speed of the car is determined by the driver's right foot. So to use your logic, there is nothing wrong with a hydraulic system from the right foot to the front wing?

The systems you propose as analogous are massively different. The yaw compensation system goes:

1.pedal force -> 2.brake fluid pressure -> 3.braking torque -> 4.hydaulic oil displacement -> 5.pull rod cylinder displacement

This is a simple mono causal and proportional transmission. All I say is that you can leave out step 3 and find another amplifying mechanism. It will work as well and will be legal as well. I hope this makes it clearer.

[beelsebob]

WB - on that definition we can argue that everything on the car is controlled by the driver. The deflection of the wing is determined by the speed of the car, and the speed of the car is determined by the driver's right foot. So to use your logic, there is nothing wrong with a hydraulic system from the right foot to the front wing?

The systems you propose as analogous are massively different. The yaw compensation system goes:

1.pedal force -> 2.brake fluid pressure -> 3.braking torque -> 4.hydaulic oil displacement -> 5.pull rod cylinder displacement

This is a simple mono causal and proportional transmission. All I say is that you can leave out step 3 and find another amplifying mechanism. It will work as well and will be legal as well. I hope this makes it clearer.

Except it's not mono-causal, 3 requires an external energy source before it works.

[hardingfv32]

- Brake-disk torque on the upright gives a certain rotational movement to the latter.

A question here...
Wouldn't rotational movement of the upright change castor , even if slightly, with a few other side effects , such as ackerman , toe...

You are correct. We believe the illustration is of a caliper moving system.

Brian

[xpensive]

Only that I don't think you have a proportionality between braking torque and hydraulic oil displacement here,
it's most probably a digital system, off-on. But I don't know that for certain of course.

[hardingfv32]

Only that I don't think you have a proportionality between braking torque and hydraulic oil displacement here,
it's most probably a digital system, off-on. But I don't know that for certain of course.

1) And what would be the digital signal trigger?

2) How much does the ride height change without such a system and how fast does it change? Maybe there is not that much lost during transition to warrant a proportional system. You simply stop the system out rapidly at a certain height.

Brian

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Here is a write up on the system and how it works.

http://www.boxgp.com/tecnica-f1/item/15 ... Js.twitter