2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

[Zynerji]

This is getting out of hand to be honest. The rules clearly state that the wheel can compress fluid and store it for use later. there is no limit, and as long as it does not have any energy added from an additional source, completely in line with the regulations.

Any arbitrary(Whiting) decision about effecting aero is utterly no ones business. Keeping the platform level and stable is the ENTIRE REASON SUSPENSION EXISTS!

I think one could argue that removing these systems would make the cars LESS SAFE as the evil aero becomes less predictable causing instability.

[f1316]

Regarding intelligent valving in the third element. Some years ago one team (Lotus, RBR?) had a system where the front brake hydraulic pressure closed a valve in the front shocks thereby altering the dive of the car. It did not break any written technical rule but it was queried by another team & ruled to contravene the active aerodynamic rule. My recollection is not clear.

However if these third suspension elements have valving that responds to outside forces then they can be ruled inadmissible in the same way.

For this ruling to come in so close to the start of the season is a big impediment to the teams intending to use it. But something very similar happened a few years back. Something RBR had to abandon I think but I don't recall what (the tea tray?).

Absolutely right (and it was Lotus - at least primarily):

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-b ... t-systems/

You'll also note that:

- the FIA ruled very late in the day (end of Jan)
- the FIA and other teams had plenty of time to query prior to this, given it was run in a YDT
- the FIA originally deemed it legal but changed its mind upon further investigation
- the initial thinking was that everyone else would be forced to copy it:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96952

So all this is nothing new and the teams in question are certainly not being targeted in any way differently from anyone else.

More interesting to me is how this relates to Ross Brawn's recent comments on how, during major regulation changes, teams can 'shape arguments' to suit their interpretations:

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/12/ ... -f1-rules/

“If you start early enough, if you’re the first team to query interpretations with the FIA, is that then you have an advantage because you can start to shape the arguments.

Could Ferrari's letter have been phrased to illicit a ruling on X ways of managing ride height because their solution does it in Y way? Does it therefore help defend Y because we know X method is illegal? Could Rory Byrne (a consultant still at Ferrari) also have a similar approach to Brawn?

[godlameroso]

This is getting out of hand to be honest. The rules clearly state that the wheel can compress fluid and store it for use later. there is no limit, and as long as it does not have any energy added from an additional source, completely in line with the regulations.

Any arbitrary(Whiting) decision about effecting aero is utterly no ones business. Keeping the platform level and stable is the ENTIRE REASON SUSPENSION EXISTS!

I think one could argue that removing these systems would make the cars LESS SAFE as the evil aero becomes less predictable causing instability.

I agree, next year's cars are going to have a big learning curve and they'll be difficult to drive until they can make the aero consistent.

[dobbster71]

F1 cars SHOULD be difficult to drive!

[bonjon1979]

This is getting out of hand to be honest. The rules clearly state that the wheel can compress fluid and store it for use later. there is no limit, and as long as it does not have any energy added from an additional source, completely in line with the regulations.

Any arbitrary(Whiting) decision about effecting aero is utterly no ones business. Keeping the platform level and stable is the ENTIRE REASON SUSPENSION EXISTS!

I think one could argue that removing these systems would make the cars LESS SAFE as the evil aero becomes less predictable causing instability.

I disagree entirely. If they have created a mechanical device that's sole purpose is to lower the rear ride height on the straights for aerodynamic benefit then it's obviously illegal. It's quite different to designing a suspension that aims to keep a stable platform when different loads are going through the car when cornering etc. It seems obvious to me anyway!

[FW17]

I disagree entirely. If they have created a mechanical device that's sole purpose is to lower the rear ride height on the straights for aerodynamic benefit then it's obviously illegal. It's quite different to designing a suspension that aims to keep a stable platform when different loads are going through the car when cornering etc. It seems obvious to me anyway!

In actuality they are just softening the rear spring to get better mechanical traction out of the corners, So why is it wrong?

RBR rides at 6 inches off the ground when going into the corner, while out of the corner they need to get rid of 4 inches of ride height (considering 2 inches for the step). F1 suspension does not allow for this, RBR manages around 3 inches with a combination of conventional suspension movement and the trickery.

Not sure how the front works though.

[bonjon1979]

I disagree entirely. If they have created a mechanical device that's sole purpose is to lower the rear ride height on the straights for aerodynamic benefit then it's obviously illegal. It's quite different to designing a suspension that aims to keep a stable platform when different loads are going through the car when cornering etc. It seems obvious to me anyway!

In actuality they are just softening the rear spring to get better mechanical traction out of the corners, So why is it wrong?

RBR rides at 6 inches off the ground when going into the corner, while out of the corner they need to get rid of 4 inches of ride height (considering 2 inches for the step). F1 suspension does not allow for this, RBR manages around 3 inches with a combination of conventional suspension movement and the trickery.

Not sure how the front works though.

That doesn't seem to me what they're doing. From my very rudimentary understanding of the Italian article, they seem to be using energy created by front suspension movement in the corners, storing that energy and then using it to raise the front ride height on the straights thereby lowering the rear end purely for aerodynamic purposes. Its what allows them to run such high rake without losing too much in drag on the straights.

[FW17]

I disagree entirely. If they have created a mechanical device that's sole purpose is to lower the rear ride height on the straights for aerodynamic benefit then it's obviously illegal. It's quite different to designing a suspension that aims to keep a stable platform when different loads are going through the car when cornering etc. It seems obvious to me anyway!

In actuality they are just softening the rear spring to get better mechanical traction out of the corners, So why is it wrong?

RBR rides at 6 inches off the ground when going into the corner, while out of the corner they need to get rid of 4 inches of ride height (considering 2 inches for the step). F1 suspension does not allow for this, RBR manages around 3 inches with a combination of conventional suspension movement and the trickery.

Not sure how the front works though.

That doesn't seem to me what they're doing. From my very rudimentary understanding of the Italian article, they seem to be using energy created by front suspension movement in the corners, storing that energy and then using it to raise the front ride height on the straights thereby lowering the rear end purely for aerodynamic purposes. Its what allows them to run such high rake without losing too much in drag on the straights.

I think the front suspension has nothing to do with that of lowering the rear, suspension just returns to normal setting when the rear is doing its magic

The front however does act strangely by maintaining an ultra low ride height when the car hits the breaking zone, and keeps it at that low height even after the breaks are released, and then rocks back when the car accelerates out of the corner.

But this low ride height of RBR at the corners have been a feature since 2010, those days FRIC was not exploited fully, so there is something else going on.

Ferrari is just talking rubbish to say that the suspension is affecting the aero, but noway knows how. Now it is just classic case of Chalie doing a --- job.

[bonjon1979]

In actuality they are just softening the rear spring to get better mechanical traction out of the corners, So why is it wrong?

RBR rides at 6 inches off the ground when going into the corner, while out of the corner they need to get rid of 4 inches of ride height (considering 2 inches for the step). F1 suspension does not allow for this, RBR manages around 3 inches with a combination of conventional suspension movement and the trickery.

Not sure how the front works though.

That doesn't seem to me what they're doing. From my very rudimentary understanding of the Italian article, they seem to be using energy created by front suspension movement in the corners, storing that energy and then using it to raise the front ride height on the straights thereby lowering the rear end purely for aerodynamic purposes. Its what allows them to run such high rake without losing too much in drag on the straights.

I think the front suspension has nothing to do with that of lowering the rear, suspension just returns to normal setting when the rear is doing its magic

The front however does act strangely by maintaining an ultra low ride height when the car hits the breaking zone, and keeps it at that low height even after the breaks are released, and then rocks back when the car accelerates out of the corner.

But this low ride height of RBR at the corners have been a feature since 2010, those days FRIC was not exploited fully, so there is something else going on.

Ferrari is just talking rubbish to say that the suspension is affecting the aero, but noway knows how. Now it is just classic case of Chalie doing a --- job.

"The hydraulic actuator acting as an energy accumulator in the roll of the car moments so mainly when changing direction and cornering. In subsequent instants, when ended sections where the car "rocked" (on the straights so), the hydraulic accumulator ceding energy to the system by acting on the rocker of the suspension and then the real third element that was going to change the ' from the car's ride height. This meant a raising of the front part of the car a few millimeters with consequent lowering of the rear axle. That dynamic rake of which we had already after the Grand Prix at Silverstone."

Taken from here.

http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2017/01 ... n.html?m=1

[FW17]

That is just Italian bile

The extended position is the default setting

During corner entry the pressure built up in the 3rd element is stored in the accumulator, this is done at a controlled pace, as the 3rd element passes the pressure on to the accumulator it lowers. Ideally when the breaks are off the pressure from the accumulator has to return to the 3rd element immediately and ride height will be back to normal, however this does not happen. There is a delay mechanism and return of pressure is non linear.

The aero benefit of keeping front end low and steady is what is being debated. This is exactly what Merc are doing too.

[LookBackTime]

F1 2017: per Mercedes un passo indietro sulla sospensione anteriore della W08 Hybrid
F1 2017: Mercedes to step back on the front suspension of W08 Hybrid

http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2017/01 ... ml?refresh

interesting stuff =D>

[dans79]

F1 2017: per Mercedes un passo indietro sulla sospensione anteriore della W08 Hybrid
F1 2017: Mercedes to step back on the front suspension of W08 Hybrid

http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2017/01 ... ml?refresh

interesting stuff =D>

sounds a lot more like feel good news for the tifosi than actual news/reality.

[Robbobnob]

That is just Italian bile

The extended position is the default setting

During corner entry the pressure built up in the 3rd element is stored in the accumulator, this is done at a controlled pace, as the 3rd element passes the pressure on to the accumulator it lowers. Ideally when the breaks are off the pressure from the accumulator has to return to the 3rd element immediately and ride height will be back to normal, however this does not happen. There is a delay mechanism and return of pressure is non linear.

The aero benefit of keeping front end low and steady is what is being debated. This is exactly what Merc are doing too.

I agree with the above, they most likely have a throttle neeldle valve on the return line which returns flow at a lower rate than the charge line. Probably in the same manifold.

[Zynerji]

This is getting out of hand to be honest. The rules clearly state that the wheel can compress fluid and store it for use later. there is no limit, and as long as it does not have any energy added from an additional source, completely in line with the regulations.

Any arbitrary(Whiting) decision about effecting aero is utterly no ones business. Keeping the platform level and stable is the ENTIRE REASON SUSPENSION EXISTS!

I think one could argue that removing these systems would make the cars LESS SAFE as the evil aero becomes less predictable causing instability.

I disagree entirely. If they have created a mechanical device that's sole purpose is to lower the rear ride height on the straights for aerodynamic benefit then it's obviously illegal. It's quite different to designing a suspension that aims to keep a stable platform when different loads are going through the car when cornering etc. It seems obvious to me anyway!

I would say that anyone questioning the intent of a legal system as to its intended purpose can straight go f@ck themselves.

If the spirit of the rules don't count, neither do intentions of purpose.

It's black and white legal, or not, and as described, the merc solution is legal.

And I'm a Vettel fan, so kinda in Ferrari's corner from a "want to win" standpoint.

[tom101]

if has aero benefits, it's illegal, and it's obvious

the question is, who will be the cheater master next year?