Lotus's braking attitude compensator is now illegal

[Richard]

x - so you are imagining this as locking off the suspension? It triggers a simple valve in the hydraulic suspension to stop the nose drooping? Perhaps that's why this wasn't possible before, it only becomes effective with the modern springless suspensions?

However, a lock off would make the suspension too hard? I suppose it would only lock the uprights, they'd still have the heave damper as normal?

[Richard]

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

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

Translated ...

http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... Js.twitter

[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.

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

What is the external energy that is fed into the brake torque? In my view all the braking force is generated by the brake fluid?

[beelsebob]

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

What is the external energy that is fed into the brake torque? In my view all the braking force is generated by the brake fluid?

No rotation on the wheel, no torque on the calliper when it squeezes shut. Why do you think the disk gets hot when you break – hint – the driver's leg isn't generating it all

[hollus]

That would be disk and pad temperature, plus potentially tire slip. If the driver presses the brake pedal with a constant force, the car will start braking little with cold disks and pads, then the brakes bite as the temperature rises, increasing braking torque, then at some point, braking torque becomes too much for the available downforce, the tires lock and braking torque decreases to almost 0.
That's a changing braking torque with a constant driver input and a constant brake fluid pressure.
Wouldn't that imply the braking torque is not under direct control of the driver?

[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.

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

Perhaps you can explain that a little better. The force from the bake pad on the brake disk generates torque because it extracts energy from the inertia of the moving mass of the car. So in the Lotus design you also exploit an external energy to amplify the braking force. Any other design collecting parasitic energy from inertia could do just the same. It could be hydraulic or using heat from braking. As long as the activation and control is done by the pedal force of the brake the thing is mono causal and a proportional amplifier.

[Tim.Wright]

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

I don't see it changing caster at all because the upper and lower ball joints on the wishbones are not moving with respect to the wheel. The only thing moving is a carrier for the caliper. I dont think this system would change any of the geometry.

Tim

[beelsebob]

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

Perhaps you can explain that a little better. The force from the bake pad on the brake disk generates torque because it extracts energy from the inertia of the moving mass of the car.

i.e. there are two causes
1) The break being pressed.
2) The fact that the mass is moving.

[WhiteBlue]

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

Perhaps you can explain that a little better. The force from the bake pad on the brake disk generates torque because it extracts energy from the inertia of the moving mass of the car.

i.e. there are two causes
1) The break being pressed.
2) The fact that the mass is moving.

Not correct! The car is always moving when you want to compensate the yaw movement. So the movement cannot be the cause. It is circumstantial and not causal. The device uses the parasitic energy to amplify or transform the signal that originates from the brake. The brake signal alone causes the yaw compensation.

[beelsebob]

i.e. there are two causes
1) The break being pressed.
2) The fact that the mass is moving.

Not correct! The car is always moving when you want to compensate the yaw movement. So the movement cannot be the cause. It is circumstantial and not causal. The device uses the parasitic energy to amplify or transform the signal that originates from the brake. The brake signal alone causes the yaw compensation.

Yaw? Don't you mean pitch, or am I missing something?

In the mean time – it doesn't matter that you happen to be lucky that the car is moving forward whenever you want to do this, the fact that the car is moving forward is still a cause. No amount of going "but I don't want to raise the nose when I'm stopped" will change the fact that this system won't raise the nose when you're stopped.

[hardingfv32]

[ The brake signal alone causes the yaw compensation.

'10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.'

So you are causing the 'yaw compensation' without adjusting the suspension? I think not.

How does changing the push-rod length in the hydraulic section of the push-rod differ from the a mechanic changing the shim stack, the static way to adjust its length. Is the push-rod changing lengths? Is changing lengths an adjustment? It sure is when the mechanics do it.

No contorted interpretation allowed. How do you defend against this rule?

Brian

[beelsebob]

[ The brake signal alone causes the yaw compensation.

'10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.'

So you are causing the 'yaw compensation' without adjusting the suspension? I think not.

How does changing the push-rod length in the hydraulic section of the push-rod differ from the a mechanic changing the shim stack, the static way to adjust its length. Is the push-rod changing lengths? Is changing lengths an adjustment? It sure is when the mechanics do it.

No contorted interpretation allowed. How do you defend against this rule?

My bet would be that they consider the assembly attached to the break calliper to be part of the suspension... Thus the suspension isn't adjusted any more than it is when something pushes the car down or over.

[WhiteBlue]

Yaw? Don't you mean pitch, or am I missing something?

I'm not an English native speaker. So perhaps someone can clarify if the dipping of the nose under breaking and the dipping of the rear under acceleration is pitch or yaw. Apologies to all readers if it is pitch.

[WhiteBlue]

[ The brake signal alone causes the yaw compensation.

'10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.'

So you are causing the 'yaw compensation' without adjusting the suspension? I think not.

How does changing the push-rod length in the hydraulic section of the push-rod differ from the a mechanic changing the shim stack, the static way to adjust its length. Is the push-rod changing lengths? Is changing lengths an adjustment? It sure is when the mechanics do it.

No contorted interpretation allowed. How do you defend against this rule?

Brian

I think the whole discussion of the device misses the point that this is a political decision. The leading teams want such development and the FiA does not see a conflict with its objectives. So they allow the thing until someone protests. Potential protests will probably use all the points mentioned in this thread.

[forty-two]

WB is kinda right here guys... in a way.

It may well be allowed for political reasons, making the nuts and bolts of it somewhat trivial, but the point of this thread is to discuss the technical issues and their legality (as I see it).

In other words, we like trivia. What's the betting that everyone on here is pretty good at Trivial Pursuit?