Fantasy F1 hardware & development

[Hoffman900]

I think that this was being discussed in this thread earlier.

This was common on many cars.

Anyone remember when the snobby new car press would rip on the Corvette for having a leaf spring? Ignorance is bliss.

[NicoS]

I think that this was being discussed in this thread earlier.

This was common on many cars.

Anyone remember when the snobby new car press would rip on the Corvette for having a leaf spring? Ignorance is bliss.

Many great cars were frowned upon by the motoring journos for having torsion beam axle and not having "fully" "independent" suspension

[Stu]

If I were designing an F1 car and the rules allowed it (they don’t); with modern materials it would have a front beam axle and rear De-Dion axle.

[NicoS]

If I were designing an F1 car and the rules allowed it (they don’t); with modern materials it would have a front beam axle and rear De-Dion axle.

De-dion, axle, is theoretically similar to multi link trapezoid arm suspension as used by German automaker on rear axle of their 80's to mid 2000's AWD road cars?

[Hoffman900]

I really wish they would open up the suspension rules. What a wasted opportunity.

[AR3-GP]

I really wish they would open up the suspension rules. What a wasted opportunity.

They are afraid that in spite of a budget cap, certain teams could develop locked in advantages that make a season uncompetitive.

[S E C T I O]

I really wish they would open up the suspension rules. What a wasted opportunity.

Almost all the rules should be stopped. F1 was called that because there was only one rule. It would take fuel, no electronics, no radio communications, a steering wheel with no buttons, a gearbox, a brake pedal...wow.

[SiLo]

I really wish they would open up the suspension rules. What a wasted opportunity.

They are afraid that in spite of a budget cap, certain teams could develop locked in advantages that make a season uncompetitive.

Sad really, because active suspension would have been cheap to develop, and then rest pretty much done with software. They are probably already spending more time and money on a mechanical setup than an active one. Many people say about failure etc, but the same applies to mechanical suspension setups.

[Just_a_fan]

I really wish they would open up the suspension rules. What a wasted opportunity.

They are afraid that in spite of a budget cap, certain teams could develop locked in advantages that make a season uncompetitive.

Sad really, because active suspension would have been cheap to develop, and then rest pretty much done with software. They are probably already spending more time and money on a mechanical setup than an active one. Many people say about failure etc, but the same applies to mechanical suspension setups.

And a system could be standardised just as the engine ECU is a standard item. Standard system with standard components and just let the teams finesse the "maps" their cars run.

[shamyakovic]

They are afraid that in spite of a budget cap, certain teams could develop locked in advantages that make a season uncompetitive.

Sad really, because active suspension would have been cheap to develop, and then rest pretty much done with software. They are probably already spending more time and money on a mechanical setup than an active one. Many people say about failure etc, but the same applies to mechanical suspension setups.

And a system could be standardised just as the engine ECU is a standard item. Standard system with standard components and just let the teams finesse the "maps" their cars run.

Agree, this would have made following another car even more easier

[SiLo]

They are afraid that in spite of a budget cap, certain teams could develop locked in advantages that make a season uncompetitive.

Sad really, because active suspension would have been cheap to develop, and then rest pretty much done with software. They are probably already spending more time and money on a mechanical setup than an active one. Many people say about failure etc, but the same applies to mechanical suspension setups.

And a system could be standardised just as the engine ECU is a standard item. Standard system with standard components and just let the teams finesse the "maps" their cars run.

Pretty much how I would have done it. Development costs minimal, just whatever mapping you want to run for your car and on each track. It made so much sense, but the FIA chose another route because... well just because.

[AR3-GP]

They are afraid that in spite of a budget cap, certain teams could develop locked in advantages that make a season uncompetitive.

Sad really, because active suspension would have been cheap to develop, and then rest pretty much done with software. They are probably already spending more time and money on a mechanical setup than an active one. Many people say about failure etc, but the same applies to mechanical suspension setups.

And a system could be standardised just as the engine ECU is a standard item. Standard system with standard components and just let the teams finesse the "maps" their cars run.

Cars would probably get heavier.

[ScrewCaptain27]

We really, REALLY can do without heavier cars and more standard parts. Write the regulations better next time!

[Tommy Cookers]

Sad really, because active suspension would have been cheap to develop, and then rest pretty much done with software. They are probably already spending more time and money on a mechanical setup than an active one. Many people say about failure etc, but the same applies to mechanical suspension setups.

And a system could be standardised just as the engine ECU is a standard item. Standard system with standard components and just let the teams finesse the "maps" their cars run.

Agree, this would have made following another car even more easier

the biggest ever driver aid ....
(dynamic control of individual contact loads - who needs car control from the cockpit ?)

inadequate for road relevance
(F1 has a low bandwidth due to the Pirelli bits)

hydraulics are so 20th century
(they're hidden in F1 so the electronicy stuff looks glammy)

where's Dave Williams ?

[SiLo]

Sad really, because active suspension would have been cheap to develop, and then rest pretty much done with software. They are probably already spending more time and money on a mechanical setup than an active one. Many people say about failure etc, but the same applies to mechanical suspension setups.

And a system could be standardised just as the engine ECU is a standard item. Standard system with standard components and just let the teams finesse the "maps" their cars run.

Cars would probably get heavier.

Maybe, hard to tell really. But reducing weight shouldn't be coming from screwing around with suspension regs, it should come from elsewhere.

Some of it likely comes from crash tests getting ever more stringent, these always add weight.