I thought it had something to do with ameliorating the adverse positive camber effects of the twin keel suspension's having lower arms that are shorter than the upper.
The drooping upper wishbones are part of the geometry to alter camber through bump, which matches that requested by Michelin. Jaguar also adopt dropping upper wishbones. As a result we could conclude that the lay out is not simply attributed to twin keel designs (Jaguar and Williams previous single keel also had it). Curiously BAR and Renault two teams adapting well to the Michelins do not use this layout.
Scarbs...
Last edited by scarbs on 09 Sep 2004, 09:26, edited 1 time in total.
It sounds like you're suggesting that jaguar also have a twin keel design, but I believe they retained the single keel.
Other things remaining the same, I think jaguar's single keel, long lower/short upper arm with the higher mounting point, ie "drooping" upper arms would tend to cause the wheel to remain more upright with less camber change than arms that are more parallel. This jibes with michelin's squarer profile sidewalls. But I'm probably wrong.
Oh, sorry I misread your statement! While you're here, I was wondering if you have any insight into the torque transfer system that BAR were running in monza testing. Have they found a way around the regs?
Wouldn't it be fun if they brought it to the track this weekend regardless of FIA banning it? The rule is quite clear; it becomes illegitimate when you apply electronics to it. Would love to see how they have managed to find a way around that.
I have no detail on the BAR ftt system, the "rumour" goes that there were a numbe rof solutions designed by BAR, they ran an electronic system which the FIA issued a clarification on, they then had a loophole created to allow a revsed system possibly mechanical ala Benetton which is legal under the current clarification.
