FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[bigpat]

I agree with spankyham & jensonb, the suspension has nothing to do with the wing, or it would be deemed a moveable aerodynamic device. I can't understand the logic behind the assumption, yet having no idea how it would work....

Pullrods or pushrods makes no difference. This is an aero or centre of gravity consideration.

As for the mention of " 2 stage suspension" this has been long used in motorsport. You put a softer and harder spring in series. The softer one is used to absorb smaller bumps etc. Their known as 'tender' springs in the game. Porsche Carrera Cup cars, and many touring car categories use them.

So as I understand, the wing test places 1000N (100 kg) on the wing for a maximum deflectionof 20mm. If an extension spring setup is used to allow droop, all you would do is wind in some preloaded on the springs, so that they only allowed droop above force of say 1100 N. Easy as.....

As for the regulation where any bodywork that allows a sprung part of the car to get closer to the track, having springs in the nosebox may allow 'give' if the wing hits a kerb......


As for Charlie Whiting giving the wing the all clear. If it passes the test, it's deemed legal. If he sees something iffy, but the team can show no rule transgression, it's also legal. Back to the spring mounted nosedive, if the team designed it too flex upwards in an impact, Charlie can't prove it was also designed to allow droop....if a team comes up with a novel idea that passes the rules,Charlie is obliged to keep what he's seen confidential.

[acosmichippo]

Charlie can't prove it was also designed to allow droop...

but does it really matter what a part is "designed" to do? The fan on the Brabham BT46B was "designed" for cooling, but that got banned right away.

Likewise, if the wing droops enough to be considered a "moveable" aero part, it should be banned. Doesn't matter what other functions (if any) it has.

[stonemonkey]

I agree with spankyham & jensonb, the suspension has nothing to do with the wing, or it would be deemed a moveable aerodynamic device. I can't understand the logic behind the assumption, yet having no idea how it would work....
......

I'm just saying I wouldn't rule it out completely. For example, you could take a structure with some degree of flex and stiffen it by applying tension through it, would it be considered a movable aero device if the tension could be varied with the compression of the suspension if whatever is applying the tension through the structure is part of the suspension?

[bigpat]

I agree with spankyham & jensonb, the suspension has nothing to do with the wing, or it would be deemed a moveable aerodynamic device. I can't understand the logic behind the assumption, yet having no idea how it would work....
......

I'm just saying I wouldn't rule it out completely. For example, you could take a structure with some degree of flex and stiffen it by applying tension through it, would it be considered a movable aero device if the tension could be varied with the compression of the suspension if whatever is applying the tension through the structure is part of the suspension?

Mate, you've lost me. You always increase the 'rigidity' (not stiffness) of something if you apply axtensile load to it. An example is account piece of string. Apply tension to it, and it hard to deflect. Having suspension members that flex, is never desirable. You want the deflection where you can control it, at the spring or damper.

I know F1 is a high tech sport, but it rarely is rocket science. These guys have nothing on the brains at NASA, for example. At the end of the day, they are simply cars, and race teams are limited in track time( simulators aren't how you verify performance) so the less things to confuse a team, the better. Time after time in F1, the champion cars are very simple, where its all the details are optimized. Look at the '09 Brawn, and RB6.... Yes the double diffusers, and the exhaust blown diffusers helped, but even when everyone else had them (& KERS in '09) they were still the quickest cars. I can guarantee the current issue at hand will turn out to relatively simple in concept, it always is. In my opinion, the FIA aren't dumb, if had a leg to stand on in terms of any illegalies, they'd throw the wings out. F1 has always had cars that are designed to pass tests, any extra and you've over built it.

If you look at a lot of the lateral crash structures, they only pass if loading in very specific places. They may not be safe in loading another part of the chassis, posssibly yo the drivers' detriment, but it passes the test by the letter of the law. The wings are no different. I think people have to leave their partisan support for various teams put of it, and view the situation objectively. Won't surprise me to see other flexible noses soon enough, then the bickering amongst fans will stop as their team goes faster. And this coming from a McLaren fan....

[Robert12010]

I agree with spankyham & jensonb, the suspension has nothing to do with the wing, or it would be deemed a moveable aerodynamic device. I can't understand the logic behind the assumption, yet having no idea how it would work....
......

I'm just saying I wouldn't rule it out completely. For example, you could take a structure with some degree of flex and stiffen it by applying tension through it, would it be considered a movable aero device if the tension could be varied with the compression of the suspension if whatever is applying the tension through the structure is part of the suspension?

Mate, you've lost me. You always increase the 'rigidity' (not stiffness) of something if you apply axtensile load to it. An example is account piece of string. Apply tension to it, and it hard to deflect. Having suspension members that flex, is never desirable. You want the deflection where you can control it, at the spring or damper.

I know F1 is a high tech sport, but it rarely is rocket science. These guys have nothing on the brains at NASA, for example. At the end of the day, they are simply cars, and race teams are limited in track time( simulators aren't how you verify performance) so the less things to confuse a team, the better. Time after time in F1, the champion cars are very simple, where its all the details are optimized. Look at the '09 Brawn, and RB6.... Yes the double diffusers, and the exhaust blown diffusers helped, but even when everyone else had them (& KERS in '09) they were still the quickest cars. I can guarantee the current issue at hand will turn out to relatively simple in concept, it always is. In my opinion, the FIA aren't dumb, if had a leg to stand on in terms of any illegalies, they'd throw the wings out. F1 has always had cars that are designed to pass tests, any extra and you've over built it.

If you look at a lot of the lateral crash structures, they only pass if loading in very specific places. They may not be safe in loading another part of the chassis, posssibly yo the drivers' detriment, but it passes the test by the letter of the law. The wings are no different. I think people have to leave their partisan support for various teams put of it, and view the situation objectively. Won't surprise me to see other flexible noses soon enough, then the bickering amongst fans will stop as their team goes faster. And this coming from a McLaren fan....

oh noo here we go

[What's Burning?]

Won't surprise me to see other flexible noses soon enough, then the bickering amongst fans will stop as their team goes faster. And this coming from a McLaren fan....

That's why I've not felt one way or another about this... it's taking a bit longer to have other teams implement this, but they will. They'll pick up a handful of tenths on RB, but inherently RB will still have a stronger package. At least we won't have 1+ second quali runs if they get copied.

[stonemonkey]

@bigpat, i'm not describing anything particularly complicated. Say you had a flexible part of the structure at the front of the car, you could stiffen that by applying tension through it. Then what if that tension was provided by part of the suspension system.

[bigpat]

OK, I can understand the concept....
Not being denigrating, but practically there are a few issues:

F1 suspension sees most deflection at max speeds on straights. The suspension extends, and the car physically rises under braking. A system as you describe would work best on straights, where you don't want the downforce. Typically movement of F1 front suspension is 10-15mm at the most...

If you did link a system up, then the car would have an additional spring, so to speak, and you'd see the nose flex with relation to suspension movement. You'd see the nose porpoise in relation to suspension movement, which doesn't offer stable downforce. Remember that today's F1 cars are quite softly sprung cars. The resistance of this system would upset the setup, introducing undamped movement, and a lot of 'friction' into the system I would think.

The mechanism would have to bs able to work if a nose change was needed, not easy.

Lastly, the suspension (unsprung part of the car) can't have any aero effect on the sprung mass. If it did, it would be a form of a height control device, and as it wouldn't have a switch, and is self regulating, it rould be viewed as a form of active suspension. The rules also don't allow for a device "of the specific purpose" of altering aerodynamic settings( except the DRS) while the car is is motion, excepting deformation under load on track, and regulated by various static load tests.

[FRAFPDD]

The second was this picture (Mark closely examining Seb's front wing/nose immediately after Q. He wouldn't be doing that if he had the same front section now would he.

That is an interesting pic. He's leaning awfully far forward to be looking at anything other than the front wing.

He's just playing games, Mark knows that would of been televised, it's more warning the team and letting the fans and sport know he'll know if he's treated unfairly.

[stonemonkey]

OK, I can understand the concept....
Not being denigrating, but practically there are a few issues:

F1 suspension sees most deflection at max speeds on straights. The suspension extends, and the car physically rises under braking. A system as you describe would work best on straights, where you don't want the downforce. Typically movement of F1 front suspension is 10-15mm at the most...

When is the flexing of the RBs nose most obvious?

If you did link a system up, then the car would have an additional spring, so to speak, and you'd see the nose flex with relation to suspension movement. You'd see the nose porpoise in relation to suspension movement, which doesn't offer stable downforce. Remember that today's F1 cars are quite softly sprung cars. The resistance of this system would upset the setup, introducing undamped movement, and a lot of 'friction' into the system I would think.

As you pointed out earlier, there are different parts of a suspension system to deal with different types of compression with various damping setups.

The mechanism would have to bs able to work if a nose change was needed, not easy.

I was not considering this being in the nose, but somewhere behind that, possibly the stucture up to where the nose is mounted.

Lastly, the suspension (unsprung part of the car) can't have any aero effect on the sprung mass. If it did, it would be a form of a height control device, and as it wouldn't have a switch, and is self regulating, it rould be viewed as a form of active suspension. The rules also don't allow for a device "of the specific purpose" of altering aerodynamic settings( except the DRS) while the car is is motion, excepting deformation under load on track, and regulated by various static load tests.

All deformation would be entirely due to aero load on track.

I don't think this is what they're doing btw, it's just an example of why I wouldn't entirely dismiss the idea of the suspension being involved in some way.

[Jensonb]

I don't think this is what they're doing btw, it's just an example of why I wouldn't entirely dismiss the idea of the suspension being involved in some way.

I think I can see your point. The suspension could conceivably be a part of the design that makes the trick nose/wing work, just not he the whole trick. There's clearly bodywork flexing, but the suspension could be involved in making it work. After all, some of the smartest engineers in motorsport can't see how the body work can be flexing in this manner un-aided.

[killem2]

Could the material they are using be made up of that space foam stuff that retains its shape after load has been removed?

The memory foam stuff

[Hammer278]

Nah memory foam would do more harm than good I reckon. It's not going to be very versatile as cars zip through corners and hit straights.

[F1er]

The tyres passed the static tests,photos were used to deem them unsafe
Ferrai flex floor passed the test,photos were used to deem it illegal

Something the FIA can't seem or WANT to do with the RB case.It leaves fans to speculate about the JOKE that is the FIA!
Using smileys doesnt make your point more valid

No, a couple of 200mph shunts caused the tyre problem. Ask Ralf Schumacher. .

And even after those crashes the Tyres still passes the static tests,and further photographic evidence showed problems with the tyre wall.

Follow my drift?

[f1ea]

I know f1ea has put down some good points as to how this would be difficult because of the nature of the individual materials and their desired characteristics, but, I would suggest that the construction won't be a single material. Think of this like reinforced concrete. Concrete itself has great compressive capacity but almost no tensile capacity. However, by adding steel reinforcement at the correct depth in a concrete beam or slab, you can give the total unit both compressive and tensile strength way beyond the ability of concrete alone. I think RB have a nose that is a construction of layered materials that, under both lateral and vertical pressures bend, but under lateral pressure alone remains rigid.

Even if they were using a composite material (a blend or any mix) the resulting material will have only one behaviour. The mix would change the values in the graph but not the shape of it. Also, there is no point in considering any load other than downforce, these guys are maximing down force, its all about downforce.