Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto
I like what you are saying here. But I am slightly different in that I think electronic versions of this (vs strictly mechanical) should be allowed. It is a broken record if you look at my posts in total, but I think they should allow active suspension (but using standard and limited parts). This concept of a camming action via the third/heave spring to stall the diffuser. Could easily be achieved via active suspension. It could either be automatic or driver initiated (depending upon how easy/complicated we want to make it for the driver)
While I am a proponent of active suspension, I also have no problem with a more formalized active aero setup. As F1 struggles to continue to be able to set itself a step above other series (and we have seen how expensive that can be if that differentiation is via expensive and complex power units), I think active suspension and aero could be the ticket to do that in the future.
Richard
|
I don't like too much electronics, because I like the idea of the driver taking a car and work with it's characteristics and strong and weak points and work with it on different tracks and through different corners.
If you have the electronics being so effective, what is there for driver to do but point the car in the right direction? I know this is a strong exaggeration, but still. I rather have the driver handling a bump in the corner than the predetermined algorithms of a computer controlled suspension. I prefer that door/sliding slope to stay firmly shut.
One of the reasons why I dislike the current PU is that you can't properly follow what going on form the outside. What is the charge state, how much power does it driver have at his disposal. The source of the performance then becomes a bit distant and vague let's say.