|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
16 Apr 2014, 15:04 (Ref:3393353) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Active Suspension ....
It seems that active suspension could return to F1 cars in the near future..
Maybe some of you could enlighten us as to how this will be a cost saving measure.. http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns27793.html The piece is somewhat self explanatory, but I am not sure about it saving money ?? |
||
|
16 Apr 2014, 15:14 (Ref:3393360) | #2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Okay I see this is being discussed in the rules thread ...
|
||
|
16 Apr 2014, 15:57 (Ref:3393385) | #3 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
IMHO, I actually think this is good as a separate thread as I think this topic it can get lost in the rules thread and it is big enough to discuss on its own.
My take on why it is thought to be a cost saving measure is that there apparently is a lot of development on complicated mechanical systems that operated passively. This is everything from standard left to right cross link suspension (with third spring) that can be common in various motorsports, to the more complex linked system that link all four wheels in some mechanical (likely hydraulic) way. That the cost savings would be in the implication of relatively straight forward designs that focus on software and less on mechanical designs. I can see some of that logic. Particularly once it is in place. At that point I think the "art" of F1 suspension design from a mechanical perspective will be greatly reduced. Less people working on designing it, less people trying to work on setup at the track, etc. Less money spent. I am excited about the technical possibilities. It would be interesting to see a modern F1 car with active suspension. I do however have two main concerns. First, I am not sure if it will save costs, or if it does it will be expensive over the short term. I expect that current designs (pushrod vs. pullrod, etc.) are compromises based upon what the teams can make work from a mechanical perspective. That a fully active system will result in significant changes to mounting points (for example) and a good bit of research and design work. Second, I am curious if it will push us back into the direction of drivers who are asked to do less in the car (i.e. deal with non-optimal and changing situations on track. Dry setup in the rain for example). We are just now enjoying watching cars slide around a bit due to high torque engines and no traction control. Will active suspension somehow take away some of the new excitement? Richard |
|
|
16 Apr 2014, 16:32 (Ref:3393395) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Thanks Richard I think it can stand to have its own thread ..
You echo a lot of my own concerns about introducing active suspension again... Just at a time when as you say we are getting used to cars sliding around and becoming more of a drivers formula again .. |
||
|
16 Apr 2014, 17:17 (Ref:3393411) | #5 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
I also suspect that this is a straw man proposal to get things moving on the overall cost cap discussion. I don't know the details, but I assume the cost cap discussion have focusing primarily around pure monetary caps.
But since there seems to be no traction on getting an agreement, maybe they have taken a different tack and are now focusing on specific regulatory elements that result in standard/homologated parts that are shared by all teams (i.e. everyone is not spending money to build different versions of the same thing). I think I have already read somewhere that this active suspension idea also would include some level of standard parts. I guess either approach might work (regarding cost reduction). However, I am not a fan of regulatory changes that make the box smaller as to potential solutions. I am also not a fan of standard parts that potentially impact the character of the car. Depending upon how they do this, that may include the active suspension. An example of something that might work would be something like a standardized starter motor, if it resulted in real savings. Richard |
|
|
16 Apr 2014, 17:17 (Ref:3393412) | #6 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,976
|
The aim of active suspension on F1 cars in the 90s was to keep the relationship of the car to road constant and therefore improve aerodynamic efficiency. On a road car, the objective would be to improve ride quality.
Current F1 front suspension geometry is appalling. However it doesn't matter because the suspension barely moves, and of course it is the way it is in the interest of aerodynamics. I can see 2017 active suspension again being employed to optimise aero. It depends how far it is allowed to go. To what extent will the system be allowed to dynamically vary ride height, pitch angle, roll angle, etc? It could become a messy can of worms. On the other hand it might allow teams to have a single set of suspension components and to then develop and tune the car via software. I remain open to persuasion either way. |
||
|
16 Apr 2014, 17:31 (Ref:3393416) | #7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
If they want to use this to control costs, I can imagine it getting it's own ECU (i.e. it can't talk to the engine/transmission and work in coordination) and there being specific regulations around what types of sensors it can use for input. The more they standardize and limit the solution, the more cost savings they may realize, but also frankly the less attractive to me it becomes. Richard |
||
|
16 Apr 2014, 18:00 (Ref:3393424) | #8 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,293
|
Maybe we could allow traction control again too under the premise that it would cut costs by using less rear tyres...?
|
||
|
16 Apr 2014, 19:19 (Ref:3393468) | #9 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,565
|
Imo F1 doesnt need standard parts. You can bet Ferrari RB and Mercedes would not be in favor of the idea the suspension being that. Innovation like active suspension is a nice idea and has road relevance they like to tout.
|
|
|
16 Apr 2014, 21:08 (Ref:3393528) | #10 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 857
|
It may seem perverse but it could actually be a big step to cost reduction.The car would only need one set of suspension components and the adjustment would come from the tweaks to the parameters within the operating system.It makes much better use of track time since the driver might easily have another set of menus on the steering wheel to adjust things.Job done in seconds rather than the half hour or so taken to bolt on a different set of dampers.No need for several bays in the transporter to contain a range of springs,dampers or anti roll bars and no need for seven post rigs if the software has the ability to learn which settings get the car from point A to point B faster.The army of engineers back at base wouldn't need to spend all weekend building the car to a different spec for rig testing.No need for the designers to package inerters or FRIC plumbing-although there would have to be active hydraulic lines.Computing power has got much cheaper since 1993 and all in all a reversion to active seems like an entirely reasonable idea.The MES type of standard control box ought to ensure that no functions beyond those allowed could be incorporated and would contain costs.
|
|
|
16 Apr 2014, 21:26 (Ref:3393543) | #11 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
Where would active suspension lead us. If you have wheelspin on one corner you could put more load into that tyre to prevent it, hey presto traction control, similar things under braking.
|
|
|
16 Apr 2014, 21:38 (Ref:3393553) | #12 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,024
|
Depends on the parameters.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
16 Apr 2014, 21:40 (Ref:3393557) | #13 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
Re-introduce active suspension. Yay! Make it spec. Boo! Bernie would love it though. One more area to make all the cars equal. |
|||
|
16 Apr 2014, 21:52 (Ref:3393567) | #14 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,496
|
Quote:
That is the question. The top six teams vetoed a cost cap so they want to be able to spend and develop whatever they can to remain dominant, although rumour has it that two of them are struggling financially. Four of the other five want a cost cap...so do not want escalating cost ideas. Active suspension will only work as a cost cutting measure if it is restricted in what is permitted so the present idea may sound good but the proof will be in the delivery of the rules and the strength of the FIA to lead and, if necessary, dictate what will be allowed and not allowed. If F1 is entertainment in the form of a planet wide open wheel series then cost containment to ensure broad participation is essential. If it is a technical lab for manufacturers let it be open technically but you are always going to have what sports car racing has, a small group of battling manufacturers who come and go at will while the rest of the field races around in lesser categories making up the places to fight for the crumbs. If it is just for an 'in group' of teams lead by Bernie from back in the 70's and 80's then keep the present structures and allow them to dictate what you think the appropriate policy should be. That is what we currently have so if that's what you want let it be. Is it healthy? I don't think so but I am not sure Todt is a strong enough individual with enough vision to lead in any other way. The strategy group suits Bernie but it is not an effective or useful way to lead F1 into the future. That's just my opinion, but unless F1 has a clearer vision of what it is to be and where it needs to go to be healthy and remain a financially healthy sporting culture sometime soon something will crash and burn. So active suspension may be a regulatory way to reduce cost significantly but that will require a strong hand of restriction on what it can and cannot do. That will not please the guys who want a technological laboratory in a public amphitheatre but that WILL be too expensive, unless the development is channelled in a particular direction at the expense of everything else. Example: If you had restricted GP2 regulations but allowed hybrid engines, OR, if you had GP2 cars but allowed some free ranging active suspension. Otherwise you may go back to the 1930's with two or three companies with techno cars and the rest of the field running a GP2 derivative just to fill the field. The reality is, there is just not enough money to go round the way it used to be. Its all TOO expensive now and the rest of the world is not going to fund it for you. Last edited by Teretonga; 16 Apr 2014 at 22:00. |
||
|
16 Apr 2014, 21:55 (Ref:3393573) | #15 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
||
|
16 Apr 2014, 22:02 (Ref:3393579) | #16 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,976
|
I don't think that would become a big issue. What you are describing would not have much different effect to a limited slip diff. Under braking you can't have much difference in braking force across an axle because of the yaw moment that would generate.
|
||
|
17 Apr 2014, 00:49 (Ref:3393614) | #17 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Active suspension will be eye wateringly expensive! Endless fettling and infinite improvement! Computer controls, valves, sensors, software, processing speeds, tuning, infinite adjustability! |
||
|
17 Apr 2014, 08:50 (Ref:3393746) | #18 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Quote:
I think this could be a big win cost wise. May even have some road relevance. |
|||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
17 Apr 2014, 09:57 (Ref:3393763) | #19 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
The passive front and rear suspensions have been interconnected since a couple years now. Interconnected suspensions are a true masterpiece of engineering but also very expensive, as it is quite difficult to develop a well-functioning basic system and different parts for each track with specific properties are necessary. An active suspension would most likely allow teams to develop just one suspension system for the entire year, as changes needed to cope with different tracks properties throughout the season - if any - can be implemented by simply uploading new software. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
17 Apr 2014, 11:36 (Ref:3393792) | #20 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
However, assuming that active suspensions are indeed a driver aid, would that be a justification for banning such a relevant technology? Is it justified to ban any driver aid? These questions can only be answered affirmatively if one deems driver aids as something detrimental. I can no longer agree with that. Firstly, it worth mentioning that the definition of a driver aid is somewhat arbitrary. A number of still legal technologies, such as drive- and brake-by-wire, are comparable with or have an overlap with driver aids like traction control. A number of other technologies or pieces of engineering that are still allowed or banned for other reasons than being a driver aid, such as downforce generating bodywork, all-wheel drive and continuously variable transmissions, reduce or move away the necessity of having driver aids. Secondly, one should except that the driver's role is changing all the time. In the sixties the cars required a totally different way of driving than they did in the eighties or in present times. Thirdly, what real differences does it make to allow driver aids? Although traction control and engine braking have been banned since 2008, the 2008 final championship standing are quite exchangeable with those from 2007. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
17 Apr 2014, 12:45 (Ref:3393844) | #21 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 857
|
Quote:
As for adjustment,just tap a few buttons on a keyboard.The first active F1 system ran when a portable computer with 128K of total memory capacity(not RAM) was hugely capable.A modern smartphone would have abundant capacity and be really cheap.The adjustment could be done by self diagnostic methods in a handful of laps;it just needs a monitoring algorithm to note the time taken from point A to point B each lap and to make a small adjustment-then note the comparison with the previous lap.If faster adjust a bit further and repeat until the next adjustment goes negative-compile a table of settings for variations of lateral and longitudinal acceleration and allow the computer to make the decisions,based on inputs for track location and with a baseline configuration that will allow the car to safely return to the pitlane in the event of a component failure. We had years of total opposition to movable aerodynamic surfaces and the phase passed.Why not the same acceptance of active suspension?It seems absurd that my road cars for the last fifteen years have had computer controlled hydraulic based suspension,but the race series that is supposed to be at the pinnacle of technical achievement isn't allowed to. |
||
|
17 Apr 2014, 14:34 (Ref:3393921) | #22 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,955
|
Quote:
sporting analogy would be like saying that in order to consider professional/Olympic athletes the pinnacles of human physical conditioning we should encourage them to use and develop performance enhancing drugs so that sport can be considered more relevant to the health care industry. the doctor has been prescribing my dad testosterone for years...is it ridiculous that athletes still get banned for it? as i have said before im not nearly as technically knowledgeable as most of you guys (so im probably missing the point), but for a lay person like myself, hearing about active suspension and making it more like my road car comes across as PEDs for race cars. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
18 Apr 2014, 05:17 (Ref:3394207) | #23 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
|
||
|
18 Apr 2014, 22:10 (Ref:3394706) | #24 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,725
|
Absolutely! Currently the highest proportion of suspension movement seems to be provided by the tyre walls and you could express legitimate doubts as to whether active suspension would be a game changer.
It is certainly time that the wheel tyre specifications were brought more into line with modern road car practice even if that took tyre degradation out of the equation as a "spice up the racing" tool. Active suspension could be a cost saver if some of the more costly circuit to circuit freedoms now existing could be limited. The changes available through software changes could be as effective and less costly to implement. Whether that technology could be transferred to road cars is uncertain. Maybe it will be the other way around. |
||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
18 Apr 2014, 22:25 (Ref:3394708) | #25 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Active Suspension | Number Juan | Racing Technology | 3 | 16 Apr 2002 23:14 |
active suspension revisited | joseff | Racing Technology | 3 | 3 Sep 2001 19:22 |
Active Suspension - Wet Weather - Dry Setup | Niall | Racing Technology | 5 | 11 Jul 2001 11:37 |
active suspension | matje | Motorsport History | 5 | 2 Jul 2001 19:32 |