[Rumours] Active Suspension ....

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

How would Marussia, Caterham, Lotus, Williams or Force India either pay for or develop an active system?

You under-estimate the abilities of the minnows of the sport at your peril.

For example, the Williams group of companies sold one of their companies in the last few weeks to GKN. The company was Williams Hybrid Power, which developed and manufactured William's (and Audi's) flywheel-based energy harvesting and storage system.

The system is already in initial trials on a publically used city bus, and has demonstrated huge fuel savings for the operator. So, don't write off the little guys; they are not incapable of developing ground breaking technology.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

You under-estimate the abilities of the minnows of the sport at your peril.

Not at all Mike, I just don't believe they have the additional resources necessary to take on a project of this size.

Their only alternative would be to purchase the system; if allowed; at huge additional cost from someone like Mercedes.

All I can see with active suspension is a huge cost black hole.

I think we are just going to have to accept that our take on the cost of active suspension is on opposite ends of the spectrum.


Look at aero - how much could you possibly spend on carbon fiber, wings and tiny little trim tags! Black hole!

[wolfhound]

With Active suspension I suspect the cost of the hardware would not be that great. Its the cost of the software development and the knock possible developments over the rest of the car where the real cost will happen.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

Not at all Mike, I just don't believe they have the additional resources necessary to take on a project of this size.

You may have misunderstood the point that I was trying to make.

When KERS was to be introduced, Williams purchased, for a fairly modest sum when you take into consideration the overall annual cost for them to get two cars on the grid, the principle behind their version of the system.

They then developed it in-house, and it was completely different from all the other teams. They then, as a supplier, sold the system, for it to be used by Audi and now commercial companies outside of motor racing. Now, they have sold the company that developed the system to an internation company that has the resources to exploit the idea for it to be introduced around the world. That extra step is one that they couldn't afford on their own.

So, they didn't have to go to one of the major teams to purchase their technology; they managed very nicely without them.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Agree with just about everything you say Richard except that I don't think Standard ECUs are used as a cost saver. They were introduced as a means of preventing the use of traction control and other goodies by being able to be "interrogated" by the scrutineers and stewards.

You are absolutely right regard a potential standard suspension ECU having the same benefits of the current PSU ECU. Just to reiterate my point above (which I may have made badly) another thing a standard ECU could do is preemptively stop or limit the complexity war ($$$). It could put an artificial cap on compute power.

Without limits teams could increase the speed, memory and inputs at will. Large memory would allow teams to maybe use a LIDR system to capture and map the entire track to mm precision during FP1 and store the entire thing in the ECU for the race weekend (and beyond). Given the gas, brake and gears are currently drive by wire all the would need to do at that point is connect servos to the steering and they could drive the car without a driver (not the they would allow this, but it just shows the potential). They could have a potentially unlimited (weight would be the limit so maybe a race for smaller and lighter sensors) that could measure a multitude of things. The point being, you can only have as complex of a system as your compute side is able to handle. Limit the compute side and you limit the sensor side.

Semi related...

What is the potential for something other than a classic upper/lower arm with push/pull rod? For aero purposes, could someone create a single beam setup with actuators in the traditional location for bump/rebound and small actuators at the hub for camber and steering?

Richard

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

As to the aero people dictating ride height, pitch control etc. surely the compensation for allowing active suspension and bigger tyre rim diameter should be a diminution of effective aero to keep cornering speeds in the same ball park.
As I mentioned earlier that would probably need to happen to keep G-force on driver to acceptable levels.
Like your ideas about predictive, rather than reactive control Richard.

As Formula 1 is already striving for more (fuel) efficiency, I think it would a great idea to massively deregulate the bodywork - in form of re-legalizing shaped underbodies, passively and actively movable aerodynamics and wheel covers - together with the introduction of a downforce limit.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Joint Strike Fighter Achilles heel in $392 billion dollar project:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A0M1L920140123

The Software!

"The current software generated too many nuisance warnings and resulted in poor sensor performance. Further work on software had been slowed by testing required to validate earlier fixes, the report said."

I mentioned I have a background in software development, I also have a background in working for the federal government (many many years ago) in the IT world. Software projects + Government rules = Mess (or at a minimum lots of time and money). I expect DoD is as bad or worse than most with regards to odd and complex requirements.

Richard

[wolfhound]

With an open active system it would be possible to replace one of the existing wishbones at each corner with an actuator that would change the wheel camber as required by ride height surface camber etc. This would allow for the ideal camber angle in all conditions.

Now what else could you add to a fully active suspension setup?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Now what else could you add to a fully active suspension setup?

Continuing to try to think outside of the box...

Basic anti-dive and anti-squat (nothing new here)

I assume the problems that the now illegal mass damper was trying to solve would be solved via this.

Clearly wet/dry setup changes are dynamic.

I think this has already been done (can't seem to find any videos right now), but it provides creative solutions for changing wheels during pit stops. Depending upon the amount of suspension travel, no need for front/rear jack man. Car settles on ground (or some type of device placed under the car), and it raises the wheels up off the ground.

I am only half joking, but I think there could be some creative ways to make it easier to ride troublesome curbs. With a predictive system that was aware of its location on track, it could lower ride height in advance of a curb and then as the curb approaches push the car up to maximum ride height, then that gives the wheels even more total movement to ride over the curb. Almost a bunny hop motion. This could even be done on just one side of the car while still maintaining good zero camber contact patch with the other side.

Lower friction running on straights? Not sure if this is realistic, but adjust the camber to be extreme levels to run a smaller contact patch on the straights for speed. Then as you approach the braking zone (predictive/track learning) zero camber for maximum contact patch for braking and turning. I just don't know what the numbers are for rolling resistance are for an F1 car. It might be truly minuscule compared to everything else.

Someone mentioned earlier four wheel steering. I wonder if small actuators might dynamically adjust toe front and rear. With the rear, it would work much like most road car four wheel steering in that at high speed the rear turns with the front and at low speeds, the rear turns opposite the front (think Monaco style small turning radius).

Balance car when one wheel is flat. So if a rear goes down, you lower the opposite corner as low as you can, raise the other two wheel and maybe get the damaged wheel off the ground. You can't go fast, but you may prevent the tire carcass from beating up the rear bodywork and aero bits.

As mentioned earlier, depending upon the total suspension travel there might be tricks to be played when the car is in a gravel trap.

That is enough crazy ideas for today.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by miatanut

F1 has always had "haves" and "have nots". It's part of the sport.

How do they compete? They work with Koni. Or Bilstein. Or Penske. Or somebody else. One of those vendors gets two or three teams to work for, and suddenly they have an R&D budget comparable to one of the big teams working only for themselves in-house.

Can't happen? For years we had Cosworth customer V-8's competing with whatever Ferrari had.

But it's a matter of perspective. I would rather see technology pushed forward than a spec everything version of F1. There are many single make series out there for people to compete in.

F1 should be something better.

How would the smaller teams get on with the development costs of active suspension?
They wouldn't.
If you look at the changes that have been made to reduce costs almost all of them have involved preventing conventional avenues of expense but allowed technical or software oriented approaches that have enabled the wealthier teams to develop alternatives the smaller teams can't afford at all, or to do to the same standard.
You have a FIA-F1 strategy group that includes the dominate (wealthier) teams but exclude the lesser teams and the FIA decides the represented teams don't want a budget cap but do want active suspension and say it will be cheaper.
It may be in the long run but if you lose three or four teams in the interim it will hurt long before it begins to help.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

How would the smaller teams get on with the development costs of active suspension?
They wouldn't.

You're right. They wouldn't. Their damper vendor would. The damper vendor is working with two or three teams, which provides the resources to do the R&D.

Just like brakes, clutches, customer engines, transmissions, and all other manner of components have worked over the years.

[P38 in workshop]

I wonder whether all the contributors to this thread understand the concepts of data logging and look up tables.It means the software developers can build a framework within which the car itself can determine the fastest setup from point A to point B.And then from point B to point C all the way through the alphabet and beyond.There is no need to write a new batch of software every few days as you need do no more than adjust a parameter or two within the existing sets.A particular danger is that the tyres may not heat up as well as those of the passively suspended cars.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I wonder whether all the contributors to this thread understand the concepts of data logging and look up tables.It means the software developers can build a framework within which the car itself can determine the fastest setup from point A to point B.And then from point B to point C all the way through the alphabet and beyond.There is no need to write a new batch of software every few days as you need do no more than adjust a parameter or two within the existing sets.A particular danger is that the tyres may not heat up as well as those of the passively suspended cars.

What are you? A computer software application salesman?

[mikuni]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

A particular danger is that the tyres may not heat up as well as those of the passively suspended cars.

Maybe, maybe not. A dynamic system could have a "warm up" function that cycles toe and camber to actually generate more heat into the tyres. It could even be set to automatically function when tyre temperatures drop below a threshold (and while the car is in a straight line, or on a given section of track).


I don't like it though. It is taking more away from the driver which in my opinion is not a good thing. These systems may work so well a brake lockup or mid-corner mistake is a thing of the past. I love technology and pushing these systems to the limit, but for the racing it would be a negative.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I wonder whether all the contributors to this thread understand the concepts of data logging and look up tables.It means the software developers can build a framework within which the car itself can determine the fastest setup from point A to point B.And then from point B to point C all the way through the alphabet and beyond.There is no need to write a new batch of software every few days as you need do no more than adjust a parameter or two within the existing sets.A particular danger is that the tyres may not heat up as well as those of the passively suspended cars.

In answer to your question, probably not. The work required to implement active suspension control is a hump up front, just like any new technology, but once in place, would be pretty cheap to maintain and improve. Because it is a matter of settings, and not rewriting the software.

Areas I can see where improvements could be made are fast camera systems reading the road in front to help the other sensors decide what to do, possibly radar. IR reading the tyres temps to adjust camber to get the whole tyre to the optimum temperature. These are things that once the frame work is in place are pretty cheap to implement. Certainly compared with manufacture of carbon fibre parts, or even more standard materials.

Yes, I am a softie (once had an interview at TAG Mclaren for F1 car software - didn't fancy the mental hours for average pay).