20 replies to this topic

[YKTS]

I am looking for some answers regarding the Sitek formula 1 project. Think it was in a late 93 edition of autosport, they did a feature on Pacific and Simtek as the new boys about to enter F1. in the feature there was a comment by Nick Wirth saying something along the lines that a few of the innovations of the Simtek had to be discarded. The one that struck my eye most was one referring to a proposed cantilever front suspension. Does anyone know what this was, layouts etc? was this a radical new suspension that sadly will never be seen? any answers would be of great help in helping me close this nigh on ten year headscratcher!

[Rainer Nyberg]

Welcome to the forum YKTS! I browsed thru several months of Autosport's from that era. I clearly remember that a picture was released of the configuration, it was a model car, possibly a windtunnel model, which showed this front suspension. I came up with nothing, so far at least, maybe it was shown some time AFTER or some time BEFORE the actual car was finished... It was at least 4-5 years since I saw it last time, but IIRC, it had 'built-in' wishbones, as was also seen on a Tyrrell during the same era... That's about what I can recall right now, I will have another go, probably tomorrow, but maybe someone beats me to it.....!

[YKTS]

thanks for the welcome! ive been reading the posts for a couple of days now (quite literally!), and have been fascinated by the depth available so ffigured you were the guys to ask with stuff.

so does this mean the wishbones were part of the chassis? a la morgan suspension (think its morgan) sliding king pin type, same as pan type radio control cars?

[NickW]

A friend of mine suggested I might chip in (for the first time) here to clear this up.

I came up with this concept as a way of removing all blockage behind the front wing assembly, as well as effectively forming an extra front wing element - albeit one with an unfavourable aspect ratio.

It started off as a bit of a wind tunnel experiment, but I seem to remember that when it was partially optimised, it gave a balanced efficiency gain of about 3% when compared to the standard S931 front suspension layout. (The S931 was the stillborn Bravo F1 car).

The cantilever design consisted of a central carbon tube spar, with the dampers located behind removable cover panels in the leading edge of the 'foil shape with the track rods beneath a cover which formed the trailing edge.

The suspension action and geometry was achieved with custom made recirculating-ball linear bearings mounted on shims to allow adjusment of RC heght, anti-dive and virtual SAL. Small bellcranks turned the vertical motion of the wheel into the horizontal motion need for the dampers.

Brake cooling was to be done with a variable size intake on the L/E of the damper cover.

The biggest problems (before the show-stopping one) were achieving sufficient castor and camber stiffness without excessive weight. I seem to remember bump stiffness was OK.

The show-stopper was when all bodywork was banned between the front wheels (remember the long FWEP's?). What was already looking risky (but fun ;) ) became unacceptable as the entire cantilever would have to have been structural (no access to dampers etc) with these new regs, and we abandoned it. However, if F1 had been sensible and adopted 15" rims, I think this concept would still have been interesting.

It was the hangover from this which led to the S941 having the high FLWB design, which we abandoned (far too heavy for the aero gain) on the S951.


It's interesting to note the effort put into current F1 cars on solutions to aero issues in this area....


Hope this 'cures' you.


Nick Wirth

[Zawed]

Welcome Nick!!

Hope you can contribute more often

PS Can you tell us just how good was Alex Wurz??? Under rated and unlucky is my take on him.

[Pikachu Racing]

Glad to see you here Nick Writh!

[karlth]

Nick Wirth!!!

Welcome!

I still remember your posts on the Usenet all those years ago!

[Pascal]

Welcome aboard, Nick.

Thanks for contributing to the topic. I hope this visit will be the first of many...

[Slyder]

Jesus Christ, it's Nick Wirth

that's so cool!!!

Thanks for dropping by and contributing, hopefully you'll be around here more often too.

[YKTS]

wow! when i posted this i expected a good response as is the usual for this board, but straight from the horses mouth, i am lost for words.................

thankyou Nick, hope you stay round here to answer more qusetions, replys from the likes of yourself is what has kept me glued to this forum

[cheesy poofs]

Welcome to Atlas F1 Nick

Thank you for sharing with us

[David Beard]

Originally posted by NickW
A friend of mine suggested I might chip in (for the first time) here to clear this up.

I came up with this concept as a way of removing all blockage behind the front wing assembly, as well as effectively forming an extra front wing element - albeit one with an unfavourable aspect ratio.
Nick Wirth

Nick...this place gets better and better...I hope we will see more of you.

I enjoyed that front diff concept on the Benetton.....next step a return to inboard front brakes?

With regard to your suspension idea described here...not quite sure I followed it all but by any chance, does it bear any resemblance to the system described in this April 1st nonsense of mine?

http://www.db001d483...uk/april01.html

(not wishing to deride your design..I was serious in that I thought a Morgan sliding pillar type idea could actually work!)

[cheesy poofs]

David,

I just visited your website...some very, very nice pics you have there. I was very impressed with your "modern look" oldie pics. Nice work

[David Beard]

Originally posted by cheesy poofs
David,

I just visited your website...some very, very nice pics you have there. I was very impressed with your "modern look" oldie pics. Nice work

Thankyou!

[NickW]

Originally posted by David Beard


I enjoyed that front diff concept on the Benetton.....next step a return to inboard front brakes?

That was planned to have been the next logical step, neatly allowing full carbon front uprights (no heat in the front wheels), integrated brake ducts, thin wall Ti axles, new bearing concept, new wheel concept.......

[cheesy poofs]

Nick,

Are you still involved in any way with motorsports ?

[David Beard]

Originally posted by NickW



That was planned to have been the next logical step, neatly allowing full carbon front uprights (no heat in the front wheels), integrated brake ducts, thin wall Ti axles, new bearing concept, new wheel concept.......

Thanks for the reply
Err..Nick..don't mean to be picky...but the carbon fibre uprights wouldn't need integral ducts if the brakes were inboard, would they

[NickW]

Originally posted by David Beard


Thanks for the reply
Err..Nick..don't mean to be picky...but the carbon fibre uprights wouldn't need integral ducts if the brakes were inboard, would they

Sorry to use the term 'brake ducts' but they are the only piece of 'bodywork' allowed in that area - and there are other good reasons that you might want a lot of airflow through a wheel, going in that direction...

Of course, the *only* reason the ducts would be that big would be to cool the outboard CV joints.

[Jhope]

Hi Nick, we met a few years back in the Paddock of the Canadian GP on a Wednesday afternoon. We talked about the UK and street gangs for some reason. Not that it was a significant meeting, but i forgot to tell you it had been a pleasure chatting for those five minutes. I think the year was 1998, and there was an open house day held on the Wednesday. A friend of mine and I decided to try and get into the paddock area, or at least try and find a way to get there. There was a hole in one of the security fences, and we risked going through it. About 50 feet to our right was the ID Pass chek-in. What the FOA and the GP reps forgot to do, was close off the side of the gate closest to the basin. The friend in question suggested we tried getting around the gate by going onto one of the make-shift docks the Paddock Club used to be situated on. No one stopped us, and we roamed the Paddock freely for about 15 minutes, just to see what it was like. I just remember McLaren were having a feast. As we were leaving, we met you and the conversation about the UK came up because we told you our parents were from the UK. The conversation just went on for 5 minutes or so until we saw security coming our way, and decided not to risk getting caught. we had our fun for the day, and meeting you was a bonus!

Back on topic slightly. What do you think of Renault's new suspension system, created in collaboration with Michelin? Is is similar to anything you or any ex-Benneton cum Renault staff have thought of? If your not so sure what I'm speaking of, I have pasted an article which is dedicated to the system.

from autosport.com
Renault runs new OPT system

First public test for new suspension system

Renault has tested a revolutionary new suspension system it is developing with Michelin in public for the first time last week, it is reported in this week's AUTOSPORT magazine.

Fernando Alonso drove a car fitted with the new Optimum Contact Patch (OPT) suspension, which aims to make use of specially-adapted Michelin tyres to maximise grip and reduce wear, at the Barcelona circuit in Spain.

The OPT system combines the use of a specially made variable camber-suspension system and a unique tyre rubber. The combination negates the need for strong negative camber on the wheels, but instead shifts the tyres to provide a maximum contact patch to the circuit on both straights and corners.

[Don Capps]

Nick,

Pardon my double-take! Let me add my belated but hearty welcome to TNF!

Wow! This is so neat!

[David Beard]

OPT (OCP?) sounds like a new form of active suspension...but this time it's the geometry that's active, not the spring rate.
Legal? I hope so...F1 could do with a breath of fresh technical air.