Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

FRIC suspension - who has it?


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#1 tarmac

tarmac
  • Member

  • 1,155 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 08 April 2013 - 12:30

http://www.jamesalle...device-of-2013/

JA only mentions Lotus and Mercedes

Advertisement

#2 molpid

molpid
  • Member

  • 366 posts
  • Joined: February 13

Posted 08 April 2013 - 12:37

Not sure about Lotus, but in an AMuS article Sauber was mentioned testing it aswell

#3 Shiroo

Shiroo
  • Member

  • 4,012 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 08 April 2013 - 13:03

Lotus has it since 2009 or 2010 and Merc from 2010 afair. I dont give head for that though

#4 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 08 April 2013 - 13:36

Going on the James Allen piece, FRIC suspension sounds eerily familiar - like a modern incarnation of the Hydrolastic suspension that my very first car (an 850cc Mini) had back in 1969. Interestingly, although Hydrolastic suspension was never used in F1, it was used in Indy cars - in the Offy-powered Huffaker "MG Liquid Suspension Specials" that raced at the Brickyard between 1964 and 1969. In this photo of one of the 1964 cars you can clearly see the Hydrolastic units

Posted Image

#5 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 08 April 2013 - 13:48

I remember hearing Ferrari had this too a year or two ago.

#6 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 08 April 2013 - 14:02

Ferrari, since 2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A78628864

Moreover, according to Pat Symonds, Ferrari will have an interconnected suspension, which should better distribute the weight of the car to increase stability.


But there are differences in complexity (front-rear in addition to left-right) which not all teams have mastered I think.

Edited by Timstr11, 08 April 2013 - 14:03.


#7 Baddoer

Baddoer
  • Member

  • 3,516 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 08 April 2013 - 15:17

Ah, finally! As Invented in 50s on 2CV it can finally see the day in most technologically advanced sport.

Edited by Baddoer, 08 April 2013 - 15:20.


#8 pizzalover

pizzalover
  • Member

  • 888 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 08 April 2013 - 15:55

Don't McLaren run this on their road cars?

#9 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 13,178 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 08 April 2013 - 15:55

Ah, finally! As Invented in 50s on 2CV it can finally see the day in most technologically advanced sport.

:lol: Do 2CVs corner that well?

#10 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 08 April 2013 - 16:04

Don't McLaren run this on their road cars?


Yes - but that is ECU controlled.

On an F1 car the rules stipulate that any such system must be completely passive.

The last whisper I heard was that Merc were utilising the properties of mercury to achieve quasi-active suspension........

#11 CookinFlatSix

CookinFlatSix
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 08 April 2013 - 16:54

Could be that McLaren tried something, and its part of their problem

#12 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,272 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 April 2013 - 17:18

:lol: Do 2CVs corner that well?


didnt it have amazing suspension, for the time?


#13 OfficeLinebacker

OfficeLinebacker
  • Member

  • 14,088 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 08 April 2013 - 21:02

didnt it have amazing suspension, for the time?

I think not so much for handling like to go around a racing circuit in the minimum time, but more practical for road cars, including comfort and ability to absorb shocks.

I remember it being really novel.

#14 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 April 2013 - 21:53

I'm still puzzled how this type of suspension is allowed. By linking the suspension they are creating a kind of active system.

#15 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 08 April 2013 - 22:17

I'm still puzzled how this type of suspension is allowed. By linking the suspension they are creating a kind of active system.


I guess it goes under the guise of ARBs

#16 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 6,301 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 08 April 2013 - 22:28

So Pendolinos next?

#17 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 08 April 2013 - 23:03

So Pendolinos next?


Lotus 88? :smoking:

#18 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 3,368 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 April 2013 - 23:32

I think there was a short story on this last week on f1.com/news naming Mercedes.

#19 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 08 April 2013 - 23:48

Could be that McLaren tried something, and its part of their problem


Martin Whitmarsh?


Advertisement

#20 john_smith

john_smith
  • Member

  • 243 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:36

is that why schumacher took so much care to prevent people from seeing the underside of the mercedes whenever it was being lifted by a crane?

or is that to do with the DDRS?

#21 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:15

is that why schumacher took so much care to prevent people from seeing the underside of the mercedes whenever it was being lifted by a crane?

or is that to do with the DDRS?


Drivers do that so photographers don't get close up shots of the underbody and other details. You cannot see the mechanical pieces of the suspension from the outside. DDRS was tucked inside the rear wing and rear crash structure so Schumi crashing the car for the umpteenth time wouldn't have made a difference there either.

#22 KiloWatt

KiloWatt
  • Member

  • 1,296 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:59

I'm still puzzled how this type of suspension is allowed. By linking the suspension they are creating a kind of active system.


Think of 'active' as being computer controlled and 'passive' as being inertial.

#23 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 6,301 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 09 April 2013 - 09:55

Lotus 88? :smoking:


A bit differnt but got a nice reading about it. Thanks.


#24 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:01

I'm still puzzled how this type of suspension is allowed. By linking the suspension they are creating a kind of active system.


Yes, but just that it is passive... :up:

#25 wati

wati
  • Member

  • 1,155 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:08

So Pendolinos next?


We had that in 92 and 93. The active suspension cars could roll in to the corner.

#26 Neophiliac

Neophiliac
  • Member

  • 283 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:37

The last whisper I heard was that Merc were utilising the properties of mercury to achieve quasi-active suspension........


Mmmm.... quicksilver then. The mysterious substance that has variously puzzled and amuzed scientists and alchemists (and both) since - I dunno... 1500s? Truly, only in the 21st century have we finally made enough Scientifik progress to use the damn thing in Suspension Komponents but still can't quite explain which of its Properties are so useful therein.

#27 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 09 April 2013 - 14:26

Mmmm.... quicksilver then. The mysterious substance that has variously puzzled and amuzed scientists and alchemists (and both) since - I dunno... 1500s? Truly, only in the 21st century have we finally made enough Scientifik progress to use the damn thing in Suspension Komponents but still can't quite explain which of its Properties are so useful therein.


This goes so far... too far may be. Beryllium is banned, and now ....
What is the technical advantage to introduce this toxic metal?

I mean,...

NO!

#28 KiloWatt

KiloWatt
  • Member

  • 1,296 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 09 April 2013 - 14:42

This goes so far... too far may be. Beryllium is banned, and now ....
What is the technical advantage to introduce this toxic metal?

I mean,...

NO!


Well come on, it's not like anyone is making shots with the stuff. I'm pretty sure that it's handled properly. And we all know that there was a red hand in banning Beryllium and not because it was toxic.

#29 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 April 2013 - 14:48

Hmm, mercury is a liquid metal isn't it. A good electrical conductor. Heavy.

So I guess it responds well to g. Is it allowed to change things electrically?

I suppose it depends how they define 'passive', and where the energy is allowed to come from to make changes to the fluid flows in the suspension.

I suspect all the teams know, and we're the only ones who don't...

#30 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 09 April 2013 - 14:51

Pretty sure Mercury is not an FIA allowed material.

#31 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 09 April 2013 - 14:57

Pretty sure Mercury is not an FIA allowed material.


No mention of Mercury or Hg: http://argent.fia.co...REGULATIONS.pdf

#32 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 April 2013 - 15:13

Pretty sure Mercury is not an FIA allowed material.



No mention of Mercury or Hg: http://argent.fia.co...REGULATIONS.pdf


Yeah so since mercury isn't among the Permitted Materials (15.1) it's banned. Huh. Back to the drawing board.

#33 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 09 April 2013 - 15:28

Yeah so since mercury isn't among the Permitted Materials (15.1) it's banned. Huh. Back to the drawing board.


It's a (hydraulic) fluid - not a construction material:

Exceptions :

3) Fluids (e.g. water, oils).

Edited by maverick69, 09 April 2013 - 15:33.


#34 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 7,054 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 09 April 2013 - 15:33

I'm still puzzled how this type of suspension is allowed. By linking the suspension they are creating a kind of active system.


No, they're not. There is no active circuitry involved, It's not computer controlled, the driver cannot affect it in any way, and it's closed-loop. As to the mercury part, as much as it is known - which is close to nothing - about it, IF mercury is used at all - and that was just an unconfirmed hypothesis based on the physical attributes of the substance - only a small amount is used for fluidic switching. No specifics whatsoever have ever emerged about it, not so surprisingly. It is definitely not something that can be thrown at the car, especially with tyres this sensitive, as Merc's experience last season has shown. Merc's problem last year was they could not set up the system to heat the tyres evenly. Sometimes it was said that all the four tyres were significantly different in temperature. It could cook one tyre of the four, while the other one grained because it was out of the temp range, while two worked but not ideally. Sounds hilarious. It was said before the season that Costa's team made a 'lego'-like suspension, easy to configure and tune to different track characteristics, which was part of the cure to last season's woes. As to who has it working apart from Merc, I'd say lotus should have a decent understanding of it, considering the idea was born there, no idea who else. Everybody should be working on it hard though.


#35 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 8,288 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 09 April 2013 - 16:29

I am impressed by the response time of the system. F1 cars move and change directions extremely quickly, so to have a passive system moving fluid back and forth in a controlled manner in response to the car's changing position as it travels the contours and track undulations is no mean feat.

I am inclined to believe they are somehow pumping the fluid but doing so in a way that does not violate the regulations.

Edited by femi, 09 April 2013 - 16:32.


#36 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 April 2013 - 16:48

It's a (hydraulic) fluid - not a construction material:

Exceptions :

3) Fluids (e.g. water, oils).


Ah, yes. So they could use anything then, as long as it's a fluid.

#37 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 09 April 2013 - 18:44

to "throw the cat amongst the pigeons" - what you make of this?



source: LOTUS RENAULT GP LTD - FLUID INERTER (WIPO Patent Application WO/2011/089373)

If we can agree that F=m*a (if you believe Newton), and that you would need a force (F) to change something (position of the suspension for example),
then the basic idea/function behind this should be easy to grasp/understand.
Worth to remember, that during braking a F1 car can generate a (negative) acceleration (a) of ~ 4-5g
Along the same lines F= P*A ( Force = Pressure * Area) and according to this, the pressure in a fluid is governed by:

Posted Image

P is pressure,
ρ is density,
g is gravity, and
h is heigh

this is for the vertical case, where gravity will provide a constant acceleration of ~ 9.81 m/s^2, but holds true for the horizontal case as well.
just substitute h with l ( distance between two points (front to rear axle for example) --> length of the fluid line) and g with a (acceleration during braking/accelerating of the car)
then you will see, that the pressure is a direct function of the density (mass in a roundabout way) of the fluid used.

Have fun :)

For the purpose of the 4 corners of the car to communicate via hydraulic lines, I'd say the low inertance is a requirement, right?

Isn't it low inertance mineral oil we're seeing through little glass window in the lines:
Posted Image

#38 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 April 2013 - 21:05

Think of 'active' as being computer controlled and 'passive' as being inertial.


I know the difference but still think if linked it is a form of active suspension.

#39 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 10,779 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 09 April 2013 - 21:17

I know the difference but still think if linked it is a form of active suspension.

What's the active part?

Advertisement

#40 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 April 2013 - 21:40

What's the active part?


The part where a suspension change is being made because it is directly coupled to another part of the suspension. I don't care about the woolly active\passive arguments that are being used on various parts of the car. AFAIC it is a form of active suspension, and if the TMD can be banned as an aero device, then the FIA can easily ban this should they wish to, and I won't be surprised if they do on cost grounds.

#41 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 09 April 2013 - 21:53

to "throw the cat amongst the pigeons" - what you make of this?



source: LOTUS RENAULT GP LTD - FLUID INERTER (WIPO Patent Application WO/2011/089373)

If we can agree that F=m*a (if you believe Newton), and that you would need a force (F) to change something (position of the suspension for example),
then the basic idea/function behind this should be easy to grasp/understand.
Worth to remember, that during braking a F1 car can generate a (negative) acceleration (a) of ~ 4-5g
Along the same lines F= P*A ( Force = Pressure * Area) and according to this, the pressure in a fluid is governed by:

Posted Image

P is pressure,
ρ is density,
g is gravity, and
h is heigh

this is for the vertical case, where gravity will provide a constant acceleration of ~ 9.81 m/s^2, but holds true for the horizontal case as well.
just substitute h with l ( distance between two points (front to rear axle for example) --> length of the fluid line) and g with a (acceleration during braking/accelerating of the car)
then you will see, that the pressure is a direct function of the density (mass in a roundabout way) of the fluid used.

Have fun :)


NEWTON physics is true in a constant acceleration, I thought?


#42 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 09 April 2013 - 23:41

I thought they only require the mass of the body to remain constant during the motion.
They may not hold for high velocities (approaching the speed of light) but I would think, that they are a fair representation for the problem/velocities
involved in the problem at hand ( F1 race car and it's suspension )

thanx.


#43 Lamag

Lamag
  • Member

  • 1,147 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:37

Scarbs about the FRIC suspension back in 2011.

Indeed this is not even new in current F1, as several other teams already run similar and perhaps even more developed systems. But this is the first evidence I’ve had of teams interconnecting the suspension with hydraulics.


http://scarbsf1.com/...ear-suspension/

#44 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:33

The part where a suspension change is being made because it is directly coupled to another part of the suspension. I don't care about the woolly active\passive arguments that are being used on various parts of the car. AFAIC it is a form of active suspension, and if the TMD can be banned as an aero device, then the FIA can easily ban this should they wish to, and I won't be surprised if they do on cost grounds.


Anti roll bars and third springs are active in your head then too.

For the rest of us, here is the Wikipedia definition: "The active suspension and adaptive suspension/semi-active suspension are types of automotive suspensions that controls the vertical movement of the wheels with an onboard system, rather than in passive suspensions where the movement is being determined entirely by the road surface."

#45 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 10 April 2013 - 07:26

Anti roll bars and third springs are active in your head then too.

For the rest of us, here is the Wikipedia definition: "The active suspension and adaptive suspension/semi-active suspension are types of automotive suspensions that controls the vertical movement of the wheels with an onboard system, rather than in passive suspensions where the movement is being determined entirely by the road surface."


Completely different, but as you seem more interested in throwing insults it's not worth discussing further with you.


#46 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 7,054 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:07

The part where a suspension change is being made because it is directly coupled to another part of the suspension. I don't care about the woolly active\passive arguments that are being used on various parts of the car. AFAIC it is a form of active suspension, and if the TMD can be banned as an aero device, then the FIA can easily ban this should they wish to, and I won't be surprised if they do on cost grounds.


There are no 'woolly' arguements, IMHO. The better 'ban' analogy would, IMHO be the ban on the Lotus ride height device last season(?), that is in fact highly relevant: The stated reason on the ban was that it was in firstly a device that affects(maintains) the aero efficiency of the car when braking. that, in fact was true, and everyone and their aunt knew it. In case of FRIC, you can't really say that, it is what it is: a suspension. A highly complex one, but it is a suspension. And it is NOT an active suspension.


#47 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:05

coming back to the original topic of this thread
according to AMuS:
Marussia plans to run their version in China, after already testing their system during the pre-season.

Perhaps the question is now, who does not run such a system yet?



Like on most of the cars from the top teams, the dampers of the front and rear axle will be hydraulically interconnected.
The complicated system functioned already pretty well during preseason testing


\Way to go, they will climb the grid if they so succeed! Question remains if,...

#48 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:00

There are no 'woolly' arguements, IMHO. The better 'ban' analogy would, IMHO be the ban on the Lotus ride height device last season(?), that is in fact highly relevant: The stated reason on the ban was that it was in firstly a device that affects(maintains) the aero efficiency of the car when braking. that, in fact was true, and everyone and their aunt knew it. In case of FRIC, you can't really say that, it is what it is: a suspension. A highly complex one, but it is a suspension. And it is NOT an active suspension.


Maintaining aero efficiency is what this system is for as well, so if the FIA wanted to ban it then they could use that excuse as well. It does beg the usual question as to why they allow some things to run yet use spurious excuses to ban others.


#49 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:17

Maintaining aero efficiency is what this system is for as well, so if the FIA wanted to ban it then they could use that excuse as well. It does beg the usual question as to why they allow some things to run yet use spurious excuses to ban others.


:up:

How about on the ground of Health?

#50 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:22

Maintaining aero efficiency is what this system is for as well, so if the FIA wanted to ban it then they could use that excuse as well. It does beg the usual question as to why they allow some things to run yet use spurious excuses to ban others.


Well there are two distinct issues here aren't there? One is the definition of 'active' and the other is the FIA. Don't forget that Renault's mass damper was back in the Max era.

For me 'active' is about where the energy comes from to effect a change in something. If it comes from anything electrical or a driver input it's active, whereas if it's just using natural g-forces arising from the motion of the car it's passive.

So if they have valves being operated by mercury under g then it can be quite clever, but still 'passive'.