377 replies to this topic

[Coops3]

Why couldnt they just change the rule to state the maximum dimensions of these parts that would restrict them to say 25mm in height.

That would knock out the McLaren solution but not affect the current standard wishbones
 

They're not going to change the rules at the 11th hour. It'll either be declared legal and other teams will copy, or it'll be declared illegal under the current rules.

[Newbrray]

These teams sure don't waste anytime. Some of them are ready to trial the own version of the rear suspension as early as next week

 

http://www.gptoday.c...ted_in_Bahrain/

 

Rival teams have shown interest in the concept, and it is expected that different versions of the solution will be trialed on some of the 2014 cars when testing resumes in Bahrain next week.
 

Edited by Newbrray, 13 February 2014 - 07:32.

[Rinehart]

^I will be amazed if any other team runs a version of it in testing. I just think it is so integral and surely they've just got too much on their plates this winter in particular. 

[bonjon1979a]

Unless they've had their own versions all along and were waiting to bring them out. It would explain why there has been so few complaints. Also, been a lot of movement between teams, surely paddy would've known about this suspension for some time?

[PayasYouRace]

These regulations have been known for a long time. It's quite reasonable that the idea has been floating around between a few guys for a while.

[GlenP]

To test and evaluate they don't have to make legal versions. They can just slap on fairings that mimic the aerodynamic effect. If they want to race them they will have to redesign the rear crash structure (possibly), gearbox, rear suspension - and on top of all that re-evaluate the whole aero concept of their cars.

[maverick69]

Obviously some redesign/re-configuring of the rear will have to be done. But it's not as difficult as adding, say, a double diffuser to the car.

 

As for re-evaluating "the whole aero concept of the car"? I think that makes it sound more draconian that it really is. After all,, it is the 2nd to last downstream aero feature. If it was the front sus elements then yes........

 

So. IMO whilst McLaren will most likely have the most "integrated" solution..... the better teams will not take long to get somewhere close...... if they haven't already.

[WitnessX]

Unless they've had their own versions all along and were waiting to bring them out. It would explain why there has been so few complaints. Also, been a lot of movement between teams, surely paddy would've known about this suspension for some time?

Since it appears to be an integral part of the rear end of the car including the rear crash structure, I doubt that teams would have had time to design two rear ends just to hide their innovations at Jerez. Also since McLaren already revealed this idea there would not be any sense in hiding anything.

Paddy Lowe was already on gardening leave before the MP4-28 launch (Jan,2013). So it is a question of when they came up with this idea. They decided to dedicate 100% of their wind-tunnel time to the '29 after Silverstone last year so they had some decent time to explore the idea.

The FIA come up with general concepts and turn those concepts into real world measurements which are incorporated into the technical regulations documents.
Stewards at the races just measure against a tick-off list, they don't go into fluffy concepts.

AFAIK As far as this season is concerned the only possibilities of changing the technical regulations are the following
- Unanimous agreement from the teams
- In the interests of safety.
So basically its not going to happen.

As I see it the only possibility is the FIA court. If the protagonists of the double-diffuser could show that by FIA's definitions that what they had was a "space between two levels" and not a "hole" - then I don't see a problem with what is effectively a "thick" suspension arm.

Rarely have pure aero related parts been banned during the year, most have been add-on mechanical gadgets. The X-wings (flying guillotines) were banned quite rightly on safety grounds.

Edited by WitnessX, 13 February 2014 - 11:31.

[Rinehart]

Obviously some redesign/re-configuring of the rear will have to be done. But it's not as difficult as adding, say, a double diffuser to the car.

 

As for re-evaluating "the whole aero concept of the car"? I think that makes it sound more draconian that it really is. After all,, it is the 2nd to last downstream aero feature. If it was the front sus elements then yes........

 

So. IMO whilst McLaren will most likely have the most "integrated" solution..... the better teams will not take long to get somewhere close...... if they haven't already.

 

You are totally underestimating it.

Whilst it is the last downstream feature of the car, the whole airflow from the nose is designed to integrate with it.

Moreover its a totally unique integrated feature which has ramifications on the rear wing, crash structure and rear wing as far as mounting and airflow is concerned. And that before we get into the dynamics of the suspension. 

 

I don't doubt that other teams have known about it for a while. 

Edited by Rinehart, 13 February 2014 - 11:24.

[CrucialXtreme]

More analysis of the MP4-29 rear suspension

 

via F1.com

[maverick69]

You are totally underestimating it.

Whilst it is the last downstream feature of the car, the whole airflow from the nose is designed to integrate with it.

Moreover its a totally unique integrated feature which has ramifications on the rear wing, crash structure and rear wing as far as mounting and airflow is concerned. And that before we get into the dynamics of the suspension. 

 

I don't doubt that other teams have known about it for a while. 

 

Nah. Not really.

 

Most of the F1 tech pundits reckon it's the installation rather than the up-stream aero characteristics that's the issue.

 

Here's just one example: http://somersf1.blog...bone-wings.html

[oetzi]

using four wheel steering rules to ban the third brake pedal thingy should have seen slip limited differentials banned on the trot. They acted exactly the same, divided force unevenly between driven wheels on the axle.

IIRC the FIA has been pretty consistent in drawing a line between things that seek to manage a force which already exists (eg a differential) and ones that introduce a force (eg the brakes). I could be wrong, but something in my head remembers them using that as a dividing line more than once in the past.

Edited by oetzi, 13 February 2014 - 11:38.

[Rinehart]

Nah. Not really.

 

Most of the F1 tech pundits reckon it's the installation rather than the up-stream aero characteristics that's the issue.

 

Here's just one example: http://somersf1.blog...bone-wings.html

Which is what I just said.

[Big Block 8]

IIRC the FIA has been pretty consistent in drawing a line between things that seek to manage a force which already exists (eg a differential) and ones that introduce a force (eg the brakes). I could be wrong, but something in my head remembers them using that as a dividing line more than once in the past.

 

Forces from a limited slip differential are introduced when cornering and accelerating. Can't see how that's different to forces introduced when braking.

 

Edit: I think the FIA today is different than it was back in 1998 though, in general and especially when things involved Ron and Max.

Edited by Big Block 8, 13 February 2014 - 12:32.

[maverick69]

Which is what I just said.

Oh no you didn't!

[GlenP]

I actually do think there would be a lot of re-thinking of concept. The increase in efficiency of diffuser means a different ride height is possible, I have read. More rear df means more at the front is required to match… which might mean an alteration in front wing design… and so-on. However, replicating the effect would be pretty straightforward in a rough manner.

[maverick69]

I actually do think there would be a lot of re-thinking of concept. The increase in efficiency of diffuser means a different ride height is possible, I have read. More rear df means more at the front is required to match… which might mean an alteration in front wing design… and so-on. However, replicating the effect would be pretty straightforward in a rough manner.

Fair play - that is a point that hasn't been brought up yet by the various pundits. Defo worth further discussion.

[balmybaldwin]

So with the butterfly suspension they can run a higher rear-end with more rake as RedBull have done for the last few years?  - I'm guessing that this also would have the advantage of a greater range of movement in the rear wishbones that would mean any high-speed reduction in drag would be accentuated?

[oetzi]

Forces from a limited slip differential are introduced when cornering and accelerating. Can't see how that's different to forces introduced when braking.

Yeah, that's kind of the point - the diff works to control forces caused by the normal operation of a car. Engineering the brakes to turn the car at a driver's request is different. Of course, to work around that principle requires a(n) (arbitrary?) concept of what 'the normal operation of a car' is.

 

It was decided the brakes are for braking and the steering is for steering, and that kind of makes sense to me.

 

Not saying other interpretations are 'wrong' though 

[maverick69]

So with the butterfly suspension they can run a higher rear-end with more rake as RedBull have done for the last few years?  - I'm guessing that this also would have the advantage of a greater range of movement in the rear wishbones that would mean any high-speed reduction in drag would be accentuated?

I doubt they'd go quite as aggressive as RB - due to the fact that the EBD sealed the sides of the diffuser..... and they haven't got that anymore. 

[CrucialXtreme]

Nah. Not really.

 

Most of the F1 tech pundits reckon it's the installation rather than the up-stream aero characteristics that's the issue.

 

Here's just one example: http://somersf1.blog...bone-wings.html

 

Yeah the installation is going to be troublesome for teams wanting to incorporate this solution, but it will require changing the aero map of the car to get it to work properly as Rinehart suggested, and Matt(Somers) would agree. I'm not saying a team would have to change the entire car, but it's not just putting it on and getting on with it.

[CrucialXtreme]

Best pictures I've seen yet of the rear suspension.

 

via GrandPrix 247

Edited by CrucialXtreme, 13 February 2014 - 22:21.

[Lazy]

Quite cute that ‘Butterfly’ Upwash Device.

 

They have obviously thought this thing through.

 

More and more I think this thing is about directing hot air from the coke bottle (hence the positioning of the outlets), along with the exhaust plume, to the underside of the rear wing.

Edited by Lazy, 14 February 2014 - 08:20.

[stanga]

^I will be amazed if any other team runs a version of it in testing. I just think it is so integral and surely they've just got too much on their plates this winter in particular. 

 

Some teams completed their testing schedule early and had time to swap drivers just equalise the mileage. I'd expect RBR to be less likely to have a version ready and Merc more likely, for instance. It will be interesting.

[Big Block 8]

Yeah, that's kind of the point - the diff works to control forces caused by the normal operation of a car. Engineering the brakes to turn the car at a driver's request is different. Of course, to work around that principle requires a(n) (arbitrary?) concept of what 'the normal operation of a car' is.

 

It was decided the brakes are for braking and the steering is for steering, and that kind of makes sense to me.

 

Not saying other interpretations are 'wrong' though 

 

I see what you mean, but limited slip differentials don't "control" forces but exert forces in a manner it's chosen in the setup process (and maybe even actively chosen turn by turn during driving as well). These forces in turn affect steering (turn the car) just as adjusting the brake balance does.

 

So saying "brakes for braking and steering for steering" doesn't exactly fly, although I admit it does sound good.

[Rinehart]

Oh no you didn't!

"Moreover its a totally unique integrated feature"

[naukkis]

I see what you mean, but limited slip differentials don't "control" forces but exert forces in a manner it's chosen in the setup process (and maybe even actively chosen turn by turn during driving as well). These forces in turn affect steering (turn the car) just as adjusting the brake balance does.

 

So saying "brakes for braking and steering for steering" doesn't exactly fly, although I admit it does sound good.

 

There's many versions of active differentials which can divide torque unequally between tires. What McLaren's third brake pedal does was a mimic of active differential which main purpose is to help steering. It's very well known that traditional limited slip differential produces understeer, more locking ratio the greats more understeer. As now F1 drivers will alter diff's locking ratio by hand for every curve.

[oetzi]

limited slip differentials don't "control" forces

 

So limiting slip isn't controlling a force?