94 replies to this topic

[Franklin]

(1) Banning any and all methods of applying downforce directly to the wheels instead of through the suspension and (2) requiring that all downforce producing devices be mounted on the chassis so that any downforce produced as to go through the suspension before reaching the wheels.

[Wuzak]

Why?

[alexbiker]

Note to the Atlas F1 Technical Forum contributers:

Please do not feed the [Censored]

Regards,

Alex

[Franklin]

Why? Why do you think during the ground effects era the F1 cars were a bunch of stiff twitchy go-karts?

It's because they had to use spring rates of a 1,000 pounds per inch or more to keep the suspension from bottoming out.

If the tunnels had been mounted to the suspension uprights instead of the chassis they could have used sane spring rates of a couple of hundred pounds per inch.

(Note to Alex: Common use of the word "troll" is a mark of those who don't have the mental wherewithal to provide any other response -- let alone a well informed or analytical one.)

[Pioneer]

A troll is someone who posts outrageous topics just to get a rise out of people.

You, sir, are a troll.

[Franklin]

Originally posted by Pioneer
A troll is someone who posts outrageous topics just to get a rise out of people.

You, sir, are a troll.

I still know more aerodynamics and chassis design than you do.

[Nathan]

Originally posted by Franklin


I still know more aerodynamics and chassis design than you do.

Two thoughts come to mind....

1) Point being?
2) How do you know you know more?

[Bladrian]

1) Franklin is entirely correct. Feeding the downforce loads produced by aero devices into the chassis (instead of the suspension, where it belongs) was, and is, an egregious error. I suspect that the ruling could only have been made by officials who understood little, if any, of the effects of aero devices on a car; and were introduced as a panic measure after the unfortunate events at Montjuich in 1969. What I find more amazing is that this error has never been redressed since.

2) This is the technical forum - this is an entirely valid technical thread (and a very interesting one) and thus, accusations of 'trolling' are not only unfounded but rude to boot.

[Pioneer]

Apparently you haven't noticed his 10 other threads all of which are thinly disguised cheap shots at F1 from a drag racing fanatic.

[mach4]

Originally posted by Pioneer
Apparently you haven't noticed his 10 other threads all of which are thinly disguised cheap shots at F1 from a drag racing fanatic.

How does that invalidate this thread?

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by mach4
How does that invalidate this thread?

Precisely.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Franklin


I still know more aerodynamics and chassis design than you do.

Oh lets have a pissing contest shall we

There are some members of this forum who almost certainly have orders of magnitude more knowledge of aerodynamics and chassis design than you Franklin. What races and championships have you won? How many race cars have you built and tested? - BTW I mean ones that go round corners as well as a very short straight line.

I do agree that the post has some validity, but the general tone of most of Franklin's posts has just rubbed people up them wrong way from day one.

Besides why get upset about unsprung aero being banned when you can just go and build an FSAE car or a Pikes Peak special where the technology is still legal?

Ben

[Franklin]

Originally posted by Ben


Oh lets have a pissing contest shall we

There are some members of this forum who almost certainly have orders of magnitude more knowledge of aerodynamics and chassis design than you Franklin. What races and championships have you won? How many race cars have you built and tested? - BTW I mean ones that go round corners as well as a very short straight line.

I do agree that the post has some validity, but the general tone of most of Franklin's posts has just rubbed people up them wrong way from day one.

Besides why get upset about unsprung aero being banned when you can just go and build an FSAE car or a Pikes Peak special where the technology is still legal?

Ben

Still doesn't have **** to do with the technical merits of transmitting downforce in an F1 directly to the suspension uprights instead of through the suspension.

[kilcoo316]

Uhm, Franklin... the FIA usually try to reduce the speed of the cars, so I really cannot see this regulation changing anytime soon. Your point originally was that it was a mistake in the regulations not to allow it, Ben pointed out if you are really interested, go look at the Pikes Peak specials or a FSAE car, your reply strayed from the topic of the thread.

In another thread you pointed out that F1 should have more effective wheel retention systems, with wings and similar gear attached to the outer suspension, surely the extra mass makes it harder to retain the wheels (and now wings). Besides, F1 cars now use a 3rd spring anyway, which does reduce the spring rate necessary to stop the car bottoming out, so the teams already have a 1/2 solution to the problem.

[Franklin]

There has never been in F1, CART or IRL an instance of an errant wing killing anyone.

However, there are multiple examples of people being killed by a wheel that flew off a car.

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by Franklin
There has never been in F1, CART or IRL an instance of an errant wing killing anyone.

However, there are multiple examples of people being killed by a wheel that flew off a car.

Ah, but there have been cases of errant cars killing people. And this can be caused by a wing failure.

[Nathan]

Originally posted by Franklin

However, there are multiple examples of people being killed by a wheel that flew off a car.

Which I believe have all been spectators no?? Maybe build better fences...

[RDV]

TF'rs = Dont feed the troll

[Paolo]

Excuse me, Sirs,

it's the first and hopefully last time I see such flaming on the Technical Forum.
I myself don't exceedingly like the general layout of Franklin's questions, but I never dreamed of calling him a Troll for that.

Stopping a discussion just because there is other people that might know more than the poster on the subject is totally unscientific.

I recently read on Motorsport that Jim Hall's interest in fan cars sprang from a letter he received from a schoolboy.

I remember many good discussions here were started from Ali_G , who had (by his admission) no scientific background but , anyway, an inquisitive mind and a good sense of humour.
I am sorry he does not seem to post here anymore.

Anyway :
I have a 5 years degree in Aeronautical Engineering
I am taking a PHD in veichle dynamics
I have worked on race cars

and I want to listen to what Franklin, or anyone else, might have to say.

If one does not find a subject intersting, he might just avoid to reply.

[RDV]

I will simply repeat what Cociani said in in TNF. loath as I am to crosspost. Personal comments are not necessary in a technical forum. Despite interesting subjects offensive behaviour is not something I have to tolerate, I will defend to the death anybodys right to an opinion, but not outright lack of etiquette or name calling.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cociani
Franklin,

The Nostalgia Forum one Atlas F1 is perhaps one of the most civilized and friendly places on the internet. People here love all forms of motorsport, I have read threads on Pre WW2 Grand Prix, racing in the Soviet Union, historic ralleys, old stock cars, sprint cars, motorcycles and more. There are former drivers from different series who are members of this forum as well as some very impressive and famous racing authors and journalists. The depth of knowledge is breathtaking, the levels of enthusiasm inspiring.

I read in this forum far more than I post as there are so many people here with so much insight that I dare not get in the way. I guess what I am trying to get at is if you want to have a good discussion about historic lakesters why not start the thread with a title like, "Laketers of the 40's and 50's" And follow that perhaps with the link that you posted. I can assure you people will be interested in having a serious discussion with you. Those cars were very interesting and innovative. People looked at what they had around them and went racing. Baiting people in this forum is really inappropriate, we are fans of all motorsport.

If you must get into debates about the value of formula one I suggest you do it in readers comments. I can assure you people there will not be as civilized as they are here. I hope you are not insulted by my post, I really want to help you fit into the whole Atlas scene, this is such a great place and your enthusiasm would be welcomed but in order for this place to work certain etiquette needs to be followed.

P.S. Don Capps, I hope I am not out of line in posting this response, I respect that you are the moderator here and please feel free to delete this post if you feel it in inappropriate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Powersteer]

Well, i would call someone a troll if they had splashed dirty attitude into such a dignified forum. Never have i seen such words like 'P H U Q U E you' here, one of the best formula one forum.


On the topic, I believe unsprung weight aero devises can be even more dangereous. The idea of solid structure comes into mind when we are talking about strength which would contribute to safety and it would be very difficult to design such a structure into a suspension as angle changes with movement and how some engineers design a suspension so that the wheel go backwards slighty when it is compressed. The wing would be mounted on a variety of arms especially with multiple angle changes.


I also don't see why is it dangerous to have rock hard suspension at low speed while have adequate (nice) suspension at higher speeds. What i see as dangerous is, a car with high wing settings mounted on the suspension on a high speed corner with a crest because this means the main body would be elevated so high, center of gravity would change so much it would be shocking to think this as 'safe'. We could all put stoppers on the suspension so that it would have less travel but that would make laughing better because on a steep crest the car would punch the stoppers and it could make the car hop with the jerk, i meant jerking effect. Just think Brands Hatch or the crest of Eau Rouge.

This post isn't meant to feed the troll

[Greg Locock]

I can't see anything INHERENTLY wrong with mounting the aero device to the unsprung mass, but the structure has to be designed to see wheel type vibrations (say 5-20g pk-pk) rather than body-side vibrations (less than 1g) (these are the vibrations from the road- not the quasi-static forces).

I agree that designing a mounting system that preserves the articulation of the suspension while controlling the orientation of the wing would be non trivial, but the big gains that would result would, I am sure, more than offset the mass and drag of that mounting system. Interesting how such a simple concept (2 sticks off the hubs) rapidly becomes a mechanism. Imagine how much castor change would affect the pitch of the wing (well, 1 degree per degree) - not necessarily what you want.

Perhaps the twin chassis car was the right way to go! This establishes a vehicle length frame of reference for the aero devices. We did build 3 showcars for Corvette (the Indy, in 1989) that used almost the same idea - a basic sled with suspension and drivetrain, with the body suspended from it.

[Franklin]

Originally posted by Powersteer
Well, i would call someone a troll if they had splashed dirty attitude into such a dignified forum. Never have i seen such words like 'P H U Q U E you' here, one of the best formula one forum.


On the topic, I believe unsprung weight aero devises can be even more dangereous. The idea of solid structure comes into mind when we are talking about strength which would contribute to safety and it would be very difficult to design such a structure into a suspension as angle changes with movement and how some engineers design a suspension so that the wheel go backwards slighty when it is compressed. The wing would be mounted on a variety of arms especially with multiple angle changes.


I also don't see why is it dangerous to have rock hard suspension at low speed while have adequate (nice) suspension at higher speeds. What i see as dangerous is, a car with high wing settings mounted on the suspension on a high speed corner with a crest because this means the main body would be elevated so high, center of gravity would change so much it would be shocking to think this as 'safe'. We could all put stoppers on the suspension so that it would have less travel but that would make laughing better because on a steep crest the car would punch the stoppers and it could make the car hop with the jerk, i meant jerking effect. Just think Brands Hatch or the crest of Eau Rouge.

This post isn't meant to feed the troll

You would do well to remember that Mickey Thompson went 406 mph and Tom Burkland 438 mph at Bonneville where the ENTIRE CAR was an unsprung mass.

You would also do well to remember that at NHRA National events Top Fuel and Funny Car drivers consistently run over 300 mph where again the ENTIRE CAR is an unsprung mass.

Teams running jet Funny Cars use rigidly welded A-arms front and rear instead of suspension and go over 250 mph using Indy car slicks on the rear instead of conventiona drag slicks.

[alexbiker]

This is unusually persistent Troll, perhaps capable of pushing around Sauron's seige engines. He requires very little food to continue existing. Please clear your scraps carefully and seal the bags.

Please do not feed the troll



Alex

In anticipation of being told how pooey and smelly I am.

[Franklin]

Originally posted by alexbiker
This is unusually persistent Troll, perhaps capable of pushing around Sauron's seige engines. He requires very little food to continue existing. Please clear your scraps carefully and seal the bags.

Please do not feed the troll



Alex

In anticipation of being told how pooey and smelly I am.

You would also do well to remember that right now Top Fuel dragsters are going 300+ mph with a rear wing generating 13,000 pounds of downforce while directly attached to what is for all intents and purposes THE SUSPENSION.

[alexbiker]

You would also do well to remember that right now Top Fuel dragsters are going 300+ mph with a rear wing generating 13,000 pounds of downforce while directly attached to what is for all intents and purposes THE SUSPENSION.

Please enlighten me to the relevance of this to, well, anything?

F1 cars are doing fine, thankyou, with the aero hanging off the body.

Dragsters are doing fine, thankyou, with the aero on THE SUSPENSION. (Is it compulsory to shout THE SUSPENSION, or is that just an NHRA cultural thing?)

Your statement at the start of the thread, whilst dogmatic, has no argument. Why would the reduced spring rates be so good? What would they help?

Certainly it would be more efficient from an engineering standpoint. But then the whole idea of sending cars flying round a track at 200mph, or up a 1/4 mile at 400mph, is a complete waste of fuel and development anyway. I mean, if efficiency is the goal, let's ban F1, NHRA and enjoyment, and just have a "how far can you go on a gallon" competition.

Alex

[Franklin]

Originally posted by alexbiker


Please enlighten me to the relevance of this to, well, anything?

F1 cars are doing fine, thankyou, with the aero hanging off the body.

Dragsters are doing fine, thankyou, with the aero on THE SUSPENSION. (Is it compulsory to shout THE SUSPENSION, or is that just an NHRA cultural thing?)

Your statement at the start of the thread, whilst dogmatic, has no argument. Why would the reduced spring rates be so good? What would they help?

Certainly it would be more efficient from an engineering standpoint. But then the whole idea of sending cars flying round a track at 200mph, or up a 1/4 mile at 400mph, is a complete waste of fuel and development anyway. I mean, if efficiency is the goal, let's ban F1, NHRA and enjoyment, and just have a "how far can you go on a gallon" competition.

Alex

It means no one has presented a valid technical argument against attaching the undertray or wings to the suspension on an F1 car instead of the chassis.

[alexbiker]

Well yes, we all know this.

But it's banned. So what's the big deal about it being banned?

It would be nice and satisfying as an engineer, but, we can't do it. Why is the the biggest mistake made by F1 authorities in regulating aerodynamics?

Say, compared with allowing the atrocious hijinks of the season after they banned underskirts, surely this is a bit of a wrinkle?

Alex

Edit: I did ask what 13,000 pounds of dragster downforce has to do with this. Please, sir, what does it have to do?

[Franklin]

Originally posted by alexbiker
Well yes, we all know this.

But it's banned. So what's the big deal about it being banned?

It would be nice and satisfying as an engineer, but, we can't do it. Why is the the biggest mistake made by F1 authorities in regulating aerodynamics?

Say, compared with allowing the atrocious hijinks of the season after they banned underskirts, surely this is a bit of a wrinkle?

Alex

Edit: I did ask what 13,000 pounds of dragster downforce has to do with this. Please, sir, what does it have to do?

For far too long far too many people (motorsports fans, for example) have come to believe that there is something in any way valid with the idea of those WHO KNOW LESS ABOUT THE CARS THAN THE ONES WHO DESIGN THEM deciding that they know more about whether an idea will raise costs, reduce safety, etc. In the meantime, costs in F1 have risen to a level that would bankrupt a small country while at the same time turning F1 into a spec series filled with carbon copy cookie cutter clones. In fact, there isn't a major professional racing series that is NOT a spec car series.

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by Franklin


For far too long far too many people (motorsports fans, for example) have come to believe that there is something in any way valid with the idea of those WHO KNOW LESS ABOUT THE CARS THAN THE ONES WHO DESIGN THEM deciding that they know more about whether an idea will raise costs, reduce safety, etc. In the meantime, costs in F1 have risen to a level that would bankrupt a small country while at the same time turning F1 into a spec series filled with carbon copy cookie cutter clones. In fact, there isn't a major professional racing series that is NOT a spec car series.

Good man - have a cookie.



(oops - have I broken a forum rule?)

[Powersteer]

I did mension crest did not I? If you have been paying attention to F1 you would have known the tracks are very challenging.

Anyway, wings on the suspension would need unbelieveable low center of gravity because the tyre grip would be able to hold about 3Gs in a high speed corner when the suspension is set for more normal 1G, the stand required to make the car handle without wings pushing the suspension down. In other words, all hell break loose the cars rolling, sqatting and pitching to death.

If the suspension can hold 3Gs then whats the point of this forum??? In fact we would have the same effect and the same time increasing unsprung weight significantly.

This post isn't meant to feed the troll

[alexbiker]

Whilst outwardly, to the inexperienced eye, F1 looks like a spec series, there are many differences between the cars - just as NHRA Top Fuelers look exactly the same to me - I presume they're not.

How would not banning suspension-linked aero have changed this?

Alex

[JwS]

"turning F1 into a spec series filled with carbon copy cookie cutter clones. In fact, there isn't a major professional racing series that is NOT a spec car series."

Excepting rare instances, like the periods where rear engined cars were being developed and front engines still had a chance, this has been the case. Now more than ever competent engineers look at the rule book and recognize the correct combination of attributes to make a winning car. That will inevitably lead to very similar looking cars with the differences being noticed only by those who take the time to educate themselves and observe closely. Some people are more interested in the politics of F1, some the driver personalities or nationality, we are interested in the differences between a 72 and 90 degree v10. That is why we read this forum.
JwS

[Paolo]

I personally would like to see V8 against flat 12, and different looking cars.

F1 may not be a spec series, but it looks and feels like one.
It is BORING from a technical point of view.

About the universal diffusion of Spec series, I have no words to deprecate it enough.
It is bad for spectators, engineers, manufacturers.

It was supposed to be better for pilot comparison, and it is not (look at F 3000)
It was supposed to be better for costs, and it is not (look at F3000)

It would be wonderful to have F2 back. REAL F2.

[Franklin]

Originally posted by Powersteer
I did mension crest did not I? If you have been paying attention to F1 you would have known the tracks are very challenging.

Anyway, wings on the suspension would need unbelieveable low center of gravity because the tyre grip would be able to hold about 3Gs in a high speed corner when the suspension is set for more normal 1G, the stand required to make the car handle without wings pushing the suspension down. In other words, all hell break loose the cars rolling, sqatting and pitching to death.

If the suspension can hold 3Gs then whats the point of this forum??? In fact we would have the same effect and the same time increasing unsprung weight significantly.

This post isn't meant to feed the troll

It is mounting the wings ON THE CHASSIS that results in problems such as changes in wing pitch and front wing ground clearance because it is THE CHASSIS that rolls and pitches.

[JwS]

My point is that the level of understanding of vehicle design is such that, given a set of rules, there are not 10 radically different solutions. Chances are a v8 and a v12 will not both provide a good solution within the regulations. Maybe this could be done by graduating displacement based on # of cylinders, but in other series (superbike) this has not been really workable. And it is a bit contrived in my opinion.
There are many differences in the cars if you care to look. Variations on a theme..

JwS

[Franklin]

Originally posted by alexbiker
Whilst outwardly, to the inexperienced eye, F1 looks like a spec series, there are many differences between the cars - just as NHRA Top Fuelers look exactly the same to me - I presume they're not.

How would not banning suspension-linked aero have changed this?

Alex

With the options available from NOT banning suspension-mounted aero, NOT banning fan suction, NOT banning variable geometry wings, and NOT banning active suspension (long list isn't it?)engineers would have such a range of choices it would be like re-inventing F1.

Actually, one NHRA Top Fuel dragster is pretty much indistinguishable from another. The teams that can afford to be innovative aren't.

http://www.draglist..../SOD-070700.htm

(Herm Petersen's Woody Gilmore built McLaren M20 Can-Am car inspired Top Fuel streamliner. Too bad carbon fiber wasn't available back in 1974. With a 180 inch wheelbase and no ground effects this design is still NHRA legal.)

http://www.charlesgi.../TF/AWS7201.jpg

(Harry Lehman's American Way. Perhaps the best designed of the seventies streamliners.)

[Powersteer]

Franklin, do you seriously believe mounting the wings on unsprung mass won't change its pitch? Do you seriously believe when the suspension angle changes with dive and squat the wing will have a mid of its own? Just think castor or perhaps mounting an unsprung frame that goes round the car with wings on it sort of like a float Is it the chassis that is mounted on the wheels or is it the wheels mounted on to the chassis, guess.

think ke tee tu taa, thick ka tee tay, wa wa wa what a wonderful day.

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by Powersteer
Franklin, do you seriously believe mounting the wings on unsprung mass won't change its pitch? Do you seriously believe when the suspension angle changes with dive and squat the wing will have a mid of its own? Just think castor or perhaps mounting an unsprung frame that goes round the car with wings on it sort of like a float Is it the chassis that is mounted on the wheels or is it the wheels mounted on to the chassis, guess.

think ke tee tu taa, thick ka tee tay, wa wa wa what a wonderful day.

I'm afraid your post shows a quite remarkable lack of understanding of the forces at work on a racecar. Taking the track surface as a datum point, the suspension uprights will always remain more stable relative to the track surface than the chassis - this should be obvious to anyone. Regard the BRM - note how the chassis has failed to remain parallel to the track surface, whilst the suspension outboard mounting points remain in the same relative positions. Amazingly, it is the chassis that moves .... NOT the suspension.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Franklin


It means no one has presented a valid technical argument against attaching the undertray or wings to the suspension on an F1 car instead of the chassis.

Thats because noone has attempted to present a proper argument in FAVOUR of the change, that is then there to shoot down. Its too lazy to just say 'this should be changed' without elucidating your reasons, in detail, for thinking this is the case and then to expect other people to drive the discussion you began . And saying 'dragsters do it' is not a technical argument. So get off your arse and post a proper case FOR your argument, and you will undoubtedly receive lengthy and detailed replies. On a subject as complex as this one Id expect at least half a page just to get the ball rolling.

Shaun

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by baddog


Thats because noone has attempted to present a proper argument in FAVOUR of the change, that is then there to shoot down. Its too lazy to just say 'this should be changed' without elucidating your reasons, in detail, for thinking this is the case and then to expect other people to drive the discussion you began . And saying 'dragsters do it' is not a technical argument. So get off your arse and post a proper case FOR your argument, and you will undoubtedly receive lengthy and detailed replies. On a subject as complex as this one Id expect at least half a page just to get the ball rolling.

Shaun

Now THAT - is a constructive comment.

[Franklin]

Originally posted by baddog


Thats because noone has attempted to present a proper argument in FAVOUR of the change, that is then there to shoot down. Its too lazy to just say 'this should be changed' without elucidating your reasons, in detail, for thinking this is the case and then to expect other people to drive the discussion you began . And saying 'dragsters do it' is not a technical argument. So get off your arse and post a proper case FOR your argument, and you will undoubtedly receive lengthy and detailed replies. On a subject as complex as this one Id expect at least half a page just to get the ball rolling.

Shaun

My point was that for several decades dragsters have been running with wings mounted to unsprung parts of the car (seeing as how the whole car IS unsprung) without encountering the various structural problems people have conjectured would happen if you did the same thing on a road racing car (although transmitting five or six tons of downforce through wing struts has not always been reliably solved in Top Fuel).

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by Franklin


My point was that for several decades dragsters have been running with wings mounted to unsprung parts of the car (seeing as how the whole car IS unsprung) without encountering the various structural problems people have conjectured would happen if you did the same thing on a road racing car (although transmitting five or six tons of downforce through wing struts has not always been reliably solved in Top Fuel).

But they aren't exactly mounted on the wheel hubs, are they?

Where are they mounted on drag cars that have suspension?

[Franklin]

Originally posted by Wuzak



But they aren't exactly mounted on the wheel hubs, are they?

Where are they mounted on drag cars that have suspension?

Neither were the original F1 wings. They were mounted to the SUSPENSION UPRIGHTS.

[Wuzak]

OK, on the uprights.

Are there any dragsters with the wings mounted on suspension uprights?

[Franklin]

Originally posted by Wuzak
OK, on the uprights.

Are there any dragsters with the wings mounted on suspension uprights?

Some of the "nostalgia" top fuel cars still have a wing mounted to the front axle.

[Frank Tuesday]

Originally posted by Franklin


You would also do well to remember that at NHRA National events Top Fuel and Funny Car drivers consistently run over 300 mph where again the ENTIRE CAR is an unsprung mass.

This is a very misleading if not technically false statement. It may not have suspension in the sense that we normally think of it, but the tyres themselves provide much suspension. In that respect the ENTIRE CAR, less the the section of the tyre that is deforming, is sprung weight.

As I'm sure you know, the tyres themselves are used to change the gearing as well. When they start the radius of the tyre is at its minimum. As the speed of the car changes, the sidewall no longer provides enough centripital force to maintain its shape, so the radius of the tyre changes. This same flexibility of the sidewall is exactly what gives the car its suspension.

Frank

[Ben]

Originally posted by Franklin

You would also do well to remember that at NHRA National events Top Fuel and Funny Car drivers consistently run over 300 mph where again the ENTIRE CAR is an unsprung mass.

Finally confirmation of our troll's technical ignorance.

Franklin: This proves that you have never designed or analysed a suspension system. The entire car unsprung, may I ask why you think this?

Your profile says technical writer. I pitty anyone who might have the misfortune to learn anything vehicle dynamics related from you.

Ben

[Franklin]

Originally posted by Frank Tuesday


This is a very misleading if not technically false statement. It may not have suspension in the sense that we normally think of it, but the tyres themselves provide much suspension. In that respect the ENTIRE CAR, less the the section of the tyre that is deforming, is sprung weight.

As I'm sure you know, the tyres themselves are used to change the gearing as well. When they start the radius of the tyre is at its minimum. As the speed of the car changes, the sidewall no longer provides enough centripital force to maintain its shape, so the radius of the tyre changes. This same flexibility of the sidewall is exactly what gives the car its suspension.

Frank

The same is true for F1 cars.

But as we BOTH know the textbook definition of sprung mass is the mass on the OTHER side of the springs/dampers from the wheels and since dragsters and Funny Cars DON'T HAVE springs/dampers they qualify as an unsprung mass.

[Amused]

Please don't lump Mr. Ratliff in with us lowly drag racers. He's been a thorn in the posterior at many drag race bbs for years, and has been banned from several. When he posts on drag racing bbs he usually espouses "proven" theories from F1 or Bonneville technology. Want a laugh? Google him and check out the pictures of his 40 mph "propster". It looks like the H2 soap box derby racer is more roadworthy!
Amused