Would anyone mind explaining exactly what they did and how they worked? I have a general idea but absolutely no detailed knowledge. Thanks in advance.
Active suspension
Started by
luskiiimj
, Sep 21 2000 05:04
10 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Nathan
-
- 9,836 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 21 September 2000 - 05:54
Well someone will do it better...but Ill give it a shot, I may be off a bit.
Basically active suspension allowed yopu to have the perfect suspension setting all the time. It adpated the damper rates (there were no springs) as well as the ride height and more, all dependant on the speed, conditions, what the car was doing (braking or accelerating) and fuel load in the car.
It allowed you to maintain the optimum ride height the whole lap. As speeds increased the dampers became stiffer, thus reducing bottoming out. This allowed the cars to be lower, for more undertray downforce. And as the car slowed, they became softer for better grip and a easier ride and control over bumps. Now a days you can only make 1 setting, and you have to compromise. You have to be able to set the dampers soft enough to make cornering more controllable, but that causes the car to bottom out at high speeds as the load from the downforce pushes down on the car. Becuase of this, they must raise the car, thus lowering the effectivness of the undertray and decreasing the cars downforce and stability.
Its also managed the amount of pitch during braking, again making the car brake better and more importantly, with more control. Again now a days, its all about comprimising, and thats why you get drivers complaining about how the car handles and how difficult it is to set-up.
Simply put active suspensions allowed the cars to be easier to drive asnd set-up. They were faster yes. IMO I think they should bring it back. It gives everyone a more fair shot. IMO it didnt take away from the racing or the driver. I also think its makes the car more safer to drive.
Am I close suspension experts???
Basically active suspension allowed yopu to have the perfect suspension setting all the time. It adpated the damper rates (there were no springs) as well as the ride height and more, all dependant on the speed, conditions, what the car was doing (braking or accelerating) and fuel load in the car.
It allowed you to maintain the optimum ride height the whole lap. As speeds increased the dampers became stiffer, thus reducing bottoming out. This allowed the cars to be lower, for more undertray downforce. And as the car slowed, they became softer for better grip and a easier ride and control over bumps. Now a days you can only make 1 setting, and you have to compromise. You have to be able to set the dampers soft enough to make cornering more controllable, but that causes the car to bottom out at high speeds as the load from the downforce pushes down on the car. Becuase of this, they must raise the car, thus lowering the effectivness of the undertray and decreasing the cars downforce and stability.
Its also managed the amount of pitch during braking, again making the car brake better and more importantly, with more control. Again now a days, its all about comprimising, and thats why you get drivers complaining about how the car handles and how difficult it is to set-up.
Simply put active suspensions allowed the cars to be easier to drive asnd set-up. They were faster yes. IMO I think they should bring it back. It gives everyone a more fair shot. IMO it didnt take away from the racing or the driver. I also think its makes the car more safer to drive.
Am I close suspension experts???
#3
luskiiimj
-
- 228 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 21 September 2000 - 20:53
Thanks for the info!
#4
srf
-
- 29 posts
- Joined: December 99
New Member
Posted 21 September 2000 - 21:13
Aren't F1 cars regulated to have at least x amount of ground clearance? They seem to have more clearance than Champ cars but it could be my imagination.
This Will Gray article talks about it somewhat, though it doesn't seem to specifically say a car has to have a certain amount of clearance. http://www.atlasf1.c...0/bel/gray.html
This Will Gray article talks about it somewhat, though it doesn't seem to specifically say a car has to have a certain amount of clearance. http://www.atlasf1.c...0/bel/gray.html
#5
Ursus
-
- 2,411 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 21 September 2000 - 21:32
Steven, the rideheight is regulated through the (wooden)plank under the car. If it's worn too much the car is deemed to have been running too low.
#6
mhferrari
-
- 3,238 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 21 September 2000 - 23:09
Active suspension was where the suspension was preset to adjust without real feedback. This would allow the suspension to adjust without the whole suspension needing to conform to the track.
At least this is my take on it. I don't really know for sure.
At least this is my take on it. I don't really know for sure.
#7
desmo
-
- 32,107 posts
- Joined: January 00
Tech Forum Host
Posted 22 September 2000 - 01:15
A true active or "high bandwidth" active suspension as used in F1 prior to their being banned completely replaced the springs and dampers with hydraulic actuators. The actuators were powered from a high pressure source and controlled by a 4-port valve which, in turn, recieved it's instructions from a chassis computer dedicated to this purpose.
As total control of suspension movements is possible, unwanted pitch and roll motions can be completely eliminated allowing the undercar aerodynamics to be fully optimised at alltimes. The actuators can even power the wheels in an upward direction in response to bumps, sensed as a pressure rise on the wheel hub side of the rod/piston within the actuator, allowing increased mechanical grip.
Sensors monted on the actuators measured position of the rod/piston, load through the actuator (pressure), and an accelerometer on the hub end. Additional inputs measured include vehicle acceleration both lateral and longitudinal, yaw rate car velocity and steering angle as well as many other inputs I am not privy to I'm sure. Software translates these inputs into commands to the actuators to precisely control wheel motions to achieve whatever ends are desired.
This systems is in virtually all respects superior to a conventional spring and damper as seen currently on F1 cars. The primary rationale given at the time was that as these systems were very expensive to develop being very much cutting-edge technology, this development was too resource intensive for the smaller budget teams to undertake. The logic here is fatally flawed but that's another story.
Perhaps if the teams had been allowed to develop the systems we would now be driving road cars blessed with this remarkable technology. The marketing cachet of these superior systems was fatally damaged by their banning in motorsports. The biggest tech hurdle at the time was software and processer speed to implement timely instructions to the wheel actuators. The tech tide in these areas has advanced to such a degree that the computer in front of you posesses more and faster power than anyone, even the works teams, had available to them at the time for the onboard ecu controlling the suspension.
As total control of suspension movements is possible, unwanted pitch and roll motions can be completely eliminated allowing the undercar aerodynamics to be fully optimised at alltimes. The actuators can even power the wheels in an upward direction in response to bumps, sensed as a pressure rise on the wheel hub side of the rod/piston within the actuator, allowing increased mechanical grip.
Sensors monted on the actuators measured position of the rod/piston, load through the actuator (pressure), and an accelerometer on the hub end. Additional inputs measured include vehicle acceleration both lateral and longitudinal, yaw rate car velocity and steering angle as well as many other inputs I am not privy to I'm sure. Software translates these inputs into commands to the actuators to precisely control wheel motions to achieve whatever ends are desired.
This systems is in virtually all respects superior to a conventional spring and damper as seen currently on F1 cars. The primary rationale given at the time was that as these systems were very expensive to develop being very much cutting-edge technology, this development was too resource intensive for the smaller budget teams to undertake. The logic here is fatally flawed but that's another story.
Perhaps if the teams had been allowed to develop the systems we would now be driving road cars blessed with this remarkable technology. The marketing cachet of these superior systems was fatally damaged by their banning in motorsports. The biggest tech hurdle at the time was software and processer speed to implement timely instructions to the wheel actuators. The tech tide in these areas has advanced to such a degree that the computer in front of you posesses more and faster power than anyone, even the works teams, had available to them at the time for the onboard ecu controlling the suspension.
#8
Darren
-
- 593 posts
- Joined: April 00
Member
Posted 22 September 2000 - 03:28
And just imagine what some crazy over-clockers could do with water-cooled Athlon active suspension. The other reason for its disappearance, mentioned both at the time and subsequently, is that it gives the cars vastly superior cornering speeds. This is held to be a bad thing for safety - the FIA wasn't too keen on seeing cars leave the track sideways at ferocious speeds. In my opinion, it's a much more promising direction than ground effects ever were.
#9
DangerMouse
-
- 2,628 posts
- Joined: December 98
Member
Posted 22 September 2000 - 17:38
Lotus were the only team using truely active suspension, the other systems were passive for compression damping.
The main advantage with active suspension was pitch and yaw stabilty, meaning the aero package didn't have to be compromised to work at slight slip angles to the air flow.
Thats why Williams went to pot 93-94 the aero package couldn't handle the car moving around a huge oversight by Newey and one that we all know the consequences of only too well.
The main advantage with active suspension was pitch and yaw stabilty, meaning the aero package didn't have to be compromised to work at slight slip angles to the air flow.
Thats why Williams went to pot 93-94 the aero package couldn't handle the car moving around a huge oversight by Newey and one that we all know the consequences of only too well.
#10
Ali_G
-
- 35,198 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 23 September 2000 - 00:34
Is it also true that the suspension could be altered so that the when the cars were going down straights the front was rasied slightly so to lessen the angle of attack of the wings and lessen downforce.
Niall
Niall
#11
Nathan
-
- 9,836 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 23 September 2000 - 01:20
Hmm Ali intersting question. I dont know the answer, but I wonder if it would even be worth it? Id imagine there would have been a very fine line between better aerodynamics and pulling of a Mercedes CLK-GTR 
I personally think it may be affordbale now, but will not happen. What with Mercedes and like coming out with similar, yet different systems on their road cars. The problem with this type of technology, is it is computer controlled, therefore the possiblites are endless and nearly impossible to regulate. So can you cant just allow certain things to be controllable and others not. ie only allow ride height and damper pressure to be controlled..This again gets back to the cost issue. Anyway you look at it it will be way to expensive for half the grid. The capabilies for this are nearly endless..and thus..so will the cost and time to develop.
I personally think it may be affordbale now, but will not happen. What with Mercedes and like coming out with similar, yet different systems on their road cars. The problem with this type of technology, is it is computer controlled, therefore the possiblites are endless and nearly impossible to regulate. So can you cant just allow certain things to be controllable and others not. ie only allow ride height and damper pressure to be controlled..This again gets back to the cost issue. Anyway you look at it it will be way to expensive for half the grid. The capabilies for this are nearly endless..and thus..so will the cost and time to develop.
