Red Bull RB18

[vorticism]

Is there any way this arm can torque under particular loads changing wheel angles?

Potentially it could deflect fore and aft in addition to up and down, depending on its cross sectional shape and how the other half of the A-arm is arranged. You end up with a more complex motion at the outer end of the suspension arm. To what benefit, though?

Not really related, but I noticed it has a cable/wire running along it, attached via a couple of bosses. Not sure if that is just typical sensor routing.

[Big Tea]

Is there any way this arm can torque under particular loads changing wheel angles?

Potentially it could deflect fore and aft in addition to up and down, depending on its cross sectional shape and how the other half of the A-arm is arranged. You end up with a more complex motion at the outer end of the suspension arm. To what benefit, though?

Not really related, but I noticed it has a cable/wire running along it, attached via a couple of bosses. Not sure if that is just typical sensor routing.

Altering the length would alter the camber angle would it not? What the advantage of this is though I don't know, unless it would assist with kerbs. I think on an oval it is useful but they know which direction the extra is needed.

[organic]

Was puzzling over the t-tray design of this car and attempting to figure out why it is shaped the way it is.

1. The vertical slot. Perhaps 5-10 mm wide. Could be a small inlet duct for cooling components or driver, although I was thinking it may be a slot for optics for the ride height sensor to peer from. It would need to be mounted at an angle though. Second image below is the aperture requirements for a small ride height laser.

2. The overall form. It is rounded, bluff. Not shaped like a springboard nor 'tray.' My basic view is that this is simply a lower drag shape to drag through the air, as well as potentially being better in yaw, as opposed to a sharper nosed form.

3. The colors. The tan colored parts may be an anti-impact/abrasion resistant surface like you see in wheel wells. Yet it is partial. Why?

4. The inflexibility. There is no indication of movability, all the surfaces meet flush, and the surfaces look inflexible, as they are typically prescribed to be in the ruleset. I suppose it could still deflect slightly upward upon impact, with this fairing either breaking or flexing sufficiently, while the main shock absorber still performs its function.

https://i.imgur.com/1Ykjm8A.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/g4nAhdh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/csWeaM4.jpg

On point 1: this isn't the car comparison thread, but I have some points on the vertical slot. Mercedes and RB both have an opening with similar placement at the anterior face of the t-tray:




Secondly, Aston Martin have been seen to be placing a fan under the car that seems to be specifically made to be housed in this position based on its shape; if this duct is important enough for a specifically designed fan then perhaps it's significant. There was a post either here or Twitter with appropriate images of said fan and in position but all I can find at the moment is this photo where the fan is at the bottom of the photo. However, I haven't seen any clear photographic evidence of an opening similar to Merc/RB



What could this be ducting to? Merc, RB and AMR all already have a duct opening on the nose for driver cooling - is this a mystery or something obvious?

If it is a mystery, could there be some sort of heat exchanger placed in the t-tray that's advantageous weight distribution wise? I was under the impression they previously situated the fuel tank in the t-tray

Finally on point 2: I believe Kyle Engineers' video on the RB18 has some interesting thoughts about their design choices on this part of the car. It's also maybe possible there's something more radical planned which they didn't want to show? Seems unlikely though

[vorticism]

On point 1: this isn't the car comparison thread, but I have some points on the vertical slot. Mercedes and RB both have an opening with similar placement at the anterior face of the t-tray...

If it is a mystery, could there be some sort of heat exchanger placed in the t-tray that's advantageous weight distribution wise? I was under the impression they previously situated the fuel tank in the t-tray

RB had what seemed to be a fluid vessel in that region, last year. Whatever it is, if for cooling, the cooling needs must not be that great given the size of the inlet. That said, the Merc aperture is much larger than what we see on the RB18.

[vorticism]

I've wondered if this single control arm is supported by bushings and actually "floating" inside the chassis. If you didn't know they were using it as a control arm, you'd also think it was just a roll bar. My own vehicle has a very similar looking cross member which is single piece, mounted to chassis with rubber bushing, and mounted to each upright. It's the anti-roll bar . But I don't know why you would want to couple the roll stiffness tuning to a cumbersome component like a control arm. It's much easier to tune roll stiffness from the adjustment mechanism on the rocker assembly inside the chassis.

That seems to be the case on last year's car. If acting as a leaf spring the question may be to what degree? It may be slight to the extent of acting more like a helper spring supplementing the torsion bars at full suspension droop. If higher rate, then relieving the pushrods and associated components to some degree, as you point out.

If the outboard end of the arm/leaf has its mounting point off-axis then an axial moment could also be introduced, making it more of a torsion spring or torsion/leaf hybrid.

[AR3-GP]

Does anyone have good shots of the rear suspension?

[Henk_v]

This thread is an interesting read! I previously posted how I thought the tea tray would flex

For me there are a few notable bits of news;

-The FIA stated it would not be hesitant to act if solutions are found that are not within the spirit of the rules.
It would thus be a big incentive for teams to keep their cards close to the chest and be very late with disclosure. The FIA can probably not change rules based on submitted CAD files with a request to validate its legality. It would need teams to actually run those configurations as they can not disclose something that has not been in the public domain. If I were a team, I'd swamp the FIA with requests, leaving them clueless about my real intentions. Probably such requests will not have full context and therefore it is impossible for the FIA to know if they are bullshitted, or is a certain feature really yields an advantage. Teams can use this to yank the chain of the FIA and try to find out how fast the cat strikes?

-Yesterday the FIA acknowleged that some of the submitted CAD requests for a legality check where not "within the spirit of the rules". I found the similarity in language used striking. It would be my guess the FIA is preparing to act.

-Both MB and RB keep saying their cars will look "very different" when they appear in the grid for the first race.

To me it seems something is up. With the FIA stating it would swiftly act, the cat-and-mouse game is on. If any team found a rulebuster, they would not even run it in practice runs.
This would necessitate testing the car without these features. Within that logic, they would need a testing setup that yields sensible data. Therefore some of the features we see might not be a goal, but a means.

In a further stretch of the imagination, a team can add parts that are "harmless", but might lead the FIA (and other teams) to chase the wrong mouse. What if the extended sidepod intake of RB is just receiving a neutral flow of air and does nothing really for the aero?

[Henk_v]

I've wondered if this single control arm is supported by bushings and actually "floating" inside the chassis. If you didn't know they were using it as a control arm, you'd also think it was just a roll bar. My own vehicle has a very similar looking cross member which is single piece, mounted to chassis with rubber bushing, and mounted to each upright. It's the anti-roll bar . But I don't know why you would want to couple the roll stiffness tuning to a cumbersome component like a control arm. It's much easier to tune roll stiffness from the adjustment mechanism on the rocker assembly inside the chassis.

That seems to be the case on last year's car. If acting as a leaf spring the question may be to what degree? It may be slight to the extent of acting more like a helper spring supplementing the torsion bars at full suspension droop. If higher rate, then relieving the pushrods and associated components to some degree, as you point out.

If the outboard end of the arm/leaf has its mounting point off-axis then an axial moment could also be introduced, making it more of a torsion spring or torsion/leaf hybrid.

Or it is just there to cope with compressive loads. You can clearly see the crash structure is lower that the upper arm connection. This is a very common engineering sulution and probably far lighter that enlarging the crash structure. It might even be that the attachment point was lower initially and this is the way to do it without voiding crash test result.

[PlatinumZealot]

Is there any way this arm can torque under particular loads changing wheel angles?

Potentially it could deflect fore and aft in addition to up and down, depending on its cross sectional shape and how the other half of the A-arm is arranged. You end up with a more complex motion at the outer end of the suspension arm. To what benefit, though?

Not really related, but I noticed it has a cable/wire running along it, attached via a couple of bosses. Not sure if that is just typical sensor routing.

From a mechanical point of view, I know that ball joints are hard and transmit shock directly. When teams uses a flexure for the suspension mounts, it is definitely not for better articulation, so I think the flexture is for dampening and reducing shocks transmitted to the A-arms. Should help with steering feel and suspension characteristics too.

[vorticism]

Could be although I've never seen, as it relates, a compliant suspension bushing in modern F1 suspensions.

[Rodak]

The upper front wishbone is one-piece! Similar solution to what was used for the lower wishbone on some mid-2000s cars before “zero keel” was a thing.

No it's not, it is an A-arm. The rear chassis mount is lower than the front for anti-dive so the rear arm it isn't visible from some viewpoints as it is hidden by the front arm. Look at a vertical shot and you'll easily see it both the front and rear parts of the wishbone.

Take a look at this Motorsport.com link...
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... 2/4888860/

Edited to add: Sorry, I misunderstood the comment and thought the poster was suggesting the upper arm was a single piece with no rear component, not that the front part was a continuous arm across the car.

[ScrewCaptain27]

Is there any way this arm can torque under particular loads changing wheel angles?

Potentially it could deflect fore and aft in addition to up and down, depending on its cross sectional shape and how the other half of the A-arm is arranged. You end up with a more complex motion at the outer end of the suspension arm. To what benefit, though?

Not really related, but I noticed it has a cable/wire running along it, attached via a couple of bosses. Not sure if that is just typical sensor routing.

https://i.imgur.com/3HK6IM5.jpg

From a mechanical point of view, I know that ball joints are hard and transmit shock directly. When teams uses a flexure for the suspension mounts, it is definitely not for better articulation, so I think the flexture is for dampening and reducing shocks transmitted to the A-arms. Should help with steering feel and suspension characteristics too.

IIRC Ferrari was the first to use flexure rather than ball joints in the mid-1990s. It was mainly for aero and weight reasons. They are also frictionless.

[BassVirolla]

Is there any way this arm can torque under particular loads changing wheel angles?

Potentially it could deflect fore and aft in addition to up and down, depending on its cross sectional shape and how the other half of the A-arm is arranged. You end up with a more complex motion at the outer end of the suspension arm. To what benefit, though?

Not really related, but I noticed it has a cable/wire running along it, attached via a couple of bosses. Not sure if that is just typical sensor routing.

https://i.imgur.com/3HK6IM5.jpg

From a mechanical point of view, I know that ball joints are hard and transmit shock directly. When teams uses a flexure for the suspension mounts, it is definitely not for better articulation, so I think the flexture is for dampening and reducing shocks transmitted to the A-arms. Should help with steering feel and suspension characteristics too.

Now that the ruleset is strongly restricting the suspensions, makes sense to use composite leaf springs, and avoid the use (weight + packaging) of torsion bars or springs, and let the push / pull rods being only for dampening purposes?

I know that for "sporty" / "racing" applications exist such composite leafs, but I don't know if in single seaters this makes any sense...

[vorticism]

Or it is just there to cope with compressive loads.

Any sort of internal bracing would provide the same effect. So then, why go through the trouble of making a unified arm? On the RB16B it did appear to be a continuous part.

[ringo]

What i notice with this car is not just how high the upper arm is, but also the spacing between it and the lower arms.
The pushrod designs such as on the aston the two arms have a narrow space in between compared to this car.
Also the steering link angle seems to be very steep. If im not confusing the steering link from the rear arm.
Interesting suspension design but i guess we will see how it works on track and why they did what they did with the arms.