Pull-rod for every other team next year?

[xpensive]

Sadly enough, F1 is all about aero these days and I guess that the pull-rod layout helps the rear in that respect,
but in the front, I doubt if moving a couple of kilos 300 mm down will be worth the bother with adjustments?

The funny thing is that Ferrari earlier did everything they possibly could in order to retain their rear push-rods.

[rssh]

It is difficult to mount pull rod suspension with a high nose and chassie and the lower COG is really not that much helpfull due to front downforce from the front wings , may be it is a bit better in low speed corners but that it . The best use of Pull rod is obtained in the low nose configuration (ala pre spain MACCA) and its more suitable for 2014 season with mandatory lower noses . I don't think that teams will try to revise the front push rod suspension because they have already good knowledge of the push rod in the front and for 2013 season we are likely to see 2012 type higher chassie F1 cars .

Ferrari has sorted out the pull rod nicely this season but one cannot expect it to be an advantage as such (clean aero sure) to the push rod setup.

[Nando]

Now that i think about it, would it not be great to see every team next year go pull rod.

From an Xpensive point of view i think it would be awesome to see
I look forward to more one-liners on the cars performances

[Nando]

Sadly enough, F1 is all about aero these days and I guess that the pull-rod layout helps the rear in that respect,
but in the front, I doubt if moving a couple of kilos 300 mm down will be worth the bother with adjustments?

The funny thing is that Ferrari earlier did everything they possibly could in order to retain their rear push-rods.

Because of adjustability.

But from what i remember definitely an aero-advantage, just like pull rod at the front.
It interacts much better with the wake coming of the front wing according to former aerodynamicist Tombazis.

[marcush.]

to retain things just because you did it like that is as valid as following other peoples lead without really understanding the reasons for their decision to follow that concept.
With a high cof g at the front it does make sense to put everything as low as possible ,but is it a fact that pushrod leads itself to a raised cof g compared to a pullrod setup? I´d say if you have 35kg of tungsten buried into the teatray it does not matter much if your 500 gramme front suspension rocker is mounted 200m up or down.
I also don´t buy the installation stiffness or adjustability drawbacks ...it´s simply more involved to package .
the awkward forward angling of the pullrod with RedBulls package is telling quite a story of priorities in suspension design ?

[munudeges]

The aerodynamic advantage at the front is debatable. At the rear it's pretty clear that a push-rod interferes with the diffuser under the 2009 regulations (despite the double diffuser 'detour') because it's so much closer to it. The only immediate benefit I could see a front pull-rod having is better unrestricted cooling air to the radiator intakes. Even then though, you have the wishbones which on the Ferrari need to be much thicker and stronger and at a slightly steeper angle, so that's not good. It's impossible to speculate just how much of an effect it is having aerodynamically at the rear of the car but it's a lot of effort to got to with a lot of variables. Centre of gravity is important, but given the height of the nose and the obvious strengthening required you're going to negate that quite quickly, especially at the front.

If there is some brilliantly wonderful aerodynamic advantage to it that trumps all cons that we haven't seen yet it should quickly become apparent, but I don't see it in the same way as at the rear.

[DaveKillens]

Even if it's a case of "monkey see, monkey do" kind of thing, who's the team leading the Constructors' Championship?

Even though Ferrari are second in the Constructors' Championship, few can argue that most of their success came not from the car, but Alonso and the team's excellent application of good tactics and execution.

[marcush.]

I bet you could leave Ferrari with a HRT 112 and they could develop it into something capable in a few months..

back to pullrod ..I see a lot of potential in it really at the front ..the one thing that did not go into my brain was the scrub -track change being enough and useful to get satisfactory suspension travel and response.
But then we have seen those impossible wishbone downward angling for years ..(Toyota starting the trend ?) and it worked .

[Nando]

Even if it's a case of "monkey see, monkey do" kind of thing, who's the team leading the Constructors' Championship?

Even though Ferrari are second in the Constructors' Championship, few can argue that most of their success came not from the car, but Alonso and the team's excellent application of good tactics and execution.

One could argue Massa has been struggling but recently has shown great form again.

4th place in Silverstone and actually challenged Vettel there for a minute.

Obviously Alonso pulled his part but the reason Ferrari is not leading the contructors could be due to Massa not being competitive in the beginning.

[marcush.]

Massa has admitted to having personal psychological issues already and now has found confidence again also because of the improved form of the car.

[Nando]

Massa has admitted to having personal psychological issues already and now has found confidence again also because of the improved form of the car.

I would to had i been through that crash then come back and consistently do a poor job.

but i have to say i´m the first one to shoot down Massa when he self-inflicts spins out on track but with that said, it´s great to see him "back" again.

Even if it´s his last year at Ferrari i hope it continues like this, Alonso will need him if he wants to clinch this title.

[Lycoming]

Sadly enough, F1 is all about aero these days and I guess that the pull-rod layout helps the rear in that respect,
but in the front, I doubt if moving a couple of kilos 300 mm down will be worth the bother with adjustments?

It's done primarily for aero. the gains in CoG are far too small to be worth it. If they didn't think there was an aero improvement, they would not bother.

Additionnally, my understanding is that the aformentioned aero gain is lost with a low nose. The aero gain comes from the pullrod being nearly horizontal. This DOES NOT make it more suitable on a low nose car like everybody keeps saying.

I also don´t buy the installation stiffness or adjustability drawbacks ...it´s simply more involved to package .

Pretty much.

the awkward forward angling of the pullrod with RedBulls package is telling quite a story of priorities in suspension design ?

Sums up F1 suspension design for probably the past 20 years. Active suspension was purely for aero gain too, don't forget.

With a high cof g at the front it does make sense to put everything as low as possible ,but is it a fact that pushrod leads itself to a raised cof g compared to a pullrod setup? I´d say if you have 35kg of tungsten buried into the teatray it does not matter much if your 500 gramme front suspension rocker is mounted 200m up or down.

It's not that simple. The torsion springs and ARBs move down as well. The reinforced point in the monocoque where these point loads are fed into the chassis moves down as well. The dampers move down a smaller amount in the ferrari setup, as I understand it. The top wishbone gets heavier because it now takes a much larger compressive load. the pullrod itself is lighter and sits lower than in a pushrod config.

Ferrari claims a weight and CoG improvement but like I said above, its done mainly for aero. Those 2 improvements alone are too small and not worth the time when you could probably reuse the previous year's tooling for the components.

The aerodynamic advantage at the front is debatable.

Which is why I don't think teams will be chomping at the bit to adopt it. The improvement all around is very small. It primarily benefits the car from the way it interacts with the front wing's wake.

[Nando]

Active suspension was purely for aero gain too, don't forget.

I don´t know for sure but was it purely for aero or was it designed purely with aero in mind?

I believe the car could roll inwards instead of out which should aid the mechanical grip right?

[marcush.]

but if there is an improvement to the front wwings wake this IS an advanatage also for the rest of the car ..and ever so small it must be an overall gain ...so for no unsurmountable drawback you might find a .001 gain in drag and downforce ..so why bother?

[PlatinumZealot]

The aerodynamic advantage at the front is debatable.

It is a no brainier for me. It has a very logical aero advantage.