- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Team: Tim Goss (director of engineering), Paddy Lowe (TD), Neil Oatley (DRD), Martin Whitmarsh (TP), Jonathan Neale (MD), Sam Michael (SD)
Drivers: Jenson Button (5), Sergio Pérez (6)
It is.stefan_ wrote:Isn't that the part that Whitmarsh said it didn't fail once in 15 years or something like that?
ringo wrote:
I notice that the pullrods allow the use of wider A arm member cross sections for downforce gain.
A push rod passes through the tip end of the "A" of the upper A arm, the smaller end with less space. As can be seen on the car on the left.
This means the arm width of the 2 members at the wheel end has to be reduced to accommodate the pushrod passing through. The pushrod definitely interferes with the small area at the upright/wheel end of the A arms. See the smaller upper arms on the Mp427. Compare them to the lower arms as well...
For the pull rod now, the rod goes from under the tip of the A, so you can make the arm width as wide as you want. The rod doesn't pass through the plane of the upper A arm. It is attached underneath.
When it passes down toward the lower A arm it goes to the open end of the "A" which has a lot of area so there is no compromise and the arms can still be made as wide as possible. The pull rod itself can be made thick if needs be for aero gain since it doesn't pass through any narrow gaps like a pull rod.
Note that the upper arms are equally as wide as the lower arms on the 28.
So as you can see there is a no compromise approach to arm cross section width and thus, suspension member aerodynamics.
The decision to go with pull rod is definitely an aerodynamic one on many fronts:
More surface area on the A arms for aerodynamic exploitation.
Less obstruction on the side of the chassis,
Less obstruction on brake duct aerodynamics and area efficiency.
Have anyone noticed that letter "E" is missing from Vodafone near nose section where the panel is fixed.Maybe they will test without the panel sometime later during the test.
