2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

[hemichromis]

Am i wrong to think that this technical directive is all about intent.
If the suspension works a certain way to yield an aerodynamic advantage it's illegal
If it works in a way that creates an aero advantage as a side effect it is legal. Correct?

If so, how can Mr Whiting know the intention of the engineers who built it?

[dans79]

Am i wrong to think that this technical directive is all about intent.
If the suspension works a certain way to yield an aerodynamic advantage it's illegal
If it works in a way that creates an aero advantage as a side effect it is legal. Correct?

If so, how can Mr Whiting know the intention of the engineers who built it?

The hole "intent" line of thinking is just how piss poor rule creators make up for their lack of ability.

Every suspension known to man yields some amount of aerodynamic advantage. Not to mention lots of existing F1 suspension components yield an aerodynamic advantage. Take something as simple as the control arms for example, they are shaped the way they are because it reduces drag.

[Gridlock]

It's not just aero here, it's tyre care. And that's not illegal.

[Gothrek]

Another episode in this suspension soap opera:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... -consensus

Formula 1 teams have failed to reach an agreement on the legality of trick suspension systems, with a ruling now expected from the FIA before the start of pre-season testing.

[godlameroso]

Another episode in this suspension soap opera:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... -consensus

Formula 1 teams have failed to reach an agreement on the legality of trick suspension systems, with a ruling now expected from the FIA before the start of pre-season testing.

2 weeks to make a decision? Way to give teams a heads up before testing Charlie.

[bill shoe]

It's like the current players are intentionally displaying dysfunctional governance for Liberty Media so that John Malone, Chase Carry, et al. will quickly identify that major changes are needed.

Like a murderer who feels emotional relief when they're finally caught by the police.

[rgava]

The base problem IMHO is that, if we take literally this phracing of the rules:
"any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car"
Then, suspensión should be banned completelly, because "it influences the areodynamic performance", mostly in a negative way, but it does.

[dans79]

The base problem IMHO is that, if we take literally this phracing of the rules:
"any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car"
Then, suspensión should be banned completelly, because "it influences the areodynamic performance", mostly in a negative way, but it does.

Even then you have to define immobile, as nothing is infinitely ridged.

[DaveW]

Is anyone else more confused about what is and isn't legal than when this all began?

I think the real problem is that the Rules & TD's are draughted by people who don't understand the physics of a suspension. I would include many senior F1 engineers in that category.."

And here is another example (Autosport February 14th 2017):
Boullier believes active suspension - which was key to Williams's 1992 and '93 world championships - could be the solution to end the debate.
"Suspension, it's a funny topic," he said.
"We should maybe one day stop it and copy the road car, which is to bring active suspension back, because at least it will close the debate.
"Today, everything is subject to the interpretation of the regulation and then you can push for one concept, which you can see can be differently interpreted from another one.

I can't think that change would end the debate, funny or otherwise.

[FW17]

Funny

In 1994 one of the reasons for banning was cost. Now being talked about to reduce cost.

[Thunder]

Well Software Development and active Damper technology has made Huge Strides over the last 23 Years. Pretty sure active Suspensions would be way cheaper than anything RB and Merc put into their Suspensions.

[Gridlock]

Funny

In 1994 one of the reasons for banning was cost. Now being talked about to reduce cost.

To be fair I'd imagine a Raspberry Pi outclasses whatever was running the AS back then.

[DaveW]

To be fair I'd imagine a Raspberry Pi outclasses whatever was running the AS back then.

Mmm, I've not used a Raspberry Pi, but I doubt that statement is true. In any case, the processor is just one element of the control system. The time delay introduced by the processor was down to around 150 microseconds in 1987

[turbof1]

To be fair I'd imagine a Raspberry Pi outclasses whatever was running the AS back then.

Mmm, I've not used a Raspberry Pi, but I doubt that statement is true. In any case, the processor is just one element of the control system. The time delay introduced by the processor was down to around 150 microseconds in 1987

We are talking about 23 years ago. Even if it had more processing power, they carried around 20+ kg of computing hardware around just for the suspension. A Raspberry weights 31 grams.

[LookBackTime]

Eric Boullier:

"
When asked about the saga, Boullier said, “Today we have very restrictive chassis regulations. That means you have many ideas that can be interpreted differently within the scope of the regulations. This is why Ferrari insists upon its opinion.”

“We are very neutral,” he is quoted by Spox. “An agreement has been reached with the FIA, which is that we have to adhere to the existing rules but disclose our procedures in more detail. To be honest, one day we should just end it and copy road cars and bring back active suspension,” added Boullier.
"