Formula One's Next Frontier: Active Suspension and Aerodynamics?

"Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V)" (gaborvajda) 04/16/2014 at 06:18 • Filed to: formula one, f1, formula 1, active suspension, active aerodynamics, turbo

5

25

It has been a five-year journey since F1 started its energy efficiency campaign with the introduction of KERS in 2009 and has stepped up to a completely new level with the reintroduction of turbocharging and the use of other energy recovery systems this year. Is this the end of it? Apparently not.

First of all, it has to be discussed whether talking about efficiency at such a highly energy-consuming and dependent sport is a viable stance. I think it is, because it is the message that matters. Yes, some people use private jets to get to the arenas, yes, some races are run under the lights, but nevertheless the new F1 cars do a very decent job in harnessing all the otherwise waste energy and are more efficient than ever before. It is the marketing department that has to do its job getting said point across to the general audience - and apparently failing at it.

However, the machinery has not stopped marching down the path they started on, as this short piece from !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! would suggest:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Formula 1 teams considering lifting ban on active suspension

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

By Dieter Rencken and Jonathan NobleTuesday, April 15th 2014, 12:32 GMT

F1's use of gizmos was pegged back after reaching its wildest heights in 1993. Formula 1 teams are considering lifting the ban on active suspension as part of a move to control costs, AUTOSPORT has learned.

With F1's Strategy Group having decided against a cost cap, it is instead looking at alternative ways to keep spending under control.

And one of the proposals being evaluated is to allow active suspension back in F1 for the first time since 1993 (pictured).

The belief is that the electronic technology would actually be more cost effective for teams in terms of achieving the optimum car set-up than the current complicated mechanical-only systems.

The move is being considered for 2017, and could come in at the same time as a switch to 18-inch tyre rims.

AUTOSPORT understands that a number of other short and long-term proposals are being evaluated by the Strategy Group for implementation over the next few years.

They include efforts to simplify parts of the car where there is currently vast expense, including in the fuel system, crash structures, the front wing design, inter-connected front and rear suspension, and brake ducts.

There could also be tweaks to the GP weekend curfew hours and further reductions on staff numbers allowed at races.

Now, the argument of the article is harnessing budget, however - with a bit of thinking -, it can easily be translated into an efficiency matter:

18-inch wheels, so the power these engines generate do not translate into smoke, but rather speed

Active suspension, because mechanical ones are more difficult to set up at this level and are not quite as good getting the power down to the track

Having said that - when talking about churning out the most you can of a moving car - one might consider: "Why do they have those wings that serve as massive air brakes on straights?"

"Moveable aerodynamic devices" are banned in F1 - just as active suspension systems - except one single feature, the DRS. The Drag Reduction System was born partly out of a poll the FIA made among F1 fans upon asking whether they wanted to see more passes. They did, so they deprived the cars from a significant amount of downforce to minimise turbulent air behind them and made the rear flaps moveable later on - fitted with some debatable rules about their use. The other reason they were introduced was because McLaren was quick enough to come up with the F-duct, a simple rubber duct through the length of the car, channelling air to stall the rear wing at will. In other words, it was made to stop teams making cars that would be like cheese on wheels. McLaren's solution was upped by Mercedes creating the double-DRS, a very similar solution to McLaren's, only the air was directed from the rear to the front of the car, stalling the front wing as a consequence, and was activated by opening the rear wing in a DRS-OK situation.

Wings are there on the car to generate more downforce - hence drag by nature - in corners for higher speeds, but it also slows the car down on straights, making it burning even more fuel to retain its intended speed. And this might not be the message F1 wants to get through in the future.

Setting up a car for a track is a compromise. Especially with aerodynamics. Too much downforce - fast through slow corners, but limping through straights. Too little of it, blasting when the steering wheel is not turned, but then heavy braking into corners, hopping carefully around them. The solution is somewhere between the two 99% of the time - depending on the driver's style and the needs of the track. The sorcery is finding the best compromise that generates the best lap times. And that is not all, because you need qualifying and race setups independently. You can either go out to qualify with less downforce, tossing the car around, but for over more than 5 laps it becomes tiring, and kills the tyres. Thus a racing setup is not aimed to make the best out of one lap, but of e.g. 20-40-50 of them.

Using a sensible active aerodynamic system would result in much less compromise in setting up a car. It would not be about the ideal package for one lap, or several laps, but one section of the track at a time.

Finding the right balance for the car would be much more controlled by the driver and best of all it could be adapted constantly to the actual track, tyre and race conditions at the moment being. At the same time, it would be more efficient on fuel consumption, i.e. achieving higher speeds for the same amount of fuel or getting to the same speed for less fuel - it is again the job of marketing people to sell the idea, same as with turbos with the outbreak of the downsize craze. In the 80s turbos meant "rampaging power", not it translates to "green power".

Same story here. The trend in F1 has been going through an engine-revision about each decade and when teams are able to get the most out of the engines, there is a chassis-revamp during the in-between periods.

Now that the new engines are still being work-in-progress, a freeze in development could be expected in a couple of years' time. Once the FIA claims to have gotten to the point of not being able to make the current engines any more economical and freeze-frames it for years to come, it has to come up with other solutions to continue the "greener" and "cheaper" campaign.

Active suspension and larger tyres definitely fit the concept and the FIA would miss a touchdown by skipping the idea of active aerodynamics as the know-how is there and being more or less already present in F1 and would be quite cheap to pull off.

How would you make F1 faster, but more economical and cheaper?

All images are of Creative Commons licence

getchapopcorn > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 04/16/2014 at 06:30

0

Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) > getchapopcorn 04/16/2014 at 06:31

0

Okay, what was your second thought then?

getchapopcorn > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 04/16/2014 at 06:31

1

The day active suspension is back is the day I'm done with the sport.

Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) > getchapopcorn 04/16/2014 at 06:34

0

It is as much "cheating" as wings, ground effects, traction control and flappy-paddle gearboxes. Some of these are accepted, some of them are not. Why?

PardonMyFlemish16 > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 04/16/2014 at 08:00

1

I am not an F1 person at all but I am a total car tech geek. I agree with the article's premise. 1 set of cross linked magnetorheological shocks, 1 set of continually adaptable air springs, fully active aero, and the option to use a "cheap" spec ECU to control it all or go your own way

Would drop lap times and costs big time and would enable a huge tech transfer to road cars. Everyone wins.

You can't have prototype road car racing and ban any non conventional technology teams want to prototype

Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) > PardonMyFlemish16 04/16/2014 at 08:05

0

Thank you.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 04/16/2014 at 08:19

0

Oh and excellent article... made it very clear even for folks who have zero knowledge/interest in the sport. I like what F1 is about but I just don't have the attention span to actually sit down and watch the races these days. I keep up with it by reading about it. MotoGP gives me my motorsport fix.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > getchapopcorn 04/16/2014 at 08:32

0

You're probably either a) not watching anyways or b) going to watch if/when it happens but bitch all the time about how "the old ways were better" when no one passed, one team dominated and it was horribly boring to watch.

getchapopcorn > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 04/16/2014 at 08:55

1

I had typed out a long response to this this morning but it seems Kinja wasn't having any of it.

Basically the gist was:

I feel the same way about Traction control; I stopped watching from 2002-2007. Personally I'd prefer DRS to be gone because I the think the size wing you choose to run at each race brings with it the benefits of downforce and negatives of drag. That being said, I think it has been overall good for the sport in that it has allowed for increased passing, something which is always a good thing for ignorant or not-overly-interested television fans and spectators alike. Ground effects and wings I see as ways of giving the driver more control over his car but the car still being completely reliant on the driver to put the car in the correct spot at the correct speed with the correct balance. The driver and the team, with all of their information, had the time to set up the car and if they didn't take advantage of them then either they need to have a driver that can roll with the punches or do a better job next time. If the name of the game is just going faster, then why not completely get rid of the driver and just have a software war on the track? To quote you, "why not?" Both Prost and Hill have repeatedly said that the car was basically boring and that all they had to do in the FW15c was turn the wheel and step on the gas. Every person has to draw their own line in the sand somewhere and, for me, traction control, active suspension, or movable aero devices are where I draw the line.

Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) > getchapopcorn 04/16/2014 at 09:20

2

I accept the argument, but in my opinion these technological advancements just narrow the gap between excellent and crap drivers. Because - in the end - there is a person sitting in there. Also, you should consider, it's been over 20 years since active suspension has been banned. Mechanical suspensions have come a long way since, outperforming cars of those days by a large margin.

MonkeePuzzle > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 04/16/2014 at 09:27

2

woot!

its THE top tier of motorsports, it SHOULD be leading the way in eefficiency and technology.

Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) > MonkeePuzzle 04/16/2014 at 09:29

0

Quite right, but not at any costs. Back then it was hugely expensive, now they claim it to be the cheaper option. After all, there's nothing new in it.

getchapopcorn > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 04/16/2014 at 10:40

0

I agree that the gap between excellent and crap drivers needs to be lessened but I don't think something like this is the best way to go about it. The sad truth is there are a lot better drivers out there who either 1) want nothing to do with the sport because of the politics or 2) don't get a seat because of money issues. Perhaps a ban on 'pay drivers' would be the way to go about it.

Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) > getchapopcorn 04/16/2014 at 11:28

0

Nah, the main argument is reducing costs anyway. Teams hire pay drivers not because they want to, but have to. All cost-cutting measures would mean a higher driver standard in the long run, but yet closer racing IMHO.

tromoly > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 04/16/2014 at 18:40

1

Ground Effects is banned because of the danger it imposes on drivers when suddenly all that downforce is lost. For example, when the ride height is perfect for maximum ground effect everything is fine, but then when a bump is encountered suddenly that ride height is lowered and airflow under the car is squeezed out, resulting in a loss of downforce and a majority of car control. Porpoising is one example, albeit less extreme but still annoying.

Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) > tromoly 04/17/2014 at 00:19

0

Right.

DConsorti > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 04/17/2014 at 09:58

0

Well, since they want to cut the cost, and still be efficient and economical, why not just ban every single tech gizmo? (put on a helmet!)

Ban drs, kers, restrict the aerodinamics...

My personal opinion is that F1 is suposed to be a lab for technology, and thinking of this, we shouldn't have ban on anything... you want to put active suspension, you can.... wan't traction control, you got it!

But to have a competitive formula, you have the ballast! So, in the qualy you did 4 secs better the the last position, you have 120kg more weight than him!

And to prevent "sandbag", if you perform 10% better in the race when compared to the qualy, you be automatic disqualified!

Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) > DConsorti 04/17/2014 at 12:29

0

Yes, but you just simply can't do that. It would kill F1 quicker than you'd think of farting after a burrito.

Phlegminglib > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 04/17/2014 at 12:37

0

Go JB!!

spngr311 > MonkeePuzzle 04/17/2014 at 13:19

0

This, exactly this. It is the top tier of motorsports and should use all of technology available.

daender > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 04/17/2014 at 16:30

0

Fuck yeah! Bring on another crazy era once again!

FormerInstants > PardonMyFlemish16 04/17/2014 at 16:54

0

"You can't have prototype road car racing and ban any non conventional technology teams want to prototype"

This right here, exactly! I mean, F1 is not prototype racing, but I'm totally with you on the idea. The McLaren P1 has more power and more technology in it than the McLaren MP4-29, and that I think is a truly sad state of affairs for F1.

MFEJAL grey because who knows... > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 04/17/2014 at 17:48

0

These proposed changes are to make those crap drivers with full pockets faster. There's a lot of rich guys (and maybe some girl) wanting to have a FIA Superlicense, and they have their familie's money to buy seats at ANY team. What we are witnessing is the mutation of Formula 1 from being the elite to being another racing series. It will happen in a few years. We can only hope another real open wheel series replaces it as the pinnacle of drivers.

Mike > DConsorti 04/23/2014 at 14:02

1

Bernie, is that you?

DConsorti > Mike 04/23/2014 at 14:28

0

nope... But I wish I had his money though (or at least was dating his daughter!)