Is active suspension a good idea?

[jefezilla]

I read an article a few days ago that made the point that active suspension could be a good idea in F1. When it was banned, it was because every team other than Williams was freaking out about the cost. It seems like it would be easier for all teams to implement these days, though.
For anybody who doesn't know, the idea behind it is to anticipate changes in road surface and elevation, and adjust the behavior of the car accordingly. I don't know what Williams used to anticipate the road, but Lotus had the idea of using lasers or possibly radar to scan the road ahead. Williams' system was so effective, they used the system on the previous seasons' car and were able to easily capture the championship.
This makes me think it would work well for a couple of reasons. First off, The last major change to F1's tech regulations were largely put in place to reduce the cars' dependency on aero. Seems like this would do the trick. Better handling without aero means tighter racing and more efficiency. Secondly, if racing needs to be relevant to road cars, this could certainly help F1. Plenty of companies use electronically adjustable dampers on road cars, and active suspension seems the next logical step. And of course, there are active cruise control systems that scan traffic and adjust speed accordingly.
Just kicking the idea around in my head. Thoughts?

[Bruce D]

Well I'm not sure if you read the March 2012 issue of Motor Sport Magazine, if not that I really suggest you do as it gives a brilliant article from Patrick Head about how the whole active suspension came about. The main reason for it being used then was to control the car's ride height to benefit the aerodynamics of the car. Now I'm not saying what you say about it benefiting mechanical grip is wrong, but the main reason it was used before was for aero, not mechanical. By keeping the ride height at optimum settings for each corner the grip was massively increased. Whereas with "passive" suspensions you need to compromise the settings to find what is best over the balance of the lap / fuel loads / whatever, active suspension could be programmed for each corner and adjust itself according to fuel loads or whatever the conditions were.

Would it be beneficial today? Hmm, personally I'd say no, it's just another cost (although the relative costs today would be much less compared to back then), and just takes away one more variable in performance that makes the racing more interesting. I do however agree totally with your statement that better handling (mechanical) would make better racing.

[fandango]

Is active suspension a good idea? No.

Bring back gear sticks and round steering wheels, I say...

[jefezilla]

The main reason for it being used then was to control the car's ride height to benefit the aerodynamics of the car. Now I'm not saying what you say about it benefiting mechanical grip is wrong, but the main reason it was used before was for aero, not mechanical. By keeping the ride height at optimum settings for each corner the grip was massively increased. Whereas with "passive" suspensions you need to compromise the settings to find what is best over the balance of the lap / fuel loads / whatever, active suspension could be programmed for each corner and adjust itself according to fuel loads or whatever the conditions were.

Good point. I know it was originally intended to aid aero, and I was thinking more along the lines of using it to increase mechanical grip. Though, I guess if they were allowed to use it at all, it would probably be pretty difficult to ensure that teams weren't using it with the intent of aiding aero.

What other ways are there for F1 to get better grip while downsizing the wings? At least for the rear end, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYBODY to use blown diffusers. It would be possible to achieve good downforce at the rear and still be able to suck up on somebody going into a curve. I don't know about front-end grip, though. The combination of inerters and tires with fatty sidewalls is a step in the right direction.

[zako85]

Personally, I think the less technological driver aids there are, the better. The motor racing sports should be primarily about driver skill, good team work, and good strategy.

[jefezilla]

Agreed, but there's a difference between adding grip and having the car do the drivers' job. If you shun technology, for whatever reason, you end up like nascar, technologically irrelevant in the opposite direction.
I'm not hating on nascar, but that's not what F1 is supposed to be.

[D-Type]

What we need is less grip not more grip. If the speed of the car exceeds the available grip it puts a premium on driving skill and you don't get the farcical situation we have today when an average competent driver can set pole and win a race ahead of drivers of significantly greater ability. Although possibly past his best, I don't believe Schumacher is as much slower as his qualifying andrace results suggest.
The downside is that the racing is more predictable and not so close but this is balanced by the greater spectacle.

[ArrowsFA1]

What we need is less grip not more grip.
Indeed, but then Gilles Villeneuve was saying that more than 30yrs ago!!

[Mia 01]

The rumour is that McLaren are trying such a device on its car, the rumour is also that it´s that who caused Jensons problems lately.

[jefezilla]

What we need is less grip not more grip. If the speed of the car exceeds the available grip it puts a premium on driving skill and you don't get the farcical situation we have today when an average competent driver can set pole and win a race ahead of drivers of significantly greater ability. Although possibly past his best, I don't believe Schumacher is as much slower as his qualifying andrace results suggest.
The downside is that the racing is more predictable and not so close but this is balanced by the greater spectacle.



I'm not talking about more grip outright, but maintaining the same grip without being so affected by dirty air from other cars. Wouldn't that make the racing tighter?

[call_me_andrew]

I've been led to believe it was banned as a safety measure after Senna's death.

[Bruce D]

It was banned before Senna's death.

[wedge]

Well I'm not sure if you read the March 2012 issue of Motor Sport Magazine, if not that I really suggest you do as it gives a brilliant article from Patrick Head about how the whole active suspension came about. The main reason for it being used then was to control the car's ride height to benefit the aerodynamics of the car.


Interesting Head pointed out that it was Ferrari's insistence (their version was crap) than the popular line of Senna's dislike of driver aids (and/or that McLaren were inferior).

[quote="Bruce D":3q87pies]Would it be beneficial today? Hmm, personally I'd say no, it's just another cost (although the relative costs today would be much less compared to back then), and just takes away one more variable in performance that makes the racing more interesting. I do however agree totally with your statement that better handling (mechanical) would make better racing.[/quote:3q87pies]

If wings were banned definitely, maybe though I'd prefer the passive/Lotus system.

[SGWilko]

The rumour is that McLaren are trying such a device on its car, the rumour is also that it´s that who caused Jensons problems lately.

I doubt it. If they are using such a passive system (active is banned) it is crap, as the car is as stiff as a pubescent lad at a nubile convention.

[Bruce D]

Interesting Head pointed out that it was Ferrari's insistence (their version was crap) than the popular line of Senna's dislike of driver aids (and/or that McLaren were inferior).

I remember the talk of the time and it was definately more a case of Ferrari getting it banned than anything else. It was claimed as a cost issue at the time. Mind you it was also technically a safety issue, just ask Mansell how many times it sent him belly flopping down the road at high speed in testing! Yes Senna did dislike all the driver aids, as did Prost for that matter, but I do remember the McLaren to be claimed as the most technically advanced of the lot at the time, even better than the Williams, but Williams had the Renault engine versus McLaren with the Ford customer engine. Benetton were also right up there in the end, they even had four wheel steering by the end.

[wedge]

but I do remember the McLaren to be claimed as the most technically advanced of the lot at the time, even better than the Williams, but Williams had the Renault engine versus McLaren with the Ford customer engine. Benetton were also right up there in the end, they even had four wheel steering by the end.

McLaren were regarded as the team to beat and nobody were quite sure how far Renault and Adrian Newey in a top rung team, could go.

Amidst the hype the irony was that McLaren didn't test their active suspension till mid-late 1992.

[Zico]

I doubt it. If they are using such a passive system (active is banned) it is crap, as the car is as stiff as a pubescent lad at a nubile convention.

I agree. Talking of suspension would Pelerins Reactive suspension or a variation of it still be legal within todays Regs?

2970

Heres the theory behind it:

REACTIVE SUSPENSION.

"As will be shown after, the proposed REACTIVE SUSPENSION will alleviate these problems greatly since 1) the roll stiffness is proportional to the down force 2) the load generated by a one wheel bump is transmitted to the laterally opposed wheel which results in more even corner weights.

Reactive Suspension By Luc Pellerin

IN HEAVE : Left & right rockers rotate in the same direction causing the Roll Lever (RL) to slide in the slotted guide causing the center spring to be compressed.

Rising wheel rates can be achieved in a number of ways such as with rising-rate springs, bump rubbers and by design of the rockers in the same way that is done with conventional suspensions.

The purpose of adding a third spring in modern day race cars is to de-couple roll rate from heave rate. This system offers the same possibilities. It only does it better. The use of a third damper is optional but it could allow to dampen heave more than roll as is often desired.

IN ROLL, as one wheel goes up relative to the chassis, the laterally opposed wheel goes down causing the rockers to rotate in opposite direction. Therefore, the Roll Lever (RL) will rotate as shown.

Note that the total load on the central spring remains the same. (Unlike conventional suspension where one spring will want to uncoil while the other is being compressed.)

HOW DOES THE SYSTEM GENERATE ANTI-ROLL?

The rotation of the RL will cause the offset of the line that is formed by the base of the spring & damper assembly and the end of the Roll Lever. As we know, a torque or Moment is equal to the Force * Effective lever which is the perpendicular distance between the force and the pivot of the RL. Therefore, we obtain a Moment around the pivot of RF which is proportional to down force. This moment is now available to oppose the contact patch differential from left to right. Plots of the wheel loads and wheel rates in roll and heave can be made to match current race car heave and roll chararteristics.

For example : We could design the system to generate half a degree of chassis roll when 1G Lateral and 1 G of down force are applied.

The same set up would still generate half degree of chassis roll when 3 G lateral and 3G down force are applied.

WHAT YOU GET IS WHAT YOU NEED LEADING TO BETTER TRACK COMPLIANCE

REACTIVE SUSPENSION & ONE WHEEL BUMP

IN A ONE WHEEL BUMP SITUATION

The Roll Lever (RL) is simultaneously rotated around the pivot point (P) and is sliding to compress the spring. "The spring will not be compressed if there is no support from both sides. This characteristic is inherent to this system at all vertical loads unlike conventional suspensions.

Therefore, part of the added load at the contact patch is transmitted to the opposite side. (The difference in load from side to side is the energy absorbed by the dampers + Roll Lever Reactive Moment.) (RLRM)

Obviously, when the RLRM becomes too great, no more load is reaching the other side. Anything in between is a net gain from conventional suspensions!!!

Adding this feature to the Reactive to down force feature, we end up with a better compliance when the car is slowing down."


The system was tested at Arrows F1 when Mike Coughlan was Chief Design Engineer. It was only used in one track testing and was only fitted in the front of the car. However a few weeks later, the team ceased its operations.

Interesting concept and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the current suspension designs were influenced by Pelerins design.

[Bruce D]

McLaren were regarded as the team to beat and nobody were quite sure how far Renault and Adrian Newey in a top rung team, could go.

Amidst the hype the irony was that McLaren didn't test their active suspension till mid-late 1992.

Sorry wedge, I wasn't clear. The 1993 McLaren was considered to be more advanced than even the 1993 Williams, but the engine difference really hurt them. But pre-1992 yes McLaren were obviously the favourites at the time, having won a number of championships in a row. And Adrian Newey had produced winners in other series but not F1, although the 1990 Leyton House came very close in the French GP, but they were strange days where the car would qualify badly one race then good in another. Honestly I think Patrick Head had more influence in fine tuning Adrian's mistakes and than anything else.

[philipbain]

I've been led to believe it was banned as a safety measure after Senna's death.

Depending on which hypothysis you subscribe to regarding the circumstances of Senna's death, it could be argued that the ban on active suspension (which was actioned at the end of the 1993 season) actually caused Senna's death (which occured at the 4th round of the 1994 season), rather than being banned as a result of it.

Active suspension was originally dreamed up by Colin Chapman and his team at Team Lotus as a way of resolving pitch sensitivity issues in ground effect cars in the early 80's. Lotus kept pursuing and developing the system through the early to mid 80's and were the first team to race it on thier 1987 Lotus 99T. This car had a very well developed active suspension system which gave the drivers an extremely smooth ride, this car be evidenced from on-board footage of Sakuru Nakajima (Lotus' No. 2 driver that season, who came to the team as part of Lotus' Honda engine deal) in 1987 and Senna managed to win 2 races that season, back to back at Monaco and Detroit and winning at these tracks is telling of the advantages of the Lotus Active ride system at that time and the inherant flaws in the Lotus 99T. Monaco and Detroit, being street tracks with a variety of uneven cambers, lumps and bumps in the road could really benefit from a car that had a high amount of suspension movement and especially when that movement compensated for the unevenness of the track surface. It ensured that the car had the optimum amount of mechanical grip and adhesion at all times. However, its also telling that both of these tracks were the slowest on the calendar and therefore aerodynamic efficiency wasnt at a premium. In the early to mid 1980s the Lotus cars were considered to be amongst the most aerodynamic in the forumula, however by 1987 Lotus' aerodynamics had stood still largely for about 3 seasons whilst the competition made strides forward in this field, particularly Williams, McLaren (who by 1987 had abandoned the John Barnard bloated engine cover in favour of a lower frontal area and resulting higher mass air flow to the rear of the car) and Brabham (who in 1986 had introduced a very radical and very low Gordon Murray designed car which for engineering reasons never fulfilled it's potential, though this concept would prove its self once Murray moved to McLaren in the form of the dominant 1988 MP4/4). On high speed purpose built circuits the active suspension's role was diminished and the car's short-comings were too much to overcome. Williams tested and raced a much less sophisticated active ride system in 1987 and went into 1988 designing thier car around the concept. Unfortunately the system didnt work as intended and effectively sapped power from the car and allied to early season engine reliability issues meant that Williams were in dire need of results. To make the car less complicated Williams reverted to a conventionally suspended car from the British GP onwards which yielded better reliability and actual points finishes!

All went quiet on the active suspension front for 3 seasons in terms of being raced, but Williams, Lotus and Ferrari all kept developing the system, but it really came into it's own when Adrian Newey joined Williams from March in 1990. Newey's aerodynamic thinking, combined with Patrick Head's machanical nouse and the progression forward in terms of computing power available to the teams in the cars made it possible for Williams to produce a sytem that would activiely adjust the suspension to optimise traction and downforce in all situtions whilst also practically eliminating pitch sensitivity. These systems took a lot of work to get right, also Williams had a torrid time in the early part of 1991 as they were essentially developing thier semi-automatic gearbox during the season as the car was rather late coming of the production line. However by the end of 1991 Williams were setting the pace and in practice for the final GP in 1991 they took along thier "B" spec car to test and it went very very fast! The original intention had been to develop a new car for 1992 to better integrate the new systems into the car, however the Williams FW14B was so far ahead of it's compeition (were talking Mansell setting pole times 2 seconds or more clear of the competition at some tracks) that the FW15 stayed on the drawing board and was developed as thier 1993 challenger. 1992 would also see the introduction of active cars from Ferrari and Lotus, the reasons why these variants were unsuccessful were because the Ferrari was too pitch senstive for the active ride system to overcome and the Lotus team just didnt have the resources required to really make the system work properly, therefore it was raced without being fully tested and developed.

By 1993 all of the top teams had active suspension (along with traction control, launch control, semi-sutomatic gearboxes and a mirad of other gadgets) and despite the FIA introducing measures to narrow the tyres and the width of the cars (which was interestingly first defined as a maximum in 1976, based on the width of a McLaren M23, the widest of the the cars raced in 1975!) resulted in the cars going even faster than before. With development costs escalating and the technological arms race in full swing the FIA first tried to say that the technology was in controvention of existing rules and when that fell flat they re-wrote the rules for 1994, banning active suspension and traction control and keeping semi-auto gearboxes (this was justified as a cost saving measure as a semi-auto 'box meant that a drive couldnt accidentilly blow up and engine by changing to the wrong gear at the wrong time, thus making engine rebuilds less costly).

Would they benefit from active ride now? Yes, unquestionably, there would be none of this nonesense about people illegally adjusting thier ride height and in a era of smaller difusers and stepped floors I would say that active ride would make an even bigger difference aerodynamically than in the early 90s.