What FIA's trick suspension warning means for Formula 1 teams

The row over trick suspension in Formula 1 took a new twist on Tuesday when the FIA issued a warning - GARY ANDERSON examines the potentially messy implications

What FIA's trick suspension warning means for Formula 1 teams

Things have changed a lot since my days designing Formula 1 cars, but the basic principles are still the same: get as much downforce as you can and make sure it is as stable and consistent as possible.

A car with peaky downforce is difficult for a driver to get confidence in and normally it ends up with them being pitched off the road somewhere, but give them consistency and they can get on with exploiting their talents and using the car to the maximum.

To achieve that, the teams have been attempting to control the aerodynamic platform via some very sophisticated suspension systems that stabilise the car's movement through varying suspension loads during braking and accelerating.

Some of these systems have been brought to the FIA's attention, and the thinking is that perhaps they go that little bit too far, leading to the issuing of a technical directive clarifying what the FIA considers acceptable.

The technical directive lists several characteristics or components that are deemed not to be legal. Here is my interpretation of those key points:

Direct response to body accelerations

From my point of view, "direct response to body accelerations" refers to dampers because that's what they do.

However, as the compression resistance force compared to the extension resistance force can be varied, they also control the car's ride height - and by doing that they control the aerodynamic platform.

By slowing down the damper extension rate, the front ride height will be kept lower for longer - which is just what you want as you initially start to apply the throttle.

Direct coupling between the ride height function and the braking system and/or the steering system

With these high-position front wishbones, most teams will attach the front pushrods to the front upright.

Depending on its attachment position, the ride height will change with steering lock, again altering the aerodynamic platform. Every car in the pitlane probably has that.

Added to that, all cars have what is called 'anti-dive' or 'anti-squat' built into their suspension geometry.

This is there to reduce the dive under braking and/or the squat under acceleration, both of which are, in turn, reducing the extremities of the movement of the aerodynamic platform.

Ride height control via self-levelling or some sort of feedback loop

This is, to me, what the FIA is out to stop but I don't think anyone is really going down that route.

If anyone is, it should have been discovered a long time ago and outlawed then.

Such a system would effectively be active, or at least semi-active, suspension that is reacting to a direct command, which has been banned since 1994.

The storing of energy via any means for delayed deployment, or any suspension system that would result in a non-incidental asymmetry (eg hysteresis, time dependency etc) in the response to changes in load applied to the wheels

This is the other thing the FIA is trying to outlaw, and it could be directed at a specific team.

Teams have had hydraulic actuators linked to the suspension, and when the car compresses the suspension in the braking area hydraulic oil is pushed through a valve.

It can get through at a certain rate, but can't get back as quickly unless something else releases and lets it back.

This keeps the front of the car down for longer, reducing understeer by controlling the aerodynamic platform.

Direct coupling between roll and heave units

A normal suspension system with springs/torsion bars, anti-roll bar and central heave are mechanically connected together and this then couples roll and heave. Every team has this in one form or another.

Overall, it's fortunate there are only 10 teams in Formula 1, as every technical director will be queued up outside the FIA technical delegate's office seeking clarification of this.

I doubt very much if any team actually complies with this directive as it's written.

But it is not a black and white ruling, so in the end it will be down to the opinion of individuals.

We all have noses and they are like opinions - all different - so a can of worms has been opened, meaning it is going to get very messy before it is all sorted.

shares
comments
Kimi Raikkonen leads Barcelona Formula 1 testing for Ferrari

Previous article

Kimi Raikkonen leads Barcelona Formula 1 testing for Ferrari

Next article

F1 testing 2017: Max Verstappen's first day 'very positive'

F1 testing 2017: Max Verstappen's first day 'very positive'
Load comments
The ‘backwards step’ that is the right move for Formula 1 Plus

The ‘backwards step’ that is the right move for Formula 1

OPINION: With its days apparently numbered, the MGU-H looks set to be dropped from Formula 1’s future engine rules in order to entice new manufacturers in. While it may appear a change of direction, the benefits for teams and fans could make the decision a worthwhile call

The floundering fortunes of F1’s many Lotus reboots Plus

The floundering fortunes of F1’s many Lotus reboots

Team Lotus ceased to exist in 1994 - and yet various parties have been trying to resurrect the hallowed name, in increasingly unrecognisable forms, ever since. DAMIEN SMITH brings GP Racing’s history of the legendary team to an end with a look at those who sought to keep the flame alive in Formula 1

Formula 1
Sep 22, 2021
Why the 2021 title fight is far from F1's worst, despite its toxic background Plus

Why the 2021 title fight is far from F1's worst, despite its toxic background

OPINION: Formula 1 reconvenes for the Russian Grand Prix two weeks after the latest blow in ‘Max Verstappen vs Lewis Hamilton’. While the Silverstone and Monza incidents were controversial, they thankfully lacked one element that so far separates the 2021 title fight from the worst examples of ugly championship battles

Formula 1
Sep 22, 2021
How F1’s other champion to emerge from 1991 thrived at Lotus Plus

How F1’s other champion to emerge from 1991 thrived at Lotus

Mika Hakkinen became Michael Schumacher’s biggest rival in Formula 1 in the late-90s and early 2000s, having also made his F1 debut in 1991. But as MARK GALLAGHER recalls, while Schumacher wowed the world with a car that was eminently capable, Hakkinen was fighting to make his mark with a famous team in terminal decline

Formula 1
Sep 21, 2021
The forgotten F1 comeback that began Jordan’s odyssey  Plus

The forgotten F1 comeback that began Jordan’s odyssey 

Before Michael Schumacher – or anyone else – had driven the 191 (or 911 as it was initially called), Eddie Jordan turned to a fellow Irishman to test his new Formula 1 car. JOHN WATSON, a grand prix winner for Penske and McLaren, recalls his role in the birth of a legend…

Formula 1
Sep 20, 2021
The squandered potential of a 70s F1 underdog Plus

The squandered potential of a 70s F1 underdog

A podium finisher in its first outing but then never again, the BRM P201 was a classic case of an opportunity squandered by disorganisation and complacency, says STUART CODLING

Formula 1
Sep 18, 2021
The other notable Monza escape that F1 should learn from Plus

The other notable Monza escape that F1 should learn from

OPINION: The headlines were dominated by the Italian Grand Prix crash between Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton, who had the halo to thank for avoiding potentially serious injury. But two days earlier, Formula 1 had a lucky escape with a Monza pitlane incident that could also have had grave consequences

Formula 1
Sep 17, 2021
How Monza only added more questions to F1's sprint race conundrum Plus

How Monza only added more questions to F1's sprint race conundrum

With two sprint races under its belt, Formula 1 must now consider its options for them going forward. While they've helped deliver exciting racing on Sundays, the sprints themselves have been somewhat lacking - creating yet another conundrum for F1 to solve...

Formula 1
Sep 16, 2021