From this page it looks as though it is a Renault F1 car (the R24). Take a look at the last image in the block of R24 images. I can't see the original imaged linked to anywhere on that page from a quick glance though.
From this page it looks as though it is a Renault F1 car (the R24). Take a look at the last image in the block of R24 images. I can't see the original imaged linked to anywhere on that page from a quick glance though.
I am familiar with that term, actually. It's often found in press releases for new motorcycles, at least race reps. It's usually (probably always) in reference to the forks and a special coating they put on the major sliding pieces to reduce stiction.
Why did they make the arm pull on the rods to compress the mono-shock? There is a stretching force the on the tie-rod ends that compress the spring. I thought compression resistance was better than stretch resistance, because there is less tendency for a part to break. To much compression might just bend a part, but too much stretch and the part may break.
Under a compression force, the rods might be more prone to buckling if the alignment is not perfect. At least under a tensile force, they're stretched into shape.
I see. I have always associated springs with compression and expansion forces. As long as it has been engineered for its purpose, which I assume it has been, that it would not break under its normal operational stresses. Now that way seems more logical for the application of "rods."
And all that from someone with an electrical engineering degree. 
I often think I should have done mechanical, tbh.
I often think I should have done mechanical, tbh.Right time to clear a few things up ...
The pic show in post 5 is indeed the rear end of the renault R24 (2004) f1 car, the rear suspension setup in that car has been used for several seasons since and almost every other team use the same configuration (exception being this years red bull technologies cars the use pull rods)
The setup is as follows,
carbon fibre double wishbones, and carbon fibre pushrods. (the wishbones have a designed spring flex in the vertical direction)
The pushrods act on titanium rockers which have inbuilt torsion springs (twist) around the pivot point.
The rockers then have push rods to dampers on either side and they have pull rods that connect the two sides together via the J (jounce) damper. The J damper consists of standard coil over damper unit and is used to control the pure vertical movement of the car.
This setup allows the car to have 'soft' independent suspension when only one wheel is excited (say over a kurb) and quite a 'hard' suspension when both wheels are simultaneously loaded (down force at high speed, pitch under acceleration)
In automotive terms you pretty much always compress a spring under jounce as the static weight of the vehicle provides a 'preload' onto the spring.
If you were to stretch the spring under load you would have to weld the springs to the spring cups and eventually the welds would fatigue and your suspension would collapse
The pic show in post 5 is indeed the rear end of the renault R24 (2004) f1 car, the rear suspension setup in that car has been used for several seasons since and almost every other team use the same configuration (exception being this years red bull technologies cars the use pull rods)
The setup is as follows,
carbon fibre double wishbones, and carbon fibre pushrods. (the wishbones have a designed spring flex in the vertical direction)
The pushrods act on titanium rockers which have inbuilt torsion springs (twist) around the pivot point.
The rockers then have push rods to dampers on either side and they have pull rods that connect the two sides together via the J (jounce) damper. The J damper consists of standard coil over damper unit and is used to control the pure vertical movement of the car.
This setup allows the car to have 'soft' independent suspension when only one wheel is excited (say over a kurb) and quite a 'hard' suspension when both wheels are simultaneously loaded (down force at high speed, pitch under acceleration)
In automotive terms you pretty much always compress a spring under jounce as the static weight of the vehicle provides a 'preload' onto the spring.
If you were to stretch the spring under load you would have to weld the springs to the spring cups and eventually the welds would fatigue and your suspension would collapse
I meant it would work slightly different in comparision to double whishbones we have in lfs.
Wasn't sure, but K-- put some light on it:
My thought was, they didn't put this fancy suspension to be fancy, or save 400g of weight, because there is one spring less... I didn't know such things about ss's
Would be great to have this on BF1 or FO8.
I'm not so sure I agree, although I am prepared to learn if I'm wrong.
The picture, which is indeed an R24, is of a typical monoshock design that decouples roll and ride (or roll and jounce if you prefer). Over kerbs and rolling into corners there is very little resistance to motion other than that provided by the aforementioned flexures and the T-type anti-roll bar. In plain ride - i.e. two wheels moving together - then the wheel rate is much higher.
This, so far, has nothing whatsoever to do with J-damper, Inertia dampers or anything else 'clever', and would work as a satisfactory suspension system on its own.
If the damper unit under the main spring is a J-damper, then that isn't used as a normal damper to control the general expansion and contraction of the spring unit, but to counteract the fluctuations of contact patch loads that would make "The Limit" harder to find as it would constantly vary. It's an addition to the suspension system, but not one that is part of the 'soft roll, stiff ride' arrangement.
The picture, which is indeed an R24, is of a typical monoshock design that decouples roll and ride (or roll and jounce if you prefer). Over kerbs and rolling into corners there is very little resistance to motion other than that provided by the aforementioned flexures and the T-type anti-roll bar. In plain ride - i.e. two wheels moving together - then the wheel rate is much higher.
This, so far, has nothing whatsoever to do with J-damper, Inertia dampers or anything else 'clever', and would work as a satisfactory suspension system on its own.
If the damper unit under the main spring is a J-damper, then that isn't used as a normal damper to control the general expansion and contraction of the spring unit, but to counteract the fluctuations of contact patch loads that would make "The Limit" harder to find as it would constantly vary. It's an addition to the suspension system, but not one that is part of the 'soft roll, stiff ride' arrangement.
Thank you AndroidXP.
Here is a documentation of formule renault 2.0
http://www.julietonelli.com/te ... rmula_Renault_2.0_Web.pdf
If the right wheel goes up, it follows the red arrows.
This moves the anti roll bar (green), giving it compresses the spring.
When the spring can be compressed, it will follow the blue arrow but the suspension of the left wheel prevents.
The only movement possible is to follow the pink arrow.
Are the property's how it works?
Here is a documentation of formule renault 2.0
http://www.julietonelli.com/te ... rmula_Renault_2.0_Web.pdf
If the right wheel goes up, it follows the red arrows.
This moves the anti roll bar (green), giving it compresses the spring.
When the spring can be compressed, it will follow the blue arrow but the suspension of the left wheel prevents.
The only movement possible is to follow the pink arrow.
Are the property's how it works?
No, that is wrong.
When the right wheel moves, the beelcrank rotates and moves one damper and one pushrod. The pushrod then turns the second bellcrank, which moves the other wheel (via its bellcrank) in the other direction, just like an anti-roll bar. The pivot axis of the second bellcrank is the anti-roll bar - the vertical section.
In pure ride - i.e. both wheels moving together, there is no twisting of the second bellcrank, just rotation of the pivot at the base of the 'anti-roll bar', causing the heave/ride spring to move.
When the right wheel moves, the beelcrank rotates and moves one damper and one pushrod. The pushrod then turns the second bellcrank, which moves the other wheel (via its bellcrank) in the other direction, just like an anti-roll bar. The pivot axis of the second bellcrank is the anti-roll bar - the vertical section.
In pure ride - i.e. both wheels moving together, there is no twisting of the second bellcrank, just rotation of the pivot at the base of the 'anti-roll bar', causing the heave/ride spring to move.
quite the opposite
a normal fully functional anti roll bar would move both wheels in the same direction (most usually up) whereas monoshock designs are naturally pro roll (so to speak)
you can see this quite nicely in some older netkar version if you take all the anti roll out of the monoshock cars
Apologies. I was so excited by the monoshock part of the topic that I got a bit confuzzled. You are indeed correct, and I shouldn't make such a silly mistake - especially when I clearly knew it. Sorry.
But the point still stands that there is an anti-roll bar, and it isn't a FR2.0, so the topic, essentially, is dead.
Off topic anyone?
But the point still stands that there is an anti-roll bar, and it isn't a FR2.0, so the topic, essentially, is dead.
Off topic anyone?
Off topic
It is amusing that flexures started being developed after gokart technology really started booming.
It is amusing that flexures started being developed after gokart technology really started booming.
Why is it amusing? It's almost entirely unrelated (other than it being materials flexing).
Its the flexing being related that I am forming my conspiracy theory on. There is no hard evidence that the development of the two are related, it just seems that way because of the time period. It is amusing (to me anyway) because gokarting had the reputation of being a kid's sport.
It's still a kid's sport. Sometimes the kids are a bit bigger and may have facial hair. Or gray hair. 
One of my motorcycle trackday buddies, an instructor, is 56 years old. He often tells me he wonders what he's going to do when he grows up.
IMO, no one who races ever really grew up.
One of my motorcycle trackday buddies, an instructor, is 56 years old. He often tells me he wonders what he's going to do when he grows up.
IMO, no one who races ever really grew up.
The last time I went to my local track I was racing some old guys. I think they were in their late forties.
Right... So since flexing of the chassis as the primary means of suspension has been used in karting for years, you think that is the basis for the recent (ish) use of flexures as a replacement for spherical bearings in some 'top end' single seaters suspension systems?
What next? That the flexing in gokarts is the basis for horse whips? Or the basis for clarinet reeds? Just because both use flexing and, indeed, both use flexing in a suspension context, doesn't mean that one is based on the other. Flexing, elasticity and rigidity etc. are basic engineering principles (actually, it's not all that basic really, depending on how far you go into the topic).
My motorcycle club racing series has a sub-class called Formula 40 in a few of the classes for such people. There are actually quite a few riders who qualify.
A few of the drivers in Monoposto are well over 60. However, youth seems to favour the downforce classes, where anyone competitive is under 40, and the vast majority under 30. The wingless categories seem to have a greater ratio of competitive older drivers - I wonder if this is because older drivers tend to err towards wingless cars, or if the physical effort of driving without downforce is more suitable for older drivers? Or maybe it's purely a cost thing?
I'm hoping to rent a wingless car (probably a Formula Vauxhall Junior - the antithesis of my current car in almost every way) at some point in 2010 so I can see what they're like. Constantly sideways seems to be the norm - although not 'drifting'. Nobody in FFord fits their stickers on backwards on one side of the car.
I'm hoping to rent a wingless car (probably a Formula Vauxhall Junior - the antithesis of my current car in almost every way) at some point in 2010 so I can see what they're like. Constantly sideways seems to be the norm - although not 'drifting'. Nobody in FFord fits their stickers on backwards on one side of the car.
I was making a stupid comment for humor by alluding to a false conclusion based on fact-less assumptions.
I hope to hear of your experiences in the Formula Vauxhall if you get the chance to rent one.
I'd write about it on my website, and probably a more brief version in my "Cliffe Crashes Out of the Lead" thead (which, fortunately, is misnamed most of time). I've only crashed out of the lead once in 3 seasons 
flexure technology has been around a lot longer than this
tristan testing a new flexure for his dallara
tristan testing a new flexure for his dallara
Looks more like me a year ago.
I don't recall those being very flexible, actually. Not that I ever had them.
I don't recall those being very flexible, actually. Not that I ever had them.
Differential fox
(52 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG