cliveb
Head Pro
I am specifically talking about rising rate springs - ie. ones which get stiffer as they compress. It should be possible to engineer springs that have the desired flexibility at cornering speeds when they aren't compressed too much, and only get ultra-stiff (approaching lock-up) at top speed down the straight as the floor gets so low to the ground that the downforce would stall.I’d imagine that if the suspension were stiff enough to overcome the downforce that causes porpoising, it might be too stiff to do its actual job to the detriment of drive ability and traction?
Nor am I an engineer, and I agree you'd expect that the F1 teams would have already thought of it. But I still can't see why it wouldn't work.I’m not an engineer so I can’t answer your question. However, you’d think something as simple as that would already have been considered.
Given how prescriptive the regs are, I guess it's possible that only constant rate springs are permitted.Do the regs dictate which type of springs are permissible? Active suspension certainly isn’t (not that it’s your suggestion), but just thinking what is and isn’t prescribed
EDIT: Just checked the 2022 tech regs. Article 10.4.3 states:
Now I can't say I fully understand this, but "monotonically" refers to something that varies in a way that never increases or decreases.10.4.3 The only permitted suspension elements are :
a. Springs - the primary purpose of which is to absorb and release energy in a
monotonically increasing load relationship with relative deflection between its nodes ...
Perhaps this means that springs do indeed have to be constant rate.
Last edited: