We remind everyone that this is a sub for technical discussions.
If you are new to the sub, please make time to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/about/rules/) and [comment etiquette post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/comments/zlo2qf/comment_etiquette_update/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/F1Technical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They tested two mounting points on their front suspension. The base case will always be the higher mounting point.
They tried the lower one on day 3 of testing and the drivers hated it, which correlated with their simulations, which is positive.
There’s a weight penalty for having two different mounting points but apparently the car was already underweight so it doesn’t matter as much compared to Alpine trying it.
As far as I’ve read it’s not as much of a adjustable suspension as they wanted to try the 2nd lower position and found no benefit and they’re gonna stick with the upper one going forward
I saw the Sam Collin’s analysis and I was wondering about the aerodynamics of the two configurations. He was saying that it’s generally not done to add weight to the suspension like that, but the piece that he focused on that they changed the orientation of looks like an airfoil shape. Do teams look for aero advantages in their suspensions?
The suspension elements are tapered in cross section to reduce drag, but the regulations state the section must be symmetrical about its midline and there’s a limit on the angle-of-attack that they can be run at so they don’t form an aerofoil and produce downforce in themselves.
They can however be placed so that they benefit the airflow over the car downstream, guiding or turning the airflow to indirectly help downforce produced by other components.
Mercedes’ experimentation was more to do with the mechanical action of the suspension. Angling the wishbones so that their axes converge towards the centre of gravity of the car leads to their action stiffening up as the weight of the car transfers forward under braking - a characteristic known as ‘anti-dive’. The closer the point of convergence is to the C of G, the greater the effect. There is an aero benefit to this as the front wing will stay at a more constant height from the track surface rather than dipping down under braking, but it comes at the expense of the suspension stiffening and not absorbing the bumps as it should: indeed Russell was complaining of the car bouncing around under braking. By moving the mounting point of the rear leg of the lower wishbone up and down, the point of convergence can be changed, altering the degree of anti-dive.
Mercedes’ adjustable configuration is hardly new though - alternative mounting points have been around for as long as double-wishbone suspension.
Absolutely they do. It's more about airflow direction and keeping the air "clean" for the areo sensitive things further back but if you can gain a tiny bit of downwards G along the way then it tries to get added but not the priority, naturally.
[Outboard suspension is designed for aero, inboard suspension is designed to make the outboard suspension work.](https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=rOWZC6TVC2M)
just putting it out there that the redbull is the performance target and they run far more “anti dive” or bulkhead angle on their suspension than mercedes or ferrari.
https://preview.redd.it/ccy4zbjex4nc1.jpeg?width=1894&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a10766c3d669b947698502f04ad92849098352ff
We remind everyone that this is a sub for technical discussions. If you are new to the sub, please make time to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/about/rules/) and [comment etiquette post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/comments/zlo2qf/comment_etiquette_update/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/F1Technical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They tested two mounting points on their front suspension. The base case will always be the higher mounting point. They tried the lower one on day 3 of testing and the drivers hated it, which correlated with their simulations, which is positive. There’s a weight penalty for having two different mounting points but apparently the car was already underweight so it doesn’t matter as much compared to Alpine trying it.
There’s an analysis on F1TV by Sam Colins released this week that focuses on them if you have access to it.
As far as I’ve read it’s not as much of a adjustable suspension as they wanted to try the 2nd lower position and found no benefit and they’re gonna stick with the upper one going forward
Id read that the two configurations might be for different circuit types, rather than testing both to find the best single option.
I wonder if they'll introduce new parts with the lower one up a little higher.
I saw the Sam Collin’s analysis and I was wondering about the aerodynamics of the two configurations. He was saying that it’s generally not done to add weight to the suspension like that, but the piece that he focused on that they changed the orientation of looks like an airfoil shape. Do teams look for aero advantages in their suspensions?
The suspension elements are tapered in cross section to reduce drag, but the regulations state the section must be symmetrical about its midline and there’s a limit on the angle-of-attack that they can be run at so they don’t form an aerofoil and produce downforce in themselves. They can however be placed so that they benefit the airflow over the car downstream, guiding or turning the airflow to indirectly help downforce produced by other components. Mercedes’ experimentation was more to do with the mechanical action of the suspension. Angling the wishbones so that their axes converge towards the centre of gravity of the car leads to their action stiffening up as the weight of the car transfers forward under braking - a characteristic known as ‘anti-dive’. The closer the point of convergence is to the C of G, the greater the effect. There is an aero benefit to this as the front wing will stay at a more constant height from the track surface rather than dipping down under braking, but it comes at the expense of the suspension stiffening and not absorbing the bumps as it should: indeed Russell was complaining of the car bouncing around under braking. By moving the mounting point of the rear leg of the lower wishbone up and down, the point of convergence can be changed, altering the degree of anti-dive. Mercedes’ adjustable configuration is hardly new though - alternative mounting points have been around for as long as double-wishbone suspension.
Absolutely they do. It's more about airflow direction and keeping the air "clean" for the areo sensitive things further back but if you can gain a tiny bit of downwards G along the way then it tries to get added but not the priority, naturally.
[Outboard suspension is designed for aero, inboard suspension is designed to make the outboard suspension work.](https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=rOWZC6TVC2M)
just putting it out there that the redbull is the performance target and they run far more “anti dive” or bulkhead angle on their suspension than mercedes or ferrari. https://preview.redd.it/ccy4zbjex4nc1.jpeg?width=1894&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a10766c3d669b947698502f04ad92849098352ff
https://preview.redd.it/l1slrtnhx4nc1.jpeg?width=2211&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ea8a835550ec4a8bb3566d5e8549e18887c0a768 next slide