|
IMHO, I actually think this is good as a separate thread as I think this topic it can get lost in the rules thread and it is big enough to discuss on its own.
My take on why it is thought to be a cost saving measure is that there apparently is a lot of development on complicated mechanical systems that operated passively. This is everything from standard left to right cross link suspension (with third spring) that can be common in various motorsports, to the more complex linked system that link all four wheels in some mechanical (likely hydraulic) way. That the cost savings would be in the implication of relatively straight forward designs that focus on software and less on mechanical designs.
I can see some of that logic. Particularly once it is in place. At that point I think the "art" of F1 suspension design from a mechanical perspective will be greatly reduced. Less people working on designing it, less people trying to work on setup at the track, etc. Less money spent.
I am excited about the technical possibilities. It would be interesting to see a modern F1 car with active suspension.
I do however have two main concerns.
First, I am not sure if it will save costs, or if it does it will be expensive over the short term. I expect that current designs (pushrod vs. pullrod, etc.) are compromises based upon what the teams can make work from a mechanical perspective. That a fully active system will result in significant changes to mounting points (for example) and a good bit of research and design work.
Second, I am curious if it will push us back into the direction of drivers who are asked to do less in the car (i.e. deal with non-optimal and changing situations on track. Dry setup in the rain for example). We are just now enjoying watching cars slide around a bit due to high torque engines and no traction control. Will active suspension somehow take away some of the new excitement?
Richard
|