F1technical.net

why is active suspension still banned? i was driving my mercedes today and the thought came to mind as I realized that the electronic dampers are really great pieces of technology. lets put william's domination with active suspension behind us and let all the teams use it without limitations.

No, because I'd like the cars to be as physically mechanical as possible. No computers doing the driving!

toto1041 wrote:why is active suspension still banned? i was driving my mercedes today and the thought came to mind as I realized that the electronic dampers are really great pieces of technology. lets put william's domination with active suspension behind us and let all the teams use it without limitations.

The same reason that a $20,000 Honda doesn't come with active suspension. Spiralling costs are killing the sport.

As soon as one team has the best system, all the other teams need to haemorrhage money to catch up, eventually leading to the banning or speccing of the system.

Oh wait....that already happened over a decade ago.

I have to give a resounding "no".

I'd rather have a series with open technical specs, open engine size, but...

(a) You are given a set amount of fuel for a race weekend.

(b) You have a hard budget cap for the year.

Wrong place to have this pole mate;

It'll be pretty one sided NO.

Active suspension should remain banned for the same reason FIA banned traction control. Let these highly paid drivers earn their salary.

Jersey Tom wrote:I'd rather have a series with open technical specs, open engine size, but...

(a) You are given a set amount of fuel for a race weekend.

(b) You have a hard budget cap for the year.

Then if a team comes up with a revolutionary solution that is far better there's no way another team can catch up because the budget is gone. But that's another story...

Active suspension was banned, just like gear mapping and all electronic aids, because it was making the sport less of a driver's competition and more of a technological one.

Agree with Jersey Tom - F1 was more approachable when someone could start up a team without having funding to the degree of GDP of a small country. It would be part of the challenge to design the cars to go as fast with less budget. In other disciplines there are contingency funds - if we can get back to racing rather than winning at any cost. And clear out all the legal wranglings that are VERY expensive and are killing the spirit of the sport.
Active suspension was very effective, but consequently took some of the variables and driving craft out of it, as did the traction control to a degree. KERS still has the potential to mix up the pack if enough scope is permitted.

i agree on the traction control ban. but aside from carbon fiber (which the aerospace industry actually develops, and the ECU (most road cars have anyways), "fly by wire" pedals (which is aerospace again), aerodynamics (again aerospace) where does an f1 car stop being a mega go-kart with borrowed technology and become a proving ground for new unique technologies specifically for road going vehicles? or should f1 simply abstain from ever alluding to technology transfer to road cars?

Jersey Tom wrote:I'd rather have a series with open technical specs, open engine size, but...

(a) You are given a set amount of fuel for a race weekend.

(b) You have a hard budget cap for the year.

What I've been saying for years. Would really be great.

Scotracer wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:I'd rather have a series with open technical specs, open engine size, but...

(a) You are given a set amount of fuel for a race weekend.

(b) You have a hard budget cap for the year.

What I've been saying for years. Would really be great.

I think alot of us have been saying it for years, but when Max tried to push it through everyone seemed to hate it... why?

set the fuel amount for the race, not for the weekend, I want to see the cars run as much as possible.

No to active suspension.

ISLAMATRON wrote:

Scotracer wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:I'd rather have a series with open technical specs, open engine size, but...

(a) You are given a set amount of fuel for a race weekend.

(b) You have a hard budget cap for the year.

What I've been saying for years. Would really be great.

I think alot of us have been saying it for years, but when Max tried to push it through everyone seemed to hate it... why?

set the fuel amount for the race, not for the weekend, I want to see the cars run as much as possible.

No to active suspension.

The reason I hated is that he wanted it done so abruptly. If you go back and read my posts I called for a gradual reduce of the budget over the next 3-4 years. I was thinking of all the people that work for these teams. They have to go somewhere and it's easier to find them a place in the company given some time than forced to let them go jobless.
So yes, I agree to the concept of a budget cap, but slowly ease into it, and not 44 mill Euros but 100 million. That's a more reasonable budget for F1 I think. And that would include what Max tried to leave out - the hospitality, entertainment and all that fun stuff.

And NO to active suspension.

ISLAMATRON wrote:

Scotracer wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:I'd rather have a series with open technical specs, open engine size, but...

(a) You are given a set amount of fuel for a race weekend.

(b) You have a hard budget cap for the year.

What I've been saying for years. Would really be great.

I think alot of us have been saying it for years, but when Max tried to push it through everyone seemed to hate it... why?

set the fuel amount for the race, not for the weekend, I want to see the cars run as much as possible.

No to active suspension.

Because what Max proposed was the usual bullshit he comes out with. He wanted:

-Two tier racing
-Almost immediate change from £400M/season to £40M/season

What he proposed just wasn't feasible. If he actually had a plan it would work.

Isn't active suspension one of the technologies that has found its way from F1 to roadcars? Another is paddle-shift on the steering-wheel, one of my Swedish mistresses has it on her Citroen. Anti-spin perhaps yet another?

I say bring back the gizmos.

xpensive wrote:I say bring back the gizmos.

You know what?
I agree.

But...




...without a pilots.
So we won't have another embarrassment.

The connection between motorsport and road-cars ended a while back.

Motorsport should now never be seen as a form to improve technology for roadcars IMO.

A road car and racing car these days are simply too different.

Gizmos? Nah. The FIA made the right decisions to ban TC, LC and active suspension.

I fully agree with Scott, the initial proposals Mosley suggested came from nowhere it seemed! The logistical challenge of reducing that much cost in so short time is too difficult for anyone. That and of course the huge job losses that could occur when currently un-employment is at a very low rate!