|
But, David, we have HAD madated minimum ride heights before and it was utterly IMPOSSIBLE to regulate! They can only be measured accurately when the cars are in the pits.... Brabham, etc., made adjustable ride height suspension and raised the cars on the hydraulics on pit entry and lowered them again on the track. That was how we started with active ride-height maintenance on F1 cars.
I think Chapman showed that you could control the ride height by using anti-dive and anti-squat suspension back in the early 1970s which still seemed to allow a much more movement in a stationay car than actually was 'used' in motion.
What would prevent the teams from using a variably-pressurised shock absorber to act as a spring-rate stiffener that only moves to it's hardest settings once the car is on the move? The teams would only need to move from steel springing to compressed gas to give them the ability to alter the rates, dynamically. It wouldn't be THAT hard to make the shockers, effectively, pump-THEMSELVES-up (by 'work') to give the effect of super stiff springs which would not be directly dfetectable once the car had returned to the pits for 'measuring'.
If you want to limit the effects of downforce, why not simply limit the DOWNFORCE......? That would also solve the problems of 'following cars': your method still leaves the following cars too badly disturbed by 'turbulent' airflow.
Ian
|
|
|