what really makes them so good at this?their suspension doesnt look nothing out of the ordinary.or is it the way it is setup?or is it all that downforce?

 

down force+very stiff+huge tires+really soft compound+low center of gravity+extremely light

 

Millions of $$$$$ research helps to.

 

Downforce

 

Wind tunnel testing......

 

what would be the best way to apply this to my car. i want to research how to creat alot of downforce other than using a 10 ft wing.

i was thinking a one piece under section.
lowered nose
longer front lip


but stiff springs?i figure soft would help throw u around a corner with out lifting u up.say a soft bound and a harder rebound shock.

 

http://www.rx7.net.nz/newrx7.htm

This has some good info on J-spec parts aero functions and drag numbers

 

http://www.technicalf1.com/index.php

Try here on there forum.

 

lower your car

 

Yeah, those would probably work.

The reason they use really stiff springs in F1 is several-fold. For one... there's enough downforce on those cars that if they lift off the gas, the car will deaccelerate at over one g. This is without using brakes. So, if they had softer springs, it would drive the car through the pavement.

... which brings up the second reason... they really do *not* have much suspension travel. All the cars are running at more or less the absolute lowest that is allowed by the rules, and if the suspension was softer... well, we're getting into the "grinding bits of the car off" thing again.

 

F1, it's more the tires if anything.&nbsp The actual "suspension" moves very little.&nbsp Watch the slo-mo shots of the cars, and you'll see what I mean.

Aero is a BIG part of making the car handle.&nbsp Everything else ends up being how to push the rules short of being illegal...


-Ted

 

and their tires STICK really really well!

 

Another reason they have to use stiff springs is to keep the bottom of the car parallel to the track. If it's not the aerodynamics don't work as well.

 

soft suspension allow too much geometry change that effact the all important roll center and camber/tire contact path. plus, F1 need stiff spring to control ever important areo yaw-angle of the under-tunel. the trend in F1 now is to use the tires to absorb most the smaller bumps and leave the springs/shocks to handle the downforce and low frequancy suspension movements, and that is why tires are SO important in F1. when you follow F1, you will notice how often and how much attention and $$ have these poeple invested in. That goes the same to Karting, tire, tire....

 

Am I correct to assume the thread starter wanted to compare a sedan to a formula car in terms us why they grip better? so far, it's been covered pretty much, but I believe Ben Liang is right on the money, but left a huge factor out and it's the type of geometry that plays such a vital role. The pushrod suspension setup has been the latest development through an evolution of suspension theories (pullrod and rocker arms to name a couple others) This is what allows such small movement in the suspension. Weight has a tremendous role and more importantly where it is located in relation to roll center and center of gravity. Pick up a book on race car suspension setups when you get a chance, it may not prove very useful, but it's really interesting stuff!... at least for me. If you look at the reasonably budgeted open wheel racing series, you can see that the cars produce massive grip on tires that are no better (technologically) than what some of you might even autocross on. The tires in F1, as Ben Liang mentioned, are primarily a different type of damper, while the downforce makes the cars "sticky".

 

Actually the tires act more like springs...