BMW Sauber launch 2006

[MrKipling]

Eh?! Eh! F1 roll rates are 12 - 16000ish aren't they? When you have cornering forces of up to 5G in, lets say, a 170mph bend that's, what, nearly five tonnes of centrifugal force + the weight of downforce the car is producing (whatever that equates to across the roll centre) trying to roll the car onto its back and break the traction of the tyres. That's going to put unbelievable loads on the suspension.

[RacingManiac]

hence they don't move. roll rate is built into the the rate in your system, in a F-BMW car with the monoshock and a high rate front Anti Roll bar acting on 1/2" of moment arm equate to about 90,000lb-ft/ degree. That's geometric. Factor in the tire and you obviously get a lot less. But thats where most the "suspension travel" comes from, pretty much all tire compliance + chassis flex which should be much less. Now this is on a F-BMW car, that makes ~ 150lb of downforce at 200+km/h on max rear wing setting with a car that weighs 1000lb, yet we still packs the damn thing with packers that pretty much eleminates any wheel travel. Now on a F1 car which obviously runs much more downforce(understatement), running with torsional spring and with need to control pitch and squat as they affect the front wing and rear undertray greatly, they pretty much need as constant a ride height as they can get. With roll kept in check for obvious aero and non-aero reason. For all intends and purpose, the suspension is fixed. On a wet track obviously will be different, which is why they are still adjustable. To see why suspension kinematic no longer matter, you only need to see the advent of twin-keel car, which by nature of how they are layout with relation of their lower and upper a-arm, they would gain positive camber in roll on the outside, which is DEFINITELY not desirable. But since they don't do as much as ROLL, it is a not an issue.

Colin Chapman's line of "Any suspension will work if you don't let it" is never truer....