|
| Site Partners: | SpotterGuides | Veloce Books |
| Related Sites: | Your Link Here |
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 16:17 (Ref:828463)
|
#1 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,312
 |
Twin Keel - what is it?
Can someone please explain what "twin keel" is, (preferably with pics)
I understand its something to do with the suspension. |
||
|
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 16:25 (Ref:828479)
|
#2 | ||
|
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,200
 |
It is where the suspension is mounted.
Single 'keel': Both left and right lower suspension share a common mounting point under the nose/cockpit section. Twin 'keel': the left and right lower suspension is mounted on separate points. These mounting points come down from the side of the edge of the nose/cockpit section. don't have time for pics... |
||
|
|
__________________
Brum brum
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 16:30 (Ref:828481)
|
#3 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,312
|
Is it possible to tell me which cars don't use twin keel so i can compare some pics?
|
||
|
|
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 17:03 (Ref:828513)
|
#4 | ||
|
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,200
|
.
|
||
|
|
__________________
Brum brum
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 17:11 (Ref:828520)
|
#5 | ||
|
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,200
|
.
|
||
|
|
__________________
Brum brum
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 17:12 (Ref:828521)
|
#6 | ||
|
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,200
|
Quite poor diagrams, but done in a rush! And with tools I had at work!
|
||
|
|
__________________
Brum brum
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 18:22 (Ref:828587)
|
#7 | |
|
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 194
|
Good enough adam, nice work
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 18:42 (Ref:828615)
|
#8 | ||
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,306
|
Bear in mind Monster, that the "keels" exist in order to control airflow under the body. Prior to ground effects, the mounting points for the lower A-Arms would have been to the tub at its low section point. With the advent of the raised nose, the keels or vertical fins are neccessitated to keep the mounting point of the lower A-arms low while having a high nose.
Last edited by EERO; 10 Jan 2008 at 22:20. |
||
|
|
__________________
Go Tribe!!!!
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 18:44 (Ref:828619)
|
#9 | ||
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,306
|
Sorry, i had been working on these before you posted, Adam hope I'm steppping on no toes...
Last edited by EERO; 10 Jan 2008 at 22:20. |
||
|
|
__________________
Go Tribe!!!!
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 18:45 (Ref:828623)
|
#10 | ||
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,306
|
And lastly the conventional tub:
Last edited by EERO; 10 Jan 2008 at 22:20. |
||
|
|
__________________
Go Tribe!!!!
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 18:52 (Ref:828631)
|
#11 | ||
|
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,200
|
Nice one EERO.
 An interesting point is that as both I (inadequately) and EERO have shown is that the 'keels' don't always (ever?) drop straight down. See in this good picture from f1racing.com I have lightened it a little to show the 'keels'. Orange arrows so the mounting points. Yellow the keels coming out at an angle rather than straight down. I can't quite work out what is going on with the lower rear mounting point. However the turning veins and the holes the keel/suspesnion pass through are clearly visible. http://www.f1racing.net/photo_large....c=10&startat=0 |
||
|
|
__________________
Brum brum
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 18:55 (Ref:828633)
|
#12 | ||
|
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,200
|
Again from f1racing.net here is a plan view of the general layout
http://www.f1racing.net/photo_large....&c=2&startat=0 . |
||
|
|
__________________
Brum brum
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 19:00 (Ref:828640)
|
#13 | ||
|
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 4,304
|
Good explanation guys!
|
||
|
|
__________________
'I've seen it, but still don't believe it.....'
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 19:10 (Ref:828651)
|
#14 | ||
|
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,200
|
And a single keel, on the 2003 Ferrari 2003-GA from F1-live.com http://f1.racing-live.com/en/photos/...ferrari2.shtml
http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/200.../diapo_136.jpg |
||
|
|
__________________
Brum brum
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 19:20 (Ref:828665)
|
#15 | |||
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,306
|
Quote:
In the last Arrows, I think that the keels were fairly vertical, hence, Adam, neither of us was wrong!
|
|||
|
|
__________________
Go Tribe!!!!
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 19:26 (Ref:828669)
|
#16 | ||
|
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,200
|
 so I presume thi swill bethe case on the 'new' Minardi.
|
||
|
|
__________________
Brum brum
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 20:50 (Ref:828743)
|
#17 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 981
|
did't the arrows (and jordans) have the keel's themselves become turning-vanes? and they droped right to the lowest point possible. (i'll try hunt some pics for you)
BTW The Monster, last year, McLaren, Jordan, Sauber were the only cars i belive to use twin keels. this year looks like williams and minardi will be joining in. Ed |
||
|
|
__________________
watch this space :)
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 21:15 (Ref:828766)
|
#18 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 981
|
Some good pics of the Arrows A23 here, shows their idea of the twin keel.
Arrows A23 twin keel This is the car the "new" minardi shares bits of. BTW : The biggest problem with this concept is making sure the wide apart mounting points don't flex, otherwise you get interesting suspension results. Mclaren fell into this trap to begin with (on the 2002 MP4-17)I belive and had to run a brace bettween the two keels to keep the stiffness up. This in turn had a knock on effect of disrupting the underbody air flow, canceling out most of the benift of the concept. regards Ed |
||
|
|
__________________
watch this space :)
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 21:22 (Ref:828779)
|
#19 | ||
|
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,200
|
The Arrows example is very extreme.
IIRC, the flexing problem was eventually solved by improvements in material stiffness. |
||
|
|
__________________
Brum brum
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 21:44 (Ref:828807)
|
#20 | ||
|
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,200
|
For what its worth, here is the McLaren one from F1-live.com. This is hard to see due to the choice of colours.
http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/200.../diapo_178.jpg . |
||
|
|
__________________
Brum brum
|
|
5 Jan 2004, 21:49 (Ref:828818)
|
#21 | |||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 981
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
__________________
watch this space :)
|
|
7 Jan 2004, 15:52 (Ref:830627)
|
#22 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,618
|
Just to point out, spreading the arm mounts like that basically ****s your suspension geometry So it shows where the real concentration lies in F1 nowadays with a definitive nod to aero over suspension
|
||
|
|
__________________
I refuse to let fact get in the way of my opinion
|
|
7 Jan 2004, 16:20 (Ref:830669)
|
#23 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 981
|
yeah most cars are designed with longer lower a-arms to induce negative camber (bottom of tyre further out from centre of car than top) when the suspension is compressed.
Can't see how that happens with the wide-apart twin keels though... any ideas? Or don't they need too? i know michelin was trying to get their teams to adopt the non camber tyres (i can't remember what the system was called now) Regards Ed |
||
|
|
__________________
watch this space :)
|
|
7 Jan 2004, 16:30 (Ref:830677)
|
#24 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,332
|
Here is a link to a thread in the technical forum (which may be where this thread is headed) that discusses some similar suspension geometry issues... While not specifically about a twin-keel setup, some of the issues are similar.
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...threadid=36158 At any rate, just because the lower A-arm is shorter does not necessarily mean that camber gain is not designed into the suspension. It is something that you cannot tell for sure by eye, you would really need to know the exact coordinates of the chassis pickup points and the upright connection points at ride height to have a good idea, and wouldnt know for sure until you had a range of suspension movements as well... 
Last edited by shiny side up!; 7 Jan 2004 at 16:31. |
||
|
|
__________________
Juliette Bravo! Juliette Bravo!!!!
|
|
8 Jan 2004, 00:22 (Ref:831094)
|
#25 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,917
|
I think the way that Michelin liked their tyres to be worked helps in the cause of twin keel?
|
||
|
|
__________________
Alonso: "McLaren and Williams are also great racing teams, but Ferrari is the biggest one that you can go to."
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Single / Twin / V Keel | Ingsy | Racing Technology | 7 | 27 Oct 2005 12:14 |
| Single or double keel | wouterwolfs | Formula One | 2 | 17 Mar 2004 19:54 |
| Twin Keel | GTV27 | Racing Technology | 4 | 20 Jun 2003 21:14 |
| EJ13 Twin Keel? | ParkLife | Formula One | 23 | 22 Jan 2003 09:42 |
Linear Mode
