McLaren Life banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The absence of anti-roll bars is seen as a benefit, according to Mclaren, as it allows unhindered vertical travel of the front wheels.

Is there an engineering downside? Any views out there?

The ride benefits gained from the hydraulic suspension are pretty obvious as is the lack of tyre wear......although the inside edge of the front tyres wear ending their life before fully worn. Is this a roll-bar absence issue?

I have googled without success.

Stay awake at the back.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
I don't think that it is a anti-roll bar issue. Roll forces are simply controlled by the hydraulic forces as opposed to a torsional spring force. The big advantage is that there is no opposite reaction on the other side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Ah, no opposing reaction. For every action there is a reaction.....forgot that, thanks AMLVV12.

So the speed of the hydraulic reaction is critical and the 12C does stay level as soon as the steering wheel is fiddled with........Mclaren 1 v Anti Roll Bar 0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
I am sure you have read and studied this:

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2012-mclaren-mp4-12c-suspension-walkaround.html

I am usually not the kind to buy into the argument 'car company engineers know better' - but there is one point that gives reason for pause: Knowing how car companies have to nickel and dime, if there is a selection of solutions that are equivalent, the most cost effective will always win. What McLaren engineered and built into the car in form of tubes, hoses, accumulators and special shock absorbers, not to mention software development, is probably several magnitudes more expensive than a mandrel bent steel bar with two links on each side.

The subtle ride and go-cart like track mode would simply not have been possible with two steel bars on each side.
Besides, the car still has the heave bar - its not as McLaren wouldn't know how to bend steel bars.......... :D

The absence of anti-roll bars is seen as a benefit, according to Mclaren, as it allows unhindered vertical travel of the front wheels.

Is there an engineering downside? Any views out there?

The ride benefits gained from the hydraulic suspension are pretty obvious as is the lack of tyre wear......although the inside edge of the front tyres wear ending their life before fully worn. Is this a roll-bar absence issue?

I have googled without success.

Stay awake at the back.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
Another good piece explaining the Tenneco system:

http://www.caranddriver.com/feature...tennecos-kinetic-suspension-explained-feature



I am sure you have read and studied this:

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2012-mclaren-mp4-12c-suspension-walkaround.html

I am usually not the kind to buy into the argument 'car company engineers know better' - but the is one point that gives reason for pause: Knowing how car companies have to nickel and dime, if there is a selection of solutions that are equivalent, the most cost effective will always win. What McLaren engineered and built into the car in form of tubes, hoses, accumulators and special shock absorbers, not to mention software development, is probably several magnitudes more expensive than a mandrel bent steel bar with two links on each side.

The subtle ride and go-cart like track mode would simply not have been possible with two steel bars on each side.
Besides, the car still has the heave bar - its not as McLaren wouldn't know how to bend steel bars.......... :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,325 Posts
Mclaren seem rather against roll bars in principle. If I remember correctly the Mclaren F1 does not have a rear anti roll bar as well.

Interesting link there ca_mp4. One does wonder though why Mclaren are the only ones to go without roll bar even with an adaptive/hydraulic type suspension setup. Most other sports cars have some kind of adaptive suspension these days (Porsche PASM, magride on the Audi R8) and yet still keep their ARBs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Ca_mp4, interesting link, thanks.

Isv, the other adaptive systems seem to differ in that they are not linked........I may be wrong.

Interestingly I owned a 7 series BMW, the Bangle one, which had motorised anti roll bars to counter the big barge tendency to roll and it had a very comfortable ride albeit at lower speeds than a 12C.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,072 Posts
I don' think McLaren is "against anti rollbars" in general, but it's a very old technology if you think about it compared to other much more advanced suspension components, like adaptive dampers.

Performance wise there is probably not much advantage in McLaren's approach, if at all, compared to a perfectly tuned race suspension with anti rollbars, but it is key to the impressive ride quality the 12C offers in normal mode.

So it was probably a decision made to achieve the perfect "AND" car, not especially the fastest car possible on track.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
McDc, wouldn't there be a big advantage to the hydraulic system compared to race suspension of very stiff springs on tracks with crap/rough/wavy pavement? I'd imagine on tracks like that, with a really stiff spring setup, the car would have a tendency to get air born on some of the surfaces because of the stiff springs, where McLaren's set up could absorb the rough spots and keep contact.

On nice smooth tracks, perhaps it makes no difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,072 Posts
Race suspension doesn't necessarily mean super stiff springs. I'm actually running softer springs in a full race suspension in one of my track tools than I had before with a more conventional coilover setup. It very much depends on the capability and quality of the dampers.

But I agree, that McLaren's approach is a more allround one for all kind of tracks. Having said that, I don't think it can beat a classic race suspension that is fine tuned to a specific profile of a track.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,123 Posts
Race suspension doesn't necessarily mean super stiff springs. I'm actually running softer springs in a full race suspension in one of my track tools than I had before with a more conventional coilover setup. It very much depends on the capability and quality of the dampers.

But I agree, that McLaren's approach is a more allround one for all kind of tracks. Having said that, I don't think it can beat a classic race suspension that is fine tuned to a specific profile of a track.
Could the McLaren setup be 'tuned' as well mcdc?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Could the McLaren setup be 'tuned' as well mcdc?

Mikey, reading an article on Mac hydraulic suspension some years ago.......way back in 2011.....it talked about altering flow valves electrically and additional chambers in the 'shocks' ,which the P1 has, to control vertical movement in a faster time compared to the 12c two chamber design. Also bigger reservoirs with further independent pressurisation may help but at a cost.

It would not surprise me that the current system was developed further to control vertical wheel movement for different road surface conditions.

As I have mentioned before I met the guy tasked with the next 12C, back in 2011 I think, who was mapping out the engineering strategy and feature changes ( I told him to move the start button from the active button for instance) and we had an exchange over suspension performance........he knew his suspension, engines, brakes, aerodynamics but was a bit behind on button placement!

Oh, I also said I wanted traction/stability management separated from suspension settings so I could have track go/suspension with max stability/traction control........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,123 Posts
Mikey, reading an article on Mac hydraulic suspension some years ago.......way back in 2011.....it talked about altering flow valves electrically and additional chambers in the 'shocks' ,which the P1 has, to control vertical movement in a faster time compared to the 12c two chamber design. Also bigger reservoirs with further independent pressurisation may help but at a cost.

It would not surprise me that the current system was developed further to control vertical wheel movement for different road surface conditions.

As I have mentioned before I met the guy tasked with the next 12C, back in 2011 I think, who was mapping out the engineering strategy and feature changes ( I told him to move the start button from the active button for instance) and we had an exchange over suspension performance........he knew his suspension, engines, brakes, aerodynamics but was a bit behind on button placement!

Oh, I also said I wanted traction/stability management separated from suspension settings so I could have track go/suspension with max stability/traction control........
It does stand to reason it should be tunable.. just not with a spanner ... and of course the distribution of knowledge is not high right now I guess. Thanks Ric!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,072 Posts
It does stand to reason it should be tunable.. just not with a spanner ... and of course the distribution of knowledge is not high right now I guess. Thanks Ric!
Agreed, suspension could be tuned on a 12C as well, but only on a software not hardware level. So if a certain part of hardware is missing by design, no bit of software can potentially workaround that. Also we, as customers, have no possibility to tweak the suspension other than choosing normal, sport or track. Now the latter can of course be seen as a good thing as one can mess up big time with wrong suspension settings.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
My most favourite feature for request, RIC. What did he reply to that ?

He said, 'um, I don't think we have enough buttons for that', which I interpreted as 'we want to keep the minimalist approach '

They can be stubborn sometimes which can also be a strength!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,123 Posts
He said, 'um, I don't think we have enough buttons for that', which I interpreted as 'we want to keep the minimalist approach '

They can be stubborn sometimes which can also be a strength!
I hadn't thought about that but yes properly makes sense ... just one more dial! P,H and T
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,325 Posts
My most favourite feature for request, RIC. What did he reply to that ?
Hah, funnily enough I mentioned it as well some time ago when I was speaking to someone from the factory and got a bit of a fudged reply... didn't think it was ever going to happen unfortunately...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,894 Posts
McDc, wouldn't there be a big advantage to the hydraulic system compared to race suspension of very stiff springs on tracks with crap/rough/wavy pavement? I'd imagine on tracks like that, with a really stiff spring setup, the car would have a tendency to get air born on some of the surfaces because of the stiff springs, where McLaren's set up could absorb the rough spots and keep contact.

On nice smooth tracks, perhaps it makes no difference.
Race suspension doesn't necessarily mean super stiff springs. I'm actually running softer springs in a full race suspension in one of my track tools than I had before with a more conventional coilover setup. It very much depends on the capability and quality of the dampers.

But I agree, that McLaren's approach is a more allround one for all kind of tracks. Having said that, I don't think it can beat a classic race suspension that is fine tuned to a specific profile of a track.
It's not about spring stiffness, it's about decoupling the wheels laterally. For example, when you are exiting a corner and hit a bump with a single wheel, the force of the bump is transmitted to the wheel on the other side via the ARB, which may, in some cases reduce traction. i.e. as along as you have ARB, independent suspension can never be truly independent.

Interestingly, one of the magazines asked Ferrari's engineers about the hydraulic suspension and their biggest criticism was that it was a poor design to control static roll in a constant radius, high G corner. Which is ironic, as in my experience, the 12C's biggest advantage is in precisely those types of turns, i.e. high speed 4th gear sweepers.

Regarding tuning, the 12C's PCC system already does give you the ability to tune it, somewhat, by changing the amount of roll stiffness via the Handling dial. That said, in practice, I have yet to be on a track - bumpy ones included - where I preferred Sport over Track. In the wet, however, you might prefer Sport or Normal, irrespective of the TC intervention.

If anything, if they allowed you to adjust the front and rear roll stiffness independently, say on increments of 1 to 20, that might be very interesting. There are times, on small tracks with various 2nd gear corners, where I've thought to myself that a slightly softer front might dial out some understeer. I imagine there are liability issues there, however.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top