Mercedes AMG have today completed their shakedown of the W03, the team's new 2012 car. After the team decided to run at last week's Jerez test with the older car, Mercedes will present its new car to the public next Tuesday at the start of testing at Barcelona.
It is indeed a very elegant solution, however please don't give credit to me. As I said, it's a friend's work...n smikle wrote:Very clever abulafia.
I'll post it on twitter to a few people who work at Merc if u like?AbulafiaF1 wrote:It is indeed a very elegant solution, however please don't give credit to me. As I said, it's a friend's work...n smikle wrote:Very clever abulafia.
There are some other small issues with the design, but nothing major that can't be detailed and sorted out. Do you think Mercedes guys are reading this forum as we speak...?
Not sure what you are talking about. It was not a secret, and basically a simpler version was raced already last year, its not illegal.raymondu999 wrote:How many of these hardware innovations last long before discovery though? The McLaren fiddle brake, the mass damper, the McLaren torque control lever...
Not that the FIA couldn't determine otherwise, they used mulitple reasons (and singled out Renault and the Ferrari systems) principly for 3.15 violation and then further supported the ban using 10.2.1 & 3.gilgen wrote:Bearing in mind that the Lotus ride height system has been banned, citing article 10.2.1 and 10.2.3, what is different to this system that is no different. If Merc put all their eggs in one basked with this idea, they will be in deep trouble.xpensive wrote:Myself, I hope to see something like the above, at least I'm sure they were toying with it, perhaps banned now?xpensive wrote:Mercury for hydraulic fluid?
Mercury have a density of 13.5 (hydraulic oil about 0.88), which within a 2.5 meter long line from rear to front would create a pressure of 13.5 Bar under 4g deceleration. If this pressure would affect an 80 mm diameter hydraulic cylinder it would create 6800 N (680 kg) of force, probably enough to lift the suspension on each front wheel to raise the nose.
So if that's what it was all about, clever, no wonder they wanted to spend time on it, such a shame if it was banned?
Anyway, an inactive member has done an outstanding job developing the concept, working both front and rear actually.
an interconnected system does not change the length of the suspension, it merely creates a hydraulic anti drive system without altering the damping.gilgen wrote:
The FIA have ruled that any device that changes the length of the suspension, is in breach of the regs. Not the aero regs, but the suspension regs.
So if the Merc system is designed to lift or lower the suspension at any point, it is illegal.
oooo.. this is gonna be a MASSIVE talking point! BRILLIANT! can't wait!Raptor22 wrote:an interconnected system does not change the length of the suspension, it merely creates a hydraulic anti drive system without altering the damping.gilgen wrote:
The FIA have ruled that any device that changes the length of the suspension, is in breach of the regs. Not the aero regs, but the suspension regs.
So if the Merc system is designed to lift or lower the suspension at any point, it is illegal.
The same effect can be created by a piston madeof very dense metal, not necessarily mercury hydraulic fluid.
Wouldn't both these systems violate:Raptor22 wrote:an interconnected system does not change the length of the suspension, it merely creates a hydraulic anti drive system without altering the damping.gilgen wrote:The FIA have ruled that any device that changes the length of the suspension, is in breach of the regs. Not the aero regs, but the suspension regs.
So if the Merc system is designed to lift or lower the suspension at any point, it is illegal.
The same effect can be created by a piston madeof very dense metal, not necessarily mercury hydraulic fluid.
I guess you could use a suitably small amount of mercury/suitibly small piston, but then it wouldn't be able to exhert much force on the suspension to alter it's characteristics.4.2 Weight distribution :
For 2012 and 2013 only, the weight applied on the front and rear wheels must not be less than 291kg and 342kg respectively at all times during the qualifying practice session.
Good question, though I'm sure with enough imagination we could figure out a suitable test.JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Beelsebob
How can they test this when the car is in motion?
The same way Red Bull circumvented 3.15 with its flexing wings whilst the car is in motion, the wings pass the test as specified by the FIA(ie not in motion).
So while the car is static it will pass the tests, but the moment G force is applied the system starts to work.
Looks like Ross and co have found a MASSIVE loopholeJohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Beelsebob
How can they test this when the car is in motion?
The same way Red Bull circumvented 3.15 with its flexing wings whilst the car is in motion, the wings pass the test as specified by the FIA(ie not in motion).
So while the car is static it will pass the tests, but the moment G force is applied the system starts to work.
