gilgen wrote:xpensive wrote: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?
Myself, I hope to see something like the above, at least I'm sure they were toying with it, perhaps banned now?
Anyway, an inactive member has done an outstanding job developing the concept, working both front and rear actually.
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.
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.
3.15 seems to be the univeral scape goat-which I frankly think is being abused by the FIA. They seem to apply that more so for convenience than logic and it seems nothing is concretely immune.
As to the 10.2.. regs- I would think this "type" of system is sufficiently different to the ones banned as parts that didn't previously "adjust or move" - do not move or adjust now. I understood the objection and ban to relate to the brake calipers "torsional movement" used to create hydraulic pressure that
"lengthened a suspension member" (push rod got longer to raise nose despite wieght shifts tendendy to compress the suspension). It "seems" to me that this hydraulic system is not really new and more immune to those crtiticisms... but what do I know?