Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Red Bulls flexing wing set the precedent and the FIA's inaction over that has led us to this situation.

[beelsebob]

Red Bulls flexing wing set the precedent and the FIA's inaction over that has led us to this situation.

Agreed, the FIA are indeed in a sticky situation there, and I can't think of a not insane way to test this system; though in principal, it seems to break the rules.

[MercAMGF1Fans]

Red Bulls flexing wing set the precedent and the FIA's inaction over that has led us to this situation.

Agreed, the FIA are indeed in a sticky situation there, and I can't think of a not insane way to test this system; though in principal, it seems to break the rules.

yeah that's the thing, I mean, all teams are kinda saying "if you can't prove it, then we can continue with the advantage"

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Red Bulls flexing wing set the precedent and the FIA's inaction over that has led us to this situation.

Agreed, the FIA are indeed in a sticky situation there, and I can't think of a not insane way to test this system; though in principal, it seems to break the rules.

I think if you are going to allow a flexing wing, you have opened up a can of worms for what is permissible.
It would be grossly unfair on any team pushing 3.15 to the limit, to now have the FIA reinterpret it.
As we discussed not even a week ago... We all saw those wings bend, yet even after teams asked for clarification Whiting said it adhered to the tests of 3.15.
"Yes the wings bend but, we can prove it?" was the BS outcome.

Well Im afraid the cat is now out the bag. Any clarification of the rules now is nothing short of ridiculous given the length of debate teams had on this....

[Schulteiss]

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 loophole

I don't think so. The FIA's stance was(in hindsight), quite clear on the RRH thingy. They have looked into the plans they were presented with, and concluded that the initial aim is to maximize and increase aero efficiency, not brake stabilization. This is NOT the case with this system. I really don't see how they could come to the same conclusion here. I also think a couple of other teams will have similar suspensions too.

[raymondu999]

How many of these hardware innovations last long before discovery though? The McLaren fiddle brake, the mass damper, the McLaren torque control lever...

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.

I'm talking of the RRH

[Schulteiss]

How many of these hardware innovations last long before discovery though? The McLaren fiddle brake, the mass damper, the McLaren torque control lever...

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.

I'm talking of the RRH

oops, I get it. My bad.

[jav]

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.

an interconnected system does not change the length of the suspension, it merely creates a hydraulic anti drive system without altering the damping.
The same effect can be created by a piston madeof very dense metal, not necessarily mercury hydraulic fluid.

Wouldn't both these systems violate:

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.

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.

How would either system violate 4.2?? Weight distribution and weight shift are 2 different things. Dynamically, weight shift could load or unload any given corner beyond the limits of 4.2 without being in violation of it.

[tomek108]

Wouldn't both these systems violate:

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.

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.[/quote]


You are talking about two different things. Mass on each pair of wheels is constant, but force is different in dynamic conditions.

[Ferraripilot]

I see. So, the Mercedes system will pass the test but is not within the spirit of the rules. I love it. The irony. This is how you win these days I guess, right

Sounds like Bell and the fellows who took part in designing the Lotus system whom Bell swiped from Lotus saw Lotus' and Ferrari's outcome as inevitable and specifically designed something around the issue.

[Schulteiss]

I see. So, the Mercedes system will pass the test but is not within the spirit of the rules. I love it. The irony. This is how you win these days I guess, right

Sounds like Bell and the fellows who took part in designing the Lotus system whom Bell swiped from Lotus saw Lotuss and Ferrari's outcome as inevitable and specifically designed something around the issue.

Ferrari has interlinked suspension too IMHO. How is it by the way not within the spirit of the rules?

[Ferraripilot]

I see. So, the Mercedes system will pass the test but is not within the spirit of the rules. I love it. The irony. This is how you win these days I guess, right

Sounds like Bell and the fellows who took part in designing the Lotus system whom Bell swiped from Lotus saw Lotuss and Ferrari's outcome as inevitable and specifically designed something around the issue.

Ferrari has interlinked suspension too IMHO. How is it by the way not within the spirit of the rules?

That's for another discussion altogether, but I can hear someone crying foul over the systems passively controlling the ride height.

[dren]

I was under the impression that the hydraulically linked system was one where all the dampers were linked via valving. The valves opened and closed based on acceleration forces, which changed how the dampers reacted in relation to each other. No geometry changes, no pistons moving to oppose suspension travel.

[beelsebob]

Wouldn't both these systems violate:

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.

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.

You are talking about two different things. Mass on each pair of wheels is constant, but force is different in dynamic conditions.

It doesn't talk about mass, it talks about weight.

[beelsebob]

Ferrari has interlinked suspension too IMHO. How is it by the way not within the spirit of the rules?

Because what is being talked about is not (only) a method of interlinking suspension. It's a system for responding to acceleration and deceleration and changing the suspension setup based on that. Notably, it involves allowing weight to be shifted around in the car, and hence is in violation of rule 4.2, even if it can't be tested for.