Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[Schulteiss]

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.

uhmm, no, I think not. If the suspension setup would change in a reactive way, it would be banned, and would have been banned last year. As I understand this, it does not change suspension geometry, or setup in any way. There is no weight shifting around to balance the car, if that is what you meant too. the amount of mercury used is negligible, I hardly think it would be permitted otherwise.

[aral]

Its just as well the thread is headed with the word "speculation". There is no proof that Merc were using any interlinked suspension in 2011, nor has there been any announcement that they will be using it in 2012.
Its all a bit pointless arguing about something that might not even exist, or even being considered. Why not wait until the car is unveiled?

[jav]

Its just as well the thread is headed with the word "speculation". There is no proof that Merc were using any interlinked suspension in 2011, nor has there been any announcement that they will be using it in 2012.
Its all a bit pointless arguing about something that might not even exist, or even being considered. Why not wait until the car is unveiled?

That's not correct. Scarbs posted in late 2011 about the Mercs hydraulically interlinked rear suspension. I think discussion relative this versus renaults approach with respect to the ban is les speculative than you suggest.

[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.

uhmm, no, I think not. If the suspension setup would change in a reactive way, it would be banned, and would have been banned last year. As I understand this, it does not change suspension geometry, or setup in any way. There is no weight shifting around to balance the car, if that is what you meant too. the amount of mercury used is negligible, I hardly think it would be permitted otherwise.

It does not change the geometry – but it does change the way it behaves. The point of the mercury is that it's extremely dense and changes the pressure in the cylinders when it's accelerated either to the back of the car or the front, and hence how the suspension behaves, when the car is breaking and accelerating.

[dren]

It does not change the geometry – but it does change the way it behaves. The point of the mercury is that it's extremely dense and changes the pressure in the cylinders when it's accelerated either to the back of the car or the front, and hence how the suspension behaves, when the car is breaking and accelerating.

I think the acceleration changes valving which changes how the dampers are linked.

[beelsebob]

It does not change the geometry – but it does change the way it behaves. The point of the mercury is that it's extremely dense and changes the pressure in the cylinders when it's accelerated either to the back of the car or the front, and hence how the suspension behaves, when the car is breaking and accelerating.

I think the acceleration changes valving which changes how the dampers are linked.

That's not what's shown here... http://abulafiaf1.wordpress.com/2012/01 ... ty-system/

[dren]

It does not change the geometry – but it does change the way it behaves. The point of the mercury is that it's extremely dense and changes the pressure in the cylinders when it's accelerated either to the back of the car or the front, and hence how the suspension behaves, when the car is breaking and accelerating.

I think the acceleration changes valving which changes how the dampers are linked.

That's not what's shown here... http://abulafiaf1.wordpress.com/2012/01 ... ty-system/

Yeah, I saw that. I thought it was just something a guy dreampt up. The info Scarbs had was more to do with valving. I guess either could work. The valving sounds like it would be legal. This version doesn't look legal if you count the mercury as moving balast, which it isn't used in that way so it technically shouldn't be right?

[beelsebob]

Yeah, I saw that. I thought it was just something a guy dreampt up. The info Scarbs had was more to do with valving. I guess either could work. The valving sounds like it would be legal. This version doesn't look legal if you count the mercury as moving balast, which it isn't used in that way so it technically shouldn't be right?

Right, a system that used a small amount of mercury to switch valves and shuffle around the pressures of the various cylinders sounds like it should be legal to me.

The only gotcha might be that it might be considered to be only for aero advantage, and hence fall foul of the movable aero rules.

[dren]

Where I see this as circumventing the moveable areo is that it isn't technically moving anything, it just is slowing/resisting the movement of the suspension.

[hardingfv32]

Stiffening the front shocks under braking is not going to cut. The shocks could be designed to react to longitudinal acceleration if shock stiffening was your goal. This mercury system is a interesting idea, but since it is really all about changing the ride height, it probably is not legal.

Brian

[Raptor22]

by your definition, brakes would be illegal...

[xpensive]

Mercury for hydraulic fluid?

Mercury has 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 that's what it was all about, clever, no wonder they wanted to spend time on it, such a shame if it was banned?

After this xcitement, I did a recalc of my initial draft above, with 3.2 meter wheelbase, 5g deceleration and 13.5 density,
a 22 Bar pressure would be generated at the front, which in a 65 mm heave-cylinder should create 7200 N on each side, surely enough to lift the nose 5-10 mm. Brilliant, but is it legal?

As for the amount of mercury, an 8 mm ID line from front to rear would hold no more than 160 cc, or 2.2 kg.

[Gridlock]

(from wikipedia, sorry, but good enough I feel)

Acute inhalation of high concentrations causes a wide variety of cognitive, personality, sensory, and motor disturbances. The most prominent symptoms include tremors (initially affecting the hands and sometimes spreading to other parts of the body), emotional lability (characterized by irritability, excessive shyness, confidence loss, and nervousness), insomnia, memory loss, neuromuscular changes (weakness, muscle atrophy, muscle twitching), headaches, polyneuropathy (paresthesia, stocking-glove sensory loss, hyperactive tendon reflexes, slowed sensory and motor nerve conduction velocities), and performance deficits in tests of cognitive function.

[xpensive]

Pretty much like alcohol then?

[TheWiseOwl]

Pretty much like alcohol then?

Except the effects last forever.

Given that is probably takes less than half a gram to cause irreversible and severe damage, I don't think the FIA will be too happy with a car carrying enough mercury to severely affect over 4000 people, especially if in the worst case scenario it became aerosolized in a crash - putting drivers, marshals and spectators at risk.

Not going to happen.