Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[aleks_ader]

Has anyone thought that a modified W02 with this new suspension system is what is specifically being tested before W03? I could see that as possible although it throws their claims of wanting to understand tires based on a platform they understand sort of out the window.

Yeah that is point whole thing you have right! Nothing new be sure that Merc guys now how made this stuff...

[Raptor22]

It may well be a dielectric fluid [...]

That's not permitted.

10.2.2 Any powered device which is capable of altering the configuration or affecting the performance of any part of the suspension system is forbidden.

10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.

The word adjustment means to alter from a predetermined state. States of damping can be predeteremined. You're just not allowed to alter those predetermined states while the car is moving. If not the damper itself would be illegal and I assure you no car is running a linear damping rate nor linear spring rates.

A dielectric fluid is not a powered device. It is a fluid that s responds to electric current. Is a resistor a powered device?
The engine is a powered device capable of affecting the performance of any part of the suspension system. Is it illegal??

[bhall]

If dielectric fluid isn't a powered device, why does it need power to work?

And the engine argument? C'mon.

I think it's quite simple: if magnetorheological dampers were allowed, every car would have them.

[Intego]

I don't know whether it's known around here, MGP drove the interlinked suspension for a couple of races last year. German AMS (online) has had a small mentioning about that. I remember I was very surprised, because I have never read that before. So they have had plenty of time to develop and test it. Maybe they have made it to perfection – or maybe not.

EDIT: Here is the article from July 5th 2011:
AMuS.de German
Bad Google translation

And from December 13th 2011:
AMuS.de German
Bad Google translation

PS: The "maybe they hide sth." issue is not a German media hype – it's only stupid autobild, who doesn't know anything and later says "as we have said it!".

[scarlet]

I don't know whether it's known around here, MGP drove the interlinked suspension for a couple of races last year. German AMS (online) has had a small mentioning about that. I remember I was very surprised, because I have never read that before. So they have had plenty of time to develop and test it. Maybe they have made it to perfection – or maybe not.

BTW: The "maybe they hide sth." issue is not a German media hype – it's only stupid autobild, who knows nothing and later says "as we have said it!".

I thought the interlinking they run last year was just between the wheels on either side together, rather than the front to the back?

[Intego]

As I understood it it was both, but separated: left to right on every axle and the axles front and rear were linked.
I have found the old articels, see above ...

[PlatinumZealot]

I don't understand why the big furore over mercury. It's like some guys think that this system will be moving about gallons of mercury, ready to explode at any minute. In reality, this system needs minimal amounts of mercury to operate (no more than 250-300ml maximum). And, in any case, by accommodating slightly bigger pipe lines (in diameter) you can use a variety of other fluids such as gallium (as someone suggested) and its alloys (e.g. gallium-indium-tin), cesium formate, barium sulfide and sodium metatungstate. You will NOT get the same efficiency as mercury, but it will still work and provide the kind of differential pressures you need to lift the nose.

I found this.. They system would be illegal.

10.1.2 The suspension system must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in load
applied to the wheels.

The cross linked hydraulic system depends on acceleration of the car and not only the forces from the wheels. And as much as I indulged in it, any system that relies on g-force to affect the suspension is very naturally, illegal.

[Gridlock]

Seems to me you're confusing an active system such as one using thermometer-innards with a passive one as described, in which the only reaction is in fact to suspension forces.

Imagine a right hand bend - the front left suspension is compressed and the rear right (inner) wheel wants to lift. Use some of that compressive force at the FL to drive fluid into the RR and you have a rear (driven...) wheel that is being held down with more force than without the linking.

And yes I'm sure Mercedes will get a 1-2 in AUS because they have a super-sekrit front wing f duct or whatever that is so powerful an idea they can't risk running the new car, with or without it, at 1 of only 3 testing opportunities. Every year January is exactly like this too much fan interest and not enough data!

[MercAMGF1Fans]

Seems to me you're confusing an active system such as one using thermometer-innards with a passive one as described, in which the only reaction is in fact to suspension forces.

Imagine a right hand bend - the front left suspension is compressed and the rear right (inner) wheel wants to lift. Use some of that compressive force at the FL to drive fluid into the RR and you have a rear (driven...) wheel that is being held down with more force than without the linking.

And yes I'm sure Mercedes will get a 1-2 in AUS because they have a super-sekrit front wing f duct or whatever that is so powerful an idea they can't risk running the new car, with or without it, at 1 of only 3 testing opportunities. Every year January is exactly like this too much fan interest and not enough data!

=D> =D>

[xpensive]

@ n smikle;

As someone with long xperience of reading and writing intellectual property, I believe that either this rule is not intended the way you think or it's simply poorly written, "response results only from changes in load applied to the wheels."

When "response" obviously refers to load and every thinkable load on the suspension comes from the wheel anyway, the load on the suspension does not change with the mercury-system at all, the suspension-load changes with deceleration.

I think the rule is intended against "active" suspension, where a hydraulic valve was modulating the suspension-load over the bumps to smoothen the ride?

But I agree, semantics can be a diffcult thing and who knows what the FIA thinks anyway?

[bhall]

10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.

It's the car's motion that adjusts how the suspension responds each time it accelerates and decelerates. And it's only because of those adjustments that this system has any value.

It's all mired in gray areas, but, for me, this is the hurdle that I'm not quite sure is cleared by Mercedes' rumored new toy.

[xpensive]

More semantics, define "adjustments"?

[bhall]

I don't really have an answer for you, chief. I can see the logic in saying that no adjustments are made to the suspension due to the fact that it behaves in the same general fashion all the time. Yet, I can also see the logic in saying that the suspension's damping properties are adjusted every time the car speeds up or slows down.

[Gridlock]

Plus there's the non-public Technical Directives, which non of us can or will refer to. And Mr Whiting's judgment seems to be fairly widely accepted as both final and well-intentioned in these cases, so we're essentially arguing a court case where all laws, and the alleged crime committed, are secret.

[Raptor22]

the semantics of words is exactly what creates grey area's...
Argueing that a rule is absolute is argueing that interpretation does not exist and thats simply incorrect.

Suspension reacts to changing load. it is in a constant state of motion and that motion is regulated by fluid flow which is regulated by valving which is regulated by either gas pressure, spring force, elastomeric material compressibility properties or by the interaction of other dampers in the system.

The rules Bhall is refering are written for active suspension systems whereby intevention of the suspension is proactive.
Any interlinked system that does not have intelligent control over it is deemed passive by definition.
Whether there is a reactive fluid intervention or a mass intervention or a force intervention or a geometric intervention (such as in anti dive anti squat geometry) these are all intervention devices and are palin and simply legal, which ever way its spun.
None of these devices influences the length of a member of the suspension. An device that changes the length of a suspension member is illegal.

So whether Merc has a mercury fluid hydraulic actuator, a mass based actuator or even an electrical actuator whether running off KERS or even if its a magnet in a coil (Induction motor), its a passive system that reacts to load AFTER it is applied.

That falls within the definition of passive reactive suspension, not active suspension.