Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[AbulafiaF1]

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.

But the suspension system, without the interlinking, does NOT respond only to changes in load applied to the wheels. It also reacts to the acceleration / deceleration forces that we are discussing in the form of diving or squatting. Therefore, such interlinked systems actually help the suspension deal with these forces better. Ok, the tyre is the most compliant in this case and absorbs much of the dive / squat in the form of tyre "squash", but the suspension itself also reacts (to a lesser degree). So, you can't argue that this interlinked system introduces anything new in terms of forces / reactions - it just helps the suspension deal with the dive/squat better than it already does...

[PlatinumZealot]

But the suspension system, without the interlinking, does NOT respond only to changes in load applied to the wheels. It also reacts to the acceleration / deceleration forces that we are discussing in the form of diving or squatting

This statement is a little confounding but I can break it down into two parts.

1.
In a normal car the diving and squatting are results from the jacking forces from the tyres which compress the springs - It's not the acceleration that squats the car but forces acting on the suspension, which come via the reaction from the ground through the tyres. Exapmle in squating the acceleration cause the weight to shift to the back - so the force on the rear tyres increase - the rear springs compress. I am just saying that if there were no wheels on a Normal car - there won't be any reaction force to compress the springs.

2.
I think you could also be referring to the acceleration of the different components in the car causing them to move around relative to each other? Like acceleration of multiple linked bodies? The mass of the wheel hub tugging on the push-rods in a quick direction change? The mass of the body pulling everything along with it in a quick direction change? That sort of reasoning? Well, It does happen but I think the suspension movements would be very small almost insignificant when compared to the Forces coming from the car and wheels.

I Imagine it like this:

Lets say you remove the wheels from a Normal suspension system. Now imagine the car somehow driving the track without touching the ground (maybe anti gravity flux capacitor?) with the suspension just hanging loose - The suspension system will not move any significant degree as the car dives, rolls and yaws around the turns.

BUT

If the system in this flying car were the mercury hydraulic system, the suspension will be moving all over the place as the car accelerates and decelerates around the track. The suspension would be moving around as if 4 ghosts were moving the wishbones.. (it would be an eerie sight) almost like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjbc1tmKi6g[/youtube]

This shows that the response of the system does not only comes from changes in tyre load - like a normal suspension system.

[marcush.]

as always the rules are made by people not able to express themselves in a proper ways.
there is always a certain possibility to interpret rules and right if the rules stipulate something wich is physically nonsense or impossible to achieve then the rules need clarification and NOT the invention being banned on whatever grounds.
Charly is to blame, period.
the suspension does react to aero by the rules ,as you are not allowed to put your aero on unsprung part of the car....errm apart from the brakeducts ...but thats another story.

but as long as it is a passive system (which was the original starting point for the rules ruling out active )it should be allowed.

[bhall]

Put another way: this system just means that, in addition to bumps on the track, cornering, curbs, etc., the suspension also responds to inertia, and it would do so regardless of the load applied to the wheels. That should, indeed, make it illegal.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Looking at this picture, it will be very hard to see how the FIA can ban the system.
The tyres are taking the load and transfering this energy into the car.
The suspension will always react to inertia. Note react, not act independant of... as in active suspension.
Nothing can be done to stop that, Mercedes alleged system is utilising this energy to good effect if indeed what is being proposed is true.
If they had to ban it, then it wont allow for suspension travel either...or am I missing something?

[Schulteiss]

@n smikle:

Are you sure about that? The vid is an active suspension, whereas what we are talking about here is NOT. You assume that the inertia of the mercury in the system would actually prompt a reaction from the suspension without load. If I understand this correctly, it only creates diverse pressures which regulate the dampers accordingly. No load - no effect?

[ForMuLaOne]

If the system in this flying car were the mercury hydraulic system, the suspension will be moving all over the place as the car accelerates and decelerates around the track. The suspension would be moving around as if 4 ghosts were moving the wishbones...

Would be nice to see the FIA working on this idea to have a proper test for this rule In fact it is really a matter of perspective that allows FIA to judge wether it is ok or not. The rules are written by people who probably cannot imagine what could be done to twist around the meaning of their words. Maybe the FIA should start to supply the teams with rule confirmed parts

To me the argumentation would be like this: The car DOES have wheels, and force is applied when accelerating, braking, turning and because of an uneven surface. In a flying car this system was illegal because it would react to forces which aren`t applied to the system directly, but to the FLUX whatsoever But in reality it is highly reactive, because if the car was not braking, it was not decelerating, tyre load was not increasing, no compensator was working, the car would not adjust...And this adjustment is achieved within the wording of the rules.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

@ FormulaOne

But given that this was developed by Mercedes since last year at least, they would have been in contact with the FIA each step of the way ensuring legality.
They wont have necessarily shown them the system, BUT if they ask for rules to be outlined and the FIA do so and Mercedes have dovetailed this into the rules.....then the FIA have to accept it just as they did with EBDs DDDs and flexing wings.

They could issue a mandate for 2013, but it would incredibly harsh to ban something like this when other innovations have had some time to at least be raced.

[ForMuLaOne]

@n smikle:

Are you sure about that? The vid is an active suspension, whereas what we are talking about here is NOT. You assume that the inertia of the mercury in the system would actually prompt a reaction from the suspension without load. If I understand this correctly, it only creates diverse pressures which regulate the dampers accordingly. No load - no effect?

That is wrong, in this example we really had the ghosts lifting the four ends of the car But in reality the force can only be achieved because of the tyres. So it is not only the load caused by bumbs, but also the whole G- load. This Load is achieved by the tyres and suspension and so on... to me it is legal.

[bhall]

No load - no effect?

And no response, either. Were it to respond, it would be doing so with the added input of inertia as well as the "usual" dynamic forces.

[PlatinumZealot]

@n smikle:

Are you sure about that? The vid is an active suspension, whereas what we are talking about here is NOT. You assume that the inertia of the mercury in the system would actually prompt a reaction from the suspension without load. If I understand this correctly, it only creates diverse pressures which regulate the dampers accordingly. No load - no effect?

You missed some keywords in my post.

[Schulteiss]

@n smikle:

Are you sure about that? The vid is an active suspension, whereas what we are talking about here is NOT. You assume that the inertia of the mercury in the system would actually prompt a reaction from the suspension without load. If I understand this correctly, it only creates diverse pressures which regulate the dampers accordingly. No load - no effect?

That is wrong, in this example we really had the ghosts lifting the four ends of the car But in reality the force can only be achieved because of the tyres. So it is not only the load caused by bumbs, but also the whole G- load. This Load is achieved by the tyres and suspension and so on... to me it is legal.

I actually meant the whole G-load.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

No load - no effect?

And no response, either. Were it to respond, it would be doing so with the added input of inertia as well as the "usual" dynamic forces.

So the driver would also be banned?

[Schulteiss]

@n smikle:

Are you sure about that? The vid is an active suspension, whereas what we are talking about here is NOT. You assume that the inertia of the mercury in the system would actually prompt a reaction from the suspension without load. If I understand this correctly, it only creates diverse pressures which regulate the dampers accordingly. No load - no effect?

You missed some keywords in my post.

and that I have. My bad.

[bhall]

Yeah, I worded that poorly. But if the suspension has no load, it's not doing anything at all, which would render this entire discussion moot.