bhallg2k wrote:Yeah, I worded that poorly. But if the suspension has no load, it's not doing anything at all.
And the suspension gets load from the tyres, hence why in my view it is legal.
bhallg2k wrote:Yeah, I worded that poorly. But if the suspension has no load, it's not doing anything at all.
I JUST wanted to comment again, but you wrote it, JET...this is VERY important! To me the system is legal because it reacts to forces which are applied on itself. As it is a closed system there is no adjustment which changes it in advance...it is a "realtime-reaction device" which does not measure and refeed with data to adjust.JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:bhallg2k wrote:Yeah, I worded that poorly. But if the suspension has no load, it's not doing anything at all.
And the suspension gets load from the tyres, hence why in my view it is legal.
You see, you are saying something - throwing words around, but you need to follow though with an explanation..xpensive wrote:A conventional anti-dive/anti-squat suspension-geometry also uses inertia to level the car, nobody ever questioned that?
If the suspension has no load then the car is static. The suspension system cannot impart displacement upon the sprung mass, it can only be actuated by a resultant external force. So an inertia valve interlinked suspension is legal.bhallg2k wrote: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.
The Mercury suspension for lack of a better name, get load from the hydraulic cylinders too.. enough to lift the tyres off the road if properly designed!JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:bhallg2k wrote:Yeah, I worded that poorly. But if the suspension has no load, it's not doing anything at all.
And the suspension gets load from the tyres, hence why in my view it is legal.
So what do you think about the regulation where it says: that the response should only come from the tyres?Raptor22 wrote:If the suspension has no load then the car is static. The suspension system cannot impart displacement upon the sprung mass, it can only be actuated by a resultant external force. So an inertia valve interlinked suspension is legal.bhallg2k wrote: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.
Its active if in a stationary position, with no magnitude or displacement the suspension can impart displacement upon the sprung mass. Thats illegal because its active.
You still want to argue that the suspension is influenced by an outside system. Sorry that does not hold water either because through interlinking the system, the suspension this design is the System.
Only an external CPU could be argued to be an external influence.
My chosen system would not utilise any other fluid than the hydraulic oil necessary for the dampers and the interlinking. That way I would argue that it is a continuous hydraulics fluid because even at the pistons there would need to be hydraulic flow to lubricate the seals.
A mercury based check valve system could aslo argued to be very legal from many facets not just the fact that it is...
Not so. As long as the CG of the car is above the contact surface there will exist a couple that will act through the wheel hub. The only way the reaction force goes away is if the car is sliding on its undertray.n smikle wrote:This statement is a little confounding but I can break it down into two parts.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
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.
ACtually youhave made an error here.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.
n smikle wrote:So what do you think about the regulation where it says: that the response should only come from the tyres?Raptor22 wrote:If the suspension has no load then the car is static. The suspension system cannot impart displacement upon the sprung mass, it can only be actuated by a resultant external force. So an inertia valve interlinked suspension is legal.bhallg2k wrote: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.
Its active if in a stationary position, with no magnitude or displacement the suspension can impart displacement upon the sprung mass. Thats illegal because its active.
You still want to argue that the suspension is influenced by an outside system. Sorry that does not hold water either because through interlinking the system, the suspension this design is the System.
Only an external CPU could be argued to be an external influence.
My chosen system would not utilise any other fluid than the hydraulic oil necessary for the dampers and the interlinking. That way I would argue that it is a continuous hydraulics fluid because even at the pistons there would need to be hydraulic flow to lubricate the seals.
A mercury based check valve system could aslo argued to be very legal from many facets not just the fact that it is...
I think there is some confusion in the debate.. Let me post this big so everybody understands where we are at!
Forget the DIRECT hydraulic interlinking that you are talking about. That is old news and straight forward - All the response comes from the tyres.. You can even use water and that will work.. no big deal.. LEGAL
Lets talk about the INERTIAL hydraulic interlinking that uses mercury... Density of 13.6 times water..
n smikle wrote:The couple through the wheel hub are internal forces Raptor.
And I already acknowledged that sub body acceleratoins are there?
I won't even answer that.. You like to skip over posts. No dice were loaded because I openly acknowledged the inertia of suspension parts.Raptor22 wrote:n smikle wrote:The couple through the wheel hub are internal forces Raptor.
And I already acknowledged that sub body acceleratoins are there?
Your hypothesis is based purely on external forces.
Yet the mercury mass reacts to an internal force, its own mass, yet you want to ignore the reaction of the suspension members due to their own mass...??
come now, lets not load the dice in our favour
Now You guys are beating me over the head with spiked clubs yet you don't want to interpret these rules..10.1.2 The suspension system must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in
load applied to the wheels.
n smikle wrote:
But recently, I said the system is illegal because of this wording.
Now You guys are beating me over the head with spiked clubs yet you don't want to interpret these rules..10.1.2 The suspension system must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in
load applied to the wheels.
[/quote]ForMuLaOne wrote:You need to understand that the car AS A WHOLE system corresponds with the environment within the frame our laws of nature. The car MAINLY corresponds with it`s environment in the form of tyre-surface contact, and motion through airmass.....This is not a subsystem which changes the possible interaction with the environment IN ADVANCE....it does not change the state of the car as a whole system BEFORE the effects of an interaction with the environment ( cornering, bumby surface) change...