Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

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.

[xpensive]

A conventional anti-dive/anti-squat suspension-geometry also uses inertia to level the car, nobody ever questioned that?

[ForMuLaOne]

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.

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.

[PlatinumZealot]

A conventional anti-dive/anti-squat suspension-geometry also uses inertia to level the car, nobody ever questioned that?

You see, you are saying something - throwing words around, but you need to follow though with an explanation..

Inertia of what? And how does the inertia levels the car? through what mechanisms? Things like these you have to explain so we can have a proper debate. It's not like I don't know already.. but Then I can respond to the posts.

I already stated in point 2. in my post above how inertia of the different parts affects a normal suspension AND I already concede that It does apply to the Mercury hydraulic system.

But there is one difference...

Please read my post above.

[Raptor22]

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.

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.

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...

[PlatinumZealot]

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.

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!

This I why I questioned it.. The response from the inertia of this.. this "suspension part".....is now VERY significant.

This aint no 20N inertial force from the Wishbone! That is wha

[PlatinumZealot]

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.

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.

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...

So what do you think about the regulation where it says: that the response should only come from the tyres?

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..

[Raptor22]

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.

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.

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.

ACtually youhave made an error here.

If the flux capacitor anti gravity car (FCAGC) were corning there would still be a mass couple around the CoG of the wheel hub. That would create a deflection on the suspension members no matter how small.
So the inertia effect is there whether you see it or not. Its there.
Therefore Merc's system is legal

[PlatinumZealot]

The couple through the wheel hub are internal forces Raptor.

And I already acknowledged that sub body acceleratoins are there?

[Raptor22]

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.

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.

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...

So what do you think about the regulation where it says: that the response should only come from the tyres?

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..

The tyres are the conduit. Remove them and the suspension members still have mass.
Mass under centripetal forces tends to increase forces at CoG of that mass.
Therefore the suspension is never free of any inertia effects, tyres or no tyres

[Raptor22]

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

[ForMuLaOne]

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. Now there are forces which can occur. Theses forces are created by a system-environment interaction, they can be named grip and downforce. The car as a system consists of subsystems which try to handle everything that has to do with this tiny border between the car and it`s environment in every state. The Mercedes Solution is legal because: There is no 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. PLUS: Having a closed subsystem with no variable liquid volume, no other interacting subsystems, makes this solution become a piece of engineering that expresses the meaning of reacting.

[PlatinumZealot]

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

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.

Remember I was in agreement with this system being legal. I even lauded abudaile and his friend (or whatever his name is) for bringing it to light.

But recently, I said the system is illegal because of this wording.

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

Now You guys are beating me over the head with spiked clubs yet you don't want to interpret these rules..

I could be wrong I could be right. who cares?

[PlatinumZealot]

Ok. I don't to seem like a crazy flip flop.. but before some wise guy says it before I do...

And it so sad that all these crazy people that I am arguing with (Raptor) couldn't even come up with this..

1. The mercury system reacts to G-force.

2. The G-force on the car arises from LOADS to the TYRES.

That is the answer.

Simple and sweet.

The system is therefore LEGAL.


P.S

See? I am a very reasonable man Raptor. I don't care about being wrong or right and being right again! LOL

[ForMuLaOne]

But recently, I said the system is illegal because of this wording.

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

Now You guys are beating me over the head with spiked clubs yet you don't want to interpret these rules..

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...

[/quote]

This is TOTALLY IN LINE WITH: The suspension system ( as a subsystem) must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in load applied to the wheels which i described above.