Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[ForMuLaOne]

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

You can claim having translated my point. But i came up with it

[Raptor22]

and I am argueing 10.1.2 its simply a poorly written rule.



But dude, we are talking about G-forces (inertia).

Indeed the tyres are the primary contact and everything goes through them.

However the example of the active car provided interesting debate because a distinction clearly has to be drawn between what a reactive system does in relation to an active one.

But thanks for finally posting the simple arguement. I agree. =D>

[PlatinumZealot]

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...

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.[/quote]

I only now read your post.

[mith]

Last few pages was quite nice discussion, but don't you have a feeling, FIA will ban it, if it'd be convenient for them despite the rules. Andrey Vyshinsky, a Stalinist prosecutor once said 'give me a man and I find the article on him' and I strongly believe FIA has somehow similar policy.

[Joie de vivre]

i hope they don't and i also hope that Mercedes wasn't reporting or updating them about the solution

if they don't know the concept the harder they will understand it

i really doubt RBR was updating FIA about their wing and blowing diffuser

also i doubt lotus's system would be called illegal as soon as it was now if they weren't updating FIA about it

[Rikhart]

i hope they don't and i also hope that Mercedes wasn't reporting or updating them about the solution

if they don't know the concept the harder they will understand it

i really doubt RBR was updating FIA about their wing and blowing diffuser

also i doubt lotus's system would be called illegal as soon as it was now if they weren't updating FIA about it

This is very true, but red bull does so many things in a league of their own, that no one else seems to be able to emulate... The more you explain something to the fia, the faster its banned.

[bhall]

For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how to word this earlier; something always seemed to get lost in the translation. (I'm sure whoever wrote 10.1.2 can relate to that.)

A "normal" suspension responds only to a vehicle's mass and inertia and to all of the permutations of a vehicle's mass and inertia that occur while the vehicle is in motion. Agreed?

In addition to what's described above, Mercedes' interlinked suspension also responds to the vehicle's orientation in space.

For example: if the car is parked on a hill with either the nose higher than the tail, or the tail higher than the nose, the suspension would then respond in an additional manner that's entirely independent of the vehicle's mass and inertia. The portion of the suspension placed higher than the other would have a more compliant response than it would if its relative position was changed, and this response would occur regardless of the forces applied to it by the wheels.

Yes, I understand that the suspension's response while the car is at rest is ultimately meaningless in terms of the car's competitiveness. But when trying to draw a distinction between what constitutes an active suspension versus a reactive one, I think this is important.

[ForMuLaOne]

For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how to word this earlier; something always seemed to get lost in the translation. (I'm sure whoever wrote 10.1.2 can relate to that.)

A "normal" suspension responds only to a vehicle's mass and inertia and to all of the permutations of a vehicle's mass and inertia that occur while the vehicle is in motion. Agreed?

Agreed

In addition to what's described above, Mercedes' interlinked suspension also responds to the vehicle's orientation in space.

For example: if the car is parked on a hill with either the nose higher than the tail, or the tail higher than the nose, the suspension would then respond in an additional manner that's entirely independent of the vehicle's mass and inertia. The portion of the suspension placed higher than the other would have a more compliant response than it would if its relative position was changed, and this response would occur regardless of the forces applied to it by the wheels.

I get your point there. But the vehicles orientation in spaceis not independent from the force applied to the wheels. There will always be a higher force applied to the lower part of the car, if it was held by the contact between tyres and surface. Therefor the suspension was also not entirely independent of the vehicles mass and inertia. The system does not change the response of the dampers when it comes to quick changes of the geometry, just like they occur when driving over bumbs or kerbs. It only changes the level, or the neutral position depending on G-Forces. If we took your example, the mercury (or kryptonite ) was pushing against the lower part of the suspension ( the downhill sided part). The pressure will only change the neutral points of the suspension. The lower part gets higher, the higher part (uphill sided) gets lowered. This is a neutral state then, when no other force is applied. If the car was in motion and rolling over bumps, the suspension would work in the same way, but with leveled neutral points. It is not regardless of the forces applied to the wheels, because in your example we have different forces applied to the wheels. As this adjustment cannot be made in advance of any situation, this system stays passive...no matter how the car is orientated.

[bhall]

But the vehicles orientation in space is not independent from the force applied to the wheels.

Normally. But the suspension's response to the vehicle's orientation is independent, otherwise the shift in balance would logically cause the lower, now "heavier," half of the vehicle to apply more force on the suspension and then sit lower as a result. The opposite would occur with the rumored interlinked suspension, and such a response has nothing at all to do with any input force applied to the wheels; it's the force of gravity in concert with the mercury (or liquid unobtainium) acting as a lever.

I believe such action, even if it is just a change in the neutral point of the suspension, is in contravention of the rules governing suspension, which require that "its response results only from changes in load applied to the wheels." The suspension would actively respond to the car's orientation even if the car was supported only by jack stands placed under its floor.

[Raptor22]

Normally. But the suspension's response to the vehicle's orientation is independent, otherwise the shift in balance would logically cause the lower, now "heavier," half of the vehicle to apply more force on the suspension and then sit lower as a result. The opposite would occur with the rumored interlinked suspension, and such a response has nothing at all to do with any input force applied to the wheels; it's the force of gravity in concert with the mercury (or liquid unobtainium) acting as a lever.

I believe such action, even if it is just a change in the neutral point of the suspension, is in contravention of the rules governing suspension, which require that "its response results only from changes in load applied to the wheels." The suspension would actively respond to the car's orientation even if the car was supported only by jack stands placed under its floor.

I don't think you get it.

for your scenario to work the car has to be experiencing more than 1G.
Whether it is standing level, upside down, on its side inclined at 45degrees or on its nose or tail, its is still experiencing 1G since it is only acted upon by the force of gravity.
For the inertia valve to operate it needs to see in excess of 1G

no matter how you spin it, the system is legal.
The neutral points of the suspension will not be altered with the inertia valve present. The inertia valve, and the suspension fluid only respond to acceleration in excess of 1G once the suspension is preloaded and sagged to the stationary height. I won't go into downforce induced sag or compression since it is irrelevant in this scenario.

[Muulka]

Imagine how long this thread will be at the end of the year...

[bhall]

If you really want to make my scenario literal, the jack stands are the suspension.

My scenario is just an exaggerated illustration of how the suspension responds to forces beyond "changes in load applied to the wheels." The way I read the rules, that's not permitted.

I'd definitely like a clarification from Charlie Whiting, though.

[ForMuLaOne]

But the vehicles orientation in space is not independent from the force applied to the wheels.

Normally. But the suspension's response to the vehicle's orientation is independent, otherwise the shift in balance would logically cause the lower, now "heavier," half of the vehicle to apply more force on the suspension and then sit lower as a result. The opposite would occur with the rumored interlinked suspension, and such a response has nothing at all to do with any input force applied to the wheels; it's the force of gravity in concert with the mercury (or liquid unobtainium) acting as a lever.

I believe such action, even if it is just a change in the neutral point of the suspension, is in contravention of the rules governing suspension, which require that "its response results only from changes in load applied to the wheels." The suspension would actively respond to the car's orientation even if the car was supported only by jack stands placed under its floor.

You are right. But, in your example there is something missing. 1G or less can only be applied to the mercury if the car is not following the earth's gravitational pull. But any acceleration, be it the earth's gravitational pull itself sends it forces through the tyres as the car stands on them. I mean they are driving, not flying or levitating You needed to hang the car on a crane, you can chose any angle then and you will have it like you tell. The force was applied to the connection between car and crane.

[bhall]

Like I said, my example is an exaggeration. I do understand that, ultimately, it's the wheels that are both the input mechanism for the suspension's response and the instruments with which it responds. There's no way around that.

My contention is that the additional inertial force provided to the suspension by the (insert name of dense liquid here), no matter what caused that liquid to move, is not permitted within the rule as I read it. In fact, I think there's no reason for the rule to exist except to disallow a system such as the one being discussed. Otherwise, it's just pointing out the obvious fact that suspension forces are applied through the wheels.

Or am I missing a reason for why that would need to be spelled out?

[Raptor22]

what you are suggesting is that no movement must take place within the system at any time unless acted upon by a force at the wheels. You are also suggesting that the mercury valve or inertia valve will move due to its own mass.

You need to brush up on your knowledge of closed system hydraulics...
There is no fluid flow with the suspension system at any stage unless the suspension has a load applied to it. Standing the car on uneven ground will not result in the inertia valve moving because THERE IS NO FLUID FLOW.


I will say this for the last time because this dance is growing tiresome.
The suspension system with the inertia valve will only exhibit fluid movement when a force in excess of 1G is applied such as to result in movement of the inertia valve.

To restrain the inertia valve is not a difficult job. All that is needed is a spring within the system that opens the fluid circuit when a preset hydraulic pressure is achieved within the system. All of this is legal and forms of this are currently in use in the dampers on F1 and other race cars in other categories. This is not outlawed because it is not an outsde influence, it's all part of the suspension system.


If you park an old Citroen on a sloping road does it want to level the car due to the gravitational plane or does it tend to normalise the car to the degree of roll or pitch? I think you will find very much that the latter is true.