You can claim having translated my point. But i came up with itn smikle wrote: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 itn smikle wrote:Ok. I don't to seem like a crazy flip flop.. but before some wise guy says it before I do...
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]ForMuLaOne wrote: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.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...
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.Joie de vivre wrote: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
Agreedbhallg2k wrote: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?
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.bhallg2k wrote: 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.
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.ForMuLaOne wrote:But the vehicles orientation in space is not independent from the force applied to the wheels.
I don't think you get it.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.bhallg2k wrote: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.ForMuLaOne wrote:But the vehicles orientation in space is not independent from the force applied to the wheels.
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.