bhallg2k wrote: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?
Your example is very interesting.. because the if there
is a difference in elevation between the front and the rear the two fluids will move in the system.
While on a slope the denser mercury will push the hydraulic oil to the top of the system. Until the pressure across the pistons are balanced. Example going downhill to La source at Spa the front suspension will begin to lift and the rear will begin to squat. - all until the force from the suspension + the less dense fluid balances the pistons.
Example a 3 meter long tubes one with mercury - 13.6g/cm^3 and lets use water for the other tube. at a 5 degree slope.
the elevation between front and rear is 3000 mm * sin(5) = 260mm.
Pressure difference across piston
=0.26m * (13.6-1)*1000kg/m^3 * 9.81m/s^2
~ 32,000N/m^2
~ 4.6 psi
With a 65mm diameter piston..it gives an unbalanced force of 107N (~11kg) at each front piston.
So the car will begin so squat as it goes down hill - lowering the diffuser and raising the front wing.
IF this suspension happens to be true, it is sure to be scrutinized very carefully. We'll see what happens. Unfortunately, still three weeks to go.