The load from the mercury IS NOT ILLEGAL because it is WITHIN the system.
If the mercury is illegal then so is the Nitrogen charging chamber for the damper
1) You must defend your opinion using the current rule sets. No where in the rules is there any mention of being 'within the system'. You are introducing terms that have no basis in the rules. Your statement has no relevance.Raptor22 wrote:The load from the mercury IS NOT ILLEGAL because it is WITHIN the system.
If the mercury is illegal then so is the Nitrogen charging chamber for the damper
The current rule sets are so wide you can drive a bus through them sideways. You chose to interpret the rules one way. Thats your choice, but that interpretation essentially bans nearly all moving parts in the suspension system.hardingfv32 wrote:1) You must defend your opinion using the current rule sets. No where in the rules is there any mention of being 'within the system'. You are introducing terms that have no basis in the rules. Your statement has no relevance.Raptor22 wrote:The load from the mercury IS NOT ILLEGAL because it is WITHIN the system.
If the mercury is illegal then so is the Nitrogen charging chamber for the damper
the gas charge provides a positive pressure on the damper fluid to reduce any foaming effects. It also serves to work as a "negative spring" to allow for reduced stiction in the damper. Negative pressures are not adjusted during movement.2) The gas charge (pressure) in a shock system represents spring load with a fixed non linear spring rate. This rate does not vary in use. The pressure can be adjusted, but not while the car is moving. This comparison does nothing to prove the legality of the Mercury system.
Brian
Raptor22 wrote:The load from the mercury IS NOT ILLEGAL because it is WITHIN the system.
If the mercury is illegal then so is the Nitrogen charging chamber for the damper
Read the technical regulationspocketmoon wrote:Does anyone have a link to FIA banned materials/substances?
I guess they know some stuff that is not illegal. I began to hate the m*word a few pages agorichard_leeds wrote:Read the technical regulationspocketmoon wrote:Does anyone have a link to FIA banned materials/substances?
http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html
???JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:@harding
Re 10.2.2 b)
The system isn't powered. As prescribed before, the system is inoperable without inertia from the wheels.
And should the FIA ban the system, it will be very interesting to see the knock on effect to all the teams. Suspension travel would need to be banned in this instance too....
Hence Mercury is not a permitted material. (Surprise surprise...)15.1.1 The following is the list of permitted materials. These are the only materials permitted to be
used in the construction of the Formula One Car provided only that in all cases the material is
available on a non-exclusive basis and under normal commercial terms to all competitors.
Permitted materials :
1) Aluminium alloys.
2) Silicon carbide particulate reinforced aluminium alloy matrix composites.
3) Steel alloys.
4) Cobalt alloys.
5) Copper alloys containing ≤ 2.5% by weight of Beryllium.
6) Titanium alloys (but not for use in fasteners with <15mm diameter male thread).
7) Magnesium alloys.
8 ) Nickel based alloys containing 50% < Ni < 69%.
9) Tungsten alloy.
10) Thermoplastics : monolithic, particulate filled, short fibre reinforced.
11) Thermosets : monolithic, particulate filled, short fibre reinforced.
12) Carbon fibres manufactured from polyacrylonitrile (PAN) precursor. (*)
13) Carbon fibres manufactured from polyacrylonitrile (PAN) precursor which have :
- A tensile modulus ≤ 550GPa.
- A density ≤ 1.92 g/cm3.
- Unidirectional or planar reinforcement within their pre-impregnated form, not
including three dimensional weaves or stitched fabrics (but three dimensional
preforms and fibre reinforcement using Z-pinning technology are permitted).
- No carbon nanotubes incorporated within the fibre or its matrix.
- A permitted matrix, not including a carbon matrix.
14) Aramid fibres.
15) Poly(p-phenylene benzobisoxazole) fibres (e.g. “Zylon”).
16) Polyethylene fibres.
17) Polypropylene fibres.
18) E and S Glass fibres.
19) Sandwich panel cores: Aluminium, Nomex, polymer foams, syntactic foams, balsa wood,
carbon foam.
20) The matrix system utilised in all pre-impregnated materials must be epoxy, cyanate
ester, phenolic, bismaleimide, polyurethane, polyester or polyimide based.
1) To be very precise, the system is inoperable without the longitudinal inertia from the wheels AND CHASSIS. The rules clearly state the loads can come ONLY from the wheels. So, if you place this system in the wheels you would be legal. Place the system on the chassis and it is illegal.JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:@harding
Re 10.2.2 b)
The system isn't powered. As prescribed before, the system is inoperable without inertia from the wheels.
And should the FIA ban the system, it will be very interesting to see the knock on effect to all the teams. Suspension travel would need to be banned in this instance too....
Another question-hardingfv32 wrote:Questions:
10.2.2
a) Is the mercury column creating a pressure?
b) How do you create pressure without force and could the creation of this force be considered a form of power?
10.1.2
a) Is one object of this system to reduce the loss of ride height under braking?
b) Is this not accomplished by applying a pressure to the slave cylinders located at each corner?
c) What is generating this pressure, the movement of the mercury?
d) Is the mercury being acted upon by the wheel accelerations or the chassis accelerations?
This pretty much sums up the issue. If a chassis with this system is tested on a 7 Post rig, will it stop nose dive as simulated by the test rig? ....NO.... The system requires longitudinal accelerations which the 7 post rig normally does not need for testing suspensions. As a steward that is the first question I would ask. Why is this mercury column needed if it goes not function on the 7 Post rig?
Brian
Brian