Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[Raptor22]

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

[hardingfv32]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

Your precious rules also exclude anything but a linear damping and spring rate, which is impossible in a working suspension system.

Also the term Suspension refers to a system. not to individual components. If individual components are excluded then those components are specified in their limitations.


Your interpretation of the rules also immediately and effectively bans al current used dampers in F1, Le Mans and all other forms of motorsport.
Clearly that is not happening so there is smething flawed in your interpretation

[pocketmoon]

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

Does anyone have a link to FIA banned materials/substances? I recall that Beryllium was banned a few years back - it was being used in engines to reduce friction. Even if mercury isn't explicitly banned then FIA would have to concider the risk of it vapourising/escaping in the event of an incident. There may be alternatives to mercury though such as ferro liquids ?

My understanding is that MGP hoped to introducing more titanium cast parts this year - particulary gearbox.

[Richard]

Does anyone have a link to FIA banned materials/substances?

Read the technical regulations

http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html

[ForMuLaOne]

Does anyone have a link to FIA banned materials/substances?

Read the technical regulations

http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html

I guess they know some stuff that is not illegal. I began to hate the m*word a few pages ago

@Raptor22: I also believe that the rules need to be interpreted in a way that won`t forbid the use of parts which were in use for years now. So i truly believe that in case of a discussion between FIA and AMG MGP there could be plenty occasions where people were laughing about the FIA`s tries to find a proper explanation for a ban.

[Raptor22]

Hereare the relevant rules as writen (not my interpretation as some are doing)

ARTICLE 10 : SUSPENSION AND STEERING SYSTEMS
10.1 Sprung suspension :
10.1.1 Cars must be fitted with sprung suspension.
10.1.2 The suspension system must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in
load applied to the wheels.


This clearly does not exclude any interlinkng or variable rate dampers
10.2 Suspension geometry :
10.2.1 With the steering wheel fixed, the position of each wheel centre and the orientation of its
rotation axis must be completely and uniquely defined by a function of its principally
vertical suspension travel, save only for the effects of reasonable compliance which does
not intentionally provide further degrees of freedom.This is where Renaults system failed

10.2.2 Any powered device which is capable of altering the configuration or affecting the
performance of any part of the suspension system is forbidden.

No powering of the dampers or springs or altering the configuration (member length, shape, movement plane) right so the inertia vlave is not excluded here either
10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.by whom or by what and what does adjusment mean? Must it reamin in the same place, must the spring rate be linear? must the damping rate be linear? neiher are workable on a F1 car with 100mm of suspension travel travelling at 340km/hr
10.3 Suspension members :
10.3.1 With the exception of minimal local changes of section for the passage of hydraulic brake lines,
electrical wiring and wheel tethers or the attachment of flexures, rod ends and spherical
bearings, the cross‐sections of each member of every suspension component, when taken
normal to a straight line between the inner and outer attachment points, must :
‐ Intersect the straight line between the inner and outer attachment points.
‐ Have a major axis no greater than 100mm.
‐ Have an aspect ratio no greater than 3.5:1.
‐ Be nominally symmetrical about its major axis.
The major axis will be defined as the largest dimension of any such cross‐section.
10.3.2 When assessing compliance with Article 10.3.1, suspension members having shared
attachment points will be considered by a virtual dissection into discrete members.
10.3.3 No major axis of a cross section of a suspension member, when assessed in accordance with
Article 10.3.1, may subtend an angle greater than 5° to the reference plane when projected
onto, and normal to, a vertical plane on the car centre line with the car set to the nominal
design ride height.
10.3.4 Non‐structural parts of suspension members are considered bodywork.
10.3.5 Redundant suspension members are not permitted.
10.3.6 In order to help prevent a wheel becoming separated in the event of all suspension members
connecting it to the car failing provision must be made to accommodate flexible tethers, each
with a cross sectional area greater than 110mm². The sole purpose of the tethers is to prevent
a wheel becoming separated from the car, they should perform no other function.
The tethers and their attachments must also be designed in order to help prevent a wheel
making contact with the driver's head during an accident.
Each wheel must be fitted with two tethers each of which exceed the requirements of 3.1.1 of
Test Procedure 03/07.
Each tether must have its own separate attachments at both ends which :
‐ Are able to withstand a tensile force of 70kN in any direction within a cone of 45°
(included angle) measured from the load line of the relevant suspension member.
2012 F1 Technical Regulations 41 / 77 7 December 2011
© 2011 Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
‐ On the survival cell or gearbox are separated by at least 100mm measured between the
centres of the two attachment points.
‐ On each wheel/upright assembly are separated by at least 90° radially with respect to
the axis of the wheel and 100mm measured between the centres of the two attachment
points.
‐ Are able to accommodate tether end fittings with a minimum inside diameter of 15mm.
Furthermore, no suspension member may contain more than one tether.
Each tether must exceed 450mm in length and must utilise end fittings which result in a tether
bend radius greater than 7.5mm.

[Ferraripilot]

Great post Raptor. That said it all

[hardingfv32]

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

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

@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....

[Schulteiss]

@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....

???

[TheWiseOwl]

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.

Hence Mercury is not a permitted material. (Surprise surprise...)

Materials used in the construction of the suspension or any item linking the suspension are not listed exceptions to this rule.

So basically any other arguments about the proposed systems legality in terms of suspension setup are irrelevant, it is not legal full stop.

[Ferraripilot]

In the interest of stating something obvious here, don't you think MB would have been working closely with the FiA regarding the legality of this issue? This is especially true since the Lotus system was banned. I'm sure MB would not have dug in deep with this idea without FiA reviewing MB's intentions and giving the all-clear first. Lotus did this but were not entirely forthcoming (so it seems anyway) with their intentions and the system was subsequently banned rather quickly. We have heard nothing of the sort regarding this system and considering a smaller version of this system appears to have been used last year at least on the rear end I'm not sure we will hear anything further from the FiA unless of course it starts to win.....a lot!

[hardingfv32]

@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....

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.

2) Does the column of mercury create a force with a movement... work... power?

Brian

[jav]

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

Another question-
are all normal acceleration forces associated with track driving represented on 7 post rig accuratly (in all axes)? Could any of these dynamic forces be created without changes in load applied to the wheels?

It seems to me it could be interpreted in different ways. Some could say it is a "response" to alter the noses natural tendency to dip under braking loads just as easily as one could say the "response" is actually - the cars natural reaction to the forces of racing and the suspenion (this or any other part) constrains those forces to predefined limits and parameters.

Other than some other form of propulsion (jet,maglev) how can you have chassis acceleration without those loads resulting from changes in load applied to/via the wheels/tires?

It seems to me that many look at 10.1.2 from vertical load perspective only and I don't see that in the regs.