Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[ForMuLaOne]

I am out of this discussion. People just don`t pick up information in this forum. Same questions and arguments again and again. There were many things explained in a correct way, but STILL people ask the same stuff. This is ridiculous, sorry for saying it.

[Raptor22]

I presume nothing. I stated my interpretation of the rule as it's written and presented it for discussion. This is what adults do when there's a disagreement about the intended meaning of something. It's why Charlie Whiting has a job.

You, on the other hand, presume that we're in a fantasy land where your whims should dictate the actions of others.

You are, of course, free to disqualify whatever you wish from me or from anyone else. But, please know that such actions demonstrate nothing but ignorance and an inability to think beyond the narrow constraints of your mind.

still can't answer the question can you.

[ForMuLaOne]

One last sentence: On a formula one car, every force, every acceleration and the following consequences are a result of a force or load that has been applied to the tyres, as they are the only contact to the ground. This should be enough to understand the rules and the system.

[bhall]

Think whatever you want, chief.

You're not participating in a discussion; you're filled with an ambition to win something. It's quite a ugly trait in this context.

[ForMuLaOne]

You`re not participating either, as your questions have been answered in this thread. My ambition would be to win your attention on what has been written by people like Raptor for example.

[Gridlock]

I've never seen a solid manufactured from a liquid unless its natural state is a solid. polymeric reactions excluded of course.

Never had scotch on the rocks then?

I posted a good list of reasons why any team wouldn't want mercury anywhere near their mechanics or drivers about 5 pages back, the same is true of any material that would accomplish what is needed here as far as I can work out. You just can't get enough force without carrying a massive weight/CoG penalty without resorting to very exotic, very dangerous substances.

But then a) I'm no chemist and b) none of us have read the Technical Directives or asked Charlie.

[Raptor22]

Maybe to yo its about winning, to me its about teaching.

You want to understand how Formula 1 works technically but refuse to think like a F1 engineer. You lost the arguement before you started it because your mind is closed.

I'll help you out.

In any hydraulic system, pressure is created by the LOAD.

Load in an F1 car goes through the tyres. Therefore all the load is suspended by the tyres contact patch.
All that load is going through the hydraulic system creating fluid movement as result of THE LOAD. That movement includes the inertia valve in response to the load. The more load you apply the more it moves to resist the load. Its function is a direct consequence of the LOAD. Remove the load and the valve does nothing.

There is no extra force being added. The energy dissipated under braking is a functionof the mass of the car. to apply additional force once needs to create fluid flow via a pump capable of adding that additional force.
an Inertia valve does not add force to the system, it merely restricts flow. It is behaving in a manner similar to the shims in the compression and rebound stack of the damper unit with one key feature in that it can react t inertia but in a useful manner.
All other suspension components also react to inertia, therefore the inertia valve itself cannot be excluded on grounds it is exposed to the same forces created by the load the wheels. It is not exposed to any external forces i.e. a pump.

I've learned a few things from this debate, I hope a few others have too.

[Raptor22]

I've never seen a solid manufactured from a liquid unless its natural state is a solid. polymeric reactions excluded of course.

Never had scotch on the rocks then?

I posted a good list of reasons why any team wouldn't want mercury anywhere near their mechanics or drivers about 5 pages back, the same is true of any material that would accomplish what is needed here as far as I can work out. You just can't get enough force without carrying a massive weight/CoG penalty without resorting to very exotic, very dangerous substances.

But then a) I'm no chemist and b) none of us have read the Technical Directives or asked Charlie.

I never drink real scotch "on the rocks". A dash of water to release the flavour is alls thats required

After this debate I'm opening my bottled in 1988 Ben Riach

Mercury is toxic. However it is used extensively in industry and in the medical fraternity for a variety of applications. The trick is to no ingrest it. The same is true for petrol, or engine oil, or flame proof overalls.

I am not convinced on reports of a mercury filled inertia valve but I believe that such a device is possible and has technical merit. Unlike others, I'm not dismissive because I can read a line or two of English without fully grasping what it is or isn't saying.

This is technical forum to debate technical merits of idea's. I think the merits and working of an inertia valved interlinked suspension has been debated and found to have merit.

[bhall]

You`re not participating either, as your questions have been answered in this thread. My ambition would be to win your attention on what has been written by people like Raptor for example.

My comments weren't at all directed toward you. I think you've been great throughout this thread.

I think I've read all of the arguments. The irony is that I actually agree with most of them as far as the technical aspects are concerned.

Where I diverge is that I don't care where the force applied to the mercury, or whatever dense fluid, originates. I wouldn't care if the wheels somehow animated themselves, pulled out tiny straws and physically blew the required pressure into the system just so there could be no doubt as to the pressure's provenance. My contention is, and always has been, that the proposed system goes against the spirit of the rules governing it.

[dren]

I never drink real scotch "on the rocks". A dash of water to release the flavour is alls thats required

After this debate I'm opening my bottled in 1988 Ben Riach

Straight all the way! I'm much more a bourbon fan but I do like Scotch from time to time.

[Ganxxta]

=D>
You are really funny guys, same thing as last year, the car isn't even launched, but we already have 80+ pages discussing things that are not confirmed to be on the car or even mentioned by a team member...

Just like last year(s), mercedes has some secret weapon, it a super exhaust, its a super small sidepod... this year its a super FW F-duct, its a super linked suspension, and again super sidepods with trick coolers...

Lets just wait and see if they meet expectations this year, don't fight about something legal or not which isn't even announced to be on the car, do it if they are driving miles ahead of the rest, if not, then its just same old same old...
and you fought about nothing
[-o<

[avatar]

just to add another dimension to this discussion;
does this put anyone else in mind of the "swing-in lock" mechanism that was used to reduce /stop body roll under lateral g-force load during cornering?
(obviously the system being discussed on this thread is hydraulic and longitudinal, but running on similar principals)

anyone know under what ruling that was banned and whether it would apply to a hydraulic system with a what seems to me to have the same goal and is triggered in the same way?
(whether the system is acting laterally for anti roll, or longitudinally for anti dive)

Does no one know what rule banned the swing in lock mechanism?

Given the principles involved are very similar, albeit switching lateral mechanical for longitudinal hydraulic, is it not a fair assumption, the FIA *could* treat this in a similar way?
(if the currently hypothetical system exists)

[Rikhart]

There is a huge overestimation of mercury´s toxicity going on around here. As a small example, I know a number of relatives of mine who were brought some to school, in science class. They would handle it, and play around with it with their fingers. They are perfectly healthy...
It IS a toxic material, lethal by ingestion, but not half as bad as people are making it look atm.

[Federico]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpZF88fqrl8[/youtube]

this is a video that shows mercury vaporization at room temperature. You don't want to breathe that

[Schulteiss]

this is a video that shows mercury vaporization at room temperature. You don't want to breathe that

and?