Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[Raptor22]

If he can't understand Jav's post then he'll never get it.

[hardingfv32]

I understand what your trying to say but it seems your not getting an important point. Force or pressure are NOT being "created" by the mercury column, The intertia acting on the mercury are creating "flow".

I will refine my statement to exclude the source of X that is causing the movement of the slave cylinders attached to the rockers in the mercury system.

ONE purpose of the system to maintain ride height under braking, True or False? This is accomplished thru the use of slave cylinders on the rockers or more broadly stated, the suspension.

MY CHALLENGE to the legality of the system focuses on the requirement of the system that "response results only from changes in load applied to the wheels" 10.1.2

HERE IS THE TEST THAT PROVES MY POINT:

a) Is movement of the slave cylinders attached to the rockers a response, Yes or No?
b) During braking can we label the many 'loads' that are effecting the wheels in total as 'L' for this test?

When the mercury system is functioning we see a value of total loads L at the wheels when the car when the car is braking.
When the mercury system is DISABLED BUT STILL IN PLACE on the car we see a value of total loads L at the wheels when the car is braking.

Is there any difference is L whether the system is in use or not? NO

Thus, this system is clearly NOT responding only to changes in loads applied to the wheels as required by 10.1.2.

Your response?

Brian

[shamikaze]

Is this not getting ridiculous or a sign for desperate people yearning for news ?

86 pages and we haven't even seen a signle bolt, piece or whatever of the new car.

I do enjoy reading all of this, but once of these days we'll crash the servers

(ps: I do am aware of the obvious fact I've just contributed to this as well)....

[PlatinumZealot]

nsmikle,
lifting the wheels off the ground will draw the dampers to their bump stops correct since there is no load on the suspension. So the inertia valve cannot.
Right so you contend that it will move due to the cars inclination.
Lets assume that the mercury is entrained on either end of the containing vessel by a piston.
Remember that this is a closed system transfering applied forces at the wheels to the mercury column to create a flow to move fluid to resist suspension travel at a present load.
With no load at an angle of say 45 degrees you contend the mercury column will move due to its own weight and pump the suspension fluid to lower the front wishbones.
How can it do this if the front suspension is already at its bump stops and has no where to go.....?

You are not reading my sentence 100%. I gave two examples. I don't know why you bring bump stop into the equation? How do you reach the bump stops? (explain).
These cars are designed to take 5 G loads under breaking, I don't think driving the car down a 5 degree slope at 10 miles per hour is going to hit the bump stops. According to my calculations a mercury water system with 65mm pistons will push down 10kg, times the motion ratio, on each front corner of the wheel while on said 5 degree slope. All it means is that no matter what position the suspension is in this unbalanced force will exist. Agree?

and by the way.. All I did was show that the suspension response is independent of wheel load. Agree?

[jav]

I understand what your trying to say but it seems your not getting an important point. Force or pressure are NOT being "created" by the mercury column, The intertia acting on the mercury are creating "flow".

I will refine my statement to exclude the source of X that is causing the movement of the slave cylinders attached to the rockers in the mercury system.

ONE purpose of the system to maintain ride height under braking, True or False? This is accomplished thru the use of slave cylinders on the rockers or more broadly stated, the suspension.

MY CHALLENGE to the legality of the system focuses on the requirement of the system that "response results only from changes in load applied to the wheels" 10.1.2

HERE IS THE TEST THAT PROVES MY POINT:

a) Is movement of the slave cylinders attached to the rockers a response, Yes or No?
b) During braking can we label the many 'loads' that are effecting the wheels in total as 'L' for this test?

When the mercury system is functioning we see a value of total loads L at the wheels when the car when the car is braking.
When the mercury system is DISABLED BUT STILL IN PLACE on the car we see a value of total loads L at the wheels when the car is braking.

Is there any difference is L whether the system is in use or not? NO

Thus, this system is clearly NOT responding only to changes in loads applied to the wheels as required by 10.1.2.

Your response?

Brian

a) Yes- it's a response. But so is the compression of the spring, compression of a damper, movement of a push/pull rod. All are responses and all are legal.
b) Yes- the total loads will always be a function of the mass and the acceleration and IF those two things are equal- then the total load "L" will be equal- but this misses the point.

The point is that a suspension system alters how those total loads "L" are carried between the 4 corners "L/4". Even though the total load may not change, the amount of load carried by any given corner will vary by design and system used. If it didn't, you wouldn't see the front compress under braking or the rear conpress under acceleration. That compression is a "response" to "L" be redistributed and it IS what a suspension does. Further- all the responses are directly tied to forces applied through the wheels- which is why I think it could be legal.

[Raptor22]

nsmikle,
lifting the wheels off the ground will draw the dampers to their bump stops correct since there is no load on the suspension. So the inertia valve cannot.
Right so you contend that it will move due to the cars inclination.
Lets assume that the mercury is entrained on either end of the containing vessel by a piston.
Remember that this is a closed system transfering applied forces at the wheels to the mercury column to create a flow to move fluid to resist suspension travel at a present load.
With no load at an angle of say 45 degrees you contend the mercury column will move due to its own weight and pump the suspension fluid to lower the front wishbones.
How can it do this if the front suspension is already at its bump stops and has no where to go.....?

You are not reading my sentence 100%. I gave two examples. I don't know why you bring bump stop into the equation? How do you reach the bump stops? (explain).
These cars are designed to take 5 G loads under breaking, I don't think driving the car down a 5 degree slope at 10 miles per hour is going to hit the bump stops. According to my calculations a mercury water system with 65mm pistons will push down 10kg, times the motion ratio, on each front corner of the wheel while on said 5 degree slope. All it means is that no matter what position the suspension is in this unbalanced force will exist. Agree?

and by the way.. All I did was show that the suspension response is independent of wheel load. Agree?

disagree, it may not be proportional to wheel load but it is certainly dependant.

[hardingfv32]

The point being that a suspension system alters how those loads are carried between the 4 corners. Even though the total load may not change, the amount of load carried by any given corner will vary by design and system used. If it didn't, you wouldn't see the front compress under braking or the rear conpress under acceleration. That compression is a "response" to total "L" be redistributed.

Yes, what you state is maybe true in a very broad sense. I would say that the above general statement fulfills: "response results only from changes in load applied to the wheels" 10.1.2.

Your above statement does nothing to validate the legitimacy of the mercury system under 10.1.2 though. Just because you have movements similar to those in your above statement, does not make the mercury system legal. Is must still meet the requirements of 10.1.2.

Keep your focus very narrow as I have on 10.1.2. Challenge the very sentences that I have used.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

disagree, it may not be proportional to wheel load but it is certainly dependant.

This is THE FLAW in your defense of the mercury system. IF this statement is true then:

Why is the total of ALL loads seen by the wheels NO different whether the mercury system is functioning or not functioning (but still on chassis)? CLEARLY the mercury system's actions/responses are NOT related to the loads found at the wheels.

That is my challenge to your position.

Brian

[ForMuLaOne]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJCfUm21BsI[/youtube]

[jav]

The point being that a suspension system alters how those loads are carried between the 4 corners. Even though the total load may not change, the amount of load carried by any given corner will vary by design and system used. If it didn't, you wouldn't see the front compress under braking or the rear conpress under acceleration. That compression is a "response" to total "L" be redistributed.

Yes, what you state is maybe true in a very broad sense. I would say that the above general statement fulfills: "response results only from changes in load applied to the wheels" 10.1.2.

Your above statement does nothing to validate the legitimacy of the mercury system under 10.1.2 though. Just because you have movements similar to those in your above statement, does not make the mercury system legal. Is must still meet the requirements of 10.1.2.

Keep your focus very narrow as I have on 10.1.2. Challenge the very sentences that I have used.

Brian

Brian-

Challenge which very sentence? You've made many. Many have been challenged and instead of addressing those challenges- you shifted the discussion.

Neither of us will ever validate this or any other system- that is Mr. Whiting's prerogative (and whim -IMHO)


I responded to your "create force" premise - you didn't expand on the idea and moved to the a) b) questions. I responded directly to your a) b) questions and added specificity (to your broad and general "Total Load "L" idea vs individual wheel load dsitribution) you suggest I'm being broad (which implies you weren't?). I addressed passive versus active - the increased ride height raising the nose thought. When you get a direct response to your point with a differing view- you change direction which means reasoned consensus can't be acheived.

All I've ever espoused is that while I feel a system of this type "could" be legal, I have made logical arguements to support that premise while accepting that Charlie may determine otherwiser. I don't see anything in your arguements that clearly or even marginally makes more sense than the opposing view. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[dren]

10.1.2 The suspension system must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in
load applied to the wheels

The mercury moves forward from the same load that causes the nose to dive. The mercury suspension is a response to the same change in load that causes the dive that it opposes. It fits within 10.1.2

[PlatinumZealot]

nsmikle,
lifting the wheels off the ground will draw the dampers to their bump stops correct since there is no load on the suspension. So the inertia valve cannot.
Right so you contend that it will move due to the cars inclination.
Lets assume that the mercury is entrained on either end of the containing vessel by a piston.
Remember that this is a closed system transfering applied forces at the wheels to the mercury column to create a flow to move fluid to resist suspension travel at a present load.
With no load at an angle of say 45 degrees you contend the mercury column will move due to its own weight and pump the suspension fluid to lower the front wishbones.
How can it do this if the front suspension is already at its bump stops and has no where to go.....?

You are not reading my sentence 100%. I gave two examples. I don't know why you bring bump stop into the equation? How do you reach the bump stops? (explain).
These cars are designed to take 5 G loads under breaking, I don't think driving the car down a 5 degree slope at 10 miles per hour is going to hit the bump stops. According to my calculations a mercury water system with 65mm pistons will push down 10kg, times the motion ratio, on each front corner of the wheel while on said 5 degree slope. All it means is that no matter what position the suspension is in this unbalanced force will exist. Agree?

and by the way.. All I did was show that the suspension response is independent of wheel load. Agree?

disagree, it may not be proportional to wheel load but it is certainly dependant.

Try this:
In my example below, the change in suspension movement and hence change in wheel load is a result of the mercury pushing the piston. Which is a result on by gravity.

I don't see why you would say it depends ONLY on the wheel load when in this particular case when the suspension characteristic changes with the orientation of the car. Notice the key word characteristic.

[PlatinumZealot]

10.1.2 The suspension system must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in
load applied to the wheels

The mercury moves forward from the same load that causes the nose to dive. The mercury suspension is a response to the same change in load that causes the dive that it opposes. It fits within 10.1.2

Not that simple. It's not a matter of semantics. A response means you poke something with a stick and it twitches a certain way. What we are arguing is if the Mercury inertial valve is a second stick.

[hardingfv32]

All I've ever espoused is that while I feel a system of this type "could" be legal, I have made logical arguements to support that premise while accepting that Charlie may determine otherwiser. I don't see anything in your arguements that clearly or even marginally makes more sense than the opposing view. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The fun in this exercise is to see if it fits under the existing rule set. The system does not actually have to be under development or being reviewed by the FIA. It is just an interesting technical puzzle.

I would agree that we have been dancing around the subject trying to focus on the precise area that is in violation of the rules. I claim that my last statements are 'on point' and warrant your response. While I can understand your loss of interest, I believe you lack a valid response to my latest challenge.

Agreeing to disagree is just a form of 'tapping out'.

Brian

Brian

[Raptor22]

disagree, it may not be proportional to wheel load but it is certainly dependant.

This is THE FLAW in your defense of the mercury system. IF this statement is true then:

Why is the total of ALL loads seen by the wheels NO different whether the mercury system is functioning or not functioning (but still on chassis)? CLEARLY the mercury system's actions/responses are NOT related to the loads found at the wheels.

That is my challenge to your position.

Brian

Huh?!!! The flaw in my defence....?

Is this a scene from Monty Python "Life of Brian"?? Brian you are not the Messiah, You are a very naughty boy!!

Any suspension system works on either a constant, rising or falling rate. The load at the wheels working through an ever changing leverage ratio results in disproportionality. To understand the leverage you will need to draw some circles and connect some points then move some bits and understand that suspension systems have "gearing".
Hence the load at the wheels is seldom proportional by a fixed ratio to the load at the wheels.

Next challenge..