Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Raptor22
Raptor22
26
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 22:48

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

n smikle wrote:
dren wrote: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.

The inertia valve is part of what you are poking...
the stick is just the stick

does that clear it up now?

hardingfv32
hardingfv32
35
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

dren wrote:[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
Why is it that the wheel loads are the same whether the mercury system is functional or non-functional? Clearly this mercury system is responding to something other than JUST the wheel loads as required by 10.1.2.

Brian

ForMuLaOne
ForMuLaOne
4
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 02:01

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

Sorry n smikle, but this explanation is wrong. The car would NEVER lift up. The front tyres carry more load than the rears. This system is constructed in a way that the mercury would just prevent the nose from diving in, this happened with normal suspension. It willnever exceed the hight of the dampers as it is on a leveled surface. As you want the car to stand still, there is a constant force.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
559
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

Raptor22 wrote:
n smikle wrote:
dren wrote: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.

The inertia valve is part of what you are poking...
the stick is just the stick

does that clear it up now?
You have yet to respond to a new proposition. I take it that you are unable to answer? :wink:
πŸ–οΈβœŒοΈβ˜οΈπŸ‘€πŸ‘ŒβœοΈπŸŽπŸ†πŸ™

Racing Green in 2028

hardingfv32
hardingfv32
35
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

Raptor22 wrote: 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.
Your statement has no relevance to my challenge.

'Why is it that the wheel loads are the same whether the mercury system is functional or non-functional? Clearly this mercury system is responding to something other than JUST the wheel loads as required by 10.1.2.'

Are also throwing stuff at the wall because you lack a valid response?

Brian

Raptor22
Raptor22
26
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 22:48

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

I guess I will have to rewind the DVD to find the appropriate scene...

jav
jav
0
Joined: 04 Feb 2011, 16:34

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

hardingfv32 wrote:
jav wrote: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.
... I believe you lack a valid response to my latest challenge.

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

Brian

Brian
What is your latest challenge? That total "L" doesn't change irrespective of the mercury system ergo the mercury system is not responding to wheel loads?

I addressed that- with any system- total loads "l" are a function mass and acceleration. Simple physics and you've illumintaed nothing new. Individual wheel loads DO change as a function of the suspension without a working mercury system and they DO change yet again when it's enabled- despite total "L" being constant.

Is that NOT your new latest challenge?

ForMuLaOne
ForMuLaOne
4
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 02:01

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

hardingfv32 wrote:
dren wrote:[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
Why is it that the wheel loads are the same whether the mercury system is functional or non-functional? Clearly this mercury system is responding to something other than JUST the wheel loads as required by 10.1.2.

Brian
As the tyres are the only contact to the surface there cannot be any other parts at the car where all the forces are applied.

hardingfv32
hardingfv32
35
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

n smikle wrote: What we are arguing is if the Mercury inertial valve is a second stick.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT...... Otherwise: Why is it that the wheel loads are the same whether the mercury system is functional or non-functional? Clearly this mercury system is responding to something other than JUST the wheel loads as required by 10.1.2.

Brian

hardingfv32
hardingfv32
35
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

Raptor22 wrote:I guess I will have to rewind the DVD to find the appropriate scene...
I thought I heard the 'tapping'.

Brian

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
559
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

ForMuLaOne wrote:Sorry n smikle, but this explanation is wrong. The car would NEVER lift up.


The front tyres carry more load than the rears.
See the red arrows. I said the pressure difference of the liquids across the piston changes with orientation. Whether or not the front has more load than the rear. The system will respond to orientation change.
This system is constructed in a way


Constructed in what way? I am interested. Don't skimp on the details. (I am not being sarcastic)...
that the mercury would just prevent the nose from diving in, this happened with normal suspension.
That is what it is doing in the diagram. To stop the nose from diving in, you hae to raise the front suspension. All that is happening is that the system is fooled by gravity into thinking the car is braking when it is just on a slope.

See how these simulators work... it tilts the cockpit to give a sense of decceleraton. Inversely, when the car is tilted the mercury system is fooled by gravity.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIe9O529MR0[/youtube]

It willnever exceed the hight of the dampers as it is on a leveled surface.


I didn't say it did. And the car is not on a level surface in the diagram.
πŸ–οΈβœŒοΈβ˜οΈπŸ‘€πŸ‘ŒβœοΈπŸŽπŸ†πŸ™

Racing Green in 2028

Raptor22
Raptor22
26
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 22:48

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

hardingfv32 wrote:
Raptor22 wrote: 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.
Your statement has no relevance to my challenge.

'Why is it that the wheel loads are the same whether the mercury system is functional or non-functional? Clearly this mercury system is responding to something other than JUST the wheel loads as required by 10.1.2.'

Are also throwing stuff at the wall because you lack a valid response?

Brian

The car has mass.
The loads at the wheel will always equal that mass, irrespective of the distribution of that load on the wheels. The only variable is aerodynamic downforce which is proportional to drag so we can ignore it for this arguement (for now anyways).

before I move on, did you see what I did there or should I review a text book for you? Never mind,

The inertia valve is not adding mass to the car. In order to do so it would need to be in a nuclear fusion state (which raises a completely new set of problems which I urge you to explore). SO lets assume, just assume that it's not thermo nuclear and is just mercury in a bottle (filled to the brim with a stopper on the end and yes an elastic band holding it in place.
All inertia valve would so is redistribute the load across the 4 wheels. Less weight transfer forward means the rear wheels can participate more aggressively in braking etc.
we can still add in the aerodynamic effects but those are constantly variable and a function of wing cross section, ride height velocity and density of air.

So in short, unless the mercury is manufacturing more mass, the sum of load at the wheels must always equal the load of the car itself. With aerodynamic downforce we can reduce the analogy to simply a heavier car. The principal remains the same.

Richard
Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

For the love of God (substitute with a suitable deity or post-Darwin rational theory of your choice)...

I can't believe this is still going on. All this fuss in the Mercedes thread about a mercury damper rumoured to be featured on the Renault-Lotus.

Yup, it's on the Lotus, this is the Mercedes thread in case you hadn't noticed.

We need Inspector Thomas Gazelle of the Yard....


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

jav
jav
0
Joined: 04 Feb 2011, 16:34

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

richard_leeds wrote:For the love of God (substitute with a suitable deity or post-Darwin rational theory of your choice)...

I can't believe this is still going on. All this fuss in the Mercedes thread about a mercury damper rumoured to be featured on the Renault-Lotus.

Yup, it's on the Lotus, this is the Mercedes thread in case you hadn't noticed.

We need Inspector Thomas Gazelle of the Yard....


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
sorry to test your patience Mr. leeds- participation and viewing are voluntary- excersize your rights accordingly.

BTW- I though the Renault system was torsional and working of the brake calipers- are you aware of similar mercury system on Lotus Renault?

Raptor22
Raptor22
26
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 22:48

Re: Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

Post

@Richard

:lol: =D>

good show old boy