Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[Richard]

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?

Here are the facts, not that they seem to get in the way in this thread at the moment. Notice how the author describes this as a feature on the Lotus.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/11/2 ... d-inerter/

Sometimes someone needs to mention when a thread is either off topic, or entered into a tiresome circular debate. Otherwise the forum descends into the lowest common denominator, that way madness (or planetf1) lies.

[hardingfv32]

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.

Good I can work with this statement. In the case where all things are equal in a given braking situation.... Yes, the total load 'at the wheels' changes when the mercury system is in use AND they change when the mercury is not in use (but still on the chassis). The KEY POINT is the the loads 'at the wheels' is the SAME in both cases. How can the mercury system function or change position it the wheel loads are the same with or without the system in use? The implication of 10.1.2 is that if the mercury system is applying responses to the suspension, then there must be some kind change in the total wheel loads from those occasions when the mercury system is not applying responses to the suspension.

How do you defend the lack of change seen by the wheel loads in this example?

Brian

[Richard]

Brian

Mercury .... Mercedes ... are you sure?

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/11/2 ... d-inerter/

[Blackout]

Indeed, mercury is under pressure
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geY0f6peEtc

[Cocles]

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?

Here are the facts, not that they seem to get in the way in this thread at the moment. Notice how the author describes this as a feature on the Lotus.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/11/2 ... d-inerter/

Sometimes someone needs to mention when a thread is either off topic, or entered into a tiresome circular debate. Otherwise the forum descends into the lowest common denominator, that way madness (or planetf1) lies.

Yeah... and the principals behind that system were supposedly brought over to Mercedes by Bob Bell and a Lotus/Renault engineer he brought with him, and they have since supposedly perfected it. We're talking about the system on the Mercedes.

[Raptor22]

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?

Here are the facts, not that they seem to get in the way in this thread at the moment. Notice how the author describes this as a feature on the Lotus.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/11/2 ... d-inerter/

Sometimes someone needs to mention when a thread is either off topic, or entered into a tiresome circular debate. Otherwise the forum descends into the lowest common denominator, that way madness (or planetf1) lies.

Somehow I feel someone has paid for a one week arguement, so even when presented with the facts will continue to ask the same question like a annoying child asking "are we there yet?"

I'm out of here

[hardingfv32]

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.

Everything you say is true, BUT COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the obstacle that 10.1.2 is presenting you with.

'In the case where all things are equal in a given braking situation.... Yes, the total load 'at the wheels' changes when the mercury system is in use AND they change when the mercury is not in use (but still on the chassis). The KEY POINT is the the loads 'at the wheels' is the SAME in both cases. How can the mercury system function or change position it the wheel loads are the same with or without the system in use? The implication of 10.1.2 is that if the mercury system is applying responses to the suspension, then there must be some kind change in the total wheel loads from those occasions when the mercury system is not applying responses to the suspension.

How do you defend the lack of change seen by the wheel loads in this example?"

Brian

[hardingfv32]

I'm out of here

Tap Tap Tap

Brian

[hardingfv32]

[quote="richard_leeds"]

Mercury .... Mercedes ... are you sure?

There is more to be learned from this mercury discussion than any babble about an imaginary car. You can make anything up when you there is no way to judge your statements.

Brian

[jav]

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?

Here are the facts, not that they seem to get in the way in this thread at the moment. Notice how the author describes this as a feature on the Lotus.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/11/2 ... d-inerter/

Sometimes someone needs to mention when a thread is either off topic, or entered into a tiresome circular debate. Otherwise the forum descends into the lowest common denominator, that way madness (or planetf1) lies.

Thank you for the link- I was aware of the inerter. Perhaps it is my error but I understood this approach to have differing technical merits and I'm certianly interested in learing all I can.

The patented (and legal) Lotus Renault system functions more as a damper (intertance of fluid) while this system seems to function more as a rsing rate spring than a damper?

I do agree on the circular arguement comment. Being enthusiastic to defend belief and eager to understand where I don't (transaltion "hard headed")- I accept the charge.

[Gridlock]

Mercedes AMG F1 are going to launch a 6 wheeled, triple floor car with turboprops on the rear wing and no one here will even notice

[PlatinumZealot]

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).

Brr incorrect.The wheel loads oppose weight, lateral acceleraton, downforce and cross winds. Lets not ingore the aero because that contributes to the 5g accelerations. (remember this system can be cross linked).

[avatar]

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.

just to clarify, you most likely mean relevant forces during breaking.

Otherwise you're implying Aero load has no affect on the car, and I don't think that's what you're saying.

before I write this next bit I want to make clear I'm not arguing this is legal or illegal, just exploring options, always mindful that there's a fuzzy line in a lot of the rules - the FIA have to make individual rulings to smooth it out.

Point of definition: Inertia is generally considered as a force; merely one that acts against changes in velocity.

The FIA may choose to view the mercury as a free weight.

When breaking force is applied, it reduces the momentum of the car, but not immediately affecting the momentum of the free weight/mercury (due to it's inertial force wanting to go straight on).
This free weight *could* now be considered to be acting after the breaking force is applied. it's only slowed down by (and I'm simplifying here) it "hitting" the suspension and preventing dive/pitching.

I don't know the Rulebook well enough to even guess which way the FIA might rule. Technically, I think they can rule any suspension that responds to Aero load (I.e. compressing under high downforce as all cars do) as it acts on the suspension through the sprung part of the car, not the wheels.

It's up to the FIA.
So, for that reason.

I'm out.

[ForMuLaOne]

What it does is: It does not only respond to vertical forces applied to the tyre, but also to horizontal forces. Either way the forces are applied to the tyres. It is just hard to understand that in n smikles example, gravity does not only attack the tyres in vertical direction relative to the car, but also horizontal.

[bhall]

(I have a tendency to come off like a smartass, even when it's unintentional. I suppose I'm just lucky like that. Yesterday was a bad day, so more than a little of my attitude was, shall we say, less than unintentional. My apologies.)

It appears we really can argue endlessly about the configuration of this rumored system. (And I, for one, am going to be at least a little annoyed if this particular rumor turns out to be completely baseless. Oh, the humanity!) So let's try another angle, one I've mentioned as more of an abstract earlier.

If the following regulations effectively disallow active suspensions...

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.

10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.

...why did 10.1.2, "The suspension system must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in load applied to the wheels," need to be codified in such a manner? What is its purpose?

Personally, I think its intent is to ban a system such as the one being discussed* here.

One of the key points for those who contend that this system is legal is the fact that all loads, in some form or another, are applied to the wheels. And that's fair enough. I just wonder why it would require a mention in the rules if it's given that wheeled suspensions behave that way. It strikes me as being tantamount to an unnecessary rule that states something to the effect of, "all cars must race on track."

Or am I missing some obscure non-powered, passive system that somehow takes the wheels out of the equation? I'm open to that possibility.


* I use that term loosely.

EDIT: The "all cars must race on track" bit was a bad example, because the Sporting Regulations actually include that. "All cars must race while driving forward" is, I think, a better parallel.