Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[King Six]

Let's keep making this the longest pre-launch thread for no reason whatsoever.

My question is, if Mercedes called their 2011 engine FO 108Y and this year it's FO 108Z, what will they call next years engine?

[ForMuLaOne]

(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.

You could use aerodynamics to adjust the suspension, also the Lotus Braking system.

[scuderiafan]

Let's keep making this the longest pre-launch thread for no reason whatsoever.

My question is, if Mercedes called their 2011 engine FO 108Y and this year it's FO 108Z, what will they call next years engine?

F108AA?

[bhall]

You could use aerodynamics to adjust the suspension, also the Lotus Braking system.

I thought the Lotus system was banned due to 10.2.3. And I'd think the aerodynamic possibility would be covered likewise.

[jav]

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

Brian-

it seems like your almost coming around but not quite. I've bolded 2 lines in your post above. But for a typo, I agree with the first line but not with the use of the underlined word "total". Also disagree with the chassis statement. Individual wheel loads change with and without the mercury system. "Total" loads are always the same as long as mass and acceleration are the same.

In the second bolded line you refer to a "lack of change seen by the wheels". For the same reason above- this is incorrect. In a "broad" sense "total load" cumulative on all wheel is the same but individual wheel load does change.

The defense for lack of change in total load is physics- and it seems you may be trying to conceed that individual wheel load does change so there's no need to defend that.

Your ball.

[ForMuLaOne]

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

I answered your question You asked for the sense of this article.

[avatar]

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.

I feel the need to regress to some physics terms slightly for clarity.

Gravity is measured as an acceleration.
Velocity is the speed of an object in a given direction measured in meters per second.
(ignoring relativity for a simpler life)

Acceleration is the degree of increase in velocity, which may be negative.
(also ignoring the direction for simplicity)

In SI terms it's all measured in meters per second per second .

whenever change in velocity (which includes acceleration/deceleration and direction changes) is not zero, inertial forces will be measurable.

While I understood what you meant by gravity acting horizontally on the car, it's actually another acceleration, the change in velocity, that reveals the inertial force which acts against the change in velocity.

[Richard]

Oh oh ... I see what has happened. Its the curse of x again.

He raised the idea of mercury way back on page 67 on 24 Jan. Then someone blogged about it http://abulafiaf1.wordpress.com/2012/01 ... ty-system/

... and now this thread is in a tail spin.

You've got to hand it to x, he certainly knows how to get a Mercedes thread on fire. Although we should be thankful that there has been no mention of the 3 former TDs for at least 25 pages. I'm sure normal service will be resumed soon.

Mercury for hydraulic fluid?

Mercury have a density of 13.5 (hydraulic oil about 0.88), which within a 2.5 meter long line from rear to front would create a pressure of 13.5 Bar under 4g deceleration. If this pressure would affect an 80 mm diameter hydraulic cylinder it would create 6800 N (680 kg) of force, probably enough to lift the suspension on each front wheel to raise the nose.

So that's what it was all about, clever, no wonder they wanted to spend time on it, such a shame if it was banned?

[pocketmoon]

In general the FIA want to keep suspensions as straightforward as possible for safety reasons. If a device fails to function, e.g. anti-dive, and the car loses downforce in a corner, it could have dramatic effects. Perhaps that's one reason for the recent actions.

[bhall]

Oh oh ... I see what has happened. Its the curse of x again.

Look closer. It was a response to an article already written on the subject.

[ForMuLaOne]

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.

I feel the need to regress to some physics terms slightly for clarity.

Gravity is measured as an acceleration.
Velocity is the speed of an object in a given direction measured in meters per second.
(ignoring relativity for a simpler life)

Acceleration is the degree of increase in velocity, which may be negative.
(also ignoring the direction for simplicity)

In SI terms it's all measured in meters per second per second .

whenever change in velocity (which includes acceleration/deceleration and direction changes) is not zero, inertial forces will be measurable.

While I understood what you meant by gravity acting horizontally on the car, it's actually another acceleration, the change in velocity, that reveals the inertial force which acts against the change in velocity.

In his example the car is standing still. No change of velocity. No inertia revealed. They use his example to erase those effects in order to explain that the system is illegal. There is JUST the FULL weightforce of every part of the car because they dont move to follow gravity. This would decrease any forces of moveable parts in the car, in freefall you had zero g for potentially moving parts, therefore no forces, no mercury "working" as it was not moving. The car stands still, mercury as a bigger mass than the oil wants to follow gravity, works against a piston and compensates the dive of the suspension.

Needless to say that its response results only from changes in load applied to the wheels, as the article says.

[jav]

(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.

Good post! I wish I knew the answer. The fact is some regulations sited in support of some bans ( like Renaults TMD being a moveable aero device???) leave me scratching my head.

I suppose 10.1.2 could be sited to ban something like this with more clarity than that decision... but I think it more logical that a system of this type be allowable?

BTW- I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this system does not end up on W03. We may not even find out this season, and I'm fine with that as long as they truely improve (3rd or better).

[yace]

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

10/10!

[ForMuLaOne]

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.

System not powered.

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

We discussed that point, normal dampers already use devices that change damprates.

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

Every change in velocity (acceleration, deceleration), every inertia effect has it`s cause, and at the same time it`s effect in changes in load applied to the wheels.

I n smikles example the response comes from a change of load direction apllied to the wheel.

I really cannot see how there is any argument left to call this system illegal.

[PlatinumZealot]

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.

System not powered.

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

We discussed that point, normal dampers already use devices that change damprates.

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

Every change in velocity (acceleration, deceleration), every inertia effect has it`s cause, and at the same time it`s effect in changes in load applied to the wheels.

I n smikles example the response comes from a change of load direction apllied to the wheel.

I really cannot see how there is any argument left to call this system illegal.

Nope. In my example the change comes from gravity. the wheel loads change as a result. If you put the car backwards on the slope the back will begin lift up.