- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Mercedes AMG have today completed their shakedown of the W03, the team's new 2012 car. After the team decided to run at last week's Jerez test with the older car, Mercedes will present its new car to the public next Tuesday at the start of testing at Barcelona.
Not all, only few but they are more than enoughMercAMGF1Fans wrote:I sent a link to this thread to Merc on twitter, to tell them how MAD we've all become
Haha hmm...that's a tough one...I think the official can be released as soon as the teaser is out...unless it's just a blanket over some resemblance of an F1 car.JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:I want to say over, but.... The teaser is being released soon.... Which means an official thread can be opened... I think?dren wrote:Now perhaps another 100 or so pages of speculation after the teaser is released? You taking the over or under JET?
Or should we have a teaser thread that is not quite official, but is also not quite speculation?
/facepalmBlackout wrote:
Why were they discussing our beloved team at the McLaren launch in the first place?Cocles wrote:/facepalmBlackout wrote:
Why was this even discussed? Not to brag, but I knew this was fake the first split second I saw it.
Why?
THE NAME OF THE CAR IS WRONG.
MGP? What's that?
To be fair, even the journalists are still getting it wrong. Hell, they were referring to "MGP" at the McLaren unveiling.
I think someone asked McLaren if there could be any value in missing the first test session. Don't quote me on that though. It may have actually been someone at McLaren who brought up "MGP" at that point as part of their answer.NewtonMeter wrote:Why were they discussing our beloved team at the McLaren launch in the first place?Cocles wrote:/facepalmBlackout wrote:
Why was this even discussed? Not to brag, but I knew this was fake the first split second I saw it.
Why?
THE NAME OF THE CAR IS WRONG.
MGP? What's that?
To be fair, even the journalists are still getting it wrong. Hell, they were referring to "MGP" at the McLaren unveiling.
Apart from the nose rules there is no reason.Schulteiss wrote:Is there ANY rational in going back to evolutionary BGP-01 design? Has this occurred to anyone?
Schulteiss wrote:Is there ANY rational in going back to evolutionary BGP-01 design? Has this occurred to anyone?
The scale is moving. so you won't be able to press down the springs.Raptor22 wrote:
In free fall you do not have weight, but do still have mass. You only have weight when you have the potential to be accelerated at 1G. To test this jump out of a plane ( I would advise the use of a parachute ) with a scale in hand. On the way down stand on the scale and see if it reads anything.
No only have weight when there is a reaction. Your mass however remains where you left it.
No. My car squats at the front. Because the weight shifts more over the front axle the more tilted forward it is.Smikle, when you park you vehicle on a steep slope does it squat at the rear?
Mine does not.
The reason is that since the fluid is contained within a vessel under pressure, there is now fluid flow to allow the damper piston to move.
Until the car is placed in an orientation whereby the line of action of the weight acting through the tyres contact patch induces a torque sufficient to overcome the friction in the damper the piston remains at its rest position.
Nope..the calculations I did were all net forces out of the system. I could say, like if you were measuring horsepower at the wheels kind of thing. All external to the system.Now if a hooligan comes past and pushes down on the suspension, yes it will squat.
In your example you continuously assume a frcitionless piston under no pressure.
But it didn't suit my point of view. I just did a calcuation and I gave you the scenario to proove that the system will respond to orientation - even so as much to influence wheel load. It was not an opinion.Something like my chums Citroen will squat at the rear because its suspension is pressurised externally by a pump. The SACHS dampers in my Golf are pressurised internally and have a platformed shim stack that is piston velocity sensitive. The Citroens is a simple fluid damper arrangement driven by fluid pressure.
You merely cite an example that suits your POV, and not a realistic example.
Tell Ross Brawn Hello. The real system might not even look like this specific one.Why is this system not in violation of 10.1.2? Because it is designed to not violate the rule.
I have been saying from day one. That it is whether Charlie whiting considers the inertial effects that are due not from the wheel load to be significant.The system responds to wheel loads and has sufficient platform to prevent fluid flow at inclinations that could reasonably be expected in a homologation test. Whether or not movement can be induced by a fancy combobulatron is irrelevant because ANY suspension will see movement at a present level of orientation induced load.
The policing of rules involves wording but there is also the "reasonable" aspect that is taken into account.
Reasonable means that the scrutineers accept that pistons and hydraulics involved in the suspension working are part of the system. They consider an outside, engine or electrically driven pump to be an external force and "Powered". Ask Charlie to explain this to you. He will sit you down somewhere quiet and go over the rules that relates to your question and provide his interpretation.
I am two steps ahead of you... I was on your side of the fence before I realised that the system responds to orientation change. So do wheel loads, but the response system can be isolated quite easily.I and other have covered that over and over. If you and others chose not to see it then I see no point in further participation in this discussion. Its not a discussion any longer but a deliberate attempt to incite and maintain an arguement.
[/quote][/quote]Example:
ForMuLaOne wrote: "You want to fix it by braking, then you have to live with the response of the suspension caused by the changing forces you have when the car is braked and the surface angle is changed. And to point it out ONCE again: Whenever you brake a car, the first thing that changes the whole system is the change of load applied to the wheel. There will never be a reaction of a mass inside the car BEFORE the load applied to the wheel has changed.
YOu Respond: "This doesn't change anything I said. Time doesn't matter. I gave an Isolated case to show that the system is sensitive to gravitational potential difference. You have to prove to me that it is not. If you place the car on a slope suspension in rest position then release it the suspension front suspension will continue to rise until it reaches an equilibrium.
So you load the dice in a direction that suits having an argument and not reading what he said.
Any suspension is potentially susceptible to gravitational potential. But the sensitivity is DESIGNED OUT. In this design, load threshold and Time are factors but you choose to ignore that because it suits having a revolving argument.
That's called trolling. Its a real shame that this forum has been allowed to be degraded to this level
Ahem.n smikle wrote:I was on your side of the fence before I realised that the system responds to orientation change.
Yes! But there is a small problem: you should know Russian languageCocles wrote:Cool, interesting stuff. Do you have the sources, so we can read more?atanatizante wrote:Since this thread is about pre-launch speculations I`ll sum up some rumors on other forums regarding novelties on W03:
1. Sidepods will be curved and also have a very slope angle (side viewing):
a) to maintain a clean path of the airflow to the beam wing;
b) to create DF as near as possible to the CoG;
c) this arrangement is design bearing in mind the crash structure requirements.
2. Air intakes will be very low, very small in width but also very wide and practically has the same width like the floor does. This low position benefits from the clean air which is channeled via the fins under the FW and also from the barge boards under the nose.
3. The lower side of the air intake has a curved shape, in order to channel and accelerate the airflow like STR did last year with their double floor.
4. There are no air box intake over the driver`s head because they will reinstate their blade roll hoop. The air box intake will be splitted in two channels which goes on each side of the driver`s cell of survival. They are starting from the sidepods air intake level and go around the back of the driver towards the engine.
5. They will blow the fins placed on the rear break ducts.
6. The exhausts covers and the rear wing will have a linear connection. These exhaust covers are angled like RB6 nose fins, in order to divert the airflow towards both ends of the rear wing.
7. Last but not least, they will have a legal RRH system
You will never understand your own scenario. You don`t understand Newton`s laws, you don`t understand causal connection between all the elements we are talking about. This is what i can summarize after nearly 20 pages of discussing with you.n smikle wrote: What I have done for you both is ISOLATE a scenario where the system can work without any changing input from the wheel loading. This is important if you analyse a vibrating system..with transfer function and all that stuff that I don't remember now.
