Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[Metalrulz]

Is there ANY rational in going back to evolutionary BGP-01 design? Has this occurred to anyone?

Apart from the nose rules there is no reason.

Yeah i feel that the BGP-01 had more potential and they did not extract the maximum from the car. BUT then again the car was built keeping in mind the DD.. the mgp 01 could/should have been a revolution of the BGP just like Red Bulls theory..

[Raptor22]

If an individual cannot grasp the difference between weight and mass, is there any basis upon which to continue a discussion?

I would be interested to hear your views on inertia valve or fluid inerter suspension systems

Unfortunately, I fear that a very clear understanding of some physical principles are needed to understand the proposed system/concept.
Without, any attempt of constructive discussion will be in vain.

Furthermore, I think that during this discussion, some things have become a bit "muddied" and some concepts are chucked into one bowl, which don´t necessary belong into the same bowl.

As far as I can tell, we have:

a.) the concept proposed on the other blog, which I have assumed is discussed here.

b.) the fluid inerter - patented by Lotus-Renault, and used in place of an "mechanical inerter" based on the concept put forward by Prof. Malcolm Smith's

c.) so called "inertia valves" as used in some dampers, or interconnected suspension systems, which regulate the oil flow in said systems in response to acceleration (either vertical,longitudinal,lateral or any combination thereof)

These are three totally different applications, and apart from sharing some of the same physical principles, have nothing to do with each other, and are used for different purposes.

It would help, if someone could clearly state which of the three systems in question, you would like to discuss here.

I'd say lets start afresh. Perhaps there needs to separate threads in the Chassis area?

I agree they are three separate concepts. The water became muddied when someone started that all three are illegal because they each violate article 10.1.2.

All thres concepts can be used in a single suspension system for different albeit interrelated reasons

[PlatinumZealot]

because weight is acceleration due to gravity x mass. FACT

same very interesting physics going on here - impressive:

So what is your definition of "acceleration" ?

a=dv/dt ?

if so, then how does this makes any sense

You need to refresh your mind on what weight means. Terminal velocity only give a feeling of weightlessness but you are still in a gravitational field so you still have weight.

Does "terminal" velocity not mean "constant" aka not changing velocity?
If so, how do you can still have acceleration? - if velocity does not increase?

BTW:
I think, what you experience in the moment of impact is more the effect of energy:
Et =1/2mv^2
then it is the effect of weight.

It was a joke response (to his parachute) Obviously you don't need gravity (and hence weight) to feel impact.

But In all seriousness, Weight is acceleration due to gravity x your mass. there is no if's nor buts.
You weigh 700 Newtons on the surfact of earth.. a little bit less the higher and higher you go - until you then have no weight.

Formulaone..he blurred the lines between any old accelration on youy body with weight..Any scientist or engineer who has drawns countless free body diagrams know that that arrow with the big "W" for weight is almost always why you instinctively put on the paper first. The Weight may not be the net force but it is always there in a gravitational field and it is constant at a given gravitational field.

The net force is simply decided by other forces that are not due to gravity. So there is a distinction between weight and any other forces that may cause a feeling of weight, or oppositely a feeling of no weight.

[PlatinumZealot]

I would advise you in the interests of proper reational discusion to not respond to the trolls who jump in on discussions and ask circular questions.
their intent is not for discussion but for arguement.When corner they wilput words in your mouth and use psuedo science to explaintheir POV. Its a trap to get attention.

Thanks for the good advice - it´s appreciated
Nevertheless, I was hoping, that on a technical forum, and that is what the name suggests, some rules and laws (preferable physical and natural ones, such as Newtons) still apply. - No?
And that they are used correctly.

Some people "Tap out" when it gets too technical and when they have no scientifically sound response. Name calling and accusations of trolling is then used as the last line of defence.

But here... I don't get any winnings out of proving my arguement.. Sometimes you're right sometimes you're wrong. In this very same thread, I have switched sides of this argument TWICE all based on Scientific reasoning so I know that my unbiasedness has already been proven. I simply don't care whether the system is legal or not. I am just participating on the basic of technical discusion. And I have not heard anything so far to adress, the particular topic we are on, which is:

Is the response in the mercury Inertial hydraulics suspension only derived from the wheel load?

My answer was:
Apart from response to individual wheel loads, there exists a response in the suspension brought about by change in orientation of the car, and this response can act in parallel but not always in sync with the individual wheel loads.


Heck if I'm wrong then tell me why using a scientific method.

[Schurcedes]

Any word on the teaser?

[MercAMGF1Fans]

Any word on the teaser?

Nope, give it Till Next week.. I'm in touch with them

[ForMuLaOne]

n smikle:

The change of orientation was introduced by you with the example of the car standing on a surface that has a slope. I do get your point that whenever the car does not stand perfectly leveled there is some action going on in the suspension system. As soon as the angle of gravity in relation to the car changes, the mass of the mercury wants to follow. But this can only happen if the car stands still (in your example). And by changing the angle of slope in any direction, there will always be a change in wheel loads BEFORE the mercury can even react. You could only avoid this by using a crane, by attaching the car to a non moving reference that is anything else but a surface the wheels are in contact with. Of course then, the suspension was moving due to a change of orientation, but again, the direction of forces applying to the mounting point of the crane were changing BEFORE the mercury was reacting to this change. I want to be constructive now. Do you get my point?

[gato azul]

Heck if I'm wrong then tell me why using a scientific method.

I would, if you would answer my question about your definition of acceleration.
And I surely hope, that you are clear in your own mind, as what you are talking about, because after your last posts, I am surely not.

Anyway, as you seem to be very familiar and found of "free body" diagrams,
you may want to tell me, what´s wrong in your illustration, and include "all" forces
present in this case, and the point and direction in which they act.



mind about the length of your arrows under the wheels, and include the case of the same car on a leveled surface

[bhall]

The change of orientation was introduced by you with the example of the car standing on a surface that has a slope.

Aw, c'mon. At least give me my due as the instigator of this debacle. I live for causing trouble like this.

[ForMuLaOne]

The change of orientation was introduced by you with the example of the car standing on a surface that has a slope.

Aw, c'mon. At least give me my due as the instigator of this debacle. I live for causing trouble like this.

Sorry

[Schulteiss]

Heck if I'm wrong then tell me why using a scientific method.

I would, if you would answer my question about your definition of acceleration.
And I surely hope, that you are clear in your own mind, as what you are talking about, because after your last posts, I am surely not.

Anyway, as you seem to be very familiar and found of "free body" diagrams,
you may want to tell me, what´s wrong in your illustration, and include "all" forces
present in this case, and the point and direction in which they act.



mind about the length of your arrows under the wheels, and include the case of the same car on a leveled surface

As I understand it, the mercury moves, but the suspension does NOT lift. It only pre-conditions pressure. You totally misunderstand this. Or I do.

[gato azul]

As I understand it, the mercury moves, but the suspension does NOT lift. It only pre-conditions pressure. You totally misunderstand this. Or I do.

Maybe I do, but this is not my sketch, nor is it my explanation.

I just want "n smikle" to comment on it, and preferably, but some numbers on it,
so that we don´t disagree about the length of the arrows he draws.

Decide on a generic car, mass, wheelbase,location of centre of mass, and angle of
the slope.
Then tell me, what are the loads at each axle (wheel), compared to the same car on a leveled surface.

Then, we will take it from there.

[bhall]

After 30+ pages, I've got to believe that everything has been said, and I'm pretty sure that all involved are deeply entrenched within their respective singular points of view.

[Gridlock]

Any word on the teaser?

Nope, give it Till Next week.. I'm in touch with them

For god's sake tell them to make sure it's a picture of the suspension

[Schulteiss]

Any word on the teaser?

Nope, give it Till Next week.. I'm in touch with them

For god's sake tell them to make sure it's a picture of the suspension

LOL =D>