=D> =D>Gridlock wrote:
For god's sake tell them to make sure it's a picture of the suspension
Ooh.n smikle wrote: Is the response in the mercury Inertial hydraulics suspension only derived from the wheel load?
It depends where the CoG is in relation to the Centre of pressure for the car.avatar wrote:Ooh.n smikle wrote: Is the response in the mercury Inertial hydraulics suspension only derived from the wheel load?
Decelleration due to Aero drag when lifting throttle at full speed....
...doesn't that provide significant braking purely from Aero, which, other than he wheels and brake duct gubbins is *all* acting on the unsprung car, not the wheels.
I don't know the figures for Aero braking on an F1 car, but if the system activated are or below the possible force from Aero braking, it should probably be illegal.
Add to that the DRS disengagement adding back a load of drag back (thus decelleration force not applied at the wheel) at the point of breaking, and I can't see it being justified.
What do you reckon?
The thing is, unlike the air around the car the inertial Mercury system is a device built into the car.avatar wrote:Ooh.n smikle wrote: Is the response in the mercury Inertial hydraulics suspension only derived from the wheel load?
Decelleration due to Aero drag when lifting throttle at full speed....
...doesn't that provide significant braking purely from Aero, which, other than he wheels and brake duct gubbins is *all* acting on the unsprung car, not the wheels.
I don't know the figures for Aero braking on an F1 car, but if the system activated are or below the possible force from Aero braking, it should probably be illegal.
Add to that the DRS disengagement adding back a load of drag back (thus decelleration force not applied at the wheel) at the point of breaking, and I can't see it being justified.
What do you reckon?
You are spot on. Very sharp observation.avatar wrote:Decelleration due to Aero drag when lifting throttle at full speed.... it should probably be illegal.
Should I also be complementing you for a sharp observation? Not clear to me who came up with this theme first.n smikle wrote:In a purely mechanical sense, it is like a small hydro power plant. Like the hover damn, It releases gravitational Potential energy into motion. There are instances IMO when it does this without any influence from wheel loads.
wonder why this has been the case ?n smikle wrote: I gave up arguing on this topic though. Lets just wait and see what the experts have to say about the inertial aspects of it.
but maybe you just have realized the fault in your little drawing in the meantime.n smikle wrote: Some people "Tap out" when it gets too technical and when they have no scientifically sound response.
good point, but lifting off the throttle would most likely not only create braking from aero drag, you would need to de-clutch, to eliminate the effect of engine braking at the same time.avatar wrote:Ooh.n smikle wrote: Is the response in the mercury Inertial hydraulics suspension only derived from the wheel load?
Decelleration due to Aero drag when lifting throttle at full speed....
...doesn't that provide significant braking purely from Aero, which, other than he wheels and brake duct gubbins is *all* acting on the *edit* sprung */edit* car, not the wheels.
I don't know the figures for Aero braking on an F1 car, but if the system activated are or below the possible force from Aero braking, it should probably be illegal.
Add to that the DRS disengagement adding back a load of drag back (thus decelleration force not applied at the wheel) at the point of breaking, and I can't see it being justified.
What do you reckon?
*edited to replace unsprung with sprung (silly typo, but I think those who've read it understood what I was saying)
There is a difference between arguing and technical demonstration.gato azul wrote:wonder why this has been the case ?n smikle wrote: I gave up arguing on this topic though. Lets just wait and see what the experts have to say about the inertial aspects of it.
Ahh....
I forgot, you already provided the answer to that
but maybe you just have realized the fault in your little drawing in the meantime.n smikle wrote: Some people "Tap out" when it gets too technical and when they have no scientifically sound response.
Wikipedia is suggesting Martin Brundle from a few years ago stating 1G for standard Aero drag braking effect, but I can't find any figures for G-force attributed to DRS disengaging (I.e.flap closing).Raptor22 wrote:It depends where the CoG is in relation to the Centre of pressure for the car.avatar wrote:Ooh.n smikle wrote: Is the response in the mercury Inertial hydraulics suspension only derived from the wheel load?
Decelleration due to Aero drag when lifting throttle at full speed....
...doesn't that provide significant braking purely from Aero, which, other than he wheels and brake duct gubbins is *all* acting on the unsprung car, not the wheels.
I don't know the figures for Aero braking on an F1 car, but if the system activated are or below the possible force from Aero braking, it should probably be illegal.
Add to that the DRS disengagement adding back a load of drag back (thus decelleration force not applied at the wheel) at the point of breaking, and I can't see it being justified.
What do you reckon?
Any drag force will have a couple with the statics and dynamics properties of the car.
Another thing to sonsider is drag is proportional to velocity and the drag coefficient of the car. At what point would the forces balance to reduce the couple
you need actual data an this is a problem that would be considered during the design of the car