Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[hardingfv32]

The important distinction is how the flow path of the force being discussed. In the case of aero drag from the wings, drag is routed from the wings to the chassis and then the suspension. The suspension is not 'directly' effected by drag. 10.1.2 is concerned with forces that originate at the wheels and flow directly to the suspension.

You goal is an interpretation that allows current systems but still represents a valid restriction. Your interpretation of 10.1.2 does not represent any restriction, which questions the necessity of this section.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

It seems like this forum has focus too much on the suspension and I'm starting to get sick of it why are we still discussing on concept that will be easily banned by the FIA and I'm almost sure that the new Mercedes won't feature such radical concept

Continue your discussion of whatever, I think we are capable of deal with more than one subject at a time. Do you think I am wasting any time reading about aero, etc. opinions that usually lack any engineering explanation.

Brian

[GTO]

Having seen the Mercedes AMG DTM car livery, I'm guessing the F1 W03 may have the same reflective silver livery. I realize this would be very similar to McLaren's, except for the teal green areas. I think Mercedes will want to re-establish & retake their "silver arrow" nick name for their car away from McLaren.

[Cocles]

What the heck is the "short" name of this team? I asked them via twitter, so it'll be interesting to hear what they said.

I thought it was Mercedes AMG, but now I'm actually finding resistance on another board, "Mercedes GP is their FIA registered name, their trading name was Mercedes GP Petronas, now Mercedes AMG Petronas, but still registered as Mercedes GP with the FIA."

Checking out formula1.com, however, I see that the team is now simply referred to as "Mercedes", which may actually be best choice of all.

http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/190/

[gato azul]

The important distinction is how the flow path of the force being discussed. In the case of aero drag from the wings, drag is routed from the wings to the chassis and then the suspension. The suspension is not 'directly' effected by drag. 10.1.2 is concerned with forces that originate at the wheels and flow directly to the suspension.

So, if you state that "drag" from a wing, is routed from the wing to the chassis, to the suspension, and therefore does not origin at the wheel, is it fair to say that the down force (lift) generated by the same wing, goes the same way?
If so, I think it is fair to say, that any compression of the suspension due to down force would be illegal - No?

And I do think, that downforce, is affecting the suspension a fair bit, as it contributes about 2/3 of the overall load on the suspension at topspeed.
Or what does cause the compression of the (centre)spring(s), and why would you need them and bumstops and packers etc. in the first place?

If the car stands in pitlane, with an empty fuel tank, and than you go and put 160kg fuel in the car, does this compresses the springs or not?
Does this change in wheel load originates at the wheel, or is the change in wheel load an effect of the added mass from the fuel?

[bhall]

[Redacted]

[hardingfv32]

And I do think, that downforce, is affecting the suspension a fair bit, as it contributes about 2/3 of the overall load on the suspension at topspeed.

1) I restate my challenge, 'state a form of movement that does not effect the load on the wheels'. Under your interpretation of there is no way to violate 10.1.2.

2) Down-force effects flow thru the chassis to the suspension, not directly to the suspension. This is the only way that 10.1.2 can function. 10.1.2 is concerned with forces that do not have a direct connection to the wheels.

Brian

[gato azul]

]
1) I restate my challenge, 'state a form of movement that does not effect the load on the wheels'. Under your interpretation of there is no way to violate 10.1.2.

you can restate as many challenges as you like, but maybe you just answer some of my questions as well, unless you can´t, then say so.

Why do we not disqualify every car on the grid, because it can be proven, that the suspension will be affected by temperature?

And are you saying, that downforce, does not has an affect on the suspension?
Simple answer will do Yes or No.

[gato azul]

No, this is not valid. The magnet requires a force to move it closer to the damper. This force will also change the wheel loads.

You CAN NOT state a form of movement that does not effect the load on the wheels. This is the validity test of your interpretation of this 10.1.2.

Brian

I´m sure, it will in your world where Power = Force x Distance

Why would a magnet, mounted on a ,perfectly balanced horizontally mounted disc, rotating between or near the damper[s] need a change in wheel load, to cause a reaction from the damper fluid? (think compass needle)

The magnet(s) would just try to align themselves with the magnetic field, and in doing so changing their position in relation to the damper(s), while the car is changing it´s heading from N to S etc, which it will have to do, while competing on a circular track.

Or are you suggesting, that the wheel loads are affected by the orientation of the car in relation to the magnetic field? Like a car driving to North is heavier then the same car driving to West?


Are you trying extra hard, to look silly Brian ??

[hardingfv32]

Why do we not disqualify every car on the grid, because it can be proven, that the suspension will be affected by temperature?

May I assume we are talking about the shocks? The shocks are responding to load applied to the wheels. There is no requirement restricting this response of the shocks.

And are you saying, that downforce, does not has an affect on the suspension?
Simple answer will do Yes or No.

Down-force affects the chassis and the chassis affects the suspension. There is no simple yes or no, sorry.

Now for my challenge:

'You CAN NOT state a form of movement that does not effect the load on the wheels. This is the validity test of your interpretation of this 10.1.2.'

Brian

[hardingfv32]

Why would a magnet, mounted on a ,perfectly balanced horizontally mounted disc, rotating between or near the damper[s] need a change in wheel load, to cause a reaction from the damper fluid? (think compass needle)

The magnet(s) would just try to align themselves with the magnetic field, and in doing so changing their position in relation to the damper(s), while the car is changing it´s heading from N to S etc, which it will have to do, while competing on a circular track.

Yes, you are making me look soo silly!!!

Is this the best you can do? Nothing using current road racing cars and systems? Pretty much proves my point. 'Your interpretation of 10.1.2 does not represent any restriction, which questions the necessity of this section.'

Brian

[Raptor22]

[Raptor22]

Why do we not disqualify every car on the grid, because it can be proven, that the suspension will be affected by temperature?

May I assume we are talking about the shocks? The shocks are responding to load applied to the wheels. There is no requirement restricting this response of the shocks.

And are you saying, that downforce, does not has an affect on the suspension?
Simple answer will do Yes or No.

Down-force affects the chassis and the chassis affects the suspension. There is no simple yes or no, sorry.

So in your universe the downforce could actually be applied outside the car.. so its a mysterious force applied by God at will.... either at nothing or against the car.

Now for my challenge:

'You CAN NOT state a form of movement that does not effect the load on the wheels. This is the validity test of your interpretation of this 10.1.2.'

Brian

Where is the challenge statement...?

By stating what you have above you prove the point of legality of a mercury suspension because you claim that all movements and the resultant forces that drive those movements affect the load at the wheels.....ergo, if mercury valve is working with the suspension load to alter damping rates or whatever else its doing, that is perfect legal because it is working through the wheels. Remember your 10.1.2. says that suspension must work as a result of load applied at the wheels.

The only time there would be movement without load is if the car is airborne and the suspension is moving to bump stop. Then there would no load at the wheels but suspension movement is present till it hits the bump stop.
Ergo, you want to ban all suspension and the cars must run solid axles.

Some suspension rules:

Suspension by definition, suspends a load.
The reactions at the load supports must equal the load.

your arguement keeps coming back to if the car is suspended from a crane that the wheels will move in relation to inclination. There is a huge gap in your understanding of how these things work. Suspension at bump stop, the circuit is closed and no fluid movement is present till a load is applied to the wheels to move the suspension from bump stop to a free floating equilibrium.

Nopt sure how many more time I have to repeat myself but someone once theorised that 17 was a magic number.

[kris]

Well then, Newey sure took his sweet time with Red Bull didn't he?!?!

But weren't red-bull new to the field and had to build a reputation unlike Mercedes who have been here for long and would like to consider themselves to be top notch from the start after taking over a championship winning car?

[Raptor22]

Well then, Newey sure took his sweet time with Red Bull didn't he?!?!

But weren't red-bull new to the field and had to build a reputation unlike Mercedes who have been here for long and would like to consider themselves to be top notch from the start after taking over a championship winning car?

REd Bull bought Jaguar who bought Stewart Ford Racing.

Mercedes bought Brawn who were Honda who before that was British American Racing who before that was Tyrell F1 for many many years.


In both cases there was a lot of restructuring of the resources and assets thatin effect all that happened was that new owners bought a place on the F1 grid.
From there its an evolutionary path to the top unless they could find a trick to gain a lot of performance.

For Red Bull that trick was the rules changes that came into effect in 2009. it propelled them up the grid.

Mercedes ow into their third season should be getting on with getting t the top now. It seldom happens where a team is sold and bought that the new owners inherit a winning car because there is quite a lot of intellectual property that goes with making a car fast, not just a DD diffusor or active suspension. There is a lot to be understood how a car works its tyres to find an optimum rolling resistance that results in sufficient working of the tyre without creating drag and robbing engine power