hardingfv32 wrote:gato azul wrote:in as much as the mercury system is part of the suspension
The mercury system is not part of the suspension. That is the one of the main flaws in your position. The suspension's function or responses are NOT ALTERED in any way if there is no mercury system. That is a unrefutable fact.
Brian
Sorry for the somewhat belated reply, but it still takes some time to travel from one end of the world to the other, even in 2012.
Anyway, I see your post still stands, so perhaps you really mean it, that way.
Let´s see:
Now, it´s not part of the suspension, in your way of looking at things, but § 10.1.2 could be still evoked to ban it. That´s interesting, to say they least - but I trust that, you will know, how that makes any sense.
Let´s cut to the core of your argument then, and see if it has any legs to stand on.
hardingfv32 wrote:
The suspension's function or responses are NOT ALTERED in any way if there is no mercury system. That is a unrefutable fact.
Actually, I can start to see, where you coming from, and if we take a very simplistic view at the world and suspension analysis, and limit ourselves to static analysis and look at steady state conditions, you would have made a valid point.
Unfortunately, it´s not that simple, and as "n smikle" would be quick, to explain to you.
n smikle wrote:
Do a vibration analysis and see what you consider a response . FIA are taking about response as in milliseconds to seconds range.
Now, I don´t agree with him over the FIA part, but I would agree, that only looking at static conditions, would jump a little bit short, in this context.
Because, then you would find other parts, particular inerters, which would not exhibit any influence on the suspension. Nevertheless, teams still bother to employ them, why could that be the case?
Let´s see what happens, if a car with the "Mercury (Hg) system" travels over a bump, and the wheel will have some vertical movement.
Wheel goes up -> pushrod transfers the motion to the chassis -> rocker makes a angular movement -> shaft of the Hg system cylinder moves -> piston attached to the shaft moves -> and in order to do so, it will need to replace a portion of the Hg out of the cylinder/camber.
And here, we are going to meet our old friend, Isaac Newton and his laws of motion again (F=m*a).
The Hg will resist the movement/motion with an force proportional to acceleration, because it would like to remain in his current state inside the cylinder.
Teams make use of this effect, when they use inerters, and if you look closely at Renault's "fluid inerter" and where it is mounted, you will start to see some similarities.
Therefore, under dynamic conditions, the Hg system, will have an effect on the suspension, every time the wheel, would like to move up quickly [q.e.d.]
Even if you choose to ignore this fact, there is another effect, we should look at.
If the wheel, moves down again, the piston will now need to replace the oil out of the cylinder/chamber, and even, keeping in mind that the sketch is just an illustration, to show the basic concept behind the idea and not an engineering drawing, you will notice that the oil will need to flow, through different sized lines, and we have some changes of diameter in this system and even if not, the following would still apply.
Δp = v² × f × L × ρ/2D
It does not take a great deal of imagination, to see, that you could integrate some adjustable flow restrictions (aka valves) into the oil circuit, to increase the velocity sensitiveness of the whole system, and give it´s response some characteristics also found in normal dampers/shocks.
It surprises me, that any seasoned racer and suspension specialist, would not see the additional potential which this simple system offers, and would choose to dismiss it.
Anyway, I am reasonable confident, that even in it´s most simple form, as shown in the sketch posted on this blog, the system would show an effect on wheel loads, when we put the car on a 4post rig [and IIRC, that was the "acid test" you proposed a while back in this thread], and that DaveW would have little trouble telling two cars, one with and one without the system - every thing else equal, apart from the data he collects during such a test.
Maybe, you would like to PM him, and ask him about his opinion, then you would have a independent 3rd party opinion on it.
What I find interesting is, that only 2 days before your last post, you seem to get a hang on Newtons law, when you made this statement:
hardingfv32 wrote:
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.
What made you change your mind?
Mercury does not has any mass or Newton got it all wrong, and his laws don´t apply?
And, please, if you choose to answer, stay on topic.
hardingfv32 wrote:
The suspension's function or responses are NOT ALTERED in any way if there is no mercury system. That is a unrefutable fact.
Are you standing by this statement or not?
Maybe the fact is not as irrefutable, as you thought it is.
In any case, have a nice day Brian
