It’s also absolutely necessary for the high rake philosophy to work at all.e30ernest wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 03:52I am surprised there is even a discussion on the legality of this in a technical forum. All the cars squat at speed and take advantage of this. Years back we were discussing this same use of squat to stall diffusers on high rake cars like the RB and there was no question on its legality then.
10.1.3 Any suspension system fitted to the rear wheels must be so arranged that its response results
only from changes in load applied to the rear wheels.
The RB has a normal linear heave response to the increase in downforce. The Mercedes has a targeted non-linearity that drastically increases compliace at a certain trigger force. This is clearly visible from the videos.
Indeed, to me it just looks the Mercedes squat happens much quicker, and far before the required downforce levels.Tim.Wright wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 11:40The RB has a normal linear heave response to the increase in downforce. The Mercedes has a target non-linearity that drastically increases compliace at a certain trigger force. This is clearly visible from the videos.
Well, when you’ve got Paul Di Resta embarking on a one man televised crusade to try and get RBR or someone to protest it…e30ernest wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 03:52I am surprised there is even a discussion on the legality of this in a technical forum. All the cars squat at speed and take advantage of this. Years back we were discussing this same use of squat to stall diffusers on high rake cars like the RB and there was no question on its legality then.
Same concept different implementation. Collapsing rear ride height (not pure downforce squash) isn't a new concept. Neither is it a new implementation for Mercedes this season, let alone the last weekend.Tim.Wright wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 11:40The RB has a normal linear heave response to the increase in downforce. The Mercedes has a targeted non-linearity that drastically increases compliace at a certain trigger force. This is clearly visible from the videos.
Care to share any precedents? The video you link before showed a conceptually different response of the RB compared to the Mercedes yet you argue that it's the same
I'm not arguing they have the exact same system, nor that Merc haven't developed it or run a more aggressive setup for it in Turkey. I'm saying that it's not new tech and all teams are using it. summed up as much by Scarbs here.Tim.Wright wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 12:46Care to share any precedents? The video you link before showed a conceptually different response of the RB compared to the Mercedes yet you argue that it's the same
Craig explicitly explains how the non linear systems work in that very thread. While also declaring that they all use them, but Mercs does looks to be the most extreme version of the lotTim.Wright wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 13:18There has been hours of rear facing footage during the flexy wing debate. If such a strongly non-linear digressive heave stiffness was being used it would have been spotted by now.
What I can beleive is that a normal regressive heave stiffness was in use. That is hard to pick from an onboard camera. That's likely what Craig is referring to.