Mercedes W12

[Zynerji]

Tuned port, progressively collapsing 3rd springs, Ladies and Gentlemen!

[e30ernest]

I 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.

[Hoffman900]

I 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.

It’s also absolutely necessary for the high rake philosophy to work at all.

[Tim.Wright]

Looking at the video it's pretty clear that this isn't normal squat due to downforce. There is a strong non-linearity built into the vertical force curve to cause a big ride height change over a relatively short change in aerodynamic load.

I assume they set the trigger load a bit higher than the exit speed of the faster corner on the track so that the car doesn't inadvertently loose rear downforce in the middle of a corner.

I don't see any legal issues as it's triggered by aero load which is seen by the suspension as a wheel load.

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.

[yinlad]

I expected better of this forum than to take the Horner pot stirring bait and accept the Sky 'analysis'. All teams do this and have been since like 2016. Here's the RB last year, clearly doing the same thing

[Tim.Wright]

Here's the RB last year, clearly doing the same thing

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.

[NL_Fer]

Non linear is not illegal, as long it is by normal loads from the weight and downforce working on the suspension.

[proteus]

Here's the RB last year, clearly doing the same thing

The 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.

Indeed, to me it just looks the Mercedes squat happens much quicker, and far before the required downforce levels.

[El Scorchio]

I 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.

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…

[yinlad]

Here's the RB last year, clearly doing the same thing

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.

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]

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.

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

[yinlad]

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.

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.

Old rear facing footage is hard to come by unfortunately. But it's definitely not a massive innovation Merc have turned up with at Turkey

[RZS10]

A comparison between the cars at the same track would actually be interesting and should absolutely be part of any serious analysis as it's silly to point out a single car without at least having another one as reference - looking at old footage from different tracks doesn't really add much since those systems get tuned for each track so they don't lower the ride height too early.

[Tim.Wright]

There 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.

[yinlad]

There 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.

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 lot