Perfect, thanks!domh245 wrote: As for the part about the why they put it in the step void and the loophole in the rules, a redditor talks about it here. The tl;dr of it is that they are making the chassis too small at the front, putting their suspension in it, and then putting a cover on that is technically part of the chassis.
From what i remember, active suspension allowed incredible low rideheight. When a bump or driversfault would increase the rideheight, the downforce would instantly be neutralized and we could be seeing flying cars or cars making a backwards salto.TwanV wrote:Never quite understood what can be held against active suspension in the first place... no safety issues, driver importance doesn't deteriorate.. Very relevant to road cars in terms of comfort and safety.. The only thing I can think of is that back in 93 the software/hardware development costs for such a system were very high, and the gap between the top 3 and the rest was getting too noticable. But nowadays the 'have-nots' are much more professional. Anyway, fantastic that Mercedes applies a seemingly mechanical version of the system.
My opinion: let's hope the system stays legal before a ban puts in further requirement of resources again to circumvent a silly rule.
Well.. that's quite a far-fetched scenarioNL_Fer wrote:From what i remember, active suspension allowed incredible low rideheight. When a bump or driversfault would increase the rideheight, the downforce would instantly be neutralized and we could be seeing flying cars or cars making a backwards salto.TwanV wrote:Never quite understood what can be held against active suspension in the first place... no safety issues, driver importance doesn't deteriorate.. Very relevant to road cars in terms of comfort and safety.. The only thing I can think of is that back in 93 the software/hardware development costs for such a system were very high, and the gap between the top 3 and the rest was getting too noticable. But nowadays the 'have-nots' are much more professional. Anyway, fantastic that Mercedes applies a seemingly mechanical version of the system.
My opinion: let's hope the system stays legal before a ban puts in further requirement of resources again to circumvent a silly rule.
Anyway we have the plank-rule for that since 94. I did some further reading and apparently:
Finally some rational people around here ...De Jokke wrote:If the W07 flies like the W05, it's 100% certain to me that in 2015, Merc got screwed by Pirelli and Fia for the Monza farce (race before Singapore in 2015).
I'm still baffled by how the most dominant car of the grid could get a whack of 1.4 seconds from one race to another, unless someone is screwing with the tyres...
Can you enlighten me on what happened at Monza? I can't remembermisterbeam wrote:Finally some rational people around here ...De Jokke wrote:If the W07 flies like the W05, it's 100% certain to me that in 2015, Merc got screwed by Pirelli and Fia for the Monza farce (race before Singapore in 2015).
I'm still baffled by how the most dominant car of the grid could get a whack of 1.4 seconds from one race to another, unless someone is screwing with the tyres...
That was exactly my thought last year, there was absolutely no reason for Mercedes to be off the pace in Singapore, and it's really funny to see some websites trying to create some kind of suspense around this, because we all know that Mercedes will just be on the top Saturday night.
The Tyre Pressure reg was into its infancy. Mercedes was found to have found a way to appear as though they were within the limits set by the FIA and Pirelli for the Monza race (remember after Rosberg and Vettel tyre blow-ups in Spa), although what Mercedes have done cleverly used break heaters or blankets (I don't remember correctly) to indirectly heat up the tyres hence increase the tyre pressures to meet the requirements until the measurements took place. But during the race there were reports that pirelli have found Mercedes getting below the specified tyre pressure.skoop wrote:Can you enlighten me on what happened at Monza? I can't remembermisterbeam wrote:Finally some rational people around here ...De Jokke wrote:If the W07 flies like the W05, it's 100% certain to me that in 2015, Merc got screwed by Pirelli and Fia for the Monza farce (race before Singapore in 2015).
I'm still baffled by how the most dominant car of the grid could get a whack of 1.4 seconds from one race to another, unless someone is screwing with the tyres...
That was exactly my thought last year, there was absolutely no reason for Mercedes to be off the pace in Singapore, and it's really funny to see some websites trying to create some kind of suspense around this, because we all know that Mercedes will just be on the top Saturday night.
It couldn't be so farce, could it? If one wants to read anything into this, by your standard it could also be that FIA didn't want to let Merc walk away with another record, for most consecutive polesmisterbeam wrote:Finally some rational people around here ...De Jokke wrote:If the W07 flies like the W05, it's 100% certain to me that in 2015, Merc got screwed by Pirelli and Fia for the Monza farce (race before Singapore in 2015).
I'm still baffled by how the most dominant car of the grid could get a whack of 1.4 seconds from one race to another, unless someone is screwing with the tyres...
That was exactly my thought last year, there was absolutely no reason for Mercedes to be off the pace in Singapore, and it's really funny to see some websites trying to create some kind of suspense around this, because we all know that Mercedes will just be on the top Saturday night.
High pressure injection injury can lead to sepsis.TwanV wrote:The mechanics were not too happy about working on a prototype hydraulic system at 130+ bar. (probably a bit more since my citroen-system rates at 170 bar already)
I thought, one of the many reasons to ban active suspension was safety. Not for the big teams, who had it more or less under control (it's a very high maintenance system), but because of the small teams. A loss of pressure acts like a broken suspension and can happen a lot more often then with a non-active system and will have effect on all wheels. One small leak and all four tires are off the ground...crbassassin wrote:High pressure injection injury can lead to sepsis.TwanV wrote:The mechanics were not too happy about working on a prototype hydraulic system at 130+ bar. (probably a bit more since my citroen-system rates at 170 bar already)
Graphic content:
http://www.cmcedmasters.com/ortho-blog/ ... ion-injury
I think you're wrong. I think chance of such mishap is no greater than loss of breaks.Jolle wrote: I thought, one of the many reasons to ban active suspension was safety. Not for the big teams, who had it more or less under control (it's a very high maintenance system), but because of the small teams. A loss of pressure acts like a broken suspension and can happen a lot more often then with a non-active system and will have effect on all wheels. One small leak and all four tires are off the ground...
It is far more complex then a brake system, with pumps, valves and a simple malfunction would have had a devastating outcome, turning a formula one car, wherever on the track (not just in a straight line braking zone, but also in corners like L'au Rouge, into a skating puck, without any form of control. Like four exploding tires all at once.sosic2121 wrote:I think you're wrong. I think chance of such mishap is no greater than loss of breaks.Jolle wrote: I thought, one of the many reasons to ban active suspension was safety. Not for the big teams, who had it more or less under control (it's a very high maintenance system), but because of the small teams. A loss of pressure acts like a broken suspension and can happen a lot more often then with a non-active system and will have effect on all wheels. One small leak and all four tires are off the ground...
Probably it was politics and F1s constant desire to develop technologies that road cars would benefit from
Errrmmmm.....no. The active systems mostly all had passive springs still, to support the car in the event of a failure.Jolle wrote:It is far more complex then a brake system, with pumps, valves and a simple malfunction would have had a devastating outcome, turning a formula one car, wherever on the track (not just in a straight line braking zone, but also in corners like L'au Rouge, into a skating puck, without any form of control. Like four exploding tires all at once.sosic2121 wrote:I think you're wrong. I think chance of such mishap is no greater than loss of breaks.Jolle wrote: I thought, one of the many reasons to ban active suspension was safety. Not for the big teams, who had it more or less under control (it's a very high maintenance system), but because of the small teams. A loss of pressure acts like a broken suspension and can happen a lot more often then with a non-active system and will have effect on all wheels. One small leak and all four tires are off the ground...
Probably it was politics and F1s constant desire to develop technologies that road cars would benefit from
Rational?Bahahaha!misterbeam wrote:Finally some rational people around here ...De Jokke wrote:If the W07 flies like the W05, it's 100% certain to me that in 2015, Merc got screwed by Pirelli and Fia for the Monza farce (race before Singapore in 2015).
I'm still baffled by how the most dominant car of the grid could get a whack of 1.4 seconds from one race to another, unless someone is screwing with the tyres...
That was exactly my thought last year, there was absolutely no reason for Mercedes to be off the pace in Singapore, and it's really funny to see some websites trying to create some kind of suspense around this, because we all know that Mercedes will just be on the top Saturday night.
