Mercedes AMG F1 W07

[HPD]

more info: https://motorlat.com/notas/1056-las-fle ... yo.twitter

[diego.liv]

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.

It's funny if true: other then the fact that everyone has a similar but less refined system (just like it happened with the FRIC), formulapassion.it claims (http://www.formulapassion.it/2016/09/f1 ... della-w07/ last paragraph) that FIA wants to change next year regulations to ban this system, but needs the unanimous approval of the teams, Merc insluded.

Is it true? was it the case with the FRIC? I recall the FRIC being banned in season, maybe before Nurburgring GP

[domh245]

Is it true? was it the case with the FRIC? I recall the FRIC being banned in season, maybe before Nurburgring GP

FRIC wasn't really banned so much as there was a rule clarification and all of the teams very quickly removed it from their cars of their own accord.

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.

[diego.liv]

Is it true? was it the case with the FRIC? I recall the FRIC being banned in season, maybe before Nurburgring GP

FRIC wasn't really banned so much as there was a rule clarification and all of the teams very quickly removed it from their cars of their own accord.

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.

Ah thanks

[ClarkBT11]

Fric was seen by the FIA as being able to control the cars ride height in corners for aero gains. Thus calling it movable aero which is against the rules.

FIA thought that it might be Mercedes silver bullet but I didn't slow them down.

[blacky99]

yes. it is.

The beam wing is NOT allowed. This section leaves the area where it might exist empty.

3.9.7 Any bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line, more than 100mm from the car centre line, and between 200mm and 600mm above the reference plane must lie in an area more than 400mm from the car centre line. On any horizontal section through the bodywork in this area, at any given longitudinal position along this section, the distance between the inner and outer surfaces must not exceed 20mm measured perpendicular to the car centreline.

I believe it was proposed in the original, Red Bull, draft of the regs.

beam wings will be alowed for next year

• Removal of the tall, narrow rear wings and introducing a similar design to the 2008 design
• Rear Wings are much shorter and wider and have 5mm less vertical height in which to place the elements
• There is also the introduction of a Beam Wing

[Duke]

Fric was seen by the FIA as being able to control the cars ride height in corners for aero gains. Thus calling it movable aero which is against the rules.

FIA thought that it might be Mercedes silver bullet but I didn't slow them down.

They wouldn't have it if it didn't make a difference though

[PlatinumZealot]

The FRIC is nothing close to active suspension though. Active suspension is powered. FRICS is passive and reactive. You won't see any hydraulic pumps and actuators lifting and lowering wheels with FRICS.

[domh245]

yes. it is.

The beam wing is NOT allowed. This section leaves the area where it might exist empty.

3.9.7 Any bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line, more than 100mm from the car centre line, and between 200mm and 600mm above the reference plane must lie in an area more than 400mm from the car centre line. On any horizontal section through the bodywork in this area, at any given longitudinal position along this section, the distance between the inner and outer surfaces must not exceed 20mm measured perpendicular to the car centreline.

I believe it was proposed in the original, Red Bull, draft of the regs.

beam wings will be alowed for next year

• Removal of the tall, narrow rear wings and introducing a similar design to the 2008 design
• Rear Wings are much shorter and wider and have 5mm less vertical height in which to place the elements
• There is also the introduction of a Beam Wing

If you can find a source that says that beam wings are on the car that came out after the rules were published (2016-05-01), then I'll believe you. Until then, I'll go by mine (and others) interpretation of the regulations which says no beam wing

[rscsr]

The beam wing is NOT allowed. This section leaves the area where it might exist empty.

3.9.7 Any bodywork behind the rear wheel centre line, more than 100mm from the car centre line, and between 200mm and 600mm above the reference plane must lie in an area more than 400mm from the car centre line. On any horizontal section through the bodywork in this area, at any given longitudinal position along this section, the distance between the inner and outer surfaces must not exceed 20mm measured perpendicular to the car centreline.

I believe it was proposed in the original, Red Bull, draft of the regs.

beam wings will be alowed for next year

• Removal of the tall, narrow rear wings and introducing a similar design to the 2008 design
• Rear Wings are much shorter and wider and have 5mm less vertical height in which to place the elements
• There is also the introduction of a Beam Wing

If you can find a source that says that beam wings are on the car that came out after the rules were published (2016-05-01), then I'll believe you. Until then, I'll go by mine (and others) interpretation of the regulations which says no beam wing

In the regulations for 2017 (version of 29th April) article 3.9.7 should prevent any beamwing. All bodywork between 200 to 600mm above the reference plane, further than 100mm from the car centerline (vertical plane in longitudinal direction) has to be more than 400mm away from the car centerline.

[skoop]

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.

It's funny if true: other then the fact that everyone has a similar but less refined system (just like it happened with the FRIC), formulapassion.it claims (http://www.formulapassion.it/2016/09/f1 ... della-w07/ last paragraph) that FIA wants to change next year regulations to ban this system, but needs the unanimous approval of the teams, Merc insluded.

Is it true? was it the case with the FRIC? I recall the FRIC being banned in season, maybe before Nurburgring GP

As far as I know (from the AMuS article) they don't intend to ban the system. They want to close the loophole wich allows the way they are packaging it (Picture 6 gives an idea: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 38621.html) .

[Tim.Wright]

Fric was seen by the FIA as being able to control the cars ride height in corners for aero gains. Thus calling it movable aero which is against the rules.

FIA thought that it might be Mercedes silver bullet but I didn't slow them down.

My position has always been that if that is considered the official ruling then 3rd springs are illegal on the same grounds.

[PhillipM]

My position has always been that if that is considered the official ruling then 3rd springs are illegal on the same grounds.

Yep, was a POS ruling based on people not being able to see the tech - that's why aero development has always been favoured over mechanical. By that ruling all forms of suspension should have been illegal.

[ClarkBT11]

My position has always been that if that is considered the official ruling then 3rd springs are illegal on the same grounds.

Yep, was a POS ruling based on people not being able to see the tech - that's why aero development has always been favoured over mechanical. By that ruling all forms of suspension should have been illegal.

I don't think we're shocked FIA aren't consistent.

[lio007]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/775609027858489344

Very interesting article!

So, in resume:
- Mercedes spent 4 years to develop FRIC system. After the ban of the FRIC system they used the experience gained to develop the new system.
- front "hydraulic computer" able to give different suspensions setup in the following scenarios : acceleration, deceleration, slow corners, fast corners, straight lines
- the system require a great deal of engineering setup experience
- Mercedes found a loophole in the regulation in order to accommodate the system the front of the car

- Red Bull has scooped one engineer from Mercedes in winter. So they were able to replicate the system. This is one of the reason they are so good this season. Renault engine still has 50 hp deficit.
- almost all the teams have the system (of course in a different level of refinement) installed on the rear suspension

Here's the AMuS picture, (with cover):


And here from f1i.com, without the cover: