Mercedes-AMG F1 W10 EQ Power+

[FrukostScones]

old AMUS article about the topic and FIA test... maybe obsolete now.

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... erachse%2F

[Giando]

So, when in February, after the first images of the car I pointed the attention on the new front suspension layout of the W10, my comments were overlooked by many users; just a few commented with true curiosity. Many others insisted in saying that the push rod connection was nothing new. Well, it doesn't seem the case, does it?

[mmred]

The rule is still there I think. Although I don't understans how this suddenly complies with it. Is it because it is pure mechanics and aero is not playing role in lowering the ride height or?

No the ban was exactly on the mechanical activation that couldn't produce more than 5 mm height difference between opposite wheel rotation

Now that s at least 5 cm
So the rule must ve been abolished, I guess

The effects yes are both mechanical and aero

Isn't it 5 mm when stationary? You have to account for additional travel when the suspension is under load?

Guys, come on, let's please remember that scrutineering exists. And let's also remember to maybe look up the rules before discussing them.

I am just puzzled... Never implied otherwise.... Something will happen... Or a repeated ban or everyone copying it

[PhillipM]

So, when in February, after the first images of the car I pointed the attention on the new front suspension layout of the W10, my comments were overlooked by many users; just a few commented with true curiosity. Many others insisted in saying that the push rod connection was nothing new. Well, it doesn't seem the case, does it?

But it's not anything new, as already said, teams were using it before, it just got limited. If Merc are doing something fancy there it would be other geometery working with it - castor gain, droop limiting, etc, etc - rather than the linkage in itself, to bypass the regulations.

[One and Only]

...

EDIT: It crossed my mind... Upper wishbone moves relative to the wheel, but it doesn't seem to change ride height(if we compare wishbone movement to the front wing which is fixed to chassis). In that case it means it has to move relative to the chassis as well in order not to change front ride height. If it moves that much relative to the chassis wouldn't that make it movable aero device? Can someone who knows rules better than me clarify?

Both wheel go together up and down, usually this has the consequence of changing ride height .
Probably in my video this movement is not so visible, streamable compression is too high.
I should have used another video streamer.

Could be that ride height changes. I just said I don't see it in this video.

[Don Ciccio]

...

EDIT: It crossed my mind... Upper wishbone moves relative to the wheel, but it doesn't seem to change ride height(if we compare wishbone movement to the front wing which is fixed to chassis). In that case it means it has to move relative to the chassis as well in order not to change front ride height. If it moves that much relative to the chassis wouldn't that make it movable aero device? Can someone who knows rules better than me clarify?

Both wheel go together up and down, usually this has the consequence of changing ride height .
Probably in my video this movement is not so visible, streamable compression is too high.
I should have used another video streamer.

Could be that ride height changes. I just said I don't see it in this video.

Less compressed video
https://www.filedropper.com/monaco19

[One and Only]

Both wheel go together up and down, usually this has the consequence of changing ride height .
Probably in my video this movement is not so visible, streamable compression is too high.
I should have used another video streamer.

Could be that ride height changes. I just said I don't see it in this video.

Less compressed video
https://www.filedropper.com/monaco19

Still very hard to find reference point in order to tell if suspension travels up or chassis travels down. But on both occasions my opinion is that this shouldn't be allowed. This amount of suspension movement caused by drivers steering input is movable aero device. It's not natural suspension movement caused by vehicle moving over bump or kerb.

[SiLo]

What if it's lowering one side and raising the other? so at the central point of the wing, the ride height doesn't actually change. I guess it depends on where they measure ride height change from.

[One and Only]

What if it's lowering one side and raising the other? so at the central point of the wing, the ride height doesn't actually change. I guess it depends on where they measure ride height change from.

Interesting point of view. Would that bring any advantage?

[F1Krof]

What if it's lowering one side and raising the other? so at the central point of the wing, the ride height doesn't actually change. I guess it depends on where they measure ride height change from.

Interesting point of view. Would that bring any advantage?

Consistent ride height translated into a more consistent aero performance overall. Do you remember FRIC, it's main aim was to have consistent ride heights while breaking/accelerating or while cornering.

[LM10]

What if it's lowering one side and raising the other? so at the central point of the wing, the ride height doesn't actually change. I guess it depends on where they measure ride height change from.

Interesting point of view. Would that bring any advantage?

Even if it would bring any advantage, it wouldn’t be legal.

[subcritical71]

What if it's lowering one side and raising the other? so at the central point of the wing, the ride height doesn't actually change. I guess it depends on where they measure ride height change from.

Interesting point of view. Would that bring any advantage?

Even if it would bring any advantage, it wouldn’t be legal.

FYI... ride height changes on my riding lawn mower when I turn the steering wheel, I see absolutely no performance increase because of this

The AMuS article mentions (translated) "To be tolerated is a lowering of the ground clearance by 5 millimeters with a steering input of 12 degrees, as it occurs in tight corners.". The video I saw the dip seems to occur at a much greater steering input, could this be working around the test?

[dans79]

The AMuS article mentions (translated) "To be tolerated is a lowering of the ground clearance by 5 millimeters with a steering input of 12 degrees, as it occurs in tight corners.". The video I saw the dip seems to occur at a much greater steering input, could this be working around the test?

To work around the test, you would need to be using some form of secondary input that causes the travel to exceed 5mm as 12 degrees.

[zibby43]

Bottas' damaged wheel from the tangle with Verstappen in the pit lane.

[DiogoBrand]

Wow, I'm impressed that he did almost an entire race with that.