5339 replies to this topic

[Branislav]

 

 

Banned: Tuned mass dampers

The biggest technical controversy of last season was the banning of Renault’s ‘tuned mass damper’ suspension system.

It put Renault’s championship defence in jeopardy and led some to question the impartiality of the FIA. Many suggested the governing body were trying to engineer a final championship victory for the retiring Michael Schumacher.

In a strange situation the FIA and their own stewards were at odds with each other over the system’s legality – which did little to persuade anyone that the banning of the system was fair.

Renault began developing its mass damper late in 2005 and was used on the R25 in the last races of the season.

Giancarlo Fisichella, Renault, Hockenheimring, 2006The system essentially consisted of a sprung weight enclosed within the car to dampen the pitching as it rode over bumps. Originally it was only used at the front of the car.

As is common practice with new technologies, Renault supplied the FIA with details of the system. The governing body agreed it was safe and legal to use.

Renault’s 2006 challenger, the R26, was designed with the system in mind from its conception. For 2006 the mass dampers would also be fitted to the rear of the car.

The dampers proved particularly beneficial on the Michelin-shod cars. Inevitably, other teams got wind of what Renault were doing and built their own copies. But none were able to find as much of a benefit from the system as Renault were.

At this point the politicking began. Renault made a strong start to 2006 and other teams questioned the legality of the dampers. The matter came before the stewards at the German Grand Prix who agreed that the system was legal.

Then, astonishingly, the FIA appealed against the stewards’ verdict. A date for a hearing was set following the next round in Hungary. Renault, wary of losing points if the system was ruled illegal, opted not to run the mass dampers in the meantime.

At the Hockenheimring their drivers struggled home fifth and sixth while Ferrari romped to a one-two.

On August 23rd the FIA International Court of Appeal ruled Renault’s mass dampers illegal. They cited article 3.15 of the Formula One Technical Regulations – claiming the system constituted a moveable aerodynamic device.

This was surprising. Clearly, the device was internal and so did not directly affect the airflow over the car’s exterior. Indeed, it was hard to see how it was a moveable aerodynamic device any more than conventional suspension was.

Renault’s ire was compounded by the fact that the banning came during the summer testing ban, inhibiting their ability to test alternative parts. At the following round in Istanbul Ferrari raced with new extended brake fairings in the rear wheel hubs. Was this not a much more obvious example of a moveable aerodynamic device?

Renault claimed the loss of the system cost them 0.3s per lap. Over the final races of the season Ferrari were decisively faster than Renault, yet the French team still persevered in both championship battles.

How can the FIA can be happy to reinterpret rules in the middle of a season, potentially causing great problems for a team and throwing the championship into disrepute? How can they be content to publicly challenge the verdict of their own stewards?

The mass damper affair was another clear example of the flaws in the FIA’s system of technical protests.

https://www.racefans...d-mass-dampers/

[thefinalapex]

Because they made Ferrari too strong. Ecclestone explained that too. And for 2006 they reverted old tire rule (to return Ferrari). And that year (in the middle!) they banned Renault's mass damper which was first declared legal at the beginning of the season, just to help Ferrari.

It was mclaren that protested the mass dampers...

[baddog]

The mass damper was banned because it was a device principally designed to improve aero performance by controlling the car's attitude to the road, initially to keep the front wing closer to the ground but later the rear also. The team claimed it did something different and aero gain was not even something they were considering, and got it ruled legal several times, but its primary purpose was not what they claimed at all. 'We fooled the other guys you cant change your mind now' is not much of an argument.

 

Suspension is a tightly defined area in the rules, and you cant make stuff that serves primarily or even in large part to control the car attitude other than the prescribed aero and suspension.

 

Obviously many things have minor incidental effects but this was NOT one of them, what it was for was to stabilise the car for aero purposes.

 

The number of writers who just bought everything Renault said as truth is silly. Also those same writers seem to be immune to the bullshit from Ferrari this time.

 

For an actual respectable article:

https://www.motorspo...r-tech/4788122/

 

"In the end, the FIA used its catch-all regulation that outlawed 'moveable aerodynamic devices'. It cited an escalation in development of the devices which had highlighted that their primary purpose was no longer to provide additional mechanical assistance but instead was being used to markedly improve the car's aerodynamic output."

[oli4]

It works both ways, no doubt about that. But things as a rule usually suit Ferrari. And on this page alone there have been multiple examples of how the FIA's rulings usually went in their favour.

 

Try taking that tin foil hat off, you might feel better.

[Clatter]

The mass damper was banned because it was a device principally designed to improve aero performance by controlling the car's attitude to the road, initially to keep the front wing closer to the ground but later the rear also. The team claimed it did something different and aero gain was not even something they were considering, and got it ruled legal several times, but its primary purpose was not what they claimed at all. 'We fooled the other guys you cant change your mind now' is not much of an argument.

Suspension is a tightly defined area in the rules, and you cant make stuff that serves primarily or even in large part to control the car attitude other than the prescribed aero and suspension.

Obviously many things have minor incidental effects but this was NOT one of them, what it was for was to stabilise the car for aero purposes.

The number of writers who just bought everything Renault said as truth is silly. Also those same writers seem to be immune to the bullshit from Ferrari this time.

For an actual respectable article:
https://www.motorspo...r-tech/4788122/

"In the end, the FIA used its catch-all regulation that outlawed 'moveable aerodynamic devices'. It cited an escalation in development of the devices which had highlighted that their primary purpose was no longer to provide additional mechanical assistance but instead was being used to markedly improve the car's aerodynamic output."

What it should have been banned for was being moveable ballast. The ban on aero grounds was just a desperate attempt to ban at all costs.

[Counterbalance]

Try taking that tin foil hat off, you might feel better.

I feel fine without it, thanks.

[CrossComparisonOracle]

It works both ways, no doubt about that. But things as a rule usually suit Ferrari. And on this page alone there have been multiple examples of how the FIA's rulings usually went in their favour.

You are still living in the mid 2000s

Mercedes have been the most powerful political team in F1 for a long long time now.

[sennamaster]

You are still living in the mid 2000s

Mercedes have been the most powerful political team in F1 for a long long time now.

 

 

Really, please explain with specific scenarios / situations of them wielding this so called political power.. 

 

I mean it's not like they have a veto they can use as a loaded weapon or they get a $100 million pocket money every year for just participating whilst others are going bankrupt. 

[baddog]

What it should have been banned for was being moveable ballast. The ban on aero grounds was just a desperate attempt to ban at all costs.

 

Perhaps, but Renault and everyone else were using it to stabilise the car to maintain aero performance, so the catch-all made sense. I just don't see what the whining, even still going on now, was all about. Just because it was clever doesn't mean it was going to be allowed.

[shure]

Really, please explain with specific scenarios / situations of them wielding this so called political power.. 

 

I mean it's not like they have a veto they can use as a loaded weapon or they get a $100 million pocket money every year for just participating whilst others are going bankrupt. 

you're confusing contractual status with political power and the two aren't the same.  Hamilton has no contractual status within the sport, save to his team, and he's the most powerful driver on the grid, politically speaking.  When he speaks, others listen.  And Mercedes are arguably the biggest powerhouse around at the moment and that gives them political clout.  

[as65p]

Perhaps, but Renault and everyone else were using it to stabilise the car to maintain aero performance, so the catch-all made sense. I just don't see what the whining, even still going on now, was all about. Just because it was clever doesn't mean it was going to be allowed.

The "whining" was and is about the timing, mid-season and directly messing with the ongoing championship battle. Thankfully it didn't work out, so all is well.

 

Proper would have been to ban the technology for the following season, like they now did with MGPs DAS steering.

[baddog]

The "whining" was and is about the timing, mid-season and directly messing with the ongoing championship battle. Thankfully it didn't work out, so all is well.

 

Proper would have been to ban the technology for the following season, like they now did with MGPs DAS steering.

 

Nah I've never cared about 'mid season'. So what? If they find out about it mid-season then out it goes. Kinder than the alternative.

[sennamaster]

you're confusing contractual status with political power and the two aren't the same.  Hamilton has no contractual status within the sport, save to his team, and he's the most powerful driver on the grid, politically speaking.  When he speaks, others listen.  And Mercedes are arguably the biggest powerhouse around at the moment and that gives them political clout.  

 

The payouts Ferrari receive and the fact they have a veto on anything was due to the political power they wielded. Their status came about  because of this political power, hence whenever they threaten to leave the FIA jumps through hoops for them.

[shure]

The payouts Ferrari receive and the fact they have a veto on anything was due to the political power they wielded. Their status came about  because of this political power, hence whenever they threaten to leave the FIA jumps through hoops for them.

Ferrari are also influential, no doubt.  But I think their political status has been heavily damaged by the whole cheating affair.  McLaren also used to be the 2nd most influential team on the grid but right now they're nowhere near that.  Things change and are almost directly related to on track success.  Look at how they changed the rules just for Red Bull.  I doubt they would have done the same if McLaren had tried something similar.

 

The main reason we have these hybrids is because first Renault, then Mercedes, threatened to walk if they weren't taken.  The manufacturers are the biggest powerhouses and Merc, by virtue of their dominance since the start of the hybrid era, are arguably the biggest of those powerhouses right now. If Ferrari start to win again the pendulum will swing back to them no doubt.

[as65p]

Nah I've never cared about 'mid season'. So what? If they find out about it mid-season then out it goes. Kinder than the alternative.

That's cool. I just explained to you how others did.

[Branislav]

 

Mika Salo wash himself at 3:56

 

I pissed my pants

[Peeko]

The "whining" was and is about the timing, mid-season and directly messing with the ongoing championship battle. Thankfully it didn't work out, so all is well.

 

Proper would have been to ban the technology for the following season, like they now did with MGPs DAS steering.

Aren't McLaren the ones that launched the protest? What gain did they benefit from in the title race?

[Clatter]

The payouts Ferrari receive and the fact they have a veto on anything was due to the political power they wielded. Their status came about  because of this political power, hence whenever they threaten to leave the FIA jumps through hoops for them.

 

Their status came first, without that they wouldn't have got the political power.

[Counterbalance]

Their status came first, without that they wouldn't have got the political power.

 

That's true enough, but it's still unfair that one team has such power, I have no doubt in my mind that if Mercedes were found to to have been exploiting the rules as Ferrari did with their power unit, the outcome would have have been much, much different.

[CrossComparisonOracle]

That's true enough, but it's still unfair that one team has such power, I have no doubt in my mind that if Mercedes were found to to have been exploiting the rules as Ferrari did with their power unit, the outcome would have have been much, much different.

Where is the evidence for this claim? When has Mercedes ever been punished?

Merc were running the tyre pressures too low at Monza 2015. FIA had a perfect opportunity to punish them and give Ferrari a win around Monza, and yet they didn’t.

Edited by CrossComparisonOracle, 03 March 2021 - 14:58.

[Clatter]

That's true enough, but it's still unfair that one team has such power, I have no doubt in my mind that if Mercedes were found to to have been exploiting the rules as Ferrari did with their power unit, the outcome would have have been much, much different.

 

Totally agree that Ferrari should not get any extra say in things. Not sure whether Merc would be treated much differently or not these days. They effectively let RP cheat all last season with their blessing.

[as65p]

Aren't McLaren the ones that launched the protest? What gain did they benefit from in the title race?

What does that matter and who cares?

[ARTGP]

That's true enough, but it's still unfair that one team has such power, I have no doubt in my mind that if Mercedes were found to to have been exploiting the rules as Ferrari did with their power unit, the outcome would have have been much, much different.

 

Doubtful. F1 has a business to protect.

Edited by ARTGP, 03 March 2021 - 16:55.

[Peeko]

What does that matter and who cares?

Because the narrative going around seems to be Ferrari influenced the FIA and the FIA caved. But yeah you're right, who cares about what actually happened. That's not as exciting.

[pdac]

Totally agree that Ferrari should not get any extra say in things. Not sure whether Merc would be treated much differently or not these days. They effectively let RP cheat all last season with their blessing.

 

People like to talk about the DNA of F1. Surely the DNA of F1 is cheating. They all will always get away with an amount of cheating because everyone is doing it and everyone is expecting everyone else to be doing it.

 

The difference between a few teams and the others is that those few teams will probably be involved in bigger, more elaborate, cheats and will not be unduly punished if they get caught (because F1 needs them). I would not place Ferrari or Mercedes or Red Bull in different leagues when it comes to cheating.

[as65p]

Because the narrative going around seems to be Ferrari influenced the FIA and the FIA caved.
 

"Seems to be"? Maybe that's a narrative in your own mind. Nothing of the sort was written in this conversation before you brought it up.

 

But yeah you're right, who cares about what actually happened.

 

 

Looks like I just met someone who doesn't.

 

What actually happened, yeah let's stick to that. FIA banned a up to then considered legal device form one race to another mid-season. That's what happened.

[Peeko]

"Seems to be"? Maybe that's a narrative in your own mind. Nothing of the sort was written in this conversation before you brought it up.

 

 

Looks like I just met someone who doesn't.

 

What actually happened, yeah let's stick to that. FIA banned a up to then considered legal device form one race to another mid-season. That's what happened.

 

Your arse, you're speaking out of it again. Right above you on this very page:

 

 And that year (in the middle!) they banned Renault's mass damper which was first declared legal at the beginning of the season, just to help Ferrari.

 

Not only did Ferrari have the FIA in their pocket, but McLaren too!

 

Edit: look, I'm not saying the FIA never takes a decision that benefits Ferrari, but lets not kid ourselves; they make the decision that's best for the FIA. Always have, always will. Ferrari, Mercedes, they're just a means to an end.

Edited by Peeko, 03 March 2021 - 21:16.

[as65p]

Your arse, you're speaking out of it again. Right above you on this very page:

Then reply to those, smarty.

[CrossComparisonOracle]

At the end of the day, who even cares? Everyone in F1 cheats anyway, and it’s not like Ferrari won anything but a few races with this trick.

[Seanspeed]

Totally agree that Ferrari should not get any extra say in things. Not sure whether Merc would be treated much differently or not these days. They effectively let RP cheat all last season with their blessing.

Red Bull ran with demonstrably 'illegal' flexi-wings for several years, but weren't punished for it because they could pass the technical tests.  That's all it's ever been.  Exploiting loopholes.  It was visibly obvious Red Bull were doing something the rules did not want teams to be doing and was clearly breaking the 'spirit of the rules', but since they couldn't be quantifiably proven to be breaking the rules, they were given a pass.  

 

That's what pushing the boundaries in F1 has long been about.  Skirting the edges.  The FIA has every right to clamp down on things assessed to be against the spirit of the regulations, but if something actually passes the technical tests meant to judge legality, then you cant judge them illegal or to be 'cheating' when they pass, just cuz the test isn't good enough.  This is the game F1 teams have always played against the rule makers.  Usually people would call this 'clever', but not when it comes to Ferrari.  

[P123]

At the end of the day, who even cares? Everyone in F1 cheats anyway, and it’s not like Ferrari won anything but a few races with this trick.

 

I'm not sure their incompetence in fumbling victory chances at a number of races gets them off the hook.  A fortunate escape for F1.

[Counterbalance]

Red Bull ran with demonstrably 'illegal' flexi-wings for several years, but weren't punished for it because they could pass the technical tests.  That's all it's ever been.  Exploiting loopholes.  It was visibly obvious Red Bull were doing something the rules did not want teams to be doing and was clearly breaking the 'spirit of the rules', but since they couldn't be quantifiably proven to be breaking the rules, they were given a pass.  

 

That's what pushing the boundaries in F1 has long been about.  Skirting the edges.  The FIA has every right to clamp down on things assessed to be against the spirit of the regulations, but if something actually passes the technical tests meant to judge legality, then you cant judge them illegal or to be 'cheating' when they pass, just cuz the test isn't good enough.  This is the game F1 teams have always played against the rule makers.  Usually people would call this 'clever', but not when it comes to Ferrari.  

 

There's clever, and there's taking the piss, which Ferrari did.

 

I'd agree that the RedBull flexi wing saga fell into the latter category though. And I have no idea to this day as to why they weren't clamped down upon.

[CrossComparisonOracle]

I'm not sure their incompetence in fumbling victory chances at a number of races gets them off the hook. A fortunate escape for F1.

The fortunate escape for F1 is that Ferrari’s dodgy engine was coupled with a mediocre chassis in 2019.

If the 2017 chassis was powered by that engine, it would have been a Mercedes killer combination.

[Clatter]

There's clever, and there's taking the piss, which Ferrari did.

 

I'd agree that the RedBull flexi wing saga fell into the latter category though. And I have no idea to this day as to why they weren't clamped down upon.

 

They did try to clamp down on it. The test method was changed as well as the test loads, they passed every test that the FIA threw at them.

[Counterbalance]

They did try to clamp down on it. The test method was changed as well as the test loads, they passed every test that the FIA threw at them.

 

I know, they were very clever with the way they got the load test passed. Someone worked very hard to figure out how to beat the FIA on that.

[CrossComparisonOracle]

I know, they were very clever with the way they got the load test passed. Someone worked very hard to figure out how to beat the FIA on that.

That’s what F1 is all about innit. If you don’t like it you can watch a spec series.

[pdac]

There's clever, and there's taking the piss, which Ferrari did.

 

I'd agree that the RedBull flexi wing saga fell into the latter category though. And I have no idea to this day as to why they weren't clamped down upon.

 

To be fair about it, the FIA had to seize the PUs and a whole bunch of technical documentation and they still couldn't prove anything unequivocally. Prior to that the FIA introduced further measuring devices too. So I think the same 'clever' could be applied to both - it's just that the FIA must have felt they needed to try harder with Ferrari.

[Counterbalance]

That’s what F1 is all about innit. If you don’t like it you can watch a spec series.

 

The fact that I've been watching F1 since the mid 80's suggests that spec series don't really interest me too much, or at all.

[CrossComparisonOracle]

The fact that I've been watching F1 since the mid 80's suggests that spec series don't really interest me too much, or at all.

Well in that case, better get used to technical innovation and exploitation of the grey area.

[Seanspeed]

There's clever, and there's taking the piss, which Ferrari did.

 

I'd agree that the RedBull flexi wing saga fell into the latter category though. And I have no idea to this day as to why they weren't clamped down upon.

The only difference is that the FIA finally figured out a way to properly stop Ferrari after many attempts.