Moveable ballast in nosecone R26?
Started by
Timstr11
, Jun 12 2006 16:45
304 replies to this topic
#301
Scoots
-
- 1,645 posts
- Joined: May 02
Member
Posted 08 September 2006 - 20:42
This is just the coolest forum going. Thank you all so much for your time.
Advertisement
#302
Timstr11
-
- 11,162 posts
- Joined: May 02
Member
Posted 11 December 2006 - 18:59
Briatore:
I don't see the relation between a wider contact patch and damping. Does anyone of you?"Now we understand why they banned the mass damper all of a sudden mid-season," Briatore told fans at the Bologna motor show. "This is because it wouldn't work with Ferrari's Bridgestone tyres, as their fronts are too wide."
#303
imaginesix
-
- 7,525 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 14 December 2006 - 00:46
Sounds like sarcasm to me.
#304
CWard
-
- 17 posts
- Joined: August 06
New Member
Posted 16 December 2006 - 15:51
Timstr11
In reply to your query there is no relationship between contact patch size and damping as any tyre damping is obtained from the side walls.
Briatore’s comment is ridiculous in the context of a single mass damper in the nose. The only reason I can think of for his comment relating to tyre width is that Ferrari had a problem trying to fit dampers to the suspension uprights and did not have enough space. This configuration, similar to that used on the Citreon 2CV, would certainly be effective in controlling wheel hop of the unsprung masses. However the tyre stiffness on an F1 car is noticeably less than that of the suspension and controlling the vibration of the front end of the car. The dampers would need to control the total front mass, sprung and unsprung, and not unsprung only. On the lightly damped tyres using the dampers at the wheels would produce lower than required asymmetric energy distribution and, as I mentioned previously, using two separate masses at the wheels would not be as effective as a single mass damper in the nose because the energy is not being applied at the point where the control is needed.
In reply to your query there is no relationship between contact patch size and damping as any tyre damping is obtained from the side walls.
Briatore’s comment is ridiculous in the context of a single mass damper in the nose. The only reason I can think of for his comment relating to tyre width is that Ferrari had a problem trying to fit dampers to the suspension uprights and did not have enough space. This configuration, similar to that used on the Citreon 2CV, would certainly be effective in controlling wheel hop of the unsprung masses. However the tyre stiffness on an F1 car is noticeably less than that of the suspension and controlling the vibration of the front end of the car. The dampers would need to control the total front mass, sprung and unsprung, and not unsprung only. On the lightly damped tyres using the dampers at the wheels would produce lower than required asymmetric energy distribution and, as I mentioned previously, using two separate masses at the wheels would not be as effective as a single mass damper in the nose because the energy is not being applied at the point where the control is needed.
#305
Greg Locock
-
- 6,492 posts
- Joined: March 03
Member
Posted 16 December 2006 - 20:24
I more or less agree, except with your final sentence. Typically for a given reduction in resonant response it is better (lighter) to apply the harmonic absorber at a point of maximum motion of the mode of interest (an antinode). In the case of a wheelhop induced problem this is likely to be the wheel rather than the sprung mass.
However, the packaging difficulties, and the unsprung mass shiboleth, would tend to encourage fitting the harmonic damper to the sprung mass.
Admittedly, in the upside down world of F1 suspensions this may not be the case, as the high roadspring rate may couple the body directly to the sidewall. Hmmmmm. I could believe that. OK, I agree that the body may be the lightest solution as well.
However, the packaging difficulties, and the unsprung mass shiboleth, would tend to encourage fitting the harmonic damper to the sprung mass.
Admittedly, in the upside down world of F1 suspensions this may not be the case, as the high roadspring rate may couple the body directly to the sidewall. Hmmmmm. I could believe that. OK, I agree that the body may be the lightest solution as well.
