304 replies to this topic

[DavidC]

If the FIA want a cast iron reason to ban these, how about on safety grounds. The mass as they constitute a non-deformable object in the car's frontal crash structure, therefore increasing the risk of leg/foot injuries in a head on impact?

[WHITE]

Quote

Originally posted by DavidC
If the FIA want a cast iron reason to ban these, how about on safety grounds. The mass as they constitute a non-deformable object in the car's frontal crash structure, therefore increasing the risk of leg/foot injuries in a head on impact?

How could they not think about this ?

[Greg Locock]

I don't agree. The best place to put heavy masses is at the front of deformable structures, so they decelerate themselves, and you don't waste crush structure trying to decelerate them gently.

Think about it, would you rather have a half ton weight between you and the wall, or would you rather be between the half ton weight and the wall?

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by DavidC
If the FIA want a cast iron reason to ban these, how about on safety grounds. The mass as they constitute a non-deformable object in the car's frontal crash structure, therefore increasing the risk of leg/foot injuries in a head on impact?

Your post is quite ironic, because it has already passed the safety requirements. In fact according to Autosport, its approval seems to have been based solely on a safety approval, rather than any technical approvals:

Quote

Renault first introduced the system in September last year, and as is often the case with innovations, the team checked it out in correspondence with Charlie Whiting (on September 13, to be precise, as revealed by the stewards' judgement).

However, we now understand that all the French team did was ask if they needed to do a fresh crash test with a 'new device' fitted in the nose. Indeed, sources suggest that there was no specific formal request to verify the legality of the mass damper system - and nor has there been one from any team since.

The Critical Mass, Adam Coopeer, Autosport

[bobqzzi]

Will the nitwittery never cease?

http://www.formula1....s/4752/762.html

[LMP900]

Quote

Originally posted by Greg Locock
I don't agree. The best place to put heavy masses is at the front of deformable structures, so they decelerate themselves, and you don't waste crush structure trying to decelerate them gently.

Think about it, would you rather have a half ton weight between you and the wall, or would you rather be between the half ton weight and the wall?

Quite right Greg, but if you were about to be T-boned by a Renault, you might worry. So there is a safety issue.

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by LMP900


Quite right Greg, but if you were about to be T-boned by a Renault, you might worry. So there is a safety issue.

Good point.

[DREW]

I just flew thru this thread, so forgive me if I missed it, but how much mass are we talking about here? How much for the "hockey puck" and how much for the fluid?

I'm just thinking that there has to be a fair amount for it to have any effect, but that goes against the whole low-mass for acceleration (both positive and negative) philosophy?

DREW

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by DREW
I just flew thru this thread, so forgive me if I missed it, but how much mass are we talking about here? How much for the "hockey puck" and how much for the fluid?

I'm just thinking that there has to be a fair amount for it to have any effect, but that goes against the whole low-mass for acceleration (both positive and negative) philosophy?

DREW

Around 10kg. The cars have a minimum weight, and carry tungston ballast underneath the cars. If the composite chassis is light, they put more ballast in, and enjoy a better CofG. These things worsen the C of G, and would increase the polar moment of inertia (more weight at the ends) but they provide other benefits as has been discussed.

[DREW]

Thanx MP

DREW

[Greg Locock]

I agree about the T boning. PMI always seems a bit of a double edged sword, I'm not really convinced that a super low PMI is a huge advantage, I'd have thought that improvement in performance would be negligible below a certain amount, but I don't have any good feel for whether open wheel cars are near that limit. You could look at it in terms of the frequency response in yaw (ie transfer function of yaw velocity/SWA) I suppose, but that sort of data sounds like it would be very closely kept.

OK, I can run that in carSim, on those Avon F3000 tires. Gimme a couple of days.

[LMP900]

2 interesting hearsay snippets to add:

It was the fear of "twin chassis" development that caused the FIA to re-think their stance. That's understandable, but could be addressed in a less panicky way. If all the elements that are/should/could be flexibly mounted (probably 40% of the vehicle weight, including ballast) were carried on a floating sub-structure, would that be so bad? It's interesting research, with possible relevance to road vehicles. The worry is then that, if you've decreed that that structure is legal, someone will mount their wings to it, and that's another kettle of worms (or should that be can of fish?).

Renault found huge time gains with the system, more than 0.5 sec/lap. Ferrari personnel didn't believe the claim. but Renault test on a rig whereas Ferrari tune theirs by calculation.

[mat1]

Quote

Originally posted by LMP900
2 interesting hearsay snippets to add:

It was the fear of "twin chassis" development that caused the FIA to re-think their stance. That's understandable, but could be addressed in a less panicky way. If all the elements that are/should/could be flexibly mounted (probably 40% of the vehicle weight, including ballast) were carried on a floating sub-structure, would that be so bad? It's interesting research, with possible relevance to road vehicles. The worry is then that, if you've decreed that that structure is legal, someone will mount their wings to it, and that's another kettle of worms (or should that be can of fish?).

I see. Yes, that makes sense. on the other hand, as you say: the outlawing of the twin-chassis-idea was a means to an end: fighting ground effect. With the twin chassis idea in itself is nothing wrong. On the contrary, it is very interesting.

and I think in the meantime much better ways to prohibit ground efect have been introduced, so what's the worry?

mat1

[desmo]

Technical regulations- like all other sorts of regulation- tend to accrete over time, frequently long after whatever reason they were concieved is long past.

I'd think it a really good idea to wipe the rulebook clean from time to time and start from a clean slate. If they were cleverly written, the Tech Regs could probably be massively edited down and make better sense.

[Don Speekingleesh]

For those not following the RC thread on this subject here's Garry Anderson's view on the subject.

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by Don Speekingleesh
For those not following the RC thread on this subject here's Garry Anderson's view on the subject.

I don't knwo why your quoting that video don, those guys don't seem to know the issues, except for the big plot stuff. For instance they say stopping aero aids would mean that the driver's head would be a moveable aero device. I don't know who they are but they sounded like sensationalist media guys who were just surfing the wave of hysteria.

[Don Speekingleesh]

You do know who Garry Anderson is? Ignore Quigley and Kennedy.

[Greg Locock]

PMI of a normal race car is around 500 kg m^2 (Guess)

10 kg 1.5 m ahead of the CG has a MoI of 22 kg m^2

so, the change is roughly 4%. [Late edit :Presumably you have to move some mass backwards to compensate to keep the Cg in the same place so call it 8%]

Changing the PMI of my standard test car (not an F1) by 4% gave no detectible difference in yaw response in a step steer test. Reducing the PMI by 30% altered the peak yaw velocity from 14 deg/sec to 15 deg/sec. Note that in my world 20 deg/sec is pretty much the sign of out-of-control, so this is a fairly extreme manouevre.

So.... unless I rebuild my F1 model (which I lost a couple of PCs back) I'm going to say that 10 kg of fixed mass in the nose cone, is no big deal for dynamic response. [Late edit I'll check with 8%... obviously I'd expect a decrease in maximum yaw velocity of around 0.3 deg/sec]

I didn't use frequency response, Car Sim doesn't do it very well.

Hmm, Fatboy and LMP9000 sent me some real data a few years ago, it'd be interesting to see what peak yaw velocities real race drivers use. Anybody?

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by Don Speekingleesh
You do know who Garry Anderson is? Ignore Quigley and Kennedy.

I had no idea who was talking on the video.

[ClubmanGT]

Quote

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


I had no idea who was talking on the video.

You're posting in a technical forum and you don't know who Gary Anderson is....

Goodness gracious me. Words fail.

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by ClubmanGT


You're posting in a technical forum and you don't know who Gary Anderson is....

Goodness gracious me. Words fail.

I said, the video I listened to, I do not know who was on the video. I did not know the channel, but I presumed it was English. speaking technically, its silly to say that a driver's head is against the rules. It did not sound a technical commentary to me, rather media chat. I still don't know who was what, or who was on the show. And nobody here wants to say who said what either.

[Don Speekingleesh]

Quigley was the one talking about the driver's head being against the rules.
David Kennedy (the former driver) was the other one in the commentary box
Anderson was the one in the pits (you can tell because his voice gets drowned out from time to time) and the one talking about things from a technical perspective.

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by Don Speekingleesh
Quigley was the one talking about the driver's head being against the rules.
David Kennedy (the former driver) was the other one in the commentary box
Anderson was the one in the pits (you can tell because his voice gets drowned out from time to time) and the one talking about things from a technical perspective.

Don its too long ago for me to remember who was saying what. I presume Anderson is ex Jordon, but I might be wrong, and also I don't know the other's backgrounds either. I am not familiar with those people.

The problem with such commentaries IMO is that a person might say one thing, and its dramatic and succcinct. We might quote that view here, and some people would treat the view as factual evidence assisting their opinion about something. But if one of us was there to ask a follow up question, then I'd bet the viewpoint would be less dramatic, more comprehensive of the variable factors involved, and much less able to prove a person's viewpoint here.

Oh well. I could argue that the lack of dampers has increased the passing, just look at the last GP: I've got facts to back that up too!;)

[Don Speekingleesh]

Quote

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Don its too long ago for me to remember who was saying what. I presume Anderson is ex Jordon, but I might be wrong,

Garry Anderson. And I'm going to believe his view over those here.

(David Kennedy has a bit of F1 experience too, though from the driving side. Quigley is a journalist and amateur racer. So there's no need to pay attention to their views on car design.)

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by Don Speekingleesh


Garry Anderson. And I'm going to believe his view over those here.

(David Kennedy has a bit of F1 experience too, though from the driving side. Quigley is a journalist and amateur racer. So there's no need to pay attention to their views on car design.)

OK, its the ex Jordan Anderson, but I don't recall who said what!!! It seemed to me for TV type stuff, and they objected to the aero possability as being inconsistant with one's head, or something like that! Good TV, but for me, not very deep, but maybe I did not hear it all. Thanks for your efforts on it though.

[rhm]

Quote

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
OK, its the ex Jordan Anderson, but I don't recall who said what!!! It seemed to me for TV type stuff, and they objected to the aero possability as being inconsistant with one's head, or something like that! Good TV, but for me, not very deep, but maybe I did not hear it all. Thanks for your efforts on it though.

If you can't remember what people said you're hardly in a position to criticise it are you?


GA's most salient point was that the FIA had not only changed their mind on the legality of the system and done so mid-season against their own recommendation, but they also done so on the basis that the idea might lead to a "twin-chassis" development that was in Anderson's view, completely implausible. Add onto that the very good point that since Renault had agreed that the system could be banned at the end of the season, there was no chance of it leading to anything other than what it is now.

That might not be any more than what many fans and journalists have written, but coming from an ex-technical director who not only knows the rulebook inside-out, but also has intimate knowlege of the realities of making F1 cars, it carries (or should carry anyway) a heck of a lot more weight. Not that I'd expect the FIA to pay any attention (Anderson also slated the Max's precious CDG wing concept).

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by rhm


If you can't remember what people said you're hardly in a position to criticise it are you?


GA's most salient point was that the FIA had not only changed their mind on the legality of the system and done so mid-season against their own recommendation, but they also done so on the basis that the idea might lead to a "twin-chassis" development that was in Anderson's view, completely implausible. Add onto that the very good point that since Renault had agreed that the system could be banned at the end of the season, there was no chance of it leading to anything other than what it is now.

That might not be any more than what many fans and journalists have written, but coming from an ex-technical director who not only knows the rulebook inside-out, but also has intimate knowlege of the realities of making F1 cars, it carries (or should carry anyway) a heck of a lot more weight. Not that I'd expect the FIA to pay any attention (Anderson also slated the Max's precious CDG wing concept).

The report I listened to went for less than two minutes, and there was no technical discussion whatsoever. I thought it light weight prattle, there was no content to remember. It seems I did not listen to the entire broadcast.

The FIA also has resources that have intimate knowledge of making F1 cars, and also the rule book.

From what your saying, one of the commentators criticised the CDG wing concept, but I wonder did they do so before Adrian Newey - who is familiar with F1 cars - enthusiastically took on the task of the feasability of the concept? It easy to can something after its been found not to be a likely solution. I guess you also criticising the FIA for getting Adrian Newey to investigate that way of improving overtaking? IMO that attempt by the FIA was a good one.

If you can quote or point to text content, then I might understand what those fellows have to say about the damper and why they think it's legal, and also why they think the FIA is stupid and corrupt.

Also, does Anderson have a financial interest in this affair, he is a consultant to F1 teams currently isn't he, and all the teams use or have investigated the mass damper haven't they?

[rhm]

Quote

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


The report I listened to went for less than two minutes, and there was no technical discussion whatsoever. I thought it light weight prattle, there was no content to remember. It seems I did not listen to the entire broadcast.

The FIA also has resources that have intimate knowledge of making F1 cars, and also the rule book.

From what your saying, one of the commentators criticised the CDG wing concept, but I wonder did they do so before Adrian Newey - who is familiar with F1 cars - enthusiastically took on the task of the feasability of the concept? It easy to can something after its been found not to be a likely solution. I guess you also criticising the FIA for getting Adrian Newey to investigate that way of improving overtaking? IMO that attempt by the FIA was a good one.

If you can quote or point to text content, then I might understand what those fellows have to say about the damper and why they think it's legal, and also why they think the FIA is stupid and corrupt.

Also, does Anderson have a financial interest in this affair, he is a consultant to F1 teams currently isn't he, and all the teams use or have investigated the mass damper haven't they?

Again, you admit to not paying attention to the video, not knowing much (if anything) about the people on it, yet you still want to dismiss what they said. I'm not sure it's even worth replying to you since you're doing the same with my postings. I précised Anderson's points in the second paragraph of my previous posting (which you even quoted) and yet you want me to waste time transcribing exactly what he said? Either you think I'm lying (in which case why would you believe my transcription) or you think I'm too stupid to even sum up an argument. Or most likely of all you are determined not to believe people who you disagree with. Whatever, get over it.

As for Adrian Newey's involvement in the CDG wing, this was reported by the press as rumour - I've seen no direct quote from Newey or McLaren to say that he was working on it. If he was it's fair to assume that McLaren had him working on it because they didn't want him working on their current car due to his contract running out imminently (they wouldn't waste the time of their technical directly on a hairbrained idea that wasn't going to be brought in for 2 years anyway if they could have let him do real work on the car). You also overlook the possibility that Newey could have been working to prove that CDG doesn't work the way the FIA think it does. Oh, and it's great that the FIA wanted to improve overtaking, but the presentation out of the blue of a (widely believely to be unworkable) new wing design, with the proposed imposition of it in the rules isn't the way to go about it. Improving overtaking in F1 is a subject for another thread, but there are at least 5 completely unradical ways it could be improved that are tried and tested in the real world.

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by rhm
Again, you admit to not paying attention to the video, not knowing much (if anything) about the people on it,

rhm I did pay attention to a video which had a couple of corners of an F1 car and and a minute and half of complaining about the FIA and the mass movement issue. I've concluded that it was not the video you watched, or maybe I saw the very beginning, the middle, or the end or what you say, but there was not technical discussion whatsoever. And I certainly did not know the people on the video. or the TV channel, the time date of the broadcast, etc That's not my fault though, how could I know any of that?

Quote

Originally posted by rhm
I précised Anderson's points in the second paragraph of my previous posting (which you even quoted) and yet you want me to waste time transcribing exactly what he said? Either you think I'm lying (in which case why would you believe my transcription) or you think I'm too stupid to even sum up an argument. Or most likely of all you are determined not to believe people who you disagree with. Whatever, get over it.

Sorry rhm, but over hear broadcast's often have a verbal transcript as well, I would have like to have read that, that's all.

I did not know that you summed up what they said, it was difficult for me to separate your own view from their view: this is a BB, its not business you know! Lighten up!

I have not heard any of those things said, having heard a short and light weight "prattle". I have not tried to bait you, or waste your time, I don't like that type of behaviour at all, and if you think that was what I was doing, I am sorry.

As to Newey, I read he had done that, and it did not work out. The idea that is. I presume you think it was wrong to investigate the idea? If newey had not done the investigation, that's a shame, because if anyone could have got such an idea to work, newey could have.

Its also very possable that McLaren did allow him to do that, why not? Its not likely they would have wanted Newey working on their next year's car is it? That's not normal for people leaving F1 teams who are going to another is it? Normally they are put on gardening leave and not allowed to work on F1 business at all (they still get paid by their employer), so it would have made a lot of sense to use Newey for the doing something to assist the FIA's investigation into making overtaking more common. Maybe it was newey who suggested the flank speed ability, or the hybrid assist?

With respect rhm, I'll address your summary, so it hasn't been a waste for your time, I appreciate your efforts.

Quote

GA's most salient point was that the FIA had not only changed their mind on the legality of the system and done so mid-season against their own recommendation, but they also done so on the basis that the idea might lead to a "twin-chassis" development that was in Anderson's view, completely implausible. Add onto that the very good point that since Renault had agreed that the system could be banned at the end of the season, there was no chance of it leading to anything other than what it is now.

I can see five points being made by Anderson there:
1- The FIA changed their minds
2- The FIA changed their minds mid season
3- The twin chassis idea was not possable
4- Renault agreed the system could be banned at the end of the season
5- There was no chance for further developement this season by Renault

1- yes the FIA did change there minds.
2 - Yes the FIA did change their minds this season.
3 - As being Anderson's opinion, the FIA's interrpretation of what they mean by twin chassis might be different to what GA understands. There is potential for developing the technology in several directions, that is quite obvious to everyone.
4- Yes Renault agreed the system could be banned at the end of the season.
5 - I presume Anderson is privvy to Renault's development program, or was he stating that Renault have promised to stop development of the R26 for the rest of the season?

Thanks for letting me better understand where Anderson sits on the matter. Anderson seemed to be saying that the FIA should not have changed their minds about the system, and that the twin chassis concept was rubbish.

This is Renault's view precisely isn't it? Except for Renault not developing the R26, which sound's to me like that is Renault politics talking, I don't accept that, do you?

And if its legal, then why should Reanult not develop it?

And where does one draw the line with the mass damper, its already in the front and the back of the car.

OK, OK, so, GA agrees with Renault.

There are several counter views to Renault's, there's no point in my going over the whole thread again.

Thanks and Cheers.

[armonico]

mass damper video clip

Explanations in Spanish, I'm afraid.

[Paul Prost]

The only reason CDG still has wings is because Max Mosley's nephew is running the whole show.

No-one has been able to experimentally verify the Computation Fluid Dynamics simulations that supposedly proved the CDG concept.

Therefore, it doesn't exist.

[KABA]

Quote

Originally posted by armonico
mass damper video clip

Explanations in Spanish, I'm afraid.

It pretty much rehashes what has been discussed here.
The part I find funny is that while it seems partial to Renault, where it mentions the three benefits it does mention aero benefit.

[Slyder]

I'd like to request something here in this thread, if it's alright with you guys.

I would like to know from your own knowledge how exactly does the mass damper works; although some good info was caught there on that video clip, I'd like to personally hear it from your own voices.

Then, I would like to hear your arguments and opinions in regards of this recent ruling by the FIA, and I would like to hear your opinions as to why your agree or disagree with this ruling. From the little that I know, I think the FIA resolution is a bunch of crap, but I would like to hear it from somebody who knows their craft and knows it well.

So please, if you can.

[phantom II]

Read all the posts on this thread.

Quote

Originally posted by Slyder
I'd like to request something here in this thread, if it's alright with you guys.

I would like to know from your own knowledge how exactly does the mass damper works; although some good info was caught there on that video clip, I'd like to personally hear it from your own voices.

Then, I would like to hear your arguments and opinions in regards of this recent ruling by the FIA, and I would like to hear your opinions as to why your agree or disagree with this ruling. From the little that I know, I think the FIA resolution is a bunch of crap, but I would like to hear it from somebody who knows their craft and knows it well.

So please, if you can.

[phantom II]

...and this thread http://forums.autosp...&threadid=89259

Quote

Originally posted by Slyder
I'd like to request something here in this thread, if it's alright with you guys.

I would like to know from your own knowledge how exactly does the mass damper works; although some good info was caught there on that video clip, I'd like to personally hear it from your own voices.

Then, I would like to hear your arguments and opinions in regards of this recent ruling by the FIA, and I would like to hear your opinions as to why your agree or disagree with this ruling. From the little that I know, I think the FIA resolution is a bunch of crap, but I would like to hear it from somebody who knows their craft and knows it well.

So please, if you can.

[rhm]

So, the court of appeal ruled in the FIA's favour. Pretty disappointing that the judgement doesn't give any real information as to why they made that decision. The only interesting part is where they say that despite Renault's claim that the aerodynamic benefits of the device are small and secondary to it's main purpose, it still contravines the rules on moveable aero.

If they ruled that it should be banned because it contravines the letter of the law while accepting Renault's argument, then that's worrying because there are lots of things on an F1 car that move that aren't suspension - are they saying they can use this rule to arbitrarily ban things even if the main purpose isn't some tangential aero benefit.

I expected them to produce some evidence (or at least say that based on evidence they examined) that disputed Renault's claim, but they don't mention that at all in the judgement.

Another point from reading the judgement, further to the tedious argument earlier in this thread. The FIA did take the view that this was a mass mounted on springs, rather than a complete unit.

[KABA]

If you look at the other thread re this matter I posted a link to the transcript of the arguments and findings, it is in german though.

The transcript shows that even Renault did not argue that the mass dampers have no aero influence.

[rhm]

Quote

Originally posted by KABA
If you look at the other thread re this matter I posted a link to the transcript of the arguments and findings, it is in german though.

The transcript shows that even Renault did not argue that the mass dampers have no aero influence.

That's not what I said. And not what they argued before. They said that the aero influence is small compared to the mechanical benefit.

Why is the transcript in German?

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by rhm
That's not what I said. And not what they argued before. They said that the aero influence is small compared to the mechanical benefit.

It was Renault who said the aero influence was minor. The Court said:

Quote

WHEREAS whatever the benefit may be, even if downplayed by Mild Seven Renault F1, it is necessary to apply Article 3.15

The Court also said the damper was not part of the suspension, which affected another contravention:

Quote

it was not part of the suspension as defined by Article 1.14

Also the Court indicated that Renault had not gone through the proper process of bringing innovations to the attention of the FIA:

Quote

WHEREAS it is necessary to give credit to all parties for their willingness to communicate with each other on the subject, it is however necessary, for any future developments that might apply to similar devices, to refer to Article 2.4 of the Technical Regulations which allows competitors to justify the innovations which are suggested, and to obtain official clarification from the FIA in this respect, which was not the case;

[KABA]

Quote

Why is the transcript in German?

I'm sure someone has access to it in english, I just have acess in german and japanese, and the german is the one I can link to.

[MacFan]

Surely any F1 car running wishbones, pushrods, springs & dampers (not just mass dampers) is now illegal, as these movable devices also have an (indirect) effect on the aero?

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by MacFan
Surely any F1 car running wishbones, pushrods, springs & dampers (not just mass dampers) is now illegal, as these movable devices also have an (indirect) effect on the aero?

No, they are the suspension. The mass damper was found by the Court not to be part of the suspension.

[angst]

Quote

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
No, they are the suspension. The mass damper was found by the Court not to be part of the suspension.

But neither is it bodywork, for which the regulations used to ban it were clearly intended.

[LMP900]

Quote

Originally posted by rhm
Another point from reading the judgement, further to the tedious argument earlier in this thread. The FIA did take the view that this was a mass mounted on springs, rather than a complete unit.

Yes, the judgement was flawed in that, as in many other ways. E.g., since the suspension isn't excluded from Reg 3.15 (which, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is aimed at aerodynamic surfaces in any case), none of its components should have any degree of freedom. There is then an internal tension in the regulations, which in 10.1.1 call for sprung suspension, and that in turn destroys the fiction that 3.15 was intended for anything other than bodywork.

Basically, it's a glimpse of a parallel universe where black can become white at any point. We, who have no axe to grind, all know that it was a clever idea whose purpose is to minimise contact patch load fluctuation, and that any effect on aerodynamics is incidental, less than a change of braking pressure and much less than a change of steering lock - two other systems with degrees of freedom. Just because the freedom is under the control of the driver doesn't make it acceptable under 3.15 - the regulation was initially brought in to prevent driver-controlled adjustment of wings.

[phantom II]

Ron Dennis must have presented rather substantial technical evidence as to how the thing works in order to protest.
To defend itself, Renault would have to do the same which it chose not to do. Ner a word would be said if Renault was not competitive. I'm going to watch ping pong next year. If schumacher wins the championship, I'm going to vomit. Anderson said that the driver's head does the same thing as the MD. Off with their heads, I say.

Quote

Originally posted by rhm
So, the court of appeal ruled in the FIA's favour. Pretty disappointing that the judgement doesn't give any real information as to why they made that decision.
I expected them to produce some evidence (or at least say that based on evidence they examined) that disputed Renault's claim, but they don't mention that at all in the judgement.

Another point from reading the judgement, further to the tedious argument earlier in this thread. The FIA did take the view that this was a mass mounted on springs, rather than a complete unit.

[RDV]

Quote

Melbourne Park-that's a shame, because if anyone could have got such an idea to work, newey could have.

...not necessarily.. .. Although Adrian is an extremely gifted aerodynamicist, damping and frequency control a bit out of his field, he is a good vehycle dinamicist but not exceptional.

This concept is quite specialized, and as I have mentioned before, MD is of a secondary aero influence, primary function is to stabilize the chassy over bumps, kerbs and on power transfer, killing the tyre bounce.

A great deal of the work done on the seven post rig is to control the hop of undamped tyres, the variation of Fz is quite critical to maintain grip in cornering ( known as cost function).

Also agree with LMP900, but the biggest flaw is retroactive or mid season changes in interpretation, specialy when impacting on the WDC... smells fishy to me.

E si non e vero , e ben trovato....

[CWard]

The discussion / arguments on the ultimate effect of the Renault mass damper whether it is aero, or other, appears to be somewhat emotional. I think it would be pertinent to go back to first principals and consider what a mass damper is and what it does.
A passive mass damper is frequency specific and is applied to address a single problem resonance. In the automotive field it is applied to a multitude of problems in various guises the most noticeable of which has been the harmonic damper on the Citroen 2CV to control wheel hop of the suspension unsprung masses.

Citroen ] Renault

When comparing the Citroen and Renault systems the one can draw the conclusion that the latter system is primarily for control of tyre bounce of the front end of the car as a result of crossing the corner kerbs. The damper will only be effective when it vibrates at its tuned frequency and when it is located as close as possible to the source of the vibration. I would suggest that as a result of tyre bounce the Renault would exhibit a tendency to understeer as there would be a variation in cornering force as the front of the car moves up and down ( similar to cornering hard on a rippled surface and finding the a car doesn’t go where you want it to go). The control obtained from the damper will occur on a car with or without wings and I would surmise that the benefit for Renault is more mechanical than aero.

I can vouch for the efficacy of the effect of harmonic dampers controlling wheel hop as a result of work in the 60’s on an experimental air suspension system (Rootes) that did not use conventional dampers. The control was achieved with harmonic dampers for the unsprung masses and air flow restriction for the sprung mass.

Air suspension system layout Photo

There is however one aspect of the Renault system as shown in the drawing that is unusual. It is that there appears to be no damping of the seismic mass. For optimum performance of the mass damper the seismic mass has to be damped to reduce the effect of the two side frequencies that the damper introduces.



In both the Citroen and Rootes applications there were damping elements in the canisters.

Citroen Rootes

[phantom II]

Come to think of it, the Renno pushes like a bitch.

Quote

Originally posted by CWard
I would suggest that as a result of tyre bounce the Renault would exhibit a tendency to understeer as there would be a variation in cornering force as the front of the car moves up and down ( similar to cornering hard on a rippled surface and finding the a car doesn’t go where you want it to go).

[zac510]

Quote

Originally posted by CWard

When comparing the Citroen and Renault systems the one can draw the conclusion that the latter system is primarily for control of tyre bounce of the front end of the car as a result of crossing the corner kerbs. The damper will only be effective when it vibrates at its tuned frequency and when it is located as close as possible to the source of the vibration. I would suggest that as a result of tyre bounce the Renault would exhibit a tendency to understeer as there would be a variation in cornering force as the front of the car moves up and down ( similar to cornering hard on a rippled surface and finding the a car doesn’t go where you want it to go). The control obtained from the damper will occur on a car with or without wings and I would surmise that the benefit for Renault is more mechanical than aero.

Good post, thanks!

I would like to ask what happens to the dampening effect in the transient period when the damper is accelerating or decelerating to its frequency.

[WHITE]

Quote

Originally posted by RDV


.
This concept is quite specialized, and as I have mentioned before, MD is of a secondary aero influence, primary function is to stabilize the chassy over bumps, kerbs and on power transfer, killing the tyre bounce.

A great deal of the work done on the seven post rig is to control the hop of undamped tyres, the variation of Fz is quite critical to maintain grip in cornering ( known as cost function).

E si non e vero , e ben trovato....

Dear RDV,
as usual, your explanations are very brief yet clear !

From the beginning FIA is claiming the "aero effects" to ban the damper and the court now says " whatever the benefit may be" implying Renault achieves some aero benefit from the system. However, from what you say ( and others too ) most of the benefits do not have anything to do with aero so:

What if Renault had not got any aero benefit or even sacrificed a bit of the aero performance in order to improve other areas with the damper ?
Would it have paid off ?
Would have dampers been banned anyway because of its " aero influence " ?

By the way, the court says "aero benefit", but an "aero benefit" in relation to what ?
They can not know what sort of car Renault would have managed to build had them built it making without the damper from the beginning.
Could it not have been even more aerodynamically eficient than the present one ?
How do they measure such an efficiency ?