67 replies to this topic

[gloomyandy]

Ok so my understanding is this....

Renault introduced the mass damper last year and designed this years car with the device in mind.

McLaren do not use a MD and claim that much of the advantage of one is already in the suspension system they use.

So how does this all stack up...

How would you design a car around such a device. What can you do differently. What are the advantages. Are there things that if you take away the MD it may be very hard to undo (like actual suspension geom, or other fundamental designs).

How can you get the same effects with out a MD (or possibly how can you incorporate one in a conventional suspension system).

Andy

PS Also any thoughts on why Mclaren waited so long to protest the system (if it was them). Is it just good old F1 games, or has there been some new development?

[LMP900]

I view the mass damper as a) a method of addressing the problem of different damping requirements in different modes, b) a way of damping modes that you actually can't do otherwise (such as tyre lateral), c) a method of breaking the loop in which a conventional damper sits, where its output is intended to control the tyre, but its input is mediated by the tyre, and d) a means of relating damping value to frequency, rather than to damper velocity or position. And I think it's d) that McLaren believe they've matched with their suspension. I'm speculating here, but I think they're using Koni's FSD technology in their dampers. FSD stands for "frequency selective damping", and Koni have an arrangement in which low frequency (<1Hz) shaft movement sees higher forces than high frequency movement. We're using it in F3 Euroseries, and I know that one F1 team is using it: I'm guessing it's McLaren.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Anyone in the UK series on Konis?

[LMP900]

Lots of people are on Koni, in Euroseries and British F3, but only Manor Motorsport are using FSD.

[Greg Locock]

I was recently reminded that the original 2CV used an inertial reference for its rear shock absorbers.

That is, the rear shock absorbers were not bolted to the body, but to a mass. I imagine there was a spring involved as well.

That is rather close in concept to a mass damper.

[Powersteer]

Originally posted by LMP900
I'm speculating here, but I think they're using Koni's FSD technology in their dampers. FSD stands for "frequency selective damping", and Koni have an arrangement in which low frequency (<1Hz) shaft movement sees higher forces than high frequency movement. We're using it in F3 Euroseries, and I know that one F1 team is using it: I'm guessing it's McLaren.

How can this effect relate to the mass damper character? How can this damper replicate the mass damper if the spring load would bounce the tyre off unless the cars are highly suspended by the dampers compression???

[zac510]

It's adding another 'mode' or 'option' of adjustability for low frequency movements.

I have read that the tyre shake frequency (whatevre the name is!) Renault were trying to eliminate was around 7Hz but is this referring to the chassis frequency rather than the damper shaft frequency that has force transmitted through the rocker ratio first?

[LMP900]

Originally posted by Powersteer
How can this effect relate to the mass damper character? How can this damper replicate the mass damper if the spring load would bounce the tyre off unless the cars are highly suspended by the dampers compression???

It can't. I think McLaren may have underestimated the potential of the mass damper concept in focussing on one aspect of it.

[mini696]

How would you design a car around such a device. What can you do differently. What are the advantages. Are there things that if you take away the MD it may be very hard to undo (like actual suspension geom, or other fundamental designs).

From GP2006

Ferrari seemed quite happy with the ban, although they had had these dampers in their cars for quite a while. But there is a crucial difference between Renault and Ferrari as the Renault R26 is conceived around that system. The aero, the suspension set-up, the tyre usage, the weight distribution are tailor made for a car that runs very calm over bumps and kerbs. If all of a sudden something unsettles the car, the aero cannot react perfectly on the spoilt airflow. This then results in reduced downforce and consequently in higher tyre wear. Ferrari however had built the car independent of the system as it was put on board afterwards, so the effect of taking it out of the equation was much less dramatic. Maybe they lost one or two tenths on McLaren, who never had it in the first place, but they gained between three and five tenths on Renault, and they are their main rivals this year, not McLaren.

[Powersteer]

Will increasing suspension travel and adding more weight distribution to the front replicate the mass damper concept?

[mini696]

No... Not at all. The ideas of the mass damper is to work independantly of the chassis.

[gloomyandy]

Hi great info. So the mass damper basically gives you an indepentant control system. Using this means that the normal suspension does not have to be set up in as much of a compromise . you can run a more agressive suspension using the mass damper to look after some of the other cases. Probably a huge simplification but....

So what about the timing of the objection? Why wait so long to object? Do mclaren think they have caught up in other areas such that removing the mass damper now gives them a real chance, particularly as the test ban makes it hard to modify the cars. Also how far advanced would next years cars be at this stage? Would a ban at this point heavily compromise any teams that have been designing around this concept for next year? On the flip side if the technology is allowed to be used will mclaren be in bad shape for next year?

andy

[LMP900]

Your suggestion that the objection has been timed for maximum disruption of Renault's '07 design program is intriguing - who knows, it could well be right. Renault (and I) think there is great potential in MD development, so it will no doubt hurt them. Underlying all this is the question - why ban it? The systems are simple yet effective, there are potential spin-offs to road vehicles, and it fundamentally improves mechanical grip (forget the FIA's aero-bollocks) which is the direction F1 should be taking - improving slow-corner speeds while slashing fast-corner speeds. That would give better racing, a better spectator experience, and improved track safety.

[WHITE]

Originally posted by LMP900
Your suggestion that the objection has been timed for maximum disruption of Renault's '07 design program is intriguing - who knows, it could well be right. Renault (and I) think there is great potential in MD development, so it will no doubt hurt them. Underlying all this is the question - why ban it? The systems are simple yet effective, there are potential spin-offs to road vehicles, and it fundamentally improves mechanical grip (forget the FIA's aero-bollocks) which is the direction F1 should be taking - improving slow-corner speeds while slashing fast-corner speeds. That would give better racing, a better spectator experience, and improved track safety.

The new Mercedes CLK cabriolet is fitted with front mass dampers to reduce vibrations :

http://www.worldcarf...tml/country/gcf

[naiboz]

Why protest something that doesnt REALLY affect you, the McLarens have been off the pace for much of the year...

So why not keep it up your sleeve to protest at a later date when your car has a chance of beating the protested team...

Also has the advantages of...

1) them wasting cash on a system they might not be able to use

2) with time their car will be more finely tuned to the system, so hurting them more when they lose it, hopefully increasing your performance gain over them

[zac510]

LMP900, do you think they would run the Koni damper exclusively on the 3rd/pitch spring or on all 3?

I guess if they were to allow this damper every team is going to want a few more posts on their rig (more inevitable $$).

[macoran]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
I was recently reminded that the original 2CV used an inertial reference for its rear shock absorbers.

That is, the rear shock absorbers were not bolted to the body, but to a mass. I imagine there was a spring involved as well.

That is rather close in concept to a mass damper.

A steel ball in a vertical tank shaped container ( filled with oil ) mounted to the "upright".
Shock absorbers were only fitted to 2cvs in the 70s

[Greg Locock]

Thanks for that. That's called an inertial reference vibration absorber, they are terrific for crankshafts as well. They absorb a wide range of frequencies, unlike the sprung type.

[LMP900]

Originally posted by zac510
LMP900, do you think they would run the Koni damper exclusively on the 3rd/pitch spring or on all 3?

I guess if they were to allow this damper every team is going to want a few more posts on their rig (more inevitable $$).

A good question - it would certainly benefit a pitch damper, but then again it would benefit corner dampers as well. All three play a role in controlling the aero platform as well as damping higher frequencies. Hang on - that means they're movable aerodynamic devices! How ironic if Maclaren were to be hit with the very same weapon that they themselves gave the FIA.

[desmo]

Conventional suspension dampers, springs etc. are unambiguously "movable aerodynamic devices" using the stated logic.

[Ben]

Originally posted by desmo
Conventional suspension dampers, springs etc. are unambiguously "movable aerodynamic devices" using the stated logic.

Quite...

Remember the FIA pulled this one mid-season 1993 to get active banned. If you have access to the BBC series "The Team - A Season with McLaren" you will hear Senna's engineer regularly talking about the "low drag" setting on the suspension that I can only assume reduce AOA in a straight line by adjusting the pitch angle.

One part of that series had an interesting section with Martin Whitmarsh attending an FIA hearing in Paris firmly of the opinion that active suspension was not a moveable aero device. The irony is probably lost on those in Woking with a humour bypass...

Ben

[dc21]

Doesn't the rule specifically disallow "movable aerodynamic devices" only when applied to the sprung part of the car? Thus allowing springs/dampers, wishbones, breakducts etc unless otherwise precluded elsewhere in the rules.

Dave

[Ben]

Even in those terms a mass damper has an influence on the aero devices but is not itself and aerodynamic device.

Ben

[baddog]

Originally posted by dc21
Doesn't the rule specifically disallow "movable aerodynamic devices" only when applied to the sprung part of the car? Thus allowing springs/dampers, wishbones, breakducts etc unless otherwise precluded elsewhere in the rules.

Dave

However, the damper is attached only to the sprung part of the car..

[-RM-]

dc21:
The solution is obvious. I guess that the guys at Renault are working hard on the packaging.

[mat1]

Originally posted by baddog


However, the damper is attached only to the sprung part of the car..

AFAIK aerodynamic devices on the unsprung parts are forbidden, since 1969.

That is the reason nowadays aerodynamic parts are always sprung, I presume.

mat1

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by LMP900
I view the mass damper as a) a method of addressing the problem of different damping requirements in different modes, b) a way of damping modes that you actually can't do otherwise (such as tyre lateral), c) a method of breaking the loop in which a conventional damper sits, where its output is intended to control the tyre, but its input is mediated by the tyre, and d) a means of relating damping value to frequency, rather than to damper velocity or position. And I think it's d) that McLaren believe they've matched with their suspension. I'm speculating here, but I think they're using Koni's FSD technology in their dampers. FSD stands for "frequency selective damping", and Koni have an arrangement in which low frequency (<1Hz) shaft movement sees higher forces than high frequency movement. We're using it in F3 Euroseries, and I know that one F1 team is using it: I'm guessing it's McLaren.

Care to talk a little more about Koni's FSD? I'm not really familiar with it. All dampers are somewhat frequency dependent, it's also referred to as hysterisis. My guess is that they have done something that is a bit special, and the frequency dependancy is part of the fun.

It's odd that we measure a damper's forces w.r.t. shaft speed when on the car, the input frequency is so much more important. It's just too damn hard to wrap your head around.

[baddog]

Originally posted by mat1


AFAIK aerodynamic devices on the unsprung parts are forbidden, since 1969.

That is the reason nowadays aerodynamic parts are always sprung, I presume.

mat1

´

Aerodynamic devices can be attached to the sprung part of the car, but they must be rigidly so, and the lump of metal is extremely not rigidly fixed to anything.

btw aero on unsprung parts now exists, within the brake duct zone.

[Greg Locock]

Fatboy, have you tried recording the rod speed signal as you go around the track and then using that signal to drive the shock dyno when you get back to the workshop? then you'll see how your shock is actually behaving, compared with the usual curve.

Another option would be to drive the dyno with a shaped random signal.

When I plot real shock velocities vs real shock forces (we use a strain gauged arm to measure that) the results bear only the vaguest similarity to the measured curve done the usual way. Errors of a factor of 2 are very common - in fact these days I just use 3 straight lines to approximate the shock curve, then do a least squares fit to the data.

[Fat Boy]

Greg,

I'd love to do just what you're talking about, but I don't have the ability. I have a dyno in the truck/shop and one in my garage. They're just simple crank dyno's though, nothing fancy. I'm still trying to sucker someone into buying an electromag dyno, but haven't hit the jackpot....yet.

I did a factory deal with Ohlins a couple years ago and we had access to their hydraulic 'dyno' which was just a fixture and 1 leg of their 7-poster. We started to do some interesting stuff there, but about the time were we really got rolling, the program was over. I suppose it's only logical, but we made as many questions for ourselves as we answered. Simple things like a bleed adjustment became a little more complicated. Let's say you want to soften a damper over a pavement transition on a street circuit. You look at the data and see it's a mid-speed event. You think, "Well, I'll open up the low-speed bleed and soften the damper". Well, that softens the damper on your crank pin dyno. At higher frequencies, though, it might actually stiffen the damper by reducing the pressure lag/hysterisis. Sometimes hysterisis can be a good thing because a high frequencies...forget damper speeds right now....you don't want to try to dampen the bumps.

I'm not sure how to do it, but somehow I'd like to be able to look at force/velocity/frequency. I suppose it could be done with just a simple 3-D carpet plot once you have the right dyno. Somehow that needs to correlate back to track input so you have to proper damping for the proper frequencies at the necessary shaft speeds. I'm open for any insight.

[Greg Locock]

Well, watch this space. We're at the point where shock measurement is one of our biggest problems, and with any luck before Christmas I'll have a week with the machine to myself.

So far as my problems go there are two alternatives - a better shock model, with a hydraulic path, and all the springs and masses and apertures modelled. I've seen one of these, and it worked. It was roughly as complicated a model as the whole of the rest of the car. So nice idea but there's no way we'd have time to do that.

Plan B is HIL - hardware in the loop. In that we'd run the model in real time, apply the predicted motion to a real shock, measure the response and feed that force back into the model. If that sounds complicated and expensive, yes it is. 4 shock dynos, one very fast PC. sounds great fun.

[LMP900]

See www.koni-fsd.com

[KABA]

So, how is this all that different from the patented Edelbrock IAS technology?

[CWard]

My first posr has been a disaster trying to get pictures into the post. This is my second attempt,

I have noticed the contributions to this thread have been discussing mass dampers in general terms but there appears to be a lack of a full understanding of how they work.

A mass damper can be used to provide a solution to minimise the vibration of a specific problem frequency by using the natural forces generated by an additional auxiliary spring mass system attached to the main system as shown in the diagram below.




In order for an effective mass damper to be designed it is necessary to know two important pieces of information relative to the problem; the frequency and effective mass of the mode of vibration. These dampers can only control a specifically targeted frequency as they consist of a single mass and spring that has a single natural frequency. The added mass and spring stiffness have to be tuned to the same frequency as the main mass in order that, when they vibrate together, the force generated by the added mass acts out of phase with the main mass thus controlling the vibration of the main mass at that frequency. This is the result of a 180 degree phase change that occurs at the natural frequency of a mass spring system.

RESPONSE PLOTS OF A SYSTEM WITH A MASS DAMPER



0.2*M__________________0.1*M _________________0.05*M
Ratio of the mass of the auxiliary mass relative the main mass M

The above plots show the effect of a mass damper application. The problem frequency is shown in black and the responses with the additional damper are shown in red, blue, and green. These show the effect of added damping on the added mass.

There is a price to pay when using a mass damper in that it generates additional side frequencies the spacing of which are controlled by the size of the additional mass; the larger the mass the wider the spacing. Another factor is that damper mass increases the overall mass resulting in a change in the basic frequency, as can be seen in the shift position of the black trace relative the original frequency identified by the ordinate 1 (the normalised fundamental frequency). The typical mass used for damping is a tenth of the main mass as shown in the central plot.

The use of a mass damper is no different to that of the normal damping used for suspensions, albeit very much simpler, addressing an area which suspension dampers cannot always control. I would suggest that the F1 application is an aid to control the vibration of the vehicle on the tyres when the suspension has stiffened to the extent that the only effective spring is the tyre, and hence having very little damping.

[LMP900]

Originally posted by KABA
So, how is this all that different from the patented Edelbrock IAS technology?

I've had no contact with the Edelbrock concept, but it seems to be a velocity-dependent (or more precisely, acceleration-dependent) solution, rather than frequency-dependent, though it's a rather good link between the two topics in this thread - inertial damping and conventional corner damping. I saw that a damped mass can be used to discriminate between frequencies more than 25 years ago, when I investigated using the AP active suspension system on a Group C car. That had as its controller a purely mechanical valve controlled by a damped mass. It certainly worked on the Ford Granada they'd fitted it to - I was able to throw it round roundabouts and the car stayed absolutely flat.

[RDV]

LMP900-It certainly worked on the Ford Granada they'd fitted it to - I was able to throw it round roundabouts and the car stayed absolutely flat.

mmm... sort of..

I was involved in the original work with Maurice Phillipe before he passed it on to AP.. we were actually going on to variable camber with the top wishbone being a hydraulic strut.... sort of always having the optimal camber on the wheel

Seem to remember it all fell down when AP found out you could beat the damped mass actuator due to lag, specialy when going through esses... scary... purely mechanical devices are ingenious but not as responsive as electronic ones...

[LMP900]

Yes, there's a big difference in response requirements between a racing car and a Mk1 Granada! My aims weren't very ambitious - I was just looking to counteract the spring deflection due to downforce (big diffusers in those days) while still using sensible wheel rates, not for full dynamic control. Taking over the project from AP was beyond our means, and I think Williams picked it up, as a toe-in-the-water in active ride.

[RDV]

...but the idea of using latG for control ended up being used some years later when I was having rear brake locking on a front wheel drive racer (oh, the thought of it....)

Used a pendulum to proportion rr wheel braking side to side... I think BMW used that one too for the front wheels...

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by RDV
...but the idea of using latG for control ended up being used some years later when I was having rear brake locking on a front wheel drive racer (oh, the thought of it....)

Used a pendulum to proportion rr wheel braking side to side... I think BMW used that one too for the front wheels...

Didn't VW have some sort of front/rear prop valve that was long. G sensitive for their Rabbit truck or something like that?

[desmo]

Originally posted by RDV


Used a pendulum to proportion rr wheel braking side to side... I think BMW used that one too for the front wheels...

I like that one. Did it work as intended?

[KABA]

Going back to the original question, here is a link to an article where Pascal Vasselon, who was involved in the original design, explains how they affect aero and is of the opinion that they are illegal.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by KABA
Going back to the original question, here is a link to an article where Pascal Vasselon, who was involved in the original design, explains how they affect aero and is of the opinion that they are illegal.

Vasselon says - translated

the mass damper is one of the possibilities, in order to control this frequency. We did not consider these, because we regard them as mobile ballast, which is not permitted, ...

It's interesting that an F1 team should be so outspoken, they normally keep quiet don't they ...

[desmo]

I didn't find the article to suggest that the device is intrinsically illegal though my German isn't the best. Seemed more agnostic on the issue to me. The only reference to aero I see is a description of the current status quo pre-Schwingungstilger.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by desmo
I didn't find the article to suggest that the device is intrinsically illegal though my German isn't the best. Seemed more agnostic on the issue to me. The only reference to aero I see is a description of the current status quo pre-Schwingungstilger.

My wife is German, I'd like to get her to read the article - but if someone else here is totally fluent, they might give an interpretation, mine might be lacking. She isn't so keen on translating F1 stuff!

[KABA]

Just a few relevant sentences.


Kurz zusammengefasst lindert das System Nickbewegungen des Autos und optimiert dadurch die aerodynamische Wirkung des Autos.

In short, the system reduces the pitch motions and in this manner optimizes the aero effectiveness of the car.

"Wir sind dazu gezwungen, steife Aufhängungen zu verwenden, um eine stabile Aerodynamik-Plattform aufrecht zu erhalten. Und auf der Reifenseite verwenden wir geringen Reifendruck, um Haftung zu erzielen."

"Dies bedeutet, dass wir eine steife Aufhängung und sehr weiche Reifen kombinieren, was eine Menge Probleme verursacht", erläutert der Franzose. "Diese Kombination führt dazu, dass die Aufhängungen bei manchen Frequenzen blockiert sind und das Auto effektiv auf den Reifen springt, die nicht gedämpft sind."

We are forced to use very stiff suspension settings in order to obtain a stable aero platform. As for tyres we use very low pressures to maximize grip. This means we use very stiff suspension settings with very soft tyres, which causes several problems. This combination leads to the suspension locking up at certain frequencies and the compliance comes from the tyre sidewalls which are not dampened.



IMO if you now consider that Vasselon was the tech director at Michelin during the development of the mass dampers and now is responsible for the chassis at Toyota, ie there is hardly anyone with more direct knowledge of the system outside of Renault that have a vested interest, this is a clear condemnation of the system as far as the rules are concerned because he makes it clear that the only ojective of the mass dampers is to improve aero, or allow car settings that improve aero that would not be practical with a legal car.

We can only hope the Court of Appeals is made aware of these statements before a decision is reached.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by KABA
Just a few relevant sentences.


Kurz zusammengefasst lindert das System Nickbewegungen des Autos und optimiert dadurch die aerodynamische Wirkung des Autos.

In short, the system reduces the pitch motions and in this manner optimizes the aero effectiveness of the car.

"Wir sind dazu gezwungen, steife Aufhängungen zu verwenden, um eine stabile Aerodynamik-Plattform aufrecht zu erhalten. Und auf der Reifenseite verwenden wir geringen Reifendruck, um Haftung zu erzielen."

"Dies bedeutet, dass wir eine steife Aufhängung und sehr weiche Reifen kombinieren, was eine Menge Probleme verursacht", erläutert der Franzose. "Diese Kombination führt dazu, dass die Aufhängungen bei manchen Frequenzen blockiert sind und das Auto effektiv auf den Reifen springt, die nicht gedämpft sind."

We are forced to use very stiff suspension settings in order to obtain a stable aero platform. As for tyres we use very low pressures to maximize grip. This means we use very stiff suspension settings with very soft tyres, which causes several problems. This combination leads to the suspension locking up at certain frequencies and the compliance comes from the tyre sidewalls which are not dampened.



IMO if you now consider that Vasselon was the tech director at Michelin during the development of the mass dampers and now is responsible for the chassis at Toyota, ie there is hardly anyone with more direct knowledge of the system outside of Renault that have a vested interest, this is a clear condemnation of the system as far as the rules are concerned because he makes it clear that the only ojective of the mass dampers is to improve aero, or allow car settings that improve aero that would not be practical with a legal car.

We can only hope the Court of Appeals is made aware of these statements before a decision is reached.

The great irony is that the Toyota's have been poor on curbs and bumpy tracks until the T 106, yet even with Vasselon they have not used the damper technology. Since so many of the teams have tried it, it is surprising Toyota have not.

[desmo]

Originally posted by KABA
Just a few relevant sentences.


Kurz zusammengefasst lindert das System Nickbewegungen des Autos und optimiert dadurch die aerodynamische Wirkung des Autos.

In short, the system reduces the pitch motions and in this manner optimizes the aero effectiveness of the car.

"Wir sind dazu gezwungen, steife Aufhängungen zu verwenden, um eine stabile Aerodynamik-Plattform aufrecht zu erhalten. Und auf der Reifenseite verwenden wir geringen Reifendruck, um Haftung zu erzielen."

"Dies bedeutet, dass wir eine steife Aufhängung und sehr weiche Reifen kombinieren, was eine Menge Probleme verursacht", erläutert der Franzose. "Diese Kombination führt dazu, dass die Aufhängungen bei manchen Frequenzen blockiert sind und das Auto effektiv auf den Reifen springt, die nicht gedämpft sind."

We are forced to use very stiff suspension settings in order to obtain a stable aero platform. As for tyres we use very low pressures to maximize grip. This means we use very stiff suspension settings with very soft tyres, which causes several problems. This combination leads to the suspension locking up at certain frequencies and the compliance comes from the tyre sidewalls which are not dampened.



IMO if you now consider that Vasselon was the tech director at Michelin during the development of the mass dampers and now is responsible for the chassis at Toyota, ie there is hardly anyone with more direct knowledge of the system outside of Renault that have a vested interest, this is a clear condemnation of the system as far as the rules are concerned because he makes it clear that the only ojective of the mass dampers is to improve aero, or allow car settings that improve aero that would not be practical with a legal car.

We can only hope the Court of Appeals is made aware of these statements before a decision is reached.

In my opinion the first paragraph is, in context, a mere restatement of the case made against the device by the FIA as an introduction. The paragraph is not ascribed to Vasselon and is presumably authored by Hust.


The rest- and parenthetically I like the mention of the concept being employed on the 2CV as has already been noted here- to me is merely a description of a behavior common to most heavily aero downforce dependant cars that are sensitive to ground effect. Pitch control is already accomplished even lacking a mass damper by movable devices- the suspension pieces. To me this is fundamentally no different to the suspension in what it is trying to achieve, it's just a slightly different methodology. I don't understand why this mass damper would be considered illegal if the movable suspension components designed to perform the same function aren't. If the suspension links could be designed so as to address this particular tire mode, would that be illegal as well?

The logic given for its alleged illegality seem tenuous at best and I really see nothing from Vasselon that changes that.

[KABA]

Well, I suppose they will decide tomorrow. Too bad it is in a french court, in the sense that the decision affects a french team.

I suppose different people will look at it differently. I choose to look at the overall intent.

Suppose we were to stipulate that the mass damper is in concept a extension of the car's suspension based on some similarity of aero goals. (Note that IMO even this is a stretch).

It still doesn't change the fact that all teams deal with the same issues and have to work within the same suspension and tyre combination windows to optimize aero.

Now a device of very questionable legality is introduced that allows one team to significantly expand the window as far as optimizing aero by allowing settings that otherwise would not be possible or practical. IMO it is still illegal even under above stipulation based on intent.

The FIA is only guilty of not having the technical expertise and/or vision and failed to see thru the deception when the device was originally submitted and failed to ban it then.

In view of this it would be fair that Renault (and other teams that may have ocasionally used it) are allowed to keep the points earned with the device before Germany. The ban of the device after Germany should be reinforced by the Court of Appeals.

[KABA]

The great irony is that the Toyota's have been poor on curbs and bumpy tracks until the T 106, yet even with Vasselon they have not used the damper technology. Since so many of the teams have tried it, it is surprising Toyota have not.

IMO it isn't, because Vasselon clearly states that he considers the mass damper illegal, if under movable ballast rules.

"Wir haben diese nicht berücksichtigt, denn wir betrachten sie als beweglicher Ballast, der nicht erlaubt ist"

[RDV]

Fat Boy-Didn't VW have some sort of front/rear prop valve that was long. G sensitive for their Rabbit truck or something like that?

...presumably... I know many light front wheel drive sedans use it, as rear brake proportioning much more sensitive to passenger/luggage load variation due to front weight bias.

desmo-I like that one. Did it work as intended?

..yes indeedy... very well, was instrumental in excelent trail braking into corners and saving rear tyre flat-spotting, also made car very stable in deep braking.