Mass Dampers Is Illegal

[dribbler 6]

Thanks, I was going to post the Fry quote, can you format it nicely though with quote tags

I bet your house is spotless

[Saj 0]

NF's remarks -

Icing on the cake! Mass dampers are out as of now. But, I was just thinking, if RENAULT's sole purpose of using these dampers was what it was suppose to give and not gaining any aero advantage as a by product, could'nt they have come up with another aero gadget to negate the by product of the mass dampers ? Just thinking loud !!!

[Autumnpuma 0]

I am very surprised to discover that there is a limit to the amount of stupidity I can take. I have just reached that limit.

[narain fan 0]

I am very surprised to discover that there is a limit to the amount of stupidity I can take. I have just reached that limit.

so u say ,the opinion u have is the right one,and if someone else has analysed the issue in depth and formed an opinion that is not entirely or accurately comprehended by you then you are not even willing to listen to teh other opinion ,strange coming from the messiah of objectivity

[Autumnpuma 0]

so u say ,the opinion u have is the right one,and if someone else has analysed the issue in depth and formed an opinion that is not entirely or accurately comprehended by you then you are not even willing to listen to teh other opinion ,strange coming from the messiah of objectivity

I was about to edit that post out. I should not have resorted to name calling. My humblest apologies.

A scientific fact is not subject to opinions or interpretations. It simply is. I explained how the Renault front mass dampers worked in an earlier post. This is fact, not opinion.

Why are you arguing with that fact? I admitted that the FIA has the right to rule any way they want to, but this ruling was inaccurate. Am I the only one to see that? If the idea was to ban any future innovation in this area, then state that and let Renault, and any other team, have the damned front end mass dampers, which ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE MOVABLE AERO REGULATIONS.

Good Lord, what does it take to get you to see a simple FACT???!!???

Ulrik, you can make the new technology of 'mass dampers' mean anything. The system narain fan has described is a permutation of the Renault technology. In it's simplest terms, a mass damper limits the vertical movement of the chassis in relation to the centerpoint of the tyre so that the front wing remains, more or less, at a constant distance from the ground, ensuring a stable amount of downforce. This is what suspension does, ergo, mass dampers are suspension parts.

If you put those dampers on the rear suspension you would not be doing anything near as beneficial as putting them on the front of the car. The rear doesn't tend to skitter as much so the downforce levels remain pretty constant because of that. The system narain_fan is describing is a mutation of the 'mass damper' concept and shouldn't be confused with it.

[Blitzkrieg 0]

just incase you guys wanna see a virtual working of the mass dampers

go to: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/grafico...ass_damper.html

[Autumnpuma 0]

Thanks for the visual, Blitz.

[Blitzkrieg 0]

Thanks for the visual, Blitz.

no problem

I think the absence of the mass-dampers did show some effects in the practise session, but who knows, let's see what happens tommorow.

[Autumnpuma 0]

To give a bit of perspective, here's a quote from autosport.com (I do not know if this is the full article):

An innovative damper system pioneered by Renault and adopted by several other teams, including Ferrari, has been banned by the FIA, autosport.com can reveal.

With so little to separate the competitiveness of Renault and Ferrari in their battle for the world championship, this week's surprise outlawing of 'mass' dampers could have an impact in the outcome of the title fight.

Mass dampers are simple mechanical devices that comprise of a weight, believed to be around 9kg, mounted in a spring. They improve a car's performance by dampening out tyre bouncing frequencies throughout corners and therefore keeping grip levels more consistent.

Renault were believed to be the first to use the device, although they have never officially confirmed that they were running with it. Red Bull Racing, Williams, Ferrari and most recently McLaren have subsequently developed their own systems.

Autosport's technical consultant Gary Anderson told Autosport earlier this year: "You see a car bouncing, such as when it hits a kerb. This will be around 8-9Hz (hertz, unit of frequency equal to one cycle per second) on the tyres.

"This device will get an equal frequency going in the opposite direction. It's a bit like a tall building designed to withstand an earthquake where they put the water tank on the roof - so that when the building sways, the water is going in the opposite direction at the same frequency."

With the use of mass dampers growing, however, the FIA this week stepped into the situation and outlawed them completely.

With the damper systems helping improve handling characteristics through corners and over kerbs by keeping the car more level, the FIA has claimed that the devices are illegal because they are 'moveable aerodynamic devices'.

A letter sent to the teams by FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting said: "The use of mass dampers, normally fitted in the nose of a car, is now widespread. Even though we have never been asked specifically whether or not their use may contravene any part of the Technical Regulations our view, until now, has been that they do not.

"However, recent evidence and an escalation in development by some teams, has made it clear to us that the principle purpose of these devices is to improve the aerodynamic performance of the car.

"As the mass suspended inside the dampers is designed to move freely it is therefore not secured to the entirely sprung part of the car nor does it remain immobile in relation to it.

"Therefore, as this movement influences the aerodynamic performance of the car we feel that mass dampers of this sort contravene Article 3.15 of the F1 Technical Regulations and we no longer consider their use permissible."

****

Take note of how the mass dampers work and also take note of the term 'moveable aerodynamic device' as used by the FIA. The weight is not connected so it is deemed a movable device that affects the aero. True enough, but is is covered by the 'movable aerodynamic' regulation? No. That regulation was written to ban sliding skirt technology. It was used by the FIA to get rid of a technology that they didn't want in F1. Fine. But I was objecting to the incorrect use of the regulations to ban this device.

A quote from Pay Symmonds, mirroring what I've been saying:

"I really do not believe the FIA can win the appeal on the grounds they have said," Symonds said, "but if they do then we really have to start to relook at the definition of what a racing car is - its suspension, everything.

"If the FIA choose to interpret in the particular manner they are doing now, then there are many, many other parts on the car open to interpretation.

"It's quite obvious that they (the FIA) never understood the system. Because you can't change your mind about something factual. If someone's shirt is blue, it's blue. You can't have that as an opinion."

[Ctrl300 0]

Ulrik, you can make the new technology of 'mass dampers' mean anything. The system narain fan has described is a permutation of the Renault technology. In it's simplest terms, a mass damper limits the vertical movement of the chassis in relation to the centerpoint of the tyre so that the front wing remains, more or less, at a constant distance from the ground, ensuring a stable amount of downforce. This is what suspension does, ergo, mass dampers are suspension parts.

If you put those dampers on the rear suspension you would not be doing anything near as beneficial as putting them on the front of the car. The rear doesn't tend to skitter as much so the downforce levels remain pretty constant because of that. The system narain_fan is describing is a mutation of the 'mass damper' concept and shouldn't be confused with it.

Thanks Mike. I got a bit confused after reading an article the other day where they said the rear mass damper much had the same effect.

just incase you guys wanna see a virtual working of the mass dampers

go to: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/grafico...ass_damper.html

Cheers for that Blitzkrieg! Although my Spanish 101 was not comprehensible enough for me to understand all the text the visuals helpe me out where I fell short.

BTW, where in Deutchland are you from?

[Blitzkrieg 0]

Cheers for that Blitzkrieg! Although my Spanish 101 was not comprehensible enough for me to understand all the text the visuals helpe me out where I fell short.

BTW, where in Deutchland are you from?

lol i found that site on bbc's five live, and ill try to find a similar english one. Im from Berlin, but currently in Uberlingen

[Ctrl300 0]

lol i found that site on bbc's five live, and ill try to find a similar english one. Im from Berlin, but currently in Uberlingen

Berlin is a very good city. I've only been twice, but it really should count as once as I spent a weekend in the vault at Tresor

[tifosi too! 0]

It only has an aerodynamic effect because it keeps the nose from bouncing up and down. This has the result of keeping the front wing at an even distance from the ground, providing a more reliable amount of low-pressure under the front wing elements. This, as you probably know, creates downforce.

Mass dampers are simply a weight-system attached to the suspension to prevent the car's tendency to skitter and bounce. They are suspension parts. Are we clear yet? Good. Now if we are banning suspension parts because the affect the aerodynamics on a car, we need to ban the upper and lower wishbones.

Those wishbones are shaped like airfoils, instead of cylinders, to eliminate the drag that exists behind a cylinder. Should we ban them as well, considering they move? Hell, unlike the dampers, the wishbones are actual moving aero-parts because they are actually in the airflow.

C'mon, man, take a stand and do some investigating! Are you so low in your life that you think you cannot possibly understand these concepts? Of course you can! Here's a good site to start you off:

F1Technical.net

There are plenty more sites out there, but start with that one.

I think you are seriously losing it...

[cavallino 2]

Take note of how the mass dampers work and also take note of the term 'moveable aerodynamic device' as used by the FIA. The weight is not connected so it is deemed a movable device that affects the aero. True enough, but is is covered by the 'movable aerodynamic' regulation? No. That regulation was written to ban sliding skirt technology. It was used by the FIA to get rid of a technology that they didn't want in F1. Fine. But I was objecting to the incorrect use of the regulations to ban this device.

You are quoting a really old article. You obviously missed Pat's quotes later when he said he has full faith in the FIA court's decision? What is your response to Nick Fry's quote posted earlier? I'll post it again for your benefit:

NF: Maybe I will start answering the question in a slightly different way and maybe circle back. We

[Player(1) 0]

Honda suddenly become more competative with mass damper's banned and Fry says its a good decision....2+2=4

Twin chassis car's are the pinnacle of damper theory, theory seems to be what they are banning it on even if the theory is completely impractical and never leaves the sheet of a technical drawing.

An F1 car's suspension does work to cancel vibration which inturn effects aero and it is directly in the air flow aswell. keel, wishbone, etc. all of much more importance according to the FIA's interpritation. They used sloppy interpritations to make sure they could ban Renaults mass damper's while stopping other team's theory's.

[Autumnpuma 0]

How can you predict that the wishbones would affect aero more than any proposed uses of the mass dampers that noone knows about, not even people in the sport, forget you?

Are you kidding me? The upper and lower front wishbones are suspension parts that are shaped like airfoils to reduce drag. They move. They are, under the article quoted, MOVABLE AERO, and yet the FIA allows them. And as for affecting the aero MORE, who the hell cares to what degree it affects the aero? If it's movable, then it should be banned.

EDIT.

The issue is not Renault running a mass damper in the nose, the issue is their use all over the car

Then ban it's use all over the car and not on the nose, where IT CLEARLY ISN'T AN AERO BIT.

We keep coming back to the front end damper - that is not the issue, the front end dampers have been in use by Renault for a while.

Then why ban them? Common sense tells us that you ban what devices that go against the rules and keep those that conform. The mass dampers as used by Renault, conform to the rules. Ban any derivitive technology if you wish, but not a legal system.

and there with the limited knowledge we have, you cannot, simply cannot convincingly argue that they would have no impact on the aero and as such you cannot fault the FIa's decision in banning them, especially after the verdict by the FIA court of appeal.

The system as used by Renault is well documented and founded on basic engineering principles.

As for impact on the aero, of course they have impact! They have the same impact that a softer suspension would have on a bumpy track, i.e. to make the car 'jump' less and provide an even distance from the ground to the undertray. If mass dampers are banned for this, then you have to ban the suspension too! Of course you can't do that, so you also cant ban the dampers.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Honda suddenly become more competative with mass damper's banned and Fry says its a good decision....2+2=4

Twin chassis car's are the pinnacle of damper theory, theory seems to be what they are banning it on even if the theory is completely impractical and never leaves the sheet of a technical drawing.

An F1 car's suspension does work to cancel vibration which inturn effects aero and it is directly in the air flow aswell. keel, wishbone, etc. all of much more importance according to the FIA's interpritation. They used sloppy interpritations to make sure they could ban Renaults mass damper's while stopping other team's theory's.

Your sound analysis proves that there is still some intelligence left on this forum. I would suggest you stop trying to convince Cav of anything here. Simply realize that he's the ultimate tifosi, willing to ignore the principles of physics and common sense if it benefits Ferrari, and to a lesser degree, the FIA. I suppose he also believes that the ugly wheel coverings only improve brake cooling and have no aerodynamic effect.....

[narain fan 0]

Your sound analysis proves that there is still some intelligence left on this forum.

this is sound analysis because it is ok with you

No, the problem with me is I have greater knowledge than you, and most of the posters here. That looks, to you, like I know nothing, but in fact I'm trying like hell to educate you, and others (to no avail). Please do not think that since you are in a second-rate University in a third-world country that you are getting a proper education. You are not. And if you're in a good University, then perhaps you got there under a quota system?

you clearly are no better than Bajo39 who claimed that any team with "Indian" ENgineers is dangerous..

you mate have losty a lot of respect ,(when you preach something so vociferously and fail to practise it ,then you make a mockery of your preachings).

The issue is not Renault running a mass damper in the nose, the issue is their use all over the car

Then ban it's use all over the car and not on the nose, where IT CLEARLY ISN'T AN AERO BIT.[/b]

We keep coming back to the front end damper - that is not the issue, the front end dampers have been in use by Renault for a while.

as he correctly points out no team uses its wishbones or suspension devices near its fuel tank,when used near its fuel tank then the system is Ban worthy (that is what u urself implied) ,so howcome the front end damper not be banned ..

a rape is a rape ,whether extramarital or not. very difficult to understand, isnt it even more so if you spend half of your time ridiculing the other poster ...

Try taking a physics class at that University of yours and perhaps you'll get answers to these things that YOU cannot understand.

you have lost it ...

[Autumnpuma 0]

EDIT.

[narain fan 0]

The front end damper should not be banned because it's a suspension part, you moron!!

then will it be suspension if it is mounted in the front wing endplates or rear wing ...

The fact is it is not part of the suspension ,that is how mclaren see it ,Fia see it ,court of appeal sees it ...

that is why Ron(mclaren) was th one to officially launch a protest,and ron said in an interview that "Our Suspension does the work that the mass damper does for the renault" (paraphrase ,of course)

so it wsa only logical for mclaren to protest ,coz they had worked for a year fine tuning their zero keel suspension and renault put a devise that provides aero benefits and claim it to be "Suspension" when it clearlyis not .

[Autumnpuma 0]

then will it be suspension if it is mounted in the front wing endplates or rear wing ...

The fact is it is not part of the suspension ,that is how mclaren see it ,Fia see it ,court of appeal sees it ...

that is why Ron(mclaren) was th one to officially launch a protest,and ron said in an interview that "Our Suspension does the work that the mass damper does for the renault" (paraphrase ,of course)

so it wsa only logical for mclaren to protest ,coz they had worked for a year fine tuning their zero keel suspension and renault put a devise that provides aero benefits and claim it to be "Suspension" when it clearlyis not .

It's suspension that works differently from the McLaren's but it is still suspension. Do I have to explain to you what constitutes suspension again? Do you realize that ALL suspension does two jobs on a car? The first is to keep the car stable over bumpy surfaces, which affects the aero as I've explained earlier, and the second is to keep the tyres in constant contact with the road surface. Suspension, by it's very nature, is a 'mass' damper, as it dampens the movement of the 'mass' of a car!

The FIA see what they want and it isn't always based on fact. McLaren see what is in the best interests of McLaren, so too Nick Fry and Honda.

[narain fan 0]

The FIA see what they want and it isn't always based on fact. McLaren see what is in the best interests of McLaren, so too Nick Fry and Honda.

Finally you got the point i was trying to convey,that Renault(and pat symonds) see what is in their best interest ,and not what actually constitutes a suspension ...

[Autumnpuma 0]

EDIT.

[cavallino 2]

No, the problem with me is I have greater knowledge than you, and most of the posters here. That looks, to you, like I know nothing, but in fact I'm trying like hell to educate you, and others (to no avail). Please do not think that since you are in a second-rate University in a third-world country that you are getting a proper education. You are not. And if you're in a good University, then perhaps you got there under a quota system?

What an outrageously absurd response. Do you have nothing better to respond with than the thesis of the ilk of Rudyard Kipling and Winston Churchill. Why did you step out of you protected little cocoon where you can pretend the world revolves around America and enter a forum where the ignorant masses have a say? You've lived among people who look up to you, and you could never absorb the fact that there can be people with equally well formed political opinions that are contrary to everything you believe in, now the same comes through here, everyone who dares disagree with you does so because they haven't been to an Ivy League School. Can't you find a first world exclusive motorsports forum somewhere, why did you have to land up here with your prehistoric colonial supremacist attitude, why don't you join some missionary organisation and try to enlighten the less fortunate, since you are so inclined. I want nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the likes of you.

[Autumnpuma 0]

What an outrageously absurd response. Do you have nothing better to respond with than the thesis of the ilk of Rudyard Kipling and Winston Churchill. Why did you step out of you protected little cocoon where you can pretend the world revolves around America and enter a forum where the ignorant masses have a say? You've lived among people who look up to you, and you could never absorb the fact that there can be people with equally well formed political opinions that are contrary to everything you believe in, now the same comes through here, everyone who dares disagree with you does so because they haven't been to an Ivy School. Can't you find a first world exclusive motorsports forum somewhere, why did you have to land up here with your prehistoric colonial supremacist attitude, why don't you join some missionary organisation and try to enlighten the less fortunate, since you are so inclined. I want nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the likes of you.

EDIT: Easy now, I sincerely apologize for antagonizing you. I actually don't believe what I previously said about you or the Indian educational system (though parts of your nation are still third-world---but if you ever go to Alabama, perhaps you will see parts of America are too ). You p!ssed me off when you said I pretend to know more than I do, so I thought to p!ss you off in return. Pretty immature of me; I should know better.