Mass Dampers - Illegal!

[Lee]

Story.

Well that's blown Renault's chances up a bit, time for a new front end of their car perhaps?

Your thoughts?

 

[Pink_the_Floyd]

Toyota's introducing a new front wing this weekend aswell...

 

[F1GTR]

They use those in skyscrapers right? (albeit on a much larger scale)

 

[Kylehnat]

I still don't get why that mass-damper is a moveable aerodynamic device. I don't think this hurts Renault a whole lot. If they're smart, they would have already completely abandoned it and developed something else in the six weeks since they stopped using it.

I think it's rather stupid that the FIA cronies can arbitrarily outlaw random parts in the middle of the season. If they approve a part prior to the season, it should be legal through the entire season. If they ultimately decide that it does not fit within the regulations, any ban should start the next season. I'm sure every car on the grid has a borderline-legal part that, if taken away, would severely hamper performance. It's not fair to teams to do that in the middle of the season.

 

[Brett]

I agree with kylehnat on this one. Both on Renault should have been developing something new and that the FIA can randomly ban parts on one of the cars.

 

[Dougboy]

Can anybody explain to me how exactly a mass damper works? I know how they work on tall buildings but where and how does it work on the renault?

 

[wfooshee]

Can anybody explain to me how exactly a mass damper works? I know how they work on tall buildings but where and how does it work on the renault?

A weight is free to move inside a fluid cavity. The container is rigidly attached to the chassis. Vibrations are imparted to the container, but the weight in the viscous fluid acts like a shock absorber, its inertia resisting movement of the container because the fluid slows its movement inside the container. Without the viscous fluid it would be a rattle, with the fluid it's a damper.

As for the ruling, here's 3.15, refered to as the section being violated:

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) and the ducts
described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any
degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the
ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block
in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

Apparently they are saying that the fact that the weight is free inside the device violates the "rigidly secured" clause. Apparently they are also completely ignoring the fact that such restriction applies only to devices with "aerodynamic influence." If that distinction is not being made, then all existing suspensions are illegal. Even if you went to rigid suspensions, the fact that the tires can roll would then be illegal, as they can't roll if they're rigidly attached.
How a device buried inside the chassis can be said to have "aerodynamic influence" is beyond me.

 

[Kylehnat]

the fact that the tires can roll would then be illegal, as they can't roll if they're rigidly attached.

If you want to go there, you could also argue that the flexing sidewall of tire is a moveable aerodynamic device. It certainly changes the shape of the frontal area while cornering .

 

[wfooshee]

It looks like they're saying that the effect of the damper is a "positive aerodynamic influence," which is, of course, the point. By holding the chassis in a more stable condition, the wings work better. However, every stinking piece on the car is meant to hold it in a more stable position. That does not make every stinking piece on the car an aerodynamic device.

A device with "aerodynamic influence" is something affected by airflow, not something that affects something affected by airflow. There's a degree of separation that's being arbitrarily ignored. Like I said earlier, if you're going to ignore that degree of separation, then the cars themselves cannot be made legal to race. The pedals are movable. So is the steering wheel. Hey, how about that crankshaft thingie in the back? Each of these has the same one-degree-removed affect on aero performance.

The device stabilizes the chassis, which in turn improves the car's aerodynamic performance. Not debated.

The device is not directly affected by airflow, therefore cannot be construed to have aerodynamic influnce. Evidently we are to believe that this statement is NOT true.

 

[red70mach1]

This sucks. I see it more as a chassis dynamic device as opposed to aero.

 

[niky]

Ah... the bitter pill of legality... I just can't wait till they ban Ferrari's winglets... although that's one form of cheating that's entirely legal under the rules.

It's a really bad blow to Renault. That one race wherein they didn't use the dampers just went horribly, horribly wrong. Is this banned for the Turkey session?

 

[GilesGuthrie]

The appeal ruling upholds the pre-Germany ruling, so yes, the mass-dampers are banned immediately.

I can see the FIA's point. Mass-dampers are clearly designed to optimise the stability of the aerodynamic platform, and thus are an aerodynamic device. Of course, they should have just banned it on safety grounds, saying that they did not like the idea of unsecured weights flying around so close to the drivers' feet.

 

[Blake]

These should have been banned when they were introduced last year, or not at all.

By banning them at this late stage (when they had decided they were legal 9 months ago) they make it look like:

• They are manipulating the championship to up T.V. figures if it goes down to the wire, or
• Their technical department hasn’t got a clue, and did not understand the implications of mass dampers when they allowed them in the first place.

Either way it is not a good look for F1.

 

[Small_Fryz]

how heavy are they?

 

[wfooshee]

Mass-dampers are clearly designed to optimise the stability of the aerodynamic platform, and thus are an aerodynamic device.

That's what they're trying ot say, but saying it doesn't make it so, any more than saying the sky is pink makes it pink. Everything on the car is designed as much as possible to stabilize the entire platform. That doesn't make any device on the car an aero device.

"Influencing the aerodynamic performance" is NOT the same as having "aerodynamic influence." To have aerodynamic influence, a device must be in the airstream.

If the FIA has a problem with the weight in the damper being unsprung weight but not part of the suspension, then they need to address it on those grounds. Calling it an aero device because it stabilizes the car is no different than calling the suspension dampers aero devices. If they were, they'd be illegal. There's no difference aerodynamically between the mass damper and the suspension dampers, yet the FIA bans one but not the other on aero grounds.

I think you could make a case that it violates the ballast rule, though:

4.2 Ballast :
Ballast can be used provided it is secured in such a way that tools are required for its removal. It must be
possible to fix seals if deemed necessary by the FIA technical delegate.

 

[Pupik]

Is this "mass damper" similar to the system devised by Colin Chapman for the Lotus 88 (minus the ground effects, of course)?

Just curious.

 

[Scaff]

I've been spending the last half hour or so having a good look at the applications that Tuned Mass Dampers can be put to, now while info on the use of TMD's in motorsport are very hard to come by, info on TMD application in structural engineering is easy to come by.

A quick google search using the terms "Tuned Mass Damper Aerodynamic" yields some very interesting results, its seems that TMD's are commonly used to assist in ensureing the aerodynamic stability of all manner of building, despite being located inside the building.

If this is the case (and it certainly would appear to be) and Renault have adapted this practice to their car, then it certainly could be argued that it does violate section 3.15. In that it is a component that affects the aero balance of the car and is not fully fixed.

BTW in relation to a point raised above about the rest of the suspension components and wheels/tyres, these are not covered by 3.15 as they are not permitted to have an aerodynamic influence, i.e. they are not permitted to actively provide downforce in any way, having to either reduce it or be neutral at best. This rather wierd status is well decribed in the book The Chariot Makers - Building the ultimate F1 car by Steve Matchett (good choice of holiday read).

I would however agree that it is rather strange of the FIA to 'suddenly' deside to rule them illegal, particularly as its quite open knowledge that Renault designed the car to work in harmony with the TMD's and the removal of they seriously hampers the car. While Ferrari (who have also used them) designed the car with a conventional set-up and added TMD's afterwards, and as such its not as hampered by the removal.

Regards

Scaff

edited to add

Is this "mass damper" similar to the system devised by Colin Chapman for the Lotus 88 (minus the ground effects, of course)?

Just curious.

I would certainly seem to be a similar concept, not a tuned mass damper, but certainly working along the same idea. Chapman well ahead of his time yet again.

 

[daan]

I still don't understand how the FIA appointed stewards can rule them legal, the FIA then appeal against the decision of it's own stewards and get the damper banned. How can that work?

Surely that's like me arguing with myself. No, it's not. Yes, it is...

And I still maintain that Coulthard's chin is a moveable aerodynamic device.

 

[Scaff]

I still don't understand how the FIA appointed stewards can rule them legal, the FIA then appeal against the decision of it's own stewards and get the damper banned. How can that work?

Surely that's like me arguing with myself. No, it's not. Yes, it is...

And I still maintain that Coulthard's chin is a moveable aerodynamic device.

I would not disagree that the manner in which this has been handled is not great (but then again plenty of other series interfere to keep competition even - the JGTC/Super GT series are quite open about doing it, often banning aero parts mid-season to keep the racing tight).

I think that some of the confusion around this is that TMD's do not provide a direct aero benefit, but rather increase aerodynamic stability almost as a secondary effect.

Its a grey area, and why teams have argued that they do not break the regs on moving parts providing an aero benefit (such as tyres/wheels and suspension as mentioned above. The jury is still out on 'crazy Dave's' chin).

They do however it would appear increase stability under aerodynamic load (and thats quite different to a direct aero benefit) and as they are not 'fixed' the FIA now claim they break the regs.

Regards

Scaff

 

[the Interceptor]

They are manipulating the championship to up T.V. figures if it goes down to the wire

That's the reason if you ask me. Slow down Renault, so Ferrari catches up, and everybody watches the last few races to see who will make it.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Anybody know how much weight these mass dampers were?

 

[Kylehnat]

Not more than a few kilos each, I'd assume. They weren't massive parts.

 

[YIN]

how do active suspension ,traction control,and abs work on f1 car???they said williams fw14,14b was the most advance on the grid???

 

[Pupik]

how do active suspension ,traction control,and abs work on f1 car???they said williams fw14,14b was the most advance on the grid???

The was the pinnacle of F1 technology for it's time: Traction control, active suspension, semi-automatic transmission, power steering, ABS were all part of the Renault-powered car from 1991 to 1993. Many of these "drivers aids" were banned at the end of the '93 season, the notable exception being the automatic gearboxes (saved more engines than damaged them, once the troubles were worked out of them, since drivers couldn't miss shifts as easily), and traction control, which was extremely difficult to enforce in terms of technical regulations. I think the FIA eventually allowed them back in various forms around mid-2000.

These car may not have the same technology as the early-1990s, but they have different forms of technology now that wasn't available nor explored at the time with since further changes in regulations.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Anybody know how much weight these mass dampers were?

9-11 kilos. Nobody outside of the teams really knows.

 

[Metar]

I would not disagree that the manner in which this has been handled is not great (but then again plenty of other series interfere to keep competition even - the JGTC/Super GT series are quite open about doing it, often banning aero parts mid-season to keep the racing tight).

I think that some of the confusion around this is that TMD's do not provide a direct aero benefit, but rather increase aerodynamic stability almost as a secondary effect.

Its a grey area, and why teams have argued that they do not break the regs on moving parts providing an aero benefit (such as tyres/wheels and suspension as mentioned above. The jury is still out on 'crazy Dave's' chin).

They do however it would appear increase stability under aerodynamic load (and thats quite different to a direct aero benefit) and as they are not 'fixed' the FIA now claim they break the regs.

Regards

Scaff

So basically, they're not creating downforce, not creating drag, nor improving the effects of various aero parts, but rather simply soften vibrations and changes in the aero-part performance due to changes in wind-speed or drafting?

And I still maintain that Coulthard's chin is a moveable aerodynamic device.

It is certainly not attached in a way that devices are needed in order to remove it...

 

[Scaff]

So basically, they're not creating downforce, not creating drag, nor improving the effects of various aero parts, but rather simply soften vibrations and changes in the aero-part performance due to changes in wind-speed or drafting?

Yes but thats not what the FIA has banned them for.

When a car (or anything) experiences aerodynamic loading, the loading has a frequency. You can see this in footage of old suspension bridges when wind hits them (aerodynamic loading) at a certain speed and angle, the start to resonate and move more and more violently.

The same happens to a cars structure under aerodynamic loading and the mass dampers have a benefit of reducing or even cancelling this. With tuned mass dampers (as Renault used) they are set to cope with certain specific frequencies, so if you know when these are giving you problems you can reduce them.

This certainly meets the term "influencing its aerodynamic performance" found in section 3.15 of the FIA tech regs, and the system also 'moves' and as such they banned it.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Metar]

Yes but thats not what the FIA has banned them for.

When a car (or anything) experiences aerodynamic loading, the loading has a frequency. You can see this in footage of old suspension bridges when wind hits them (aerodynamic loading) at a certain speed and angle, the start to resonate and move more and more violently.

The same happens to a cars structure under aerodynamic loading and the mass dampers have a benefit of reducing or even cancelling this. With tuned mass dampers (as Renault used) they are set to cope with certain specific frequencies, so if you know when these are giving you problems you can reduce them.

This certainly meets the term "influencing its aerodynamic performance" found in section 3.15 of the FIA tech regs, and the system also 'moves' and as such they banned it.

Regards

Scaff

I expirienced those kind of (I think that kind of) vibrations on a hanging-bridge... wondered what those were from.

So basically, it's like a pillow, that acts to make a smooth average of the downforce, which is pretty uneven? I mean, take a the reading of, say, water-height during slight wind, at a single, 1cm diameter spot. It'll output a graph that contains many, many curves. Now basically, this TMD thing soften and slows down the vibration (equal, I suppose, to those waves), rendering it almost inexistant, resulting in somthing like an "average", which is then the downforce working on the car, right?

 

[Blake]

It basically stops the car itself from vibrating, which gives it an aerodynamic profile that does not move as much, and thus, delivers more downforce more of the time.

It does what any other damping system does, only more effectively.

 

[Metar]

So by slowing/eliminating the vibrations, less drag is created, and since the air flows smoother, the downforce maximises? Neat idea... Too bad they banned it.