Why ban the mass damper?

[wesley123]

didnt the mass damper actually active change the effective weight distribution? Ifso it is illegal lol.

[Just_a_fan]

The mass damper has an aero effect and therefore was banned accordingly. But then the suspension has an aero effect too by the same logic.

I think I know why they banned it but I didn't agree with the ban.

[vall]

The mass damper has an aero effect and therefore was banned accordingly. But then the suspension has an aero effect too by the same logic.

I think I know why they banned it but I didn't agree with the ban.

what aero effect did it have? What do you call aero effect BTW? For me it is if it changes the grag, DF levels, etc. I do not see how the change of the effective mass distribution is an aero effect?

[Just_a_fan]

The mass damper has an aero effect and therefore was banned accordingly. But then the suspension has an aero effect too by the same logic.

I think I know why they banned it but I didn't agree with the ban.

what aero effect did it have? What do you call aero effect BTW? For me it is if it changes the grag, DF levels, etc. I do not see how the change of the effective mass distribution is an aero effect?

It's tenuous which is why I mentioned the suspension as also being aero effective.

From memory, the mass damper allowed the car to run aero-optimised suspension (particularly related to pitch) whilst still being good at dealing with bumps e.g. kerbs. Thus it was considered to be a device the principle intent of which was to maximise aero performance. As it wasn't rigidly fixed as required by the rules it was deemed illegal - I think that was also used as evidence of it being 'unsafe' and thus the FIA could use its 'safety issue' rules to ban it.

Additional:

From Pascal Vasselon, Toyota’s senior chassis manager, quoted at http://www.formula1latest.com/category/mass-dampers/

Mass damping is one of the critical things that engineers have to sort out. We are forced to use stiff suspensions to maintain a stable aerodynamic platform. And, on the tyre side, we use low pressure for grip. So it means we put stiff suspension on top of very soft tyres and that causes a lot of problems. The combination means that at some frequencies the suspension is locked and the car is effectively bouncing on the tyres, which are not damped. The mass damper is one of the possibilities to control the frequency.

From our side, we disregarded this because we considered it to be moving ballast, which is not allowed. Our development focused on suspension and another route that, for us, was more in line with the regulations. The mass damper is not an innovation, it is well known in engineering. It was actually used on the Citroen 2CV to counteract wheel hop! The question was: do we apply it to F1 or not? I would say it is obviously borderline. But then we also believe the issue of – it should be banned for the future, but it has been accepted, so why ban it in the middle of the season? Let’s wait the end of the season – will be answered by the International Court of Appeal very soon. That’s probably the true question that has to be answered.”

[gridwalker]

From Pascal Vasselon, Toyota’s senior chassis manager, quoted at http://www.formula1latest.com/category/mass-dampers/

... From our side, we disregarded this because we considered it to be moving ballast, which is not allowed.

THANK YOU : I have been saying for years that I would have accepted the mass damper ban if it had been implemented using movable ballast rules and it is great to finally see a quote from someone in the sport that validates my opinion ... even some of the folk on this board slated my opinion when I put it on record!

[SiLo]

I'm pretty sure that it is the only logical reason you could ban it. It was a moving part and a ballast at that which moves, changing the centre of gravity. However, it can be claimed it is just a damper, something the suspension already has, but this applies critical damping, creating a much smoother ride and meaning the ride height will be more consistent.

[xpensive]

Because Ferrari couldn't make it work!

[DaveKillens]

Because Ferrari couldn't make it work!

Considering that when the mass damper was banned, Renault and Ferrari were battling for the title. Back then Ferrari had more pull with the powers in FIA, and it just takes a simple pencil to connect the dots.

[xpensive]

Because Ferrari couldn't make it work!

Considering that when the mass damper was banned, Renault and Ferrari were battling for the title. Back then Ferrari had more pull with the powers in FIA, and it just takes a simple pencil to connect the dots.

Moreover, at the time of the ban, the Renault system had already been submitted to the FIA and Charlie Whiting for approval twice, for use in the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

And been declared perfectly legal on both occations.

[FW17]

But I always thought that it was Ron Dennis/McLaren who filed for the clarification and ferrari already had a their mass damper system working.

Mclaren had the mass damper system out of the picture so that that could have a clear advantage with their Inerter/J-damper

[ReubenG]

The so-called "mass damper" is just a vibration absorber. The spring rate and moving mass are adjusted to have a particular natural frequency. This frequency is chosen to match that of an undesirable forcing excitation - in this case, I suspect it is the pitch frequency of the car. The matching of frequencies causes the amplitude of vibration of the moving mass to be relatively large (but known) while reducing the amplitude of the base to which it is attached. So the pitching of the car is reduced, which has a tangible benefit for aerodynamics.

The concept is used when large machinery is subjected to a a forced excitation of known frequency, to reduce the vibration of the base. It is also applied in "earthquake dampers" in buildings if I am not mistaken.

[xpensive]

You are of course correct ReubenG, but the most hilarious part was the official reason for banning it, as being a "a movable aerodynamic device", which was the best the FIA could come up with.

[DaveW]

The so-called "mass damper" is just a vibration absorber. The spring rate and moving mass are adjusted to have a particular natural frequency. This frequency is chosen to match that of an undesirable forcing excitation - in this case, I suspect it is the pitch frequency of the car. The matching of frequencies causes the amplitude of vibration of the moving mass to be relatively large (but known) while reducing the amplitude of the base to which it is attached. So the pitching of the car is reduced, which has a tangible benefit for aerodynamics.

Apologies for wading in.... Your explanation is correct, Reuben, but your conclusion is not (but understandable). The pitch mode of an F1 vehicle has a natural frequency of between 9 & 10 Hz., but a TMD attached to the front axle of an F1 vehicle must be tuned to a frequency of around 7 Hz to be effective. My guess is that Ferrari followed your logic, which caused them to complain loudly that the TMD worked for Michelin tyres, but not for Bridgestones. That complaint was the reason it was banned (IMO).

So.. what did a (correctly tuned) TMD bring to the party? It helped to "balance" heat input to the tyres (increasing front & reducing rear). This meant that the c.g. & c.p. could be moved aft, thus improving traction out of low speed corners. It also improved mechanical "grip" overall.

[marcush.]

just a quick question there:
would a hammer shaped piece of ballast (or integral part of the monocoque)acting as
a mass damper be legal?,no moving parts ,just not stiff enough..

[DaveW]

would a hammer shaped piece of ballast (or integral part of the monocoque)acting as a mass damper be legal?,no moving parts ,just not stiff enough..

It would. Just a question of efficiency. The force generated by a TMD is proportional to mass & acceleration (Newton says). Hence more stroke = less mass for a given force. How to cantilever your "hammer" so that it can use the full depth of the nose box without fatiguing its "handle"?

Incidentally, The moving mass of a TMD was totally enclosed in a container hard bolted to the nose, just as the moving pistons in an engine are totally enclosed. Are engine pistons considered to be "moving ballast"?