"It is a bit like mass dampers, where its first use was fairly benign when it came to aerodynamics. But the more it got developed the more extreme the designs were. There were four, five, six mass dampers on the car, and they were clearly being used for aero reasons."
C Whiting
I always thought it was one big unit at the front of the Renault. Who was using multi-able units and where might have they been positioned?
hardingfv32 wrote:"It is a bit like mass dampers, where its first use was fairly benign when it came to aerodynamics. But the more it got developed the more extreme the designs were. There were four, five, six mass dampers on the car, and they were clearly being used for aero reasons."
C Whiting
Rubbish, if I may say so.... The ban had much to do with Ferrari's claim that they didn't work with Bridgestone tyres. That was also rubbish. The most likely reason was that Ferrari failed to tune them to the correct frequency.
hardingfv32 wrote:Do you recall anyone using more than one mass damper and where were they located?
I believe that more than one team tried two, one attached to the nose box bulkhead & the other close to the rear axle. One worked, the other didn't. Reason? They work most efficiently when there are no other suspension elements, so the sprung & unsprung masses are locked together. That is almost true in heave at the front axle, but not at the rear.
hardingfv32 wrote: They work most efficiently when there are no other suspension elements, so the sprung & unsprung masses are locked together. That is almost true in heave at the front axle, but not at the rear.
Why does it work better on the front?
Is it because the springs are much stiffer?
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
On reflection, I think I should amend on my cavalier "didn't work". I really meant "had no positive effect on vehicle performance".
Setting up and assessing the performance of dynamic absorbers (TMD) is fairly complex, but the simplistic short form is as follows:
A well-suspended vehicle will isolate the sprung mass from road inputs. In other words, high accelerations at the uprights result in low accelerations of the sprung mass. When this is the case, attaching a TMD to the sprung mass is not efficient, because it will have little to work with. Now, the conventional suspension at rear axle of an F1 vehicle is usually quite a good isolator in its own right, & quite unlike the suspension at the front axle. Hence, etc., etc. Incidentally, the front suspension is normally super-stiff only in heave....
For Brian:
1 = TMD Mass.
2 = adjustable TMD stroke limiters (I don't much like the geometry of that arrangement).
3 = attachment to the vehicle & TMD (torsion) spring
4 = bearing & support
5 = TMD damper (or, perhaps, a TMD position transducer)
6 = arb (I guess) - not part of the TMD.
The list of components in the Piola drawings are:-
1. A mass of 3.5 kg
2. Pivot blocks attached to the inside of the gearbox
3. Torsion bar reaction bracket with the torsion bar running through it
4. Rotary damper
5. Potentiometer for data acquisition
6. Locking device used only in testing
Thanks for the confirmations & corrections. I should have recognised the rotary dampers, but I was diverted slightly by the fact that the cutaway shows a linear damper. Also I'm pleased that I was wrong about what I concluded must be stroke limiters. Having said that, I was surprised that the TMD mass was only 3.5 kg. I expected a mass rather more than double that value.
I guess Daves explanation confirms that it would not work in a steel frame little and underpowered formula car... specially the cars I setup, with "way softer than the rest" front suspension.
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio
"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna
I think that is a true statement, Belatti. Putting it very simply, TMD's are an alternative to a conventional suspension. Inerters (J dampers), on the other hand, supplement a conventional suspension. The first won't work (effectively) unless the conventional suspension is locked out, the second won't work if the conventional suspension is locked out.
So... TMD vs conventional suspension (CV) will be no contest. CV will win every time - unless there is another reason for locking out the conventional suspension.
Inerters don't dissipate energy, not intentionally, anyway (hence they are not dampers). They can improve on-track performance, but they do introduce high transient loads, so probably work best in a very stiff host vehicle.
