FIA bans innovative damper system

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Ignis Fatuus
Ignis Fatuus
0
Joined: 13 Mar 2006, 22:54
Location: Czech Republic

FIA bans innovative damper system

Post

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."
“It’s frustrating, but we had the pace. It wasn’t bad luck. It was a reflection of our intensity of development.” - Ron Dennis

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Post

:shock: thats to bad it seems like an inovation that could possibly make it to passenger cars and i doubt it was that hard to develop

oh well all in the name of progress errr racing err i give up

Ignis Fatuus
Ignis Fatuus
0
Joined: 13 Mar 2006, 22:54
Location: Czech Republic

Post

They that say that it was more beneficial for Michelin runners because of the tyre characteristics.
Michelin's rubber has a more compliant structure than the Bridgestone, meaning there is more benefit to be gained from damping out tyre bouncing than there is in the Japanese rubber.
“It’s frustrating, but we had the pace. It wasn’t bad luck. It was a reflection of our intensity of development.” - Ron Dennis

zac510
zac510
22
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 12:58

Post

flynfrog wrote::shock: thats to bad it seems like an inovation that could possibly make it to passenger cars and i doubt it was that hard to develop

oh well all in the name of progress errr racing err i give up
Road cars have had stuff like this for years.

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Post

zac510 wrote:
flynfrog wrote::shock: thats to bad it seems like an inovation that could possibly make it to passenger cars and i doubt it was that hard to develop

oh well all in the name of progress errr racing err i give up
Road cars have had stuff like this for years.
im not aware of any do you have an example

User avatar
m3_lover
0
Joined: 26 Jan 2006, 07:29
Location: St.Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Post

The concept was first used in the the Citroen 2CV in the late 1940s and was designed to reduce wheel patter, vertical oscillation of the wheels caused by the tyres. More recently, however, the same basic concept has been used in architectural design to reduce resonance created by wind or earthquakes.
Simon: Nils? You can close in now. Nils?
John McClane: [on the guard's phone] Attention! Attention! Nils is dead! I repeat, Nils is dead, ----head. So's his pal, and those four guys from the East German All-Stars, your boys at the bank? They're gonna be a little late.
Simon: [on the phone] John... in the back of the truck you're driving, there's $13 billon dollars worth in gold bullion. I wonder would a deal be out of the question?
John McClane: [on the phone] Yeah, I got a deal for you. Come out from that rock you're hiding under, and I'll drive this truck up your ass.

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

Such convoluted logic gives me great concern in exactly where the FIA is going, or what planet they are on.
The original rule to limit moveable aero devices has been so perverted and twisted by this ruling that it makes NASCAR rules look logical and sane.
If you apply this line of thinking, and have an underbody exhaust sytem, then it too would affect the aero characteristics of the car. So should you make exhaust valves illegal if the exhaust has any affect on the aero balance? Go figure.

RH1300S
RH1300S
1
Joined: 06 Jun 2005, 15:29

Post

Where's Manchild when you need him :D :twisted:

My gut reaction is....of all the things to ban, this is NOT one of them. It's a really clever, simple mechanical solution to a problem.

Surely they should be keeping stuff that helps with mechanical grip and looking at the aero stuff (as ever).

The best bit - wait for it.........I can't believe it. The reason given is that it comes under the heading 'moveable aerodynamic devices' :roll:

Jeez, if I believed in conspiracies I would really see this one as playing ot the Bridgestone teams (any in particular? despite the fact they have such a device.....)
Last edited by RH1300S on 20 Jul 2006, 17:01, edited 1 time in total.

Ignis Fatuus
Ignis Fatuus
0
Joined: 13 Mar 2006, 22:54
Location: Czech Republic

Post

DaveKillens wrote:Such convoluted logic gives me great concern in exactly where the FIA is going, or what planet they are on.
The original rule to limit moveable aero devices has been so perverted and twisted by this ruling that it makes NASCAR rules look logical and sane.
If you apply this line of thinking, and have an underbody exhaust sytem, then it too would affect the aero characteristics of the car. So should you make exhaust valves illegal if the exhaust has any affect on the aero balance? Go figure.
And what about the wheels??? :o
“It’s frustrating, but we had the pace. It wasn’t bad luck. It was a reflection of our intensity of development.” - Ron Dennis

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Post

m3_lover wrote:The concept was first used in the the Citroen 2CV in the late 1940s and was designed to reduce wheel patter, vertical oscillation of the wheels caused by the tyres. More recently, however, the same basic concept has been used in architectural design to reduce resonance created by wind or earthquakes.
cool i knew they used it in buildings id never heard of it in a car

mcdenife
mcdenife
1
Joined: 05 Nov 2004, 13:21
Location: Timbuck2

Post

m3, you should credit or quote your source. Another quote from granprix.com:
The rules state that all parts of the car must be "rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car" and "must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car". The FIA has concluded that weights inside the dampers cannot be acceptable.
I have not reviewed the regs yet but I have to say this is another example of the FIA stifling inovation (or use thereof).
Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regards to matters requiring thought. The less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them; while on the other hand, to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgement upon anything new. - Galileo..

The noblest of dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.

User avatar
johny
0
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 09:06
Location: Spain

Post

as said before, that sounds stupid. If you want to ban it just do it but don't say it's a moving aero device, it isn't. If you go that way you can also ban steering wheels or driver helmets

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Mates, I do not know if I am reading too much into this, but they do not call the dampers aerodynamic devices. FIA says they "influence" the aerodynamic behaviour. Those are two different things.

Actually, I can't see how they influence it. Any ideas? Besides than the one that the wings are not "fluttering" over kerbs because the mass dampers keep them horizontal... If this is the reason, they could forbid regular dampers.

Oh, and BTW (I think I should open a thread on this, I had no comments last time I posted this same thing): have you heard of the Bose suspension? I'd bet springs and dampers are as good as dead and we'll have one in our cars around 2020...

Image

Mass dampers are an old, old, old technology and totally necessary on sky scrapers. I've seen the water sloshing around toilets on the Empire State building, and it was not a windy day... imagine what it can do to your "aim". :wink:
Ciro

zac510
zac510
22
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 12:58

Post

You can't say it doesn't have an influence aerodynamically.. but it sets a horrendous precedent.

Frenchblock
Frenchblock
0
Joined: 30 Mar 2006, 03:59

Post

aero influences at low speed? where?

aerodynamics start to woks over 100kms /h!

dampers are to limit vibrations while pushing kerbs!