FIA bans innovative damper system

Ciro Pabón · Post 22 Jul 2006, 02:00

dumrick wrote:Working in the auto industry, I would hardly be convinced by such a system. Suspension is a safety relevant system and that system is all about software and actuators. I prefer by far smart passive systems.

joseff wrote:This thing's been around for years now, with no takers. Unfortunately, being technically superior (think Citroen Hydramatic) doesn't mean everybody will rush out to adopt it.

Thanks, first critics I've heard. Good point, dumrick. After hearing you, I'd say they need some sort of hybrid system, like hydraulic steering does.

Oh, and about the FIA, well.... for a lawyer they are right. After all, part of the dampers is unsprung, and part is unsprung, and both are fixed to body or suspension, while the mass dampers are not.

But you know... I come from a long line of lawyers (I am, probably, the only one that can use a calculator in my entire family) and the motto around my home is "we do not want the law, we want justice"... This is clearly a case of "engineers beat the rules", if I have ever seen one. Well done, mates! FIA simply cannot take defeat, which makes the case even funnier...

Finally, FYI, dumrick should be credited with the idea. This forum posted this on April 18. Less than a month later (correct me if I am wrong) they change the suspension... mmmm.... Manchild surely thinks we are being watched closely...

What do you think, dumrick? (or should I say, Mr. Briatore? You are not fooling us anymore! You gave yourself away when you confessed you "work in the auto industry" and that you prefer "smart" (and cheaper, you tacky old man) suspension systems!).

dumrick · Post 22 Jul 2006, 02:45

Ciro Pabón wrote:What do you think, dumrick? (or should I say, Mr. Briatore? You are not fooling us anymore! You gave yourself away when you confessed you "work in the auto industry" and that you prefer "smart" (and cheaper, you tacky old man) suspension systems!).

Bloody hell, you had to figure me out after more than 400 posts unnoticed!

Well, the Citroën concept didn't address the same issues as the harmonic damper. It sticked with cleverly controlling pitch and dive, in an era when suspension geometry wasn't probably as studied as these days. Far more promising (60 years older, it had to be...) than that system would be the Kinetic in some kind of mass-production version. You know, it's easy to stop thinking of geometries, compromises, stiffness, damping, getting some fast (and expensive) calculators and actuators and software-design it to be perfect in all conditions. The hard part is is to make it light, cheap and, furthermore, reliable, for your costumers never to find themselves with one wheel on the air due to "software malfunction" or "cross-wires" or "actuator failure".

And I'm really a mech engineer, not only by studies, but at heart. I think that electrics and electronics are great to do what a mechanical system can't achieve, but I still feel safer in a car with good handling than in one with a great ESP... You've given a great example w/ direction systems. The fly-by-wire is still far away for production cars, because, besides being illegal, nobody wants to face the reaction of the market after the first fail... electronics may be a wild animal and you may conceive all the tests imaginable, you'll never be sure of it working properly in more than 99,99% of the cases. Only safety lays in redundancy, but also that route is hard to take in a car, because of the added costs, weight, interferences...
And I'm not saying that mechanical systems are 100% reliable, but their behaviour is a lot more predictable, statistically and failure modes more "tameable"...

Now, I must go to bed, my girlfriend Elisabetta Gregoraci is getting impatient...

Ciro Pabón · Post 22 Jul 2006, 05:07

dumrick wrote:The fly-by-wire is still far away for production cars, because, besides being illegal, nobody wants to face the reaction of the market after the first fail

Famous engineering words: "Aircraft manufacturers have tried to fix that problem by designing the pilot out of the cockpit. This is the first fully automated plane, flown by a computer" (Airdisaster.com 1 Mb download. Warning: strong content. Air accident.).

Anyway, I've seen the 2CV mentioned as the source of the idea. You clever fiend: you gave us only part of the clue, to test us. Besides, the thread was on the mark. Do not hide "behind" Elisabetta.

Frenchblock · Post 24 Jul 2006, 01:13

3.14.3 All overhang measurements will be taken parallel to the reference plane.
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.

say me where is damper a aerodynamic part?

all this rules was wrote about safety, so the flex wings too!

where the damper system have a aero "exterior" influence on the air stream?

FIA is a bunch of bribed dampers that not works well when they takes red kurbs!

Post 24 Jul 2006, 20:31

they could have easily banned it as being movable ballast i think

The areo claim is kind of a strech

ginsu · Post 24 Jul 2006, 21:43

And I'm really a mech engineer, not only by studies, but at heart. I think that electrics and electronics are great to do what a mechanical system can't achieve, but I still feel safer in a car with good handling than in one with a great ESP... You've given a great example w/ direction systems. The fly-by-wire is still far away for production cars, because, besides being illegal, nobody wants to face the reaction of the market after the first fail... electronics may be a wild animal and you may conceive all the tests imaginable, you'll never be sure of it working properly in more than 99,99% of the cases. Only safety lays in redundancy, but also that route is hard to take in a car, because of the added costs, weight, interferences...
And I'm not saying that mechanical systems are 100% reliable, but their behaviour is a lot more predictable, statistically and failure modes more "tameable"..

Not to mention that the linear actuators on the Bose Suspension end up costing over $10,000. I thought Koni dampers and Eibach springs were expensive, jeez.

You've also reminded me about the 92? McLaren with active computer controlled hydraulic suspension. I remember seeing test video of the car, and the drivers were reporting these very very odd resonances that would happen with the system when braking in a bumpy corner. Something that the engineers had not anticipated and it make the car very very uncomfortable and difficult to control. I agree that suspension should be left to the mech. engineers as they are trained in material science and kinematics. Most of my electrical engineering friends skipped out on all those classes because they weren't required, and I just don't want those people to be designing my suspension, personally.

Anyway, on topic, this stinks of Ferrari favoritism as it directly affects the Michelin teams. Ferrari's rear and front wing can flex for 4-5 races, but when Renault puts a damper in their nosecone, it's a violation? Clearly, they have something else on their agenda.

BTW, most teams run with a 'third-damper' (i.e. Ferrari, etc) to damp out the pitching moments created by the wings. If the mass-damper is illegal, then wouldn't this third damper be illegal too? Interesting, because it's been used for a few years now too.

bhall · Post 24 Jul 2006, 22:02

ginsu wrote: Anyway, on topic, this stinks of Ferrari favoritism as it directly affects the Michelin teams. Ferrari's rear and front wing can flex for 4-5 races, but when Renault puts a damper in their nosecone, it's a violation? Clearly, they have something else on their agenda.

Renault have been running that damper since the beginning of last year.

RacingManiac · Post 24 Jul 2006, 22:50

Ferrari is affected by this as well since they are also running the thing....and same with Renault also running the flexi-wing....

ginsu · Post 27 Jul 2006, 07:06

Renault have been running that damper since the beginning of last year.

That doesn't seem to be exactly true, as they have evolved the part very heavily since last year. It was mentioned as a very recent update on F1.com technical analysis for the British GP

Last year the 'secret' in Renault's nose was a metal plate which acted as ballast at its tip. This year, the team have developed the concept further with a sort a vertical damper whose function is to reduce the sensitivity of the car's front end to load variations between high low-speed sections of a track. It also reduces the effects of rebound when riding kerbs and pitch sensitivity. Overall, it helps the car to maintain optimum balance more of the time, hence allowing it to use its tyres more efficiently.

Also, from what I read this effects Michelin tires a bit more because they are more compliant over kerbs. Maybe it's more anti-Michelin than anti-Ferrari.

djones · Post 27 Jul 2006, 10:04

Just to double check, is it banned from now? As in they can't use it this weekend.

mcdenife · Post 28 Jul 2006, 13:08

I just saw this:

Also, in the minutes before this session gets underway we hear that has inked a new three-year deal with and that race stewards have declared Renault's 'mass damper' system legal, even though it was banned by the FIA last week.

Has anybody heard or know any more about this?

mcdenife · Post 28 Jul 2006, 13:15

oops, the first part should read:
"we hear that Jarno Trulli has inked a new three-year deal with Toyota"
[/quote]

mcdenife · Post 28 Jul 2006, 13:20