Red Bull RB8 Renault

[raymondu999]

Since Singapore I've had the urge to float the idea that Red Bull were using their new Nose/Front Wing in a way that could replicate the Mass Damper effect. I held back as I couldn't find any substantial proof, however after watching the GP yesterday (was working Sunday) I went off to work on article looking at the potential for it: http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/ ... -fall.html

So under what ruling was the mass damper deemed illegal and how, if at all, does this relate to the RB FW?

I direct you to bhallg2k's posts:

[Your post. A good one, too.]

I think another idea worth considering is the effect such flexing could have on the car's stability. Not only does a flexible nose somewhat mimic the aerodynamic effects of the reactive ride height system that was banned earlier this year (the front wing shouldn't immediately pitch down under braking if it's mounted to a free-swinging hinge), the weight of the wing/ballast means it also behaves like a mass damper that counters the unsettling tire oscillations born from that load transfer.

I think it's important to note that the pitstop nose twisting is a bit of a sideshow here. We've seen ample evidence of a bendy nose in the form of the Webber gif posted here and in still photos taken over the last couple of years. This is an area Red Bull are known to have explored. We're not seeing anything new; just more and more evidence of the same.

I'm going to toss it over to the dearly departed for a moment...

For large mechanical grip you need a soft suspension with big movements in the vertical plane.

However, you need to control the riding height of the front wing, which means you\'d wish hard springs.

There you have conflicting goals. What you would like is a suspension that stiffens under load (on a side note, the magnetic-rheological suspension could be used theoretically to achieve this).

When under large aerodynamic loads, the springs compress so much that you only have the tire sidewalls working as springs (and they are non-damped). The mass damper can help you amortiguate the load oscillations you get when running over a kerb or in the transitional phase of cornering. It is sort of a \"mechanical emergency patch\" for a car in which the riding height influences enormously the aerodynamic behaviour.

The following is a crude depiction of the device to which he referred. It was used by Renault from 2005 until it was somehow declared illegal in 2006.



The following is a (decent) demonstration of how dampers work.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuCdZLQOrAw[/youtube]

Now look at the Webber gif, and what do you see?



Look at how stable the chassis remains as the car goes over the curb, even as the front and rear wings, as well as the mirrors, shake madly from the vibrations (which is common for all cars, though Red Bull's front wing obviously moves more than most). That chassis stability means consistent downforce from the floor/diffuser, which makes the car very stable under braking and through turns.

I'm convinced Red Bull uses its bendy nose and front wing like a mass damper.

Thoughts?

[f1316]

Maybe I'm being dim and not seeing what's right in front of me, but I couldn't really see where that answered the question as to why the mass damper was illegal.

It was easy to find what I was looking for on a quick google search though:

wikipedia:
At Hockenheim, the mass damper was deemed illegal by the FIA, because the mass was not rigidly attached to the chassis and, due to the influence it had on the pitch attitude of the car, which in turn significantly affected the gap under the car and hence the ground effects of the car, to be a movable aerodynamic device and hence as a consequence, to be illegally influencing the performance of the aerodynamics.

If that is the rationale for banning a mass damper, do we agree that since we're not talking about an appendage to the chasis, the "flexi-nose" couldn't really be banned under the same ruling?

[raymondu999]

It's another one of those things that, in my opinion, is violating the spirit (but not the wording) of the regulations.

[bhall]

The thing about Renault's mass damper is that it was initially cleared by Charlie Whiting, because it conformed to the regulations as they were written at the time. The damper even saw action in 2005 and 2006. It wasn't deemed illegal until after the FIA protested (!?!?) the stewards in Germany who had cleared it for that race. The FIA's International Court of Appeal then deemed it illegal because they said it breached the prohibition on moveable aerodynamic devices.

All of this is to say that, despite apparently conforming to the regulations concerning bodywork deflection, there's really no telling what would happen if a team protested Red Bull's bendy nose on the grounds that it's a mass damper. The FIA has been all over the place on that issue, just as it has with reactive ride height.

[aral]

The thing about Renault's mass damper is that it was initially cleared by Charlie Whiting, because it conformed to the regulations as they were written at the time. The damper even saw action in 2005 and 2006. It wasn't deemed illegal until after the FIA protested (!?!?) the stewards in Germany who had cleared it for that race. The FIA's International Court of Appeal then deemed it illegal because they said it breached the prohibition on moveable aerodynamic devices.

All of this is to say that, despite apparently conforming to the regulations concerning bodywork deflection, there's really no telling what would happen if a team protested Red Bull's bendy nose on the grounds that it's a mass damper. The FIA has been all over the place on that issue, just as it has with reactive ride height.

Most of the cars are already running, what is called a mass damper. The flexing of the front wing can be tuned to the chassis, so as to act in the same way as the mass damper of old. This has been happening for the last three or so years.
The spongebob nose would not be acting in that way, due to its light weight. But it does allow Webber to push Vettels car, if he closes the engine down too early!

[siskue2005]

The thing about Renault's mass damper is that it was initially cleared by Charlie Whiting, because it conformed to the regulations as they were written at the time. The damper even saw action in 2005 and 2006. It wasn't deemed illegal until after the FIA protested (!?!?) the stewards in Germany who had cleared it for that race. The FIA's International Court of Appeal then deemed it illegal because they said it breached the prohibition on moveable aerodynamic devices.

All of this is to say that, despite apparently conforming to the regulations concerning bodywork deflection, there's really no telling what would happen if a team protested Red Bull's bendy nose on the grounds that it's a mass damper. The FIA has been all over the place on that issue, just as it has with reactive ride height.

Most of the cars are already running, what is called a mass damper. The flexing of the front wing can be tuned to the chassis, so as to act in the same way as the mass damper of old. This has been happening for the last three or so years.
The spongebob nose would not be acting in that way, due to its light weight. But it does allow Webber to push Vettels car, if he closes the engine down too early!

it is called j-dampers
http://www.f1technical.net/features/10586

[bhall]

Most of the cars are already running, what is called a mass damper. The flexing of the front wing can be tuned to the chassis, so as to act in the same way as the mass damper of old. This has been happening for the last three or so years. The spongebob nose would not be acting in that way, due to its light weight. But it does allow Webber to push Vettels car, if he closes the engine down too early!

For our purposes here, the weight of the nose is inconsequential. The nose is not the ballast (mass) for the damper; it's the "spring" that harnesses the ballast (mass). The weight of the wing, which usually includes literal ballast in the center section, acts as the ballast (mass) that dampens oscillations in the tires, which adds to the stability of the chassis during load transfer.

Remember, Renault's mass damper only weighed 9 kg. So, it doesn't take much.

And this is not the same thing as a J-damper, which is a suspension component, or wing flex seen on other cars, which, unless I'm mistaken, is aerodynamic in nature. It's a tuned mass damper. (I don't know how else to put it.)

At any rate, it's just an idea that I and apparently others had. Take it for what it's worth.

[Touristas]

What strikes me most on the Webber gif is the front wing compared to the floor/undertray.

The wing remains almost parallel to ground whereas you can see the floor tilting from the curb ride.

It's like the nosecone is not rigidly fixed on the chassis.

Shouldn't the wing tilt to the right a little bit more?

What am i missing here?

[Forza]

#F1 Here is our story about the "flexible" Red Bull-nose. We did a little research. Seems everything is normal.Noses are made of just 1-3 carbon layers at the tip to pass crash tests. By hitting the DRS board the structured could've been weakend. Teams already aware of the Abu Dhabi video >> http://bit.ly/UdWcuv | At least one opponent has asked FIA for their opinion on that.

Here is the story from AMUS AMUS - "Gummi-Nase" sorgt für Aufregung

[siskue2005]

#F1 Here is our story about the "flexible" Red Bull-nose. We did a little research. Seems everything is normal.Noses are made of just 1-3 carbon layers at the tip to pass crash tests. By hitting the DRS board the structured could've been weakend. Teams already aware of the Abu Dhabi video >> http://bit.ly/UdWcuv | At least one opponent has asked FIA for their opinion on that.

Here is the story from AMUS AMUS - "Gummi-Nase" sorgt für Aufregung

"we did a little research" >> we're they reading my posts

Amus

Collision damaged Red Bull nose
To comply with the strict security guidelines, the front tips of the formula 1 cars are made only one to no more than three layers of carbon fibre. Strange bends of the nose in the video has a simple reason. Vettels collision with the DRS shield made of polystyrene is the front for damaged apparently so, that bend very easily settled the tip at the simple elevation.


Vindication

[radosav]

What do you guys think about da Costa's lap times at young drivers test, it was about 1.42?

[jtc127]

#F1 Here is our story about the "flexible" Red Bull-nose. We did a little research. Seems everything is normal.Noses are made of just 1-3 carbon layers at the tip to pass crash tests. By hitting the DRS board the structured could've been weakend. Teams already aware of the Abu Dhabi video >> http://bit.ly/UdWcuv | At least one opponent has asked FIA for their opinion on that.

Here is the story from AMUS AMUS - "Gummi-Nase" sorgt für Aufregung

"we did a little research" >> we're they reading my posts

Amus

Collision damaged Red Bull nose
To comply with the strict security guidelines, the front tips of the formula 1 cars are made only one to no more than three layers of carbon fibre. Strange bends of the nose in the video has a simple reason. Vettels collision with the DRS shield made of polystyrene is the front for damaged apparently so, that bend very easily settled the tip at the simple elevation.


Vindication

I've made carbon parts out of 3 layers of twill and plain weave, none of them wrinkle/twist like that.

[Forza]

This is part of the issue that has been discussed here. The other flexing (nothing new in F1) is related to composite optimization with using different tailoring principles for composite layers in order to achieve the desired flex or rigidity.

Also here are some close-ups from testing today at ABD YDT (day 2)

[wesley123]

the rear wing seems to be pivoting forward?

[jz11]

I've made carbon parts out of 3 layers of twill and plain weave, none of them wrinkle/twist like that.

I second this, I also do some CF work, I haven't tried any elastomer additives to epoxy resin, but the rigid one shatters when bent/twisted past the limit, just as you see in nose cone crash test videos