scarbs wrote:Yes, but Mac worked with Smith back in 2003 and was racing the device from San Marino 2005. This predates Renaults less elegant (in comparison) front Mass Damper by nearly half a season (plus nearly a year before Renault had TMDs front and rear). Quite how Mac avoided the TMD ban I dont know.
Well, there was a
fair bit of irony in me "belittling" the effort - just a reflection on the disconnect between the "fast" image of F1 and what must be long days of massaging equations, lining up suppliers or arranging production capability otherwise, shaking out the gremlins on rigs, etc. It's actually impressive that McLaren came to contribute to the research at such an early point. Even on still not-so-close inspection of the documentation, there's certainly an appealing elegance to the analogies in how the idea is introduced. Equally the polarity between the simplicity of the mechanical operation and the complexity of making conscious use of the component is fascinating. Certainly the parallels with Renault's efforts (
and especially the timescale comparison) are astonishing - but still, I can appreciate how this issue was miles apart from the traditional TMD.
Why and how the TMD was dealt with - as it was - has little to do with the inerter, if only (
in hindsight) for the ultimate ungraciousness of that process. I'm only happy that the inerter didn't have to face similar "scrutiny", for it has an absolute value beyond the short-term advantage to a single F1 team. To me, its ultimate elegance lies mainly in not taking things for granted, exploring ground that I perceive remaining covered by ill advised prideridden oversight more than actual realised potential.
At the time when Renault had been abruptly denied of their damper, Pat Symonds (
if my memory serves me) was interviewed waiting for a flight somewhere. I'm not sure if I didn't misinterpret something he said, but to me, Symonds seemed to suggest that he had gotten each part of the TMD signed as permissible by Whiting (
or at least a technical delegate) - separately. This seemed counterintuitive at the time, and the issue remains unresolved to me. If it is possible, perhaps the inerter was similarly introduced.
