Q&A For The Those Who Aren't Quite Sure!!

[maranellored]

Well, I'm sure many of you are a bit like me - you've been a fan of F1 for a long time and you're really passionate about it, but there are things you don't quite understand about the mechanics of our amazing sport.

For example, I had a real issue with MDS back in 2006.......Mass Damper Systems that were banned by the FIA on the Renaults.

So...........here is my first question.

What exactly is a Mass Damper System and why was it banned in 2006? Dampers are now an issue with the Red Bulls so if they're already banned why do RB have them?

[Tension_36th]

Damper: something that aids in smoothening your ride. It damps the vibrations from the suspensions as the vehicle rolls over something uneven.

First of all the Redbull is not being questioned for a mass damper in 2010. This is the misconception the press and perhaps various forums have. They are running a damper with a flywheel in it like everyone must be by now. Mclaren is, Renault is, Ferrari is, Mercedes is, pretty much everyone is by now. We'll get into the details of the allegations in a bit.

Mass Damper: Here you have a mass that hangs inside the nose sprung from the central elements just ahead of the front axel zone. This is also the same technology used in building earthquake resistant buildings.

In a F1 car the tyres are vibrating alot as they run over the tarmac, no matter how smooth the track is the suspension is always in a state of vibration. If the car gets bumped up, the front or rear tyres may briefly leave contact with the circuit. This means loss in traction, loss in speed and irregular grip. What you want is to make sure the tyres still touch the ground with same amount of force as it would normally. Well if you run over a bump somethings got to move up yes? Let the chassis move upwards but the tyres still stick to the ground. That is the aim of the mass damper.

Its is aimed at maximizing the contact time and pressure applied to the tyres to maintain its operating temperatures and give the driver confidence while negotiating a bumby track corner for example. This means he will carry more speed into and out of the corners because he feels he is well planted on the track.

So how do they achieve this goal? They need to send a equalizing force in the opposite direction to reduce the the suspension's vibrations. The load on the tyres could be anywhere between 1 ton to 1.8 tons depending on the fuelloads. You want to keep the variation of this load on the tyres to a minmum. Say between 900 kgs to 1.1 tons. If you dont have the mass damper your variance can be like 0Kgs to 1 ton. 0kgs obvioulsy when the tyres are not touching the ground. That is a performance loss, significant one.

When you sit in a fast driven vehicle and then suddenly the driver puts the breaks on it, what happens? Moment of inertia: you get thrown forwards. Because your body wants to keep going forwards because of the momentum but the car is trying to stop quickly. Newton's 1st law, you will all remember this from school.

Now think of that and apply it to the mass damper. Its hangs from the within the nose with stiff springs attached to it on either ends. One end of the spring is connected to the roof of the nose and the other end to the bottom of the nose. The heavy mass in the middle moving and up and down. All of this is still within the nose

When the driver breaks, the hanging mass tries to go forwards but it can only move up or down. The only way to try and keep its tendency to keep going forward is facing downwards and this pushes the tyres back onto the ground while the nose tries to go up. Maintains contact with cicuit even whilst being bumped and maintains grip.

Now the bonus here is that the nose cant go up so much eventually the downward movement of the sprung mass is going to pull the nose down as well when you break really hard into a turn. Keep in mind the simplified rule: the lower the floor or wings of a car the more downforce you generate for the same amount of speed. So you get this nose dive action when you break into a corner you start getting more downforce than you would usually have without the sprung mass. You are also getting that almost low variance load on the tyres.

End result? You take that corner more confidently with more grip and more stability. The michelins where also well suited for this sort of damper technology.

Ferrari tried it but it didnt work for them because their bridgetones where not suited for it. So those scum bags like the spinless basatrds that they are whined to have it banned. Bernie played with the media saying it was Mclaren who complained, but later it was perfectly clear who complained it was Ferrari and Ferrari alone. Mclaren had the J-Damper which can also be used along with the mas dampers. So they had no need to complain, they too used the michelin tyres, they only stand to benefit. Whats more? Mclaren vehementy denied bernie's accusations. Ferrari though were sheepish dodging the question by saying it is illegal therefore it is banned, they never direclty answered if they were the ones who complained about it. It figures, farting donkeys.

Ferrari argued its a aerodynmic device. No it isnt, it is not even in the airflow, it doesnt stick out of the car, it is in the zone where you can have a device or anything that can occupy that space. Perfectly legal by the book which is why FIA scrutinizers passed Renault's cars. All it does its is help keep the grip by pushing the tyres down. The nose dive action is an added bonus for aerodynamics. But on its own it doesnt do anything to the aerodynamics. If that is illegal then the stall wing is also illegal because the main aim in limiting the number of slots in the rear wing was to prevent people from having a go at stalling it. The FIA allowed that one for Mclaren. But they whined and sided with Ferrari on the mass dampers because they were getting beat pretty bad by Fernando and Renault. Ferrari has no balls or the talent or the engineering skill to take on Fernando and Renault so they had their innovation banned. No aerodynmic engineer can seriously say the mass damper is an aerodynamic device. Thats laughable and plain stupid. Can you go and take a round 10 pound rock and say "hey look at this its an airplane it can create downforce its aerodynamic!" No not really.

That is the mass damper. It is a simple and effective technology that helps maximize the tyre usage and along with it gave an unintended side effect of extra downforce into a corner for added stability.

J/I/K Damper: It is a fly wheel based rocking damper. The flywheel rocks up and down the length of the damper. It is acting as a sponge to absorb the shocks pounding the suspensions.

The fly wheel stores energy during a compression from the suspension because the car rode over something bumpy. The stored energy gets released when the suspension relaxes after going over that bump. What this does is that the enormous amounts of force that comes into the suspension as shock is softened in terms of its brunt. Its like you place a cushion underneath a falling object. You cant avoid the fall but you soften the fall or blow. The end result is the car feels like more soft over the bumps. Wheels are bouncing about but the car's main body stays more steady.

An analogy: Those fancy buses that you go on for long distances, when it goes over something you hardly feel it yes? Thats exactly the aim in the F1 car. The driver should feel less of the bump so he can concentrate on carrying more speed into and out of the corners. A bumpy ride makes you change your speed, raceline and your concentration at times.

This all started when Mclaren introduced what they termed the J-Damper, it was a misnomer for a concept that didnt really give much a performance advantage. Autosport made some bold claims, I had a debate with Craig Scarborough on that, he showed me the paper to Cambridge University's research work on it. He asserted that the flywheel will be just 3.5Kgs and can absorb the forces well enough. Well he misunderstood the research material. The researchers conducted work on a road car. The load on that is no where near what an F1 car experiences. So that 3.5 kgs of flywheel isn't going to cut it, it needs to be heavier. Significantly heavier. In the end its going to add weight and you loose performance. It is just there for comfort and keeping the ride height as constant as possible. More like tweaking your suspension on the car so that if you went over a hippo you shouldn't feel it. Bad analogy but it gives you the picture.

Thats what a flywheel based I/J/K Damper is all about. Mclaren called it 'J' for jounce damper reducing the jounces. Renault called it the 'I ' damper, Force India called it the 'K' damper. You can call it the bernie's damper and it doesnt change a thing, the concept is the same people like to give it many names because they thought Mclaren is going to buy the patent rights to it and they would have the monopoly over it. Which would mean Mclaren can sue other teams for using their proprietary technology.

In all seriousness at the end of the day its not a big performance gain part as the media made it out to be. Just like how they are making a big fuss out of the F-duct stall wing system. Its a decent concept but its not going to give you 3-5 tenths. What If Mclaren patented it? Big deal they will use it and the other teams wont feel like they missed out on something big. The J-damper is not the Mass damper and it certainly will not come close to anything like what the mass dampers had to offer interms of pure performance gains.

---

---

Coming back to the current allegations against Redbull. Some teams are claiming Redbull is able to run very low ride heights for the cars during qualifying and the somehow raise the car back up when fuel is added to the car for the race start.

I already mentioned how lowering the overall car or even part of the car gives you an increase in downforce at that region. The same applies here, you lower the car in qualifying and you get significant downforce advantage. But if the car is lower when you add full tank's worth of fuel the car will bottom out soo bad your car will fall apart into pieces in a few laps. So it has to be raised back up for race day.

Ferrari and Mclaren and probaby Mercedes adjust the ride hides in the pitstops. This is allowed. Rules state that the suspenion may not be tampered with in anyway when the car is in motion. So that doesnt cover when the car is standing still in the pits. Its legal and they are doing it. But for them to adjust the heights as they lower it down in the race midway, they need to have it high up in qualifying.

The allegations here is that Redbull is running low in qualifying. No proof and merely whining. I don't see anything of that sort either. You can almost see the clearance on the cars and Redbull doesnt look low at all. infact the difference in height in qualifying and the start of the race is pretty visible on all cars. Redbull didnt look anything out of the ordinary.

So these are the allegations but how do the rivals claim it is done? They claim redbull put compressed gas inside the flywheel damper. making it very stiff there by pushing the suspension down and lowering the car in qualifying. And when the race is about to start they either manually release the gas ahead of the formation lap there by letting the suspension back to it normal tensile stresses and increasing the ride height. OR Somehow the gas looses its pressure overnight and gets itself nice and ready for raceday.

The last one is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Technically its rubbish you have to have amazing simulation models to know just how much pressure you need to do this so that by morning you have all the gas gone. This is going to vary from race to race as well. Too less a gas pressure and it wont serve the purpose and too much pressure and it will wreck the suspension as it wont be able to absorb the shocks.

The first explanation: team does the release manually, sounds all possible and convincing to the average listener. But to the engineer its again bullshit.

Because:

1) The dampers are already stiff to their desirable limits and putting compressed gas will make the suspension soo stiff making it entirely useless for handling. The laptimes will show the loss in performance instantly. yet Redbull slaughtered the rest in qualifying in all three races so far.

2) So let say this is true, how come Redbull is still quick at the end of the race? They released the gas at the start allegedly then how come towards the end of the race their car is still too quick? They shouldn't be as their are not low anymore without the compressed gas. Theory flops.

3) If anyone comes up with a damper that can self release the pressure, it might have have to made of some alien metal not found on earth. Because any rupture in the damper to let the gas escape will make the damper blow when the loads are high at fullspeed. So that theory is also nonsense.

All put together, we have a serious case of whiners and loosers jealous about Redbull's fine car. They will find nothing on the cars, it has passed scrutineering even after the allegations of compressed gas. Redbull themselves have said they will protest Mclaren if they bring a compressed gas based damper or anything remotely suggesting active unaided self regulating damper technology. You want to change the ride height do it in the pitstps, thats about it.

There is a lot of jealously going around in the paddock like 'how dare a privateer becomes so good'. Well big-car-manufacturing farts its called engineering its not the stupid brand name that ticks, its the human mind. Get goof balls in your team and you stay behind, get better minds and you will progress.

[maranellored]

Wow!!! Thanks Tension, I wasn't expecting such a detailed analysis!!! I'm one of those fans who think they're technically educated but in reality are not.

So are you saying that the RB dampers are legal? What would make them illegal?

[Tension_36th]

(04-10-2010 10:06 PM)maranellored Wrote:  Wow!!! Thanks Tension, I wasn't expecting such a detailed analysis!!! I'm one of those fans who think they're technically educated but in reality are not.

So are you saying that the RB dampers are legal? What would make them illegal?

If there is a mechanism that regulates the ride hides all by itself (without team intervention in the pitstaps) then it would be illegal.

There is no connection to the dampers here, the dampers are fully legal. It is what they do to it to help change ride height that might prove the method to be illegal, again not the damper itself. Infact you don't even need the damper to do this, it can be done via oil pumps and hydraulics. The damper theory is just one of the many out there.

Right now there is no evidence to suggest they have anything illegal or that their ride height regulates by itself.

[maranellored]

But surely the ride-height advantage the RBs have is way too much??? How can a team get away with literally adjusting their car to suit the fuel/quali?? That's moving a car aerodynamically isn't it?

I'm not trying to make excuses for RB being so fast - without this ride-height adjustment I STILL believe their grip is far superior to any other team................

[icegirljenni]

(04-10-2010 10:55 PM)maranellored Wrote:  But surely the ride-height advantage the RBs have is way too much??? How can a team get away with literally adjusting their car to suit the fuel/quali?? That's moving a car aerodynamically isn't it?

I'm not trying to make excuses for RB being so fast - without this ride-height adjustment I STILL believe their grip is far superior to any other team................

Its in the rules there can be no change when the car is motion. There is no talk of what can or cannot be done when the car is not moving in the pit stops. Ferrari and Mclaren are maybe Mercedes are already doing this. Redbbull's design advantage is coming from the overall shape of the car and suspension setup.. There is nothing surprising or magic here. There is no changes in ride height those are just unsupported claims. Nothing of that sort has been see as pointed out by tension above.

The gap they can be easily understood by the way the have made room for the pull rod configuration on the rear by moving the suspension forwards and creating room for a powerful double deck diffuser.

ride height is not needed to be changed if you down force advantage is already too high over the competition. The purpose of lowering the car is to gain any small down force increase. The design shape already proves to be the best out there that alone can give them more down force than anyone else. If they really had active suspension to control ride-height, they should be given the title right now it is pointless to race a toyota camry against a Mclaren SLR.

[maranellored]

Ok, so if JB and LH are MOVING parts of the car whilst driving then how is that legal??

I don't mean to sound rude but the FIA are soooo ambiguous!!!!

[icegirljenni]

(04-10-2010 11:11 PM)maranellored Wrote:  Ok, so if JB and LH are MOVING parts of the car whilst driving then how is that legal??

I don't mean to sound rude but the FIA are soooo ambiguous!!!!

The rules says about mechanical parts as in 'part of the car' the driver is human and not part of the car that's the loophole they utilized. No team contested that view they only contested the fact the design has an extra slot more than the two intended slots on the rear wing. Stalling was not specifically outlawed in the rules even though they put the two slot limit to minimize attempts at stalling.

[maranellored]

But the driver is MOVING PARTS OF THE CAR!!!! Therefore the car is moving!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GRRRRR!!!!! The FIA is a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tension_36th]

Actually it is a clever interpretation form an technical point of view. The two (driver and mechanical part of the car) are definitely distinct if you look at the rules. A clear gray area.

The only issue is the extra pseudo slot in the rear wing and the aim of stalling being against the spirit of the rules introduced against flexi-wings.

[maranellored]

Quote:Felipe Massa fears McLaren's F-duct system could make life complicated for the rest of the field in this weekend's Chinese Grand Prix, with the Woking squad set to have a crucial advantage on the Shanghai track's long back straight.

The straight between Turn 13 and the Turn 14 hairpin in China is one of the longest in Formula 1, and sees top speeds in excess of 300km/h.

The F-duct - which allows the team to increase its top speed by 'stalling' the rear wing on straights - helped McLaren set the practice pace at Sepang, which also features long straights, although the weather then disrupted the rest of the team's weekend.

Massa thinks Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button's straightline speed will be a huge boost for them in China, and that rivals might have to compromise their set-ups to try and contain the McLarens on the straight.

"It's a nice circuit to drive and the extremely long straight leading into a tight corner means there is a real possibility to overtake," said Massa of the Shanghai circuit.

"However, we will need to be careful on that straight this year, because we have seen that the McLaren in particular has a very high top speed, so in case of a close battle with them we will have to be careful and ready to defend position."

Hamilton acknowledged that the length of the straight was good for McLaren's chances at Shanghai.

"Overtaking is possible at this circuit, particularly at the end of the long back straight, so I'm pretty confident we'll have another competitive weekend," he said.

Sauber has also now introduced an F-duct, and AUTOSPORT understands that Williams has a device in the advanced stages of development.

Ferrari is working on its own system too, but team boss Stefano Domenicali said in Malaysia that it would not rush the F-duct into use.

"For sure we are working flat out at home, because we saw the benefit that seems to be very, very big on the main straight in certain conditions - with the stalling of the rear wing," he said.

"We will bring it as soon as everything will be reliable, and we will be 100 per cent sure that the system works."

Massa is optimistic that the new parts Ferrari already has scheduled for introduction in China will keep it in the fight with McLaren and Red Bull.

"I'm also looking forward to the fact that we will have some new components on the car, aimed at improving performance and I hope they prove to be successful to help us in our fight, especially with the Red Bulls and the McLarens," he said.

Autosport.com

2 questions:

1. Will the F-Duct really give McLaren an advantage

2. What exactly are Ferrari bringing to China?

**EDIT**

3. Why am I the only person who is honest about being technically inferior? ;)

[Chrissie]

(04-14-2010 11:27 PM)maranellored Wrote:  2 questions:

1. Will the F-Duct really give McLaren an advantage Yes, long straight, good for F-duct

2. What exactly are Ferrari bringing to China? A big pile of excuses as to why their cars are not as quick as McLaren, it seems

**EDIT**

3. Why am I the only person who is honest about being technically inferior? Because the rest of us are all geniuses

[maranellored]

(04-15-2010 12:27 AM)Chrissie Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 11:27 PM)maranellored Wrote:  2 questions:

1. Will the F-Duct really give McLaren an advantage Yes, long straight, good for F-duct

2. What exactly are Ferrari bringing to China? A big pile of excuses as to why there cars are not as quick as McLaren, it seems

**EDIT**

3. Why am I the only person who is honest about being technically inferior? Because the rest of us are all geniuses

Ah...........you sound like my Mum lol!!!!

And strangely enough - all seem to sound true!!!

[Tension_36th]

On that note about the F-duct, some of the teams are parroting what the media has conjured up that the driver "closes a hole". For purely technical reasons that theory doesn't hold much water. The teams are obviously not going to correct the media, its in their best internets to hide the best automated mechanisms for themselves. As I explained the Mclaren rear wing article, there is an independent system that is regulated by a valve, and its an automated process. Many ways of doing it, teams will be after the best possible way to achieve that.

Adrian Newey even hints at this confirming what I have been pointing out. The driver does not control the flow because in a sudden swerve on the straights whilst overtaking you dont want to have your rear wing stalled. That will send the car clean off the tracks. You need the downforce back on the wing for such sudden change in direction to get past the slip stream. But thats not the only reason why the press's idea is not going to work, as explained --->Here<---

The Mclaren advantage is not very high and if someone is on shot/used tyres like Jenson was in his battles against Fernando on the fresher tyres, the duct will not help. Just shows you there isn't a large enough advantage from that system to offset the lack of fresh tyres. It also shows they are no where close to achieving an ideal stall of the rear wing to get those impressive numbers on the straight line speeds. Even the Renaults showed great straight line speed against the Ferraris and Mclarens. The system is currently giving diminishing returns. They can obviously get more out of it but its not easy when you try to make drivability seamless for the drivers. It is a compromise.

[maranellored]

Thanks Tension.

So, realistically, this F-Duct won't be any use if McLaren don't manage their tyres well.

[Tension_36th]

Ferrari, Mercedes GP and Williams are ready to begin evaluation of the concept in practice in China. Ferrari's duct has been seen already



Notice the rod in like insertion into the shark fin at the top thats the new duct.

Vettel says the advantage Mclaren has with it is 0.5secs. Thats bullshit, but then again they are not technical people to know how misinformed that claim sounds like.

In all the speed traps so far they are no faster than Renault or sometimes Force India.

[maranellored]

(04-16-2010 07:44 AM)Tension_36th Wrote:  Ferrari, Mercedes GP and Williams are ready to begin evaluation of the concept in practice in China. Ferrari's duct has been seen already



Notice the rod in like insertion into the shark fin at the top thats the new duct.

Vettel says the advantage Mclaren has with it is 0.5secs. Thats bullshit, but then again they are not technical people to know how misinformed that claim sounds like.

In all the speed traps so far they are no faster than Renault or sometimes Force India.

So why are all of the other teams applying the F-Duct 'technology' to their cars?

[Tension_36th]

The same reason many have spent millions on engine development in the past for meager 0.1sec or two tenths. If you let engineers develop they will develop whatever they can to gain diminishing returns. Engineers have no sense of financing, whatever budget you throw at them they will eat it up.

Vettel is probably trying to lobby his team to take the technology more seriously even though its worth is hyped beyond worth. Its like they say "no matter how small the advantage better have it on your side. than not"

But the question needs to be asked is it worth the money? That money could be spent on some other clever design that no one else has come up with and that will send the others wasting time and energy trying to copy that.

[maranellored]

(04-17-2010 12:53 AM)Tension_36th Wrote:  The same reason many have spent millions on engine development in the past for meager 0.1sec or two tenths. If you let engineers develop they will develop whatever they can to gain diminishing returns. Engineers have no sense of financing, whatever budget you throw at them they will eat it up.

Vettel is probably trying to lobby his team to take the technology more seriously even though its worth is hyped beyond worth. Its like they say "no matter how small the advantage better have it on your side. than not"

But the question needs to be asked is it worth the money? That money could be spent on some other clever design that no one else has come up with and that will send the others wasting time and energy trying to copy that.

So what, in your opinion, would be a better technological development? I'm not a fan of KERS but I think that with money and time, it might be a winner.

[Tension_36th]

The whole idea behind KERS is that its supposedly "green" and as a bonus it helps overtaking. KERS would be good if they allowed the power storage and release figures quad rippled.

60-80 BHP is not enough. You need 250-300BHP boosts to effectively neutralize a car that is driving to break the tow and/or employs tactics to slow you down before the exit out of corners.

But there are problems. The batteries are getting too dense and dangerous to store that kind power. When you charge and discharge there is always loss in the form of heat. So the denser the battery/higher power the more hotter it gets during charge and discharge. Unless they all accept to make the cars heavier set the minimum weight higher, everyone will try to make the batteries unreasonably small and you get unreliability and safety threats.

Bursting battery is a not a pretty thing. Its a bomb that can do serious damage. Electrocution from such a battery is yet another hazard.

They really want to go green and help the racing for the racers driving the cars?

1) Chuck pitstops introduce long life tyres.
2) Change the configuration of engines to V12/V16s from V8s (longer life)
3) Raise the minimum ride heights (reference plane)
4) diffuser highest reduced from 175mm to 85mm
5) No pseudo slots and ducts to the rear wing.
6) No extra cooling elements on the wheel rims
7) Mirrors must be on the monocoque, not attached to deflectors on the sidepods.
8) Putting down a clear path to fully electric engines and throwing out fossil fuel based engines (never going to happen the evil oil and banking cartels in the world will have the entire FIA and FOM assassinated if they have to before this ever happens, doubt even the car markers want this to happen) Now this is really going green.

Unrelated to the above:

A crazy idea of mine to take focus away from 1 driver and really put new meaning to "team work". During a pitstop the drivers swap and the other guy takes over. This way no driver can be harmed by internal politics. Both drivers have to contribute to the win so both will be given their best. When either driver wins both of them win. A real team sport it becomes. But this wont happen because it has no marketing appeal to sell one driver's image. Nor does it help fans get more close to one driver, they need to get close to both drivers so to speak. This will hugely appeal the constructors though, as focus will change more towards the brand. Right now brand has less focus than the driver.