Renault R26 have a controversy system on car

Flow · Post by **Flow** » 29 Jul 2006, 05:14

Renault R26 - mass damper system

Not new, but the subject of much controversy in Germany, the damper takes the form of a free-moving mass inside a vertical spring. Its function is to reduce the sensitivity of the car's front end to differing load variations between high- and low-speed sections of the track, and to counteract the negative effects of rebound over kerbs, so as to keep the car perfectly balanced and hence - indirectly - improve its aerodynamic efficiency. The FIA has contested its legality on the basis that no parts exerting an aerodynamic influence may be mobile. However, the German stewards found no problem with it - a decision the FIA has appealed against. Hence, Renault could race with the system this weekend, but are thought unlikely to take the risk.

http://www.formula1.com/race/technical_ ... 2/311.html

They use it since 2005.

dutch power · Post by **dutch power** » 30 Jul 2006, 00:00

A well fia ,.... or should we say fia T ,....

Effect is there, now without the dampers renault is nowhere and also michelin quiting next year isnt good for renault.

Lets see if alonso can keep it up till the end of season, i think its gonna be pretty difficult for Alonso.

noob1234 · Post by **noob1234** » 30 Jul 2006, 01:37

a very interesting piece of engineering.. leave it to f1 teams to bend the laws of physics.

Flow · Post by **Flow** » 30 Jul 2006, 02:52

Just like twin wing of BMW, they dont intefeer with any rules, they are fair. But since other team said they want to use it, and found ugly by 99% of people, they finaly find, after aproving them, they said was inteferring on the view of driver... hummm it can be discuss...

Flow · Post by **Flow** » 04 Aug 2006, 19:53

Alonzo is penalized with 2 sec on eatch qualif session on saturday (hungary).

Alonzo is penalized for dangerous behavior in practice session. He did a stearing move over Robert Doornbos at high speed side by side to show is frustration, and he slow in is face after, forcing Doornbos to think fast to avoid him.

aawil · Post by **aawil** » 04 Aug 2006, 20:40

I'm glad they penalized him.

He starting to become a real jackass on the track.

philmax · Post by **philmax** » 04 Aug 2006, 20:49

sure i'm glad too looooooooooool

noob1234 · Post by **noob1234** » 04 Aug 2006, 21:13

I'm glad they penalized him. He starting to become a real jackass on the track.

lol, this seems to come hand in hand with "I was the unbeatable world champion but now I have to race for positions again".

klaaz · Post by **klaaz** » 05 Aug 2006, 09:53

movie of the incident:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYXx7ybEFpI

Flow · Post by **Flow** » 05 Aug 2006, 14:06

Hungary penality

Alonzo
1 sec for passing a car under yellow
1 sec for dangerous behavior on track

MSchumaker
2 sec for passing 3 car under Red Flag

Why not put Schumy penality of 1 sec for Red for or 3 sec for 3 car taken??? Gnaaa, they wanted to even things, its just like if we are watching a WWF (World Wresting) with trick winner

the 2 second is not logical!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 05 Aug 2006, 14:09

Schumi just reminded everyone why he is the man in the history books

Excellent session!

Flow · Post by **Flow** » 22 Aug 2006, 13:37

Today, we will know if the 'Damper' invented by Renault and use by all team will be clean to use or banned.

Flow · Post by **Flow** » 22 Aug 2006, 15:43

Tomorow neer end of day, the verdict may come out. The FIA have revealed details of the men who will preside over the Paris hearing.

John J. Cassidy (US)
Philippe Roberti de Winghe (Belgium)
Anthony Scrivener QC, (UK)
Pierre Tourigny (Canada)

http://www.formula1.com/news/4822.html

Kaali · Post by **Kaali** » 22 Aug 2006, 17:59

Can't wait to the verdict is announced.

I hope Renault will be allowed to use the system, 'cos otherwise Schuey will win Driver's championship too easily and Ferrari will win Constructor's too easily.

As far as I understand many teams, like Ferrari and Red Bull have tested the system, but why it may hurt Renault more if they can't use it, is because Renault began testing that system since Italian GP in 2005 and their 2006 car is based on that system so if they remove it their car will be slower. Other teams can remove it and will hardly notice any performance decrease.

I'll say: LET RENAULT KEEP IT!! And give Ferrari a good fight on track!

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 22 Aug 2006, 23:54

lol, i say if renault keeps it, everyone should get it, wouldn't be fair to everyone else !!

Flow · Post by **Flow** » 23 Aug 2006, 01:11

Almost all other team have the same system, but some are less develop or less integrated to the wing like Renault.

Kaali · Post by **Kaali** » 23 Aug 2006, 15:21

Not good news for Renault fans:

DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL
23.08.2006

The FIA International Court of Appeal met in Paris on Tuesday, August 22, 2006, to examine the appeal made by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile against Decision No. 8 handed down by the Stewards of the Meeting on July 28, 2006, concerning the T car of competitor Mild Seven Renault F1 on the occasion of the Grand Prix of Germany and counting towards the 2006 FIA Formula One World Championship.

Having heard the explanations of both parties and having examined the various documents and other evidence, the Court quashed decision No. 8 of the Stewards of the Meeting and ruled that use of the device known as a Tuned Mass Damper is an infringement [violation] of Article 3.15 of the Formula One Technical Regulations.

The International Court of Appeal was presided over by Mr Philippe ROBERTI de WINGHE (Belgium), elected President, Mr Pierre TOURIGNY (Canada), Mr John CASSIDY (United States) and Mr Anthony SCRIVENER (Great Britain).

The full text of the International Court of Appeal’s decision is available, on request, from the secretariat of the FIA International Court of Appeal in Paris.

Source: www.fia.com

noob1234 · Post by **noob1234** » 23 Aug 2006, 19:42

I am confused by article 3.15

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.

Obviously the normal springs / dampers / anti-roll bars influence the aerodynamics of the car and they are not rigid in relation to the sprung mass ( or rather they are the non rigid connectors between the sprung and the unsprung mass ).
I mean both springs and anti roll bars have a rotational degree of freedom (not at the attachment point but inside the material itself).
So would the mass damper be legal if it looked like this?

( mass )-------<| sprung mass

Where the connecting bar is soft enough to bend.
This is just a linear equivalent of the torsional spring.

Racer · Post by **Racer** » 23 Aug 2006, 20:50

aahhmm

am not that technical, i now somethings

, but if u ask me, Alonso have tu loose at this moments some victory ore points

rules is rules and they did something agains the rules,

think back year before BAR lose points and disQualified for 2 races if am right,

so Alonso and Renault shut get at least the same,

,

if it was Ferrari than u shut hear it from evrybody, and especialy Jack Villaneuve

cyaaaa

Kaali · Post by **Kaali** » 23 Aug 2006, 21:44

noob1234 wrote:I am confused by article 3.15

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.
Obviously the normal springs / dampers / anti-roll bars influence the aerodynamics of the car and they are not rigid in relation to the sprung mass ( or rather they are the non rigid connectors between the sprung and the unsprung mass ).
I mean both springs and anti roll bars have a rotational degree of freedom (not at the attachment point but inside the material itself).
So would the mass damper be legal if it looked like this?

( mass )-------<| sprung mass

Where the connecting bar is soft enough to bend.
This is just a linear equivalent of the torsional spring.

It's a bit complicated, I agree. What FIA says is that you have to be careful in the "No part having an aerodynamic influence" part. When those dampers are attached they have such an aerodynamic influence so the car will be more stable during turns and/or driving on curbs. When the dampers are attached during driving on fast turns they will make sure wings are leveled to the surface thus giving more speed at turns.