Seems he needs better practice how to keep his temps under control on formation laps because as you point out it’s not a one off.
Or is a weakpoint of car. Fernando is normally one of the best starters on the grid, but hasn't looked that way so far this season - more average than anything. Could be the brake temps and front tyres are just too low for Fernando to be effective, and a lesser driver such as Stroll has bigger problems.
Usually cars which are good on their tyres are not good at warming them up quickly. A521 was similar. Even Red Bulls have struggled at the start.organic wrote: ↑03 Apr 2023, 06:19Or is a weakpoint of car. Fernando is normally one of the best starters on the grid, but hasn't looked that way so far this season - more average than anything. Could be the brake temps and front tyres are just too low for Fernando to be effective, and a lesser driver such as Stroll has bigger problems.
organic wrote: ↑03 Apr 2023, 06:19Or is a weakpoint of car. Fernando is normally one of the best starters on the grid, but hasn't looked that way so far this season - more average than anything. Could be the brake temps and front tyres are just too low for Fernando to be effective, and a lesser driver such as Stroll has bigger problems.
I don't think the mass damper had anything to do with that. It was only tuned for platform stability over bumps.diffuser wrote: ↑03 Apr 2023, 15:50organic wrote: ↑03 Apr 2023, 06:19Or is a weakpoint of car. Fernando is normally one of the best starters on the grid, but hasn't looked that way so far this season - more average than anything. Could be the brake temps and front tyres are just too low for Fernando to be effective, and a lesser driver such as Stroll has bigger problems.
In His Championship years at Renault, that car was a rocket off the line. They had that Mass Damper.
Yeah, if I recall the '05 and '06 Renault had the best electronic and launch control on the grid. They were also using the signal from the race director to time the start.AR3-GP wrote: ↑03 Apr 2023, 15:52I don't think the mass damper had anything to do with that. It was only tuned for platform stability over bumps.diffuser wrote: ↑03 Apr 2023, 15:50organic wrote: ↑03 Apr 2023, 06:19
Or is a weakpoint of car. Fernando is normally one of the best starters on the grid, but hasn't looked that way so far this season - more average than anything. Could be the brake temps and front tyres are just too low for Fernando to be effective, and a lesser driver such as Stroll has bigger problems.
In His Championship years at Renault, that car was a rocket off the line. They had that Mass Damper.
Allowed you to run a softer suspension for better mechanical grip.AR3-GP wrote: ↑03 Apr 2023, 15:52I don't think the mass damper had anything to do with that. It was only tuned for platform stability over bumps.diffuser wrote: ↑03 Apr 2023, 15:50organic wrote: ↑03 Apr 2023, 06:19
Or is a weakpoint of car. Fernando is normally one of the best starters on the grid, but hasn't looked that way so far this season - more average than anything. Could be the brake temps and front tyres are just too low for Fernando to be effective, and a lesser driver such as Stroll has bigger problems.
In His Championship years at Renault, that car was a rocket off the line. They had that Mass Damper.
A response to directly cancel the front tyre (they went to the largest tyre they couod use) kinetic.
It was the opposite actually. Using stiff suspension to maintain an optimum ground clearance for aerodynamic performance was more important than mechanical grip. The mass damper suppressed the "jumping" of the car due to stiff suspension when the car ran over kerbs.
Renault's mass damper is a typical example of Formula 1 teams using their ingenuity and lateral thinking to find a way around a problem, and then exploit it even further.
The Enstone-based team had found the rules introduced for 2005 required it to run an excessive amount of front spring stiffness to keep the front wing as close as possible to the ground.
This was the sort of mechanical trade-off that teams typically make to try to find aerodynamic performance. However, this set off an unwanted bounce effect when the car was in pitch, and so a push was made to try to find a way of counteracting its effect.
Renault immediately found that the mass damper would not only settle the car, but also allow their drivers to attack the kerbs much harder, giving a more compliant ride and a more stable aerodynamic platform.
They had a rear damper too.Farnborough wrote: ↑03 Apr 2023, 21:16A response to directly cancel the front tyre (they went to the largest tyre they couod use) kinetic.
As weight in vertical compressed the carcass, just as that peaked then inverted, the mass damper was tuned to travel in opposition to that effect.
Frequency arrangement such that the sine wave form exactly crossed for those two component to cancel each other.
It means the hydraulic damper can be used only to control other normal chassis kinetics without compromise in coping with this Frequency.
LolAR3-GP wrote: ↑03 Apr 2023, 21:32It was the opposite actually. Using stiff suspension to maintain an optimum ground clearance for aerodynamic performance was more important than mechanical grip. The mass damper suppressed the "jumping" of the car due to stiff suspension when the car ran over kerbs.
As I know it pains you to ever agree with me on anything ( ), I have supplied the following motorsport.com tech article:
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/banne ... h/4788123/Renault's mass damper is a typical example of Formula 1 teams using their ingenuity and lateral thinking to find a way around a problem, and then exploit it even further.
The Enstone-based team had found the rules introduced for 2005 required it to run an excessive amount of front spring stiffness to keep the front wing as close as possible to the ground.
This was the sort of mechanical trade-off that teams typically make to try to find aerodynamic performance. However, this set off an unwanted bounce effect when the car was in pitch, and so a push was made to try to find a way of counteracting its effect.
Renault immediately found that the mass damper would not only settle the car, but also allow their drivers to attack the kerbs much harder, giving a more compliant ride and a more stable aerodynamic platform.
and in a shameless effort to bring this back on topic, Aston Martin do not have a mass damper...that we know of . Although Alonso may have one...between his...oh nevermind