Court says Dampers are Illegal

[wazojugs]

But i can't understand how this effects the aero of the car?

There are times when the front of the car pitches up, in an undesired manner. For instance, the tires themselves have spring, and really can't be controlled like shocks. So when the front of the car pitches up, the front wing moves further away from the road surface, and thus downforce drops. The goal of all chassis and tuning engineers is to keep the chassis, and thus the wings, at a constant height above the road surface. That is what the old, now illegal active suspension was all about.
The mass damper would have minimized this unwanted pitch of the nose, and helped to keep the front wing at it's proper distance from the road surface.
Oh well, now the ruling has been made, we have to follow and respect their decision. Smart thing Renault did not run the mass damper in the last few races, even though it was questionable whether they would have been penalized from that action. My gut instinct is that it was smart to keep Max from retroactive punishements.

Thanks Dave for you explaination.

[dumrick]

I will just say this: this ruling defies any intelligent reasoning. The aero effect that Dave talks about is there, but is dependent on the body moving as a whole. So track bumps and suspension settings and running over animals have aero effects. This doesn't obviously make them aero devices.

I'm very disappointed at the FIA and at F1. There have always been struggles for power and grey moves. But this is the first time that the FIA (and, yes, I'm stating that this court of appeal CANNOT be imparcial) treats the fans like mindless stupid people and stops caring about at least pretending that they follow a set of rules and democratic principles.
Oh, and I'm 30 and remember the J-M Balestre days, and that little ridiculous dictator was a lot more fairer and more democratic than this nazi --- Mosley...

Well, this is the way things become decadent and eventually die. The CSI died, the FISA died... eventually, this FIA will die.

[DaveKillens]

I will just say this: this ruling defies any intelligent reasoning. The aero effect that Dave talks about is there, but is dependent on the body moving as a whole. So track bumps and suspension settings and running over animals have aero effects. This doesn't obviously make them aero devices.

And don't forget pushrods, rocker arms, springs, and shocks.

[NickT]

I am sorry while I can see the view point of the FIA and I personally would question the legality of the mass damper as movable ballast, I think the way this was handled stinks of the FIA manipulating the championship. If not manipulation, then certainly gross incompetence.

Does this mean that last years championships are brought into question as well? The system has been on the car for over a year and has passed all scrutinising inspections, so how come it is illegal now and not before? The sensible solution would have been to clarify the rules and to ban them from next years cars.

Unfortunately COMMON SENCE IS SOMETHING SADLY LACKING IN MANY AREAS OF F1, particularly the closer you climb to the top of the governing body.

My personal hope is that Renault, their partners and Fernando will rise to the occasion and win the double, and then give Max and his cronies the old 2 fingered salute.

[ginsu]

i'm glad everybody here, at least, thinks it's unfair....i wish we could all start a petition, but unfortunately, F1 is not a democracy! i'd love to hear what Pat Symonds really thinks!

[mini696]

Does this mean that last years championships are brought into question as well?

No because the system wasnt illegal then.

[Saribro]

i'm glad everybody here, at least, thinks it's unfair....

Well I wouldn't go that far. At least, if you mean that banning mass dampers is unfair. However, I would agree that the timing, legal reasoning and handling of the situation is unfair.

[Saribro]

So track bumps and suspension settings and running over animals have aero effects. This doesn't obviously make them aero devices.

1)Track bumps and dead animals don't move. Hell, they aren't even part of the car ...
2)Suspension isn't part of the "sprung" part of the car, and thus, don't fall under 3.15.

[dumrick]

No because the system wasnt illegal then.

Sory, but the rules concerning movable aero devices DIDN'T change from last year. So, if it is illegal now, it was illegal then. Illegality isn't dependent of ruling something as illegal. Illegality exists per se if there is a contravention of laws.

The question here is that there is NO contravention of laws, at least not of the laws under which this ruling was made and the FIA is considering you, me, all people in this forum and all F1 fans as stupid people to make this decision and to pretend to have an unbiased court of appeal. I'm not a Renault fan, as everyone can see from my (uncreative) avatar. But now, I just hope that Renault will win races and the championship as they are being treated like --- and severely hurt by the FIA. And there is a lot of money invested, car sales and jobs on the line, this is NOT MR. MOSLEY'S LITTLE GAME TO PLAY WITH!

[dumrick]

1)Track bumps and dead animals don't move. Hell, they aren't even part of the car ...

Something moving doesn't qualify it as aero devices, either. And they are not part of the car, as much as a mass damper or many others COG influencing parts are also not part of the bodywork or aero devices...

[dumrick]

i'm glad everybody here, at least, thinks it's unfair....

Well I wouldn't go that far. At least, if you mean that banning mass dampers is unfair. However, I would agree that the timing, legal reasoning and handling of the situation is unfair.

Banning mass dampers is unfair because they are not forbidden by the rules that regulate moveable aero devices. They are not even aero devices. And they are not banned in the proper sense. Banning would be to change regulations and forbid them. What happened wasn't a ban. It was a silly masquerade to deliberatelly handicap one competitor.

[Rob W]

Well Rob W, I personally don't like to buy into conspiracies, but the overall timing of how all this played out just plain stinks.

That is exactly the point Dave - bang on. At what point do you stop thinking these things are normal procedural happenings and start thinking it's just plain silliness or worse, a concerted effort to help one team over another for non-sporting reasons?

The timing I guess is what will irk people the most - why does this have to happen at the critical time of the year? If Renault lose now, their fans will cry foul. If they win Ferrari's fans will cry foul. It doens't help the image of the sport. Worse yet it harms the image specifically to those who are its most loyal followers.

Rob

[manchild]

I agree, some device can become illegal ONLY if regulations change in the meantime. Since they didn't change mass damper couldn't become illegal even more because FIA stewards didn't change as well as Charlie Whiting. Same people are in charge for tehcnical inspection of the cars as in 2005 so what has changed?

Respecting FIA ruling without opposing and protesting is same thing as respecting elections results in North Korea or anti-Semitic laws from Hitler’s era. Those were all official documents and rulings with stamps and signatures but that doesn't make them truth and worth of respect.

Mad Max is so much like his daddy (and mommy and uncle).

[Saribro]

And they are not part of the car, as much as a mass damper or many others COG influencing parts are also not part of the bodywork or aero devices...

Mass dampers and whatever ARE part of the car, and the technical regulations DO apply to the car.

Banning mass dampers is unfair because they are not forbidden by the rules that regulate moveable aero devices.

This is a logical fallacy. The (possibly lacking) applicability of the argument used does not make it unfair.

However, I would agree that the timing, legal reasoning and handling of the situation is unfair.

And they are not banned in the proper sense. Banning would be to change regulations and forbid them.

The rules don't say "Rotary engines are forbidden" either, but the rules do effectively ban them. Similarly, there may just as well be rules that effectively ban mass dampers, but much of the dispute of course is whether 3.15 is the rule that does.

[Saribro]

I agree, some device can become illegal ONLY if regulations change in the meantime. Since they didn't change mass damper couldn't become illegal

This is poor logic.
If they are now considered illegal, they always have been illegal. Just because the FIA only realise it at a certain point, or don't instantly enforce it, doesn't mean the legality of mass dampers 'suddenly' changed.