Court says Dampers are Illegal

[Ciro Pabón]

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

Pardon me? Is it fair for somebody to screw you, and then give you incredible reasons for doing it? You must find that chutzpah is the most strict logic predicate.

Actually, the argument of FIA is called the "no true scotman" fallacy, I believe. It goes like this:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply (by Tom, I guess): "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

I apply it to FIA's argument:

A:"No movable aero-devices are permited"
R:"But the mass dampers are not aero devices because they do not deflect the wind"
A:"A true aero device is anything that influences aerodynamic behaviour in any way"

Got it? If somebody gives you an argument about your wrong clasification, you reclasify. Good, twisted, oportune logic: like the priest of the medieval tale that, on time of fasting, baptized a chicken as "Fish" to be able to eat it.

All right, I give up, this is not a logic contest. I might be stupid, but I believe not that much: this it is a punch from reality, a cold shower, a fly in the soup, an incredibly disappointing ruling.

The general feeling seems to be: "give it to Schumacher, what the heck. We won't concede this championship, this time not because of the boredom or the "professional fouls", but because of rule bending."

I cite Mr. Churchill: "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!"

It was not recorded in the speech, I'm afraid, but the legend says that at this very moment, the Commons stood up as one man and chanted "Go Renault! Go McLaren!". A little voice at the back said "Go Williams...".

[Saribro]

Well I should have clarified that by 'it', I meant the banning.

Now, let's begin (3rd time, hopefully the charm):
-The referee is always right.
-The court of appeal has deemed mass dampers illegal
Thus: Mass dampers are illegal and should be (and now are) banned.
Nothing unfair about it.

The FIA claims mass dampers are illegal because it's a movable aerodynamic device. While that would make it illegal, the validity of this assessment is currently in dispute.
Some people here keep shouting "movable ballast". Mass dampers are indeed movable ballast, however, I have yet to see anyone quote the rules by which this would be illegal. All I found was that ballast must be secured in such a way that tools must be required to remove it. IMHO, this doesn't actually prohibit moving.
Other people might be able to bring extra possibilities, but I'd say the unfairness of the reasoning is currently questionable but edging towards the unfair side.

FIA knew about these mass dampers all season, and only decided to ban them 3/4 into the season. The only acceptable options are banning when first getting acquainted, or, if significant time has past before all influences of a certain devices have been discovered or sufficiently evaluated, at the end of the season.
On this point I'd say there's no doubt, the timing of this ban application is about as unfair as it can get.


Did I finally get my point across now ?

[manchild]

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.

So turbo powered cars were illegal because turbos are banned now?

That would be a better contribution to your claim than banning of mass damper, because mass damper was never banned specifically in FIA regulations as turbos are so since there isn't a single change in FIA tech regulations for 2006 than principle you insist says that everything that was used in F1 since 1950 till 2006 which is now banned by technical regulations was actually illegal than. How logical can that be? So, mass damper is only illegal since yesterday, August 24th just as turbos are illegal since 1989.

Now, let's begin (3rd time, hopefully the charm):
-The referee is always right.
-The court of appeal has deemed mass dampers illegal
Thus: Mass dampers are illegal and should be (and now are) banned.
Nothing unfair about it.

Did I finally get my point across now ?

Nope

If one court with identical judges holds 18 sessions (races from Sep 2005 to July 2006) using identical evidence and identical law book 18 times says "not guilty" than what else apart from corruption can cause this court to change its opinion 19th time, once again with identical judges using identical evidence and identical law book? Such ruling can be actually the truth but such court and judges must loose their jobs and licenses.

So I’m not saying that mass damper is legal because I think it is movable ballast but if that is so than I’d like to see all FIA officials who gave alibi for mass damper for 12 months (including Charlie Whiting) sacked from FIA because if mass damper is illegal and they knew it from day one that means they didn’t care about FIA technical regulations and exposed divers and spectators to danger. The only remaining option is that “Charlie’s gang” was incompetent for the job they had from day one and that requires same measures – mass damping of those people from FIA and F1.

Of course, I know they are competent but unless one of them speaks up to the press and reveals who put the pressure on them to change their opinion now, I have all the right in the world to call them incompetent dilatants because now it just seams that they weren’t able to figure out how weight attached to spring works (elementary school knowledge).

[dumrick]

Now, let's begin (3rd time, hopefully the charm):
-The referee is always right.
-The court of appeal has deemed mass dampers illegal
Thus: Mass dampers are illegal and should be (and now are) banned.
Nothing unfair about it.

THIS is logical falacy. The referee is NOT always right. You must comply with LAWS and RULES. The referee is there to interpret rules and assess whether you are within the rules or not and it's possible for him to be bribed, drunk, drugged, psychotyc or plain wrong...
Now, contrary to what happens in civil law (about which I know little and don't give my opinion), I am a graduated engineer, work in the automotive industry, must understand technical rules and laws (national regulations for vehicles, etc.) and therefore, feel qualified to interpret the FIA set of rules. And this applies to most people in this forum, who have the technical knowledge and the intelligence, eventually some experience, qualifying them.

So, if you started acting in a wise way and think about this issue with your own head and discuss it, it would be welcome, because being in this forum stating that something is in a way because the FIA and the court said so, even if everyone's interpretation (with nuances...) is different, is sterile.

[dumrick]

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.

Clear case of trying to subvert logic. That's not the issue, is it? The issue is if a defined paragraph in the rules (concerning aero devices) applies in this case...

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.

I deem as unfair when one obeys completely to a set of predefined rules and laws and is declared to be doing something illegal under false and silly pretextes without the laws being changed.

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.

Is this worth the effort? Laws and rules exist for interpretation. My and general interpretation is that article 3.15 doesn't forbid mass dampers. Engine rules specify what their architecture must be and, therefore, eliminates every other configuration.

However, reading your posts, I'm starting to realize that effectivelly there are people whose reasonings' are totally out of what I consider common sense and logic and that it is possible that the judges in the court of appeal were not, after all, simply biased or sold.

[Saribro]

So turbo powered cars were illegal because turbos are banned now? :roll:

Now you're just trying to be an idiot...

if mass damper is illegal and they knew it from day one

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.

Laws and rules exist for interpretation.

Indeed.

My and general interpretation is that article 3.15 doesn't forbid mass dampers.

And neither the FIA nor the court of appeal agree.

However, reading your posts, I'm starting to realize that effectivelly there are people whose reasonings' are totally out of what I consider common sense and logic and that it is possible that the judges in the court of appeal were not, after all, simply biased or sold.

After 3 explanations you still don't have a clue as to what it actually is I'm saying. It's like watching Bush go "If you're not with us you're against us" after 9/11. I'd say, have fun with the zealotry, because nuancing is just beyond you.

[Ciro Pabón]

After 3 explanations you still don't have a clue as to what it actually is I'm saying. It's like watching Bush go "If you're not with us you're against us" after 9/11. I'd say, have fun with the zealotry, because nuancing is just beyond you.

C'mon, Saribro, my brother... do not take it like that. We see it as a simple statement: "Referees are always right". Moreover, a simple answer: "Referees cannot change the rules".

Of course, some people have sprinkled a little seasoning over the argument, also a simple one: "we are not that stupid to allow FIA to tell us we do not understand THIS rule..."

Sorry if you feel we do not understand you to the point of ignorance. When a lot of people does not understand, it is time to reassess your explanation. Maybe, heaven forbids, you do not understand us: it is always a possibility in the world of fair minds.

Try a fourth time: maybe our hard craniums are not that hard after all... we are also a bunch of engineers, mechanics and hard core fans that agree with you on one point: life is hard to define. And we like to argue with you, we find it stimulating, do not worry. We prefer people that argue without end, that is why we are here...

But let me tell you, I bet dumrick and manchild are thinking that presumption of naiveté by FIA (c'mon....) is against justice. We are not saying we do not presume innocence, but certainly, we do not assume they are NAIVE.

It is hard to avoid in your argument the plain fact that this strange ruling is giving Schumacher the championship in a silver plate with a timing that defies Machiavelli abilities.

Precisely, in this spirit, the new article 2.5 of the proposed regulations for 2008 states how justice has to be delivered:

2.5 Novel technologies
Any novel technology not specifically covered by these regulations, but which is deemed permissible by the FIA Formula One Technical Department, will be only be (sic) admitted until the end of the Championship during which it is introduced...

All we are saying is that if it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck... AND you are standing in the middle of the "All-Ducks-Mega-Farm" facility, then probably is a duck.

Quack.

[DaveKillens]

If we all agree on everything, life would be boring. It's the different viewpoints and that make life interesting to me. I just hope we can amicably agree that we can disagree.

This mass damper thing is a contentious issue, heck the FIA and some teams and rules interpreters did not agree, so that's why it had to go to court. Whether we agree with the court's decision is an issue for each individul, but we have to live with it. Even renault have gone back to business, Flavio is done flogging a dead duck.

[Saribro]

It is hard to avoid in your argument the plain fact that this strange ruling is giving Schumacher the championship in a silver plate with a timing that defies Machiavelli abilities.

FIA knew about these mass dampers all season, and only decided to ban them 3/4 into the season. The only acceptable options are banning when first getting acquainted, or, if significant time has past before all influences of a certain devices have been discovered or sufficiently evaluated, at the end of the season.
On this point I'd say there's no doubt, the timing of this ban application is about as unfair as it can get.

READ ! For the love of god, just READ !!

Is there really no one who understands the differences between:
-banning an illegal device
-reasoning for a device to be deemed illegal
-timing of a ban-enforcement
??

4th time then, as you suggest:
-banning: not unfair.
-reasoning: FIA/courts in disagreement with many others, personally I'm still on the fence about mass dampers. 65/35 towards unfair ?
-timing: as I've said several times now, unfair without question.

I'm not speaking chinese through babelfish am I?

Precisely, in this spirit, the new article 2.5 of the proposed regulations for 2008 states how justice has to be delivered:

2.5 Novel technologies
Any novel technology not specifically covered by these regulations, but which is deemed permissible by the FIA Formula One Technical Department, will be only be (sic) admitted until the end of the Championship during which it is introduced...

Good to see common sense about grey areas to be put in the regulations. And as my in self-quote above, either you allow a device the entire season, or specifically ban it when you discover it.

[ginsu]

-The referee is always right.

F1 is not basketball, or football, or whatever sport in which it is judged on the spot, no instant replays provided. This decision cannot be wiped away by human fallacy....people argued for weeks whether the mass damper is legal or not. The fact that the German race stewards deemed it legal for the race shows just how contentious this issue is. Whether or not the FIA is right or wrong is of major importance here, and that's exactly why there seems to be so much heated debate. Regardless, Flav and Pat will continue to do their jobs, but to think that they don't feel passionate about this issue is simply ignorant....I'm sure they are very disappointed and feel that the WDC is slipping away...just put yourself in their shoes...after all, Alonso is totally losing his cool...they just lost a huge technical development...fisi's unreliable...people at Renault must be going nuts...and the fact that Schumacher and Ferrari are gaining from this is not to be ignored.

this is a bad decision, with bad timing, with bad consequences for the fight for the 2006 WDC...and if Ferrari win (most likely), then I am simply going to write it off to this untimely rule bending....for me, this will not be a true fight...they really should have let Renault run the device for the rest of the season, then nobody would care, and we'd still have a great battle for the WDC on our hands....but, alas, this is not the case, the FIA have, again screwed with the rules too much and effectively quashed whatever pleasure their may have been in watching this season play itself out.

[slick]

Many are missing the point. F1 is about having a technical advantage. Renault have managed to keep the mass dampers (front & rear) quiet for two years now, and that is impressive. The position taken by the FIA comes into play because Renault has spent the past year with a series of 'trash plays' against other teams. In the early part of the session there was mush ado about nothing concerning flexi-wings and the less known lightweight wings, mid-planes and chins. Some may argue that Flav and Renault fuelled this. Why? To divert the attention from what they were doing ith the Mass Dampers. To be honest, even with the ruling by the FIA Pat & Flav must still have a cheeky grin on their faces over the whole issue - Because they fooled us all. It was clear that Renault had a traction advantage, look back a session to when Fernando could pull amazing traction out of a hairpin to pull away from the Ferrari. Now we know how. Many teams assumed that this was down to flexible aero devices. So they banned those. Then there was talk of lightweight beams etc. Most of the time there was Renault quietly, but deliberately pointing the finger at the obvious offenders (Ferrari) who suffered as a result.

Then, as we all now know, the cat was let out of the bag. A small article describing a crude mass damper located in the nose of the Renault that could smooth out some of the front suspension oscillations. And so Mass Damper fever broke loose. Most teams will now have a Mass Damper system on their drawing boards just in case the decision was ever made to make it legal. However Renault only have themselves to blame really. Ferrari clearly gained from the flexi-wing position earlier in the year, in which Renault played a part in getting it banned, however small. So the FIA has to firm, but fair. If the Mass Damper is legal, then why aren't flexi wings? True a Flexi-Wing is an aero device, but it doesn’t strictly move in relation to the spring mass of the car, and is rigidly mounted. It just deflects under load, like any other part of the cars bodywork, and the deflection is within the limits of the FIA deflection test.

It could be for this reason that the Mass Damper is deemed to be an 'Aero' device. Its function is to stabilise the movement of the Aero features on the car, optimising airflow. In truth it really helps maintain the Tires contact patch with the track, thus increasing grip. However the cynics could say that the branding of the system as an 'Aero' device by the FIA, is a two fingers at Renault for their manipulation of both the other teams and the FIA with this system, considering how long they have got away with it.

From my point of view, the Mss Damper was an innovative piece of sound mechanical engineering, from first principals. Logically thought out, and executed. Furthermore, it's simple. Flexi-Wings are time and money consuming, but putting a mass on a spring or damper is cost effective, meaning its use is within reach of everyone. Isn't this what the FIA are trying to achieve? Surly F1 is meant to be the peak of automotive innovation, which is part of its appeal. The message from the FIA this week is, '....We don't want innovation here' - Ban everything. If only they would look deeper at the consequences of their actions, and try and lead the sport rather than reacting to it, then maybe it could be more competitive. If there is a device that can enable the cars to maintain grip with lower power (and hence speed) to provide closer racing (Did you see Fernando cutting through the grind in Hungary? That was great to watch a car perform like that - regardless of what car, or who was driving), but be affordable to all - That can only be a good thing right?

Anyone who has looked at the 2008 proposed regs will know that there are dark times ahead, much in the same vein as the ban on Mass Dampers. I fear it's going to be bad...... very bad!

[Saribro]

Some interesting views there, slick. Very nice post.

And indeed, the future is looking kinda scary. The concept of trying to cut cost and improve overtaking is great, but freezing development and limiting investment in certain areas (such as the engine as a simple example) just moves the cost to other areas and makes the tech-side more boring. But we digress ... :).

[manchild]

Renault R26 - mass damper system

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

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.

Should I "rant" or is this obvious as I think it is?

If only Charlie Whiting would surf Bernie’s site he'd figure out that carbon rim shields are illegal too because it says so in the article – “It also slightly improves aerodynamic efficiency”. Even more, there is no “indirectly” as it stands in description of mass damper which means that rim shields directly improve aerodynamic efficiency.

But hey, it took Charlie one year to figure out mass damper is illegal so all we have to do is wait one year until he bans rim shields too (after Schuey and Ferrari get another title).

[Duh]

From my point of view, the Mss Damper was an innovative piece of sound mechanical engineering, from first principals. Logically thought out, and executed. Furthermore, it's simple.

I have a vague memory that I've done an exercise related to mass dumpers. Course could have been Vibrations 101 and subject Fiat Croma, production car some 20 years back. Not absolutely sure though. So it sure is simple, maybe even innovative, can't say. But I think it's fair to say that every decent engineer should be familiar with the idea.

But maybe someone who knows the rules and technical aspects of F1 better could kindly explain why other teams haven't implemented this. I find it hard to believe that they haven't thought of this. Natural explanation would be different interpretation of the rules, but that's just speculation.

I agree that the reasoning behind banning sounds weak at best.

[dumrick]

I agree with most of slick's post, I must only comment this bit:

If the Mass Damper is legal, then why aren't flexi wings? True a Flexi-Wing is an aero device, but it doesn’t strictly move in relation to the spring mass of the car, and is rigidly mounted. It just deflects under load, like any other part of the cars bodywork, and the deflection is within the limits of the FIA deflection test.

There is a difference between what is stated on the rules and the verification procedures. The rules have never forbidden mass dampers. Concerning aero devices they state that they cannot move. Now, everybody knows that every material that is subject to loads bends in some way. Therefore, Ferrari and other teams explored the technical verification procedure in order to go AGAINST the spirit of the rules, being WITHIN the allowed tolerances. Mass dampers, on the other way, were and are not against the rules, in spirit or in written.

2.5 Novel technologies
Any novel technology not specifically covered by these regulations, but which is deemed permissible by the FIA Formula One Technical Department, will be only be (sic) admitted until the end of the Championship during which it is introduced...

This is something that I really hate. The FIA doesn't anymore looks at the rules as a set of restrictions to what can be done in the cars. They want the interpretation of rules to be freezed forever. They state they will ban any legal new device in the end of the championship it is introduced. If Mosley-like minded fellows were in charge of motorports since the '50's, we would still have cigar-shaped, front-engined, wingless cars with diagonal tyres with conventional threads...