go take your logic elsewhere :hide:

This dependance on tyres is not good. I look forward to the single make but the only problem will be that any team not already on that make has a lot of testing to catch up on. And I'll just stand aside whilst the flame roars past me but we all know which team benefits from tyre testing atm.

Renault did make a particular comment at Hock when they left the Michelins out the back of the Pit for all to see. They arn't happy with Michlelins performance and I don't blame them.

The performance differential between those two tyre manufacturers is so great that it detracts from the racing. Either open it open to any manufacturer and leave it to the teams to decide or close it down to one make. Either one or the other not to the ones who dangle enough carrots in front of Big Bernie.

As for the mass dampers, they are a well known engineering concept and I'm suprised it has taken F1 this long to include them. Fair play to them if they can get them to work and level out the field slightly. Hopefully the FIA will climb down over this one.

It does make me laugh the way people seem to think the removal of the mass damper has made them totally uncompetitive. It's balls. There is no way that something like that can give a car more than a couple of tenths of a second at best. Fundamentally the aim of the mass damper is to help the front of the car recover from riding bumps. This results in the front tyres being in contact with the ground a bit longer, and hence increases the exit grip. There is nothing illegal of backhand about it.

Anything an F1 team adds to their car has to be OK'd by the FIA. It's the same in any race series. It has been the case in the past that some teams have managed to slip things by, but it's usually electronics or the function of a part of the car (eg flexi wings) rather than a huge addition to the car structure. The thing is that as soon as a team complain the FIA have to start an investigation.

IMO Alonso is an awesome driver. He drives with so much understeer cause that's just his style. It doesn't mean he's any worse off for it. He's obviously fast like that, so it's not a problem.

Appeal date set for 22nd August. The FIA recomened to the court of appeal that retrospective penalties not be applied and yet Charlie Whiting just failed STRs car at scrutineering for practice.

I'm really starting to wonder what is going on at the F!A. All they have to do is be consistent but this just sends out mixed signals.

Quote :

Either open it open to any manufacturer and leave it to the teams to decide or close it down to one make.

Definately one make, multiple makes means softer tyres (actually faster) but more marbles on track (no overtaking). One has to go and i'm glad for it - I dont care which I feel no nostalgia here, but obviously it'll be Michelin.

Quote from Gentlefoot :

Appeal date set for 22nd August. The FIA recomened to the court of appeal that retrospective penalties not be applied and yet Charlie Whiting just failed STRs car at scrutineering for practice.

???

Isn't this issue silly enough yet?

Do you know what pisses me off the most about all of this? The fact that I'm still getting up at 5am to watch this garbage!

I keep thinking that they'll put on a good showillepall but the last few years it's been turning into the automobile equivelant of the World Wrestling Federation.

speedfreak227

Quote from speedfreak227 :

Do you know what pisses me off the most about all of this? The fact that I'm still getting up at 5am to watch this garbage!

I keep thinking that they'll put on a good showillepall but the last few years it's been turning into the automobile equivelant of the World Wrestling Federation.

speedfreak227

I always video the ones on at unsocial hours.

Quote from speedfreak227 :

Do you know what pisses me off the most about all of this? The fact that I'm still getting up at 5am to watch this garbage!

I keep thinking that they'll put on a good showillepall but the last few years it's been turning into the automobile equivelant of the World Wrestling Federation.

speedfreak227

Nah, WWF has more surprises and is better entertainment.

Do you by any chance get GP2 coverage? I'm finding lately that I'm looking forward to it much more than to F1.

FIA International court of appeal rule in FIAs favour on mass dampers. Renault will be unable to use them.

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=37080

Quote from Gentlefoot :

FIA International court of appeal rule in FIAs favour on mass dampers. Renault will be unable to use them.

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=37080

So when are the bans for brake pedals and steering wheels coming up? They have great influence on the aerodynamics, are movable and are not part of the suspension. Oh and tyres too.

What a joke. :thumbsdow

I think it's great personally. :up:

Quote from tristancliffe :

I think it's great personally. :up:

I'd like to know why? Surely F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport, allowing the best technology regardless of the price?

No - they keep trying this then people complain that it's boring or dangerous or too slow or too fast. It needs to be the pinnacle of motorsport, by which I mean the most technical, the hardest to do, the fastest and the most intruiging. But it doesn't have to have amazing technology, just more than other forms. It already does.

Having mass dampers which we can't see, make the cars look even more 'boring', puts additional mass in a part of the car that might hit someone (imagine Zanardi's champcar accident if the nosecone had weighed 25 kilos instead of 10 say) and influence both the suspension and the aero (though I suspect the suspension control is the main reason - any aero advantage wasn't originally planned) doesn't make F1 any better. Can anyone say F1 is better when mass dampers were allowed? Will it help road cars or public safety? Or is it JUST a way of going 2 tenths faster? The fact that Renault have been 'unfairly' affected will be forgotten in a couple of months time (6 at most), and we'll have cars bouncing around and suffering again.

The trouble is you can't make the F1 engineers forget stuff - wouldn't it be nice to get rid of traction control, semi-automatic gearboxes, electronic diffs, refuelling etc etc. It would still be the 'pinnacle', but cheaper and more thrilling. I'd even suggest cross plies, but tyre technology does actually filter down to the road, so radials it is.

Tristan I agree with many of your points.

But the problem for me is the manner in which the FIA rules are written and applied. Rulings like today allow the FIA to ban just about anything they want to ban, whenever they want, stripping teams of their hard work and performance advantage. Don't like a part? Ban it and then scan the rule book for any obscure paragraphs that can be abused to justify the ban.

Hasn't the term "spirit of the rules" often been used in the past to clarify certain loopholes? It's very clear that the "spirit" of the paragraph in question never intended to apply to this kind of device but to make sure that wings etc. don't change shape or angle of attack, an issue that the FIA has enough problems with already.

Yes, but the engineers try to outwit the rule writers. And the rule writers have to keep things sane. Don't get me wrong - I think the FIA should have simply disallowed these to start with, not half way through a damn good championship. Or at least ban them for next year. I don't like HOW the FIA have done it, but I am glad the FIA looked more closely at them, and decided they should be banned.

One of these days I'd love to sit down, read both sets of rules and adjust/add/remove rules until I create what I think would be perfect. But I'll never have that amount of time or inclination.

Not that its at all suprising that the FIA International Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the FIA

Quote from tristancliffe :

I don't like HOW the FIA have done it, but I am glad the FIA looked more closely at them, and decided they should be banned.

I can't find an English version of the decision on the net but they basically said that since the mass isn't part of the suspension, it's a part of the bodywork and it influences the front ride which influences the front wing which makes it a movable aerodynamic device which aren't allowed for obvious reasons. illepall

I don't know enough about the system, but there seem to be many silly rules in F1.

They should outlawed it by bringing in a new regulation, I can see it having no effect at all on aerodynamics.

Like on lfs when you have damaged suspension the car hops about when you turn, which usually makes you spin...thats an extreme version of what a car will do after hitting bumps in a turn. The mass damper works by moving in the opposite direction to the suspension which cancels out the bumps, meaning drivers can stay on the throttle instead of lifting because the car isnt stable. (feel free to correct that, thats my understanding of the system)

By all means ban it on safety grounds, because a big lump like that could easily flat out in a large impact and injure marshalls or drivers.

why does it matter if it "Moves" the Aero parts. i could understand if they had control of the aero part movements but i don't think they do. To me there just trying to hype of the Championship

Whether or not it's good for F1 I don't know. But my view is this. They banned these mass dampers because there is a rule that says you are not allowed to use any moving aerodynamic parts. My idea of an aerodynamic part is something that is designed to control the flow of air over it, like the wings and bodywork. These mass dampers are enclosed in the nosecone and do not have any air travelling over them. However, the FIA say that because it effects the movement of the nosecone (which does have air travelling over it) it is a moving aerodynamic part.

If you follow that logic then the engine is an aerodynamic part too and that should also be banned because it pushes the car forward and therefore effects the aerodynamics over the whole car lol. For that matter, we'd better bann the driver too seeing as how much throttle he applies effects the speed the air flows over the car.

In fact I struggle to think of any elements of an F1 car that shouldn't be banned if you follow the FIA logic.

Quote from Gentlefoot :

Whether or not it's good for F1 I don't know. But my view is this. They banned these mass dampers because there is a rule that says you are not allowed to use any moving aerodynamic parts. My idea of an aerodynamic part is something that is designed to control the flow of air over it, like the wings and bodywork. These mass dampers are enclosed in the nosecone and do not have any air travelling over them. However, the FIA say that because it effects the movement of the nosecone (which does have air travelling over it) it is a moving aerodynamic part.

If you follow that logic then the engine is an aerodynamic part too and that should also be banned because it pushes the car forward and therefore effects the aerodynamics over the whole car lol. For that matter, we'd better bann the driver too seeing as how much throttle he applies effects the speed the air flows over the car.

Exactly. The aerodynamic effects of throttle, brakes and steering are much greater than of the mass damper. They just abused a rule that was clearly meant to govern moving bodywork for reasons incomprehensible to me.

The mass dampers clearly breach the regulations. They can not be deemed as a part of the suspension by the definition. Furthermore Renault did not comply with the rules concerning disclosure of the new device.

Quote :

WHEREAS whatever the benefit may be, even if downplayed by Mild Seven Renault F1, it is necessary to apply Article 3.15 of the Formula One Technical Regulations which specifies that: "........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.......";

and...

Quote :

WHEREAS consequently, the TMD with its mobile mass is not in compliance with Article 3.15 of the Formula One Technical Regulations which also include Articles 2.4 and 2.6 which specify that cars must fully comply with the Technical Regulations during the whole duration of an event;

WHEREAS the TMD is not a suspended part as defined by Article 1.14 of the Formula One Technical Regulations which states that the sprung suspension is "the means whereby all complete wheels are suspended from the body/chassis unit by a spring medium";

WHEREAS it is necessary to give credit to all parties for their willingness to communicate with each other on the subject, it is however necessary, for any future developments that might apply to similar devices, to refer to Article 2.4 of the Technical Regulations which allows competitors to justify the innovations which are suggested, and to obtain official clarification from the FIA in this respect, which was not the case;

and unavoidably...

Quote :

WHEREAS in the light of the principles mentioned with respect to the application of certain articles of the Formula One Technical Regulations, and in the mutual interest of the competitors and of the FIA, the ICA does not wish to pronounce a sentence with regard to the costs of the hearing;

ON THESE GROUNDS,

STATES and RULES that the FIA's appeal is admissible;

DECLARES that the appeal is founded;

QUASHES consequently Decision N°8 taken by the Stewards of the Meeting on 28 July 2006 at the Grand Prix of Germany;

RE-RULING,

STATES AND RULES that use of the device known as TMD is an infringement of Article 3.15 of the Formula One Technical Regulations

So, the device is not a suspension component, even if Renault honsestly believes that it is, the TMD does not comply with the regs. They failed to obtain official clarification (F1 teams have a long history of this kind of breach so it isn't anything new, nor surprising), breaching Article 2.4.

Opinions aside, the FIA have no choice but to apply the rules and regulations. If they failed to apply their own rules the smelly stuff would hit the fan in a big way. It wouldn't matter which path the FIA took, someone would have their panties in a twist, but in this case they have upheld their rules, which is the only thing to do.

Quote from FIA :

WHEREAS whatever the benefit may be, even if downplayed by Mild Seven Renault F1, it is necessary to apply Article 3.15 of the Formula One Technical Regulations which specifies that: "........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.......";

I agree that taken literally the wording of this paragraph does make the TMD illegal. The problem is that brake pedals, steering wheels etc. would also be illegal under this paragraph. Which to me shows that this particular rule was never intended to be applied in this way, otherwise they would have mentioned the above exemptions.

They should have just looked at the TMD as a new kind of device, not yet covered by the rules, and declared it illegal from 2007 onwards.