Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
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 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.
I suppose that means it IS a movable aerodynamic device
Wonder why they chose that excuse to outlaw the things.......
Movable ballast is more believable (CofG is not just located longtitudinally)
On the bright side; if this means if MS wins the WDC this year - surely he will retire. That will free up the driver market and it will give Manchild plenty to moan about
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.
I guess they are saying that the mass part of the damper is not rigidly fixed to the entirely sprung part of the car and thatt is does not remain immobile in relation to the sprung part fo the car.
On that basis you couls probably say that about the pistons and suspension components! ban them!
Notice that Article 3.15 clearly prescribes a set of rules for "any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance". This obviously means that the COG location influences aerodynamic performance. As Mikey_s says (and I've said previously), pistons will be banned next, for sure...
RH1300S wrote:Movable ballast is more believable (CofG is not just located longtitudinally)
All I can find about ballast:
4.2 Ballast:
Ballast can be used provided it is secured in such a way that tools are required for its removal. It must be possible to fix seals if deemed necessary by the FIA technical delegate.
Which would make it as much a stretch to ban under this rule as under 3.15 IMHO.
As i understand the mass damper is installed to reduce the vibrational frequencies constant caused when the front tyres deflect when running over the kerbs.
Keeping the tyre in contact with the track surface and giving better feed back to the driver.
But i can't understand how this effects the aero of the car?
The FIA's argument is very weak, at best. Anybody can clearly see that in order for a part to have an aerodynamic effect it must contact a moving fluid...this is the very definition (i know it's beneficial to vehicle stability, and thus has an effect on the aero, but the mass damper itself is not an aerodynamic part)....now why did it take the FIA nearly a year to make this decision?
this whole thing just smells bad to me, and the fact that it hurts Renault when they're in danger of losing the WDC really pisses me off...it will be very hard for them to recover. all this and they're losing michelin...just pathetic
I hope Renault wins it all. Then Michelin and Renault can issue a press release saying "The FIA was against us 100% all the way and we still managed to win." And nobody would argue with them. Ginsu said it best that it just happened to happen when the fight was starting to heat up.
Max Mosley and Charlie Whiting probably get more drunk than Kimi does... the thing is they drink at work.
Bring back wider rear wings, V10s, and tobacco advertisements
wazojugs wrote: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.
Wow. I can't say I'm surprised about this although I would have loved to see someone actually sometime defeat what is yet another complaint known by many in the paddock to be derived from a Ferrari 'chat' with someone..
Is it taking conspiracy theory too far to wonder how funny it would be if the Max/Charlie/Jean 'quiet talks' finally got recorded and publicised one day?
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. Last year, when Renault ran the mass damper no one in authority in the FIA made any noise. Then again, Renault and Michelin enjoyed such an advantage over Ferrari and Bridgestone that it would not have made much of a difference. But this season, once Ferrari got their act together and suddenly appeared genuine contenders, did this issue suddenly appear in the mind of Charlie Whiting, on the FIA payroll. The inspectors at the tracks believed the mass dampers were not illegal, but the yobbos at the top disagreed, creating a very profound controversy in who appled the rules when and where. And yes, the removal of the mass damper did hinder the performance of the Renaults, Alonso has not been as dominant since they were removed.
So the powers in the FIA took it to the courts, and we now have to live with the final rulings. In a court, in a lot of cases it's who brings the most, the best, and expensive lawyers on your side. I wonder how many lawyers the FIA had retained for this case.
Anyone who has read any of my coments on moveable aero devices knows I draw a hard line, that I have zero tolerance on any wings or flaps or stuff that can move or flex. But this time I disagree, the application of this rule is using the letter of the law, and ignoring the original spirit of the original legislation.
Oh well, the ruling has been made, we have to live with it. I don't like how once again, ugly politics interfere with this wonderful sport. The only solace I can take away from this is knowing that it will give us fans a very exciting end of the season, that if Fernando Alonso mamages to hang on to his lead, it will be darn exciting to watch.
Ok, it is illegal but that brings us to following conclusion - FIA stewards including Charlie Whiting are clumsy amateurs because they weren't able to read FIA regulations from September 2005 to July 2006. Perhaps they are illiterate too. I'd accept this court ruling but I'd expect to see mass damping of those "experts" working for FIA who claimed for almost a year that mass damper is legal.
Charlie Whiting is playing technical god, master of the high tech and he wasn’t able to tell what was the influence of simple weight attached to spring is for almost a year!
14 races this season only he found it legal and than something struck him as he realized that what Max told him on the phone will add zeros to his bank account.
