Renault and the damper story

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country
Contact:

Renault and the damper story

Post

http://www.madtv.me.uk/f1insight/defaul ... blogid=265
Formula 1 Insight
Renault and J-Dampers
10/04/2008

Autosport has an interesting interview with Renault's technical director, Bob Bell, in which he states that the team need "a tidal wave" of change if they are to get back on terms with the top teams. No arguments from me on that score; I tend to agree with Alonso when he estimates that Renault are now the eighth fastest team. But something else Bob said caught my eye.

Do you remember the J-damper system that surfaced in the WMSC's ruling on the Renault industrial espionage case? At the time, it was said that the Renault engineers had studied a drawing of McLaren's J-damper and queried its legality with the FIA. In spite of the echoes of the movable floor controversy, no great fuss was made of this - instead, the FIA decided that it was of no importance because Renault had failed to understand how the damper works.

No wonder Renault are having such difficulty designing a competitive car when their engineers cannot grasp a new concept, even with a diagram of it in their hands. It is quite surprising that Flavio did not send them all back to school after that humiliating little exercise.

But the really interesting matter is that the magic J-damper has surfaced again. Bell reckons that one of the team's improvements due for Barcelona will be a J-damper system. So perhaps I am wrong and the Flav really did send his guys back to engineering college - it seems they have managed to understand the thing at last.

Which is just as well, really, since it now appears that several of the teams have their J-dampers in place and are running them already. That would include McLaren, Ferrari, BMW and Red Bull. So it would seem that the engineers at Ferrari, BMW and Red Bull did not even need a copy of McLaren's J-damper to get their heads round the idea. Obviously, we are talking a superior breed of engineer here.

I am left wondering how Renault ever managed to win their two championships with staff so clearly incompetent. Or am I not giving Alonso and his six tenths credit enough? Perhaps, although it seems incredible that he would have managed to get a car designed by such duffers into race-winning situations.

A more likely explanation would be that the WMSC fudged the issue in the first place, aware that Renault must be excused their efforts at industrial espionage, and that the incomprehension business was invented on the spur of the moment. Any detail of the Renault explanation of J-dampers could be picked on with the words, "Ah, they didn't get that quite right."

There is no point in re-hashing the strange events of those WMSC hearings last year; what is done is dung, after all, and the F1 world has found a new political explosion to hold its attention. But I do want to point out that it is rough justice that Renault should be struggling in 2008. They are late in implementing a J-damper system purely because they chose to examine Mackereth's McLaren documents so closely; had they not queried the J-damper in the first place, they would have been free to develop a system of their own quite quickly. Instead and to avoid suspicion of profiting from the documents, they have had to hold fire on it until nearly everyone has J-dampers.

I do love a bit of irony, don't you?

Clive
and now what some other clever people understood

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/n ... 1341.shtml
Mass dampers are set to return to Formula One sooner rather than later according to reports.

The system, which uses sprung weights to counteract any vertical movement of the race car, was banned by the FIA mid-way through the 2006 season. However, Renault is reportedly expected to run a modified version of the system from the Spanish Grand Prix, which is within the rules.

Reports earlier this month from AFP suggested that the device is worth three to four tenths of a second per lap, a significant gain if proven correct.

Renault first ran such a system at the Brazilian Grand Prix in 2006, but was later banned after being deemed to act as movable aerodynamic device – via the chassis itself.


Image
The above diagram shows the Renault system in place at the front of the cockpit.

this is a nice way to start multiple conspiracy theories :mrgreen:

the actual physical difference between the systems according to french magazine autohebdo is thought to be a simple transformation of the linear motion of the old Renault mass damper to a rotary motion of the J-dampers now in use. apparently Toyota's Pascal Vasselon formed an opinion that the devices with rotary action are no different to the linear systems and thus illegal. the J-damper are said to involve a rotating mass guided by a helix system (probably a ball screw)instead of a mass linear suspended between two springs.
an interesting question would be: does the J-damper involve springs? I would say probably. if this is the case the simple transformation of linear to rotary function would suggest that Vasselon might be right.
Last edited by WhiteBlue on 18 Apr 2008, 00:41, edited 2 times in total.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

zac510
22
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 12:58

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

Is it just me or does the f1-live picture look like a gearbox?

Not to mention this 'Clive' fellows slander of the Renault team for not understanding the J-damper... yet failing entirely to explain to us precisely what it is or does and later admit he has no idea! Of course he doesn't actually care about the damper - it's just another vehicle from which he can criticise Mosley and the FIA.. yawn.... what credibility does he have for us to take his blog seriously?
No good turn goes unpunished.

User avatar
jddh1
0
Joined: 29 Jan 2007, 05:30
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

I would have never banned the damping system, ever. And I am a Ferrari fan. I think it is a very clever idea, and that's what F1 is all about - innovation. I'm glad to hear that a better - and within the rules - system is now used by a few teams already and will probably be adopted by the rest of them as well.

mike
2
Joined: 10 Jan 2006, 13:55
Location: Australia, Melbourne

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

Renault first ran such a system at the Brazilian Grand Prix in 2006
i think they meant 2005; how can they run it in brazil when it was banned mid season....

modbaraban
0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007, 17:44
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:an interesting question would be: does the J-damper involve springs? I would say probably. if this is the case the simple transformation of linear to rotary function would suggest that Vasselon might be right.
How would a replacement of springs by... erm, say some hydro-pneumatic solution would make it legal suddenly? (Not that I ever considered a devise not exposed to airflow a moving aero devise and thus illegal). :roll:

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

I discussed the "original"

mass damper controversy (save for the F1 preceding ones in Citroën 2CV and tall buildings, for example) quite extensively with some people, I think at least partly or even entirely before I joined this board even. To cut a terribly long story short, at the time I thought that any interpretation of the rules would've been better implemented between the either of the seasons - especially as Whiting apparently was wholly aware (if not of the functioning but at least of the components of) the TMD. Obviously each and every turn of the story never reached the light of day since the perfectly obvious grounds for discussing the device were surpassed by possibly the most contrived technical argumentation I've seen of something so simple in function.

The ironies of "J" damper's subsequent travels in various "spy" (and other) documents have not been lost on me, but in absence of any decent technical explanations being available I've been unwilling to take the issue up. At least on first reading the above resources do not seem to have much potential to reduce my ignorance. What I did note once the original Renault damper was interpreted out of use was that the teams probably would not lose much time in devising such a mass that corresponds to creating the original damping forces an integral part of the suspension. This seemed the simplest way of avoiding FIA's technical delegates' rationale - in so doing the forces aren't conveyed through the bodywork anymore, possibly rendering the aerodynamic ramifications regulatorily void.

Now there seems to be some possibility that this has been made to work. It worked wonders for Alonso the last time over, so I guess I understand the incentive. I wonder, though, if the same effect is possible without adding mass at all.
"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." - Yogi Berra

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country
Contact:

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

modbaraban wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote:an interesting question would be: does the J-damper involve springs? I would say probably. if this is the case the simple transformation of linear to rotary function would suggest that Vasselon might be right.
How would a replacement of springs by... erm, say some hydro-pneumatic solution would make it legal suddenly? (Not that I ever considered a devise not exposed to airflow a moving aero devise and thus illegal). :roll:
I would consider a pneumatic spring an equivalent to a steel spring
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

scarbs
393
Joined: 08 Oct 2003, 09:47
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

I read the F1Insight article too, I don’t know this guys background but berating Renaults engineers for not understanding a drawing of a device probably without much context (as Mackereth wasn’t an suspension expert) seems a touch harsh.

The J-Damper is in fact a spinning mass on the damper rod inside a damper body, I don’t know of any springs or hydraulics or MR fluid involved. It works much like the Mass damper to take the energy from the tyres movement to maximise contact patch area\load.
As its a recognisable part of the suspension (fitted in place of the third damper), works to improve the use of the tyres (a suspensions purpose) and works only in response to suspension loads, it may be seen as legal. The fact that the device is light, small and well contained compared to the bigger masses place in the nose cone of TMDs, probably means this will be remain legal.

I have more info but can’t post it here as its going to appear in Autosport.com next week.

By the way the F1Live picture is of the rear mass damper Renault used in 2006, the weight was suspended on levers and controlled via the spring\damper on the L shaped bell crank.

Scarbs

Miguel
2
Joined: 17 Apr 2008, 11:36
Location: San Sebastian (Spain)

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

I suppose this new damper is then nothing but a gyroscope, right? Such as those used in large bridges and ships, and with the same principle behind.
I am not amazed by F1 cars in Monaco. I want to see them driving in the A8 highway: Variable radius corners, negative banking, and extreme narrowings that Tilke has never dreamed off. Oh, yes, and "beautiful" weather tops it all.

"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

scarbs wrote:The J-Damper is in fact a spinning mass on the damper rod inside a damper body, I don’t know of any springs or hydraulics or MR fluid involved. It works much like the Mass damper to take the energy from the tyres movement to maximise contact patch area\load.

As its a recognisable part of the suspension (fitted in place of the third damper), works to improve the use of the tyres (a suspensions purpose) and works only in response to suspension loads, it may be seen as legal. The fact that the device is light, small and well contained compared to the bigger masses place in the nose cone of TMDs, probably means this will be remain legal.

I have more info but can’t post it here as its going to appear in Autosport.com next week.
Good to see you're

about to see the issue addressed in such a timely fashion, I will be looking forward to reading the feature. There's a suitable amount of intrigue and spin in your description to keep adequate suspense (a technical pun intended). I presume that the teams would have gone through the designs with the FIA had there been any doubt of the legality - given the precedents and maybe a slightly heightened aversion to controversy due to circumstances.

Anyway, the cat is perhaps anticipatorily out of the bag with applying rotating momentum for tuning purposes, so the incentive to search for the unlikeliest interpretations to regulations is perhaps subdued at the moment. With the advent of KERS, there's really no major rationale against the designing of the rotating components, whether ancillaries or flywheels actually retaining the energy, for control purposes as well (other than ruining the primary function, a slight "but" there).

I did some brief searches into developments of optimisation algorithms, control moment gyroscopes and such, and once again came away with a growing appreciation of and feeling humbler about everything I'm too unfamiliar with. Thank goodness (and people at F1T) for that.
"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." - Yogi Berra

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country
Contact:

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

It should be pretty clean after the Barcelona qualifying that Renault needed this J-damper desperately.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
Rob W
0
Joined: 18 Aug 2006, 03:28

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:...the FIA decided that it was of no importance because Renault had failed to understand how the damper works.

...having such difficulty designing a competitive car when their engineers cannot grasp a new concept....
I work on the theory that there are so many quotes taken out of context or concepts misunderstood by F1 writers and that Renault did indeed understand it fully - but just took time to get their's to work as they liked - making Clive's article largely irrelevant.

I struggle to believe that they could study the design and yet not understand it when they've managed to come up with other things.

Having said all this.. If the J-damper works essentially along the same lines as the mass-damper the FIA should be obliged to ban it immediately out of fairness to the hindrance they caused Renault mid-season two years ago... or explain today why it is different. (I really think the FIA really thinks everyone is stupid sometimes)

R

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

Rob W wrote:I struggle to believe that they could study the design and yet not understand it when they've managed to come up with other things.

Having said all this.. If the J-damper works essentially along the same lines as the mass-damper the FIA should be obliged to ban it immediately out of fairness to the hindrance they caused Renault mid-season two years ago... or explain today why it is different. (I really think the FIA really thinks everyone is stupid sometimes)
As scarbs noted, the

engineer who brought the designs to Renault didn't work with suspensions and thus wasn't in a position to appreciate the finer niceties of such a device. Furthermore, the documentation involved was really limited and by no means functional (as this concerns objects moving in several degrees of freedom). Thus there really would've been a fair bit more than mere reverse engineering to do. But we're jumping the gun here because no firm information has yet been forthcoming about the actual specs of J-dampers anyway.

My current impressions about the differences between TMDs and JDs are that because of the kinetic energies involved, the required mass of the latter is much less and that while the TMD's forces were conveyed to the road through bodywork, JDs are dircetly connected or integral to the suspension. Thus the (assumed) interpretation of the regulations would be based on a technicality rather than the technicals ... perhaps a distinction a lawyer can appreciate.

:wink:
"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." - Yogi Berra

scarbs
393
Joined: 08 Oct 2003, 09:47
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

My 'simple' J Damper story is in this weeks Autosport.com journal. This is a subscription page, but if you email me I will send you the PDF.

Scarbs

Also The F1 Race Technology annual is out, for those that dont know it, this is a yearly technical review of F1 technology. I added some content on suspension and car reviews, but there is heap more stuff all aspects of F1 tech direct from the teams\suppliers. Its a bit pricy at £20 I admit, but you can get 10% off via me. Go to www.highpowermedia.com using your discount code CSDISC07

User avatar
HKS
0
Joined: 05 Mar 2007, 06:37
Contact:

Re: Renault and the damper story

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:http://www.madtv.me.uk/f1insight/defaul ... blogid=265
No wonder Renault are having such difficulty designing a competitive car when their engineers cannot grasp a new concept, even with a diagram of it in their hands. It is quite surprising that Flavio did not send them all back to school after that humiliating little exercise.
That's very harsh. Renault is definitely one the best teams on the grid and I don't think they deserve such comments from any F1 fans. I'm a Renault fan, and I didn't at all like this statement.

As for the mass damper, I strongly believe it would have been there. as someone rightly said F1 is all about innovations.
Racing cars are neither beautiful nor ugly, they are beautiful only when you win races.