First off...no need for apologies...I love a good debate.

Now. Think about this...Renault's suspension is designed with the mass damper as an integral part. Both the R25 and R26 have been famous for how gentle they were/are on their tyres. They remove the mass damper and they have major blistering problems. Now, no doubt, they went with a new tyre option that Michelin only just presented them at the Jerez test last week...McLaren & Honda didn't use this new tyre. I think the mass damper had more of an effect than everyone was thinking...also, if it wasn't that important to the R26, I cannot seeing Renault going to the FIA with data to get the decision reversed. I have to think it is MASSIVELY important relative to the tyre useage on this particular car.

Also, it has been widely reported that the other cars (namely Ferrari) that were using the mass damper systems had not managed to make it work as successfully.

 

Perhaps this has something to do with the nature of the Michelin tires as opposed to the Bridgstones. Perhaps Ferrari didn't seem to think it made much of a difference because their Bridgstone tires really couldn't take advantage of the system.

I won't argue with you, it makes sense that Renault would make a big stink about their dampeners if it was so integral to their issue with tire wear. We shall see soon enough.

 

... which encourages me to take this off on a tangent

Will Ferrari & the other Bridgestone runners have a huge advantage next year, or will "the same tire for all" be designed by an "FIA committee" such that it's no better for Ferrari than for anyone else?

Personally, I have to think Ferraris long relationship with Bridgestone will be a big positive for them next year ...

 

I definitely think Ferrari & the other Bridgestone runners will have a HUGE advantage. As much as I would like to hope that Bridgestone will really partner with the other teams, I can't see that happening the way they do with Ferrari. I wouldn't be surprised to see Toyota win their first GP next year as a result. I also expect Renault to fall back a bit...if only temporarily (say 1 - 2 seasons).

 

I finally found an illustration of the mass dampers on formula1.com. I guess I thought it was part of the suspension until now. I've read more than one supposedly "official" explanation of the ruling but if the one in their technical analysis area is accurate, it's definitely a stretch.

From that page on formula1.com (my bolding):
"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."

 

I agree that the Bridgestone teams will probably have an advantage next year -- esp Ferrari -- but I don't see how B-stone will be able to "partner with" any of the teams in a control tire situation.

That said, I think control tires, engine homologation, etc, are contrary to the concept of F1. I understand the need to control speed to some extent in the name of safety, but aren't we gradually heading in the direction of an exhorbitantly expensive IROC?

 

This "differing load variations" would be caused by the aero effects, so if the mass damper compensates for them it would presumably allow the car manufacturer to optimize wings, etc more effectively with less concern over compromises between high & low speed sections ... thus, it's obviously an aero device, and it moves

 

I agree hence my earlier post regarding the serious need for aerodynamics changes. Anymore, the BEST place IMHO is to regulate the aero. It will cut costs AND make for more competitive racing. Control tyres takes away from competition.

Yes, the Bridgstone teams should have an advantage next year, but I don't think it will be as drastic as other believe. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

Did you complete the survey that the FIA had online recently? Many of the questions were about the technical aspects of F1 and how important they are and aren't from the fan perspective.

I 100% agree with you that all of it smacks of "spec series". I hate it and pretty much said that in the survey.

 

Of course it is and does...

 

I read that over the weekend and it was interesting to see a drawing of it. And actually, what the team are saying it does closely matches the way Steve Matchett was describing it (although he was using a hockey puck/coke can analogy ) during Friday practice on the Speed broadcast. Even though it technically isn't built into the suspension, Renault consider it part of the suspension because it helps regain stability from rebound & yaw and as such they consider it a mechanical device.

 

Yup - completed the survey.

The truth is, they've been limiting one aspect of F1 after another for quite a while now. It's everything from standard wheel size, grooved tires and an overall width limitation to aero limits (admit it, there are some limits) to driver aid limits to engine configuration ETC - why is everyone required to run with eight cylinders and identical displacement?

The arguement, I'm sure, is that they're running out of options to reduce speeds in the name of safety (and, supposedly, improve competition) and they need to figure out how to reduce costs anyway, so spec'ing things is the only option left. F1 is a high-cost spectacle, period. Sure, I would love to see more independent teams running, but the price tag is just too high right now and you have to pay to play.

Of course one could make the arguement that the limits imposed thus far have actually caused the need to spend so much to be competitive. When so many aspects are limited, you're forced to look for advantage in the most difficult areas. And let's not forget the old law of diminishing returns. The further you push into limited areas, the more it costs to gain a small advantage - I'm thinking particularly of the aero development costs.

All that said, I think they should back up, eliminate some of the current limitations, and figure out a way to so restrict aero that the teams will voluntarily stop pushing so hard in that direction.

 

"So die all who betray the Scuderia of the Prancing Horse."

 

Amen to that brother!

 

And amen to that as well

 

The sound barrier was a limit and good pilots died trying to break it - but they had free rein.

I simply don't understand, outside of marketing, why limitations exist. The untouchable nature of F1 is, to my way of thinking, about breaking barriers.

The actual racing aside, F1 cars suffer the potential fate of 'has been' as other race cars become more advanced. Engine displacement seams a likely limitation becasue it forces teams to extract more from less and this can and does trcikle down to our everyday autos. However, advancements in aero and tire technology are tethered to outright speed. Why shouldn't an F1 car exceed 250mph? or 300 mph?

 

I'll give an "amen brother" to that as well...exactly!

 

What do you think about the idea being bantered about of turning race weekend fridays into test days and eliminating any other testing during the season?

 

I'm all for the good half of that proposal . . . making Friday a truly "free" practice. Geez . . . any kind of "freedom" from the FIA would be awesome.

I think most would recognize this as a great boost to the overall race weekend.

Unfortunately, I don't care too much for the flip side where other testing would be totally eliminated.

Let's get on with it . . . and quit trying to make an expensive sport for delusional elitists as myself affordable and just lend a helping hand when the occasional Ken Tyrell or Eddie Jordan come along.

 

I think it would wind up being more expensive than the current set up, as the richer teams would decend on the circuit with test drivers, test engineers, test roadies, etc. and the poorer teams would wind up with a technical director who, come race Sunday, hadn't slept in three days. It's truly a ****** fix, though up by the biggest ****** of them all, Mad Max.

Now if you really wanted to "control costs" in F1, let the FIA set a budget of say 200 million Euros per TEAM per year. That way if you wanted to spring 80 million for Herr Schumacher, you'd only have 120 million left for your cars and other driver. Super Aguri, on the other hand, would have 199,999,995 Euros to pay for technical improvements on its cars, for as we all know, it's pilots aren't worth a fiver for the both of 'em.

 

I didn't think this proposal was coming from the FIA . . . ? I guess that was rather naive on my part.

I don't know . . . it seems like in the good ol days they had cars out on the circuit before and after officially timed sessions . . . I think they need to figure out some way (affordable for all teams) to get the cars on circuit more than 2.0 Hours on Friday and Saturday . . . geez, we don't even get a Sunday morning warm up anymore.

 

Unfortunately, I think the FIA stipulates down to the last mechanic and roadie, the who, when, where, why and how of all F1 track activity.

Pity really, as fly away testing and top secret everything has replaced what was once an open and egalitarian world where the drivers were fat and the tires skinny. Remember James Hunt? Always ready for a party, always with a cig in his mouth and a pretty girl on his arm. I miss the real days of F1.

 

Something tells me that much the same could be said for our society in general . . .

Geez. That's the problem with everything. Everything is grand until it becomes about money. That's the real problem. The FIA is too infatuated by the NASCAB entertainment over sport model . . . and too insecure.

Back to topic, however, I'd like to think that the smaller teams could save money if they weren't having to foot the bill for additional travel and circuit time mid-season. I don't know. I still LOVE F1 and despite its problems can not get enough of it.

 

Ditto. I'd really like to take one year and become an F1 groupie, following the teams to all venues and attending every race. What a way to spend nine months.

 

The real question about the mass dampener/damper is: When will M7 be coming out with one for the MINI?

As for 2006 Bridgestone runners having an advantage next year: To some degree, yes. But as they kept saying during yesterday's race, the FIA will want to use the tires to limit the cornering speeds of the cars. Therefore, the new contruction will keep the teams on a somewhat equal learning curve.

Is a single tire supplier appropriate for F1? Yes. Teams cannot build their own tires, so they have to buy them from outside suppliers. Given today's importance of F1 tires, these outside suppliers have an inappropriately large effect on the results of races. Teams should not be penalized or rewarded based on which company they choose as their tire supplier.