It has been paddock talk of late that Kimi's crash and Massa's retirement at Monza were the result of the failure of a questionable "third" damper arrangement at the rear of the Ferrari. This damper is said to affect ride height by behaving differently depending on the car's speed.

I would call this a "passive" device as opposed to an "active" device. It uses mechanical means to influence ride height, rather than electronic means. The F1 technical regs devote many, many paragraphs to suspension systems, but the focus is on the geometry of the suspension, the dimensions, and such.

Dampers, or shock absorbers, are used to “dampen” the natural bounce of a car’s suspension. The springs would continue to rebound and compress until all the energy is dissapated if not for the dampers.

The third damper is not used on the individual wheels, but is used to control the travel of the entire suspension. It limits the yawl around turns and allows for even suspension compression under aero load, especially if it’s bumpy.

Ferrari is believed to have found a method of using different rates of return on this damper at different speeds. For example, the damper compresses while going through the compression at eau rouge, and the car is close enough to the ground that the plank drags. Suppose the damper did not return to the extended position at the same rate that it compressed? Supposed it stayed compressed until you slow down? You would have a very low ride height at the fast sections, and normal ride height when going slow (or being scrutineered).

Genius idea if that is the case, to me that is pushing the boundarys and seeing how far you can take it.
If its deemed unfair then FIA will increase the tests in that area to stop it.

It takes some great minds to make that work. Any idiot can steal data, but creating working designs like that is impressive.

I believe that there should be room to allow innovations during the season. Freeze the testing procedures at the start of the season and let them race. The floor test being raised from 50 newtons to 200 was ridiculus. One designs to the test criteria and that should be that.

The third damper is not in any way a part of the suspension geometry, so I consider it legal. But, I also considered Reault's mass damper legal. But, Renault's mass damper is a part of the suspension geometry.

It is brilliant in concept, I must agree.

Surely it cannot leave the car suspended lower than the regulations permit becuase this would wear the 'plank'?

The eau rouge example was an exxxaggggeration. But, the compression there is so severe, the ride heights are untypically high. They also use rubber "stops" to prevent plank drag, but even the rubber compresses at eau rouge. But it relaxes elsewhere.

This is getting very close to what active suspension used to do.

That's true, it is close to active suspension, which is banned. However, it doesn't depend on electronic programming, but on direct interaction with the circuit. I don't know how they control the damper to allow it to return to the "neutral" position on demand.

Kimi crashed because it failed to return from compressed to "normal". Under heavy braking, you must have suspension travel. He did not, locked the inside wheel, and rode the fence. Same problem for Massa, the damper was stuck in the compressed position and felt the same a a deflated tire. DNF

At Spa, the devices seemed to work just fine.

Or weren't used at all.....?

To be fair, I didn't see what the objection to active suspension was. OK, traction control took away driver input, as did anti-lock brakes, but a system that allowed the driver to control the suspension settings and responses from the cockpit seems pretty acceptible. In fact, I thought it added a further dimension to racing.

Interesting article on active suspension here:

Link

I'd forgotten about how they were banned:

Does that set a precedant for the mass damper banning fiasco?

That's what I was thinking

The whole problem is the fia's interpretation of the rules. Some rules are interpreted literally, as in the case of mass dampers, where as others are open to a bit of bending such as this braking system or (to a point) flexi wings. What is needed is consistency from the FIA and stewards, otherwize, how does a team know if they are breaking the rules when the introduce new technology.

The teams use very expensive lawyers who tell them exactly what the rules can be taken to mean, and then argue about it later if necessary.

It's a sad day when you need a lawyer to help design your F1 car.

May be the regs need simplifying.

You may have a point. Something like:

Reg 1: Build the fasted car you can
Reg 2: Bring it to the track and race it

Ahh a chapman legacy... <thumbsup> being innovative can get you into a lot of bother these days...

beter safe than expelled... <doh>

works for me <thumbsup>

Biggest budget wins... <clap> except if you're Toyota <doh>

It helps to have the extra funding to attract the best, but a smaller team with determination and innovation can once in a while cause an upset over the bigger budget teams. A real life example of this is Team NZ in the America's Cup. I can't remember the actual numbers, but their budget was significantly smaller than most of the other teams when they won the cup last time.

Or, the Isle of Man TT a few years back. Honda's anniversary (IIRC) so they ship in a pair of handbuilt WSB spec RC45s for Jim Moodie (I think) and Joey Dunlop. Worth over half a million pounds each. Moodie broke the lap record from a standing start, confusing the people at the start line who expected him to appear 30 secs later than he did. The rear tyre was destroyed part way into the second lap, and he didn't finish. Dunlop did better though. However, some 16 stone English bloke riding a production based Yamaha R1 fitted new suspension, exhaust and few minor engine tweeks won the race..... the bike might have cost £20K to build including buying it off the dealer!

Presumably it made life easier for the drivers as it aided their driving, so it was removed alongside all the driver aids?

Whatever Ferrari are doing, their car is not good on the curbs.

The difference that budget makes is that you can afford to try even the least promising of ideas. Those with no money can only try their best ideas. Innovation comes through experimentation.

I love all of the gadgets that are introduced. I loath the constant uncertainty regarding the technical rule's vagueness, and the inconsistant enforcement that results.

McLaren use a similar system jointly developed with Koni.

It is a variable frequency damper

This achive a similar efffect to the mass damper but is much more sophisticated

Variable Frequency? How does that work?

Welcome to TPL by the way. Interesting name!

In the simplest of terms, a system of valves open at differant pressures created by differant damper velocities.

I think there is a animation on the Koni website showing how it works IIRC

CnH wotsit - welcome to TPL. <wave>

I'm afraid that even the simplest of terms are way above my head, so you may have to try and simplify things even further :(

CnH2n+2, welcome. Are you also known as Al Kane? Thanks for the damper info, and welcome to the board.

Al Kane, no, not my aka

I am a member of another board though

Thank's for the welcome :)

alkane, CnH2n+2, Al Kane

Yes

sorry, I thought you may have come accros "Al Kane" on another forum

a bit slow there I was <dunce>

http://koni.com/58.html

The Link to koni's FSD (freqency selective damper) web page

I just looked at that Koni link. That interesting. I understand the concept of FSD, but I need to think a little about how it works and why it would fail.

Ferrari system is their own development and is of a rotary design, I have no information as to its exact nature (perhaps Mr Stepney could help us out)

I assume that a drum of some kind with chambers that reduce in size much like some compressor designs force fluid through a system of valves and probably uses an external reservoir as the whole unit is said to be integeral with the rocker

The rotary design on the wheel dampers is said to limit mechanical adjustment on the suspension and is not commonly used elsewhere. But, I've not heard any details on the "3rd" damper.