It’s not a moving aero device though it is inside of the car. The reason it affects aero is because of stability and I don’t see how that is a problem. It’s honestly a pretty simple solution to the problem they encountered any team today could implement it simply.
@@Nickyy64 they could probably use it then get sued by Renault since they patented tuned mass dampers Edit: I believe this is what they were referring to when they said renault patented it WO2011089373A1
The stock footage guy acting sneaky helped me understand that a dummy water tank emptied during the race and re-filled before parc-ferme may have been a slightly disingenouos reading of the regulations.
They're basically stabilizers. A wheel spinning that fast can disrupt the air flowing around it, and the covers helped clean up the airflow and reduce drag. They were banned for 2010 on safety grounds to prevent more parts of a car being able to be flown off and hit someone
The mass damper was ingenious and banning it on the premise of movable aerodynamics was bollocks because the same can be told about fuel as it is sloshing about thus moving the car's balance around while the car is moving. The FIA could have banned mass damper itself, the next year if they wanted to but the system was actually legal. It was the case when FIA was team Ferrari at the time who were running with Bridgestone tyres and couldn't benefit as much with a mass damper
DAS will be illegal in 2021. FIA banned it for 2021 even before Mercedes revealed it. drivetribe.com/p/mercedes-das-system-ban-is-more-BcqwNN4VRQuGrRHwtUBolQ?iid=QldFSn0YTUG9B9pGTjSrHA
If a suspension component like a mass damper is an "aerodynamic surface" then so is all the moving parts of the suspension that all the cars have. It was a suspension component, and just like how a damper allows the teams to control bounce, the mass damper was just another control damper element in the system, doing the same job. To this day all the teams are allowed to use hydraulic or pneumatic dampers, but not a mass damper. Claiming that a mass damper was a device primarily used to control the aerodynamics of the car is silly, what the hell do they think the current suspension dampers are doing? Using the "moveable aerodynamic device" rule in that way has always been wrong, same when they used it to stop exhaust blown diffusers, claiming that a cylinder valve is an aerodynamic device. It just isn't, and to this day all the teams are using valves to control their engines. All this "movable aerodynamic device" stuff was made a mockery of when the FIA mandated that the teams install a moveable aerodynamic surface in the rear wing top plane anyway.
Funny enough , those two later morphed into what's now Mercedes who've had the rub of the green from the FIA with the DAS system Albeit legal for only 2020
Why didn't they ban it for this season and make it legal next season, that way other teams could create their own equivalent. Part of what makes F1 interesting to me is the combination of racing & innovation, so I like to see teams find ways to gain an advantage over the others. Plus I don't like how strict the FIA is.
@@Rowdy_D70 Dumbass, what sense would that make, punishing the team for ingenuity by giving others time to catch up, would Lotus win their '78 campaign with ground effect if it was banned for that season? No, they wouldn't, because the next season everyone catched up. It also makes no sense whatsoever, these rulings have to be based on some form of preconceived rules that are established, what precedent would that set, banning things for a season lol. If something is deemed illegal, it's permanently illegal.
@@Rowdy_D70 Banning something for the current season then allowing it next season would be the most unfair thing the FIA could do. Thats basically saying you cant innovate because we'll stop you using it until the rest catch up. Thats the opposite of what F1 is about.
In my book the "brake cooling" for sure wasn't cheating, it was a clever exploit of a loop-hole in the rules. And that is what parts of F1 are about: finding loop-holes, preferably in ways that others won't find out you're using them. Maybe in a couple years time we'll find out what Ferrari did with their 2019 engine and I'll chuckle and say: "That was a smart way around it, well played."
didn’t Red Bull figure it out tho? they asked the FIA if they were allowed to increase fuel flow rate into the engine at different intervals when the flow rate sensor wasn’t measuring, basically causing it to fluctuate between the legal amount and an illegal amount, the FIA said no, then Ferrari’s pace dropped the very next race (2019 US GP I think)
@@kanapolglinpu8378 it dropped some, but not as much as it did after the full scale inquiry that lead to the 2020 engine, which obviously has even less power the 2019 post-US GP version. So there has to be more.
@@skorpekh sorry, I'm of a different opinion: you had to be above the minimum weight during race including all liquids. That's why you were allowed to replenish them before weighing the car. And thus it was a clever exploit of a loop-hole in the regs, and I love that kind of trickery.
Playing with the "brake cooling fluid" and "inlet cooling fluid" is outright cheating. Also what BAR did with the fuel. Mass damper: how can it be a moving aero device? I don't have a clue. It was under the bodywork. 🤔
@@gabormiklay9209 Renault patented the mass damper which would have probably stopped other teams implementing it. So FIA decided that, if other teams can't have it then nobody can.
@@MrPixiepantz well, now I see your point. I didn't know it was patented. But when IP and patenting comes up I'm always confused. In this case the confusing thing is mass damper - in a very large scale of course - is used in skyscrapers to counteract the wind, so it's not something Renault found out.
@@gabormiklay9209 Sure but old products can be protected by new patents when applied to novel uses. Liquid Stitch is just super glue, but the use and sale as a medical wound closure "device" was issued a new patent.
@@mrmactknife Cant see FIA helping ferrari much :/ they even banned ferraris engines from last year amongst many other things but helping mercedes, so no fia isnt helping ferrari.
@Keith Pillsbury the rules said how wide the wings can be, but didn't say how many of them there could be, so Ferrari did that stupid thing in a tantrum to protest the water-cooled brakes
I definitely would like to see F1 bring back modern versions of movable ballast, movable suspension, CVT and AWD. I would also like to see F1 encourage more energy capture tech vs the constraints the current MGU K and MGU H rules allow
It would be fun if someone had a few (quite many actually) million dollars to create the ultimate track car using all the idead from F1 (and others) and make a machine that could be the fastest possible around an F1 track. We probably would have to make it automonomous (with a correctly weighted dummy inside) because of the G-forces.
@@joelfarley9305 Did not realize that permanent ballast was illegal in v8 supercars (don't really follow the series) That's quite a silly rule; permanent ballast is allowed in most motorsport series and even cycling... What rival team will protest you putting extra weight on your car, lol... :D
"As the mass suspended inside the dampers is designed to move freely it is therefore not secured to the entirely sprung part of the car nor does it remain immobile in relation to it." - Neither are the drivers testicles.
I think FIA should consider separating driver championship and manufacturer championship. Host a multi race F1 championship every year for drivers and independent teams and an engineering challenge for the fastest race car in the world for multi tracks open to all manufacturers for every four or five years. And then let teams to decide what cars to buy for their driver championships.
Why the f1team can avoid pushrod in the front suspension, insted why they can apply torsion bar with spring in the upper and lower front wishbones. Similerly a hollow upper arm link with a small elecric motor can use for sterring purpose. For that they may need to split upper wishbones connection to hub only. From these two cases they can reduce number of suspension elements from 6 to just 4.any technical objection on it?
I saw an interview with Charlie Whiting where he claimed their cars, Brabham , were never legal. Tricks like putting lead shot in the exhaust pipes before weigh in.
Only safety rules, and fuel type and quantity restriction, everything else should be open. Active aero, including suction. Active suspension. Automatic transmission. Traction control. Fully enclosed body. Any type, and size, of engine, as long as it finishes the race on the one tank of fuel. Just control the amount of fuel to keep things from getting too insane.
There are a few things to consider: 1 - cheating is when you cross the lines of the rules. "water cooled brakes" are cheating, especially with the lead shot. 2 - maximizing effect within the current rules are ok, but can later be banned for whatever reason. Examples of these are the mass dampers (potentially dangerous with free moving weights in the car) and the fans that increased downforce. The later are not cause for discualification, but they can still be banned because, well, F1 is a formula for racing, there are cars that are faster in a straight line, and it is very possible to make cars that do a lap faster than F1 in time trial. Parts of the regulation are to make F1 a race, some of the rules are to keep the costs down, some are for safety.
Watch Donut Medias Video on what is happening with Ferrari in 2020. Basically the engine knew when they were checking the fuel levels, so when they weren't checking, they would let more fuel in, and when they were checking again the engine automatically decreased the fuel.
@@dralol Ofcourse it was cheating, that's why they banned it. That also explains why Ferrari is so slow in 2020, the Aero was designed with the power of the old engine in mind. Since it got banned, the weaker engine slows the down the whole thing by a lot.
@@akl4499 Yeah. I was just under the impression that Ferrari had "misinterprited" the rules in their favour slightly. This is much worse and if true should have some pretty serious consequences.
@@dralol Nope, they were literally cheating, and I'm saying this as a Ferrari Fan. Watch this, it explains it very well: th-cam.com/video/6278BtOC_pI/w-d-xo.html
Mass damper: smoother ride over bumps and curbstones FIA: illegal aero device DAS: actively changing the aero drag of the front tyres by changing the toe on the straights for higher top speed FIA: legal, not an aero device......??? How STUPID are these people at the FIA??
It's weird to consider that as something to be banned. Top Fuel dragsters use their exhaust gases to provide downforce, but we're talking about an engine that has 10 times more power than a F1 car.
We've covered both Double and Blown diffusers in previous episodes of Banned - take a look here! th-cam.com/play/PL2vgf11SN4RhN_05hE-Jd1SrPDk9stCQb.html
Most of these were not illegal, but were declared illegal after the fact. If they were specifically illegal at the time of use, there would have been more instances like Tyrrell and BAR being DQ'd or banned from races.
It's a shame mass dampers aren't allowed, I know it makes everyone's development more expensive, but it's literally taking 1/3 of a dynamicist's tools out of his toolbox. ma + cv + kx = F(t) If you can only change stiffness (k) and viscous damping (c), but not dynamic mass (m), then that is what I mean by losing 1/3 of your tools.
IMO they should put an even lower budget cap and then free up the rules more - as long as the cars stay safe and people aren't likely to die in crashes. Mass dampers were a very clever invention and a shame to be banned!
A good one would be banned innovations that ended up with negative effects. Such as the ban of automatic traction control and ABS that resulted in the death of Ratzenberger and Senna the next season.
The lack of traction control and ABS had nothing to do with either Imola crash, as far as I can tell. The cause of Senna's accident is unknown but in a high-speed corner neither ABS not TC would have any effect; Ratzenberger's car had a wing failure under high load.
I don't know if you watch MotoGP. For some time every team had the freedom to build its own TC which resulted in an electronic setting for every corner of every corse. The riders could just go through the corner throttle wide open. While I get were you are coming from, TC would take so much out of the competition, same with ABS, everyone could just slam the brakes and the electronics, when set up properly, would do the rest.
Active suspension being banned, combined with the way it was banned and the old flat bottom car designs played a huge part in what happened in 1994. You don’t go from the accident and injury rate of most of the 80’s and early 90’s to what happened in 1994 without a fundamental cock up in the regulations: Lehto - broken neck Alesi - neck and back injury Barrichello - broken nose, injured arm, knocked unconscious Ratzenberger - fatal basal skull fracture Senna - multiple fatal head injuries Wendlinger - head injuries and coma Montermini - two broken feet Lamy - two broken legs Verstappen and Benetton pit crew - burns Plus there was also that four car pile up at Interlagos and the ten car pile up at Hockenheim that year...
@@gdogg3710 It made accidents in general more likely, but it did not contribute to Ratzenberger or Senna's accidents. If there was *any* chance they had, the FIA would obviously have revoked the rule immediately (see what they did to Eau Rouge and Catalunya for how drastic the changes to the cars made in the wake of the accidents were). Nothing you've put there is any evidence towards the lack of driver aids contributing to any of the Imola accidents, which were (again) caused respectively by high rise kerbs (Barricello), front wing failure (Ratzenberger), and probably steering column failure or bottoming out (Senna).
I am nowhere remotely near of being an expert, but as far as i understand it's like this. Aerodynamics are massively dependent on the position of the car to the ground. That's why teams want their car to be as low as possible. If the car bounces, the distance to the ground becomes bigger than what they would like it to be and it disturbes the aerodynamic performance in itself, as well. If you find a way to reduce the bouncing of the car, the aerodynamic stability and performance increase. So in conclusion the mass damper is a moveable part that has, maybe indirectly or in fact directly, but in the end it doesn't really matter, an influence on the aerodynamic performance of the car. Should it still have been banned? Probably not. Way to many things get banned, but otherwise cars would probably be way to fast.
The entire point of a rule is to slow the cars down. That's just good business from the F1 brass to create a series with closer racing. Rule changes make it so one team doesn't keep winning for too long. i.e.-Boring. So it's the teams job to stay as close to the edge of breaking the rules as possible. The interpretations of the rules by the teams is part of the excitement of the engineering challenge. F1 is not strictly a drivers series. (Example: See F2 rules) Basically, F1 needs to balance between an engineering spectral and a series of the best sprint drivers in the world. The best drivers in the world should have to overcome big challenges so we undoubtedly know how good they are. It's THE formula that has made F1 cool for so long. Maybe they should stick to it.
Favourite/trickiest innovations ever: Brabham fan car, twin chassis lotus 88, Tyrrell/Williams/Ferrari cars with more than four wheels, Benetton four wheel steering, DAS, Williams CVT gearbox, Ferrari fuel fiddling 2018/19, Everyone burning oil during the hybrid era, The McLaren brake steering doohickey, Both blown diffuser periods, The skirt ride height hacks of the ground effect era
They should let F1 teams develop a car without any limitation. Then we will see the maximal potential of a F1 car. And the races will be more fun to watch. Of course all within the safety of the driver.
They have those cars so locked down I don't see why they don't just make it a spec race. Save everyone the development costs and make it more about the drivers like how super formula is run.
I think it should only be banned if it makes the race unsafe, not if it makes it faster. The weight limit is so they don't try to use aluminum foil for their roll cage, so that's a good rule to have. I don't think mass dampers are a bad thing and if they make you faster everyone would just get them, same as a wing.
Their has to be rules. Push them yes but don’t break them. If they are just ignored then what would stop all of the safety equipment. From being removed to save weight.
I’m still fuzzy on the lead shot thing. The video says they would add it during pit stops, but that doesn’t make any sense, because why add the extra weight during the race?
Back then the minimum weigh of the cars were meassured after the race; they raced an ultra light car, made a late pitstop with the lead and finished with the minimum weight needed
They would pit with only a couple of laps to go to put the lead in. Teams in the nearby pits would complain about the stench of aromatics from the cars when the refill was done. Part of the refill was intended to sluice out the residual trace of the additives from the tanks, hence why there was water sloshing out of the cars and unintentionally carrying the lead shot with it. It is hard to come up with a more clear case of cheating than this one.
How the fuck did the FIA come to the conclusion that DAS does not fall under the ban for adjusting suspension mid-race since toe is formally not part of the suspension geometry, but then go ahead and say the mass damper, a part literally concealed in the bodywork and used to make the ride smoother, is suddenly an adjustable aerodynamic device.
I’m not 100% if this is a serious comment or not, however each team needs to ensure a minimum amount of fuel remains in the car for a sample at the end of the race. The fuel used is the tested by the FIA to ensure it is compliant with the regs...
Not at the pitstops, overall, yes - but lighter, not heavier. That way the car when fuelled could carry more fuel, but the same weight as its rivals. Shell put great effort into this at Ferrari in the mid 2000's, developing fuels with the same energy density, but less weight. F1 teams don't measure fuel in Litres, but in Kg, as weight is so significant. What Shell did was that in the tank (a max of say 140L) you would normally have 150kg of fuel, lasting 30 Laps. Make the fuel weigh less, and your 140L will last 30 laps, but weigh only 148kg, giving more low-down ballast elsewhere via that weight saving. It's still a factor now, making the fuel have the same energy density, but as lightweight as possible, within the chemical restrictions in the regs.
There were persistent rumours of one team (ATS?) using a special ultra heavy wing to allow underweight qualifying. The trick being that back then teams could swap gear ratios on the cars easily. To swap ratios the back cover of the gearbox was removed. This required the wing to come off as well. So the car would run qualifying with an underweight car, and as the session was coming to and end the driver would pit with the claimed intent of trying a different set of ratios, and maybe setting a better time. But sadly it was just to late, and the car as not ready to go out again before the end of the session. The wing taken off the car was returned and put back on the car prior to scrutineering. Curious how there was always a big strong mechanic used to carry the wing back to the car. Yet he wasn't needed to carry it away.
One of the best videos informationwise, but please never use those trashy stock heads again
Please
The mass damper should have been allowed. I will die on this hill.
Ikr, was a genius idea and shouldn’t have been fought.
It’s not a moving aero device though it is inside of the car. The reason it affects aero is because of stability and I don’t see how that is a problem. It’s honestly a pretty simple solution to the problem they encountered any team today could implement it simply.
@@Nickyy64 they could probably use it then get sued by Renault since they patented tuned mass dampers
Edit: I believe this is what they were referring to when they said renault patented it
WO2011089373A1
me too
@@johnsmith1474 well by that then they will have to specify a tire psi that must be used by everyone.
The stock footage guy acting sneaky helped me understand that a dummy water tank emptied during the race and re-filled before parc-ferme may have been a slightly disingenouos reading of the regulations.
It is illegal to use stock footage of people pulling stupid faces.
Beard fish
Great video, except for the stock videos of random people pulling faces!
Can u do a video on the wheel caps of 2009, or someone pls explain what was going on there :)))
I'm pretty sure wheel caps are coming back for 2022, just a lil fun fact
God, thats a good one, I remember spanish tv covering a lot of stuff about the wheel caps!
@@outlawtornuk666 why were they removed btw (If you're seeing this comment from 2022 ignore this I guess lol)
They're basically stabilizers. A wheel spinning that fast can disrupt the air flowing around it, and the covers helped clean up the airflow and reduce drag. They were banned for 2010 on safety grounds to prevent more parts of a car being able to be flown off and hit someone
The mass damper had absolutely nothing to do with aerodynamics. The FIA stewards had pulled that reasoning out of their asses.
Engineers: We made the car go faster.
FIA: HOW DARE YOU!
Mercedes : ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF
and in a way, safer
banning the mass damper was heavily in the days of FIA being called ferrari internationa assistance. no other reason for banning the mass damper
The mass damper was ingenious and banning it on the premise of movable aerodynamics was bollocks because the same can be told about fuel as it is sloshing about thus moving the car's balance around while the car is moving. The FIA could have banned mass damper itself, the next year if they wanted to but the system was actually legal. It was the case when FIA was team Ferrari at the time who were running with Bridgestone tyres and couldn't benefit as much with a mass damper
The mass damper was an excellent engineering solution and FIA banning it on the grounds of movable aero device is complete horseshit
The whole car is a moveable aero device.
We should ban drivers, as they can move their head slightly in order to reduce drag and are theorefore a moveable aerodynamic device.
@@gigadonis8684 I like your pfp
emptied the coffers on all that stock footage for this one
So the mass damper counts as movable aero but DAS doesnt? lmao
DAS will be illegal in 2021. FIA banned it for 2021 even before Mercedes revealed it.
drivetribe.com/p/mercedes-das-system-ban-is-more-BcqwNN4VRQuGrRHwtUBolQ?iid=QldFSn0YTUG9B9pGTjSrHA
Entirely different leaderships..
@@anoxRJ They should have banned it in this season, no matter how truly effective it is.
@@yosyp5905 hell yes. Without DAS Mercedes would have been a midfield team this season
@@chrishopkins3316 a millisecond of delta is still an advantage, consistency in rules should be fundamental
If a suspension component like a mass damper is an "aerodynamic surface" then so is all the moving parts of the suspension that all the cars have.
It was a suspension component, and just like how a damper allows the teams to control bounce, the mass damper was just another control damper element in the system, doing the same job. To this day all the teams are allowed to use hydraulic or pneumatic dampers, but not a mass damper.
Claiming that a mass damper was a device primarily
used to control the aerodynamics of the car is silly, what the hell do they think the current suspension dampers are doing?
Using the "moveable aerodynamic device" rule in that way has always been wrong, same when they used it to stop exhaust blown diffusers, claiming that a cylinder valve is an aerodynamic device. It just isn't, and to this day all the teams are using valves to control their engines.
All this "movable aerodynamic device" stuff was made a mockery of when the FIA mandated that the teams install a moveable aerodynamic surface in the rear wing top plane anyway.
Just FIA stuff, making things that are legal illegal because somebody whined loud enough
FIA didn't like Tyrrell or BAR did they? lmao
Funny enough , those two later morphed into what's now Mercedes who've had the rub of the green from the FIA with the DAS system
Albeit legal for only 2020
Why didn't they ban it for this season and make it legal
next season, that way other teams could create their own equivalent. Part of what makes F1 interesting to me is the combination of racing & innovation, so I like to see teams find ways to gain an advantage over the others. Plus I don't like how strict the FIA is.
@@Rowdy_D70 Dumbass, what sense would that make, punishing the team for ingenuity by giving others time to catch up, would Lotus win their '78 campaign with ground effect if it was banned for that season? No, they wouldn't, because the next season everyone catched up. It also makes no sense whatsoever, these rulings have to be based on some form of preconceived rules that are established, what precedent would that set, banning things for a season lol. If something is deemed illegal, it's permanently illegal.
**p34 six-wheeler flashbacks**
@@Rowdy_D70 Banning something for the current season then allowing it next season would be the most unfair thing the FIA could do. Thats basically saying you cant innovate because we'll stop you using it until the rest catch up. Thats the opposite of what F1 is about.
In my book the "brake cooling" for sure wasn't cheating, it was a clever exploit of a loop-hole in the rules. And that is what parts of F1 are about: finding loop-holes, preferably in ways that others won't find out you're using them. Maybe in a couple years time we'll find out what Ferrari did with their 2019 engine and I'll chuckle and say: "That was a smart way around it, well played."
didn’t Red Bull figure it out tho? they asked the FIA if they were allowed to increase fuel flow rate into the engine at different intervals when the flow rate sensor wasn’t measuring, basically causing it to fluctuate between the legal amount and an illegal amount, the FIA said no, then Ferrari’s pace dropped the very next race (2019 US GP I think)
The cars had to be a minimum weight during the race, they weren't. That's cheating.
@@kanapolglinpu8378 it dropped some, but not as much as it did after the full scale inquiry that lead to the 2020 engine, which obviously has even less power the 2019 post-US GP version. So there has to be more.
@@skorpekh sorry, I'm of a different opinion: you had to be above the minimum weight during race including all liquids. That's why you were allowed to replenish them before weighing the car. And thus it was a clever exploit of a loop-hole in the regs, and I love that kind of trickery.
How about the banning of Suspension systems like the FRIC system that was used by many teams?
Playing with the "brake cooling fluid" and "inlet cooling fluid" is outright cheating. Also what BAR did with the fuel.
Mass damper: how can it be a moving aero device? I don't have a clue. It was under the bodywork. 🤔
Prolly banned out of spite since renault patented it? WO2011089373A1
@@yourerightmybad7363 I don't understand what you mean.
@@gabormiklay9209 Renault patented the mass damper which would have probably stopped other teams implementing it. So FIA decided that, if other teams can't have it then nobody can.
@@MrPixiepantz well, now I see your point. I didn't know it was patented.
But when IP and patenting comes up I'm always confused. In this case the confusing thing is mass damper - in a very large scale of course - is used in skyscrapers to counteract the wind, so it's not something Renault found out.
@@gabormiklay9209 Sure but old products can be protected by new patents when applied to novel uses. Liquid Stitch is just super glue, but the use and sale as a medical wound closure "device" was issued a new patent.
The mass damper ban was absolutely bs. It was a push to help Ferrari. Very clearly this was a device to help with the tyre contact patch.
Ferrari International Assistance haha
@@mrmactknife Cant see FIA helping ferrari much :/ they even banned ferraris engines from last year amongst many other things but helping mercedes, so no fia isnt helping ferrari.
Rules aren’t meant to be broken but it is beneficial to the sport in general and the teams if engineers find ways round them
02:22 those Ferrari rear wings always kill me! So awkward!
@Keith Pillsbury No! They existed. 😀
@Keith Pillsbury the rules said how wide the wings can be, but didn't say how many of them there could be, so Ferrari did that stupid thing in a tantrum to protest the water-cooled brakes
I definitely would like to see F1 bring back modern versions of movable ballast, movable suspension, CVT and AWD. I would also like to see F1 encourage more energy capture tech vs the constraints the current MGU K and MGU H rules allow
It would be fun if someone had a few (quite many actually) million dollars to create the ultimate track car using all the idead from F1 (and others) and make a machine that could be the fastest possible around an F1 track.
We probably would have to make it automonomous (with a correctly weighted dummy inside) because of the G-forces.
The Race is really going to put you guys out of business unless you start making quality content like this
The Race at least uses stock footage tastefully and sparingly instead of this garish mess.
@@anttihelin6820 couldn't agree more. Autosport's editing is terrible but atleast they are now producing somewhat relevant content.
Bernie hated Tyrrell!
In v8 supercars, triple 8 used a tungsten exhaust pipe, as there was a minimum weight, this pulled the COG as low as possible
How about just bolting a block of tungsten next to the exhaust?
@@pero2727 because that is quite clearly an illegal ballast material, and adds unnecessary weight as you still need the exhaust
@@pero2727 when the stewards found that it was tungsten it was banned
@@joelfarley9305 Did not realize that permanent ballast was illegal in v8 supercars (don't really follow the series)
That's quite a silly rule; permanent ballast is allowed in most motorsport series and even cycling... What rival team will protest you putting extra weight on your car, lol... :D
@@pero2727 No, the exhaust is underneath the car, cannot physically put ballast lower
Rules are good, BUT too many can restrict creativity and genius. HOWEVER, you dont want your favorite racer to die in a crash.
"As the mass suspended inside the dampers is designed to move freely it is therefore not secured to the entirely sprung part of the car nor does it remain immobile in relation to it." - Neither are the drivers testicles.
I think FIA should consider separating driver championship and manufacturer championship. Host a multi race F1 championship every year for drivers and independent teams and an engineering challenge for the fastest race car in the world for multi tracks open to all manufacturers for every four or five years. And then let teams to decide what cars to buy for their driver championships.
with the introduction of less maleable and more durable materials like graphene, i can expect wing flex to be totally banned in a few years time.
Why the f1team can avoid pushrod in the front suspension, insted why they can apply torsion bar with spring in the upper and lower front wishbones. Similerly a hollow upper arm link with a small elecric motor can use for sterring purpose. For that they may need to split upper wishbones connection to hub only. From these two cases they can reduce number of suspension elements from 6 to just 4.any technical objection on it?
I saw an interview with Charlie Whiting where he claimed their cars, Brabham , were never legal. Tricks like putting lead shot in the exhaust pipes before weigh in.
Tbh, these trickeries make racing interesting and exciting.
I love this series!
What about the lead driver’s seats that were swapped out after scrutineering?
Only safety rules, and fuel type and quantity restriction, everything else should be open.
Active aero, including suction.
Active suspension.
Automatic transmission.
Traction control.
Fully enclosed body.
Any type, and size, of engine, as long as it finishes the race on the one tank of fuel.
Just control the amount of fuel to keep things from getting too insane.
There are a few things to consider:
1 - cheating is when you cross the lines of the rules. "water cooled brakes" are cheating, especially with the lead shot.
2 - maximizing effect within the current rules are ok, but can later be banned for whatever reason. Examples of these are the mass dampers (potentially dangerous with free moving weights in the car) and the fans that increased downforce.
The later are not cause for discualification, but they can still be banned because, well, F1 is a formula for racing, there are cars that are faster in a straight line, and it is very possible to make cars that do a lap faster than F1 in time trial. Parts of the regulation are to make F1 a race, some of the rules are to keep the costs down, some are for safety.
The mass damper was total genius, still wondering what Ferrari did last year 2019 to boost their power though, hopefully time will tell!
Watch Donut Medias Video on what is happening with Ferrari in 2020. Basically the engine knew when they were checking the fuel levels, so when they weren't checking, they would let more fuel in, and when they were checking again the engine automatically decreased the fuel.
@@akl4499 If that is true then it's just outright cheating.
@@dralol Ofcourse it was cheating, that's why they banned it. That also explains why Ferrari is so slow in 2020, the Aero was designed with the power of the old engine in mind. Since it got banned, the weaker engine slows the down the whole thing by a lot.
@@akl4499 Yeah. I was just under the impression that Ferrari had "misinterprited" the rules in their favour slightly. This is much worse and if true should have some pretty serious consequences.
@@dralol Nope, they were literally cheating, and I'm saying this as a Ferrari Fan. Watch this, it explains it very well: th-cam.com/video/6278BtOC_pI/w-d-xo.html
Mass damper: smoother ride over bumps and curbstones
FIA: illegal aero device
DAS: actively changing the aero drag of the front tyres by changing the toe on the straights for higher top speed
FIA: legal, not an aero device......???
How STUPID are these people at the FIA??
Would like to watch the video if the bloody ad would stop loading
Have you covered the williams cvt ?
I wish you would explained the mechanics of the mass damper
You should do a video on the DAS system by Mercedes this year
How about the use of exhaust gasses as a source of additional downforce?
It's weird to consider that as something to be banned. Top Fuel dragsters use their exhaust gases to provide downforce, but we're talking about an engine that has 10 times more power than a F1 car.
We've covered both Double and Blown diffusers in previous episodes of Banned - take a look here! th-cam.com/play/PL2vgf11SN4RhN_05hE-Jd1SrPDk9stCQb.html
@@AutosportOfficial I miss those old pre 1994 monster diffusers the teams ran and then started hot blowing. They looked great!
I think the mass dampener is an idea that they could still use.
0:30 Why have you put iconic Soviet shop scales?
Most of these were not illegal, but were declared illegal after the fact.
If they were specifically illegal at the time of use, there would have been more instances like Tyrrell and BAR being DQ'd or banned from races.
its not what the rules say, its what they DONT SAY, that opens the
window for exploitation and success.....loved the vid..merry xmas, h6uk
Make more of these please
Nothing should be “illegal” in racing.
It's a shame mass dampers aren't allowed, I know it makes everyone's development more expensive, but it's literally taking 1/3 of a dynamicist's tools out of his toolbox.
ma + cv + kx = F(t)
If you can only change stiffness (k) and viscous damping (c), but not dynamic mass (m), then that is what I mean by losing 1/3 of your tools.
Rules are not there to be broken,
they are there to be worked around.
IMO they should put an even lower budget cap and then free up the rules more - as long as the cars stay safe and people aren't likely to die in crashes. Mass dampers were a very clever invention and a shame to be banned!
What about extremely large water bottles for thirsty drivers who need a top up at the final pit stop? ‘It was very hot in there!’
0:12 Looking at YOU Ferrari...
A good one would be banned innovations that ended up with negative effects. Such as the ban of automatic traction control and ABS that resulted in the death of Ratzenberger and Senna the next season.
The lack of traction control and ABS had nothing to do with either Imola crash, as far as I can tell. The cause of Senna's accident is unknown but in a high-speed corner neither ABS not TC would have any effect; Ratzenberger's car had a wing failure under high load.
I don't know if you watch MotoGP. For some time every team had the freedom to build its own TC which resulted in an electronic setting for every corner of every corse. The riders could just go through the corner throttle wide open. While I get were you are coming from, TC would take so much out of the competition, same with ABS, everyone could just slam the brakes and the electronics, when set up properly, would do the rest.
@@PLTConductorComposer But that was not the only thing the FIA banned. They also banned power brakes and active suspension.
Active suspension being banned, combined with the way it was banned and the old flat bottom car designs played a huge part in what happened in 1994. You don’t go from the accident and injury rate of most of the 80’s and early 90’s to what happened in 1994 without a fundamental cock up in the regulations:
Lehto - broken neck
Alesi - neck and back injury
Barrichello - broken nose, injured arm, knocked unconscious
Ratzenberger - fatal basal skull fracture
Senna - multiple fatal head injuries
Wendlinger - head injuries and coma
Montermini - two broken feet
Lamy - two broken legs
Verstappen and Benetton pit crew - burns
Plus there was also that four car pile up at Interlagos and the ten car pile up at Hockenheim that year...
@@gdogg3710 It made accidents in general more likely, but it did not contribute to Ratzenberger or Senna's accidents. If there was *any* chance they had, the FIA would obviously have revoked the rule immediately (see what they did to Eau Rouge and Catalunya for how drastic the changes to the cars made in the wake of the accidents were).
Nothing you've put there is any evidence towards the lack of driver aids contributing to any of the Imola accidents, which were (again) caused respectively by high rise kerbs (Barricello), front wing failure (Ratzenberger), and probably steering column failure or bottoming out (Senna).
why is a mass damper inside the car related to aerodynamics??
I am nowhere remotely near of being an expert, but as far as i understand it's like this. Aerodynamics are massively dependent on the position of the car to the ground. That's why teams want their car to be as low as possible. If the car bounces, the distance to the ground becomes bigger than what they would like it to be and it disturbes the aerodynamic performance in itself, as well. If you find a way to reduce the bouncing of the car, the aerodynamic stability and performance increase. So in conclusion the mass damper is a moveable part that has, maybe indirectly or in fact directly, but in the end it doesn't really matter, an influence on the aerodynamic performance of the car. Should it still have been banned? Probably not. Way to many things get banned, but otherwise cars would probably be way to fast.
The amount of stock footage in this video was jarring.
Dafuq does jarring mean
The only way to find the limits of the rules are to push them untill they break
The entire point of a rule is to slow the cars down. That's just good business from the F1 brass to create a series with closer racing. Rule changes make it so one team doesn't keep winning for too long. i.e.-Boring. So it's the teams job to stay as close to the edge of breaking the rules as possible. The interpretations of the rules by the teams is part of the excitement of the engineering challenge. F1 is not strictly a drivers series. (Example: See F2 rules) Basically, F1 needs to balance between an engineering spectral and a series of the best sprint drivers in the world. The best drivers in the world should have to overcome big challenges so we undoubtedly know how good they are. It's THE formula that has made F1 cool for so long. Maybe they should stick to it.
Favourite/trickiest innovations ever:
Brabham fan car,
twin chassis lotus 88,
Tyrrell/Williams/Ferrari cars with more than four wheels,
Benetton four wheel steering,
DAS,
Williams CVT gearbox,
Ferrari fuel fiddling 2018/19,
Everyone burning oil during the hybrid era,
The McLaren brake steering doohickey,
Both blown diffuser periods,
The skirt ride height hacks of the ground effect era
Back to English class with whoever wrote this. Go write out the definitions of 'unilateral' and 'contemporary' 100 times each.
They should let F1 teams develop a car without any limitation. Then we will see the maximal potential of a F1 car. And the races will be more fun to watch. Of course all within the safety of the driver.
The rules in most cases are not specifically broken, they are interpreted differently.
I think they should allow the teams to keep the results of their races won as a result of the engineering genius.
Lmao this is the only video playing for me while TH-cam is down on 11/11/20 at 8:18pm, at least it's a good one lol
Is that what was going on? Thought it was just me
You know when he talks about my MASS DAMPER like that I go 😍 amor!
They have those cars so locked down I don't see why they don't just make it a spec race. Save everyone the development costs and make it more about the drivers like how super formula is run.
Engineers: have an genius idea
FIA: BANNED!!!
It's kinda weird when you think about it. All formula 1 is, is a book of rules designed to make cars slower
Mitchelin tires, ahh yes classic mitchelins
What if they started and ended with weighed down wheels that they changed during tire changes.
I think it should only be banned if it makes the race unsafe, not if it makes it faster. The weight limit is so they don't try to use aluminum foil for their roll cage, so that's a good rule to have. I don't think mass dampers are a bad thing and if they make you faster everyone would just get them, same as a wing.
Circumspect doesn't mean what you think it does.
Their has to be rules. Push them yes but don’t break them. If they are just ignored then what would stop all of the safety equipment. From being removed to save weight.
I’m still fuzzy on the lead shot thing. The video says they would add it during pit stops, but that doesn’t make any sense, because why add the extra weight during the race?
Back then the minimum weigh of the cars were meassured after the race; they raced an ultra light car, made a late pitstop with the lead and finished with the minimum weight needed
@@Falk0209 ah, so they did it when they pitted late. That makes more sense.
They would pit with only a couple of laps to go to put the lead in. Teams in the nearby pits would complain about the stench of aromatics from the cars when the refill was done. Part of the refill was intended to sluice out the residual trace of the additives from the tanks, hence why there was water sloshing out of the cars and unintentionally carrying the lead shot with it. It is hard to come up with a more clear case of cheating than this one.
Yeah we really don't need the random stock footage, the information in the video was fine enough
“it isn’t cheating unless you get caught!”
Jotaro Cujo
I do not see how a mass damper is a moveable aero bit!
Lotus active suspension
This video is literally just JBL reading a May 2020 Motorsport article verbatim.
If it's not in black n white in the rule book it's not a grey area it is LEGAL.
I mean why ban the last one? It’s pure genius, the driver was still driving the car its better quality
Because Ferrari ran Bridgestones and couldn't get the most out of it, so they protested.
F1 will be so much fun without constant innovation banning from FIA
There would be only half the grid as that means the rich teams do what they like.
Colin Chapman, the master of adding "lightness"
Rules are meant to be bent, not broken to stay within the legalities.
How the fuck did the FIA come to the conclusion that DAS does not fall under the ban for adjusting suspension mid-race since toe is formally not part of the suspension geometry, but then go ahead and say the mass damper, a part literally concealed in the bodywork and used to make the ride smoother, is suddenly an adjustable aerodynamic device.
Has a team ever tried heavier fuel after the last pitstop?
I’m not 100% if this is a serious comment or not, however each team needs to ensure a minimum amount of fuel remains in the car for a sample at the end of the race. The fuel used is the tested by the FIA to ensure it is compliant with the regs...
Not at the pitstops, overall, yes - but lighter, not heavier. That way the car when fuelled could carry more fuel, but the same weight as its rivals.
Shell put great effort into this at Ferrari in the mid 2000's, developing fuels with the same energy density, but less weight.
F1 teams don't measure fuel in Litres, but in Kg, as weight is so significant. What Shell did was that in the tank (a max of say 140L) you would normally have 150kg of fuel, lasting 30 Laps. Make the fuel weigh less, and your 140L will last 30 laps, but weigh only 148kg, giving more low-down ballast elsewhere via that weight saving. It's still a factor now, making the fuel have the same energy density, but as lightweight as possible, within the chemical restrictions in the regs.
Beating the rules is what F1 is all about.
The rules should be respected, but if it's not in the rule book then it's legal.
Fisa and FIA rules killed many new inovations imo.
That is what F1 supposed is for. To explore new inovations
Banning mass dampers was such bs
Uncle Ruddy says the crime is getting caught
Should have split this into two videos ingenious solutions and ridiculous solutions ie get already lean drivers to go go on a diet.
There were persistent rumours of one team (ATS?) using a special ultra heavy wing to allow underweight qualifying. The trick being that back then teams could swap gear ratios on the cars easily. To swap ratios the back cover of the gearbox was removed. This required the wing to come off as well. So the car would run qualifying with an underweight car, and as the session was coming to and end the driver would pit with the claimed intent of trying a different set of ratios, and maybe setting a better time. But sadly it was just to late, and the car as not ready to go out again before the end of the session. The wing taken off the car was returned and put back on the car prior to scrutineering. Curious how there was always a big strong mechanic used to carry the wing back to the car. Yet he wasn't needed to carry it away.
F1 cars have to be built to EXACT specifications
Next banned innovation: Flavio Briatore
His flab is a mass damper
Unavailable?
The car isn’t overweight it’s BoDy PoSiTiVe
you should have included F- Duck , and Rear end Diffuser too
This video is about using weight as an advantage not aerodynamic devices
Isnt it embaresing that f1 are outperformed by the 24h race cars in lap times?
FUCK THE RULES