Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1.moderato
Titolo: [ENG] What F1 has learned from the Citroen 2CV and why the FIA has to stop it

Source: 
grandprix.com
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns17166.html
Ferrari and Renault have been informed in recent days that they have to
change their front damping systems because they have moving parts inside
the dampers and these are banned under Article 3.15 of the FIA Formula 1
Technical Regulations for 2006. The rules state that all parts of the  
car
must be "rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car" and
"must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car". The  
FIA
has concluded that weights inside the dampers cannot be acceptable. The
aim of these weights is to reduce the amount of vibration from the tyres
that is transmitted to the chassis and thus make the car more stable.
Reducing bounce from the tyres means that the cars get more grip.
The concept was first used in the the Citroen 2CV in the late 1940s and
was designed to reduce wheel patter, vertical oscillation of the wheels
caused by the tyres. More recently, however, the same basic concept has
been used in architectural design to reduce resonance created by wind or
earthquakes.
It will be interesting to see whether the rule changes will have any
noticeable effect on the performance of the cars.
Copyright 1988-2006, Inside F1, Inc.
-- 
Automatically gathered from the web
Subscribe/unsubscribe/info at
http://www.grandprixpassion.com/mailman/listinfo/webnews

"must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car".
Then, shall the pistons be welded to the cylinder barrels, etc.?        
-- 
SNAFU
Per rispondermi privatamente, sostituisci "snaphoo" con "snafu"
To reply via e-mail, please remember to replace "snaphoo" with "snafu"

Then, shall the pistons be welded to the cylinder barrels, etc.? 
"Ma allora, anche i pistoni dovranno essere saldati ai cilindri, etc.?"
(per non parlare del volante!)


 noticeable effect on the performance of the cars.
"The use of mass dampers, normally fitted in the nose of a car, is now
widespread. Even though we have never been asked specifically whether or
not their use may contravene any part of the Technical Regulations our
view, until now, has been that they do not. (sic! n.d.marloc) 
However, recent evidence and an escalation in development by some teams,
has made it clear to us that the principle purpose of these devices is to
improve the aerodynamic performance of the car.
(questa me la spiega qualcuno? n.d. marloc). 
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. 
Therefore, as this movement influences the aerodynamic performance of the
car we feel that mass dampers of this sort contravene Article 3.15 (sic!!
n.d. marloc) of the F1 Technical Regulations and we no longer consider
their use permissible."
[Charlie Whiting 21.07.2006]
Il capolavoro IMHO e' citare il 3.15 nel quale (per inciso) e' richiamato
il 1.4* (definizione di Bodywork) per poter bannare i dampers in quanto
"parti mobili".
Mi chiedo come i dampers all'_interno_ del muso possano essere in contatto
con l'"air stream" o influenzare l'aereodinamica.
Mi domando se anche il "third damper" (che bilancia gli spikes di momento
che si creano fra i braccetti) sia da considerare anche esso come parte
mobile.
In tal caso credo che ci siano un po' di anni di squalifica da scontare da
parte di parecchi...
marloc sempre piu' perplesso
(*) 1.4 Bodywork :
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air
stream, except cameras and the parts definitely associated with the
mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission and running gear.
Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of the
bodywork.
-- 
sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probet
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it