> Malcolm C. Smith, a control engineering professor at the University of Cambridge, first introduced inerters in a 2002 paper.[1] Smith extended the analogy between electrical and mechanical networks (the mobility analogy). He observed that the analogy was incomplete, since it was missing a mechanical device playing the same role as an electrical capacitor. The analogy makes mass the analog of capacitance, but the capacitor representing a mass always has one terminal connected to ground potential. In a real electrical network, capacitors can be connected between any two arbitrary potentials, they are not limited to ground. Noticing this, Smith set about finding a mechanical device that was a true analog of a capacitor. He found that he could construct such a device using gears and flywheels, one of several possible methods.
Not just speed nerfing. The cars now are ~50% larger than they used to be, while the tracks haven't gotten any wider. As a result, there's hardly any overtaking unless an egregious mistake is made. The lame solution they have to this is to allow cars one second behind to mechanically reduce their drag in selected spots of the track (DPS).
And don't get me started on the tire regulations.
F1, from the cars to the drivers, is peak manufactured drama.
> As a result, there's hardly any overtaking unless an egregious mistake is made. The lame solution they have to this is to allow cars one second behind to mechanically reduce their drag in selected spots of the track (DPS).
We've had some of the highest overtakes per season in recent years. Tracks like Monaco have always made for low overtakes, but DRS has been a great addition. Overtaking in F1 is difficult because of the dirty air from the car ahead, which has only gotten worse with improved aero, not because the cars are wider. Yes, DRS only reduces drag, but it's a necessary counterbalance to the turbulence. I believe it results in a true slipstream effect, which is exactly what you would have without the dirty air.
That's largely true. There is at least one, wonderful, reward from all the rule-fiddling, though it might be orthogonal to the issues you've highlighted, but driver deaths and severe injuries are much less common than they used to be.
A cynic would say that, if the arena no longer offers us the ever-present possibility of death, then the drama needs to be enhanced in other ways, even if they are artificial.
Firstly some tracks have a lot of overtaking. Some are harder, Monaco has none.
The need for DRS is primarily because the aerodynamics of the following car are affected by the dirty air caused by the car in front. DRS is an aero assistance to overcome aero penalties.
Regulations, spending caps, wind tunnel limitations etc are indeed designed yo keep car performance as close as possible. Frankly without that racing is terminally boring. Without it the pack would simply spread out in predictable formation based on car speed. By keeping the cars closer together in performance the driver matters more, and there is more opportunity for actual racing.
I'll also point out that all sports, including all motor sports, are manufactured to create a contest. From the NFL draft system, to baseball cost caps, to endless rule tweaks, the goal of sport is to provide for more unpredictable outcomes. Thats kinda the point.
DRS directly dictates track behaviour, and the rules around track position have effectively killed the idea that "If you no longer go for a gap which exists you are no longer a racing driver", because doing so would run counter to the rules.
It even feels like you have to wait a few days post race for the FIA to decide who actually won.
Whenever I watch WEC or Rally I'm reminded of what real racing is, the comparatively light touch the FIA have with those series has led to much more exciting sports.
Exactly, been watching since 1994, before DRS and budget caps it had whole seasons where a team would dominate with cars almost 1s faster per lap than others, and the only thing keeping the championship a little entertaining was the reliability failures.
Teams running 3 different engines during a weekend between qualification/race while others only had money for 1 engine every few races. Teams that could outspend other teams by a factor of 10 sometimes, quite ridiculous.
I wish cars to get smaller, these behemoths really crowd narrow historical tracks such as Suzuka, the 2026 regs seem to be taming the size of the cars and I hope it's a direction they continue for the next formula changes.
Just about every motorsport series is manufactured drama. The rules and restrictions are arbitrary. Anything with a large televised audience will have the rules impacted by trying to make a spectacle. It's not exclusive to F1.
F1 certainly has its issues though, the cars are just too big. Monaco has been a joke of a race for a while, the "race" is won in qualifying. 2026 might be better as the cars are getting smaller again.
I think it was mostly due to an enlarged fuel tank, as there is no refuelling during races. Also, energy recovering system, batteries, the whole hybrid system. This post has great size comparison: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1i16g7e/f1_car_si...
It looks like the nose got longer as well, I assume this is for crashworthiness.
You can clearly see this by comparing the formula1 subreddit and, say, the football (soccer) subreddit. One is mostly plays and goals and tactics, the other is mostly ig drama :)
Seems the flywheel in the device is what does the magic - dampening oscillations (which would demand the flywheel turn faster/slower, which its intertia will resist). Then it gets put in series with normal dampers that reduce compression/expansion. The inerter cancels vibrations & high frequency movement while the usual shock absorption components handle the rest of the shock absorption, making a great team.
What the inerter does is it gives the feeling of greater inertial mass between the two ends of the device. If you push on the inerter it feels like you are pushing on a boat in a marina: slow go get moving when you push it, and slow to come to rest when you push (or pull) it back the other way.
It does this because flywheels hold momentum but as angular momentum. The inerter converts linear motion to angular momentum. The gearing also it to give the same effect of an enormous inertial mass without itself being massive.
My understanding as to why this is useful is as follows. Suspension works best when the vehicle is heavy and the wheels are light. Imagine a battle tank on ultra strong bicycle wheels: the tank would glide along as the wheels jump up and down over every dip and bump. Something similar happens when you drive home with a car load of paving slabs.
Having a massive vehicle is a huge penalty though for other reasons. Battle tanks are not nimble! The only thing you really want the mass for is as an inertial mass in the suspension system. For accelerating and going around corners you’d rather it wasn’t there at all.
The key takeaway for me was that it actively resists the oscillations, making it a more effective damper than a shock absorber in a range of situations, but it doesn't replace the shock.
As far as my understanding goes, it's basically a low-pass filter that also provides momentum in the direction of movement - this actively dampens spring oscillation (as opposed to a shock absorber, which passively dampens oscillation). It should be installed in parallel with the spring and shock.
If I understood the video correctly, the simple mechanical model is an inerter is the inverse of a spring.
Analogous to a capacitor being the inverse of an inductor in an electrical model.
Trying to find a better mechanical analog to the capacitor to optimize a passive suspension was the motivation because mass-damping suspensions had already been banned when active suspension got banned.
There was one problem, inventor Lucjan Łągiewka tried to patent it in Poland. Polish Patent office decided its a scam because nothing can work this well.
…is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerter_(mechanical_networks)
From the article:
> Malcolm C. Smith, a control engineering professor at the University of Cambridge, first introduced inerters in a 2002 paper.[1] Smith extended the analogy between electrical and mechanical networks (the mobility analogy). He observed that the analogy was incomplete, since it was missing a mechanical device playing the same role as an electrical capacitor. The analogy makes mass the analog of capacitance, but the capacitor representing a mass always has one terminal connected to ground potential. In a real electrical network, capacitors can be connected between any two arbitrary potentials, they are not limited to ground. Noticing this, Smith set about finding a mechanical device that was a true analog of a capacitor. He found that he could construct such a device using gears and flywheels, one of several possible methods.
Thanks for saving me 40 minutes.
It's quite insane to think how much faster F1 could be, especially on older regulations without development and budget limitations.
Regulations have been trying to limit the speed of the cars for decades, with only partial success.
Not just speed nerfing. The cars now are ~50% larger than they used to be, while the tracks haven't gotten any wider. As a result, there's hardly any overtaking unless an egregious mistake is made. The lame solution they have to this is to allow cars one second behind to mechanically reduce their drag in selected spots of the track (DPS).
And don't get me started on the tire regulations.
F1, from the cars to the drivers, is peak manufactured drama.
> As a result, there's hardly any overtaking unless an egregious mistake is made. The lame solution they have to this is to allow cars one second behind to mechanically reduce their drag in selected spots of the track (DPS).
We've had some of the highest overtakes per season in recent years. Tracks like Monaco have always made for low overtakes, but DRS has been a great addition. Overtaking in F1 is difficult because of the dirty air from the car ahead, which has only gotten worse with improved aero, not because the cars are wider. Yes, DRS only reduces drag, but it's a necessary counterbalance to the turbulence. I believe it results in a true slipstream effect, which is exactly what you would have without the dirty air.
Editing to provide some data: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/nf4jkq/f1_overtak...
>peak manufactured drama
That's largely true. There is at least one, wonderful, reward from all the rule-fiddling, though it might be orthogonal to the issues you've highlighted, but driver deaths and severe injuries are much less common than they used to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_fatalities
A cynic would say that, if the arena no longer offers us the ever-present possibility of death, then the drama needs to be enhanced in other ways, even if they are artificial.
Romain Grosjean survived his car being torn in half:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ7_En2xEm4
This will always be peak F1 for me.
There's something about the way the car twitches like it could go faster if you let it, and the sound!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c0o697F1g8
The V10s from around 2000 were arguably the best sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqaJKTRs-Kg
But that 1985 car control is insane!
Lots of truth here, but context matters.
Firstly some tracks have a lot of overtaking. Some are harder, Monaco has none.
The need for DRS is primarily because the aerodynamics of the following car are affected by the dirty air caused by the car in front. DRS is an aero assistance to overcome aero penalties.
Regulations, spending caps, wind tunnel limitations etc are indeed designed yo keep car performance as close as possible. Frankly without that racing is terminally boring. Without it the pack would simply spread out in predictable formation based on car speed. By keeping the cars closer together in performance the driver matters more, and there is more opportunity for actual racing.
I'll also point out that all sports, including all motor sports, are manufactured to create a contest. From the NFL draft system, to baseball cost caps, to endless rule tweaks, the goal of sport is to provide for more unpredictable outcomes. Thats kinda the point.
DRS directly dictates track behaviour, and the rules around track position have effectively killed the idea that "If you no longer go for a gap which exists you are no longer a racing driver", because doing so would run counter to the rules.
It even feels like you have to wait a few days post race for the FIA to decide who actually won.
Whenever I watch WEC or Rally I'm reminded of what real racing is, the comparatively light touch the FIA have with those series has led to much more exciting sports.
I've been watching F1 since circa 1998.
Before DRS there was even less overtaking.
Exactly, been watching since 1994, before DRS and budget caps it had whole seasons where a team would dominate with cars almost 1s faster per lap than others, and the only thing keeping the championship a little entertaining was the reliability failures.
Teams running 3 different engines during a weekend between qualification/race while others only had money for 1 engine every few races. Teams that could outspend other teams by a factor of 10 sometimes, quite ridiculous.
I wish cars to get smaller, these behemoths really crowd narrow historical tracks such as Suzuka, the 2026 regs seem to be taming the size of the cars and I hope it's a direction they continue for the next formula changes.
Reliability was such a huge wild card!
I would say Ferrari, in their post-2000 domination, were the first team to make reliability not a factor, for the most part.
M Schumacher still holds the record for most consecutive podium finishes, 19 (!), across the 2001-2002 seasons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_driver_rec...
Ironically, one reliability mishap arguably cost them the 2006 season.
Just about every motorsport series is manufactured drama. The rules and restrictions are arbitrary. Anything with a large televised audience will have the rules impacted by trying to make a spectacle. It's not exclusive to F1.
F1 certainly has its issues though, the cars are just too big. Monaco has been a joke of a race for a while, the "race" is won in qualifying. 2026 might be better as the cars are getting smaller again.
Why did the cars get 50% larger? Was it for crashworthiness?
I think it was mostly due to an enlarged fuel tank, as there is no refuelling during races. Also, energy recovering system, batteries, the whole hybrid system. This post has great size comparison: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1i16g7e/f1_car_si...
It looks like the nose got longer as well, I assume this is for crashworthiness.
[dead]
You can clearly see this by comparing the formula1 subreddit and, say, the football (soccer) subreddit. One is mostly plays and goals and tactics, the other is mostly ig drama :)
"...first introduced inerters in a 2002 paper."
Damn impressive to discover a new mechanical system just from gears and flywheels.
Seems the flywheel in the device is what does the magic - dampening oscillations (which would demand the flywheel turn faster/slower, which its intertia will resist). Then it gets put in series with normal dampers that reduce compression/expansion. The inerter cancels vibrations & high frequency movement while the usual shock absorption components handle the rest of the shock absorption, making a great team.
Have I understood it right?
What the inerter does is it gives the feeling of greater inertial mass between the two ends of the device. If you push on the inerter it feels like you are pushing on a boat in a marina: slow go get moving when you push it, and slow to come to rest when you push (or pull) it back the other way.
It does this because flywheels hold momentum but as angular momentum. The inerter converts linear motion to angular momentum. The gearing also it to give the same effect of an enormous inertial mass without itself being massive.
My understanding as to why this is useful is as follows. Suspension works best when the vehicle is heavy and the wheels are light. Imagine a battle tank on ultra strong bicycle wheels: the tank would glide along as the wheels jump up and down over every dip and bump. Something similar happens when you drive home with a car load of paving slabs.
Having a massive vehicle is a huge penalty though for other reasons. Battle tanks are not nimble! The only thing you really want the mass for is as an inertial mass in the suspension system. For accelerating and going around corners you’d rather it wasn’t there at all.
The key takeaway for me was that it actively resists the oscillations, making it a more effective damper than a shock absorber in a range of situations, but it doesn't replace the shock.
Donut Media actually has a great video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t58qjcNwEbo
As far as my understanding goes, it's basically a low-pass filter that also provides momentum in the direction of movement - this actively dampens spring oscillation (as opposed to a shock absorber, which passively dampens oscillation). It should be installed in parallel with the spring and shock.
If I understood the video correctly, the simple mechanical model is an inerter is the inverse of a spring.
Analogous to a capacitor being the inverse of an inductor in an electrical model.
Trying to find a better mechanical analog to the capacitor to optimize a passive suspension was the motivation because mass-damping suspensions had already been banned when active suspension got banned.
But I probably misunderstood the video.
Pretty much same device as prototype visible on video in front of Malcolm Smith, except invented ~10 years prior https://thisisit.edu.pl/lucjan-lagiewka-geniusz-czy-oszust
demonstration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ow-cgHAfNI
There was one problem, inventor Lucjan Łągiewka tried to patent it in Poland. Polish Patent office decided its a scam because nothing can work this well.
Donut explains the inerter much better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t58qjcNwEbo