Porpoising, what if?
Discussion
Adrian W said:
A driver gets seriously hurt or worse, who’s fault would it be ?
Obviously they can’t refuse to drive the things.
It's a potentially complicated question - when you think back to Senna and the Williams steering column debate - and perhaps the BBC show where some bloke was showing the impact of a crash and he was the crash test dummy. In the latter case he did of course agree to do it but I think the producers were nevertheless done under H&S duty of care type stuff. Motor racing of course carries risks by design, but can Merc share the liability with LH? Maybe. Obviously they can’t refuse to drive the things.
Raising the car is one option, but when the whole game is winning and the regulations dangle the choice of being fast but bouncing there is also perhaps some culpability for the FIA - and ultimately Brawns rules.
I was quite looking forward to this GE era #2, but this whole angle is rather awkward given there is a not so much a safety but a seemingly direct health issue stemming from the basic racing car rules/concept.
TDK-C60 said:
Raising the car is one option, but when the whole game is winning and the regulations dangle the choice of being fast but bouncing there is also perhaps some culpability for the FIA - and ultimately Brawns rules.
The team that is winning is fast without bouncing. All the teams have the tools to make their cars stop porpoising. mw88 said:
It’s got to be the responsibility of the team and driver. They could raise the ride height to reduce it, but they don’t want to give away the performance.
On the other hand post-Imola 1994 the length of the rear diffuser was shortened. Lotus was testing at Silverstone when Pedro Lamy had an almighty shunt when the rear wing collapsed and the car flew into and was wedged deep in the pedestrian tunnel at Bridge. The regs were further revised to prevent prevent the rear wing from collapsing.mw88 said:
It’s got to be the responsibility of the team and driver. They could raise the ride height to reduce it, but they don’t want to give away the performance.
The problem is that drivers are ridiculously competitive and will push themselves harder and harder pushing the limits of their own health. Sometimes they need protecting from themselves Another project car said:
mw88 said:
It’s got to be the responsibility of the team and driver. They could raise the ride height to reduce it, but they don’t want to give away the performance.
The problem is that drivers are ridiculously competitive and will push themselves harder and harder pushing the limits of their own health. Sometimes they need protecting from themselves It’s a difficult conundrum for teams, drivers and regulators.
Obviously no-one wants to get injured, but at the same time the drivers are happy to put up with quite a lot of discomfort if it makes the car go faster.
There were reports of 6g vertical loadings on the Mercedes when it was porpoising, which is on the limit of what you’d want to experience as a human, even an athletic one.
Lewis is closer to 40 than 30, and age eventually wins over fitness. He managed to get through the race on adrenaline yesterday, but was clearly in quite a state when that stopped as he crossed the line. I guess the next couple of days will be key for him, and if he’s fit to get back in the car on Friday in Canada, he won’t care that it takes some time to recover from scoring points. A busy week for Angela his trainer, she’s actually a physiotherapist which will come in useful.
That said, if he isn’t fully fit, they’ll have to raise the ride height of the car and sacrifice performance for comfort. Canada’s a temporary park track, and bumpy. Amazingly, six of the first nine races this season have been on streets or around parks, the worst possible conditions in which to have an issue like porpoising. They’ll all be happy to see Silverstone and the more permanent circuits that follow. .
Danny Ric (33 in a couple of weeks) was also complaining yesterday. The younger drivers seem more comfortable for now, but at what cost later in their careers?
Not an easy one for the FIA either. They clearly don’t want to see drivers injured, but also don’t want to frame a rule in a way that discriminates against the cars that don’t suffer as much from the porpoising issue. Perhaps they issue a limit of 5g vertical acceleration under porpoising, although measuring this accurately on a bumpy track may not be easy.
Baku is also something of an outlier, having a very high top speed for a street circuit. Top speed in Canada will be lower, so perhaps there’s actually no need to change anything until this time next year?
Obviously no-one wants to get injured, but at the same time the drivers are happy to put up with quite a lot of discomfort if it makes the car go faster.
There were reports of 6g vertical loadings on the Mercedes when it was porpoising, which is on the limit of what you’d want to experience as a human, even an athletic one.
Lewis is closer to 40 than 30, and age eventually wins over fitness. He managed to get through the race on adrenaline yesterday, but was clearly in quite a state when that stopped as he crossed the line. I guess the next couple of days will be key for him, and if he’s fit to get back in the car on Friday in Canada, he won’t care that it takes some time to recover from scoring points. A busy week for Angela his trainer, she’s actually a physiotherapist which will come in useful.
That said, if he isn’t fully fit, they’ll have to raise the ride height of the car and sacrifice performance for comfort. Canada’s a temporary park track, and bumpy. Amazingly, six of the first nine races this season have been on streets or around parks, the worst possible conditions in which to have an issue like porpoising. They’ll all be happy to see Silverstone and the more permanent circuits that follow. .
Danny Ric (33 in a couple of weeks) was also complaining yesterday. The younger drivers seem more comfortable for now, but at what cost later in their careers?
Not an easy one for the FIA either. They clearly don’t want to see drivers injured, but also don’t want to frame a rule in a way that discriminates against the cars that don’t suffer as much from the porpoising issue. Perhaps they issue a limit of 5g vertical acceleration under porpoising, although measuring this accurately on a bumpy track may not be easy.
Baku is also something of an outlier, having a very high top speed for a street circuit. Top speed in Canada will be lower, so perhaps there’s actually no need to change anything until this time next year?
wpa1975 said:
Why does the Red Bull not suffer from porpoising then.
What is the magic bullet they have found that nobody else has managed
They've obviously got a design sweetspot, or features in there design and concept that give a greater setup range.What is the magic bullet they have found that nobody else has managed
Or they have found a loophole/massive cheat!
Sandpit Steve said:
Not an easy one for the FIA either. They clearly don’t want to see drivers injured, but also don’t want to frame a rule in a way that discriminates against the cars that don’t suffer as much from the porpoising issue. Perhaps they issue a limit of 5g vertical acceleration under porpoising, although measuring this accurately on a bumpy track may not be easy.
I agree with you. Set a maximum vertical acceleration from porpoising / bottoming out. With data from all the teams, I`m sure the FIA can quickly sift through what is a one-off kerb strike and what it happening down every straight from the car running too low.That way, you don`t penalise the teams who have engineered in a solution. Why should you too ! If they have a car within the regulations that doesn`t bounce all over the place, don`t hold them back just because they`ve done a better jobs than the others.
It`s exactly what Merc said during the last generation of cars, it was up to the other teams to catch them, not for them to lower their level.
There's potentially a very significant issue here. Most, if not all, other sports have had to become much more aware of the long-term effects of head injuries & not just major traumatic events but also the cumulative effects of "minor" events. There's a phenomenon called skelly head or sled head which affects skeleton bob athletes & is caused by frequent high G vertical shocks: it's described here (scroll down to the section discussing it):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-sports/55129090
The most obvious effect in F1 is on the spine, but the more insidious damage could be to the brain.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-sports/55129090
The most obvious effect in F1 is on the spine, but the more insidious damage could be to the brain.
TDK-C60 said:
there is also perhaps some culpability for the FIA - and ultimately Brawns rules.
There is absolutely zero culpability for the FIA.All teams have an instant fix if they are suffering from porpoising - raise the car.
The fact that they won't do this for performance reasons is entirely down to the teams, not the FIA.
I agree that the FIA should step in and perhaps set a minimum ride height - but that needs to be organised so it's not penalising those teams not suffering from it (Red Bull)
It's affecting Mercedes the most, clearly. They need to get themselves out of it whilst maintaining safety. It's not for the rules to be changed.
Wh00sher said:
It`s exactly what Merc said during the last generation of cars, it was up to the other teams to catch them, not for them to lower their level.
Well, yes but then the FIA changed the rules because of the Merc dominance... 
At the moment Merc haven't raised the height like others have claimed they have to minimise the impact... and their window of working seems to be extremely narrow, so it's going to have to happen soon if they can't find a fix...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff