Porpoising, what if?

[PhilAsia]

GCH said:

MarkwG said:

There's no such thing as "technically illegal" - either it's legal, or it isn't.

Unless it's passing behind the safety car "for a very short period of time"

[MarkwG]

GCH said:

MarkwG said:

There's no such thing as "technically illegal" - either it's legal, or it isn't.

Unless it's passing behind the safety car "for a very short period of time"

Hmmm...that's more about judicial competence, but I take your point 😉

[Siao]

MarkwG said:

Siao said:

MarkwG said:

TypeRTim said:

Siao said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

You are making this up as you go along.

Mostly, yes.

But the fact that in their interactions with Mercedes during development of DAS, the FIA concluded that the system would have been illegal if it was actuated via a different mechanism shows, to me, that it was deemed a moveable suspension system and therefore illegal.

I too, in a way, applauded them for it. Was extremely ballsy. It toed the line between illegal and legal enough for it to get through. Only for it to be instantly banned thereafter!

That's my 'hot take' on it.

I see it as the Benetton '94 traction control. Getting the "banned" result from a "legal" solution. Benetton had a "sort of" traction control, but not by the conventional way, as Toet described how it worked in his blog. Similarly, the Merc got the DAS, not via a lever in the cockpit (which would have made it illegal), but via the steering itself, so they called it steering input. Clever solutions.

Kind of the point I'm trying to make with it! Thanks for giving an example!

No, not a good example: Benetton knew what they were doing was cheating, they hid the workings deep in the software, hoping no-one would be able to spot it: traction control was clearly a breach of the rules. As said elsewhere, Mercedes designed DAS as a legitimate system, had it signed off by the FIA & all the other teams were gobsmacked when they saw it - it was in plain sight at all times.

Not really, the hidden command was for the proper launch control through software and that wasn't really used. What Benetton did wasn't that, have a look at Toet's blog (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-rotational-inertia-led-traction-control-willem-toet/), he maintains that this was a legal solution and indicates that others copied it. So they didn't have traction control per se, they just achieved the same results in another way.

Whether it was used or not, was open to debate: there was no way of proving it, one way or the other. It shouldn't have been there at all. They certainly claimed they didn't use it - but couldn't explain why it was there, if they never intended to use it - & why would you build something in, just for decoration? Either way, it's not analogous to the Mercedes DAS; Benetton were found out, whereas Mercedes were up front at all times.

You'll probably find that they didn't "build something in" in 1994 for fun; it was already in there from the previous years when it was legal. They just didn't remove all the coding, that's their line, but it's not that they built it into the car in order not to use it. On the flipside, they achieved the same result legally, why would they use an illegal software based solution? Does that make sense to you?

I'm afraid this is going off topic though, I was merely trying to give an example, I'm sure there are others.

[StevieBee]

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

You are making this up as you go along.

To demonstrate why both of you are sort of right...... This is covered in both Ross Brawn's and Adrian Newey's books.

One of the jobs of the designer is to identify vagaries in the technical rules that can explored and exploited for competitive advantage. 'Loopholes' in other words.

This is where the description of a regulation can be interpreted a certain way so that a particular idea may not necessarily adhere to the 'spirit' of the regulation but remains within it. But as in law, there's no such thing as 'spirit' - it has to be yes / no, black /white, on / off..

So when the FIA spot something that's not what they expected to see (like DAS) as a result of the ambiguity in the way the regulation was written, they have no means to ban it. The only thing they can do is 'test' it. So they pass the car and allow other teams to protest (if they consider it worthy of protest). They then consider the nature and detail of these protests and from them, decide whether to re-write the regulation.

If that happens, the team is given time to make the required changes because it was on the FIA to get the regulation right in the first place which they didn't.

Plenty examples of this; the double diffuser, the Brabham Fan car, bendy barge boards....

[ajprice]

https://twitter.com/wtf1official/status/1537483849...

[NGK210]

"Canadian Grand Prix: FIA outlines plans to tackle 'porpoising' after drivers express concerns"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/61833829

[caminator11]

Good news.

It’s been clear that the FIA need to test for porpoising and incentivise teams to prioritise driver health over car performance.

Some teams with porpoising issues will really suffer here but at the end of the day it’s the right decision for drivers.

[Jasandjules]

I suspect we will see Merc fighting with the HAAS or even Williams........

[Heathwood]

When I first saw this news I thought Mercedes will be pleased, but, as alluded to, I think it may well push them into making their current car uncompetitive. I wonder whether this will be the catalyst for a change of design concept for Merc.

[Blib]

I can't wait for first practice tomorrow.

[LM240]

Still working on how they will measure it and have a formula around when they need to alter the car. So not sure we will see an immediate impact.

I’m pleased this hasn’t been a blanket change and does seem to have backfired on Mercedes.

It is basically enforcing what the teams should have done in the first place if they were so worried about their cars pace.. sorry, drivers welfare.

[Teppic]

Mercedes: “We haven’t got a clue how to fix our porpoising issues, so we want the FIA to step in and sort it for us”.

FIA: “OK, in that case we will have a maximum rate of oscillation, so basically if your car porpoises and exceeds that, you’ll have to raise your ride height and if that means you lose performance, we’ll it’s tough titty”.

Mercedes: “fk!”

Ferrari: “Thanks a fking bunch, Mercedes”

Red Bull:

[WonkeyDonkey]

I'm hoping I'm wrong but this feels like the point where red bull will run completely unchallenged for the rest of the year. Their car looks absolutely planted whereas the ferrari can challenge but does seem to be suffering with porpoising issues of their own.

[wpa1975]

Well Mercedes have shot themselves in the foot big time.

Red Bull to win every grind prix from now is my guess.

Lets hope that it does force suspension changes for 2023.

[vaud]

wpa1975 said:

Well Mercedes have shot themselves in the foot big time.

Red Bull to win every grind prix from now is my guess.

Lets hope that it does force suspension changes for 2023.

Given the 2023 cars will already be late in the design process, I'm not sure they will make changes?

[NRS]

Teppic said:

Mercedes: “We haven’t got a clue how to fix our porpoising issues, so we want the FIA to step in and sort it for us”.

FIA: “OK, in that case we will have a maximum rate of oscillation, so basically if your car porpoises and exceeds that, you’ll have to raise your ride height and if that means you lose performance, we’ll it’s tough titty”.

Mercedes: “fk!”

Ferrari: “Thanks a fking bunch, Mercedes”

Red Bull:

It was always clear this would happen - even if they wanted to the FIA cannot change the rules at short notice without the teams agreeing, and RB would not have agreed. So the only thing that might happen was a limit on the amount of vertical bouncing. It showed why the RB fans saying Hamilton was putting it on was nonsense - there was a far more likely downside to Mercedes than to RB.

[2fast748]

vaud said:

wpa1975 said:

Well Mercedes have shot themselves in the foot big time.

Red Bull to win every grind prix from now is my guess.

Lets hope that it does force suspension changes for 2023.

Given the 2023 cars will already be late in the design process, I'm not sure they will make changes?

Will the 2023 cars even be on the drawing board (CAD screen) yet? Budget cap and all?

[vaud]

2fast748 said:

Will the 2023 cars even be on the drawing board (CAD screen) yet? Budget cap and all?

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/how-is-an-f1-ca...

More than a year in advance, at least pre cost cap. My guess is the top teams will be well into 2023 design, at least at CAD/CFD levels.

[Adrian W]

NRS said:

It was always clear this would happen - even if they wanted to the FIA cannot change the rules at short notice without the teams agreeing, and RB would not have agreed. So the only thing that might happen was a limit on the amount of vertical bouncing. It showed why the RB fans saying Hamilton was putting it on was nonsense - there was a far more likely downside to Mercedes than to RB.

Surely that is changing the rules?

[Adrian W]

I don't think I will be able to watch an interview with Horner this weekend, the smugness will be turned up to 11