Porpoising, what if?
Discussion
I started the thread more as a who has the duty of care, it is the FIA's bat and ball when it comes to the rules, but if something bad does happen to a driver as a direct result of the effect, surely the FIA, Liberty and the local promoter would have to carry the can for allowing this known issue to continue.
Adrian W said:
I started the thread more as a who has the duty of care, it is the FIA's bat and ball when it comes to the rules, but if something bad does happen to a driver as a direct result of the effect, surely the FIA, Liberty and the local promoter would have to carry the can for allowing this known issue to continue.
I’d say the primary duty of care is with the team, but the driver will have some control himself over the issue, knowing they can fix it by raising the ride height. He doesn’t care if it hurts but he scores points though. FIA possibly, as rule-makers, if they don’t intervene and it becomes a problem, part of their role is to save the teams from themselves. Nothing to do with Liberty or the local promotor.
Adrian W said:
I started the thread more as a who has the duty of care, it is the FIA's bat and ball when it comes to the rules, but if something bad does happen to a driver as a direct result of the effect, surely the FIA, Liberty and the local promoter would have to carry the can for allowing this known issue to continue.
Perhaps but when there is a solution that the teams refuse to do then I don't see how anyone else can be held accountable.After all the FIA tried to bring in a minimum ride height rule change to get all the cars out of the porpoising zone but the teams couldn't agree on it. If the FIA tried to impose a rule like that against the process then I guarantee the teams against it would take legal action.
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.
If this is true:Obviously they can’t refuse to drive the things.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-teams-already...
Then the teams can go f
k themselves frankly. They had the solution, voted against it, their drivers are suffering now. It's clear who's at faultWell obviously some people can manage to make cars that work OK, so a rule tweak is just rewarding the teams that failed to do a good job and giving them an excuse to get out of it while compromising everyone else.
If a driver is seriously concerned they could refuse to drive, and if a team really thought their car was st and dangerous they could choose to not enter it. Or compromise, take the ego hit and run it safe but slow.
Ultimately in this case it's the team to blame for what they built and how they choose to run it. FIA on one side and drivers on the other can influence it but the team are ultimately responsible for the bouncy turd.
If a driver is seriously concerned they could refuse to drive, and if a team really thought their car was s
t and dangerous they could choose to not enter it. Or compromise, take the ego hit and run it safe but slow.Ultimately in this case it's the team to blame for what they built and how they choose to run it. FIA on one side and drivers on the other can influence it but the team are ultimately responsible for the bouncy turd.
If every car and driver were suffering, then I would say the FIA would have to implement a rule change that minimised it.
As it happens, not all cars are displaying it to the same level/degree. With some seemingly not being affected at all. Plus there is a way to mitigate it.
Therefore, if a driver were to become unable to compete or injured due to it, the blame and/or duty of care would rest solely at the Team's door (in this instance, Team includes drivers). The team have created a car that is unable to run competitively without inducing the phenomenon and the drivers have refused the mitigation due to performance drop off.
If the FIA want to cover themselves, they could set a ride height oscillation frequency and duration limit. This would be to basically say if the ride height varies too dramatically for too long - the Team either receives a penalty (if found during the race) or set up changes need to happen (if found during practice).
This would force the teams to run a set up that prioritises driver safety/comfort over out-right performance without penalising the teams who have gotten on top of it organically and maintained higher performance.
As it happens, not all cars are displaying it to the same level/degree. With some seemingly not being affected at all. Plus there is a way to mitigate it.
Therefore, if a driver were to become unable to compete or injured due to it, the blame and/or duty of care would rest solely at the Team's door (in this instance, Team includes drivers). The team have created a car that is unable to run competitively without inducing the phenomenon and the drivers have refused the mitigation due to performance drop off.
If the FIA want to cover themselves, they could set a ride height oscillation frequency and duration limit. This would be to basically say if the ride height varies too dramatically for too long - the Team either receives a penalty (if found during the race) or set up changes need to happen (if found during practice).
This would force the teams to run a set up that prioritises driver safety/comfort over out-right performance without penalising the teams who have gotten on top of it organically and maintained higher performance.
pquinn said:
Well obviously some people can manage to make cars that work OK, so a rule tweak is just rewarding the teams that failed to do a good job and giving them an excuse to get out of it while compromising everyone else.
You mean like the rule tweak that allowed the addition of stays to keep the floors from bending which some teams (Alpine?) didn't need because they had sorted it, or the clamouring for a relaxtion of the cost cap from the teams that have overspent to get to the front of the pack while others - generally less well funded - are working within the cap?Maybe the team b
hing about costs should just have spent less? Oh wait, then they wouldn't be at the front.Muzzer79 said:
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.
Yeah - but Hamilton isn't winning. Heads need to roll at the FIA for this.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.
Lucas Ayde said:
Muzzer79 said:
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.
Yeah - but Hamilton isn't winning. Heads need to roll at the FIA for this.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.
budgie smuggler said:
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
Red Bull do suffer from porpoising.What is the magic bullet they have found that nobody else has managed
I did (and it could be complete bulls
t) that FRIC which was banned could have helped with this. Also Indycar were saying preseason that they know how to resolve this etc and were already offering advice to certain teams.geeks said:
Indeed you could see if from MV's onboard over the weekend but it's very little when compared to some of the others. They all have it, some more severe than others.
I did (and it could be complete bullst) that FRIC which was banned could have helped with this. Also Indycar were saying preseason that they know how to resolve this etc and were already offering advice to certain teams.
I would be tempted to take that with a pinch of salt, Indy cars don't make anywhere near as much down force as an F1 car, with Indy levels the F1 cars probably wouldn't even notice it.I did (and it could be complete bulls
t) that FRIC which was banned could have helped with this. Also Indycar were saying preseason that they know how to resolve this etc and were already offering advice to certain teams.If the answer is that it's down to the teams to raise the ride height then you end up with, currently only just, a two team battle up front with all the other teams 1.5 seconds a lap slower. Hardly what F1 were looking for in terms of entertainment from closer racing.
I don't really understand the limits on wind tunnel/cfd etc time, especially with the introduction of a completely new design philosophy like this year. The teams have a cost cap in place so wouldn't it be better to leave it up to them how they spend it?
I don't really understand the limits on wind tunnel/cfd etc time, especially with the introduction of a completely new design philosophy like this year. The teams have a cost cap in place so wouldn't it be better to leave it up to them how they spend it?
budgie smuggler said:
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
Red Bull do suffer from porpoising.What is the magic bullet they have found that nobody else has managed
The merc is obviously porpoising dangerously and should be shown a brown flag for being such a turd.
Pierre Gasly joining the calls for the FIA to intervene:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/gasly-f1-needs-t...
"And I'll always do it, because I'm a driver and I always go for the fastest car I can. But I don't think FIA should put us in a corner where you got to deal between health and performance.
"That's the tricky part of it, and clearly not sustainable. So that's what we discussed at the drivers' briefing and kind of alerted them on this problem, and try to ask them to find solutions to save us from ending up with a cane at 30 years old."
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/gasly-f1-needs-t...
"And I'll always do it, because I'm a driver and I always go for the fastest car I can. But I don't think FIA should put us in a corner where you got to deal between health and performance.
"That's the tricky part of it, and clearly not sustainable. So that's what we discussed at the drivers' briefing and kind of alerted them on this problem, and try to ask them to find solutions to save us from ending up with a cane at 30 years old."
Sandpit Steve said:
Pierre Gasly joining the calls for the FIA to intervene:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/gasly-f1-needs-t...
"And I'll always do it, because I'm a driver and I always go for the fastest car I can. But I don't think FIA should put us in a corner where you got to deal between health and performance.
"That's the tricky part of it, and clearly not sustainable. So that's what we discussed at the drivers' briefing and kind of alerted them on this problem, and try to ask them to find solutions to save us from ending up with a cane at 30 years old."
Whatever they do, it shouldn't punish teams that have 'gotten it right'. That's the tricky part.https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/gasly-f1-needs-t...
"And I'll always do it, because I'm a driver and I always go for the fastest car I can. But I don't think FIA should put us in a corner where you got to deal between health and performance.
"That's the tricky part of it, and clearly not sustainable. So that's what we discussed at the drivers' briefing and kind of alerted them on this problem, and try to ask them to find solutions to save us from ending up with a cane at 30 years old."
I think a lot of teams and fans are calling on a compulsory minimum rear ride height to pull the front teams further back towards the teams that are having to run with compromised ride heights to mitigate the bouncing.
Instead, they should maybe force the teams who are struggling to always run with the raised height. Maybe run some extra in season, on track tests (for all teams) that are outside of budget cap to help get a handle on the situation. Maybe add to that run time limits based on championship standings at the half way point. So RBR would have the least time available as they are currently doing the best and have the least need to test. etc. etc.
Siao said:
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.
If this is true:Obviously they can’t refuse to drive the things.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-teams-already...
Then the teams can go f
k themselves frankly. They had the solution, voted against it, their drivers are suffering now. It's clear who's at faultjimPH said:
budgie smuggler said:
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
Red Bull do suffer from porpoising.What is the magic bullet they have found that nobody else has managed
The merc is obviously porpoising dangerously and should be shown a brown flag for being such a turd.
Byker28i said:
Siao said:
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.
If this is true:Obviously they can’t refuse to drive the things.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-teams-already...
Then the teams can go f
k themselves frankly. They had the solution, voted against it, their drivers are suffering now. It's clear who's at faultGassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff