Porpoising, what if?
Discussion
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 faultBasil Brush said:
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?
IIRC, it costs around £600 - £700 an hour to run a wind tunnel. You then have to design and make the parts that need testing. I don't know that there exist any specific restrictions on what their money can be spent on but either way, wind tunnels are a good way of hoovering up a fair chunk of budget.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?
Wind tunnels are not the catch-all solution to everything. It's worth remembering that these cars are two years old. Most of them would have been designed and built ahead of the 2021 season. They would have had plenty of time for the issue to arise in the wind tunnel but the first time it did was in testing this year. It seems to be very much a track-originated issue which can't easily be replicated in a wind tunnel.
Your first point is a good one. Notwithstanding Ferrari's reliability issues, by rights we should have three teams and six drivers slugging it out for wins.
budgie smuggler said:
jimPH 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.
StevieBee said:
IIRC, it costs around £600 - £700 an hour to run a wind tunnel. You then have to design and make the parts that need testing. I don't know that there exist any specific restrictions on what their money can be spent on but either way, wind tunnels are a good way of hoovering up a fair chunk of budget.
Wind tunnels are not the catch-all solution to everything. It's worth remembering that these cars are two years old. Most of them would have been designed and built ahead of the 2021 season. They would have had plenty of time for the issue to arise in the wind tunnel but the first time it did was in testing this year. It seems to be very much a track-originated issue which can't easily be replicated in a wind tunnel.
Your first point is a good one. Notwithstanding Ferrari's reliability issues, by rights we should have three teams and six drivers slugging it out for wins.
But there is also the restriction of wind tunnel models being 60% scale and only up to 115 mph, so they can't replicate the conditions that the bouncing is happening at regardless of cost.Wind tunnels are not the catch-all solution to everything. It's worth remembering that these cars are two years old. Most of them would have been designed and built ahead of the 2021 season. They would have had plenty of time for the issue to arise in the wind tunnel but the first time it did was in testing this year. It seems to be very much a track-originated issue which can't easily be replicated in a wind tunnel.
Your first point is a good one. Notwithstanding Ferrari's reliability issues, by rights we should have three teams and six drivers slugging it out for wins.
Rather than mandating a ride height maybe they should mandate something like the number of oscillations per minute; ergo meaning that teams can't run cars that are bouncing all the time; they'd have to raise their ride height, but other teams who have got it safely under control can run their cars lower (like Alpine for example).
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 have the tech chief who was the aero chief at Williams during the last ground effect era, and learned how to prevent porpoising when active suspension was banned, so I'm guessing it's just down to that acquired knowledge.What is the magic bullet they have found that nobody else has managed
Has any other team got anyone involved from that era? I genuinely don't know.
Kim
Basil Brush said:
StevieBee said:
IIRC, it costs around £600 - £700 an hour to run a wind tunnel. You then have to design and make the parts that need testing. I don't know that there exist any specific restrictions on what their money can be spent on but either way, wind tunnels are a good way of hoovering up a fair chunk of budget.
Wind tunnels are not the catch-all solution to everything. It's worth remembering that these cars are two years old. Most of them would have been designed and built ahead of the 2021 season. They would have had plenty of time for the issue to arise in the wind tunnel but the first time it did was in testing this year. It seems to be very much a track-originated issue which can't easily be replicated in a wind tunnel.
Your first point is a good one. Notwithstanding Ferrari's reliability issues, by rights we should have three teams and six drivers slugging it out for wins.
But there is also the restriction of wind tunnel models being 60% scale and only up to 115 mph, so they can't replicate the conditions that the bouncing is happening at regardless of cost.Wind tunnels are not the catch-all solution to everything. It's worth remembering that these cars are two years old. Most of them would have been designed and built ahead of the 2021 season. They would have had plenty of time for the issue to arise in the wind tunnel but the first time it did was in testing this year. It seems to be very much a track-originated issue which can't easily be replicated in a wind tunnel.
Your first point is a good one. Notwithstanding Ferrari's reliability issues, by rights we should have three teams and six drivers slugging it out for wins.
Basil Brush said:
But there is also the restriction of wind tunnel models being 60% scale and only up to 115 mph, so they can't replicate the conditions that the bouncing is happening at regardless of cost.
And the fact that Toto has said a number of times that this did not appear in the testing.... If it had plainly they would have fixed it.... I think I would be more concerned about potential brain damage at this stage, that shaking about can not be good..
Horner summing it all quite nicely I feel - https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/horner-unfair-if...
As has been said the major advantage Red Bull have is Newey. He's been through all of this before with the previous generations of ground effect cars. What surprises me is how other highly rated designers didn't seem to see it coming.
As has been said the major advantage Red Bull have is Newey. He's been through all of this before with the previous generations of ground effect cars. What surprises me is how other highly rated designers didn't seem to see it coming.
RB have done really well to avoid the bulk of bouncing issues.
I think one of the biggest problems for this generation of cars is it makes F1 look a bit poor on the world stage. Visually having half the grid bouncing up and down on the straights, drivers being asked if they can physically cope with it, doesn't look good, hardly feels like the pinnacle of motorsport to a casual observer.
I think one of the biggest problems for this generation of cars is it makes F1 look a bit poor on the world stage. Visually having half the grid bouncing up and down on the straights, drivers being asked if they can physically cope with it, doesn't look good, hardly feels like the pinnacle of motorsport to a casual observer.
Wh00sher said:
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.
My understanding is that drivers have actually suffered injuries from kerb strikes in the past. I’m not seeing requiring teams to engineer a certain amount of compliance into their cars (and accept the downforce reduction which will almost certainly come with that) as being a bad thing even without the porpoising thing.I certainly prefer the idea of the FIA legislating for the problem and requiring/allowing the teams to come up with solutions over a blanket ride height limit…
jimPH said:
budgie smuggler said:
jimPH 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.
What I meant is that it was visible in the FIA data shown in one of the F1 tech videos. As I said, whether they are 'suffering' is debatable. Obviously from Horners's comment's it seems it's at a level which is tolerable for the drivers. However the teams are not trustworthy, they are speaking only to further their own agendas. The data needs to drive whatever decision is made.
Edited by budgie smuggler on Monday 13th June 16:20
BrettMRC said:
Would the effects be so bad with the old, fat tyre walls?
It's an interesting question, I would think that more undamped movement (from the sidewalls) would make the porpoising issue worse, perhaps the bouncing (from bumps) would be reduced.Edited by budgie smuggler on Monday 13th June 16:26
Adrian W said:
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.JoelH said:
Horner summing it all quite nicely I feel - https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/horner-unfair-if...
Yes I think that is fair enough, especially when Horner never complained at all when it was Mercedes winning. Not once did he complain about DAS, or their Engine, or them winning and need rule changes to stop it... Not once...................
dasbimmerowner said:
Rather than mandating a ride height maybe they should mandate something like the number of oscillations per minute; ergo meaning that teams can't run cars that are bouncing all the time; they'd have to raise their ride height, but other teams who have got it safely under control can run their cars lower (like Alpine for example).
I thought of the a few months ago and then concluded it would probably open a can of worms.Today you can easily use sensors but then you have to define minimum requirement of an oscillation/stroke comprising x mm and some team(s) would find a loophole of some sort to beat the oscillation regs.
Imagine trying to implement this 40 years ago... it was bad enough with sliding skirts and pneumatic suspension.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff