Porpoising, what if?

[StevieBee]

Werks said:

Active suspension is the cure.

I'm not so sure it is. The last time active suspension was used with ground effect drivers were close to passing out on some corners such was the g-forces created. I'm sure that technology has moved on sufficiently to avoid that but it's not a cheap thing to develop and, as I understand it, would require a fundamental rethink of the whole car design principle.

[Sandpit Steve]

StevieBee said:

Werks said:

Active suspension is the cure.

I'm not so sure it is. The last time active suspension was used with ground effect drivers were close to passing out on some corners such was the g-forces created. I'm sure that technology has moved on sufficiently to avoid that but it's not a cheap thing to develop and, as I understand it, would require a fundamental rethink of the whole car design principle.

Active suspension is never going to be allowed back. The cornering speeds, even with a ‘spec’ system, would be off the charts, and the cars would have outgrown the circuits again. A modern active system is probably worth something silly like 10-15s a lap. The drivers are fitter now, than in the ‘90s, but even so.

[entropy]

StevieBee said:

I'm not so sure it is. The last time active suspension was used with ground effect drivers were close to passing out on some corners such was the g-forces created. I'm sure that technology has moved on sufficiently to avoid that but it's not a cheap thing to develop and, as I understand it, would require a fundamental rethink of the whole car design principle.

Lotus raced the first active car in 1983 by which time FISA had already banned GE by mandating flat floors.

The high G forces came from the rock solid suspension - in part due to the minimum ride height rules which were easily circumnavigated and never fully enforced by scrutineers and FISA - and the drivers did not have the physical training to cope with the higher G loads.

[PhilAsia]

Mercedes now have a solution to the ride height problem...

[Siao]

PhilAsia said:

Mercedes now have a solution to the ride height problem...

Or do something about the seats:

[Bright Halo]

Haemorrhoid cushion should do the trick!

[Electronicpants]

I was going to comment on this thread and I went to add a comedy GIF of someone, or thing, bouncing. Do not Google Images "Bouncing GIF" if you are busy, because it can seriously damage your productivity.

Anyway, I can't remember now what I was going to say originally as I've been distracted by all the bouncing .

[Basil Brush]

faa77 said:

LM240 said:

If the teams are worried about their drivers, I understand they could raise the ride height and that would ease the porpoise effect, but that would mean they go slower, so they don’t.

Either you have a concern and do something or it isn’t valid. The slower teams want a change because others are managing it better and therefore faster.

I don’t believe there should be a mandated change just because others haven’t found a solution.

This

However, perhaps the FIA do need to enforce safety BUT it cannot be a minimum ride height because other teams have demonstrated ride height can be low without porpoising.

They could relax testing restrictions for all teams. It would be a fair approach and if it meant the teams at the front made marginal gains but the lower teams made major ones, eliminating bouncing, it would give the close racing everyone is looking for and deal with the driver safety.

[NRS]

Adrian W said:

jimPH said:

Adrian W said:

jimPH said:

I think the merc fans will moan the entire season, but unfortunately, this looks like its going to be an RB walkover and max's second title.

Could be a whole new RB era.

What has your comment got to do with this thread

Edited by Adrian W on Tuesday 14th June 12:46

You know full well what it means the discussion is clearly aimed at bringing the performance level down as opposed to bring up those who are struggling.

No, the discussion is what if a driver gets hurt who’s responsibility is it, try reading the first post, I’m assuming you can read

He spend loads of posts arguing it was fine to make up rules at the end of a season influencing a championship - he sees the world through Max versus Lewis.

He doesn't consider some commenting about it might expect something like a maximum G rating measurement, which would actually punish Mercedes more than his precious Max and RB.

Although there is also an irony saying teams cannot be punished for getting it right - it happens all the time in F1 - someone finds a grey area or loophole, the FIA close it up and it helps the teams get closer together.

[Muzzer79]

Here’s what I can’t figure out;

After Abu Dhabi last year, Mercedes must have had a

“We owe you one”

From the FIA in return for dropping the whole ‘race-director-makes-up-rules-as-he-goes-along’ business.

Why aren’t they calling that in now? Maybe they are and this is the start of it…..

[Adrian W]

Muzzer79 said:

Here’s what I can’t figure out;

After Abu Dhabi last year, Mercedes must have had a

“We owe you one”

From the FIA in return for dropping the whole ‘race-director-makes-up-rules-as-he-goes-along’ business.

Why aren’t they calling that in now? Maybe they are and this is the start of it…..

Maybe they already have and the car was much worse, but this isn’t about Mercedes as all of the cars do it to some extent,

[NRS]

Adrian W said:

Muzzer79 said:

Here’s what I can’t figure out;

After Abu Dhabi last year, Mercedes must have had a

“We owe you one”

From the FIA in return for dropping the whole ‘race-director-makes-up-rules-as-he-goes-along’ business.

Why aren’t they calling that in now? Maybe they are and this is the start of it…..

Maybe they already have and the car was much worse, but this isn’t about Mercedes as all of the cars do it to some extent,

Mercedes didn't get a "we owe you one", why would they? All that happens is they look like bad losers if they kept pushing it. I don't know many fans who said they should push it, even if it was actually likely to be right.

[StevieBee]

NRS said:

Adrian W said:

Muzzer79 said:

Here’s what I can’t figure out;

After Abu Dhabi last year, Mercedes must have had a

“We owe you one”

From the FIA in return for dropping the whole ‘race-director-makes-up-rules-as-he-goes-along’ business.

Why aren’t they calling that in now? Maybe they are and this is the start of it…..

Maybe they already have and the car was much worse, but this isn’t about Mercedes as all of the cars do it to some extent,

Mercedes didn't get a "we owe you one", why would they? All that happens is they look like bad losers if they kept pushing it. I don't know many fans who said they should push it, even if it was actually likely to be right.

This!

That was a ref's (poor) decision that went against them. In the fullness of time, another may work for them. That's the nature of any sport.

[PhilAsia]

StevieBee said:

NRS said:

Adrian W said:

Muzzer79 said:

Here’s what I can’t figure out;

After Abu Dhabi last year, Mercedes must have had a

“We owe you one”

From the FIA in return for dropping the whole ‘race-director-makes-up-rules-as-he-goes-along’ business.

Why aren’t they calling that in now? Maybe they are and this is the start of it…..

Maybe they already have and the car was much worse, but this isn’t about Mercedes as all of the cars do it to some extent,

Mercedes didn't get a "we owe you one", why would they? All that happens is they look like bad losers if they kept pushing it. I don't know many fans who said they should push it, even if it was actually likely to be right.

This!

That was a ref's (poor) decision that went against them. In the fullness of time, another may work for them. That's the nature of any sport.

It was a litttttttle bit more than a poor ref decision, it was a completely unprecedented U-turn on a rule Masi had defended, with absolute clarity the season previously, by throwing away the rule book.

I do not think however that MB deserve to "be owed one". RBR and Max only raced as reinterpreted on the last lap of the last race to determine the obvious outcome of the driver's championship by a "forgetful" official.

For the forgetful:

[Byker28i]

PhilAsia said:

It was a litttttttle bit more than a poor ref decision, it was a completely unprecedented U-turn on a rule Masi had defended, with absolute clarity the season previously, by throwing away the rule book.

Liberty needed something other than another Mercedes/Hamilton win, the whole season was geared for Max/Red bull to win until Merc pulled the rabbit out the hat with additional engines and turning them up to 11, plus Hamiltons driving.
When it all looked like it wasn't going the way it was wanted, Max was gifted the win and WC

but that doesn't mean Merc are 'owed one', especially as Liberty are wanting entertainment and they've got it in spades this year. Cars failing in the lead, yet two teams/drivers fighting for leading, the Mercs terrible performance. It all fits into what they perceive is an entertaining race that sells air time and adverts.

[BrettMRC]

Byker28i said:

PhilAsia said:

It was a litttttttle bit more than a poor ref decision, it was a completely unprecedented U-turn on a rule Masi had defended, with absolute clarity the season previously, by throwing away the rule book.

Liberty needed something other than another Mercedes/Hamilton win, the whole season was geared for Max/Red bull to win until Merc pulled the rabbit out the hat with additional engines and turning them up to 11, plus Hamiltons driving.
When it all looked like it wasn't going the way it was wanted, Max was gifted the win and WC

but that doesn't mean Merc are 'owed one', especially as Liberty are wanting entertainment and they've got it in spades this year. Cars failing in the lead, yet two teams/drivers fighting for leading, the Mercs terrible performance. It all fits into what they perceive is an entertaining race that sells air time and adverts.

Drive to Survive is going to be more cringe-worthy than usual!

[TypeRTim]

Byker28i said:

PhilAsia said:

It was a litttttttle bit more than a poor ref decision, it was a completely unprecedented U-turn on a rule Masi had defended, with absolute clarity the season previously, by throwing away the rule book.

Liberty needed something other than another Mercedes/Hamilton win, the whole season was geared for Max/Red bull to win until Merc pulled the rabbit out the hat with additional engines and turning them up to 11, plus Hamiltons driving.
When it all looked like it wasn't going the way it was wanted, Max was gifted the win and WC

but that doesn't mean Merc are 'owed one', especially as Liberty are wanting entertainment and they've got it in spades this year. Cars failing in the lead, yet two teams/drivers fighting for leading, the Mercs terrible performance. It all fits into what they perceive is an entertaining race that sells air time and adverts.

Bacofoil or supermarket own brand?

Anyway, let's not derail this thread as well like so many others get derailed by this line of conversation popping up.

I watched Driver61's video on this last night and him and Scarbs' suggestion was to implement a sensor measuring the amplitude and frequency of the ride height oscillations. If this goes above a certain threshold - then black and orange flag. If during practice, immediate return to the pits for setup changes. More than 3 times in a single session penalty or DSQ. Allow adjustments to setup under Parc Fermé if a car is flagged during quali - but only for ride height changes to eliminate porpoising with a 3 place grid drop.

force the poorly performing teams to run a safe setup whilst not punishing teams who have it under control.

[NRS]

TypeRTim said:

Bacofoil or supermarket own brand?

Anyway, let's not derail this thread as well like so many others get derailed by this line of conversation popping up.

I watched Driver61's video on this last night and him and Scarbs' suggestion was to implement a sensor measuring the amplitude and frequency of the ride height oscillations. If this goes above a certain threshold - then black and orange flag. If during practice, immediate return to the pits for setup changes. More than 3 times in a single session penalty or DSQ. Allow adjustments to setup under Parc Fermé if a car is flagged during quali - but only for ride height changes to eliminate porpoising with a 3 place grid drop.

force the poorly performing teams to run a safe setup whilst not punishing teams who have it under control.

We see the top teams punished all the time. DAS - remove it. Flexi wing - give RB 3 races more, then ban it. Slow down Merc last year - change regulations to hurt low rake cars when the design was basically frozen. And so on.

[TypeRTim]

NRS said:

TypeRTim said:

Bacofoil or supermarket own brand?

Anyway, let's not derail this thread as well like so many others get derailed by this line of conversation popping up.

I watched Driver61's video on this last night and him and Scarbs' suggestion was to implement a sensor measuring the amplitude and frequency of the ride height oscillations. If this goes above a certain threshold - then black and orange flag. If during practice, immediate return to the pits for setup changes. More than 3 times in a single session penalty or DSQ. Allow adjustments to setup under Parc Fermé if a car is flagged during quali - but only for ride height changes to eliminate porpoising with a 3 place grid drop.

force the poorly performing teams to run a safe setup whilst not punishing teams who have it under control.

We see the top teams punished all the time. DAS - remove it. Flexi wing - give RB 3 races more, then ban it. Slow down Merc last year - change regulations to hurt low rake cars when the design was basically frozen. And so on.

DAS was technically illegal (the FIA admitted that if the system was operated by a separate lever in the cabin it would have been outlawed)
Flexi-wing - again technically illegal as it was deemed to be flexing too much

The changes to the floor were made on 'safety' grounds, to limit downforce due to concerns with the tyres. It impacted some more than others because of how their cars generated downforce, but the rules applied to all teams. This is probably the most comparable you could argue. But the problem is, there is already a proven mitigation to ease the porpoising for those badly affected by it - run the car higher and lose performance.

This situation, the teams that are not affected are doing nothing wrong. They've designed their cars to the laws and regulations, but have done a better job of it. There is no legal loophole being exploited or grey area of the regulations they are using to get on top of the porpoising (that we know of), so why punish them?

If there is a safety concern then punish those causing the concern - ie: those teams that are running a car that porpoises so severely it causes the drivers physical injury.

[MarkwG]

TypeRTim said:

NRS said:

TypeRTim said:

Bacofoil or supermarket own brand?

Anyway, let's not derail this thread as well like so many others get derailed by this line of conversation popping up.

I watched Driver61's video on this last night and him and Scarbs' suggestion was to implement a sensor measuring the amplitude and frequency of the ride height oscillations. If this goes above a certain threshold - then black and orange flag. If during practice, immediate return to the pits for setup changes. More than 3 times in a single session penalty or DSQ. Allow adjustments to setup under Parc Fermé if a car is flagged during quali - but only for ride height changes to eliminate porpoising with a 3 place grid drop.

force the poorly performing teams to run a safe setup whilst not punishing teams who have it under control.

We see the top teams punished all the time. DAS - remove it. Flexi wing - give RB 3 races more, then ban it. Slow down Merc last year - change regulations to hurt low rake cars when the design was basically frozen. And so on.

DAS was technically illegal (the FIA admitted that if the system was operated by a separate lever in the cabin it would have been outlawed)
Flexi-wing - again technically illegal as it was deemed to be flexing too much

The changes to the floor were made on 'safety' grounds, to limit downforce due to concerns with the tyres. It impacted some more than others because of how their cars generated downforce, but the rules applied to all teams. This is probably the most comparable you could argue. But the problem is, there is already a proven mitigation to ease the porpoising for those badly affected by it - run the car higher and lose performance.

This situation, the teams that are not affected are doing nothing wrong. They've designed their cars to the laws and regulations, but have done a better job of it. There is no legal loophole being exploited or grey area of the regulations they are using to get on top of the porpoising (that we know of), so why punish them?

If there is a safety concern then punish those causing the concern - ie: those teams that are running a car that porpoises so severely it causes the drivers physical injury.

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