2022 Azerbaijan Grand Prix - Baku, June 10 - 12

[siskue2005]

What is there to look into for the FIA really? It’s a bit of a nonsense issue. If the porpoising is so bad for some teams, there is a way to solve it - raise the car until you find another solution. No one is obliged to help you.

Same for the teams complaining about having to miss some races or they will fail to adhere to the budget cap - stop development of the car is it’s required to save money.

Both of these things costs lap time, sure. But the playing field is the same for all, so deal with it.

It is similar to saying that remove all the safety features like barriers from the corner, just drive slower in those sections so u wont crash and injure yourself.

[aleks_ader]

It needs medical assessment. And thorough research. For this year we should leave as is. But one teams made whole concepts around those issues and that sucks.

[Mogster]

What is there to look into for the FIA really? It’s a bit of a nonsense issue. If the porpoising is so bad for some teams, there is a way to solve it - raise the car until you find another solution. No one is obliged to help you.

Same for the teams complaining about having to miss some races or they will fail to adhere to the budget cap - stop development of the car is it’s required to save money.

Both of these things costs lap time, sure. But the playing field is the same for all, so deal with it.

It is similar to saying that remove all the safety features like barriers from the corner, just drive slower in those sections so u wont crash and injure yourself.

Yes. Once a problem is identified the FIA has a duty of care to the participants. It’s 2022, you can’t just return to a 1960s rule set and tell the drivers to be careful…

[wogx]

Is porpoising really such a problem?

[DChemTech]

What is there to look into for the FIA really? It’s a bit of a nonsense issue. If the porpoising is so bad for some teams, there is a way to solve it - raise the car until you find another solution. No one is obliged to help you.

Same for the teams complaining about having to miss some races or they will fail to adhere to the budget cap - stop development of the car is it’s required to save money.

Both of these things costs lap time, sure. But the playing field is the same for all, so deal with it.

It is similar to saying that remove all the safety features like barriers from the corner, just drive slower in those sections so u wont crash and injure yourself.

Not really. The presence of barriers is not a trade-off for teams between going faster and going safer. Besides, they affect all teams the same.

Here, it's a matter of some teams that do manage to safely engineer a fast car with the given resources, and others that managed less well. Their own resolution is, by choice, to allegedly reduce safety to increase speed. They do not have to do so: they can drive with safer yet slower settings, but more importantly, other teams show it is perfectly managable to drive fast and safe. So changing the rules because some teams failed to design a good car penalizes the ones that did manage. Completely different situation than the barrier example.

What FIA could do to ensure safety is to enforce a maximum porpoising limit, e.g. some maximum vertical acceleration. That -would- be the same for all teams, and ensure safety. It would mean that some teams may be forced to increase ride height and sacrifice performance. But that's a fair sacrifice to make to ensure safety.

[McL-H]

What is there to look into for the FIA really? It’s a bit of a nonsense issue. If the porpoising is so bad for some teams, there is a way to solve it - raise the car until you find another solution. No one is obliged to help you.

Same for the teams complaining about having to miss some races or they will fail to adhere to the budget cap - stop development of the car is it’s required to save money.

Both of these things costs lap time, sure. But the playing field is the same for all, so deal with it.

[Silent Storm]

According to Dr Obbs on twitter who I believe is a F1 engineer, it’s not feasible to introduce inerters or active suspension this season with the budget cap.

Raising the ride height seems to be the only quick fix and solution for 2022 and it’s down to the teams.

[Silent Storm]

Similar tactics used by every other team since the dawn of F1.

That is true. Its FIA's job to decide what's actually needed and what's only noise.

If its genuine the FIA will act. I hope they look at it objectively

FIA did act in pre season and wanted to raise the ride height but all teams rejected that proposal as they wanted to solve it by themselves. George confirmed it in post race press conference too.

Skip to 8:20

[PlatinumZealot]

What is there to look into for the FIA really? It’s a bit of a nonsense issue. If the porpoising is so bad for some teams, there is a way to solve it - raise the car until you find another solution. No one is obliged to help you.

Same for the teams complaining about having to miss some races or they will fail to adhere to the budget cap - stop development of the car is it’s required to save money.

Both of these things costs lap time, sure. But the playing field is the same for all, so deal with it.

The FIA is first and foremost about safety and they risk multimillion dollar lawsuits in the future if they can't curb this issue.

It's not an issue for the teams. The regulatuins and the cars should be designed with inherent sefety built in over all operating ranges. You can't have a car destorying the spines of multiple drivers because they were playing to the FIA's inherently unsafe rules.

Raising the ride height is not acceptable because the teams are not made aware of this elephant in the room that the FIA failed to discover in all their millions of dollars of experimenting.

[Silent Storm]

What is there to look into for the FIA really? It’s a bit of a nonsense issue. If the porpoising is so bad for some teams, there is a way to solve it - raise the car until you find another solution. No one is obliged to help you.

Same for the teams complaining about having to miss some races or they will fail to adhere to the budget cap - stop development of the car is it’s required to save money.

Both of these things costs lap time, sure. But the playing field is the same for all, so deal with it.

The FIA is first and foremost about safety and they risk multimillion dollar lawsuits in the future if they can't curb this issue.

It's not an issue for the teams. The regulatuins and the cars should be designed with inherent sefety built in over all operating ranges. You can't have a car destorying the spines of multiple drivers because they were playing to the FIA's inherently unsafe rules.

Raising the ride height is not acceptable because the teams are not made aware of this elephant in the room that the FIA failed to discover in all their millions of dollars of experimenting.

If FIA had discovered porpoising during R&D, I’m sure the teams would have discovered it as well while designing. They both couldn’t and it’s not anyone’s fault. After discovering FIA did offer a solution which was rejected.
If safety is important then raising ride height immediately is the best option available. Active suspension or inerters are just not feasible with current cost cap, maybe next year. FIA is not even taking inflation under consideration to increase the budget cap so forget about adding active suspension or adding suspension parts such as inerters which which would require multiple crash tests.

Once again this thread has gone off topic.

[PlatinumZealot]

According to Dr Obbs on twitter who I believe is a F1 engineer, it’s not feasible to introduce inerters or active suspension this season with the budget cap.

Raising the ride height seems to be the only quick fix and solution for 2022 and it’s down to the teams.

This will be so difficult to monitor.
Static ride heights can be so deceptive.

Whoever can use a high static ride height and still have speed in the turns will be ahead. It will change the entire attitude of the cars in the corners. Hmm. Might be more entertaining come to think of it.

[langedweil]

Anyone else betting on Perez?

Perez no answer to Verstappen pace it seems.

Checo was so fast in Race that he ended 20 seconds ahead of Max!

Team orders as predicted, no?

Or don't you think it's weird how Verstappen was able to close up 4 seconds in one lap? While under the VSC...and with a "No Fighting" instruction issued at the end of it.

If only McLaren had issued similar orders.

The 20s deficit at finish was as well I guess ?
Look, when Lec and Ver are 1 & 2 in a race, Sai and Per are dropped by almost 1s per lap, every race. These two are definately in a league of their own. Let's just hope Rus and Nor can join the party asap, a four way battle is much needed.

And Ham .. yeah, well maybe 35+ year olds just have no longer any business to attend in F1 ?

[langedweil]

Seriously. Why would you want to put 37 year old through repeated spine jarring situations?

The 37 year old chose the car setup himself:

We have a very, very small window where we can work this car, and everything we try doesn’t give us what we want. We’re making lots of changes, but we still encounter the bouncing which loses us a lot of performance. All of the performance is when you get the car low so we’re getting lower and lower but it’s bouncing more than the other cars and putting pressure on our bodies.

- Lewis Hamilton

That's why the whole thing is inexplicable. "So were getting lower and lower but it’s bouncing more[" not "so we are raising the car up high to avoid the bouncing regardless of performance."

Lando Norris has a clear view on the matter:

I can't complain. It's not too bad, we have some porpoising but it's what you have to deal with. It's the tradeoff with trying to gain performance. We could quite easily go lower and gain performance with more porpoising, but we think where we are at is the correct amount. I'm sure Mercedes could build a stiffer floor and raise the ride height and it would be much nicer for them, but they obviously just don't want to lose performance.

- Lando Norris

Norris is 22 and the size of a house cat. He can manage the bumps better and McLaren is one of the least affected cars.

They are less affected by choice !?
If he truly were the beloved goat, he'd snatch at least that occasional podium every now & the in the spirit of Senna. But now it just starts with proposing to retire the care in lap 2 ..

But anyway, it's a choice to go low; and that's all they can do at MB for now within this concept.
And that differs quite a lot from the old days where MB before a GP had to decide how much they'd turn up the PU wick, just to be sure enough they'd win but not enough to attract unwanted interest from the FIA. In 2015/2016 etc they probably only ran about 80% of the PU's capability. Nothing wrong with that; you've delivered a monster PU. And with that one can stop developing in May/June and put al the effort in next year's aero or DAS-solutions. But after years and years of free winning, maybe you just became lazy on tactics or even design ?

[langedweil]

Perez' said his tires were done after the range IIRC.
Also, team orders? not really. Just a request not to fight - which seems sensible considering the situation (Leclerc closing in, early in the race, Max having better tires). This was not similar to the 'let Max pass' in Spain, where they were actually potentially fighting for the win.

Perez lost 4 seconds in one lap under the VSC, because his tyres weren't in good condition? And then a further 2 seconds the next lap.

Really?

Interesting that Leclerc wasn't hauling him at 6-8 seconds a lap once the VSC lifted then.

That's just partially telling what happened there. If you watched carefully you saw these seconds came all back to him just before the VSC ended .. so maybe he went way below his delta and picked up right before the VSC ended?

[langedweil]

What FIA could do to ensure safety is to enforce a maximum porpoising limit, e.g. some maximum vertical acceleration. That -would- be the same for all teams, and ensure safety. It would mean that some teams may be forced to increase ride height and sacrifice performance. But that's a fair sacrifice to make to ensure safety.

This is indeed the only and most fair solution; if something needs to be done, just add a vertical gforce-meter in all cars and define what should be the maximum. After 3 times exceeding there 'll be a warning, after 4 times it's a 10s stop&go, after 5 it's black flag.
All just to protect the drivers, and not to falsefy the season ..

But somehow, Toto (and others) will probably not accept that as not enough and above all with just hurt themselves. Raising minimum heigth is punishing the succesfull current solutions teams have.

And yes, both FIA and all teams were 110% aware beforehnd that the porposing monster would rear it's ugly head.
Bad concept for this year ? Too bad, do better next year ..