Opinion on 2022 regulations

[Tommy Cookers]

time to bring back the Lotus 88 concept ?

this had suspension of the parts that needed suspension - the heavy and delicate parts
and no suspension of the aero DF-generating parts - these were unsprung to put the DF only where it was needed

[DChemTech]

I think there are too many conclusions being drawn about the situation as it is now. We are at the beginning of this set of regulations.

Right now one team ( Red Bull) is able to have race winning performance with small amounts of bouncing and another similar performance with fairly significant bouncing (Ferrari). The assumption of many arguments is that low bounce is always going to be faster. But what if it’s not? If a team comes along with a higher performance package and Red Bull find that they need to suffer bouncing to compete they will obviously go down that route.

In that scenario,for the safety of the drivers, the regulations will need to change, much as many sports have, and will in future, to manage concussion.

I can envisage 3 changes, which may singly or in concert improve things.

1. Limit the damage to the driver. It should be relatively simple to measure the forces but what should the criteria be? Peak G, sustained average G, weighted average over some period? when should it apply and crucially what should the penalty be? Since it’s a safety issue perhaps black flag. Imagine the melt down if a driver were retired near the end of the race because the combination of lower fuel and wind shift pushed the bounceometer over the threshold.

2. Allow more sophisticated suspension components. I have never seen an explanation of why they banned the acceleration based facilities, inerters and inertial damping valves. The cynic in me thinks they wanted to make it harder to control heave and bouncing. They might return the use of these or even allow active. It will probably increase car mass which some fans will resent hugely.

3. Change aerodynamics. They might allow wind tunnel testing in the bouncing velocity range, they might allow more straight line track tests. They might increase ground clearance, thicker plank, although I believe Mercedes have suggested this is not as effective as is wished. And anyway the teams would revise the underfloor shapes and sealing in pursuit of downforce and probably get back to bouncing.

My opinion is that the regulations precipitated this issue and the regulations will need to change to fix it.

Defining a goal regarding a safe level of porpoising is indeed the hardest, but also fairest. In my view, safety regulations (similar to law) should be written with an end in mind (a goal), not by prescribing a means. For two reasons; goals should have the same effect on everyone (everyone adheres to the same goal), means will not - they affect different teams differently. In terms of how much they have to change, but also in terms of effectiveness. Some means may work well for some teams but not for others (or, there may be more effective means available than the prescribed one). So for me, the only really fair way to go mid-season is to define a goal regarding a safe level of porpoising, and let the teams figure out the means to achieve that for their particular concepts. Options related to suspension and aero should be considered for next season, but not as an in-season change. Increasing the minimum ride height is the worst because it affects teams to different degrees, has different impact on different concepts, and is anyway something teams can voluntarily do if their degree of porpoising is currently problematic (but should not be forced upon the ones that do have it under control).

An added benefit of prescribing an ends rather than a means is that it removes the issue of 'what if bouncing leads to a faster car'? If you prescribe a means to reduce bouncing but slows the cars, teams will look at ways of making the car faster again - which may (hypothetically) bring back an undesirable level of bouncing and we're back at square one. Setting a goal on a maximum amount of bouncing simply means that teams cannot engineer it back in, even if it was faster to do so - they have to optimize within this regulation.

When it comes to 'what should the rule be', obviously it should not be a threshold that is activated by a single event like a wind gust. Perhaps it should be something considering peak or some percentile wrt a threshold over a push lap measured during qualifying - teams have all of FP to work toward the threshold, and in my view a breach of the limit in qualifying could then be addressed with a 3/5 position penalty (to account for the benefit they might have had during qualifying) + the opportunity to make a setup modification before the race with the intent to fix the issue. Something like that. Perhaps there's better options.

[Holm86]

It's disappointing that FIA spend soooo much time on developing the regulations for the 22 cars, and didn't foresee the porpoising problems. Banning hydraulic suspension for 2022 seems rather stupid now, as it could probably have solved or mitigated the porpoising problems

[hkbruin]

It's disappointing that FIA spend soooo much time on developing the regulations for the 22 cars, and didn't foresee the porpoising problems. Banning hydraulic suspension for 2022 seems rather stupid now, as it could probably have solved or mitigated the porpoising problems

I posted this in the Merc W13 thread, but perhaps they should go back to the A-spec car they debuted during the pre-season Barcelona test.

And about the hydraulic suspension, like the one originally conceived by Williams many years ago, well if they go down that route then they should make the hydraulic active suspension a stock component that is shared amongst all teams.

[chrisc90]

They did foresee it though.

The teams were all in agreement to be given chance to sort it themselves

[Holm86]

It's disappointing that FIA spend soooo much time on developing the regulations for the 22 cars, and didn't foresee the porpoising problems. Banning hydraulic suspension for 2022 seems rather stupid now, as it could probably have solved or mitigated the porpoising problems

I posted this in the Merc W13 thread, but perhaps they should go back to the A-spec car they debuted during the pre-season Barcelona test.

And about the hydraulic suspension, like the one originally conceived by Williams many years ago, well if they go down that route then they should make the hydraulic active suspension a stock component that is shared amongst all teams.

Im not talking about full active suspension, im talking about this

The limitations upon suspension systems which had become incredibly complex in order to maximise aerodynamic performance have been swingeing. Hydraulic actuation of any kind is now banned, meaning that the big heave spring used to maintain vertical load on the car must now be mechanical.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 4bp8j.html

Having a hydraulic heave spring should make it easier to tune out these porpoising frequencies

[Sieper]

It's disappointing that FIA spend soooo much time on developing the regulations for the 22 cars, and didn't foresee the porpoising problems. Banning hydraulic suspension for 2022 seems rather stupid now, as it could probably have solved or mitigated the porpoising problems

That is not stupid at all. That was the whole point.

No more Hydraulic suspension and rear wings now made out of 1 continuous part. No more loose wing end plates and loose planes.

Both were not policeable for the FIA and both have been suspect. Mercedes desperately wants at least the hydraulic suspension back. Wing they will have zero chance of happening.

That is why the whole charade is being played. It is clear you don’t need hydraulic suspension to not have porpoising, so FIA should not reintroduce any potentials for cheating. In the end that will be better for all as a more level playing field will keep ALL teams closer.

[henry]

Defining a goal regarding a safe level of porpoising is indeed the hardest, but also fairest. In my view, safety regulations (similar to law) should be written with an end in mind (a goal), not by prescribing a means. For two reasons; goals should have the same effect on everyone (everyone adheres to the same goal), means will not - they affect different teams differently. In terms of how much they have to change, but also in terms of effectiveness. Some means may work well for some teams but not for others (or, there may be more effective means available than the prescribed one). So for me, the only really fair way to go mid-season is to define a goal regarding a safe level of porpoising, and let the teams figure out the means to achieve that for their particular concepts. Options related to suspension and aero should be considered for next season, but not as an in-season change. Increasing the minimum ride height is the worst because it affects teams to different degrees, has different impact on different concepts, and is anyway something teams can voluntarily do if their degree of porpoising is currently problematic (but should not be forced upon the ones that do have it under control).

An added benefit of prescribing an ends rather than a means is that it removes the issue of 'what if bouncing leads to a faster car'? If you prescribe a means to reduce bouncing but slows the cars, teams will look at ways of making the car faster again - which may (hypothetically) bring back an undesirable level of bouncing and we're back at square one. Setting a goal on a maximum amount of bouncing simply means that teams cannot engineer it back in, even if it was faster to do so - they have to optimize within this regulation.

When it comes to 'what should the rule be', obviously it should not be a threshold that is activated by a single event like a wind gust. Perhaps it should be something considering peak or some percentile wrt a threshold over a push lap measured during qualifying - teams have all of FP to work toward the threshold, and in my view a breach of the limit in qualifying could then be addressed with a 3/5 position penalty (to account for the benefit they might have had during qualifying) + the opportunity to make a setup modification before the race with the intent to fix the issue. Something like that. Perhaps there's better options.

I agree with you that the best solution would be constraint on the bouncing with a goal of reducing, or eliminating, the damage to the drivers.

However I’m not sure that at the moment the teams would have the knowledge to set up to a specific level of vibration. And I don’t think the regulators would know where to set it. After all at Miami we saw a huge swing in bouncing performance for the Mercedes day to day. When I mentioned wind direction I didn’t mean a gust but a change such as at Baku where the direction shifted 180° between qualy and the race.

Your proposal might lead to teams accepting a grid drop because of performance differential to those around them. This would not provide any protection to the drivers. Monitoring in the race would seem to be essential to meet the goal of reducing cumulative damage.

I think in the short term they might need to make an arbitrary change, probably to ride height, and aim for thought out change or changes next year. But I expect them not to do anything, just let the drivers suffer.

[henry]

They did foresee it though.

The teams were all in agreement to be given chance to sort it themselves

And the teams made things worse by insisting on taller sidewalls on the tyres reducing the mechanical suspension travel and making it stiffer for the same overall suspension stiffness. So more undamped travel to contribute to the vibrations.

[Sevach]

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-takes-step ... sts-safety

The FIA is starting to take measures.

[Sieper]

“New technical solutions on the medium term”.

Uh huh. Quelle surprise.

[JordanMugen]

2. The definition of a metric, based on the car’s vertical acceleration, that will give a quantitative limit for acceptable level of vertical oscillations. The exact mathematical formula for this metric is still being analysed by the FIA, and the Formula 1 teams have been invited to contribute to this process.
https://www.fia.com/news/fia-takes-step ... sts-safety

We've got our hands on TD039 & tell you all the details. New porpoising limits will be set before FP3. If a team can't supply a setup deemed to be safe, they have to raise ride by 10mm. Cars will be disqualified. if still above the limits.
https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/1537476991271804929

That seems reasonable.

This part however is a concern:
In addition to these short-term measures, the FIA will convene a technical meeting with the Teams in order to define measures that will reduce the propensity of cars to exhibit such phenomena in the medium term.
https://www.fia.com/news/fia-takes-step ... sts-safety

For 2023, phenomena such as bouncing should be ruled out from the outset. Thus, the edges of the sub-floors could be raised, the floor area reduced and a ban on wings on the floor edge could be considered. The teams are therefore asked to report to the FIA ​​on the results of the development of the 2023 cars.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... gp-kanada/

The detail on the RB floor is absurd.

Impeccable, I would say…

On this basis (that the Red Bull floor is quite sophisticated under the 2023 rules with no step plane) would Red Bull Racing be for or against the reintroduction of a step plane in 2023? That would be quite a big change to the floor rules.

It is good that the suggestions reported in AMUS do not involve any changes to suspension rules for 2023 as that seems most unnecessary.

Banning hydraulic suspension for 2022 seems rather stupid now, as it could probably have solved or mitigated the porpoising problems

F2 cars do not have that AFAIK and it therefore seems most unnecessary. It was banned as it was too difficult for the FIA to scrutineer the legality of hydraulic suspension systems, no? They reasoning still remains.

2. Allow more sophisticated suspension components. I have never seen an explanation of why they banned the acceleration based facilities, inerters and inertial damping valves.

As mentioned by Sieper, these were banned as it was difficult to scrutineer the legality or otherwise of such systems.

Both were not policeable for the FIA and both have been suspect.

[adrianjordan]

Aren't the more complex edges to the floors aimed at REDUCING porpoising?? Wouldn't banning them make it worse?

Just allow more interesting suspension, worthy of "the pinnacle of motorsport"

[DChemTech]

The short term statements seem excellent. Medium/longer term not so much. Indeed seems to limit possibilities, and unnecessary if the quantitative limit is in place.

[SiLo]

Aren't the more complex edges to the floors aimed at REDUCING porpoising?? Wouldn't banning them make it worse?

Just allow more interesting suspension, worthy of "the pinnacle of motorsport"

Active suspension should have been standard for 2022 onwards. In fact it could have been a spec part (the internals) and then let the teams do their own setup and software.