2022 cars 'porpoising' at high speed

[Zynerji]

I feel this should be handled by the GPDA than the FIA. I mean, if protection from abuse for the drivers that are forced to endure for performance readons isn't exactly what it's there for, you might as well roll it up.

Rules shouldn't be set or policed by the competitors, be that the teams or the drivers. The FIA should set the rules and police them. If it can't do that, then it should employ someone who can. Too many of the problems and issues over the years have been caused by the teams having too much say in the rules and how they're enforced.

A good thing for the new FIA President to do would be to create a system that puts the power fully back in the hands of the FIA. He's played around with rules on underwear and jewellery - how about creating a rule book that is consistent and enforceable and then actually enforcing it properly and entirely fairly.

I think I don't understand your point...

Porpoising is not there by rule, but by engineering miscalculation. The FIA should have nothing to do with it.

Instead, the GPDA should release a statement that they will strike as a group if the teams don't give up a bit of performance for driver health.

[Just_a_fan]

I feel this should be handled by the GPDA than the FIA. I mean, if protection from abuse for the drivers that are forced to endure for performance readons isn't exactly what it's there for, you might as well roll it up.

Rules shouldn't be set or policed by the competitors, be that the teams or the drivers. The FIA should set the rules and police them. If it can't do that, then it should employ someone who can. Too many of the problems and issues over the years have been caused by the teams having too much say in the rules and how they're enforced.

A good thing for the new FIA President to do would be to create a system that puts the power fully back in the hands of the FIA. He's played around with rules on underwear and jewellery - how about creating a rule book that is consistent and enforceable and then actually enforcing it properly and entirely fairly.

I think I don't understand your point...

Porpoising is not there by rule, but by engineering miscalculation. The FIA should have nothing to do with it.

Instead, the GPDA should release a statement that they will strike as a group if the teams don't give up a bit of performance for driver health.

Or the FIA could just say "all cars will be raised by 10mm" or whatever is required. The drivers threatening strike action is effectively them being required to police the situation which is not how it should be.

[henry]

Over in the RB18 thread @gandharva posted this picture,



The bib looks to be flat to the road even though the chassis has considerable roll. At the rear of the car we can see the skate sparking, the force from this might be used, via the struts and beams that stiffen the floor, to twist the floor and distort the plank area. This would help seal the outboard tunnel on the inside of the car.

Perhaps the regulation clarification is targeted at that sort of behaviour?

[PhillipM]

Given how many times the FIA has tried to stop floors being used as sealed skirts it's really rather weird that the regs this year pretty much encourage and allow it right as we go back to tunnels, which is the reason they banned skirts to start with...

Same with allowing sprung bibs, etc.

[Red Rock Mutley]

I feel this should be handled by the GPDA than the FIA. I mean, if protection from abuse for the drivers that are forced to endure for performance readons isn't exactly what it's there for, you might as well roll it up.

It's possible but unlikely. Those with no problem won't want to give up the competitive advantage, while those that do won't risk hobbling their team. It's a human performance issue, which is a sensitive subject for drivers. So, they will want to adopt a bunker mentality - identify the problem and knuckle down while the team solves it

[mzso]

Could the FIA have an issue here? The measures are being brought in on safety grounds to drivers health.

If enough teams get together and are able to 100% attribute bottoming/porpoising to the quality of the tracks surface then in theory the FIA have failed to ensure that the GP venue is fit for this era of regulations.

The cars need to be fit for a circuit and not vice-versa.

[mzso]

Do they really need an algorithm, is it not possible to simply look at the data and see if the peaks and occurrences exceed their arbitary limits?
An absurd situation where their rules create a problem then as a solution they creat another rule...
Anyway it may be and of an era, the cars looked much better...sort of a self-solving problem

The teams created the problem. And it's up to the FIA to solve it.

[Quantum]

Could the FIA have an issue here? The measures are being brought in on safety grounds to drivers health.

If enough teams get together and are able to 100% attribute bottoming/porpoising to the quality of the tracks surface then in theory the FIA have failed to ensure that the GP venue is fit for this era of regulations.

The cars need to be fit for a circuit and not vice-versa.

With this mentality we would not have host of safety and racing initiatives. Almost as if the evolution of the sport must stop because porpoising might solve itself down the line.

http://www.atlasf1.com/news/safety.html

[henry]

Over in the RB18 thread @gandharva posted this picture,



The bib looks to be flat to the road even though the chassis has considerable roll. At the rear of the car we can see the skate sparking, the force from this might be used, via the struts and beams that stiffen the floor, to twist the floor and distort the plank area. This would help seal the outboard tunnel on the inside of the car.

Perhaps the regulation clarification is targeted at that sort of behaviour?

Quoting myself here. Having looked at the load tests they are for forces normal to the reference plane. If the floor is flexible when twisted it would be possible to run with softer suspension, allowing roll in a corner. This would normally ground the plank but if the floor is twisted by the bib assembly and the skate, acting though the strut beam, the outer tunnel will get closer to the ground, reducing its volume and increasing downforce on the outer wheels.

When running straight both tunnels would run with higher volume and be less likely to porpoise.

So far just a supposition based on the observed behaviour above.

[johnny comelately]

An interesting video which compares the two ground effect eras.
From memory when these were introduced they had fixed and then sliding skirts but one of the upshots was the pressure on the circuits to make them billiard table smooth.
And of course the twin chassis Lotus as Tommy Cookers mentioned

[KeiKo403]

Could the FIA have an issue here? The measures are being brought in on safety grounds to drivers health.

If enough teams get together and are able to 100% attribute bottoming/porpoising to the quality of the tracks surface then in theory the FIA have failed to ensure that the GP venue is fit for this era of regulations.

The cars need to be fit for a circuit and not vice-versa.

One could argue that the cars are fit for the circuit. Look at Barcelona, little to no porpoising/bottoming from nearly all teams, then on to Monaco, Baku & Canada and we see it return.

But I do also see any counter argument that Red Bull doesn’t have these issues on the these tracks so we’re in a bit of a position where the cause can be argued either way.

[hecti]

Over in the RB18 thread @gandharva posted this picture,

https://i.imgur.com/pthjc5f.jpeg

The bib looks to be flat to the road even though the chassis has considerable roll. At the rear of the car we can see the skate sparking, the force from this might be used, via the struts and beams that stiffen the floor, to twist the floor and distort the plank area. This would help seal the outboard tunnel on the inside of the car.

Perhaps the regulation clarification is targeted at that sort of behaviour?

The bib is not rigidly connected to the chassis, every team has found a way to make it compliant within the regulations. I don't think the the floor is that structurally integral and rigid to allow the twisting of the plank area which is rigidly mounted to the chassis Also, the skate is mounted to the thinnest part of the floor and not directly underneath the lateral support structure hidden underneath the rear of the RB sidepod, so flexing in high loading conditions like this seem normal.

F1 has a long history of flexible and compliant aerodynamic devices, each team employs clever engineering an design to meet regulation requirements which try to replicate the actual loads on the cars in a "clinical" environment.

Edit: It seems that RB (and maybe Ferrari to a lesser extent) are going up to 6mm of deflection, but are passing the current load testing that checks for 2mm deflection. Throw out what team or drive you cheer for, this is pretty amazing if it is true, as much as the FIA try to close small areas that can be exploited, we see again RB pushing the limits on composites and construction techniques to push the limits of the regulations

[Edax]

Over in the RB18 thread @gandharva posted this picture,

https://i.imgur.com/pthjc5f.jpeg

The bib looks to be flat to the road even though the chassis has considerable roll. At the rear of the car we can see the skate sparking, the force from this might be used, via the struts and beams that stiffen the floor, to twist the floor and distort the plank area. This would help seal the outboard tunnel on the inside of the car.

Perhaps the regulation clarification is targeted at that sort of behaviour?

I think this picture is pretty interesting. As you remark the combination of roll with the flatness of the floor suggest something is going on. The behavior of the floor looks to me a bit like the mouth of an algae eater. It stays flush to the surface no matter what the body is doing.

Looks to me like they mounted the plank and floor on a subframe which is allowed to pivot against the the stiff centerline of survival cell engine and gearbox.

Maybe that is the loophole. Using the floor as reference the plank does not bend, but taking a reference point on the gearbox it moves more. Or the bending remark is more towards Ferrari.

In any way it is not as easy as rigging a sensor. I guess that the teams that are able to exploit these complex loopholes, have such a good understanding of the dynamics of the floor that they can relatively easy adjust to rule changes (or clarifications) and still come out ahead.

[organic]

Kyle covers root cause of porpoising in the 2022 regs

Nothing you wouldn't necessarily know already though

[Xwang]

https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-and ... explained/

Does it make sense according to you?