2022 cars 'porpoising' at high speed

[Big Tea]

If they both drop back Ferrari would be most amused

[vorticism]

It would be amusing if Mercedes dropped back with the new oscillation limits, with their bounce prone car. Wolff's churning out the phony appeals for safety like crazy.

The Wolff who cried wolf.

Horner's been churning out phony appeals whilst all the time saying "it won't affect us".

Horner has famously never said anything forthright in 10 (20?) years. Good luck trying to read the tea leaves in a can of Red Bull.

[Just_a_fan]

If they both drop back Ferrari would be most amused

But then probably make up some strange strategy to ensure they finish behind them in the races...

[TimW]

If they both drop back Ferrari would be most amused

But then probably make up some strange strategy to ensure they finish behind them in the races...

I see Ferrari as the highest risk of being affected by the directive. Ferrari still has some porpoising, and allegedly are using a flexing floor. So both the acceleration limits and the floor clampdown could hit them (removing flex from the floor could make impacts more severe and thus accelerations).

[mendis]

If they both drop back Ferrari would be most amused

But then probably make up some strange strategy to ensure they finish behind them in the races...

I see Ferrari as the highest risk of being affected by the directive. Ferrari still has some porpoising, and allegedly are using a flexing floor. So both the acceleration limits and the floor clampdown could hit them (removing flex from the floor could make impacts more severe and thus accelerations).

With all this push from Wolff, if hurts Ferrari, it's going to help Red Bull multifolds. With improved form, Mercedes is already hurting Ferrari and if Ferrari is hit by these changes, then Red Bull and Max would be walking this title without breaking a sweat. Completely contrary to what Wolff, Mercedes or Mercedes fans want.

[chrisc90]

I have a feeling next years rules with the rear floor edge will hurt Mercedes more than any other.

[dans79]

Seems Horner is the lier, not Wolff, as a Redbull driver needed an MRI after baku!

All his just run the car higher comments is hand waving misdirection. The B team ran the car "extremely low to be competitive".

https://racingnews365.com/gasly-reveals ... er-in-2022

"Baku was the worst of all the circuits we raced on, even if for me, it wasn't just a matter of pure porpoising," he explained.

"Our car has to be extremely low to be competitive and there are many, many bumps on that track.

"It was really hard on my back, to the point that after the weekend, I had to do an MRI [scan] to check that everything was okay with the vertebrae.

"In our case, this problem is definitely linked to the type of track."

[TimW]

Seems Horner is the lier, not Wolff, as a Redbull driver needed an MRI after baku!

All his just run the car higher comments is hand waving misdirection. The B team ran the car "extremely low to be competitive".

https://racingnews365.com/gasly-reveals ... er-in-2022

"Baku was the worst of all the circuits we raced on, even if for me, it wasn't just a matter of pure porpoising," he explained.

"Our car has to be extremely low to be competitive and there are many, many bumps on that track.

"It was really hard on my back, to the point that after the weekend, I had to do an MRI [scan] to check that everything was okay with the vertebrae.

"In our case, this problem is definitely linked to the type of track."

The article is piece of total crap sadly. The issue was bottoming, not porpoising. And there is no 15 mm increase in ride height from Belgium, but a 15mm rise of the floor edge for next year.
All the technical regulation changes that Horner is so vocal about do nothing against bottoming. Only the vertical g-force measurement does that. In fact, a flexing floor could actually dampen the impacts .

Horner was 100% correct that AT should just have run their car higher...

[mzso]

I see Ferrari as the highest risk of being affected by the directive. Ferrari still has some porpoising, and allegedly are using a flexing floor. So both the acceleration limits and the floor clampdown could hit them (removing flex from the floor could make impacts more severe and thus accelerations).

That would be typical Ferrari. If there's a clampdown, they fall back.

With improved form, Mercedes is already hurting Ferrari and if Ferrari is hit by these changes, then Red Bull and Max would be walking this title without breaking a sweat

To be fair, they don't require much sweating either way. Only a standard performance for the remaining races.

I have a feeling next years rules with the rear floor edge will hurt Mercedes more than any other.

Based on? You usually hear the opposite, since they already need to raise their car compared to the others.

[chrisc90]

To be fair, they don't require much sweating either way. Only a standard performance for the remaining races.

I have a feeling next years rules with the rear floor edge will hurt Mercedes more than any other.

Based on? You usually hear the opposite, since they already need to raise their car compared to the others.

The fact the floor practically scrapes along the track when cornering. Go watch the last corner of George's pole lap from hungary and watch the back of the floor. Infact any track really. IF they are running minimum allowed height for the floor then raising it up isnt going to do them a world of good.

It would be interesting to get a comparison of stills from straight line and cornering of the height of the floor and see which teams' floors are moving around the most through corners. Granted that could be through body roll.

[Zynerji]

To be fair, they don't require much sweating either way. Only a standard performance for the remaining races.

I have a feeling next years rules with the rear floor edge will hurt Mercedes more than any other.

Based on? You usually hear the opposite, since they already need to raise their car compared to the others.

The fact the floor practically scrapes along the track when cornering. Go watch the last corner of George's pole lap from hungary and watch the back of the floor. Infact any track really. IF they are running minimum allowed height for the floor then raising it up isnt going to do them a world of good.

It would be interesting to get a comparison of stills from straight line and cornering of the height of the floor and see which teams' floors are moving around the most through corners. Granted that could be through body roll.

Just adding 25mm fixed side skirts to the floor edge would fix everything, but boost rear downforce. It would force a ride height increase, and act as a skate to prevent porpoising by stopping the choke.

[chrisc90]

To be fair, they don't require much sweating either way. Only a standard performance for the remaining races.
Based on? You usually hear the opposite, since they already need to raise their car compared to the others.

The fact the floor practically scrapes along the track when cornering. Go watch the last corner of George's pole lap from hungary and watch the back of the floor. Infact any track really. IF they are running minimum allowed height for the floor then raising it up isnt going to do them a world of good.

It would be interesting to get a comparison of stills from straight line and cornering of the height of the floor and see which teams' floors are moving around the most through corners. Granted that could be through body roll.

Just adding 25mm fixed side skirts to the floor edge would fix everything, but boost rear downforce. It would force a ride height increase, and act as a skate to prevent porpoising by stopping the choke.

I dont think there even needs to be a raise in floor edge either to be honest. Some teams dont visibly porpoise anywhere near as much as others - but what the data shows could be another thing really.

[dans79]

The article is piece of total crap sadly. The issue was bottoming, not porpoising. And there is no 15 mm increase in ride height from Belgium, but a 15mm rise of the floor edge for next year.
All the technical regulation changes that Horner is so vocal about do nothing against bottoming. Only the vertical g-force measurement does that. In fact, a flexing floor could actually dampen the impacts .

Horner was 100% correct that AT should just have run their car higher...

I think you missed the point. It was bottoming because they had to be run low enough to get the df/performance to be competitive.

The clamp down in belgium is to prevent bending of the rules related to plank flexibility, and plank mounting.

the race sums it up nicely.
https://the-race.com/formula-1/fias-con ... elgian-gp/

The FIA has discovered that some cars have planks with significant deformations over and above what the technical regulations were intended to allow, because some teams have engineered flexibility into the skid blocks.

And the governing body believes this non-uniform stiffness of the plank is being done deliberately to circumvent the intention of the technical regulations, to achieve significantly lower ride heights and an aerodynamic gain.

What takes effect in belgium is designed to prevent this "circumvention" of the rules, and is a precursor to next years rule changes.

The vertical gfore rule is a steaming pile imo.

• It has a low pass filter, so AOM doesn't even increase unless the absolute value of the g load is greater than 3g.
• It doesn't take into account that the human body is far worse at taking negative vertical gs than it is positive ones.
• its a summation over distance, so 99.9% of the time you can be under the 3g threshold, and then that 0.1% of the time you can shake the bejesus out of the driver.
• teams are allowed to surpass the limit during 3 races as long as it's not by more than 20% (an utter joke)

next years changes will make it even harder to benefit from a flexing floor, because the floor will have to flex more to be as effective as it is this year. That makes it less advantages for teams to run the cars low, and thus less likely to porpose or bottom.


Not to mention Horner is spinning everything to suit his agenda. He knows teams and drivers will always push the limit unless the FIA stops them. To much is at stake for them not to. Jules died because he was pushing the limit. Williams initially believed senna died because they pushed the limit on the steering column.

Here is Horner's star designer on that very topic.
https://www.racefans.net/2017/11/03/new ... his-death/

Senna’s steering column had been modified in an attempt to improve his driving position. Newey drew up the plans to reposition the steering column and reduce its diameter at one point. He described the changes as “two very bad pieces of engineering” which “Patrick [Head] and I were responsible for”.

Following the crash Williams conducted tests of their steering column design. They found that despite the reduction in diameter and a fatigue crack on the shaft, the column was still functional.

Nonetheless Newey says he still feels “guilty” about the crash. “I was one of the senior officers in a team that designed a car in which a great man was killed,” he said.

“Regardless of whether that steering column caused the accident or not, there is no escaping the fact that it was a bad piece of design that should never have been allowed to get on the car.”

[vorticism]

Saying the quiet part out loud: RB get sufficient pace at higher ride height. That's the media game being played. It's a jest at the other teams. It's why they carried their floor exposed in front of the pit entry to be photographed. Ferrari, Merc, and others are/were essentially choosing lower ride height and resulting porpoising to reduce laptime. Hence saying, "just add ride height" is not only true, but a way to poke fun at other engineering directors.

[Tommy Cookers]

The vertical gfore rule is a steaming pile imo.

• It has a low pass filter, so AOM doesn't even increase unless the absolute value of the g load is greater than 3g.
• It doesn't take into account that the human body is far worse at taking negative vertical gs than it is positive ones.
• its a summation over distance, so 99.9% of the time you can be under the 3g threshold, and then that 0.1% of the time you can shake the bejesus out of the driver.
• teams are allowed to surpass the limit during 3 races as long as it's not by more than 20% (an utter joke)

the human eye may start to be damaged after some period approaching maybe .....
over 6g 'negative' ....
over 6g laterally ....
over 6g longitudinally .... and even ....
over 6g 'positive' (if the blood hasn't partly drained downwards eg the feet etc are at head height)
it's all the same to the human eye

aren't F1 cars made for periods approaching 5.5g laterally, 5.5g longitudinally & even combinations greater than that ?
or from the next fast race will braking points be moved forward by 100 metres ?