Max Verstappen and George Russell want F1 cars raised

[Tommy Cookers]

It's a long term health issue, that F1 needs to fix. You can't go putting these huge loads into people's spines, the discs don't have a blood supply to keep healing themselves.....

..... It'd be very easy to put a g sensor in and set a limit.

put a 'g' sensor into what ?
for what ?
didn't we do this already ?

[vorticism]

How low were the planked cars prior to 2009? Rake helped in various way, I don't recall the plank scraping the ground much from 2009 onward, so in that era it was more the aero forcing a safer/comfortable ride height and not the plank.

Two off the cuff suggestions:
-omit the tunnels, keep the rest of the car the same including the large diffuser. This would force the teams to use rake again.
-keep the floor generally the same and somehow mandate a raked plank/center floor within the current framework.

Rake ensured that the front edge of the t-tray generally contacted the ground and kerbs first, and kept everything aft of the t-tray higher, helping protect the driver and the engine.

[izzy]

It's a long term health issue, that F1 needs to fix. You can't go putting these huge loads into people's spines, the discs don't have a blood supply to keep healing themselves.....

..... It'd be very easy to put a g sensor in and set a limit.

put a 'g' sensor into what ?
for what ?
didn't we do this already ?

You'd put an accelerometer on the seat, to measure the vertical accelerations the spine is subject to. You integrate the signal over a short period of time, using existing health and safety data, and transmit that to race control. If the car exceeds the limit, it gets a penalty. Simples! Much simpler and to the point than trying to police a ride height, and a nice engineering challenge.

Yes there are accelerometers all over the car and I was expecting there'd be one for this already, but George and Max seem to think not.

[dialtone]

It's a long term health issue, that F1 needs to fix. You can't go putting these huge loads into people's spines, the discs don't have a blood supply to keep healing themselves.....

..... It'd be very easy to put a g sensor in and set a limit.

put a 'g' sensor into what ?
for what ?
didn't we do this already ?

You'd put an accelerometer on the seat, to measure the vertical accelerations the spine is subject to. You integrate the signal over a short period of time, using existing health and safety data, and transmit that to race control. If the car exceeds the limit, it gets a penalty. Simples! Much simpler and to the point than trying to police a ride height, and a nice engineering challenge.

Yes there are accelerometers all over the car and I was expecting there'd be one for this already, but George and Max seem to think not.

This specific accelerometer is already there as part of TD39 from 2 years ago.

[bluechris]

put a 'g' sensor into what ?
for what ?
didn't we do this already ?

You'd put an accelerometer on the seat, to measure the vertical accelerations the spine is subject to. You integrate the signal over a short period of time, using existing health and safety data, and transmit that to race control. If the car exceeds the limit, it gets a penalty. Simples! Much simpler and to the point than trying to police a ride height, and a nice engineering challenge.

Yes there are accelerometers all over the car and I was expecting there'd be one for this already, but George and Max seem to think not.

This specific accelerometer is already there as part of TD39 from 2 years ago.

Yes indeed is there and it seems it doesn't go over the limits that FIA has there. If it was passing the limits, isn't FIA job to intervene if they pass this limit?

[izzy]

You'd put an accelerometer on the seat, to measure the vertical accelerations the spine is subject to. You integrate the signal over a short period of time, using existing health and safety data, and transmit that to race control. If the car exceeds the limit, it gets a penalty. Simples! Much simpler and to the point than trying to police a ride height, and a nice engineering challenge.

Yes there are accelerometers all over the car and I was expecting there'd be one for this already, but George and Max seem to think not.

This specific accelerometer is already there as part of TD39 from 2 years ago.

Oh yes, tho TD39 has been dropped now apparently. It was an AOM Aerodynamic Oscillation Meter, to combat the porpoising, and now they've decided that's not a problem any more. So they could reintroduce it, and it sounds like they should really.

[Vanja #66]

How low were the planked cars prior to 2009? Rake helped in various way, I don't recall the plank scraping the ground much from 2009 onward, so in that era it was more the aero forcing a safer/comfortable ride height and not the plank.

Two off the cuff suggestions:
-omit the tunnels, keep the rest of the car the same including the large diffuser. This would force the teams to use rake again.
-keep the floor generally the same and somehow mandate a raked plank/center floor within the current framework.

Rake ensured that the front edge of the t-tray generally contacted the ground and kerbs first, and kept everything aft of the t-tray higher, helping protect the driver and the engine.

Rake wasn't there for the floor and diffuser, it was there for the splitter, bargeboards and front wing most of all. Raising the rear brought the front wing almost completely down on the ground, maximising ground effect. Rake also meant the whole car was at a higher angle typically, including rear wing, so everything could have been balanced nicely.

Rake cars had very soft rear to dip on straights and reduce the "rake-induced-angle" drag, some also stalled the diffuser. They still bottomed out a bit on straights as well

[gshevlin]

Allowing active suspension systems is a superficially appealing change, but the suspensions will still be stiff to keep a uniform ride height. They will allow much faster cornering speeds. When the systems were at their peak on the 1992 Williams, Nigel Mansell admitted that his eyes were "wandering" through fast corners because of the G forces on the car. That is one step below G-LOC, which nearly led to disaster at the 1999 CART race at Texas Motor Speedway, until Steven Olvey got drivers to admit they were suffering G-LOC in qualifying, and the race was cancelled.
Human beings, even young and very fit athletes, still have body limitations that must vlbe respected.

[clownfish]

I don't really understand the fuss about the ride height and the drivers feeling really? any driver who feels bad of the car he drives, he can speak to his team to make it not so stiff and to ride better. Why all this discussion? can you elaborate?
If the team dont do that, its their problem to solve.

Because it's faster with it low, so nobody will do that. Just the same as nobody would run a halo if it wasn't forced upon them because it's extra weight.

[Andres125sx]

…

Interesting quotes!

Only way to solve this is...

Hopefully this would mean active suspension for 2026. F1 is about pinnacle of automotive racing tech not nerf wars

It´s nosense that we can have active suspension even on a Toyota Corolla, but F1 can´t use it

Or perhaps current and future Mercedes drivers can stop whining and raise their cars if they hate it so much

That´s what F1 teams do, slowing their cars down on purpose for driver comfort

When DF was limited because some drivers started to feel dizy due to high lateral G forces... do you think rulemakers should have kept those rules, and it was F1 teams who should limit DF theirselves to keep drivers safe? That is utter nosense. F1 teams job is building fastest possible cars within current ruleset. If safety is at risk, it´s FIA job to modify rules to ensure drivers safety

A Toyota Corolla will tend to use active suspension to improve the ride quality for the occupants without the usual negative performance connotations of a passive system that is ‘good’ for ride quality.
An F1 car will only use active suspension to improve car performance with no consideration of the effect on the occupant.
The only time since the discovery of the power of GE in F1 that a driver’s comfort has been considered is with the Lotus 88, and that got banned…

Exactly, same as a F1 car should tend to use active suspension to improve perfomance without the usual negative comfort connotations of passive system that are good for perfomance

Passive systems need to be extremelly stiff to keep ride height and rake/pitch as constant as possible to not reduce ground effects with those variations. That means confort is non-existant, F1 cars run almost with no suspension at all.

Active suspensions would allow keeping ride height constant, but still usefull suspension wich damps the bumps and do not torture drivers

[Andres125sx]

Allowing active suspension systems is a superficially appealing change, but the suspensions will still be stiff to keep a uniform ride height. They will allow much faster cornering speeds. When the systems were at their peak on the 1992 Williams, Nigel Mansell admitted that his eyes were "wandering" through fast corners because of the G forces on the car. That is one step below G-LOC, which nearly led to disaster at the 1999 CART race at Texas Motor Speedway, until Steven Olvey got drivers to admit they were suffering G-LOC in qualifying, and the race was cancelled.
Human beings, even young and very fit athletes, still have body limitations that must vlbe respected.

Because of the G forces on the car, not because of the active suspension

If G forces are increased due to active suspension, then reduce aero, and you will get two benefits instead of one, not smasingh drivers columns, and better racing due to reduced aero wich allows for closer racing, more passing, etc

[JordanMugen]

It´s nosense that we can have active suspension even on a Toyota Corolla, but F1 can´t use it

A Toyota Corolla will tend to use active suspension to improve the ride quality for the occupants without the usual negative performance connotations of a passive system that is ‘good’ for ride quality.

What Toyota Corolla has active suspension?

The Citroen Xsara was probably the last of the C-segment economy cars to use not active but hydraulic suspension (British Leyland used it extensively too) -- for the most part economy car manufacturers are (very) cheap and therefore use basic steel springs and shock absorbers (adjustable rate shock absorbers on higher trims like the Gazoo Racing Corolla, if you are lucky) AFAIK.

This article suggests the active suspension was only used on the 1990-1991 Toyota Celica -- admittedly a closely related vehicle to the Toyota Corolla. As well as on the much higher end Toyota Soarer / Lexus SC430.

[JordanMugen]

"All the drivers have been speaking with F1 because it is a little bit unsustainable to keep running the cars like this," the Mercedes driver said.

Why not bring back 1982's laser-enforced 60mm minimum ride height rule?



With active suspension now being banned, the obvious cheats used back then (like driving on track and dumping hydraulic or pneumatic pressure to immediately lower the car) should no longer apply, no?

So the minimum 60mm ride height, should in theory, be able to be rigidly enforced both before and after sessions?

Would this encourage soft rate passive suspensions (perhaps on the heave springs I dunno) so the car gets dumped onto the ground as soon as aero load is applied to it?

[Watto]

"All the drivers have been speaking with F1 because it is a little bit unsustainable to keep running the cars like this," the Mercedes driver said.

Why not bring back 1982's laser-enforced 60mm minimum ride height rule?



With active suspension now being banned, the obvious cheats used back then (like driving on track and dumping hydraulic pressure to immediately lower the car) should no longer apply, no?

So the minimum 60mm ride height, should in theory, be able to be rigidly enforced both before and after sessions?

Would this encourage soft rate passive suspensions (perhaps on the heave springs I dunno) so the car gets dumped onto the ground as soon as aero load is applied to it?

I feel like teams would find a way around that to a degree. Like the flexi wings most no matter the tests they did they could get them to pass a test but flex more under load feel like these days someone would find that loophole again- as your indicating a little already

[Farnborough]

Interesting quotes!

Only way to solve this is...



It´s nosense that we can have active suspension even on a Toyota Corolla, but F1 can´t use it




That´s what F1 teams do, slowing their cars down on purpose for driver comfort

When DF was limited because some drivers started to feel dizy due to high lateral G forces... do you think rulemakers should have kept those rules, and it was F1 teams who should limit DF theirselves to keep drivers safe? That is utter nosense. F1 teams job is building fastest possible cars within current ruleset. If safety is at risk, it´s FIA job to modify rules to ensure drivers safety

A Toyota Corolla will tend to use active suspension to improve the ride quality for the occupants without the usual negative performance connotations of a passive system that is ‘good’ for ride quality.
An F1 car will only use active suspension to improve car performance with no consideration of the effect on the occupant.
The only time since the discovery of the power of GE in F1 that a driver’s comfort has been considered is with the Lotus 88, and that got banned…

Exactly, same as a F1 car should tend to use active suspension to improve perfomance without the usual negative comfort connotations of passive system that are good for perfomance

Passive systems need to be extremelly stiff to keep ride height and rake/pitch as constant as possible to not reduce ground effects with those variations. That means confort is non-existant, F1 cars run almost with no suspension at all.

Active suspensions would allow keeping ride height constant, but still usefull suspension wich damps the bumps and do not torture drivers

Theres no "magic" in active suspension. Given a low movement to keep chassis consistent height from track surface, then tbe forces are effectively the same for the same car/load concept. It's just a control of tbe total kinematics restricted to the same range in millimetres.

To make compliance in suspension, that reduces peak load into sprung mass, will always require more travel, howsoever that travel is then controlled. Loosely, for bumps of any particular size, you need travel to match. WRC cars being a good working example.

The core problem is making a design that benefits running so close to track, where does anyone think a team will want to run it ?
The aero design would have to change, but they'll maximise anything like this because that's always the focus. Or reduce the plank wear tolerance and enforce exclusion to make decent use of it. Then they'd make sure they can get to the end of the race without impingement of that dimension, as they did after all the moaning from Cota.