A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
There are reports in the German Media and pictures on the internet that the Mercedes and Williams cars are "wobbling". Probably they have an aerodyamical problem and the air is stalling in waves somewhere. Interesting about this is that Mercedes and Williams seem to have that specific problem. Both have opted for the "old-style 2021"-sidepod design. Did Mercedes and Williams screw-up by staying with the old "short-sidepod"-style solution?
No one part is a magic bullet, it would be surprising if the sidepods were the key factor in how the floor behaves.
The 2003 Mclaren MP4-18's aerodynamic instability was purely down to the sidepod shape.
Clickbait news, lazy journalism and lack of understanding of how F1 works. This is testing, trying things and sandbagging/hiding performance is par for the course.
It also shows a fundamental lack of aero understanding and the new rules from the OP, a large part of the performance of the car is now from the underbody venturi. Porpoising (I'm assuming that's what you mean by wobbling) isn't about suspension bouncing or the car wobbling, its about downforce dropping significantly (a stall) and then reattaching. This causes the car to rise up with the stall and be sucked to the ground again upon reattaching.
The sidepod layout has little to do with the cars overall peak downforce and more about airflow outwash, to seal the floor edges, and to feed the beam wing area. It's highly likely that a car actually wants to stall its peak downforce above a certain terminal speed, as you don't need lots of downforce on the straights, unless you want to be slower in a straight line! Tuning this type of characteristic is something Mercedes did very well under the old rule package, and will be trying to do again with the new rules.
Finally, it's far too early to say if anyone screwed up after 1 full day of testing. Plus, unless you're part of the teams inner circle, it's a question no one can answer properly, they'll just be making things up. I think people should wait for the Bahrain GP and stop with this nonsense.
I think the regs may have screwed the whole field and after all that money on research they didnt see this issue coming.
I suspect evrry car will have this problem and it could also be made worse because of the weight increase and even more so if a car is carrying a lot of fuel which the merce and others could be when they were spotted oscilsting.
IMO, this is the problem with relying on models to develop cars with minimal on track testing. The models are imperfect. I was a bit afraid of this. A Boeing Phd Aerodynamicist friend told me this was likely inevitable.
This is why NASCAR, Indy, etc still do a lot of on track testing of new concepts before releasing them into the wild.
There are reports in the German Media and pictures on the internet that the Mercedes and Williams cars are "wobbling". Probably they have an aerodyamical problem and the air is stalling in waves somewhere. Interesting about this is that Mercedes and Williams seem to have that specific problem. Both have opted for the "old-style 2021"-sidepod design. Did Mercedes and Williams screw-up by staying with the old "short-sidepod"-style solution?
No one part is a magic bullet, it would be surprising if the sidepods were the key factor in how the floor behaves.
The 2003 Mclaren MP4-18's aerodynamic instability was purely down to the sidepod shape.
I didn't say a part can't cause instability though. I said that I highly doubt the sidepods are not a magic bullet that causes issues with the floor/diffuser. These sidepod shapes are well understood by the teams that use them.
I also think it's a bit of a silly topic to begin with. If the car has issues porpoising they will quickly figure it and get on top of it. This is Mercedes
They could have screwed up, but so could have anyone else.
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute
I think the regs may have screwed the whole field and after all that money on research they didnt see this issue coming.
I suspect evrry car will have this problem and it could also be made worse because of the weight increase and even more so if a car is carrying a lot of fuel which the merce and others could be when they were spotted oscilsting.
While I suspect there are problems, I suspect teams are also trying to wrap their heads around a solution due to the new suspension rules.
That said, a lot of this just feels like manufacturered drama and the F1 media just learned the term “porpoising”.
in planes, proposing (non linear pitch sensitivity during elevator application) is countered by moving weight to the front and increasing propeller pitch and reducing prop diameter.
While I suspect there are problems, I suspect teams are also trying to wrap their heads around a solution due to the new suspension rules.
That said, a lot of this just feels like manufacturered drama and the F1 media just learned the term “porpoising”.
Yes.
I think as mentioned before: The fuel level plays a big role. From the times the top cars like the Bull and the Merc are loaded with fuel and sandbags.
Plus everyone tries different setups, especially how the car reacts on softer dampers. The softer the go, the more the car jumps.
This is completely different to the COTA issues, there a hard suspension and a low ride height makes it worse. So this will not be emphasized on this track, but the difficulty will be to find a window between hard and soft with both effects.
While I suspect there are problems, I suspect teams are also trying to wrap their heads around a solution due to the new suspension rules.
That said, a lot of this just feels like manufacturered drama and the F1 media just learned the term “porpoising”.
To piggy back on my thought, I also believe this is a direct outcome of an over reliance on simulation and wind tunnels, and not real world testing. This isn’t the team’s faults, but I think technocrat rules makers not fully grasping the limitations of doing as such. Talking to a Phd Aerodynamicist friend in the aerospace world said this struggle was likely inevitable due to the over reliance of CFD and simulation, and not real world testing, and he gave me several examples of such.
If the floor is not touching the asphalt, bouncing like this is decent
The floor touching the asphalt is what causes the venturi to choke, which triggers the porpoising. You cannot porpoise without first contacting the asphalt.
If the floor is not touching the asphalt, bouncing like this is decent
The floor touching the asphalt is what causes the venturi to choke, which triggers the porpoising. You cannot porpoise without first contacting the asphalt.
Not true. Vortex shedding can cause it as well, especially if the car is resonating at the same frequency of the now required mechanical springs or causing wing supports to flutter on some small level.
In my little world, we were joking about running a shaker rig in the wind tunnel, but it's not going to tell you much with the rules required 60% model.
If the floor is not touching the asphalt, bouncing like this is decent
The floor touching the asphalt is what causes the venturi to choke, which triggers the porpoising. You cannot porpoise without first contacting the asphalt.
Not true. Vortex shedding can cause it as well, especially if the car is resonating at the same frequency of the now required mechanical springs or causing wing supports to flutter on some small level.
In my little world, we were joking about running a shaker rig in the wind tunnel, but it's not going to tell you much with the rules required 60% model.
Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. The vortex shedding frequency sounds like a fk'd aero concept. I believe the old Audi R18s suffered from this in the '14 or '15 Spa weekend.
