Why didn't the flat bottomed cars porpoise?

[vorticism]

Should be able to write the current formula with a flat floor with a raised plank/step plane. That might provide similar downforce without porpoising. Depends on how critical the tunnels are to the draft-friendly wake. (e.g. They've already gotten rid of the Y250, the outwash brakes, added the RW shoulders and the front wheel winglets, etc.) The cars would return to a high rake setup like the previous decade. Flat floor plus that big diffuser would not be perfect, although that is essentially what they had in the late 80s/early 90s (flat floor, tall narrow diffuser). In a pinch, legalize skirts to increase downforce potentials. Or, I think this would be cool, split the step plane in half and move each half to either side of the floor edge; planks as pseudo skirts. They wouldn't have to be always in contact, just acting as a wall most of the time then hitting the track at full compression as the plank has always done. You could even build in a shock absorbing function to the floor to help cushion plank strikes; similar to what the t-tray/bib shock asbsorbers do.

[PhillipM]

Just double the plank thickness. Problem solved.

[Vanja #66]

Should be able to write the current formula with a flat floor with a raised plank/step plane. That might provide similar downforce without porpoising. Depends on how critical the tunnels are to the draft-friendly wake. (e.g. They've already gotten rid of the Y250, the outwash brakes, added the RW shoulders and the front wheel winglets, etc.) The cars would return to a high rake setup like the previous decade. Flat floor plus that big diffuser would not be perfect, although that is essentially what they had in the late 80s/early 90s (flat floor, tall narrow diffuser). In a pinch, legalize skirts to increase downforce potentials. Or, I think this would be cool, split the step plane in half and move each half to either side of the floor edge; planks as pseudo skirts. They wouldn't have to be always in contact, just acting as a wall most of the time then hitting the track at full compression as the plank has always done. You could even build in a shock absorbing function to the floor to help cushion plank strikes; similar to what the t-tray/bib shock asbsorbers do.

No need for that. Bouncing isn't such a big problem and can be solved, Red Bull obviously did. If we see any excessive disturbances in any way, FIA can step in and put a minimum bodywork height in tunnels, preventing teams from going too far at the expense of safety. Diffusers spit out two massive vortices and if you add vanes, you add more vortices, ie you add more dirty air in front of the following car. Ground effect floors are a good solution. I'd still rather have 2008-like smaller cars and some bodywork in front of rear tyres, even if it was a spec part. I hope FOM will be steering the rules towards that with 2026 regulations.

[Zynerji]

Should be able to write the current formula with a flat floor with a raised plank/step plane. That might provide similar downforce without porpoising. Depends on how critical the tunnels are to the draft-friendly wake. (e.g. They've already gotten rid of the Y250, the outwash brakes, added the RW shoulders and the front wheel winglets, etc.) The cars would return to a high rake setup like the previous decade. Flat floor plus that big diffuser would not be perfect, although that is essentially what they had in the late 80s/early 90s (flat floor, tall narrow diffuser). In a pinch, legalize skirts to increase downforce potentials. Or, I think this would be cool, split the step plane in half and move each half to either side of the floor edge; planks as pseudo skirts. They wouldn't have to be always in contact, just acting as a wall most of the time then hitting the track at full compression as the plank has always done. You could even build in a shock absorbing function to the floor to help cushion plank strikes; similar to what the t-tray/bib shock asbsorbers do.

No need for that. Bouncing isn't such a big problem and can be solved, Red Bull obviously did. If we see any excessive disturbances in any way, FIA can step in and put a minimum bodywork height in tunnels, preventing teams from going too far at the expense of safety. Diffusers spit out two massive vortices and if you add vanes, you add more vortices, ie you add more dirty air in front of the following car. Ground effect floors are a good solution. I'd still rather have 2008-like smaller cars and some bodywork in front of rear tyres, even if it was a spec part. I hope FOM will be steering the rules towards that with 2026 regulations.

I'm inline with covering the wheels. With the current wheel brows, one can see how easily it could be extruded to cover 120degrees of the front and upper wheel faces. They would need to cut the tyre sidewall in half though. They are already a bit sketchy in diameter.

Oh, and yes to 2008 cars with 2022 floors and 2021 suspensions!

[vorticism]

Should be able to write the current formula with a flat floor with a raised plank/step plane. That might provide similar downforce without porpoising. Depends on how critical the tunnels are to the draft-friendly wake. (e.g. They've already gotten rid of the Y250, the outwash brakes, added the RW shoulders and the front wheel winglets, etc.) The cars would return to a high rake setup like the previous decade. Flat floor plus that big diffuser would not be perfect, although that is essentially what they had in the late 80s/early 90s (flat floor, tall narrow diffuser). In a pinch, legalize skirts to increase downforce potentials. Or, I think this would be cool, split the step plane in half and move each half to either side of the floor edge; planks as pseudo skirts. They wouldn't have to be always in contact, just acting as a wall most of the time then hitting the track at full compression as the plank has always done. You could even build in a shock absorbing function to the floor to help cushion plank strikes; similar to what the t-tray/bib shock asbsorbers do.

No need for that. Bouncing isn't such a big problem and can be solved, Red Bull obviously did. If we see any excessive disturbances in any way, FIA can step in and put a minimum bodywork height in tunnels, preventing teams from going too far at the expense of safety. Diffusers spit out two massive vortices and if you add vanes, you add more vortices, ie you add more dirty air in front of the following car. Ground effect floors are a good solution. I'd still rather have 2008-like smaller cars and some bodywork in front of rear tyres, even if it was a spec part. I hope FOM will be steering the rules towards that with 2026 regulations.

True, eventually everyone may figure it out. Although a stepped flat floor never provided porpoising that I know of, as it relates to the discussion. This 'outboard step plane' could have been applied to any of the past decade or so of cars, conceptually. Any with a step plane, really. Centrline flow under the car would have been increased; straight shot to the diffuser. Flat floor throughout. Ride height control with the advantage of providing a skirt effect. Higher CoG.

[Andi76]

The flat floors produced more distributed downforce across their surface, hence the importance of coke bottling as initiated by RB 2009. Reduced pressure differential top surface vs bottom surface. An inclined plane providing less efficient downforce, yet not relying on ground proximity nor perfect flow under the car.

The coke bottle didn't start with Red Bull in 2009. It was already starting to be used at the end of the 1980s.

Sorry to correct you. But in relation to Formula 1 - coke bottle was intoduced on the MP4/2 in 1984. It was a John Barnard Design and Alan Jenkins was the engineer who came up with the idea. Because the rear of the car was similar to the shape of a coke bottle it was named like that.

[Just_a_fan]

The flat floors produced more distributed downforce across their surface, hence the importance of coke bottling as initiated by RB 2009. Reduced pressure differential top surface vs bottom surface. An inclined plane providing less efficient downforce, yet not relying on ground proximity nor perfect flow under the car.

The coke bottle didn't start with Red Bull in 2009. It was already starting to be used at the end of the 1980s.

Sorry to correct you. But in relation to Formula 1 - coke bottle was intoduced on the MP4/2 in 1984. It was a John Barnard Design and Alan Jenkins was the engineer who came up with the idea. Because the rear of the car was similar to the shape of a coke bottle it was named like that.

No need to apologise - good information
is always welcome.