2022 cars 'porpoising' at high speed

[atanatizante]

Sorry for not having time to read all the pages but I would like to ask you guys, here that have better knowledge about aerodynamics, if the RB18 car has more downforce than other cars on the grid due to the bigger amount coming from the diffuser rather than Venturi tunnels. My theory is based on the fact that HAM said prior to Canada race that they raised the car`s ride height and maybe that's the obvious reason after seeing in the race almost no porpoising, less bouncing, better kerb ride and higher top speed.

Let me explain ...

From the Baku pictures, we could see on Sky that RB18 is running with some rake so could it be that the floor is designed to have a linear shape, in order to withstand a speed until porpoising is occurring, then at the back have an upward slope? This could give them in the end the most overall downforce coming out from the diffuser rather than Venturi tunnels. In other words, they choose to sacrifice the maximum downforce that is coming from Venturi`s which is inconsistent and lends to porpoising (best proof is W13) and rather they were choosing a floor with a lower and useful/consistent level of downforce with no porpoising at which they add a higher amount of downforce produced via the old fashion way, through the diffuser. Thus way RB18`s overall downforce is bigger than theoretical W13`s simulator downforce levels ...

And this car design philosophy could also have other benefits coz when you rise the car`s ride height you could have more suspension travel and ride better over the bumps but most of all the kerbs (where you could gain/find more time with these 2022 cars, just see Canada race). And last but not least, having more downforce you could trim the rear wing for more top speed, something that RB18 did successfully this year ...

On another note, how about a damper driver seat system just to cope with the porpoising/bouncing/bottoming issues? I think that if W13 were faster than RB18 they would not be moaning so much about it, isn`t it?

[Big Tea]

They had probably already tested something similar on the model long ago. 'This is the offending part, so lets nail it down for now'. " but its not allowed" ' Ok, take it off after we try it'.
Thats what most people would do and I'm sure they have very smart people there.

[Quantum]

They had probably already tested something similar on the model long ago. 'This is the offending part, so lets nail it down for now'. " but its not allowed" ' Ok, take it off after we try it'.
Thats what most people would do and I'm sure they have very smart people there.

Goes without saying really. Incredible that Binotto says Ferrari would not be capable of doing this.
But perhaps thats fanning the political flames, which they all get up to in varying degrees.

[Tommy Cookers]

... A gradual force is easier to deal with than an instantaneous one. It's the definition of an effective crash structure.

wrong - it's the definition of a spring

wrong because .....
that given as 'instantaneous 6g' describes the process after the equivalent of a 'crash structure' has acted
'crash' here being what eg tyre pneumatic compression etc has determined how hard the car belly hit the road
h.h.t.belly has hit the road is measured as 6g - like the output that a crash structure delivers to a driver in a crash

and wrong because ....
'gradual' change of g can be HARDER "to deal with than an instantaneous one"

the driver is some parts that (weakly) behave as sprung masses ie each part has its own natural frequency ....
so each part absorbs energy strongly at some rates of change of energy - and resists at other rates of change
if the rate of change of g gives strong energy absorption the load developed will OVERSHOOT (wrt otherwise)
so ironically some 'gradual' rate of change of g could be worse for the driver than so-called 'instantaneous' g
(think - far more energy is transmitted when ramping from 1 to 6 g than when going instantaneously from 1 to 6 g)

overshoot (with gradual change of thrust) part caused the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster (as I said years ago)
and is shown in a spring balance ....
if eg a 1kg mass is 'slowly' placed on the scale pan (from no more than the height of the scale pan) ......
the balance can (depending on spring rate ie natural frequency) briefly indicate up to 2kg (before settling at 1kg)
and of course we have dampers on our cars to prevent overshoot

yes I have in the real world done this sort of thing for a living

[Big Tea]

That post got me to thinking. How is this (or any) 6G calculated? For example is it 3G 'down' then 3G back up giving a difference of 6G, and is that different to an impact of 6G hitting a non moving object? (Not sure I have framed the question correctly)

The equivalent of taking a right hand bend with 3G, then an exact same bend immediately in the opposite direction =6?

[mzso]

What surprises me about the new TD is that every team is against it.
I thought teams who have sorted the bouncing wouldn't mind the TD.
Really bizarre. there might be something more going on which we are not aware of

I think the reason is that it not only prevents you from running a porpoising setup, but also from running very low and hard with bottoming. A ground effect car almost requires you to run hard and low, so it may impact all teams, also those who solved porpoising.

But teams like Redbull and Alpine have absolutely zero bottoming and almost no proposing with their current car. why are they against it?

Unless there is another part of the TD about the plank wear and its flexibility which is also being looked it

A statement from the FIA read: “A Technical Directive has been issued to give guidance to the teams about the measures the FIA intends to take to tackle the problem. These include:

“1. Closer scrutiny of the planks and skids, both in terms of their design and the observed wear.

Is this what the non-porpoising teams are concerned about?

I doubt so. Increased scrutiny is not a regulation change. So there's no ground for them to criticize it. It seems more like they don't want their car setups ruined.

[mzso]

I think the FIA have handled this issue poorly. They needed to take action to protect drivers’ health. They decided that to do so they needed to establish limits on vertical accelerations. A reasonable position supported by methods and standards in public life. They set out a research phase to find out what the state of play is currently by monitoring the cars in Canada. This is a sporting issue, “don’t operate your cars in ways that may damage the health of drivers, or anyone else that might be impacted”. There is a technical aspect in that the teams need to know what will be measured, how, and what the boundaries will be. This is, in my mind, entirely analogous to load tests on bodywork.

What they did wrong, IMO, is to make other changes to the technical regulations simultaneously. Allowing an additional stay was foolish. Adding an arbitrary technical requirement, 10mm ride height increase, as a punishment for exceeding the vibration criteria was crass. It’s a sporting issue, if you’re outside the criteria then you’re operating a car outside the technical regs and the punishment is clear. Disqualification.

Sadly I don’t think they can recover this situation. The conspiracy theory’s they’ve triggered will go on for years, stoked by the cunning of the individuals who run the teams. But so long as the drivers are protected I will be happy.

I agree the first part made sense. By the looks of a TD is not even needed to increase scrutinization of the floor, since wear limits are already in the rules.

I must have missed this 10mm increase. I guess most of them, particularly teams with little oscillation have an issue with this. Probably ruins the well tuned setup.

[ringo]

Not sure why were are arguing that its okay to sustain 6g into ones tailbone. Madness.

A fighter plane does is not subject to the same kind of forces even if its 12g. the impact is different.
And as said before its not 700 or whatever times in 2hrs.
In addition these guys have special pressurized suits to maintain blood flow, and their controls are much simpler to control with the fingers. A joy stick and some buttons. Also they cannot crash into a wall or another plane so easily.

F1 is not a contact sport. No regulation should allow the drivers to sustain potentially long term injuries.
When Max had his little 50g crash into some pillows at the side of the track at silverstone in 2021 these same people here doubting Mercedes were livid and asking for heads to roll. Oh what hypocrissy. Same for Horner.
Maybe he should be Okay with Max getting bumped off at 50g every race since its all within the rules. If you dont want 50g then dont turn in. Likewise telling Toto to raise the car if he doesnt want 10g.

[PlatinumZealot]

That post got me to thinking. How is this (or any) 6G calculated? For example is it 3G 'down' then 3G back up giving a difference of 6G, and is that different to an impact of 6G hitting a non moving object? (Not sure I have framed the question correctly)

The equivalent of taking a right hand bend with 3G, then an exact same bend immediately in the opposite direction =6?

Instaneous Acceleration. Accelerating at 3G right then 3G left means you were at zero at some point in between.

Now FIA will take the vertical acceleration of the car as measure of the force on the driver's spine. Normally the lateral accelations are high especially in a frontal accident, but the driver's lateral position and the the seat belt take up that deceleration. We also sew here that drivers are more prone to injury when their car is hit from behind. Only the seat which is a hard object, and the spinal disks and not the seat belt, serves to cushion the decelerstions when hit from behind. That said it similar lack of protection, with only the buttocks as the cushion when hit from below.

[carisi2k]

F1 is not a contact sport. No regulation should allow the drivers to sustain potentially long term injuries.
When Max had his little 50g crash into some pillows at the side of the track at silverstone in 2021 these same people here doubting Mercedes were livid and asking for heads to roll. Oh what hypocrissy. Same for Horner.
Maybe he should be Okay with Max getting bumped off at 50g every race since its all within the rules. If you dont want 50g then dont turn in. Likewise telling Toto to raise the car if he doesnt want 10g.

The problem is that it is only Mercedes drivers that are having these severe issues. The problem in Baku was the state of the track and the bumps in the road which were causing everybody issues and not porpoising. A resurfacing should resolve this issue but the problem was worse on the Mercedes because they run so low to the ground.

The FIA should be doing something like making tracks resurface when they are getting to the state that Baku was but to change rules just to allow Mercedes to be competitive should not be done. I suspect Mercedes want the fancy hydraulic suspension systems to be reintroduced because they spent so much money trying to beat Max at the end of last year instead of focussing on 2022.

[Quantum]

The problem is that it is only Mercedes drivers that are having these severe issues.

That's simply not true. The narrative being held by large portions of the media are parroting Team bosses who are against taking action.

We know for example the Perez said he lost vision at one point.
We know Gasly suffered with it a few times and had real issues at Baku.
We know Sainz has said he can feel the impact of porpoising, and expressed concern about health... that was after race 5.
We know Ocon has spoken out about saying something needs to be done, more so for the stiffness of present cars.
We know Mercedes have issues.
We know Magnussen suffered nerve damage in his arm and Jaw due to porpoising.
We know Latifi said the vibrations impair vision at various points.

That's 7 different teams. Some of those teams have come out ardently against any action.

We also know a few unnamed teams have briefed their drivers to not discuss porpoising with the Media(Chandok).

This false narrative that "it's only Mercedes" needs to be buried.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... We know for example the Perez said he lost vision at one point.
.... We know Gasly suffered with it a few times and had real issues at Baku.
... We know Latifi said the vibrations impair vision at various points.
.... We also know a few unnamed teams have briefed their drivers to not to discuss etc ....

this type of things were also said back in the days of 'peak g' ... certainly of Monaco
even with 'steady' g we were entering the region where the customary 'aiming' of the eye cannot be maintained

[Quantum]

.... We know for example the Perez said he lost vision at one point.
.... We know Gasly suffered with it a few times and had real issues at Baku.
... We know Latifi said the vibrations impair vision at various points.
.... We also know a few unnamed teams have briefed their drivers to not to discuss etc ....

this type of things were also said back in the days of 'peak g' ... certainly of Monaco
even with 'steady' g we were entering the region where the customary 'aiming' of the eye cannot be maintained

Steady G is by far a more manageable trait. Especially as its' one direction, and low frequency.

Porpoising and super stiff car as we have this year will induce vertical positive and negative G frequency in the space of less than a second over a set distance depending on car.

[Tommy Cookers]

Steady G is by far a more manageable trait.....

the brain is like a sponge ....
alternating g doesn't drain away the (oxygen-carrying) blood from the brain (and eyes) like steady g does

[johnny comelately]

Steady G is by far a more manageable trait.....

the brain is like a sponge ....
alternating g doesn't drain away the (oxygen-carrying) blood from the brain (and eyes) like steady g does

Combining the two worlds mentioned here, remember the Indy car driver blackout problems and....detached retinas
viewtopic.php?t=15283