2022 cars 'porpoising' at high speed

[carisi2k]

Im still not sure what direction this whole new TD is going to go in. However come Wednesday/Thursday we should have some direction of what sort of thing is going to be monitored and enforced, together with the data that goes with it (with any luck)

I do however, agree with the FIA stance on it where the car should be raised in order to counter the bouncing. Im not sure what to make of the comments from the Mercedes' camp about not being able to raise the ride height in order to eliminate the bouncing. Surely they can knock up a simple damper (as I believe it is relatively simple this year without all the previous hydro tech in them) in a small amount of time which has longer travel.

Im genuinely interested to see what Silverstone will bring to the table in terms of how the direction will go. I do agree with Christian Horner when he mentioned teams should have been part of the discussion in regards to what is going to be enforced.
I do think this will hurt Ferrari and Mercedes more than anyone else (maybe haas too as they often bounce a bit).

Considering how quickly they came up with that second stay then it shouldn't be too hard for them to modify there suspension to solve there issues if they are that capable.

[carisi2k]

Some alternative proposals for a neutral solution:

1. An optional FIA supplied spec rear suspension for teams who can't fix their problems on their own? They can then decide to either take the save spec part or develop their own performance focussed solution out of their budget.

2. Every team gets to spend x amount of money on top of the budget cap. Teams with porpoising issues need to use it to fix their issues, teams who built a car that doesn't suffer from porpoising can spend it on whatever they want.

1. Oh heck no. This isn't a spec formula. It is Formula 1 the pinnacle of motorsport.
2. While I don't have a problem with this there maybe some teams who do have an issue and therefore the FIA would have to provide a sweetener for these teams for this to be the case. It would probably mean that an extra $10-20 million is provided by the FIA to all teams rather then coming out of the teams budgets and thus not circumventing the budget cap.

[mzso]

Im still not sure what direction this whole new TD is going to go in. However come Wednesday/Thursday we should have some direction of what sort of thing is going to be monitored and enforced, together with the data that goes with it (with any luck)

I do however, agree with the FIA stance on it where the car should be raised in order to counter the bouncing.

If Binotto's comments are true (and I don't see why not) then the TD is invalid. FIA will need to go through proper procedure to implement the desired changes. So I guess it will take months. (unless they backtrack totally, as they are prone to do)

I don't think they said they said that the ride height must be raised. Only that they want to limit vertical acceleration, which I think is the right way to go.

Im not sure what to make of the comments from the Mercedes' camp about not being able to raise the ride height in order to eliminate the bouncing. Surely they can knock up a simple damper (as I believe it is relatively simple this year without all the previous hydro tech in them) in a small amount of time which has longer travel.

Yeah, Mercedes is BS-ing... They can just make the relevant parts longer and the oscillations will stop. Will the suspension be optimal? Probably not. Will they loose performance? Probably. So what? No reason to give a damn. They can re-design their suspension in due time withe the detriment to everything else in the budget.

Im genuinely interested to see what Silverstone will bring to the table in terms of how the direction will go. I do agree with Christian Horner when he mentioned teams should have been part of the discussion in regards to what is going to be enforced.
I do think this will hurt Ferrari and Mercedes more than anyone else (maybe haas too as they often bounce a bit).

Teams always say that. It means they want to influence and compromise the decisions.
It's fair that the most bouncing teams are affected the most, even if it pretty much seals the championship...

[mzso]

I never recalled Perez saying it at any time other then at the first Test when they were all suffering from it and Baku because of the bumps. Red Bull solved the issue and the RB18 runs at a higher ride height then most of the other cars and they also seem to have a better suspension setup to deal with it as well. Why does the FIA need to mandate something that is clearly already within the teams ability to solve.

At Canada what I saw was a lot of cars bottoming out on the bumps rather then actual porpoising. Whatever the issues are the teams have the ability to solve this issue themselves without any intervention whatsoever.

The only thing that I believe the FIA should mandate is a safer seat for the drivers. The teams have been minimising this for way too long now and a seat with significantly more foam cushioning is needed for sure. But no new suspension system or any new rule should be introduced just to benefit Mercedes and Lewis.

What you're saying is not logical. Of course the teams can fix it. They won't unless FIA forces them to. That's the main issue. Even if the new regulation is implemented it will the teams fixing the problem. The FIA will just monitor it.

So, yes, FIA intervention is very needed to prevent driver injury or accidents. Mind you the FIA said nothing about a new suspension system only that they want to limit and monitor vertical oscillations.

1. Oh heck no. This isn't a spec formula. It is Formula 1 the pinnacle of motorsport.

You're just re-iteratin platitudes. And you apparently didn't even read the whole sentence you responded to. Because giving teams the option to use a suspension system doesn't mean a spec series.
(The second platitude is even more pointless)

[mzso]

Someone mentioned a proposed 10mm punishment for those who fail to reach the vertical acceleration goals.
Where does that come from? I don't see it quoted anywhere.

[chrisc90]

Someone mentioned a proposed 10mm punishment for those who fail to reach the vertical acceleration goals.
Where does that come from? I don't see it quoted anywhere.

[Tommy Cookers]

OK, so if you apply, I don't know, 2g of force to your head by falling and banging it on the ground, that will be fine then?

yes, fine ..... though 2g implies a fall from a few inches or a fall from standing onto a compliant floor eg a mattress

if the Merc 'instantaneous 6g' lasts over c.70 millisec the wheels would leave the ground
has anyone seen this ? ... or has anyone seen the tyres bottoming road-to-rubber-to-metal rim ? .... (and so deflating)

iirc c.70 millisec of 52 g on MV's car at Silverstone didn't harm him
crash helmet regulations permit eg 275g or even 400g for very short periods eg 4 millisec

[cooken]

Really strange where this discussion has gone . The issue is long term health issues due to prolonged oscillatory motion at sufficient amplitude and frequency. Nobody is really concerned about one or two isolated bounces here and there with ~6g peak acceleration.

How might you cope with repeated 10-20 second exposures to ~4-6 Hz vertical motion at say ~3grms for 2 hours? Not so well I think.

[napoleon1981]

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.

Had they tested it a long time ago, and it worked, they would have introduced a reinforced floor already. This was not a magic part laying around since february filming day. Hell even barca filmingday

But it was not legal then so they could not use it. If thy had it, they would have taken it off until they brought it to Canada

My point was, if the floor needs to be reinforced there and it solved all their issues, they would have done so by other means. They had plenty of time to do so.

[Big Tea]

Had they tested it a long time ago, and it worked, they would have introduced a reinforced floor already. This was not a magic part laying around since february filming day. Hell even barca filmingday

But it was not legal then so they could not use it. If thy had it, they would have taken it off until they brought it to Canada

My point was, if the floor needs to be reinforced there and it solved all their issues, they would have done so by other means. They had plenty of time to do so.

Fair call. makes sense

[JordanMugen]

My point was, if the floor needs to be reinforced there and it solved all their issues, they would have done so by other means. They had plenty of time to do so.

You give the Mercedes the credit for not being too stubborn to refuse to add 10kg to their floor?

I dunno, Red Bull were happy to present a very overweight car (15-20kg overweight?) at launch to make sure they included all the measures to minimise porpoising in the car, likely including a stiff and heavy floor (since "minimising porpoising while retaining performance" was obviously the key to the regulation set as Pat Symonds has said), it is unclear if minimising porpoising was a design priority for Mercedes in the same manner.

Then having not prioritised a stiff and heavy floor initially (nor a compliant suspension with plenty of travel for that matter, which Red Bull and Ferrari also prioritised and realised would be important!), I wouldn't put it past Mercedes to be too stubborn to immediately change tack.

It seems Mercedes have been equally hesitant to add either a stiff floor or a compliant suspension to their car, despite that being the approach of the leading cars. [The Red Bull obviously has other measures to minimise porpoising too (like the front & rear suspension geometry, the less ride height sensitive tunnel geometry, the double outer bargeboard, the bib spring, the ice skate etc), since it's a multifaceted problem, measures which Mercedes seemingly failed to include in their original design.]

To the point where James Allison said they physically could not push the rear suspension any higher without having a total rear overhaul.

In that case that would be a total failure at the conceptual design stage, given that "minimising porpoising while retaining performance" was known to be the key to the regulations!

But I don't believe for a second that the rear suspension does not allow a higher ride height. Aston Martin with the same rear suspension said they indeed did raise their rear ride height significantly to avoid porpoising with their A-car.

[carisi2k]

What you're saying is not logical. Of course the teams can fix it. They won't unless FIA forces them to. That's the main issue. Even if the new regulation is implemented it will the teams fixing the problem. The FIA will just monitor it.

So, yes, FIA intervention is very needed to prevent driver injury or accidents. Mind you the FIA said nothing about a new suspension system only that they want to limit and monitor vertical oscillations.

What I am saying is very logical as it is only one specific team that doesn't want to fix it in this way because it would seem they are running with a very limited suspension capability in the W13 which is why Lewis and George are suffering so badly. This is nothing more then Mercedes trying to get themselves out of the trouble they are in. Lewis and George said in Canada that they can't raise the suspension any higher which tells you that the W13 is poorly designed and Mercedes are just pushing for a free get out of jail card from the FIA.

Thankfully the FIA have again called the bluff of Mercedes in only proceeding with the monitoring for now. I suspect that Mercedes can't put a new suspension system in because it would put them over the cost cap. The only thing that the FIA should be forcing on to teams is a better seat for the drivers to help cushion these impacts better. The cars have protective foam on the headrests and should really have something similar on the seats as well.

[Just_a_fan]

Lewis and George said in Canada that they can't raise the suspension any higher which tells you that the W13 is poorly designed and Mercedes are just pushing for a free get out of jail card from the FIA.

Perhaps they think that it's time that they got a bit of help like Red Bull got with the engine modes restriction - brought in because Red Bull/Honda couldn't do it as well as Mercedes and Ferrari. And that's before we get to the aero changes last year that basically hamstrung the Merc. Oh, and safety car rules...

[Stu]

Lewis and George said in Canada that they can't raise the suspension any higher which tells you that the W13 is poorly designed and Mercedes are just pushing for a free get out of jail card from the FIA.

And that's before we get to the aero changes last year that basically hamstrung the Merc.

Do you genuinely think that rule change was targeted? It’s not like it was a post-Imola ‘94
rule change (where there was no time to prepare), this particular change was announced early (as well as the reasoning) & many of the teams ran with modified floors during FP sessions through the 2020 seasons, some teams chose not to.
The change to 18” wheels is similar (plenty of prep time and testing with mule cars - most participated, others chose not to).
Everyone has had the same clean-sheet rule book to follow for this year (and had three years to prepare, only aero development was stalled once the introduction was put on ice in 2020).
They have slipped up slightly with their interpretation (as they did last year - once they found the sweet-spot there wasn’t any catching LH!), there is still time for them to find the sweet-spot this year, but the budget cap - leading to an inability to “iterate the hell out of it” - James Allison, will slow that down.

[DChemTech]

Lewis and George said in Canada that they can't raise the suspension any higher which tells you that the W13 is poorly designed and Mercedes are just pushing for a free get out of jail card from the FIA.

Perhaps they think that it's time that they got a bit of help like Red Bull got with the engine modes restriction - brought in because Red Bull/Honda couldn't do it as well as Mercedes and Ferrari. And that's before we get to the aero changes last year that basically hamstrung the Merc. Oh, and safety car rules...

In season and between season changes are not the same thing. Between season changes, if announced in time, fine. In season changes like party mode and wing flex tolerance changes, not fine. And in any case, past mistakes with mid season changes should not be used to justify things now.