So what these videos prove? Hamilton at fault? And no I was not trying to become clever, I was just trying ask data in real context, but then it is very difficult for fans of a certain driver to engage brain. So, be in your world and keep posting rubbish in this thread.
Go back and read what was said and have a think.xaero wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 13:46So what these videos prove? Hamilton at fault? And no I was not trying to become clever, I was just trying ask data in real context, but then it is very difficult for fans of a certain driver to engage brain. So, be in your world and keep posting rubbish in this thread.
Not after FIA threathened that the ride heights have to be raised. That would cost them a lot of laptime. And immediately after that was the way the FIA said it will be handled - they said porpoising is "cured". So sorry, but no, it would not be favorable for Mercedes. Indeed it would hurt them more than any other team, as the performance of their car is highly dependant to be run as low as possible.adrianjordan wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 13:50Right, but every team was having the problem in Baku, even RBR to a lesser extent and multiple times we heard people talk about it not being porpoising.Andi76 wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 12:30I do not want to get into this discussion, but at the moment i would not blindly trust the engineers of Mercedes as porpoising has become a political thing. And because of negative implications on their performance when they are forced to raise the ride height - no Mercedes engineer would admit its porpoising. So at the moment - i think it is not wrong to doubt what Mercedes engineers say in that regard and put more trust into ones own eyes.
Also, you argument means it would have been FAVOURABLE for Merc engineers to blame porpoising for the problems.
Except the FIA's TD doesn't care what the "source" of the oscillations are - only the G-forces involved on the driver. So whether it's from porpoising, mechanical bouncing or a set of ACME-brand pogo sticks it doesn't matter, therefore trying to re-brand what the cause is wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.Andi76 wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 14:13Not after FIA threathened that the ride heights have to be raised. That would cost them a lot of laptime. And immediately after that was the way the FIA said it will be handled - they said porpoising is "cured". So sorry, but no, it would not be favorable for Mercedes. Indeed it would hurt them more than any other team, as the performance of their car is highly dependant to be run as low as possible.adrianjordan wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 13:50Right, but every team was having the problem in Baku, even RBR to a lesser extent and multiple times we heard people talk about it not being porpoising.Andi76 wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 12:30
I do not want to get into this discussion, but at the moment i would not blindly trust the engineers of Mercedes as porpoising has become a political thing. And because of negative implications on their performance when they are forced to raise the ride height - no Mercedes engineer would admit its porpoising. So at the moment - i think it is not wrong to doubt what Mercedes engineers say in that regard and put more trust into ones own eyes.
Also, you argument means it would have been FAVOURABLE for Merc engineers to blame porpoising for the problems.
Not all the teams were having the same problem at Baku. The Red and Silver cars are still porpoising in addition to also bottoming out on bumps which is why Lewis got a numb back in Baku. The TV vision still shows the W13 porpoising.adrianjordan wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 13:50
Right, but every team was having the problem in Baku, even RBR to a lesser extent and multiple times we heard people talk about it not being porpoising.
Also, you argument means it would have been FAVOURABLE for Merc engineers to blame porpoising for the problems.
Yes, but they did not know that the FIA would not care.... and so trying to avoid what hurts you more than other - makes a lot of sense. What is pretty much what every team principal, engineer and F1 expert also suggested to be behind Mercedes' "cure", next to Mercedes trying to influence FIA to make a rule change, reducing ground effect(what they blame to be responsible for the problems)or/and allow hydraulic suspension(an area where they were leading the field). And all this indeed makes a lot of sense, what you can easily see by almost everyone in F1 thinking like that.motosubatsu wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 14:30Except the FIA's TD doesn't care what the "source" of the oscillations are - only the G-forces involved on the driver. So whether it's from porpoising, mechanical bouncing or a set of ACME-brand pogo sticks it doesn't matter, therefore trying to re-brand what the cause is wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.Andi76 wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 14:13Not after FIA threathened that the ride heights have to be raised. That would cost them a lot of laptime. And immediately after that was the way the FIA said it will be handled - they said porpoising is "cured". So sorry, but no, it would not be favorable for Mercedes. Indeed it would hurt them more than any other team, as the performance of their car is highly dependant to be run as low as possible.adrianjordan wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 13:50
Right, but every team was having the problem in Baku, even RBR to a lesser extent and multiple times we heard people talk about it not being porpoising.
Also, you argument means it would have been FAVOURABLE for Merc engineers to blame porpoising for the problems.
Additionally the talk of mechanical bouncing (as opposed to porpoising) has been the Mercedes line since Monaco i.e. two races before then talk of raising ride heights. So your interpretation makes even less sense.
I suppose the key is learning from the mistakes and not making the same ones, rather than discarding the knowledge and taking nothing from it.
I am happy people are liking a calm Max and I hope the competitiveness of grid remains the same to keep it that way and we enjoy F1 more than argy bargy. We all like a good environment.AeroDynamic wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 16:38its not odd that Max has less contact this season when he was stripped of his 'let em race' pass to crash all season last year. The rules have been positioned in a way to make it sport again and its not odd when you remind yourself he has the most points on his license at the moment. He's wising up not to get a DSQ for reaching 12 points. So it actually makes a lot of sense, if you watch the races since before this season.
Wouldn't you be calm if the car you were driving had won 6 races straight, and it was your team mate 2nd place in the table, and you're 2 race victories ahead of your next non RB challenger with less than half the season gone?Ryar wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 16:56I am happy people are liking a calm Max and I hope the competitiveness of grid remains the same to keep it that way and we enjoy F1 more than argy bargy. We all like a good environment.AeroDynamic wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 16:38its not odd that Max has less contact this season when he was stripped of his 'let em race' pass to crash all season last year. The rules have been positioned in a way to make it sport again and its not odd when you remind yourself he has the most points on his license at the moment. He's wising up not to get a DSQ for reaching 12 points. So it actually makes a lot of sense, if you watch the races since before this season.