TimW wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 15:08In context, this 'question' is definitely a statement.
Dam#it, I let myself being dragged into an endless discussion.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
https://xkcd.com/386/
TimW wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 15:08In context, this 'question' is definitely a statement.
Dam#it, I let myself being dragged into an endless discussion.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
https://xkcd.com/386/
You are missing the point of the rear dropping at high speed.
You made the claim that Mercedes tried raising the car by 10mm. Then for some reason denied it, taking the discussion down this BS path.Quantum wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 12:38If you don't have the capacity to follow a thread, or know the difference between a question after the fact,I can't help you. And name calling is not really what forum is about. What gives?
Especially since you raised 10mm first, and made the mother of all assumptions. I guess we aint frenz.
Nah, you asked the question on the 25th of June which was kindly replied to you by Chrisc90.mzso wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 17:14You made the claim that Mercedes tried raising the car by 10mm. Then for some reason denied it, taking the discussion down this BS path.Quantum wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 12:38If you don't have the capacity to follow a thread, or know the difference between a question after the fact,I can't help you. And name calling is not really what forum is about. What gives?
Especially since you raised 10mm first, and made the mother of all assumptions. I guess we aint frenz.
The literal act of raising the car made no impact to their porpoising issues. So why raise it 10mm?
I even replied when you questioned the 10mm by saying I made no such claim.Quantum wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 11:11I've read reams on Horner, Binotto et al. all saying Mercedes should simply raise their ride height. In some races they did, the problem was still there. To the point where James Allison said they physically could not push the rear suspension any higher without having a total rear overhaul.
I literally said: they jacked the rear up.mzso wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 12:59You saw 10mm? Good for you.Quantum wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 12:54We saw from various practice sessions that the porpoising remained when Hamilton had the jacked rear for Mercedes experimental set ups. Propaganda?mzso wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 12:39
No-one raised the the rideheight by 10mm. And it being ineffectual is just Mercedes' propaganda, because they have the most to lose.
Anyway, I'm more sympathetic to it every day. If some gaming team refuses to set up the car so it wouldn't oscillate, they well deserve the punishment.
I'll settle for you creating a fictitious claim and being condescending in the initial exchange. No harm no foul, line drawn under it.mzso wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 19:21Let's just leave it at you denying your own claim. And you know what, it annoys me when people correct me in a condescending tone, when they're blatantly wrong.
As for the "bigger picture", there's no issue. They can improvise longer parts to raise the car more. No-one cares if it results in massive performance loss.
If all else fails, as I mentined the FIA can cap the speeds at sub-oscillation speeds, for teams that fail to accomplish the goal.
Hmmm, I see where your coming from with that view, and it is a very fair one.KeiKo403 wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 22:48Could the FIA have an issue here? The measures are being brought in on safety grounds to drivers health.
If enough teams get together and are able to 100% attribute bottoming/porpoising to the quality of the tracks surface then in theory the FIA have failed to ensure that the GP venue is fit for this era of regulations.
I wasn't necessarily thinking about the FIA cancelling a GP after FP3 but more so ensuring that the tracks they race at are suitable for this era of regulations. But then, how do you enforce venues such as Baku & Monaco to resurface their roads?chrisc90 wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 22:57Hmmm, I see where your coming from with that view, and it is a very fair one.KeiKo403 wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 22:48Could the FIA have an issue here? The measures are being brought in on safety grounds to drivers health.
If enough teams get together and are able to 100% attribute bottoming/porpoising to the quality of the tracks surface then in theory the FIA have failed to ensure that the GP venue is fit for this era of regulations.
Personally, I think it will be down to the teams to ensure their car is good enough for the track the are racing on making sure they are within the window.
What happens if we go to Baku, (for example, given its bumpy nature) and you have 2 or 3 teams that are able to keep well within the limits set, however other teams (however many) arent able to keep within the limits?
I could understand if every team was struggling, then it would be a interesting decision come Quali or the race whether the cars could race given all teams couldnt keep the vertical oscillations under control, which could be down to the track surface.
What's interesting is, there is no other data they can use to say whether the track is ok or not, given, presumably, that this data has never been collected from previous years. Could you imagine the outrage that come qualifying or the race after 3 sessions of Free Practice of teams trying to get the cars (all) under control that the FIA deem it unsafe to qualify or race. I just simply cant see it happening.
That would be the ultimate ‘tail-wagging-the-dog’ scenario. Particularly around tracks that have been visited for years (and there is a massive amount of data for).KeiKo403 wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 22:48Could the FIA have an issue here? The measures are being brought in on safety grounds to drivers health.
If enough teams get together and are able to 100% attribute bottoming/porpoising to the quality of the tracks surface then in theory the FIA have failed to ensure that the GP venue is fit for this era of regulations.