A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
I wonder if a return of the Renault type TMD would be in order, to quell such oscillations if they turn out to be a problem. Could even be a spec component. That component was originally banned because it was deemed to be a moving part influencing aero, contravening rules originally intended to prevent development of more obvious moveable aero parts such as wings. Yet, now we have spec movable aero in the DRS, and with these ground effect cars the movable parts known as tires and suspension may play a pivotal role in influencing the aerodynamics of the car (i.e. the subject of this thread).
The plank (and the rules regarding wear of the plank) was brought in specifically to stop people running on the ground. That, along with the step plane, was intended to prevent the cars losing downforce in a catastrophic way as had happened with the flat floors brought in after the original tunnel cars.
Were any teams already running a plank before it was prescribed as a spec component? I would assume something like that would have been desireable just to save expensive parts from damage. I guess this gets into a question of whether or not teams can provide their own safety to drivers. There are notable examples in the sport's history where the answer is, "No." We all can recall some of those examples. Yet, for 99% of the time, teams provided a car which was safe for the pilot to operate around tracks for two hours.
The stepped floor was to prevent a return to flat floors, the plank to prevent the cars running on their bellies on titanium skid plates and rosking stalling of the floor. It was a simple and effective way to prevent the teams subverting the rules.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
I am guessing that anything that pushed fluid into the suspension to prevent excessive compression would be disallowed even if it wasn't actively managed?
I am guessing that anything that pushed fluid into the suspension to prevent excessive compression would be disallowed even if it wasn't actively managed?
The regulations appear to have been specifically written to prevent any ability to manage ride height outside of, if downforce goes up ride height goes down. No hydraulics, no asymmetric damping, no self levelling or other feedback systems. And if oscillations in the system are triggered a very reduced set of tools to damp them. It’s almost as if they wanted there to be problems.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus
Unless they can fix the aero so that they don't lose downforce when bottomed out this corner might be undriveable.
Exactly what sprang to mind upon first encounter. There's no way they're going thru there without bottoming out
So raise the ride height of the car then?
The FIA already took responsibility for adding 20kg to the tubs to increase safety this year, which the teams didn't do of their own initiative, so why should the FIA be responsible for every measure regarding safety?
Why give a free pass: "engineers will always prioritise performance over safety, oh you silly engineers", here have a slap on the wrist.
Why not make the engineers take responsibility for not using camber that kills the tyres, for not using tyre pressures that kill the tyres, not using ride heights that damage the car or cause stall etc. Shouldn't the engineers prioritise safety over performance?!
The regulations appear to have been specifically written to prevent any ability to manage ride height outside of, if downforce goes up ride height goes down. It’s almost as if they wanted there to be problems.
So just raise the height of the car until it doesn't bottom out at top speed and/or road compression: 50mm or 80mm static ride height (or whatever height is required) would do the trick, no...?
Better the teams do it of their own initiative, before the FIA step back in with the infamous laser beam and minimum static ride height of 60mm from the 1983 season!
[And no blatantly cheating the 60mm rule with hydraulics this time!]
I wonder if a return of the Renault type TMD would be in order, to quell such oscillations if they turn out to be a problem.
Just no. The engineers should fix it using the tools available within the regulations, which is raising the car. If they are stubborn and refuse to do that, then a minimum static ride height of 60mm or whichever height, will be forced upon them perhaps...
Yet, now we have spec movable aero in the DRS, and with these ground effect cars the movable parts known as tires and suspension may play a pivotal role in influencing the aerodynamics of the car (i.e. the subject of this thread).
A tuned mass damper smooths out oscillations which is not what you want as a regulator. You want to restrict the tools available in the suspension and make the cars more rudimentary.
As a regulator you WANT the cars to be choppy and to oscillate (in a safe way during corners or over serrated kerbs). It makes for a better spectacle and better engineering challenge, than overly sophisticated cars with a smooth, stable aero platform.
Even worse would be active suspension, talk about killing the spectacle...
Life should be hard for Grand Prix car engineers, they shouldn't be allowed to add stuff to the car willy-nily to solve their aero problems.
There wasn't anything car setup wise the teams needed to do, to prevent a crash @ eau rouge/raidillon last year, unless they specifically wanted to crash there. This year it's the opposite, and that's the difference.
Education is that which allows a nation free, independent, reputable life, and function as a high society; or it condemns it to captivity and poverty.
-Atatürk
There wasn't anything car setup wise the teams needed to do, to prevent a crash @ eau rouge/raidillon last year, unless they specifically wanted to crash there. This year it's the opposite, and that's the difference.
As no one has run a 2022 car at Spa, how does anyone know what the car is going to do in the compression and the "jump" at the bottom and top of the hill respectively? So far, we've had someone say "the cars are porpoising and therefore they will crash at Eau Rouge" (ok, that's an exaggeration but it's the general gist of the argument) and that's it.
For one thing, by the time we get to Spa, the teams will have run the cars at 13 different tracks so will have a very good handle on them by then.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
I sped up one of the porpoising videos (160%) since it was in slow motion, to make it more lifelike. Just a guess based on tire & head movement. Maybe a 2 Hz oscillation?
There wasn't anything car setup wise the teams needed to do, to prevent a crash @ eau rouge/raidillon last year, unless they specifically wanted to crash there. This year it's the opposite, and that's the difference.
As no one has run a 2022 car at Spa, how does anyone know what the car is going to do in the compression and the "jump" at the bottom and top of the hill respectively? So far, we've had someone say "the cars are porpoising and therefore they will crash at Eau Rouge" (ok, that's an exaggeration but it's the general gist of the argument) and that's it.
For one thing, by the time we get to Spa, the teams will have run the cars at 13 different tracks so will have a very good handle on them by then.
Eau Rouge is a special case. The compression makes for a very significant increase in downforce which will inevitably reduce ride height, probably by more than anywhere else on the calendar. If the porpoising is being triggered by low ride heights then it will be most likely to be triggered there. And since it’s in the middle of a high G corner complex it might cause some problems.
As for not knowing what the cars will do, porpoising was predicted 2 weeks before the test showed it happening.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus
Is it the same though? Would the spoon porpoise if the handle was cut off?
Sent from my SM-G9910 using Tapatalk
I think it is a case of the spoon going too low, stalling and losing downforce so it bounces back up. At the very start, he runs the dryer on low and the spoon is pretty stable. It's when he switches to high when the bouncing starts.
There wasn't anything car setup wise the teams needed to do, to prevent a crash @ eau rouge/raidillon last year, unless they specifically wanted to crash there. This year it's the opposite, and that's the difference.
As no one has run a 2022 car at Spa, how does anyone know what the car is going to do in the compression and the "jump" at the bottom and top of the hill respectively? So far, we've had someone say "the cars are porpoising and therefore they will crash at Eau Rouge" (ok, that's an exaggeration but it's the general gist of the argument) and that's it.
For one thing, by the time we get to Spa, the teams will have run the cars at 13 different tracks so will have a very good handle on them by then.
Eau Rouge is a special case. The compression makes for a very significant increase in downforce which will inevitably reduce ride height, probably by more than anywhere else on the calendar. If the porpoising is being triggered by low ride heights then it will be most likely to be triggered there. And since it’s in the middle of a high G corner complex it might cause some problems.
As for not knowing what the cars will do, porpoising was predicted 2 weeks before the test showed it happening.
But at Spa you still have the compression pushing the car down, later it lifts a bit. So you have forces on the car. To my understanding purposing is the lack of force at some point, which can be seen as floor downforce oscillating: The car goes down and looses mayor part of the floor downforce, so it goes up. If you have additional compression or lift by the track, this will act like the DRS activation and damp the oscillating floor downforce.
I would also see the issue rather in situations where the wing is a bit bigger, not necessarily Spa or Monza. Might be an issue in Azer?
By the way: There is no more Eau Rouge. This issue will not happen there.
As no one has run a 2022 car at Spa, how does anyone know what the car is going to do in the compression and the "jump" at the bottom and top of the hill respectively? So far, we've had someone say "the cars are porpoising and therefore they will crash at Eau Rouge" (ok, that's an exaggeration but it's the general gist of the argument) and that's it.
For one thing, by the time we get to Spa, the teams will have run the cars at 13 different tracks so will have a very good handle on them by then.
Eau Rouge is a special case. The compression makes for a very significant increase in downforce which will inevitably reduce ride height, probably by more than anywhere else on the calendar. If the porpoising is being triggered by low ride heights then it will be most likely to be triggered there. And since it’s in the middle of a high G corner complex it might cause some problems.
As for not knowing what the cars will do, porpoising was predicted 2 weeks before the test showed it happening.
But at Spa you still have the compression pushing the car down, later it lifts a bit. So you have forces on the car. To my understanding purposing is the lack of force at some point, which can be seen as floor downforce oscillating: The car goes down and looses mayor part of the floor downforce, so it goes up. If you have additional compression or lift by the track, this will act like the DRS activation and damp the oscillating floor downforce.
I would also see the issue rather in situations where the wing is a bit bigger, not necessarily Spa or Monza. Might be an issue in Azer?
By the way: There is no more Eau Rouge. This issue will not happen there.
Sure ? As far as I know they're only resurfacing the track - not changing it... "Pic" below of planned changes...
