2022 cars 'porpoising' at high speed

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter does not belong here.
User avatar
Big Tea
91
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

napoleon1981 wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:54 am
Big Tea wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:58 am
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
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

User avatar
Quantum
15
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:59 pm

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:42 pm
Quantum wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:01 pm
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
And yet we have Russell, Ham, Gasly and Perez testimony.
You cite the high G days, how many drivers complained of losing sight in a fast corner?
I believe Ralph said it once in the BMW Williams days. But this wasn't recurring and certainly wasn't every lap.
I might be wrong as memory is hazy,

Personally I think it's false equivalence because the forces you are suggesting belong to those of a Jet fighter with sustained high demand G on it's pilot. That simply doesn't happen in an F1 car with a max G of 6 at it's peak and for a fraction of a second.
Jet's can obviously go to 9/10G for turns that last for a few seconds.

Those forces would be horizontal in an F1 car. The problem today is vertical.
Also...to further divide the comparison, losing sight from blood related to steady G would be different to that of losing it via Oscillation/Porpoising.
So again, I question the comparison as one of apples with pears.

User avatar
Big Tea
91
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

Quantum wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:38 pm
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:42 pm
Quantum wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:01 pm
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
And yet we have Russell, Ham, Gasly and Perez testimony.
You cite the high G days, how many drivers complained of losing sight in a fast corner?
I believe Ralph said it once in the BMW Williams days. But this wasn't recurring and certainly wasn't every lap.
I might be wrong as memory is hazy,

Personally I think it's false equivalence because the forces you are suggesting belong to those of a Jet fighter with sustained high demand G on it's pilot. That simply doesn't happen in an F1 car with a max G of 6 at it's peak and for a fraction of a second.
Jet's can obviously go to 9/10G for turns that last for a few seconds.

Those forces would be horizontal in an F1 car. The problem today is vertical.
Also...to further divide the comparison, losing sight from blood related to steady G would be different to that of losing it via Oscillation/Porpoising.
So again, I question the comparison as one of apples with pears.
I think there are two different causes here. One is lack of blood to the brain or pressure to the eyes, but the one mentioned is caused by vibration. Dont know enough if it is nerve or pressure based but I read it is at a critical frequency for the fluid in the eye. ( I have no medical knowledge my self just repeating what I read, but do not recall the link :roll: )
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

User avatar
ringo
203
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:57 am

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

Oh the irony. People were pushing for safety and made jewelry look like the most suicidal thing to wear in a car. Oh a little nose stud is going to puncture your face in a crash or fire... you will die if you do an MRI with jewelry on etc etc..
Now were are saying.. 10g up the arse is nothing and even a baby can withstand it.
Come on guys, make up your minds.. :roll:
Just because its Mercedes and Hamilton people play devil's advocate. It was all about safety of the drivers a few weeks ago because of wedding rings and chains and nose rings and flamable underwear!
How are these things more dangerous than permanent nerve and disc damage?
Let's really take a step back and level the playing field.
For Sure!!

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

This puts the FIA in a sticky position….

Just going to counter your point slightly though, Ringo.
Essentially the drivers no longer ‘sit’ in the car, but lay-down. The greatest forces ‘vertically’ up the spine are now seen in a head-on collision; the forces of impact through impact with the ground are taken more by the internal organs and head/brain than by the skeleton (provided the seat fits correctly - and why wouldn’t it?). For several years there have been comments from drivers of having moments in the car where the forces are such that they are not in control ‘in the moment’ but have to pre-empt a control strategy for certain corners (Lando Norris has spoken fairly openly and extensively on it in recent years).

Now onto the sticky position that the FIA have put themselves in….

In other racing series regulations they have taken a safety-first stance on driver orientation (in the car) and seating positions, this has been particularly targeted at WEC/LMP type cars, but doesn’t get a mention as regards F1; on the basis of ‘safe-is-safe’, I would query “why not?”

Back troubles have been an issue for drivers for years (primarily in accidents), the potential neurological damage from Shaken Driver Syndrome, while not new is now the purpose of the checks and measures being carried out.

All of the teams have had to take a step back and started from a level playing field this year, teams only need to look to the past to see that ‘zero’ on-car suspension is a dead end (Williams tried it quite publicly during the previous GE era), the means to control the platform adequately do exist (and are permitted), it is up to the teams to find the best compromise between aero & chassis control within those regulations. Consciously creating a situation that causes harm due to this would/will put teams in a very sticky legal position, potentially (if the worst happens and a causal link can be proven), Corporate Manslaughter.
The more that I learn, the more I appreciate how much more there is to know….

User avatar
Quantum
15
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:59 pm

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

Big Tea wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:40 pm

I think there are two different causes here. One is lack of blood to the brain or pressure to the eyes, but the one mentioned is caused by vibration. Dont know enough if it is nerve or pressure based but I read it is at a critical frequency for the fluid in the eye. ( I have no medical knowledge my self just repeating what I read, but do not recall the link :roll: )
Agreed, with porpoising it might even be a case of both.

User avatar
Quantum
15
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:59 pm

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

Stu wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:32 am
Consciously creating a situation that causes harm due to this would/will put teams in a very sticky legal position, potentially (if the worst happens and a causal link can be proven), Corporate Manslaughter.
This is the problem.

Do you wait for a visible problem affecting pretty much every car to cause an accident?
If the accident occurs, and there is injury, or no accident but there is some form of long term injury, who is culpable?

I'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. In a budget and resource capped season, thats a baked in problem you just have to roll with.
So, either we have a a situation where Mercedes withdraws on safety grounds, and others should they have similar readings from the FIA monitored G readings, or the FIA takes it out the teams hands and devises a method to stop the problem.
If neither of those happens, the potential for legal action becomes a certainty in event of injury.

As an aside, was there a technical meeting regarding porpoising in 2021? From memory I believe some teams vetoed a proposal...I can't find any stories linked to that but if anyone can help shed light there it would be intriguing to know if Mercedes where among those who vetoed.

User avatar
siskue2005
70
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: 2022 cars 'porpoising' at high speed

Post

mzso wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:04 pm
siskue2005 wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 5:37 pm
TimW wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 5:12 pm


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.
Yeah makes sense

User avatar
carisi2k
21
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:26 pm

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

Quantum wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:34 am


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.
Perez, Ricciardo and Ocon said it after Baku and that was more of a problem with the circuit being so bumpy and the high speeds causing constant bottoming even on the cars that don't have porpoising. This also contributed to the 9G or whatever Hamilton was complaining about. Fix the circuit and you then fix the problem.

Gasly said it early in the season but in General aside from Baku the AT has overcome the issue.

The Ferrari and Haas are the only ones that still seem to suffer porposing but even then it isn't as severe as what the Merc is suffering from.

The Williams we know has a similar setup to the Merc and also runs low to the ground.

Again we know that the solution is to raise the suspension on the low cars to solve the issues. We know that Red Bull, Mclaren, Alpine and now the Aston Martin with it's new package run much higher then the other cars out there and so the solution is for these other cars to raise there ride height to match the other cars or else put up with putting there drivers through this pain.

So the solution is for the affected teams to raise their ride heights like the cars that have the higher ride heights and don't suffer from porpoising. If there current setup isn't capable then they need to build a new setup that is capable and it should come out of their budget cap. If this means Ferrari, Mercedes, Haas and other lose performance then so be it. This is the price you pay.

User avatar
Quantum
15
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:59 pm

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

carisi2k wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:50 am
Perez, Ricciardo and Ocon said it after Baku and that was more of a problem with the circuit being so bumpy and the high speeds causing constant bottoming even on the cars that don't have porpoising. This also contributed to the 9G or whatever Hamilton was complaining about.

Gasly said it early in the season but in General aside from Baku the AT has overcome the issue.

The Ferrari and Haas are the only ones that still seem to suffer porposing but even then it isn't as severe as what the Merc is suffering from.

The Williams we know has a similar setup to the Merc and also runs low to the ground.

Again we know that the solution is to raise the suspension on the low cars to solve the issues. We know that Red Bull, Mclaren, Alpine and now the Aston Martin with it's new package run much higher then the other cars out there and so the solution is for these other cars to raise there ride height to match the other cars or else put up with putting there drivers through this pain.
You're leaving out Perez comments from earlier races.
It’s when you reach a speed of 300 km/h that the problems start, and these are that you lose visibility when braking or you are unable to position the car correctly.
You're ignoring Gasly's comments in Canada saying action needs to be taken. And the fact the AT was porpoising through the weekend. So no, the issue hasn't been overcome. Would you dispute Gasly's comments?

Ferrari and Haas relative porpoising to the Mercedes is about as relevant as medium or medium rare steak, it's still a steak. Depends how you enjoy your Porpoise.

Suggesting Williams problems are from conceptually running low like Mercedes ignore the fact that teams who didn't run low floor concepts are still porpoising. It's as if it's non existent on non Williams/Mercedes cars, when you directly contradict yourself with Haas and Ferrari. :?

Mercedes cannot jack up the rear, they tried this and it didn't change the result. They even pushed it to the limit of what the suspension could take and anything other than an overhaul of the rear will simply just exhibit the same behaviour. We saw them do so at various tracks and free practice sessions and exhibit porpoising and being a good 8kmh down on Ferrari/RB down the straights.
So the disingenuous "raise the ass" theorem has been dispelled, but I'm willing to wait for someone with actual F1 technical prowess why Mercedes can simply raise the rear suspension higher than now, with knock on effect on Gearbox, suspension geometry, implications on tyre use, engine location, the diffuser re-developed, and a host of other "simple" stuff.

All in the budget cap.

Off the shelf and fairly cheap solutions exist, but we dont' want anyone gaining an advantage from it.
No, we prefer to see cars bouncing and drivers "moaning"?


Pablo Clavel, a neurosurgeon specializing in spinal and skeletal structure -
What is certain is that the pilots must continue to train their necks in an intense way. This repeated bouncing at the level of the head can lead to the rupture of the ligaments of the neck or discs over time.

User avatar
adrianjordan
24
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:34 am
Location: West Yorkshire, England

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:15 am
Espresso wrote:
Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:57 pm
From own knowledge....You cannot train this. There's extensive knowledge in this field. Damage is done to the interspinal disc.
You can only have 1-3 crack .. until your career ends...
FIA could lookup the literature to quickly set the rules ......
E.g. read following:
https://sites.nd.edu/biomechanics-in-th ... the-spine/
aerobatic aircraft are designed to be used at 12g
fighter aircraft are designed to be used at 9g

but F1 is frightening itself at 6g ?
Are you serious??

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?
Favourite driver: Lando Norris
Favourite team: McLaren

Turned down the chance to meet Vettel at Silverstone in 2007. He was a test driver at the time and I didn't think it was worth queuing!! 🤦🏻‍♂️

aMessageToCharlie
aMessageToCharlie
0
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:28 pm

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

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.

User avatar
bluechris
6
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:28 pm
Location: Athens

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

I don't see the problem guys. All the teams and especially Mercedes, can spend the rest of their budget to fix their suspension. Its their choosing not to do it and not FIA. They don't respect mostly their drivers health.
All the teams in the past had make mistakes and they had 1 or more years away from wins and championships but now the world must turn upside down because some teams got it wrong.
They can even redesign the rear transmission box or anything. The keys and the solution is in their hands and don't tell me they don't have that ability? What are we here? 12 years old? Everything is politics and here is my denial to whoever pushes changes for his own agenta and as it seems FIA till now holds.

User avatar
chrisc90
8
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:22 pm

Re: 2022 cars 'porpoising' at high speed

Post

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).
No Mikey Noo! No! Nooo Mikey! That was sooo not riiight!!

User avatar
carisi2k
21
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:26 pm

Re: 2022 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

Post

Quantum wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:31 am

You're leaving out Perez comments from earlier races.
It’s when you reach a speed of 300 km/h that the problems start, and these are that you lose visibility when braking or you are unable to position the car correctly.
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.