2022 cars 'porpoising' at high speed

[mclaren111]

Raise the rear 10mm? Been over this, didn't solve the problem at all for Mercedes.

In 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/

[basti313]

.......
Some will say raising the height 10mm will eliminate the problem.
It won't.
Why?
Because we have been over this.

Please refer to "limited by rear suspension" and "even when we raise the car, this thing still bounces".
......

You are missing the point of the rear dropping at high speed.
Merc designed the car with a lot of downforce and suspension not just dropping, but literally collapsing at high speed (referring to Toto in Baku).
They just need to raise the car from the bump stop at high speed, but this is impossible on a track like Baku. Also in Monaco the downforce combined with soft spring rates puts the car on the ground once it moves fast.

I call bull$hit on the quotes with "in BCN it did not bounce and we do not know why"...hard springs, least top speed relevant track -> rear end stays up -> no bouncing

Of course they are limited by the rear suspension, they wanted to apply the tricks they learned end of last season by any means. This whole discussion is just a political discussion on keeping these tricks and not being forced to a new suspension in the rear.

[mzso]

If 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.

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.

[mzso]

Anyway, back on topic: If raising the ridehight is not enough, the FIA can force a speed limit based on the data.

[Quantum]

If 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.

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.

Nah, you asked the question on the 25th of June which was kindly replied to you by Chrisc90.
2 Days later I used it in my post as a question which was in relation to the BS excuses as to how Mercedes could simply raise the car and magically solve the problem.
Your misguided fixation on 10mm is telling, given you miss the larger problem....

For the last time, I will reiterate exactly what I said which makes no claim of Merc doing 10mm.

Raise the rear 10mm? Been over this, didn't solve the problem at all for Mercedes. RB still shows some porpoising too. Ferrari too.

The literal act of raising the car made no impact to their porpoising issues. So why raise it 10mm?

That's exactly what i meant. And you take that as a statement of "they raised it by 10mm".


I can even point to a post I made on the 24th, 1day prior to 10mm-gate

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.

I even replied when you questioned the 10mm by saying I made no such claim.

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.

We saw from various practice sessions that the porpoising remained when Hamilton had the jacked rear for Mercedes experimental set ups. Propaganda?

You saw 10mm? Good for you.

I literally said: they jacked the rear up.

And even outlined that for you.

You saw 10mm? Good for you.

You must have me confused with someone that said 10mm.

[mzso]

Let'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.

[Quantum]

Let'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.

I'll settle for you creating a fictitious claim and being condescending in the initial exchange. No harm no foul, line drawn under it.

In respect to your claim saying there's no issue in making parts to solve the problem, of course they can just wheel out solutions in a restricted budget which would then impact next year's car development too.
Why didn't anyone consider that I ponder.

[Ryar]

[organic]

So teams have Austria & Silverstone to fix/ameliorate porpoising or any bouncing to acceptable levels. I presume teams like Ferrari may add significant stiffening material to the floor if required..

[KeiKo403]

Could 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.

[chrisc90]

Could 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.

Hmmm, I see where your coming from with that view, and it is a very fair one.

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.

[KeiKo403]

Could 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.

Hmmm, I see where your coming from with that view, and it is a very fair one.

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.

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?

As all of the cars are different I'd imagine the FIA metric can't be a one size fits all? But I don't know that for sure.
So it seems like some teams could be hit harder (excuse the pun) than others due to the track surface. The enforcing of upping the car ride height then hinders the data gathering the teams need to be able to counter the issues directly with car upgrades which is already more difficult in a budget and resource restricted era.

I don't know how low these Pirelli's are mandated to run but could lowering the tyre pressures help absorb some of the bouncing energy? Or would that be no help due to the lower profile of the tyres anyway?

[Stu]

Could 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.

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).
Ultimately the cars as raced are a compromise between theory & practice. If you want a theoretical race just play top frumps with the simulator!

[organic]

Surprised we got to see this ever, if it's correct. Anyone wish to stab at what each variable might be?

[continuum16]

An article from motorsport.com has a better breakdown of the equation.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/the- ... /10331177/


Some quips from Tombazis:
"In this first implementation of the AOM, the FIA recognises that it primarily addresses the issue of grounding, but not the issue of pure aerodynamic oscillations." Ironic for a term called "aerodynamic oscillation metric"

"More analysis needs to be carried out in order to best implement additional terms that will capture aerodynamic oscillations, provided of course they are proven to cause driver discomfort and safety issues." Not surprised to see this is probably not the final form

Interestingly there are also things like "jokers" where you can exceed the limit by a certain amount at three races? The possibility of downforce changes/reductions for 2023? This keeps getting weirder. But at least we got to see the equation!