F1technical.net

trinidefender wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2022, 23:57

If porpoising is the entire reason why you consider it a failure then this entire problem can be solved by allowing one single make spec interter on the cars with adjustability for the porpoising frequency. The frequency that it is set to dampen can be open source for all teams if they choose to run it. It will have a performance benefit for sure but it will get around the issue of costs and developing it to have effects other than the purely proposing phenomenon.

There. Problem solved fairly easily.

Why punish those teams that figured it out?

The rules are the same for everyone, and we needed fresh teams to steal a march.

This is the shakeup it was meant to be.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

11 Jun 2022, 03:44

trinidefender wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2022, 23:57

If porpoising is the entire reason why you consider it a failure then this entire problem can be solved by allowing one single make spec interter on the cars with adjustability for the porpoising frequency. The frequency that it is set to dampen can be open source for all teams if they choose to run it. It will have a performance benefit for sure but it will get around the issue of costs and developing it to have effects other than the purely proposing phenomenon.

There. Problem solved fairly easily.

Why punish those teams that figured it out?

The rules are the same for everyone, and we needed fresh teams to steal a march.

This is the shakeup it was meant to be.

Exactly, this is F1 not a “spec“ series, it’s the teams job to engineer their cars to make them better.

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

11 Jun 2022, 01:25

trinidefender wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2022, 23:57

If porpoising is the entire reason why you consider it a failure then this entire problem can be solved by allowing one single make spec interter on the cars with adjustability for the porpoising frequency. The frequency that it is set to dampen can be open source for all teams if they choose to run it. It will have a performance benefit for sure but it will get around the issue of costs and developing it to have effects other than the purely proposing phenomenon.

There. Problem solved fairly easily.

Inerters are banned under this Formula, arent they?
So that solution is sort of what I am saying anyway (that the formula is not successful)
Doing that only solves the symptom not the cause.

You are correct, they are banned under this formula and have been since after the Renault pioneered them in the 2000's.

Saying that one smallish rule change that can pretty much fix the entire problem for every team means the whole formula is crap is a slight overreaction I would say.

To each their own I guess

djos wrote: ↑

11 Jun 2022, 03:51

Zynerji wrote: ↑

11 Jun 2022, 03:44

trinidefender wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2022, 23:57

If porpoising is the entire reason why you consider it a failure then this entire problem can be solved by allowing one single make spec interter on the cars with adjustability for the porpoising frequency. The frequency that it is set to dampen can be open source for all teams if they choose to run it. It will have a performance benefit for sure but it will get around the issue of costs and developing it to have effects other than the purely proposing phenomenon.

There. Problem solved fairly easily.

Why punish those teams that figured it out?

The rules are the same for everyone, and we needed fresh teams to steal a march.

This is the shakeup it was meant to be.

Exactly, this is F1 not a “spec“ series, it’s the teams job to engineer their cars to make them better.

Agree totally. Given the end of the 21 season and the start of 22....there is nothing that could have suggested the finishing WCC would be flipped round for this year. Nothing to say that the likes of Haas and Williams wouldnt be a front runner. (not how the season is planning out, but the complete new rule change didnt write anyone off

Reading here, auto sport and the race, I see a lot of people discount the problems with porpoising due to either their hate/dislike of Mercedes or due to being one of the teams not effected. The comments are quite distasteful, that people let personal prejudices get in the way of safety and rules everyone can race with.

f1jcw wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 00:42

Reading here, auto sport and the race, I see a lot of people discount the problems with porpoising due to either their hate/dislike of Mercedes or due to being one of the teams not effected. The comments are quite distasteful, that people let personal prejudices get in the way of safety and rules everyone can race with.

Redbull fans don’t want to give up their teams competitive advantage, the same way Mercedes fans didn’t want to give up their teams competitive advantage when party modes were banned.

Rb and Renault know how to turn it on and off. . Mercedes actually has to find it out themselves.

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2022, 20:30

Is it time to discuss that the new aero formula has been a failure?
The move to more ground effects and less downforce combined with the suspension change has produced a lousy race car.
Add in the weight increase and there is a healthy discussion to be had.

Just one question, are the full tanks reducing the porpoising?

The weight gain is because of the concept. Also I don't see the "less downforce", when even in Monaco they were within 1 second qualifying time with all the weight gain.

They do follow a lot closer. Not sure why the overtaking, racing ability is still so dreadful despite of this. Barely better.

johnny comelately wrote: ↑

11 Jun 2022, 01:25

trinidefender wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2022, 23:57

If porpoising is the entire reason why you consider it a failure then this entire problem can be solved by allowing one single make spec interter on the cars with adjustability for the porpoising frequency. The frequency that it is set to dampen can be open source for all teams if they choose to run it. It will have a performance benefit for sure but it will get around the issue of costs and developing it to have effects other than the purely proposing phenomenon.

There. Problem solved fairly easily.

Inerters are banned under this Formula, arent they?
So that solution is sort of what I am saying anyway (that the formula is not successful)
Doing that only solves the symptom not the cause.

How so? The problem is oscillation, if inerters fix that, then they fix the problem.

djos wrote: ↑

11 Jun 2022, 03:51

It’s the teams job to engineer their cars to make them better.

Indeed, Pat Symonds has a clear view (from Racecar Engineering magazine):

F1 and the FIA don’t change rules. Anyone who’s worked in sportscars or worked in Formula 1 for a long while knows the phenomena. It’s fixable within the framework of the rules and the technology allowed on the cars now. As it always has been, the secret is to minimise the instability while keeping the performance.

As Symonds says, the phenomenon can be mitigated within the existing regulations (by some good engineering), he even gives a clue, "the secret is to minimise the instability while keeping the performance".

mzso wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 18:46

How so? The problem is oscillation, if inerters fix that, then they fix the problem.

As Symonds says, the inerters are not necessary, the phenomenon is "fixable within the framework of the rules and the technology allowed on the cars now". The secret, as he says, is "to minimise the oscillation": i.e., like the Red Bull does, which can be done within the existing suspension regulations.

JordanMugen wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 18:47

As Symonds says, the inerters are not necessary, the phenomenon is "fixable within the framework of the rules and the technology allowed on the cars now". The secret, as he says, is "to minimise the oscillation": i.e., like the Red Bull does, which can be done within the existing suspension regulations.

So since at any given time half the field fails to do so, we should accept that drivers miss races due to injuries, or might even retire, instead of implementing something that completely prevents the problem?

mzso wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 19:02

JordanMugen wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 18:47

As Symonds says, the inerters are not necessary, the phenomenon is "fixable within the framework of the rules and the technology allowed on the cars now". The secret, as he says, is "to minimise the oscillation": i.e., like the Red Bull does, which can be done within the existing suspension regulations.

So since at any given time half the field fails to do so, we should accept that drivers miss races due to injuries, or might even retire, instead of implementing something that completely prevents the problem?

The teams can solve it immediately by raising the rear ride height, and giving up performance.

The drivers only suffer because the teams choose it for laptimes.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 19:08

The teams can solve it immediately by raising the rear ride height, and giving up performance.

The drivers only suffer because the teams choose it for laptimes.

But they will never do that as long as it requires giving up performance.

morefirejules08 wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 10:14

f1jcw wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 00:42

Reading here, auto sport and the race, I see a lot of people discount the problems with porpoising due to either their hate/dislike of Mercedes or due to being one of the teams not effected. The comments are quite distasteful, that people let personal prejudices get in the way of safety and rules everyone can race with.

Redbull fans don’t want to give up their teams competitive advantage, the same way Mercedes fans didn’t want to give up their teams competitive advantage when party modes were banned.

And yet, Merc competitive advantages were given up time and time again, sometimes even when they couldn’t respond.

Why was it fair to do to Merc but suddenly unfair to Redbull

Zynerji wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 19:08

mzso wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 19:02

JordanMugen wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 18:47

As Symonds says, the inerters are not necessary, the phenomenon is "fixable within the framework of the rules and the technology allowed on the cars now". The secret, as he says, is "to minimise the oscillation": i.e., like the Red Bull does, which can be done within the existing suspension regulations.

So since at any given time half the field fails to do so, we should accept that drivers miss races due to injuries, or might even retire, instead of implementing something that completely prevents the problem?

The teams can solve it immediately by raising the rear ride height, and giving up performance.

The drivers only suffer because the teams choose it for laptimes.

So, you want a unlevel playing field.
Teams couldn’t compete with mercs frick, party modes, etc. they was removed, often in season