- Joined
- Mar 23, 2016
I bet Sulayem wakes up to this in his voicemail: "NO MOHAMMED NO ZAT WAS SO NOT RITE!"
Formula 1 Discussion - And favourite driver?
- Thread starter TopCat
- Start date
- Joined
- May 6, 2020
"You need to reinstate the year before, that is not right"
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
As expected the general concensus on Twitter and Reddit is this is the FIA finding a way to hand it to red bull and vestappen. "Wah they built the best car, we need to punish them"
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
So, I have been to Montreal enough times in my life, not just for the race, to know that weather can get weird real quick. Many times I'd be out walking around and a deluge of rain, usually accompanied by a thundershower, would develop quickly and with some good intensity. This was the pitlane today after one such downpour:
Here is the forecast for the 3 days currently. Nice for race, Saturday could be wet, tomorrow also chance of rain but not as great as Saturday.
Here is the forecast for the 3 days currently. Nice for race, Saturday could be wet, tomorrow also chance of rain but not as great as Saturday.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
So what's the over/under on the race director deciding it's too dangerous to hold qualifying and delaying it until its dry if a single drop falls on the circuit.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
Here are 4 more stories related to the FIA intervention into the oscillating/bouncing issue. I wonder if it will indeed have a huge effect on a number of teams? Apparently the FIA want to implement whatever they can do this weekend in Montreal.
Haas team principal Guenther Steiner says the FIA’s attempt to reduce porpoising in Formula 1 cars could drastically change the competitive order in the championship.
The sport’s governing body confirmed today it has issued a technical directive to teams outlining its plans to combat the severe porpoising and bouncing which have prompted complaints from a growing number of drivers in recent weeks.
Teams have been told their cars’ floors will be subjected to closer inspections at this weekend’s Canadian Grand Prix. The FIA also plans to impose a limit on the severity of vertical movement drivers are subjected to.
Steiner admitted the problem needs to be tackled but insisted the affected teams could improve the ride quality of their cars by not running them as low to the ground as they have done.
“We need to measure what it is,” he said. “And I think some of the cars are pretty bad.
“But then there is a solution, just raise the ride height. But then you go slow. Who wants to go slow?”
Mid-season changes to technical rules and standard equipment have proved controversial in the past, he pointed out. “It’s like, I don’t know how many years ago, when in the middle of the season we had the change of tyres,” said Steiner. “Something like this, you change something fundamentally, you could change the pecking order again completely. Is that really fair?”
The FIA should restrict the severity of bouncing which is permitted, Steiner believes, rather than forcing teams to change their designs.
Yes, it’s a safety factor, but that could be approached as well. If it is too dangerous, just raise your ride height.
“I think the measurement of this is to find a way where, if it is dangerous, without changing the regulations, to find a limit of something and saying if you are above this threshold [you get a penalty]. I don’t know what penalty you could give, I have no idea yet, I didn’t look into it as well and it’s pretty fresh all these things.”
Mercedes have found it especially difficult to control the porpoising on their car and their drivers have been particularly vocal about the discomfort they have experienced.
However Steiner does not believe the team has successfully lobbied the FIA to introduce a rules change they have already prepared for.
“You know how malicious we are, we always think there’s something behind it. And then the next one could say, ‘oh, they’ve got already a solution for a solution’, if the FIA comes up with a change and then Mercedes has developed something in that direction already, and then they come out of the gate already running. But I think that is going a little bit too far.”
------------
Haas team boss Guenther Steiner reckons the FIA has taken a sensible first step in addressing drivers’ concerns about the ride quality of the 2022 Formula 1 cars because a rule change could “change the pecking order completely”.
After complaints about the porpoising and bottoming out of this generation of ground-effects cars – and the potential health impacts this could have on drivers – reached a new peak in Azerbaijan last weekend, the governing body has reacted quickly.
The FIA intends to scrutinise the design and wear of the planks and skids beneath the cars and is establishing a metric to define a limit for an acceptable level of vertical oscillations.
It is intervening because it noted “concerns in relation to the immediate physical impact on the health of the drivers, a number of whom have reported back pain following recent events” and the FIA is also worried “excessive fatigue or pain experienced by a driver could have significant consequences should it result in a loss of concentration”.
By establishing a limit for how much high-frequency bouncing will be tolerated, the FIA can force teams to comply by making those who break this threshold increase the ride height of their cars – a move teams will not do willingly because it costs performance.
Steiner said it may be a “little bit optimistic” to think this works immediately but said “you need to start somewhere”.
He said: “Can you imagine if there is a number set after FP2 and somebody doesn’t achieve it in FP3? What do you then, exclude them? You fine them? I don’t know.
“We measure something, we put a threshold on it, and what we do if someone goes above the threshold I don’t know. “But let’s start with measuring.”
The alternative would be a change to the technical regulations that forces every team, even those not suffering so badly from ride quality or at least not complaining about it, to amend their set-ups or designs.
Steiner is not a fan of that idea because he believes it would constitute a fundamental car change mid-season. “We need to measure what it is,” Steiner said. “And I think some of the cars are pretty bad.
“But then there is a solution, just raise the ride height. But then you go slow. Who wants to go slow?
“It’s like I don’t know how many years ago when in the middle of the season we had a change of tyres.
“It’s something like this, you change something fundamentally, you could change the pecking order again completely. Is that really fair?
“It’s a safety factor but if it’s too dangerous just raise the ride height.
“I think the measurement of this is to find a way where it is dangerous, without changing the regulations, to find a limit of something and saying if you are above this threshold – I don’t know what penalty you could give, I have no idea yet.”
In the short-term, the only cars that should be impacted by the FIA’s intervention will be those that are porpoising or bottoming out so badly they are breaching the yet-to-be-defined limit on oscillations.
That would more likely hit certain cars like the Mercedes and Ferrari, but it is unclear how many could be affected as that is down to team set-up choices on the day and the exact limit the FIA defines.
AlphaTauri drivers Pierre Gasly and Yuki Tsunoda have downplayed the impact the interim idea will have.
“It’s going to be minimal,” Gasly said. “They are things which could be changed which could affect very, very little part of the performance of everyone’s cars.
He added: “We all say between each other, putting the interest of any teams or any car aside, we all clearly say this is clearly too much.”
Tsunoda said: “I don’t think Red Bull currently have much porpoising so probably they don’t have to change much. “So that will be a good advantage for Red Bull. “At the same time, there may be some other regulations probably that will make slightly different changes for the field. “I don’t expect massive [changes] but hopefully that is positive rather than a disadvantage. But we’ll see.”
-------------
The FIA’s new limits designed to stop Formula 1 cars porpoising could come into effect as soon as this weekend’s Canadian Grand Prix. Is this immediate action the right move, and what could the consequences be? Here are our writers’ thoughts on what we know so far.
However, I’m worried the short-term measures will kill the title battle. The Ferrari has been porpoising aggressively in the opening races. That’s why Carlos Sainz has been such a vocal figure, he’s experienced some of the worst of the physical effects.
So it stands to reason that if there are cars on the grid that need a ride height change because they are oscillating too much, the Ferraris will be among them.
If so, will that hurt the performance of Ferrari, which is already trying to make up ground? And if so, how many races will we have where this is happening?
This is not to say that I’d have preferred some technical rule changes had been thought up to eliminate porpoising or bouncing instantly. As then that could hurt Red Bull by making the Ferrari faster – which would have been equally rubbish, in terms of fairness.
As it would have been a regulatory breakthrough not one from independent engineering.
The good thing is this not a change that should force Red Bull (or other teams with no bouncing issues) to change its car and make it worse.
My concern is that the intervention, while totally valid and worthwhile, is going to sap the life out of a championship fight that’s already at risk of fading to nothing before the summer break.
But the route the FIA has taken to tackle the problem by limiting how savage the vertical oscillations can be is not a good outcome for the team and could mean more bad news for the performance of the Mercedes W13.
As Baku showed, Mercedes still has the most savage bouncing of all the cars on the grid and that’s even with compromises made to mitigate the problems caused by the bottom of the car smashing into the ground.
Chances are, this move from the FIA could force it to compromise the set-up, and therefore pace, even more while others don’t have to. That does tackle the fundamental issue of the effect on the drivers, but it gives Mercedes yet more problems.
That doesn’t mean the FIA isn’t right to go in this direction, quite the contrary. That the extent of the problem varies from team to team proves the regulations don’t fundamentally mean the drivers have to be exposed to potentially damaging ride, so this is an elegant way to react to it.
But while it changes the game for the worse for Mercedes for now, the team’s primary objective remains unchanged. It must get its bouncing problems under control.
Given the choice of lap time or physical discomfort, lap time will always take precedent, even if the long term physical health implications are unknown.
It will probably have an impact upon the competitive order. It may even increase Red Bull’s advantage.
But this is a brave, decisive move from the governing body. Let’s hope it can keep control of the immense complexities which look set to follow.
It means that the porpoising and how to manage it is still down to the teams individually.
If you get it under control you can still run the car low, you just can’t allow it to batter itself to death on the track surface.
That said, I’ll wait for what the FIA finally comes up with and if the teams will allow it to introduce changes mid season.
All too often in the past, they’ve complained that they aren’t being listened to, and that the FIA hasn’t been taking their opinions onboard, but they can’t say that anymore.
With teams unwilling to budge on the porpoising issue on their own accord, the FIA has now stepped in for them, proving beyond doubt that it can take driver concerns seriously.
This move should silence some critics, and in some ways is a great political move by the FIA, no matter what the primary reason is for amending the regulations.
But it will also be interesting to see whether this alters the dynamic going forward.
The drivers will know winning this battle gives them leverage.
They now know that they can influence the regulations and decision-making process. Is this just the beginning of a shift in the political balance?
I thought that four decades of technological progress would mean ground effect v2 was, literally, a smoother process for F1 in 2022, so the fact we’re in this position already is a little surprising.
I’m not expecting a flurry of ways to get around these new limits (and can’t really see how it would be possible anyway), or a new safety worry arising from this sensible action, but I can’t help think this is just going to be step one in a many-steps process, and that we’re going to see some significant disqualifications and teams arguing that the type of action that’s been taken has too big an impact on the competitive order.
----------
The FIA taking action on the safety concerns raised by the ride of the 2022 Formula 1 cars is welcome, but as always the devil is in the detail.
I completely agree with the first objective of the technical directive, which the FIA describes as “closer scrutiny of the planks and skids both in terms of their design and the observed wear”.
This should have been monitored very closely from day one as the risks with ground effect cars were well known and we can all see the sparks coming out from the skid plates.
Though as a side note, a few years ago the FIA defined that the skids had to generate sparks to make night races more spectacular.
But the second part, which is “the definition of a metric, based on the car’s vertical acceleration, that will give a quantitative limit for acceptable level of vertical oscillations”, is the more difficult one to implement. Effectively, it needs to be about the amount of time spent above a certain ‘g’ level.
Currently, these cars corner at around 3.5g, with the odd peak above 4.5g for a maximum of something like a second per lap. If you took the average lateral g over a lap, it would be under 3g, which is fine.
Braking is around 5g, with the odd peak above 6g for a maximum of roughly half-a-second per lap. If you took the average longitudinal g over a lap, it would be under 4g, which again is fine.
In a racing car unless you have an accident – and even then to some extent – lateral and longitudinal g is progressive so builds up to its peak. A fit person could handle 20g for up to approximately a 10-second duration. But vertical g is instant and not so easy to cope with.
However, as it is now if the chassis experiences a vertical acceleration of 100g, the driver will probably only get something like 10g. The seat is not sprung, but the driver is cushioned as long as their tailbone is not sitting on the seat which sits on the base of the chassis.
Using all of that as a reference, I would say anything above 5g vertically, recorded from the driver’s in-ear accelerometer, needs to be for less than a total 0.5s per lap with a peak of 10g for no more than 0.05s at any time. So that’s 50g from the chassis accelerometer for less than 0.5s and 100g peak for no more that 0.05s.
The FIA has all these numbers for each car and driver from the races we have had so far this year, so it should be very easy to come up with a regulation requirement.
What I have suggested is based on ballpark numbers from a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but this is the sort of metric the FIA should work towards. And if it’s all about safety, start low. After all, you can always increase it.
FIA’s porpoising response could ‘completely change the pecking order’ in F1
Posted on 16th June 2022, 21:26 | Written by Keith Collantine and Will WoodHaas team principal Guenther Steiner says the FIA’s attempt to reduce porpoising in Formula 1 cars could drastically change the competitive order in the championship.
The sport’s governing body confirmed today it has issued a technical directive to teams outlining its plans to combat the severe porpoising and bouncing which have prompted complaints from a growing number of drivers in recent weeks.
Teams have been told their cars’ floors will be subjected to closer inspections at this weekend’s Canadian Grand Prix. The FIA also plans to impose a limit on the severity of vertical movement drivers are subjected to.
Steiner admitted the problem needs to be tackled but insisted the affected teams could improve the ride quality of their cars by not running them as low to the ground as they have done.
“We need to measure what it is,” he said. “And I think some of the cars are pretty bad.
“But then there is a solution, just raise the ride height. But then you go slow. Who wants to go slow?”
Mid-season changes to technical rules and standard equipment have proved controversial in the past, he pointed out. “It’s like, I don’t know how many years ago, when in the middle of the season we had the change of tyres,” said Steiner. “Something like this, you change something fundamentally, you could change the pecking order again completely. Is that really fair?”
The FIA should restrict the severity of bouncing which is permitted, Steiner believes, rather than forcing teams to change their designs.
Yes, it’s a safety factor, but that could be approached as well. If it is too dangerous, just raise your ride height.
“I think the measurement of this is to find a way where, if it is dangerous, without changing the regulations, to find a limit of something and saying if you are above this threshold [you get a penalty]. I don’t know what penalty you could give, I have no idea yet, I didn’t look into it as well and it’s pretty fresh all these things.”
Mercedes have found it especially difficult to control the porpoising on their car and their drivers have been particularly vocal about the discomfort they have experienced.
However Steiner does not believe the team has successfully lobbied the FIA to introduce a rules change they have already prepared for.
“You know how malicious we are, we always think there’s something behind it. And then the next one could say, ‘oh, they’ve got already a solution for a solution’, if the FIA comes up with a change and then Mercedes has developed something in that direction already, and then they come out of the gate already running. But I think that is going a little bit too far.”
------------
HOW FIA ACTION COULD RISK ‘COMPLETELY CHANGING’ 2022 F1 ORDER
47 mins ago By Scott MitchellHaas team boss Guenther Steiner reckons the FIA has taken a sensible first step in addressing drivers’ concerns about the ride quality of the 2022 Formula 1 cars because a rule change could “change the pecking order completely”.
After complaints about the porpoising and bottoming out of this generation of ground-effects cars – and the potential health impacts this could have on drivers – reached a new peak in Azerbaijan last weekend, the governing body has reacted quickly.
The FIA intends to scrutinise the design and wear of the planks and skids beneath the cars and is establishing a metric to define a limit for an acceptable level of vertical oscillations.
It is intervening because it noted “concerns in relation to the immediate physical impact on the health of the drivers, a number of whom have reported back pain following recent events” and the FIA is also worried “excessive fatigue or pain experienced by a driver could have significant consequences should it result in a loss of concentration”.
By establishing a limit for how much high-frequency bouncing will be tolerated, the FIA can force teams to comply by making those who break this threshold increase the ride height of their cars – a move teams will not do willingly because it costs performance.
Steiner said it may be a “little bit optimistic” to think this works immediately but said “you need to start somewhere”.
He said: “Can you imagine if there is a number set after FP2 and somebody doesn’t achieve it in FP3? What do you then, exclude them? You fine them? I don’t know.
“We measure something, we put a threshold on it, and what we do if someone goes above the threshold I don’t know. “But let’s start with measuring.”
The alternative would be a change to the technical regulations that forces every team, even those not suffering so badly from ride quality or at least not complaining about it, to amend their set-ups or designs.
Steiner is not a fan of that idea because he believes it would constitute a fundamental car change mid-season. “We need to measure what it is,” Steiner said. “And I think some of the cars are pretty bad.
“But then there is a solution, just raise the ride height. But then you go slow. Who wants to go slow?
“It’s like I don’t know how many years ago when in the middle of the season we had a change of tyres.
“It’s something like this, you change something fundamentally, you could change the pecking order again completely. Is that really fair?
“It’s a safety factor but if it’s too dangerous just raise the ride height.
“I think the measurement of this is to find a way where it is dangerous, without changing the regulations, to find a limit of something and saying if you are above this threshold – I don’t know what penalty you could give, I have no idea yet.”
In the short-term, the only cars that should be impacted by the FIA’s intervention will be those that are porpoising or bottoming out so badly they are breaching the yet-to-be-defined limit on oscillations.
That would more likely hit certain cars like the Mercedes and Ferrari, but it is unclear how many could be affected as that is down to team set-up choices on the day and the exact limit the FIA defines.
AlphaTauri drivers Pierre Gasly and Yuki Tsunoda have downplayed the impact the interim idea will have.
“It’s going to be minimal,” Gasly said. “They are things which could be changed which could affect very, very little part of the performance of everyone’s cars.
He added: “We all say between each other, putting the interest of any teams or any car aside, we all clearly say this is clearly too much.”
Tsunoda said: “I don’t think Red Bull currently have much porpoising so probably they don’t have to change much. “So that will be a good advantage for Red Bull. “At the same time, there may be some other regulations probably that will make slightly different changes for the field. “I don’t expect massive [changes] but hopefully that is positive rather than a disadvantage. But we’ll see.”
-------------
WHAT FIA’S PORPOISING INTERVENTION COULD MEAN FOR F1 2022
3 hours agoThe FIA’s new limits designed to stop Formula 1 cars porpoising could come into effect as soon as this weekend’s Canadian Grand Prix. Is this immediate action the right move, and what could the consequences be? Here are our writers’ thoughts on what we know so far.
THIS COULD END THE TITLE FIGHT
SCOTT MITCHELL
Intervention is the right move now that we have a firm suggestion that the medical advice is these cars are a health risk for drivers.However, I’m worried the short-term measures will kill the title battle. The Ferrari has been porpoising aggressively in the opening races. That’s why Carlos Sainz has been such a vocal figure, he’s experienced some of the worst of the physical effects.
So it stands to reason that if there are cars on the grid that need a ride height change because they are oscillating too much, the Ferraris will be among them.
If so, will that hurt the performance of Ferrari, which is already trying to make up ground? And if so, how many races will we have where this is happening?
This is not to say that I’d have preferred some technical rule changes had been thought up to eliminate porpoising or bouncing instantly. As then that could hurt Red Bull by making the Ferrari faster – which would have been equally rubbish, in terms of fairness.
As it would have been a regulatory breakthrough not one from independent engineering.
The good thing is this not a change that should force Red Bull (or other teams with no bouncing issues) to change its car and make it worse.
My concern is that the intervention, while totally valid and worthwhile, is going to sap the life out of a championship fight that’s already at risk of fading to nothing before the summer break.
IT’S BAD NEWS FOR MERCEDES
EDD STRAW
The Mercedes drivers have been at the forefront of criticism of the problems caused by the aggressive ride, and while they certainly have been making sure their concerns are very public there’s no question that they are real.But the route the FIA has taken to tackle the problem by limiting how savage the vertical oscillations can be is not a good outcome for the team and could mean more bad news for the performance of the Mercedes W13.
As Baku showed, Mercedes still has the most savage bouncing of all the cars on the grid and that’s even with compromises made to mitigate the problems caused by the bottom of the car smashing into the ground.
Chances are, this move from the FIA could force it to compromise the set-up, and therefore pace, even more while others don’t have to. That does tackle the fundamental issue of the effect on the drivers, but it gives Mercedes yet more problems.
That doesn’t mean the FIA isn’t right to go in this direction, quite the contrary. That the extent of the problem varies from team to team proves the regulations don’t fundamentally mean the drivers have to be exposed to potentially damaging ride, so this is an elegant way to react to it.
But while it changes the game for the worse for Mercedes for now, the team’s primary objective remains unchanged. It must get its bouncing problems under control.
A BRAVE MOVE TO SAVE TEAMS FROM THEMSELVES
MARK HUGHES
Although it sounds incredibly complex to monitor and police, this has been necessary to protect competitors from themselves.Given the choice of lap time or physical discomfort, lap time will always take precedent, even if the long term physical health implications are unknown.
It will probably have an impact upon the competitive order. It may even increase Red Bull’s advantage.
But this is a brave, decisive move from the governing body. Let’s hope it can keep control of the immense complexities which look set to follow.
PUTTING THE ONUS ON TEAMS IS THE RIGHT OUTCOME
GARY ANDERSON
I’m pleased the FIA is going about implementing changes relative to the g loads in the car. This is a much better way to go about it than a blanket aerodynamic change. It will still affect some teams more than others but isn’t that the way of the world?It means that the porpoising and how to manage it is still down to the teams individually.
If you get it under control you can still run the car low, you just can’t allow it to batter itself to death on the track surface.
That said, I’ll wait for what the FIA finally comes up with and if the teams will allow it to introduce changes mid season.
A WIN FOR THE DRIVERS
ROB HANSFORD
Above all else, this is a major win for the drivers.All too often in the past, they’ve complained that they aren’t being listened to, and that the FIA hasn’t been taking their opinions onboard, but they can’t say that anymore.
With teams unwilling to budge on the porpoising issue on their own accord, the FIA has now stepped in for them, proving beyond doubt that it can take driver concerns seriously.
This move should silence some critics, and in some ways is a great political move by the FIA, no matter what the primary reason is for amending the regulations.
But it will also be interesting to see whether this alters the dynamic going forward.
The drivers will know winning this battle gives them leverage.
They now know that they can influence the regulations and decision-making process. Is this just the beginning of a shift in the political balance?
EPISODE ONE OF A SAGA?
MATT BEER
Part of the reason I found Formula 1’s first ground effect era so grimly fascinating – even though, having been born in 1980 I only experienced it through reading a lot of books in the 1990s – was what seemed like a never-ending sequence of technical rows, rules restrictions, and unsubtle ways of getting around them. Sliding skirts, ride-height devices, rock-hard suspension, all great for cornering speed but terrible for driver comfort, and indeed ultimately safety, given some of the horrific aerial accidents of 1982.I thought that four decades of technological progress would mean ground effect v2 was, literally, a smoother process for F1 in 2022, so the fact we’re in this position already is a little surprising.
I’m not expecting a flurry of ways to get around these new limits (and can’t really see how it would be possible anyway), or a new safety worry arising from this sensible action, but I can’t help think this is just going to be step one in a many-steps process, and that we’re going to see some significant disqualifications and teams arguing that the type of action that’s been taken has too big an impact on the competitive order.
----------
GARY ANDERSON: WHERE THE FIA SHOULD SET F1 CARS’ BOUNCING LIMIT
4 hours ago By Gary AndersonThe FIA taking action on the safety concerns raised by the ride of the 2022 Formula 1 cars is welcome, but as always the devil is in the detail.
I completely agree with the first objective of the technical directive, which the FIA describes as “closer scrutiny of the planks and skids both in terms of their design and the observed wear”.
This should have been monitored very closely from day one as the risks with ground effect cars were well known and we can all see the sparks coming out from the skid plates.
Though as a side note, a few years ago the FIA defined that the skids had to generate sparks to make night races more spectacular.
But the second part, which is “the definition of a metric, based on the car’s vertical acceleration, that will give a quantitative limit for acceptable level of vertical oscillations”, is the more difficult one to implement. Effectively, it needs to be about the amount of time spent above a certain ‘g’ level.
Currently, these cars corner at around 3.5g, with the odd peak above 4.5g for a maximum of something like a second per lap. If you took the average lateral g over a lap, it would be under 3g, which is fine.
Braking is around 5g, with the odd peak above 6g for a maximum of roughly half-a-second per lap. If you took the average longitudinal g over a lap, it would be under 4g, which again is fine.
In a racing car unless you have an accident – and even then to some extent – lateral and longitudinal g is progressive so builds up to its peak. A fit person could handle 20g for up to approximately a 10-second duration. But vertical g is instant and not so easy to cope with.
However, as it is now if the chassis experiences a vertical acceleration of 100g, the driver will probably only get something like 10g. The seat is not sprung, but the driver is cushioned as long as their tailbone is not sitting on the seat which sits on the base of the chassis.
Using all of that as a reference, I would say anything above 5g vertically, recorded from the driver’s in-ear accelerometer, needs to be for less than a total 0.5s per lap with a peak of 10g for no more than 0.05s at any time. So that’s 50g from the chassis accelerometer for less than 0.5s and 100g peak for no more that 0.05s.
The FIA has all these numbers for each car and driver from the races we have had so far this year, so it should be very easy to come up with a regulation requirement.
What I have suggested is based on ballpark numbers from a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but this is the sort of metric the FIA should work towards. And if it’s all about safety, start low. After all, you can always increase it.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
I think the FIA will go far more complex than just x g for y time. When you are talking oscillation there are all sorts of fancy ways to limit it. There is a reason vibrations and wave is an entire area of physics and engineering.
I think it will hurt Mercedes the most and Ferrari might feel some effect as they seem to get a lot of bouncing. I think AM, AR and McLaren might see some benefit since they seem to be able to set up without too much bouncing.
I think it will hurt Mercedes the most and Ferrari might feel some effect as they seem to get a lot of bouncing. I think AM, AR and McLaren might see some benefit since they seem to be able to set up without too much bouncing.
Last edited:
737 MAX Stan Account
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2020
Why not just take all the cars to a drag strip and have the quarter mile times determine starting position? It'd be more interesting than a sprint race IMO.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2020
Also if the weather is really that cool I see Mercedes suffer this race even more as they don't seem to work when it's a cold race.
And I think Red Buzll will laugh themselves to the next title as neither Mercedes nor Ferrari are any competiton. Ferrari is too fragile at the moment (Lelcerc might even get a penalty this weekend) and Mercedes has a shitbox that will now be under scrutiny by the "anti porpoising rules". Also funny coincidence: the next race in Silverstone will most likely be less bouncy as that track surface is smooth. Maybe we see Merc on top for this race
And I think Red Buzll will laugh themselves to the next title as neither Mercedes nor Ferrari are any competiton. Ferrari is too fragile at the moment (Lelcerc might even get a penalty this weekend) and Mercedes has a shitbox that will now be under scrutiny by the "anti porpoising rules". Also funny coincidence: the next race in Silverstone will most likely be less bouncy as that track surface is smooth. Maybe we see Merc on top for this race
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2016
These new regulations seem reasonable and don't affect teams that did their homework and either made a car that works or who willingly gave up on performance and increase ride height.
It genuinely seems like something that'll hurt Mercedes most and given that it was them asking for something to be done about this issue, looks like they get what they wanted. It's particularly funny that they are essentially forced to do what they could have done in the first place, if they had been willing to accept worse performance.
Looking forward to Qualifying, I seriously hope Mercedes will sink like a stone with this new regulation. The salt harvest will be glorious.
It genuinely seems like something that'll hurt Mercedes most and given that it was them asking for something to be done about this issue, looks like they get what they wanted. It's particularly funny that they are essentially forced to do what they could have done in the first place, if they had been willing to accept worse performance.
Looking forward to Qualifying, I seriously hope Mercedes will sink like a stone with this new regulation. The salt harvest will be glorious.
So, Inters?
Quiritium
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2020
The last couple of years have made quite a difference in my perception of Alonso, I'm now very fond of him and truly think he's one of the best drivers F1 ever had.
I find it even weirder that progressives seem to believe that treating blacks as basically retards who need to be constantly coddled is respecting them, when I see it as even more prejudiced than some moron screaming about the blackies. But I'm not woke, so what do I know?
What isn't for this faggot? Just imagine how much he would cry if he had to face peak Schumi or Senna, who were not shy about playing dirty.
I hope they go the ride height road, It would be amusing to have the McLaren's just perform better than the Mercs just to screw with Toto and Blowies.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
He wouldn't get close enough to either of them to complain about it.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2019
Will the back breaking continue this week?
Oxous
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2021
Hamilton to run “relatively extreme” low-downforce configuration in Canada
(article)
Lewis Hamilton will conduct another set-up experiment for Mercedes at this weekend’s Canadian Grand Prix as the team strives to solve the problems with its W13.
The team is using race weekends to test different configurations for its car, which has lagged off the pace since the start of the season. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff confirmed in Baku Hamilton had run experimental configuration on his car at the last three races, including changes to the floor at the previous round.
“I am trying a lot of the different, experimental things on the car to help us get data moving forward,” said Hamilton in response to a question from RaceFans.
“You’ll see today, for example, something relatively extreme. If it doesn’t work, it’s definitely a lot slower because it’s got less downforce.”
Hamilton admitted the decision to use race weekends to test changes to the car has compromised their performance at times.
“But that’s my role and I take the responsibility seriously,” he said. “And whilst, yes, it’s not been ideal on some weekend, often set us back because we lost a session or two, that’s okay, because eventually we’ll get there and I’m proud to have been a part of that process.”
He said he has a responsibility to help keep the team motivated in the midst of its least competitive start to a season since he joined them in 2013.
“I’m working as hard as I can, staying positive, coming off the back of a difficult year,” he said. “I’d like to think I’m the best team mate I have ever been, to George [Russell], but also to all the engineers, all the mechanics and everyone working in the factory and trying to keep everyone’s energy high.”
Lewis Hamilton will conduct another set-up experiment for Mercedes at this weekend’s Canadian Grand Prix as the team strives to solve the problems with its W13.
The team is using race weekends to test different configurations for its car, which has lagged off the pace since the start of the season. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff confirmed in Baku Hamilton had run experimental configuration on his car at the last three races, including changes to the floor at the previous round.
“I am trying a lot of the different, experimental things on the car to help us get data moving forward,” said Hamilton in response to a question from RaceFans.
“You’ll see today, for example, something relatively extreme. If it doesn’t work, it’s definitely a lot slower because it’s got less downforce.”
Hamilton admitted the decision to use race weekends to test changes to the car has compromised their performance at times.
“But that’s my role and I take the responsibility seriously,” he said. “And whilst, yes, it’s not been ideal on some weekend, often set us back because we lost a session or two, that’s okay, because eventually we’ll get there and I’m proud to have been a part of that process.”
He said he has a responsibility to help keep the team motivated in the midst of its least competitive start to a season since he joined them in 2013.
“I’m working as hard as I can, staying positive, coming off the back of a difficult year,” he said. “I’d like to think I’m the best team mate I have ever been, to George [Russell], but also to all the engineers, all the mechanics and everyone working in the factory and trying to keep everyone’s energy high.”
Lewis Hamilton says porpoising injuries are unacceptable before Canadian GP
(article)
The Canadian Grand Prix has long been a happy hunting ground for Lewis Hamilton. The seven-times champion counts it as one of his favourite meetings but this year, while a win appears as far off as ever, Hamilton is at least taking some pleasure from the FIA’s determination to eliminate the porpoising of the cars that has been identified as a potential long-term health risk.
Hamilton said he has been suffering from headaches since the season began.
After a bruising weekend in Baku, where the porpoising – a vertical jarring of the car – was particularly violent, a variety of drivers called for the FIA to intervene.
On Thursday the governing body issued a directive stating it would examine the problem and implement rule changes on safety grounds, in the short-term likely mandating teams to run their cars with higher rear ride-height.
At 37 and in his 16th season in Formula One, Hamilton wears his years of competition well but at the circuit Gilles Villeneuve was explicit that the toll the porpoising was taking was severe regardless of age.
“I have not spoken to a specialist on [spinal] discs but I can feel mine,” he said. “I am a little bit shorter this week and my discs are not in the best shape right now. That’s not good for longevity. There is no need for us to have long-term injuries.
“There’s a lot more bruising in the body after the race nowadays, it is taking more of the week to recover and you have to do a lot more to do it. I don’t think that’s to do with age, it’s because the bruising can be quite severe.
When you experience up to 10-Gs on a bump which I had in the last race that is a heavy, heavy load on the lower and top part of your neck. I have had a lot more headaches in the past few months, I am not taking it too seriously I am just taking painkillers, hopefully I don’t have any micro-concussions”
The FIA’s position has dominated discussion in the build-up to the Canadian GP, with a majority of drivers welcoming the proposed changes. However, championship leader Max Verstappen, showing superb form in a Red Bull that has all but eliminated the porpoising problem, was less enamoured of a mid-season regulation adjustment. That is not surprising given that a driver in a potentially title-winning car would not welcome any variables changing.
“Regardless of if it’s going to help us or work against us, these rule changes in the middle of the year I don’t think is correct,” Verstappen said. “I understand the safety part of it but if you raise your car you will have less issues.”
The problem was raised intently at the drivers’ briefing in Baku and Hamilton intimated that Verstappen may have simply been reiterating a Red Bull party line in public.
“It’s always interesting seeing people’s perspective and opinions in different lights,” Hamilton said. “In front of the media it’s one thing. In others, in the background sometimes people say different things. Ultimately safety is the most important thing. It’s not about coping with the bouncing for the next four years, it’s about fixing it and getting rid of it so all of us don’t have back problems moving forwards.”
The expectation was that an enforced raising of ride height would be detrimental to Hamilton’s Mercedes, designed to run quickest low to the track, but the British driver and his teammate George Russell insisted that it would not solve the problem and that a fundamental change is required.
“We have raised the ride height and we still have the bouncing,” Hamilton said. “We can’t go any higher, we are limited by the rear suspension. The porpoising is caused by the disrupted airflow beneath the car.”
How it is dealt with by the FIA is of real concern for Mercedes and may prove crucial in their decision of whether to continue with this design concept for next year or opt for a different approach. Doing so would in effect write off any commitment to upgrading this year’s car since it would require shifting resources into next year’s model.
---
*these last two paragraphs were edited into the article after qualifying ended today
Verstappen had the edge in first practice in Montreal on Friday, topping the timesheets from Ferrari’s Carlos Sainz, with Hamilton in eighth. In the afternoon session the Dutchman continued in fine form, beating Charles Leclerc into second. However, having had an engine failure in Baku, Leclerc suffered a further setback when the team announced he would be taking his third control electronics unit – one more than permitted – and will receive a 10-place grid penalty.
With Mercedes experimenting with changes to their setup under the FIA-approved adjustments to combat porpoising, Hamilton struggled. He was 13th and in the closing stages described the car as undriveable.
The Canadian Grand Prix has long been a happy hunting ground for Lewis Hamilton. The seven-times champion counts it as one of his favourite meetings but this year, while a win appears as far off as ever, Hamilton is at least taking some pleasure from the FIA’s determination to eliminate the porpoising of the cars that has been identified as a potential long-term health risk.
Hamilton said he has been suffering from headaches since the season began.
After a bruising weekend in Baku, where the porpoising – a vertical jarring of the car – was particularly violent, a variety of drivers called for the FIA to intervene.
On Thursday the governing body issued a directive stating it would examine the problem and implement rule changes on safety grounds, in the short-term likely mandating teams to run their cars with higher rear ride-height.
At 37 and in his 16th season in Formula One, Hamilton wears his years of competition well but at the circuit Gilles Villeneuve was explicit that the toll the porpoising was taking was severe regardless of age.
“I have not spoken to a specialist on [spinal] discs but I can feel mine,” he said. “I am a little bit shorter this week and my discs are not in the best shape right now. That’s not good for longevity. There is no need for us to have long-term injuries.
“There’s a lot more bruising in the body after the race nowadays, it is taking more of the week to recover and you have to do a lot more to do it. I don’t think that’s to do with age, it’s because the bruising can be quite severe.
When you experience up to 10-Gs on a bump which I had in the last race that is a heavy, heavy load on the lower and top part of your neck. I have had a lot more headaches in the past few months, I am not taking it too seriously I am just taking painkillers, hopefully I don’t have any micro-concussions”
The FIA’s position has dominated discussion in the build-up to the Canadian GP, with a majority of drivers welcoming the proposed changes. However, championship leader Max Verstappen, showing superb form in a Red Bull that has all but eliminated the porpoising problem, was less enamoured of a mid-season regulation adjustment. That is not surprising given that a driver in a potentially title-winning car would not welcome any variables changing.
“Regardless of if it’s going to help us or work against us, these rule changes in the middle of the year I don’t think is correct,” Verstappen said. “I understand the safety part of it but if you raise your car you will have less issues.”
The problem was raised intently at the drivers’ briefing in Baku and Hamilton intimated that Verstappen may have simply been reiterating a Red Bull party line in public.
“It’s always interesting seeing people’s perspective and opinions in different lights,” Hamilton said. “In front of the media it’s one thing. In others, in the background sometimes people say different things. Ultimately safety is the most important thing. It’s not about coping with the bouncing for the next four years, it’s about fixing it and getting rid of it so all of us don’t have back problems moving forwards.”
The expectation was that an enforced raising of ride height would be detrimental to Hamilton’s Mercedes, designed to run quickest low to the track, but the British driver and his teammate George Russell insisted that it would not solve the problem and that a fundamental change is required.
“We have raised the ride height and we still have the bouncing,” Hamilton said. “We can’t go any higher, we are limited by the rear suspension. The porpoising is caused by the disrupted airflow beneath the car.”
How it is dealt with by the FIA is of real concern for Mercedes and may prove crucial in their decision of whether to continue with this design concept for next year or opt for a different approach. Doing so would in effect write off any commitment to upgrading this year’s car since it would require shifting resources into next year’s model.
---
*these last two paragraphs were edited into the article after qualifying ended today
Verstappen had the edge in first practice in Montreal on Friday, topping the timesheets from Ferrari’s Carlos Sainz, with Hamilton in eighth. In the afternoon session the Dutchman continued in fine form, beating Charles Leclerc into second. However, having had an engine failure in Baku, Leclerc suffered a further setback when the team announced he would be taking his third control electronics unit – one more than permitted – and will receive a 10-place grid penalty.
With Mercedes experimenting with changes to their setup under the FIA-approved adjustments to combat porpoising, Hamilton struggled. He was 13th and in the closing stages described the car as undriveable.
Of note in the second article is that Hamilton essentially says that Mercedes has raised the car as high as is physically possible to stop the porpoising but that it's not enough. Russell says that the rule changes won't fix the problem.
What happens if FIA tells Mercedes "you're porpoising too much, fix it" and Mercedes replies "we can't"?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2020
If Mercedes says "we can't" then the FIA will bring down the "Then set your ride height higher faggot!" hammer. Also Hamilton just radioed that his car is undriveable. seems like as if the experiment is going very wrong. Russell is 0,8 seconds behind, Hamilton 1,2 seconds. Vettel and the Alpine look quite competitive so far. Though I think it's mostly due to the long straight (again)
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2015
I hate to tell you this, Loois, but I don't think the FIA sets a -max- ride height. If the car cannot be raised enough to stop it from hurting you it is not fit for competition.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2022
Does anyone think real people buy tickets to sit in the Lance Stroll grandstand?
Also I wonder if Ferrari may punt it if RBR looks too good and just take the grid penalties this week.
Also I wonder if Ferrari may punt it if RBR looks too good and just take the grid penalties this week.
Oxous
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2021
"This car is so bad."
He talked a fair bit after the qualifying race, quotes are taken from this Lewis stan account:
He talked a fair bit after the qualifying race, quotes are taken from this Lewis stan account:
That is a pretty grim picture being painted there.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
They may as well since Leclerc has had to stick in his 3rd ECU which means a 10 place penalty.
Them eating engine electronics this quickly is also not great. They're a standandard single supplier part too (made by McLaren) so can't just be Ferrari design being shit.
In other news some drivers were complaining about rear tyre wear which is odd since Canada is usually front limited. Ocon found out first hand in P1 that Canada is a brake killer too.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 6, 2020
The ocon brake fire was because a piece of paper that was littered on the track got stuck on the intake of that brake (which fortunately is a rare occurrence in F1 nowadays). There seems to be a lot of litter around the track at Montreal, that gets kicked up when the cars drive by.