|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
14 Jun 2022, 14:44 (Ref:4115571) | #3976 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,397
|
Mercedes wants to ban porpoising to get a sporting advantage, not to improve driver health.
|
||
__________________
Nitropteron - Fly fast or get crushed! by NaBUrean Prodooktionz naburu38.itch.io |
14 Jun 2022, 14:59 (Ref:4115575) | #3977 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,865
|
Quote:
I think the proposal on the prior page might hit at the heart of the problem, but at the same time put the onus on Mercedes to address the issue within the current "technical regulations" given other teams have solved the problem and it's clear Mercedes could prevent this by making setup changes (given they will reduce the performance). Mercedes is not "owed" a quick car. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
14 Jun 2022, 16:20 (Ref:4115587) | #3978 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,230
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
14 Jun 2022, 17:01 (Ref:4115592) | #3979 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,865
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
14 Jun 2022, 19:03 (Ref:4115631) | #3980 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,705
|
Quote:
consider to be a team design issue, and a generic driver health issue because one driver having back pain. It doesn’t require an FIA car setup mandate or rule change. Porpoising has been around since the ground effect cars in days of yore. Teams and designers back then using the computing power of little more than a modern calculator worked out solutions. For Mercedes there is solutions out there, whether that be ride hight, thicker carbon fibre resulting in less flex in the floor or other bodywork or something else that aerodynamicists (and I’m certainly not one of them) could implement. Sure for each of those there could be detriment to overall performance, but within a budget cap you can’t have everything. Perhaps the cheapest solution is just to remould Hamilton’s seat to accommodate cushioning. |
|||
|
15 Jun 2022, 00:04 (Ref:4115661) | #3981 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,835
|
Mercedes got it right for 8yrs in a row.
Mercedes got it wrong in 2022. It's as simple as that. |
||
__________________
Part time wingman, full time spud. |
15 Jun 2022, 06:43 (Ref:4115676) | #3982 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,941
|
Quote:
Credit: Scarbs The tailshaft runs under the inboard suspension back to the gearbox cartridge (the tailshaft has broken off on the HAAS). You can still see the tailshaft after Schumacher's Jeddah crash: On this basis it would be quite possible to reduce the maximum wheelbase from 3600mm to 3300mm as long as the team's don't object. (The FIA originally proposed a 3400mm maximum wheelbase for 2022, but the teams only accepted 3600mm, or only 150mm down from the (uncapped) wheelbase which averaged about ~3750mm in 2021.) Heck you could even mandate a maximum wheelbase of 3000mm and require the teams to mount the gear cartridge transversely like the 1995 Ferrari? Of course the gearbox would block much of the venturi tunnels, but tough. Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 15 Jun 2022 at 06:50. |
||
|
15 Jun 2022, 06:51 (Ref:4115677) | #3983 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,941
|
||
|
15 Jun 2022, 07:26 (Ref:4115682) | #3984 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
Quote:
On the grounds of safety is the FIA not empowered to push through regulations on their own? Sure consult the teams but, I don't see much reason for genuine concern. If you do want to filter the data than just apply a true/false mechanism that does not give any date but just goes red if the porpoising exceeds the set parameters. Quote:
Quote:
I would also be a 100% in the teams power to built a very safe car at the expense of performance if the FIA did not prescribe a minimal weight. The fact is, that teams would compromise drivers health and safety to gain performance. It's just human nature, that's how we are wired and raised. Especially the competitive types that are needed to be successful in an F1 setting. You need a governing body to protect the drivers health and safety from the natural desire of an F1 team to do everything for performance. It's so for minimal weight, for multiple other parameters and this would be just the same. Quote:
100% in agreement. I missed Chilibowl and your exchange because I don't generally often read team threads. Gary Anderson has also been suggesting it recently: https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-...away-bouncing/ The big question is, is it really creating a potential health problem? The cars all have accelerometers on them and even the driver has an in-ear accelerometer. The FIA can look at this data and very quickly determine if the acceleration loads are too high and someone is going to suffer because of it, or if some teams are simply crying foul with no real problems other than an unwillingness to change their set-up to reduce the tyre bouncing. I'm not dead set against active suspension long term as long as it leaves the driver of handling the car and the bumps and is cheap and light. but that would be something that could potentially be looked at longer term. For now the use of the accelerometers would seam a fast, cheap and fair solution. Sure Mercedes would not like it because they then would loose the most performance, because they handled the phenomenon the worst. Well though look to them I would say. Do a better job next time, drivers health and safety goes first. |
|||||
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject. |
15 Jun 2022, 07:33 (Ref:4115683) | #3985 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
Thanks for sharing, very interesting. So the wheelbase length is even more for aero purposes than I already expected. I though that more components for the electric side of things were positioned there as well. Well that makes the 2026 regulations target of a max 3.300mm wheelbase as completely plausible. |
|
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject. |
15 Jun 2022, 12:05 (Ref:4115727) | #3986 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
Some more consensus on the accelerator solution rolling in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRJH6qpsLIs
|
|
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject. |
15 Jun 2022, 17:45 (Ref:4115782) | #3987 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,865
|
Quote:
Everyone seems to be gravitating to measuring some type of accumulative effect on the drivers. The question is how to apply penalties. In Scarb's scenario he says to make changes in parc ferme on "safety grounds", but he implies no penalty? That seems easy to game to me. Teams would purposefully run the cars very low to get extra speed (and qualifying position) and then raise the cars for a true race setup (no penalty?). I think the simple solution is that each session if the car goes over the threshold, the teams are notified each time it happens live. On a second or third violation in a given session (assuming no setup changes between offenses), the FIA would/could black flag the car for that session. This give the teams the ability to explore their setup in free practice and NOT go into qualifying or race with an offensive setup. If they do happen to show up in qualifying and trigger the threshold, they can still run that way in the race, but with a real potential to be black flagged/DNF for the race. If they don't want to run the risk after qualifying they can break parc ferme, take an appropriate grid penalty and adjust to a new race setup. This incentivizes teams to figure out BEFORE qualifying if they have a setup that puts them at risk for problems during the race. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
15 Jun 2022, 18:20 (Ref:4115785) | #3988 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
surely the implied penalty would be having to start the race from the pitlane no?
edit: never mind...i get what you are saying now, a parc ferme change under safety grounds wouldn't trigger a pit lane start. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
16 Jun 2022, 18:30 (Ref:4115940) | #3989 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
||
|
16 Jun 2022, 19:27 (Ref:4115954) | #3990 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,397
|
Oh wow, FIA bends back to Mercedes.
|
||
__________________
Nitropteron - Fly fast or get crushed! by NaBUrean Prodooktionz naburu38.itch.io |
16 Jun 2022, 19:54 (Ref:4115958) | #3991 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,230
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
16 Jun 2022, 20:08 (Ref:4115963) | #3992 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,442
|
Is it necessarily to Mercedes' advantage? If the FIA simply set a limit to porpoising then Merc will have to do whatever they are currently reluctant to do to fix it, like raise ride height, whereas other teams with less of a problem won't have to do anything so drastic.
|
||
__________________
I like taking pictures of cars going round tracks, through forests and up hills. |
16 Jun 2022, 20:10 (Ref:4115964) | #3993 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
I think Mercedes will strongly dislike the short term sollution (the g-force metering), but will like the potential medium term approach (possibly a simple form of active suspension). Possibly that's the way the FIA can provide a short term sollution, while still keeping everyone somewhat happy.
|
|
|
16 Jun 2022, 20:10 (Ref:4115965) | #3994 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,312
|
It seems more like the FIA has bent to the teams NOT being competent enough to actually build a damn car OR fix the problems. Instead it's the old days pre-Jackie Stewart days of the team considering the driver just another part of the car, and a weak one at that. MB could attempt to fix the car or bring them in but that's not the engineering answer of fastest way to answer the question. Ferrari seems to have less need to run the plank on the ground but Canada seems like they would be MB bouncing with top end speed.
Seems like a rule that shouldn't be needed but have a feeling MB gonna get bit in the ass on this one first. Or Aston Martin and give Stroll something to whinge on about again since he's been quiet a minute |
|
|
16 Jun 2022, 21:51 (Ref:4115979) | #3995 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,375
|
Taxi645 nailed it back in post 3971 - accelerometers (or at least, data analysis) is the plan from the FIA. Sounds like a reasonable approach to me that should hopefully result in the teams that HAVEN'T sorted themselves out to make changes to how they run their cars (or the design of their cars) and the teams that HAVE sorted themselves out pretty much continue as they are or very close to it.
No doubt it'll all get very political in both the short and long term but it feels like the FIA has so far taken a sensible and balanced approach to this one as no doubt they, as well as all of us (& of course blind freddy) can see that porpoising and bouncing doesn't create safety issues for all teams, just some of them. |
||
__________________
“We’re far from having too much horsepower…[m]y definition of too much horsepower is when all four wheels are spinning in every gear.” ― Mark Donohue |
16 Jun 2022, 23:24 (Ref:4115984) | #3996 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,835
|
Mercedes and hamilton successfully ousted Michael Masi only for the new powers that be to ban jewellery
They have now made enough noise about their own flawed car design to get the rules changed which will surely cost even more performance Be careful what you wish for |
||
__________________
Part time wingman, full time spud. |
17 Jun 2022, 05:45 (Ref:4116000) | #3997 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,177
|
I don’t really know what they were hoping to achieve, it’s not like the fia were all of a sudden announce a brand new aero design or allow active suspension from the next Grand Prix.
|
||
|
17 Jun 2022, 07:13 (Ref:4116013) | #3998 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 983
|
Quote:
Well Richard and Cillibowl were on to it much earlier in the Mercedes thread. Also it might indeed be better to look at accumulative effect like Richard proposed rather than only limiting it to porpoising frequencies cause some are running so low and stiff that the painful G-forces are also coming from the bumps in the road, which could fall outside the porpoising frequencies. I must say, I'm quite impressed by the pace by which the FIA has taken this up. They won't have though this out just after Bakuh. Probably were contemplating this approach for a while already, but the Bakuh events and driver reactions probably made up their minds and rightly so. |
||
__________________
Constructive discussion: A conversion where participants are maximally open to yet critical of each others (and their own) arguments, with the intend of enhancing the knowledge, understanding and/or handling of it's subject. |
17 Jun 2022, 07:35 (Ref:4116017) | #3999 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,398
|
The FIA trying to limit porpoising has nothing to do with Merc. What they are doing is trying to not make it so uncomfortable for the drivers that it gives them physical problems. And it's not just the Mercedes drivers that have had this problem. Other drivers have said similar things. Gasly has spoken out about these concerns. But of course Karen Horner has been trying to claim that Merc drivers are deliberately playing up how bad it is to get the FIA to change the rules, but he's just doing his usual s*** stirring
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
17 Jun 2022, 12:43 (Ref:4116064) | #4000 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,865
|
You know, history is full of multiple people independently coming up with the same idea at the same time. But it does seem weird that we were talking publicly over a month ago about the idea the FIA ended up picking. It makes me wonder who reads this forum.
The decision is NOT what Mercedes wants. I think the part in which a committee or such is formed to discuss technical regulations changes is mostly the FIA throwing Mercedes a bone. I don't see anything coming out of that given most teams have solved the problem and there is a work around for those teams who have not. I made the point earlier. Mercedes is not owed a quick car. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |