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.
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 Wood
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.”
------------
HOW FIA ACTION COULD RISK ‘COMPLETELY CHANGING’ 2022 F1 ORDER
47 mins ago By Scott Mitchell
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.”
-------------
WHAT FIA’S PORPOISING INTERVENTION COULD MEAN FOR F1 2022
3 hours ago
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.
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 Anderson
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.
