Some interesting vids:
Cool porpoising plots, 9mins. Interesting that everyone reducing the amplitude of their porpoising also increased the frequency.
Aston Martin copying Red Bull (apparently B Sport was an engineer at AM when they copied Merc), 4mins.
How does porpoising work, 23mins. Kyle was an aero guy at Merc. Haven’t seen this yet but his other vids have been quality.
Cool porpoising plots, 9mins. Interesting that everyone reducing the amplitude of their porpoising also increased the frequency.
Aston Martin copying Red Bull (apparently B Sport was an engineer at AM when they copied Merc), 4mins.
How does porpoising work, 23mins. Kyle was an aero guy at Merc. Haven’t seen this yet but his other vids have been quality.
You're talking about NASCAR???
I dissagree to your interpretation. I find it very typical (at least based on a previous job where I rutinely had to juggle inter-company standards written by comitees ) that one set of rules takes precedence over the other and when there are so many, mistakes and inconsitencies are inevitable from time to time. I find FIA's explanation really plausible in this case
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
In other words, Masi got fired because he was apparently no good but the new race directors don't appear to be any better. At least Masi would give some explanation on why certain decisions were made. Of course we wouldn't have anyone nitpicking over being on or over the pit exit line if Ferrari didn't screw up their strategy for the th time. Though this should be no surprise as Alonso and Vettel had to deal with the same. Sainz already started to make his own strategy just like Vettel had to do because the team apparently is paying attention or listening to their drivers.
In general, I’d agree. The explanation (employee error, the rules are the rules) may be plausible, but it’s the opposite of last year (employee error, but that employee can override the written rules on track). I can’t remember if they amended that “RD takes precedence” language in the written rules since last year, which is fine, but my point is that the end result is the same: it doesn’t matter what we say (“we” meaning the highest FIA rep at the circuit) because we can find something else to justify our actions after the fact. Copy-pasting an out-of-date rules document is ridiculous when the only reason we have multiple new RDs is because the last one was fired for misapplying the old rules (under pressure, but that’s a given in F1). Was he using last year’s rules because the FIA haven’t updated the English version of this year’s (remember they’ve since said only the original French version is authoritative to remove any ambiguity introduced by translation)? Who cares? It’s his responsibility to know what he’s enforcing, and the FIA’s to have an intern at HQ double check.
I mean, how does the FIA not have battery backup for the start lights? Reports are that the initial start delay was partly due to intermittent power failures at the track (Sky’s commentators lost their race feed monitors—but not their mics—near the end of the race). How can they not run five LED clusters and a laptop off of a generator or battery?! To be fair, I think the delay made some sense in preventing random rain accidents in a year where costs are rising, but the delay should be dictated by circumstances out of the FIA’s control. I suppose the real reason is that the loss of local power may have compromised the FIA’s whole local operation (timing, comms, etc.), but it still seems like a lack of preparation. Easy for me to say, I know.
Well if you say it's the opposite of last year, that further cements that this time it may be right. Last year the explanations were bizzare and contradictory. Good that we don't get that
And I dispute the need to tie this incident with others in the past as you seem to be trying to do, but above i entertained the thought a little.
And I dispute the need to tie this incident with others in the past as you seem to be trying to do, but above i entertained the thought a little.
Terrific, blunt Monaco green notebook.
Excellent Chain Bear and Jolyon Palmer videos, too. Both go into Ferrari’s pit strategy and the Red Bull pit exit protest (apparently Checo brushed the yellow line).
Excellent Chain Bear and Jolyon Palmer videos, too. Both go into Ferrari’s pit strategy and the Red Bull pit exit protest (apparently Checo brushed the yellow line).
The Race‘s first tech podcast features Gary Anderson talking about Mercedes being disappointing in Monaco (and presumably Baku) due to subpar suspension and talking to Pirelli’s Mario Isola about tires: https://the-race.com/formula-1/new-f1-tech-podcast-mercedes-problems-take-a-fresh-twist/
such an anti-climax that race was
also the bouncing cars just look terrible. maybe hamilton has a bad back or not, and maybe merc are crying about it for not entirely selfless reasons but overall i think they have a point
it cant be good bouncing like that. tyres going to 18" doesnt help either
but fia race directors are laser-focused on drivers jewelry and panties?
also the bouncing cars just look terrible. maybe hamilton has a bad back or not, and maybe merc are crying about it for not entirely selfless reasons but overall i think they have a point
it cant be good bouncing like that. tyres going to 18" doesnt help either
but fia race directors are laser-focused on drivers jewelry and panties?
Freemantle
Newcomer
Ultimately the new regs haven't changed anything, two teams miles ahead and the rest look even more pathetic bouncing up and down like some third rate clown series.
And with Ferrari's F1 engineering melting like their road cars, they might as well give the Belgian the championship now.
And with Ferrari's F1 engineering melting like their road cars, they might as well give the Belgian the championship now.
Stoffel?! He was on the F1 post-race show.
I may have fallen asleep during the race. I read a couple of good points about the bouncing. One, the FIA can regulate the extent of it (they’re already measuring amplitude and frequency) if we’re concerned about driver safety (which we should be) rather than allowing trick suspensions, though I wouldn’t be against forcing changes that may impact front-runners more than others (wouldn’t be the first time). Two, they probably should regulate it if it’s so bad that you’d wonder if Lewis could have exited his cockpit in the FIA-mandated time in case of emergency.
Some tech videos:
* Kyle analyzes RB’s underfloor aero.
* Scarbs talks suspension, including the Haas/Ferrari rear suspension courtesy of Mick’s Monaco crash.
* Can’t remember if I already posted this, but B Sport’s quick take on Monaco floor updates. He also has a video on vertical vs. horizontal underfloor aero expansion. Good stuff.
they went from baku to montreal in an illogical double-header (nice)
the fia has now stepped in and will look at plank wear on the most bouncing cars (merc only?) and then do what? i didnt fully understand what they are actually going to do, if anything this weekend.
the fia has now stepped in and will look at plank wear on the most bouncing cars (merc only?) and then do what? i didnt fully understand what they are actually going to do, if anything this weekend.
It's probably related to the general announcement of "doing something about porpoising", we should get more details next week IIRC
stupid question, but can teams just go back to more traditional designs that didn't take advantage of the downforce freedom on the underside of the car so that they can actually drive without things being dangerous?
Is the porpoising self inflicted by the design teams just chasing more downforce and now dealing with the symptoms of it?
can it be reversed at the cost of being slower but more stable/safer for their drivers?
Is the porpoising self inflicted by the design teams just chasing more downforce and now dealing with the symptoms of it?
can it be reversed at the cost of being slower but more stable/safer for their drivers?
Yes and yes. You can reduce and/or eliminate it by setting ride height higher, but you'll lose speed.
Part of the problem is that the FIA also mandated simpler suspensions because they weren’t able to police the more complex ones that (some?) teams were using last year (that may have helped prevent the porpoising and bouncing probelms).
As we learned after Baku, there’s a distinction between porpoising (aero induced stalls) and bouncing (ride height induced bottoming out from teams running as low as possible). Teams like Merc may have solved porpoising on smooth asphalt like Barcelona, but they still don’t have a performant answer for bumpy street tracks. Sky also mentioned some driver complaints I hadn’t heard before. Magnussen supposedly had arm numbness, Gasly was asking anyone in sight for a massage, and Ricciardo said his head felt like a basketball being dribbled low to the ground (I hope “shooken” is Australian for shaken). The weight of the helmet may exacerbate the problem, as I don’t think the HANS prevents vertical motion (and even then the 6-10 vertical Gs would just transfer to the rest of the spine rather than the neck). Not to mention at one point during the race Hamilton said his seat went cold and that turned out to be his back going numb.
There’s a lot more going on with aero than I fully understand, like cars having an inherent center of aero that dictates how much front/rear wing you can add without pushing too far into over/understeer. Red Bull’s high rake philosophy was interesting in that at high speed the center of pressure would move rearward as the back of the car squatted, yielding more benign understeer. Under braking, the center of pressure would move forward, yielding oversteer. That changing balance may have been what caught Gasly and Albon out. Or maybe the car was just too oversteery, which Verstappen seems to prefer. Either way, that seems to have been tuned out of the RB the last two years, which may explain Perez’s seemingly greater success (alongside a way better power train).
As we learned after Baku, there’s a distinction between porpoising (aero induced stalls) and bouncing (ride height induced bottoming out from teams running as low as possible). Teams like Merc may have solved porpoising on smooth asphalt like Barcelona, but they still don’t have a performant answer for bumpy street tracks. Sky also mentioned some driver complaints I hadn’t heard before. Magnussen supposedly had arm numbness, Gasly was asking anyone in sight for a massage, and Ricciardo said his head felt like a basketball being dribbled low to the ground (I hope “shooken” is Australian for shaken). The weight of the helmet may exacerbate the problem, as I don’t think the HANS prevents vertical motion (and even then the 6-10 vertical Gs would just transfer to the rest of the spine rather than the neck). Not to mention at one point during the race Hamilton said his seat went cold and that turned out to be his back going numb.
There’s a lot more going on with aero than I fully understand, like cars having an inherent center of aero that dictates how much front/rear wing you can add without pushing too far into over/understeer. Red Bull’s high rake philosophy was interesting in that at high speed the center of pressure would move rearward as the back of the car squatted, yielding more benign understeer. Under braking, the center of pressure would move forward, yielding oversteer. That changing balance may have been what caught Gasly and Albon out. Or maybe the car was just too oversteery, which Verstappen seems to prefer. Either way, that seems to have been tuned out of the RB the last two years, which may explain Perez’s seemingly greater success (alongside a way better power train).
Toto mentioned in the post-qualy interview that their car design philosophy has to change to high rake to help with bottoming they are experiencing. This is a big change and might not happen at all this season, so they have to work around the issue and loose downforce to help their drivers.
PS. What a qualy yesterday
PS. What a qualy yesterday
