F1 2022: Monaco GP - Monte Carlo (May 29)

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by F87source

No, porpoising was fixed by changing the air flow structures under the car,

What I'm saying is who's to tell that those structures generate the same amount of downforce as the RB/Ferrari.
They might be higher off the ground. Or generate less downforce in another way.
That kind of data is not available to you or anyone else.
Point is that the MERC is still a slow car, presumably low on downforce as they loose most in the twisty sectors because their top speed is ok, even better than the top tier cars.
Who's to say that the lack of downforce comes from a floor that generates less downforce and therefore solves the porpoising.
You have no intel on how merc exactly changed their floor and I'm pretty sure they will tell no one.
So nothing is sure in this regard.
Most teams have said that it's a very delicate balance, so the trick is to get the most downforce out of a floor without getting it to porpoise.

That it's a better floor than the previous one.... god I might hope so otherwise a lot of money and effort is utterly wasted...
But having it solved, is something I think you can only say when they have a car that is competitive with Ferrari/RB and still doesnt bounce.
I'm sure that RB and Ferrari can come up with a floor that creates more downforce than the current one they use, so that they potentially can run less aero on the top of the car, but that floor would probably proproise so much more that driving becomes undoable.
So maybe having the car that porpoises the least might not be a good thing. You might not have the full potential downforce from that floor.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

What I'm saying is who's to tell that those structures generate the same amount of downforce as the RB/Ferrari.
They might be higher off the ground. Or generate less downforce in another way.
That kind of data is not available to you or anyone else.
Point is that the MERC is still a slow car, presumably low on downforce as they loose most in the twisty sectors because their top speed is ok, even better than the top tier cars.
Who's to say that the lack of downforce comes from a floor that generates less downforce and therefore solves the porpoising.
You have no intel on how merc exactly changed their floor and I'm pretty sure they will tell no one.
So nothing is sure in this regard.
Most teams have said that it's a very delicate balance, so the trick is to get the most downforce out of a floor without getting it to porpoise.

That it's a better floor than the previous one.... god I might hope so.
But having it solved, is something I think you can only say when they have a car that is competitive with Ferrari/RB and still doesnt bounce.

It clearly doesn't generate the same amount of down force because they are still a far ways off.

That's not solving porpoising if you have to sacrifice down force, that essentially is just a band aid like before. Why would you develop an entirely new floor to solve porpoising by decreasing down force when you can do it for free with ride height increases and cut outs. Mercedes spent alot of time and research of these last few races to observe what causes porpoising so they could solve it without losing massive amounts of downforce to solve the issue, hence why their floor does not have relief cut outs to decrease the suction under their car.


Sure Mercedes doesn't expose their data on how they created fixes, but an educated hypothesis can absolutely be formed to make a closer judgement on how they solved it vs. just guessing, for example what I have seen on f1 technical:

1) Down force vs. ride height charts and simulations show the immense losses of down force in conjunction with ride height increases. Yet this still didn't solve porpoising for mercedes when they increased ride height.

2) The new floor skins show only minor adjustments to diffuser kick angle and tunnel height, this doesn't correspond to significant losses in down force that ride height would cause. Aka there is no way the new floor shape would decrease downforce as much as the previous ride height did, as the geometry isn't different enough.

So even if the changes caused a loss in downforce (which they probably do because there is more tunnel volume now) it would be minor compared to the ride height increase done before. This is indicative that they are not trading off down force to solve porpoisng, because the amounts of down force lost is going to be less than the amount they would lose with the previous ride height increases. So clearly they optimized the tunnels to stop stalling air flow, probably sealed it better or manged wake better because wake ingestion as shown by kyle through cfd analysis hurts down force and cause cause the porpoising issue, and optimized downforce generation because it doesn't porpoise with any major amplitude showing it is maintaining the downforce in the optimal window.


The more plausible explanation on how they solved porpoising is they reshaped their tunnels to prevent air flow stalling, and stiffened their floor edges to prevent it from flexing down and causing the rapid increase in down force which leads to the bottom and stalling cycles. This is also backed up by evidence of a reprofiled floor with different tunnel characteristics, and the new edge blade which is suspected to ride on skates to maintain a more level floor edge.


So likely they make less downforce than RB and Ferrari because they are slower, but it is not plausible that they dumped downforce to stop porpoising because that is not a solution in the slightest, that is a band aid, and it is not backed up by how their floor changed.




No, solving porpoising means it doesn't porpoise that's the literal definition of solving porpoising. Sure they don't have the performance yet, but that comes with time as they now understand how to avoid the floor from porpoising.


Just because a car doesn't porpoise doesn't mean it isn't utilizing the full potential of its under floor. It just means you have an understanding of underbody flow conditions to prevent it, and understand how to make downforce in a way you don't upset the suspesion. Saying that having porpoisng means you have full utilization of the underfloor is misleading..... Mercedes was proof of this.


Watch Kyle's video explaning porpoising, and you'll understand why solving it is a massively difficult feat.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I'm sure that RB and Ferrari can come up with a floor that creates more downforce than the current one they use, so that they potentially can run less aero on the top of the car, but that floor would probably proproise so much more that driving becomes undoable.
So maybe having the car that porpoises the least might not be a good thing. You might not have the full potential downforce from that floor.

This last statement in itself is a contradiction. Having no porpoising is a bad thing, but having additional porpoising is also a bad thing?


No, having porpoising is never a good thing, it means you don't know how to manage underbody air flow, and or downforce generation and maintaince (keeping the car in the sweet spot of ground effects aka ride height vs. donforce generation) as a result is sporadic and upsets the suspension. Again watch Kyle's video on this, he explains it extremely well.


Porpoising in itself means you aren't using the full potential of the underfloor because it keep stalling and you lose a massive amount of downforce. You also mess up the mechnical grip that car will have because the suspension is getting flucutating loads. Having a car that doesn't porpoise and in its optimal ride height range means you are using its floor to the full potential at all times. Like the w13 was doing last weekend, you could see it was running as low as possible with the tea tray nearly touching the ground. The reason why the w13 is slower is because it has significantly less development than RB and Ferrari, but now they understand and have solved porpoising they can develop the car to be faster. They still have a bunch of weight to lose, and now they can begin to optimize the floor further.


BTW ferrari attemtped to release an anti porpoising floor in barcelona and it didn't help, this should show how difficult it is to fix this problem (especially since ferrari has more wind tunnel and cfd time), as well as how it is undesirable to have porpoising.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by F87source

There will always be gains when you eliminate design abnormalities from a car, and porpoising is an abnormality. However, the amount of time to be gained will depend on if porpoising was affecting cornering ability - so for redbull there will be little to no gains as they never had issues with porpoising to start, with ferrari they will likely gain straight line speed but probably nothing for cornering. With merc it appeared they gained both (probably a bit more left once the cornering porpoising is eliminated), but need to really lose some weight and add more overall performance before they can really compete.

Is there any current data of the weights of each team. I hear RB is still overweight as well.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by M3WC

Is there any current data of the weights of each team. I hear RB is still overweight as well.

Not that I am aware of unfortunately.

I'm not surprised redbull is still overweight, losing grams is extremely difficult, losing kg's is fricken near impossible So I don't suspect the big teams to be at the weight limit till summer break or afterwards or maybe not at all till next year. I'm surprised some teams are even able to be on weight at all.


But it's probably a reason why redbull is starting to express concern about budget, they have been bringing upgrades to every race, and have said loosing 1kg would cost something crazy like $250,000 or something like that. Plus their recently weight loss has caused drs issues so they'll likely have to revert so that's gotta be expensive.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Fair prediction though I think this is how quali may look.

Barcelona 2022 => 50K fine ?

[F87source]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

50K fine ?

Depends if it was in parc ferme lol. FIA are gonna eat good again.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by F87source

This last statement in itself is a contradiction. Having no porpoising is a bad thing, but having additional porpoising is also a bad thing?

That is not the tradeoff what I'm saying.
I'm saying that a floor that has less downforce has less tendency to porpoise.
My point is, you can only say that porpoising is "solved" when you have a floor that is better or equally good as the competition and doesn't show the effect (or at least not as much as to the point that the drivers or the car get upset by it). We all know that a floordesigh that generates very little downforce, the amount of porpoising effect it will cause will be less.
So without any real data to make a comparison how much downforce each floor actually generates we can't really say which floor has solved the porpoising the most. The amount of vertical G's is not a really good measure for that. Sure it shows the movement of the car, but if there's very little downforce coming from the floor, then what good do those low vertical g values do?


BTW referring to a video as an argument is called a fallacy.
And implying that I havent seen that video without inquiring is just plain stupid. I think most people that follow these topics with interest have seen that video.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by F87source

Depends if it was in parc ferme lol. FIA are gonna eat good again.

Well ...Actually I can read : "Parc ferme rules"

The reason why ...

HAM knew that MAX ran with a superlight rear wing ( prototype ) in Barcelona .

That's why HAM touched the RB-18 prototype wing after the race .

By the prototype rear wing , MAX got non-stop DRS failures during QF and race.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Well ...Actually I can read : "Parc ferme rules"

And where else would that be. I think after the race the cars go directly to parc fermé until the cars are checked by the FIA. And after that I'd imagine they go straigth to the team pit boxes. I don't think they let them sit somewhere else for some time inbetween that.

The most difficult thing to see is if HAM is actually touching the car. That's for the FIA to decide.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

That is not the tradeoff what I'm saying.
I'm saying that a floor that has less downforce has less tendency to porpoise.
My point is, you can only say that porpoising is "solved" when you have a floor that is better or equally good as the competition and doesn't show the effect (or at least not as much as to the point that the drivers or the car get upset by it). We all know that a floordesigh that generates very little downforce, the amount of porpoising effect it will cause will be less.
So without any real data to make a comparison how much downforce each floor actually generates we can't really say which floor has solved the porpoising the most. The amount of vertical G's is not a really good measure for that. Sure it shows the movement of the car, but if there's very little downforce coming from the floor, then what good do those low vertical g values do?


BTW referring to a video as an argument is called a fallacy.
And implying that I havent seen that video without inquiring is just plain stupid.

1) It is not true at all that a floor that has less downforce has less tendency to porpoise. It depends on the flow structures and characteristics, look at the back markers they still porpoise and yet they have no performance.


2) Nope that's your definition of solving porpoising, solving porpoising literally means fixing porpoising aka going from porpoising to not porpoising. Having the same performance as others is just performance related and has nothing to do with solving porpoising. You can solve porpoising by just jacking up ride height till there is no more bouncing, porpoising solved you just don't have performance. Is that a good fix? No but you still solved it, but this is irrelevant to the discussion.

You say there is no real data but that's just selective bias - there are plenty of meaningful data points out there that shows mercedes solved porpoising in a meaningful way. Mercedes solved their issue as shown by the vertical G force read outs and have increased the performance of their car relative to the mid field and the top teams, that's shows it is a good solution because it didn't regress their car but increased its performance relative to the top two and the midfield. That is a far better indicator than just comparing them directly to ferrari and redbull in terms of pace.

Also how do you know the mercedes floor doesn't generate the same downforce? How do you know it isn't mechanical grip, weight, drag, etc causing them to be slower overall. Mass could be the signifcant factor because the more mass you have the more centripetal forces the contact patch must face in the corner meaning you get less cornering speed vs. something lighter even with the same downforce. And mercedes have not reduced weight as much as ferrari and redbull. So saying mercedes didn't "Solve" porpoising because they are still a bit off is plain ignorant, especially since mercedes has little development on the w13 vs. redbull and ferrari.


3) Nope you can't judge downforce generation with the amount of porpoising it generates, that's about as stupid as saying you can tell which car is better by looking at its body shape, or saying you can see air flow. Sure higher porpoising might be an indicator of high downforce but it is no way guaranteed because the floor flow structures can be just extremely poorly designed. Look at redbull - almost no porpoising and they have alot of downforce and performance, then look at aston before the b spec package, zero performance but a crap ton of porpoising.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Well ...Actually I can read : "Parc ferme rules"

The reason why ...

HAM knew that MAX ran with a superlight rear wing ( prototype ) in Barcelona .

That's why HAM touched the RB-18 prototype wing after the race .

By the prototype rear wing , MAX got non-stop DRS failures during QF and race.

I'm always intrigued how they can tell if something is super light. It has a hydraulic actuator on it (so there will be resistance) and has hinges so it's not like you can freely lift it to feel the true weight. So maybe it is really flexible?

Originally Posted by GuidoK

And where else would that be. I think after the race the cars go directly to parc fermé until the cars are checked by the FIA. And after that I'd imagine they go straigth to the team pit boxes. I don't think they let them sit somewhere else for some time inbetween that.

The most difficult thing to see is if HAM is actually touching the car. That's for the FIA to decide.

I don't know if this was after the race, because no race suit. It might be after a practice session where the teams put their cars on display for photo ops I am not sure.

But to me it does look like Hamilton touched it.

[GuidoK]

Video with some interesting quotes on porpoising.
The video is somethng of a general rant against the FIA, but some of the quotes in that video are interesting.

Ross Brawn (F1 managing and technical director and responsible for the technical rules):
"Where they (the teams) will face a challenge is that I suspect the solutions may be cutting back on performance a little bit, and stronger performance may put them on the edge of porpoising. But that is a decision for the teams to make on how they set the car up"
So his opinion is that it's a compromise between downforce and the propoising effect...

Lando Norris on porpoising (not a huge problem with mclaren I think, their car is just slow....):
"there are also many ways for them to stop porpoising. Like lifting your rear ride heigth 20mm"
So ride heigth is definately a factor in porpoising. Obviously it limits performance.
And Carlos Sainz has said that his back is overstressed, not so much from the porpoising, but from the very stiff suspension as a packeage to counter porpoising.
So all different "solutions", but also all compromises. Obviously the trick is to get the most downforce with the amount of porpoising that is just bearable for driver and car....

BTW the current #1 says something similar on porpoising. (link only in dutch):
https://racingnews365.nl/verstappen-...ieke-problemen

And some drivers don't see an improvement with the replacement of Masi, mainly the lack of experience of Wittich....
Not adding a crash barrier in front of the concrete wall where Sainz crashed and Ocon crashed hard the next day is a valid point (as there was room enough for a crash barrier)

[GuidoK]

from my prediction in the first page I switched NOR with BOT.
The alfa romeo might be suited for the slow corners. Maybe not as good as the merc's, but I'd really like BOT to finish in front of HAM
I'm sure he'd like that too

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Killed by Death





Looks like it ...

Attachment 2890984

Attachment 2890985

Rain..heheheh Chas

[Germanauto]

My dream event to attend. But damn imagine shelling out a boatload of $$ and it rains on the weekend of the GP!

Not a fan of Monaco otherwise.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by Germanauto

My dream event to attend. But damn imagine shelling out a boatload of $$ and it rains on the weekend of the GP!

Not a fan of Monaco otherwise.

The race I will attend one day is Spa. My favorite track.

[E92inNC]

Originally Posted by M3WC

The race I will attend one day is Spa. My favorite track.

Definitely, Spa and Monza are mine. I'll probably be in Canada next year if there is a race and the ticket and hotel prices aren't insane.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Barcelona 2022 => 50K fine ?

Touching RB wing and not turning up for Paris presentation also.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

from my prediction in the first page I switched NOR with BOT.
The alfa romeo might be suited for the slow corners. Maybe not as good as the merc's, but I'd really like BOT to finish in front of HAM
I'm sure he'd like that too

Barcelona Lap 1 :

HAM said that he was hit by Kmag .

Please watch the video on this page => https://www.facebook.com/ronald.kova...86522356857570

What do you think now ?

[Killed by Death]

https://www.grandprix247.com/2022/05...-a-head-screw/

[///M Power-Belgium]

Killed by Death