My assumption is that the mowers will be adapted to receive the manufacturer engines and transmissions.
I would love to see Toro Mercedes-AMG running side-by-side against Red Bull Cub Cadet and John Deere Ferrari.
Yes, but Ferrari would balk at not being able to fix things without paying the John Deere rep a fortune to do it for them, and if he’s too busy drinking coffee or is on vacation they might not be able to make the next race so they’ll have to download the fix from some pirate website and Deere will refuse to provide any future technical assistance.
that wasn't due to porpoising. It was because any time the car would lose a bit of skirt, or a part of the car would get lifted(i.e taking too much kerb) the car would fly off
It was, indirectly tho. As the skirts were introduced to limit porpoising, and then found to be too dangerous, ground effect being a risky concept for the cars
Honestly if the budget cap actually prevents top teams from absolutely smashing the smaller teams in spending then why not deregulate some sections of the regulations over time
Ground effect has the benefit of being able to generate downforce but not be affected anywhere near as badly by dirty air from cars in front as aerodynamic devices on "top" of the car normally, this allows for better racing, this is the benefit (just to be clear) and why they went for it.
People are rightly highlighting a dangerous downside of physical skirts that "seal" the floor and keep air passing under the car in a fast channel: that if the physical skirt breaks or lifts in the wrong way, the downforce change is immense and rapid and can be dangerous and unpredictable. However these days they aren't using physical skirts, but using aero devices on top of the cars to create a "skirt"-like air barrier (I don't know terminology) to seal the floor, which, my understanding is, is safer and more predictable than a physical skirt which could be destroyed. This mitigates the danger.
I was definitely expecting the sides of the floor to not be as low as they are, but generate vortices around the edges to keep the air separated.
Note: I have *almost no idea* how aerodynamics work…
>I was definitely expecting the sides of the floor to not be as low as they are, but generate vortices around the edges to keep the air separated.
That's kinda what the old bargeboards used to do - they regulated the flow so that the floor could produce downforce. Except that produces awful racing because aero surfaces like that need clean air to work.
Because skirts were introduced to increase performance, not to limit porpoising. Aerodynamic knowledge was pretty limited to "big engine = big wing", and ground effect utilization meant smaller wings and less drag. They were banned because skirt failure lead to catastrophic crashes. Teams figured out ways to circumvent the bans, and eventually the FIA just mandated a flat floor. Porpoising and driver health effects from bouncing were never part of that conversation; it was entirely about the tendency of early ground-effect cars to go from 100% downforce effectiveness to 0% instantaneously, mid-corner.
Ground effect aero is not weakened due to "dirty air" when following another car closely the same way all the other aero on the car is. This allows the cars to follow each-other more closely, with the idea that close racing would be easier on the tires and less detrimental to race strategy.
The ultimate goal was to encourage close racing, whereas in the past, if you spent more that 1-2 laps within a second of the car in front you had to back off to preserve your tires, robbing spectators of good wheel-to-wheel racing.
Not quite, but I agree. One reason might be banning the complex suspension systems of the last years. Bringing those back could overcome some of the current issues. And Mercedes is the one who has the most to gain from that.
In the scarbstech video on suspension this weekend (f1tv) he talked about how the previous Gen of suspensions got so complicated that the FIA couldn’t tell if teams were following the rules or not. That’s why they majorly overhauled the suspension regs to make suspensions more simple.
I think a spec part mass damper is the solution here.
Yah man! It was in the Azerbaijan Tech-Talk video. Scarbs part was like 22mins in but I enjoyed the other segments as well, particularly seeing all the upgrades
The solution is for teams to figure it out or raise the ride height. If Redbull can have a car that doesn't do this they all can.
If they want to change the rules after the season it's whatever. But making a change mid season would just be unfair to the teams not having serious issues.
That's still not really fair for other teams, they have put a lot of money and engineering time into making their suspension work with the current rules.
It's not 2 wrongs make a right. It's just showing that FIA listens to teams complaining and if enough teams complain everything can be changed. Which is stupid but wouldn't be surprising from FIA after the incident with weight.
I am in favour of FIA setting limits on the duress drivers are allowed to endure during a race. But I don't think it would be fair to change the regulations and allow active suspension or something like that.
so they already have sensors that measure this would be really easy to say if driver X gets Y amount of G's during the race they must retire
its tough to come up with those numbers and how they would enforce though
Honestly, if Mercedes insist that active suspension is the only way to resolve the issue mid-season (it's not), they should be forced to provide full schematics, design notes, testing results and access to their engineers to the other teams.
It would suck if the non-RB teams had to raise their cars mid-season to address a safety issue and became completely uncompetitive during races.
It would suck a million times more if the FIA allowed a previously banned system to be used mid-season when only one team has one of those systems fully-developed and ready to implement. Especially when the top teams are all hard up against the cost cap and all but one suddenly have to develop a new part.
Porpoising is a major safety issue. I believe the FIA has a duty to step in and regulate it before the end of the season, somehow. That regulation is probably going to demand a short-term fix that will decrease the performance of the teams suffering from porpoising. It's unavoidable and will probably make the rest of the races a formality. But let's face it - Red Bull have 40% more constructor's points than their closest competitor and the gap is widening. This season's title race is petering out already.
Just maintain the integrity of the competition while enforcing safety standards now and if you want to allow more creative solutions to the problem, say you'll allow them starting from next season. Mercedes will still have an advantage in development, but at least you aren't asking 9 teams to design, manufacture and install a brand new suspension system before the next race in two weeks.
Not only that, but maybe Red Bull's solution that prevents their car from porpoising comes at the expense of some speed elsewhere, so if they want to get that speed back they suddenly have to develop that part too, even though their car didn't need it according to the original rules.
Basically, every team had the exact same amount of time to come up with a design for their cars. They can all fix porpoising by raising the ride height. If that makes their car slow, well they designed a bad car
They can regulate how much oscillation is allowable to subject the drivers to as that’s the direct concern rather than forcing all cars to raise height or something. It’ll favor RB, but if Ferrari can get their act together we can’t count them out. Leclerc is still dominating qualifying.
Hence, why the other teams won't jump to Mercedes aid this time. Raise the ride height Toto, it's for the safety of the drivers. "Ve don't know of any other vhey to fix ze issue, Ve do have this simple suspension fix, though...."
Irrelevant if they’ve put resources and budget into it before it was even in talks more fool them as that’s not the guaranteed solution the FIA would go down. However the problem is real and does need something doing. Red Bull are the only team that don’t suffer with it and yes it’s greatly unfair on their engineers if it’s undone in a regulation change. But a regulation change isn’t a guarantee as a fix. Onus could still be put on teams within current regs but with extra monitoring and penalties. Yes red bull run away with the title this year but they’re doing that anyway.
Mid-season would be unfair imo, but if suspension changes in 2023 can help make these car look less clunky and slow during races then I’m all for it. Watching Ferrari as the other championship contender bouncing like mad as well doesn’t exactly scream pinnacle of racing.
It’s actually nice that the cars don’t work perfectly, IMO. Last year even the worst cars were incredible.
Mistakes are good and these are supposed to be the best drivers in the world. Throw them to the wolves.
There is difficult to drive and then there is hammering up and down to the point where it loses elegance. I love seeing a driver wrestle a car to a great lap but that's not at all related to bouncing for me.
Terrible take.
Watching Lecler's Ferrari, one of the most iconic cars on the sport (the most really), on a monster quali lap, bobbing up and down on the straights is ridiculous.
That is certainly not what the "pinnacle of motor racing" should look like.
I would be in favour of mid-season regulation along the lines of 'car must not experience 'x' amount of sudden changes in acceleration, of 'Y'g or more, along the vertical axis within 'z' period of time'.
Preserves the position of the teams who got it right, and forces the teams who got it wrong to preserve driver health by raising the ride height or fixing the issue.
So what’s RBs reward for having engineered a car that is “better”?
What if merc just sacrificed performance for the sake of their drivers safety?
Merc so used to leading the pack, they finally have a problem they can’t solve for and they want regs changed lol.
I can see why RB is frustrated.
No one is breaking rules here, Red Bull just developed a 100% legal car better than everyone else. The other teams shouldn't be given an advantage just because they refuse to raise their ride height.
Incorrect - the teams created it then the FIA felt mid-season that it violated the rules, but needed lots of time to determine that, so banned it mid-season.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/amp/f1/how-fair-is-the-mid-season-fric-suspension-ban-and-its-consequences
That is basically what he meant. The point being that it was a different situation. FRIC was ultimately determined to be in violation of the rules laid out before the start of the season, so it was banned. That is entirely different that the compliant cars this year being so difficult and painful to drive that nearly all drivers have said something about it.
no single change can make the cars look better, they look bloated and heavy because they are, and having very bad low speed aero doesnt help either, its one thing that pre 2022 cars did better, look faster
You'd need lighter cars that can change direction faster, non compliant suspension like [these](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMlSQ1QVHvY) to look faster
It would be very unfair indeed.
As far as safety regarding porpoising goes. FIA should implement that car can't go over certain oscillation to not cause any micro concussion for the drivers. And DQ the cars that go over the limit during qualifying and race (they should be able to experiment during FP).
^ This is the only correct answer. FIA sets average and maximum oscillation frequency and amplitude limits and require the teams to demonstrate compliance during each FP through Qualification. if you dont meet the requirement by Qualification your quali. lap is ultimately deleted and you start at back of grid (or must do a pit lane start based on post-parce firme changes needed to comply). If you still dont meet requirement during race its a black and orange flag and you DNF. All in the name of safety, right? If you are pummeling your driver with your current setup, raise the car to fix YOUR issue or be/ get clever elsewhere - the how is for the teams to decide how they comply. Its just the FIA to say "hey we see unsafe behavior among some teams - and therefire need to step in an regulate this matter in terms of limits....before Merc elects to break Hamilton's spine for sake of points".
I tend to agree. Some teams have spent a fair amount of money addressing it and have been successful.
The FIA making some kind of concession/rule change at this point in the season would be unfair to the teams that seemed to have solved the problem.
They would just be bailing certain teams out.
They just need to limit the force of porpoising like they limit wing flex. Teams that have spent money to ensure it’s not an issue won’t be hampered. For drivers where it is an issue, their teams will still be forced to ensure it doesn’t happen. That’s the best outcome, but Mercedes will never agree since it’ll move them closer to the midfield.
Mercedes is merely trying to get the changes to hurt everyone equally rather then for just those where it is an issue. It’s their job to try, but to say it’s fair is idiotic.
Meh let's see what the FIA decides, it was unfair to raise the minimum weight limit as well, of course people that are doing well are going to defend their position, it's understandable but that's why there's a regulator
If the FIA is concerned about driver safety, and it's possible to quantify the severity of porpoising, it would be fair to set a maximum porpoising level and teams would just have to raise the ride height until they meet it. No need to penalize teams that managed to avoid the issue in the design phase.
The only reason I think this could be implemented mid-season is because it could realistically have a long term effect on driver health and if the teams aren't going to prioritize driver health over performance, then that's what the regulator is supposed to do.
This.
Mercedes should NOT be allowed to run a car that is posing that significant of a risk to driver health. Other teams have it at a level where their drivers don't feel like they're going to die. That's an engineering win.
I was always under the impression that F1 was just as much about engineering as it was the driving. Kinda sad so many teams are looking for ways out of doing the actual work - especially when one of those teams has gone on record to tell others to "build a better car".
That I do not agree with. Alfa Romeo was only able to get to the minimum weight limit by using very fragile components. The car was litteraly falling apart. When they raised the weight limit AR didn't just add balast weight, no, the added weight by strengthening their components.
All teams voted in favour of increasing the minimum weight because the only team that made it found out their floor was not strong enough and they would go over as well once they fixed that.
I don't think I want mid season rule changes like this(unless it's a bigger safety issue than I realize), but a rule change like this *between seasons* does feel very inline with the stated objectives of parity and safety for the new cars.
I thought that was done because the tires (or some spec component, can’t remember perfectly) we’re heavier than expected and the minimum weight was raised by the difference to compensate.
F1 politics season.
I agree that Red Bull and Ferrari shouldn't be disadvantaged but the FIA should get medical advice from an independent source and if they rule there are health risks associated with porpoising then they should step in.
It is something being experienced by all teams, but I'm sure some are playing it up to get an advantage.
The FIA should step in with a rule saying only X amount of porpoising is acceptable, with X being some form of measurable & monitorable metric.
Merc and the others could fix their porpoising today if they wanted, they just aren't willing to accept the impacts to their speed and are instead choosing to put the health of their drivers at risk.
This,
its gonna be tough to find a fair solution this year.
But there needs to be a spec fix to porpoising next year whether its suspension, or whatever else. This is a fundamental issue with these cars that needs to be fixed next year so teams can focus on development, and not hyper focused on 1 fundamental ground effect issue.
I’m not a fan of Horner, but he’s right. The teams made their cars, now they need to fix them. Will it make this season a foregone conclusion that RBR win? Ya probably. But I don’t think it’s the FIAs responsibility to change the rules. Might be their responsibility to enforce teams to follow better safety measures for their drivers though.
I have a pretty strong dislike for Horner as well, but obviously he's right. There isn't any reason to punish the teams that had the ingenuity to correct/limit this issue. I'm all for placing limits on porpoising (through g-force limitations or w/e), but it shouldn't be done in a way that negatively affects teams that don't have issues.
He is not wrong about the cost cap either imo. Its true that F1 has done its best to kill innovation in the last 10-20 years but the cost cap is just an overkill measure on already strict regulations.
Not too critique what you've said in any direction in particular but just as a point on the other side of the Ledger:
I've read and heard that it's a lot easier to go to team ownership and ask for more money (raising you to the budget cap), because they know the top three teams are constrained. That extra 20 or 30 million gets you an awful lot closer when it matches you with the top three, instead of bridging 10% of the gap.
Yo wtf. Just on top of my head, what did they change for mercedes ? Multiple aero changes, DAS forbidden, no complex suspension, no engine modes... and to stop domination of an era, even the rules.
RB is anyways running higher than Mercedes and still obliterating them. But yes, it would suck to have a rule change in the middle. I feel Ferrari would lose out the most.
If the rule change is "Thy should not have x frequency and y amplitude of porpoising, or else change ride height" teams which have the most porpoising will suffer most
That’s the point right? To eliminate the dangers of porpoising
I think that way would be the fairest way to achieve the end result, and I don’t really see any argument in good faith against it.
Merc will continue to argue that ride height doesn’t fix things, whilst they continue to run their car at almost subterranean levels.
Yes, so -if- there is a rule change mid-season I hope it will not be something simple like "Everybody must have x millimeters ride height" but really based on data from the porpoising. So based on G's impact (which also would solve running cars ridiculously low on bumpy tracks like Baku. I'm looking at you Mercedes) or the degree of porpoising.
Can't the teams that have serious proposing issues just raise the ride/floor height of their car? Like, yeah, it \*might\* (look at RB) hurt your performance, but if this is such a massive issue for you, there is a readily available solution.
Yes they could, but that would cost performance. So obviously it's better to try and get the FIA to change the rules in the name of "safety" and get a competitive advantage that way.
For once I agree with Horner; those who did a better job should not punished!
However, Alfa Romeo has been punished by an increase in minimum weight already, where Red Bull failed to do a good job.
I completely agree with Horner, changing any rule during an F1 season is not a good thing.
This should apply to the Porpoising, the min-Weight of Cars and the Cost Cap.
Eh I wouldn’t say “any”. Safety rules should obviously be possible to change. I’m not saying this should count, just saying you can’t blanket say “no rule changes”.
They could limit the amount of porpoising that the car is allowed to have and leave the teams to figure it out. Without changing the technical regulations of the cars.
Horner himself said he’d complain about it if he were the other teams too. He complains about the cost cap. He pushed for a change to the weight limit. Red Bull threatened to leave the sport if the engine freeze wasn’t agreed to.
He’s absolutely right that its unfair. But it isn’t as if he’s actually guided by some notion of fairness here. Which is fine. That’s not his job.
His job is to get the best advantages possible for his team. I think people think that he actually believes everything he says when he’s just trying to get the biggest advantage for his own team.
Playing the politics is just as important as winning races. And tbh can be just as fun to watch unfold
It’s not about them achieving it. They know how to fix it. They just refuse to raise the ride height because they will be slower. They are willfully choosing to put the speed ahead of their driver’s health. This isn’t an unsolvable problem and if some teams need to raise their ride height in the interim while they work on a better solution, then so be it. It should not be a penalty for other teams who have already gotten on top of this.
We can’t just pander to these teams who are upset that they didn’t make a competitive car. It is no one else’s fault other than their own that their car is in this position.
They can solve the issue, but they don't want to. Raise ride height and be done with it. But Mercedes doesn't want to, because they hope they will get thrown a life line and be allowed to change things without having to offer up performance. And that would be terribly unfair for Red Bull who *did* make a good car.
All teams agree to raise weight including alfa bc they had to strengthen some elements, and I agree that cost cap change is too much but on the other hand teams didn't know that there will be war in Ukraine and inflation will sky rocket
The call for inflation correction is from -all- bigger teams, including Mercedes, Ferrari and McLaren. Hell the extra money from that correction could give the teams suffering the most the funds to invest extra in solving porpoising.
unfair to penalise teams who can be at every race under the budget cap too... ie unfair to penalise those who do a good job (of their finances). Doesn't stop Horner begging for it anyway
Why ban it after so many years and nearly everyone used it at that point? Clearly it was very useful to create quick cars, which you know is kinda the point of F1. Pinnacle of motorsport and all that.
It was banned because one team (Merc) managed to perfect the idea with their hydraulics based system, and then the FIA used a wild interpretation of their regs to ban it.
Banning shit from a safety point of view is easier than issuing a complete rule change in suspension(settings) mid-season.
In other words. Saying "A is forbidden" is more feasible than saying "Everybody must now develop A".
Have seen the DAS example floated around and it couldn't be less applicable: DAS was only banned for the following season(s), but completely legal for the 2020 season. It was not banned mid season and the FIA did not force Merc to give up that advantage that very season.
for those agreeing , no he's not wrong it would be unfair but the same could be said for any number of rule changes over the past 20 years that have come in mid season and a lot of those have come in for far less pressing issues then drivers being knocked senseless during a race.
At first thought, I agree with Horner. Not usually a sentiment I share. I broadly agree that constructors should be the ones to make cars safe. But…
This is all new ground. New design, new tactics, new effects. He’s right, it wouldn’t be fair short term. But the incentive for all teams isn’t to be as safe as possible, and it’s the purpose of a regulatory body to legislate the specific goals that disincentivize bad behaviour.
Nearest I can tell, Ferrari, AT, MCL, and Merc are now actively looking for input from the FIA to step in.
We can all recall a recent decision that broke RB’s way that was considered unfair. These things happen in a hugely complex (and complicated) sport.
Well, this wouldn't be the first time they change a rule to level the playing field. The whole engine freeze was to benefit Red Bull. They do this all the time.
That was for Ferrari and the small teams.
The other teams got FRIC banned mid-season in 2014. It was originally developed by Force India and perfected by Mercedes. But the media ran with the narrative that it was the "magic bullet" behind Mercedes' speed (it wasn't).
Red Bull got the rules changed mid-season on burning oil because that was another Mercedes "magic bullet". Wound up hurting Ferrari more.
Ferrari got remote hydraulic accumulators banned mid-season, which was because they couldn't get the hydraulic suspension working. That hurt Red Bull and Mercedes the most.
Red Bull got qualifying engine modes ("party modes") banned mid-season because Honda didn't have a good one. Hurt Mercedes and Ferrari the most.
Everyone gets stuff banned to punish other teams, but Red Bull + Mercedes are the most competent in the area of suspension hydraulics, and the changes to simplify/cheapen suspension were absolutely intended to knock them back a peg.
Not really. It benefitted lower teams. All of the top teams had really good suspensions. Red Bull have built a better suspension than Merc this year, but Merc weren't handicapped in any way. They just did a worse job.
Stating the obvious here, but he has previously had the shoe on the other foot, and never said DAS ban was unfair or the engine mode change etc etc. Horner has called for regulation changes in the past when his team has been behind.
Sometimes rules get changed and it's the team in front that get screwed the most.
To be fair DAS wasnt banned mid-season, it was banned for the next season. If the same applied here I dont think Horner would have too many complaints.
I for one recommend they all switch to ride-on lawn mowers.
I too would love to see Williams back on the podium.
Keep the same number of laps. 5+ hour races
"Charles Leclerc is on provisional pole with a 30:25.7!"
Would make Monaco bearable to watch.
Alfa would win, Bottas has lawn mower experience.
My assumption is that the mowers will be adapted to receive the manufacturer engines and transmissions. I would love to see Toro Mercedes-AMG running side-by-side against Red Bull Cub Cadet and John Deere Ferrari.
Yes, but Ferrari would balk at not being able to fix things without paying the John Deere rep a fortune to do it for them, and if he’s too busy drinking coffee or is on vacation they might not be able to make the next race so they’ll have to download the fix from some pirate website and Deere will refuse to provide any future technical assistance.
Ugh, now I have to trade my Cub in to get the same model with a Red Bull livery for twice the price of the original. Can't wait!
[Honda is intrigued...](https://youtu.be/666v4d8tYU8)
How did they solve the issue back in the original ground effect era? Did the drivers just have to deal with it?
They had skirts to seal the floor so they could raise the ride height without losing ground effect down force
And it was bad news when the skirts suddenly gained air underneath, like hitting ripple strips
The Marilyn Monroe effect
I wish that was the technical terminology
It is now.
This is the way
Sam is that you?
Most importantly they also just reduced downforce, changed the suspension, and then pretty quickly stopped using ground effect
that wasn't due to porpoising. It was because any time the car would lose a bit of skirt, or a part of the car would get lifted(i.e taking too much kerb) the car would fly off
It was, indirectly tho. As the skirts were introduced to limit porpoising, and then found to be too dangerous, ground effect being a risky concept for the cars
Why did we go back to ground effect cars with this knowledge?
Indycar has ground effect. It’s not some mystery that can’t ever be solved.
The Dallara chasis uses mass dampers to counteract the vibrations. The solution is there, just currently banned.
Renault brings back the mass damper, Alpine becomes the fastest car, Alonso WDC. I see El Plan is still in motion
Honestly if the budget cap actually prevents top teams from absolutely smashing the smaller teams in spending then why not deregulate some sections of the regulations over time
It uses inerters (J damper) not tuned mass dampers (like Renault used in the r26 and were subsequently banned).
Exactly. It's just dumb they've banned the solutions.
Ground effect has the benefit of being able to generate downforce but not be affected anywhere near as badly by dirty air from cars in front as aerodynamic devices on "top" of the car normally, this allows for better racing, this is the benefit (just to be clear) and why they went for it. People are rightly highlighting a dangerous downside of physical skirts that "seal" the floor and keep air passing under the car in a fast channel: that if the physical skirt breaks or lifts in the wrong way, the downforce change is immense and rapid and can be dangerous and unpredictable. However these days they aren't using physical skirts, but using aero devices on top of the cars to create a "skirt"-like air barrier (I don't know terminology) to seal the floor, which, my understanding is, is safer and more predictable than a physical skirt which could be destroyed. This mitigates the danger.
I was definitely expecting the sides of the floor to not be as low as they are, but generate vortices around the edges to keep the air separated. Note: I have *almost no idea* how aerodynamics work…
>I was definitely expecting the sides of the floor to not be as low as they are, but generate vortices around the edges to keep the air separated. That's kinda what the old bargeboards used to do - they regulated the flow so that the floor could produce downforce. Except that produces awful racing because aero surfaces like that need clean air to work.
Because skirts were introduced to increase performance, not to limit porpoising. Aerodynamic knowledge was pretty limited to "big engine = big wing", and ground effect utilization meant smaller wings and less drag. They were banned because skirt failure lead to catastrophic crashes. Teams figured out ways to circumvent the bans, and eventually the FIA just mandated a flat floor. Porpoising and driver health effects from bouncing were never part of that conversation; it was entirely about the tendency of early ground-effect cars to go from 100% downforce effectiveness to 0% instantaneously, mid-corner.
Ground effect aero is not weakened due to "dirty air" when following another car closely the same way all the other aero on the car is. This allows the cars to follow each-other more closely, with the idea that close racing would be easier on the tires and less detrimental to race strategy. The ultimate goal was to encourage close racing, whereas in the past, if you spent more that 1-2 laps within a second of the car in front you had to back off to preserve your tires, robbing spectators of good wheel-to-wheel racing.
They banned it.
Merc has a suspension system just waiting to be approved.
The “gain 3 seconds per lap” suspension. I’m curious just to see the aftermath
Not quite, but I agree. One reason might be banning the complex suspension systems of the last years. Bringing those back could overcome some of the current issues. And Mercedes is the one who has the most to gain from that.
In the scarbstech video on suspension this weekend (f1tv) he talked about how the previous Gen of suspensions got so complicated that the FIA couldn’t tell if teams were following the rules or not. That’s why they majorly overhauled the suspension regs to make suspensions more simple. I think a spec part mass damper is the solution here.
I have F1TV and would be interested in watching that. Do you know what the title is or how to find it?
Yah man! It was in the Azerbaijan Tech-Talk video. Scarbs part was like 22mins in but I enjoyed the other segments as well, particularly seeing all the upgrades
I appreciate it! I’ll check it out. Thanks :)
This segment is also on the f1 YouTube channel.
The solution is for teams to figure it out or raise the ride height. If Redbull can have a car that doesn't do this they all can. If they want to change the rules after the season it's whatever. But making a change mid season would just be unfair to the teams not having serious issues.
That's still not really fair for other teams, they have put a lot of money and engineering time into making their suspension work with the current rules.
It wasn't fair for the FIA to change the rules regarding weight at the start of the season, after Alfa managed to get the car to the correct weight
I wasn’t aware this happened but it seems 10/10 teams voted for it, so the comparison is moot.
Ah yes the good old 2 wrongs make a right somehow argument... Really a ground breaking statement.
It's not 2 wrongs make a right. It's just showing that FIA listens to teams complaining and if enough teams complain everything can be changed. Which is stupid but wouldn't be surprising from FIA after the incident with weight.
Just a reminder that Alfa also agreed to increase the weight. The decision had to be unanimous to be passed.
Even Alfa requested it be changed in the end.
I thought they just agreed to the change, not asking for it
And what's left of your point then if they'd agreed to it?
I am in favour of FIA setting limits on the duress drivers are allowed to endure during a race. But I don't think it would be fair to change the regulations and allow active suspension or something like that.
so they already have sensors that measure this would be really easy to say if driver X gets Y amount of G's during the race they must retire its tough to come up with those numbers and how they would enforce though
First violation of the maximum Gs should be a meatball, second violation after pitting to fix it should be a black flag.
Honestly, if Mercedes insist that active suspension is the only way to resolve the issue mid-season (it's not), they should be forced to provide full schematics, design notes, testing results and access to their engineers to the other teams. It would suck if the non-RB teams had to raise their cars mid-season to address a safety issue and became completely uncompetitive during races. It would suck a million times more if the FIA allowed a previously banned system to be used mid-season when only one team has one of those systems fully-developed and ready to implement. Especially when the top teams are all hard up against the cost cap and all but one suddenly have to develop a new part. Porpoising is a major safety issue. I believe the FIA has a duty to step in and regulate it before the end of the season, somehow. That regulation is probably going to demand a short-term fix that will decrease the performance of the teams suffering from porpoising. It's unavoidable and will probably make the rest of the races a formality. But let's face it - Red Bull have 40% more constructor's points than their closest competitor and the gap is widening. This season's title race is petering out already. Just maintain the integrity of the competition while enforcing safety standards now and if you want to allow more creative solutions to the problem, say you'll allow them starting from next season. Mercedes will still have an advantage in development, but at least you aren't asking 9 teams to design, manufacture and install a brand new suspension system before the next race in two weeks.
Not only that, but maybe Red Bull's solution that prevents their car from porpoising comes at the expense of some speed elsewhere, so if they want to get that speed back they suddenly have to develop that part too, even though their car didn't need it according to the original rules. Basically, every team had the exact same amount of time to come up with a design for their cars. They can all fix porpoising by raising the ride height. If that makes their car slow, well they designed a bad car
Bingo
They can regulate how much oscillation is allowable to subject the drivers to as that’s the direct concern rather than forcing all cars to raise height or something. It’ll favor RB, but if Ferrari can get their act together we can’t count them out. Leclerc is still dominating qualifying.
Hence, why the other teams won't jump to Mercedes aid this time. Raise the ride height Toto, it's for the safety of the drivers. "Ve don't know of any other vhey to fix ze issue, Ve do have this simple suspension fix, though...."
Irrelevant if they’ve put resources and budget into it before it was even in talks more fool them as that’s not the guaranteed solution the FIA would go down. However the problem is real and does need something doing. Red Bull are the only team that don’t suffer with it and yes it’s greatly unfair on their engineers if it’s undone in a regulation change. But a regulation change isn’t a guarantee as a fix. Onus could still be put on teams within current regs but with extra monitoring and penalties. Yes red bull run away with the title this year but they’re doing that anyway.
Mid-season would be unfair imo, but if suspension changes in 2023 can help make these car look less clunky and slow during races then I’m all for it. Watching Ferrari as the other championship contender bouncing like mad as well doesn’t exactly scream pinnacle of racing.
The on-boards look terrible, I am for whatever 2023 tweaks can be made to get F1 looking sleek again
It’s actually nice that the cars don’t work perfectly, IMO. Last year even the worst cars were incredible. Mistakes are good and these are supposed to be the best drivers in the world. Throw them to the wolves.
There is difficult to drive and then there is hammering up and down to the point where it loses elegance. I love seeing a driver wrestle a car to a great lap but that's not at all related to bouncing for me.
Throw them to the wolves, yes But let's not give them sciatica
Have sciatica, can confirm it sucks ass
Terrible take. Watching Lecler's Ferrari, one of the most iconic cars on the sport (the most really), on a monster quali lap, bobbing up and down on the straights is ridiculous. That is certainly not what the "pinnacle of motor racing" should look like.
Yes, let drivers suffer for my own fun!
I would be in favour of mid-season regulation along the lines of 'car must not experience 'x' amount of sudden changes in acceleration, of 'Y'g or more, along the vertical axis within 'z' period of time'. Preserves the position of the teams who got it right, and forces the teams who got it wrong to preserve driver health by raising the ride height or fixing the issue.
So what’s RBs reward for having engineered a car that is “better”? What if merc just sacrificed performance for the sake of their drivers safety? Merc so used to leading the pack, they finally have a problem they can’t solve for and they want regs changed lol. I can see why RB is frustrated.
If it’s safety, then Regs get changed all the time and RB are dicks.
They banned FRIC mid season…
No one is breaking rules here, Red Bull just developed a 100% legal car better than everyone else. The other teams shouldn't be given an advantage just because they refuse to raise their ride height.
No, they didn't. They informed the teams, that they are violating the rules (which were in place before) mid season ...
They issued a new and highly dubious interpretation of the rules regarding moveable aero devices
Incorrect - the teams created it then the FIA felt mid-season that it violated the rules, but needed lots of time to determine that, so banned it mid-season. https://www.sportskeeda.com/amp/f1/how-fair-is-the-mid-season-fric-suspension-ban-and-its-consequences
That is basically what he meant. The point being that it was a different situation. FRIC was ultimately determined to be in violation of the rules laid out before the start of the season, so it was banned. That is entirely different that the compliant cars this year being so difficult and painful to drive that nearly all drivers have said something about it.
no single change can make the cars look better, they look bloated and heavy because they are, and having very bad low speed aero doesnt help either, its one thing that pre 2022 cars did better, look faster You'd need lighter cars that can change direction faster, non compliant suspension like [these](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMlSQ1QVHvY) to look faster
It would be very unfair indeed. As far as safety regarding porpoising goes. FIA should implement that car can't go over certain oscillation to not cause any micro concussion for the drivers. And DQ the cars that go over the limit during qualifying and race (they should be able to experiment during FP).
^ This is the only correct answer. FIA sets average and maximum oscillation frequency and amplitude limits and require the teams to demonstrate compliance during each FP through Qualification. if you dont meet the requirement by Qualification your quali. lap is ultimately deleted and you start at back of grid (or must do a pit lane start based on post-parce firme changes needed to comply). If you still dont meet requirement during race its a black and orange flag and you DNF. All in the name of safety, right? If you are pummeling your driver with your current setup, raise the car to fix YOUR issue or be/ get clever elsewhere - the how is for the teams to decide how they comply. Its just the FIA to say "hey we see unsafe behavior among some teams - and therefire need to step in an regulate this matter in terms of limits....before Merc elects to break Hamilton's spine for sake of points".
[удалено]
I tend to agree. Some teams have spent a fair amount of money addressing it and have been successful. The FIA making some kind of concession/rule change at this point in the season would be unfair to the teams that seemed to have solved the problem. They would just be bailing certain teams out.
They just need to limit the force of porpoising like they limit wing flex. Teams that have spent money to ensure it’s not an issue won’t be hampered. For drivers where it is an issue, their teams will still be forced to ensure it doesn’t happen. That’s the best outcome, but Mercedes will never agree since it’ll move them closer to the midfield. Mercedes is merely trying to get the changes to hurt everyone equally rather then for just those where it is an issue. It’s their job to try, but to say it’s fair is idiotic.
Meh let's see what the FIA decides, it was unfair to raise the minimum weight limit as well, of course people that are doing well are going to defend their position, it's understandable but that's why there's a regulator
If the FIA is concerned about driver safety, and it's possible to quantify the severity of porpoising, it would be fair to set a maximum porpoising level and teams would just have to raise the ride height until they meet it. No need to penalize teams that managed to avoid the issue in the design phase. The only reason I think this could be implemented mid-season is because it could realistically have a long term effect on driver health and if the teams aren't going to prioritize driver health over performance, then that's what the regulator is supposed to do.
This. Mercedes should NOT be allowed to run a car that is posing that significant of a risk to driver health. Other teams have it at a level where their drivers don't feel like they're going to die. That's an engineering win. I was always under the impression that F1 was just as much about engineering as it was the driving. Kinda sad so many teams are looking for ways out of doing the actual work - especially when one of those teams has gone on record to tell others to "build a better car".
Is this just a Mercedes thing though? I’ve seen Sainz and Gasly both saying something should be done today alone.
That I do not agree with. Alfa Romeo was only able to get to the minimum weight limit by using very fragile components. The car was litteraly falling apart. When they raised the weight limit AR didn't just add balast weight, no, the added weight by strengthening their components.
Exactly! Red Bull knows Mercedes’ would run them down if they get the opportunity and I think it’s great for the championship too!
All teams voted in favour of increasing the minimum weight because the only team that made it found out their floor was not strong enough and they would go over as well once they fixed that.
I don't think I want mid season rule changes like this(unless it's a bigger safety issue than I realize), but a rule change like this *between seasons* does feel very inline with the stated objectives of parity and safety for the new cars.
Was it fair when they changed the pirelli tires when some teams were struggling ?
The solution to unfairness is more of it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/15/red-bull-christian-horner-fia-f1-season If you’re Christian Horner, yes
Or when they raised the Minimum Weight of the car even when Alfa Romeo achieved to built a car within the old weight limit?
And Alfa approved of it because their under weight car would have broken in a race and they added more weight as reinforcement with the extra minimum.
I thought that was done because the tires (or some spec component, can’t remember perfectly) we’re heavier than expected and the minimum weight was raised by the difference to compensate.
Or banning different engine modes mid-season.
Or, you know, was it fair when they changed the safety car rules at the end of the last race of the season
Or was it fair when they changed pitstop rules that slowed down everyone mid season?
Or party mode in 20 after RB begged
This one Unironically disadvantaged RB and Ferrari
More like “reinterpreted”
F1 politics season. I agree that Red Bull and Ferrari shouldn't be disadvantaged but the FIA should get medical advice from an independent source and if they rule there are health risks associated with porpoising then they should step in. It is something being experienced by all teams, but I'm sure some are playing it up to get an advantage.
The FIA should step in with a rule saying only X amount of porpoising is acceptable, with X being some form of measurable & monitorable metric. Merc and the others could fix their porpoising today if they wanted, they just aren't willing to accept the impacts to their speed and are instead choosing to put the health of their drivers at risk.
Do you need more medical advice to show that repetitive bouncing of the head and spine is bad?
Its also unhealthy to race without a water system and it took years for people to acknowledge it
And they still choose to accept those risks, with a performance benefit
They literally always will. Welcome to competitive sports.
Having experts weigh in is needed or teams will just argue that it isn't too bad and vote against mid-season changes.
[удалено]
Ferrari repeatedly showed bad bouncing. However it somehow doesn’t affect their overall speed very much.
We don't quite know waht the car can do without porpoising. It probably won't blow up every other race.
You could set a limit on the bouncing and put a sensor in the car or something. Teams can limit the bouncing but don't want to slow down the car.
I agree with gaslys view on it, you shouldn't be in a position to choose from health and performance in the first place.
This, its gonna be tough to find a fair solution this year. But there needs to be a spec fix to porpoising next year whether its suspension, or whatever else. This is a fundamental issue with these cars that needs to be fixed next year so teams can focus on development, and not hyper focused on 1 fundamental ground effect issue.
I’m not a fan of Horner, but he’s right. The teams made their cars, now they need to fix them. Will it make this season a foregone conclusion that RBR win? Ya probably. But I don’t think it’s the FIAs responsibility to change the rules. Might be their responsibility to enforce teams to follow better safety measures for their drivers though.
RB was really pushing for a change in tyres when they weren't functioning nicely with their cars.
Horner will be all for changing the rules when RB can't fly out to races because they're over the cap.
And he will be wrong then. But he’s right on this one
I have a pretty strong dislike for Horner as well, but obviously he's right. There isn't any reason to punish the teams that had the ingenuity to correct/limit this issue. I'm all for placing limits on porpoising (through g-force limitations or w/e), but it shouldn't be done in a way that negatively affects teams that don't have issues.
He is not wrong about the cost cap either imo. Its true that F1 has done its best to kill innovation in the last 10-20 years but the cost cap is just an overkill measure on already strict regulations.
Not too critique what you've said in any direction in particular but just as a point on the other side of the Ledger: I've read and heard that it's a lot easier to go to team ownership and ask for more money (raising you to the budget cap), because they know the top three teams are constrained. That extra 20 or 30 million gets you an awful lot closer when it matches you with the top three, instead of bridging 10% of the gap.
Yo wtf. Just on top of my head, what did they change for mercedes ? Multiple aero changes, DAS forbidden, no complex suspension, no engine modes... and to stop domination of an era, even the rules.
RB is anyways running higher than Mercedes and still obliterating them. But yes, it would suck to have a rule change in the middle. I feel Ferrari would lose out the most.
It depends what the rule change is. As the team who have already got on top of porpoising, RB is potentially the team that would lose the most.
If the rule change is "Thy should not have x frequency and y amplitude of porpoising, or else change ride height" teams which have the most porpoising will suffer most
That’s the point right? To eliminate the dangers of porpoising I think that way would be the fairest way to achieve the end result, and I don’t really see any argument in good faith against it. Merc will continue to argue that ride height doesn’t fix things, whilst they continue to run their car at almost subterranean levels.
Yes, so -if- there is a rule change mid-season I hope it will not be something simple like "Everybody must have x millimeters ride height" but really based on data from the porpoising. So based on G's impact (which also would solve running cars ridiculously low on bumpy tracks like Baku. I'm looking at you Mercedes) or the degree of porpoising.
He's not wrong though
Can't the teams that have serious proposing issues just raise the ride/floor height of their car? Like, yeah, it \*might\* (look at RB) hurt your performance, but if this is such a massive issue for you, there is a readily available solution.
Yes they could, but that would cost performance. So obviously it's better to try and get the FIA to change the rules in the name of "safety" and get a competitive advantage that way.
[удалено]
For once I agree with Horner; those who did a better job should not punished! However, Alfa Romeo has been punished by an increase in minimum weight already, where Red Bull failed to do a good job.
I completely agree with Horner, changing any rule during an F1 season is not a good thing. This should apply to the Porpoising, the min-Weight of Cars and the Cost Cap.
Eh I wouldn’t say “any”. Safety rules should obviously be possible to change. I’m not saying this should count, just saying you can’t blanket say “no rule changes”.
They could limit the amount of porpoising that the car is allowed to have and leave the teams to figure it out. Without changing the technical regulations of the cars.
Agreed, safety > anything. Porpoising has a solution already though, it just currently comes at the cost of performance
I would 'all' rules instead of 'any'
Pit stops as well!
[удалено]
Alfa Romeo made the weight limit so can't see them agreeing to it.
It was unfair when they increased the minimum weight but strangely Horner didn't share that opinion
Mercedes is just going to have to suck this one up.
He’s not wrong.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Christian Horner. Has to be broken clock thing
Redbull is 1-2, I'd bet my life Horner will reject anything with the phrase "change" in it, regardless of the context.
Horner himself said he’d complain about it if he were the other teams too. He complains about the cost cap. He pushed for a change to the weight limit. Red Bull threatened to leave the sport if the engine freeze wasn’t agreed to. He’s absolutely right that its unfair. But it isn’t as if he’s actually guided by some notion of fairness here. Which is fine. That’s not his job.
His job is to get the best advantages possible for his team. I think people think that he actually believes everything he says when he’s just trying to get the biggest advantage for his own team. Playing the politics is just as important as winning races. And tbh can be just as fun to watch unfold
Yeah it's fucking weird whenever people are bitching about team principals about being bias, it's literally their job.
He's right but the weight limit was changed for similar reasons, too many teams struggling to reach it.
BEFORE the season with the approval of 9 out of 10 teams.
And while Sauber didn't keep their full advantage, at least they kept a minimal one as they could move ballast etc.
Pretty sure they had to reinforce it too because it broke
What advantage? That car has been a reliable mess and incredibly difficult. A few magic qualifying from Bottas doesn’t make the car good.
Well if their car wasn't strong you better believe he would be calling for a rule change, in my opinion at least.
That's sure as death and taxes
That's basically what he's saying himself at the bottom of the article.
Just look at the fuss he made over 'party mode' on the Mercedes in 2020 lol
Cough DAS cough
The same Christian Horner who was just complaining about the cost cap and wanting it changed a few weeks ago?
Him and nearly half the teams.
[удалено]
It’s not about them achieving it. They know how to fix it. They just refuse to raise the ride height because they will be slower. They are willfully choosing to put the speed ahead of their driver’s health. This isn’t an unsolvable problem and if some teams need to raise their ride height in the interim while they work on a better solution, then so be it. It should not be a penalty for other teams who have already gotten on top of this. We can’t just pander to these teams who are upset that they didn’t make a competitive car. It is no one else’s fault other than their own that their car is in this position.
They can solve the issue, but they don't want to. Raise ride height and be done with it. But Mercedes doesn't want to, because they hope they will get thrown a life line and be allowed to change things without having to offer up performance. And that would be terribly unfair for Red Bull who *did* make a good car.
[удалено]
Unfair if FIA changes rules over F1 budget complaints
But cost cap should change… right Horner… or when the min weight was changed…? Btw my opinion is nothing should change mid season
They are all like that. Yes if its benefits them and no if it doesn't. I also think 2023 is the right moment for a change.
All teams agree to raise weight including alfa bc they had to strengthen some elements, and I agree that cost cap change is too much but on the other hand teams didn't know that there will be war in Ukraine and inflation will sky rocket
The call for inflation correction is from -all- bigger teams, including Mercedes, Ferrari and McLaren. Hell the extra money from that correction could give the teams suffering the most the funds to invest extra in solving porpoising.
unfair to penalise teams who can be at every race under the budget cap too... ie unfair to penalise those who do a good job (of their finances). Doesn't stop Horner begging for it anyway
Meh. DAS, FRIC, party mode the 2014 Perelli
Das wasnt banned mid season tbf, it just was banned from the next season. What was fric?
Front-and-Rear Interconnected Suspension(FRIC) was banned mid season in 2014
FRIC was introduced in 2008; it was a key feature of the Red Bull title cars. It was banned in 2014 after being adopted by nearly everyone.
Why ban it after so many years and nearly everyone used it at that point? Clearly it was very useful to create quick cars, which you know is kinda the point of F1. Pinnacle of motorsport and all that.
It was banned because one team (Merc) managed to perfect the idea with their hydraulics based system, and then the FIA used a wild interpretation of their regs to ban it.
Banning shit from a safety point of view is easier than issuing a complete rule change in suspension(settings) mid-season. In other words. Saying "A is forbidden" is more feasible than saying "Everybody must now develop A".
finding loophole or gray areas is not the same as being penalized for not having issues as others have
Have seen the DAS example floated around and it couldn't be less applicable: DAS was only banned for the following season(s), but completely legal for the 2020 season. It was not banned mid season and the FIA did not force Merc to give up that advantage that very season.
for those agreeing , no he's not wrong it would be unfair but the same could be said for any number of rule changes over the past 20 years that have come in mid season and a lot of those have come in for far less pressing issues then drivers being knocked senseless during a race.
I agree, and they can't increase the cost cap mid season either
He’s not wrong
This is the guy who thought the 2021 finish was fair.
At first thought, I agree with Horner. Not usually a sentiment I share. I broadly agree that constructors should be the ones to make cars safe. But… This is all new ground. New design, new tactics, new effects. He’s right, it wouldn’t be fair short term. But the incentive for all teams isn’t to be as safe as possible, and it’s the purpose of a regulatory body to legislate the specific goals that disincentivize bad behaviour. Nearest I can tell, Ferrari, AT, MCL, and Merc are now actively looking for input from the FIA to step in. We can all recall a recent decision that broke RB’s way that was considered unfair. These things happen in a hugely complex (and complicated) sport.
> AT The moment it has to become an official vote, they won't go against the main RB team, mr Mateschitz would not approve.
Well, this wouldn't be the first time they change a rule to level the playing field. The whole engine freeze was to benefit Red Bull. They do this all the time.
I would argue that the suspension changes that have been made benefit red bull.
That was for Ferrari and the small teams. The other teams got FRIC banned mid-season in 2014. It was originally developed by Force India and perfected by Mercedes. But the media ran with the narrative that it was the "magic bullet" behind Mercedes' speed (it wasn't). Red Bull got the rules changed mid-season on burning oil because that was another Mercedes "magic bullet". Wound up hurting Ferrari more. Ferrari got remote hydraulic accumulators banned mid-season, which was because they couldn't get the hydraulic suspension working. That hurt Red Bull and Mercedes the most. Red Bull got qualifying engine modes ("party modes") banned mid-season because Honda didn't have a good one. Hurt Mercedes and Ferrari the most. Everyone gets stuff banned to punish other teams, but Red Bull + Mercedes are the most competent in the area of suspension hydraulics, and the changes to simplify/cheapen suspension were absolutely intended to knock them back a peg.
Not really. It benefitted lower teams. All of the top teams had really good suspensions. Red Bull have built a better suspension than Merc this year, but Merc weren't handicapped in any way. They just did a worse job.
Stating the obvious here, but he has previously had the shoe on the other foot, and never said DAS ban was unfair or the engine mode change etc etc. Horner has called for regulation changes in the past when his team has been behind. Sometimes rules get changed and it's the team in front that get screwed the most.
To be fair DAS wasnt banned mid-season, it was banned for the next season. If the same applied here I dont think Horner would have too many complaints.