Swango1980
Well-known member
He must shop in same store as Calvert Lewin
F1 2022
- Thread starter bobmac
- Start date
bobmac
Major Champion
The only downside about yesterday ......the Max Verstappen fan club at CH 4 are back. 
Smiffy
Grand Slam Winner
Enjoyable opener to the new season.
Great result for Ferrari, let's hope they can keep it up.
Nice to see the Haas looking more competitive, but what the hell's happened to McLaren????
Great result for Ferrari, let's hope they can keep it up.
Nice to see the Haas looking more competitive, but what the hell's happened to McLaren????
BiMGuy
LIV Bot, (But Not As Big As Mel) ?
I'm hearing that the fuel pump issue on Verstappen's car was actually caused by a short in the electrical system. Evidently water from all of his crying over team radio was the source of the problem.
cliveb
Head Pro
I've got a question about the porpoising problem...
As I understand it, the issue is caused by the rear of the floor getting too close to the ground at high speed, when the downforce is at its greatest.
Now of course I'm not an F1 engineer, but can someone in the know explain why this couldn't be solved by using rising rate springs on the back suspension which prevents the rear of the floor getting so low?
As I understand it, the issue is caused by the rear of the floor getting too close to the ground at high speed, when the downforce is at its greatest.
Now of course I'm not an F1 engineer, but can someone in the know explain why this couldn't be solved by using rising rate springs on the back suspension which prevents the rear of the floor getting so low?
Swango1980
Well-known member
Did the teams not already solve this problem?
The conundrum is that teams want their car as low as possible, as it will maximise pace, but not to the point that the undercarriage hits the ground. Also, if the undercarriage gets worn and damaged, the team will get penalised.
cliveb
Head Pro
Mercedes certainly haven't.
Canary_Yellow
Journeyman Pro
I understood the issue to be that the solution to porpoising is to raise the ride height of the car. However, in doing so, the car generates less downforce.
As it stands, the Merc either porpoises, or if raised up a bit to combat that, does not generate sufficient downforce (hence the bigger rear wing on the merc than the other cars in Bahrain).
Merc need a floor design that mitigates porpoising without having to raise the ride height. If they can do that, they can also use a smaller rear wing you’d think.
cliveb
Head Pro
OK, seems like I need to explain my thinking in more detail...
We know that the porpoising problem is caused by the rear of the floor hitting the ground when downforce gets high.
(Ironically, it happens on the straights, when you don't need the downforce)
We also know that raising the ride height prevents the porpoising, but at the expense of losing downforce.
My suggestion of using rising rate springs is a way of keeping a low ride height, but preventing it ever getting too low.
For sure it would make the ride quality very hard down the straights, but I doubt that would be worse than the current bouncing issue.
But I'm not an F1 engineer, so there must be a reason why this wouldn't work - although I can't see it.
You'd have thought that Merc must have already considered and rejected this, so I'm asking if anyone here can explain why.
Or could it be that a simple mechanical fix to what appears to be an aerodynamic problem hasn't been considered because it's the aero team's problem and they only think in aero terms?
Are they too close to the wood to see the trees?
We know that the porpoising problem is caused by the rear of the floor hitting the ground when downforce gets high.
(Ironically, it happens on the straights, when you don't need the downforce)
We also know that raising the ride height prevents the porpoising, but at the expense of losing downforce.
My suggestion of using rising rate springs is a way of keeping a low ride height, but preventing it ever getting too low.
For sure it would make the ride quality very hard down the straights, but I doubt that would be worse than the current bouncing issue.
But I'm not an F1 engineer, so there must be a reason why this wouldn't work - although I can't see it.
You'd have thought that Merc must have already considered and rejected this, so I'm asking if anyone here can explain why.
Or could it be that a simple mechanical fix to what appears to be an aerodynamic problem hasn't been considered because it's the aero team's problem and they only think in aero terms?
Are they too close to the wood to see the trees?
theoneandonly
Blackballed
It's the air stalling as the car gets closer to the ground , which then loses the downforce and then it grabs again and then stalls again and so on.
greenone
Active member
Bear in mind the majority of the effective suspension on previous cars was the tyre sidewall. With the lower profile tyres it moves back to the actual suspension and as a result non of the teams will have it optimised yet although some will have it dialed in better than others.
Mercedes other issue with the mini sidepods means there is alot less structure attached to the floor to stiffen it up and I'd imagine they are suffering alot more floor flutter than the less radical designs.
Mercedes other issue with the mini sidepods means there is alot less structure attached to the floor to stiffen it up and I'd imagine they are suffering alot more floor flutter than the less radical designs.
Last edited:
Smiffy
Grand Slam Winner
They are thinking of strapping Horner to the rear of the car to help keep the back end down.
I'm all for that
I'm all for that
greenone
Active member
Too much drag strapping somebody with a mouth that size to the back of the car.
cliveb
Head Pro
But if they mounted him facing backwards, wouldn't all that hot air give a bit of a boost?
Foxholer
Blackballed
Pretty much this, though it's about air flow stalling.
The whole idea is to create downforce by manufacturing lower pressure under the car than above - the reverse of what an aeroplane wing does.
For an F1 car travelling on a track, there's actually a point where the air flow can be cut off - because the car is too close to the ground - so downforce is lost. The car then rises, so airflow restarts, as does downforce, so the car 'porpoises'.
Last edited:
cliveb
Head Pro
I'm gonna try this one last time, and then I'll give up...
We all know what causes porpoising. No need for people to explain it to us.
I'm interested in whether anyone can explain why my suggested fix (rising rate springs on the rear suspension that get stiff enough to prevent the floor hitting the ground) wouldn't work (because I'm sure Merc will have already thought of and discounted it).
We all know what causes porpoising. No need for people to explain it to us.
I'm interested in whether anyone can explain why my suggested fix (rising rate springs on the rear suspension that get stiff enough to prevent the floor hitting the ground) wouldn't work (because I'm sure Merc will have already thought of and discounted it).
greenone
Active member
You are assuming bottoming out is the issue. If it is flutter than the only way to fix it is to stiffen the floor which isn't easy on an unsupported structure and/or raise the ride height and lose downforce.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Possibly because the compromise would have a detrimental effect elsewhere - like cornering, which is exactly where the downforce is most desirable. It's not, after all, actually needed/wanted on straights. Btw. The floor shouldn't be hitting the ground anyway.
Canary_Yellow
Journeyman Pro
They’re already very stiff, aren’t they? My understanding was this year’s cars are stiffer than last year’s.
I’d imagine that if the suspension were stiff enough to overcome the downforce that causes porpoising, it might be too stiff to do its actual job to the detriment of drive ability and traction? Also, how much movement are we actually talking about? Presumably it’s mm?
I’m not an engineer so I can’t answer your question. However, you’d think something as simple as that would already have been considered.
Do the regs dictate which type of springs are permissible? Active suspension certainly isn’t (not that it’s your suggestion), but just thinking what is and isn’t prescribed
Edit: do you know that they aren’t already using the springs you’re suggesting? Is it possible they are?
Last edited:
cliveb
Head Pro
OK, that's a good point. However, every explanation of porpoising I've seen talks about the floor getting too low and grounding. I've never heard anyone mention lack of rigidity in the floor.
