Christian Horner, Red Bull Team Principal, Baku Street Circuit, 2022

Rival teams exaggerating concerns over porpoising to get rules break – Horner

2022 Azerbaijan Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner believes some of his rivals are exaggerating their concerns over porpoising in the hope of provoking a rules change.

Drivers from several teams have urged the FIA to make changes to the rules in order to reduce the porpoising they have experienced. George Russell has warned a serious crash is likely if the rules aren’t changed.

However Red Bull have largely avoided the bouncing problem, and Horner claimed others are pushing the safety angle to prompt a reaction from the FIA. He said he would tell his drivers to do the same thing if they were in the same position as some of their rivals.

“I’d tell them to bitch as much as they could over the radio and make as big an issue out of it as they possibly could,” said Horner in response to a question from RaceFans. “It’s part of the game. It’s like somebody [diving] in a penalty box.”

Asked whether he believes that is what some teams are doing Horner replied: “Of course it is.”

He said the teams who have problems with porpoising could solve it by raising their ride height, though doing that would make their cars slower.

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Baku Street Circuit, 2022
Report: ‘I’ll do anything to avoid having that again’ says Hamilton after ‘most painful race ever’
“You can see it’s uncomfortable,” he conceded. “There are remedies to that but it is to the detriment of the car performance.

“So what the easiest thing to do is to complain from a safety point of view. But each team has a choice.”

Horner said it would not be fair to introduce rules changes which affect the entire grid when some teams are not suffering problems with porpoising.

“If it was a genuine safety concern across the whole grid then it’s something that should be looked at. But if it’s only affecting isolated people or teams, then that’s something that team should potentially deal with.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“You have a choice when you run your car, don’t you?” he added. “And you should never run a car that’s unsafe. But I think that’s more for the technical guys, because certain cars have issues and there’s some cars that have very few issues.

Max Verstappen, Red Bull, Baku Street Circuit, 2022
Gallery: 2022 Azerbaijan Grand Prix in pictures
“It would seem unfair to penalise the ones that have done a decent job versus the ones that have perhaps missed the targets slightly.”

However McLaren team principal Andreas Seidl, whose driver Daniel Ricciardo reported back pain after yesterday’s race, said “it’s important to take these comments seriously from the drivers.”

“It’s important to have a discussion in the Technical Advisory Committee on what’s the next step, what’s the right way going forward,” Seidl explained.

“It’s easy to say ‘it’s easy to stop the porpoising, just adjust the set-up and sacrifice a bit of performance’,” he added. “But in the end, due to the competitive nature of the game we’re in, obviously you want to go to the to the limit of what’s acceptable and also for what the drivers can survive on-track.

“That obviously could go in the wrong direction. That’s why it’s very important to have this discussion.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2022 Azerbaijan Grand Prix

Browse all 2022 Azerbaijan Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...
Claire Cottingham
Claire has worked in motorsport for much of her career, covering a broad mix of championships including Formula One, Formula E, the BTCC, British...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

154 comments on “Rival teams exaggerating concerns over porpoising to get rules break – Horner”

  1. For once, I totally agree with Horner.

    1. Yeah, it doesn’t happen often but I agree with him.

    2. You mean the same Horner who complained for 7-8 years and had rules changed because they couldn’t design a car to compete with the Mercedes? That Horner?

      1. “He said he would tell his drivers to do the same thing if they were in the same position as some of their rivals.”

        He is openly saying that this is the way the game is played and he would do the same if the roles were reversed.

      2. @Corsair
        That wasn’t an aerodynamic issue. Merc had such an advantage with the introduction of hybrid engines that nobody could get near them with the token system. This is different.

        1. Perhaps the nature of the problem was different but the outcome is similar in that; due to budget cap and controlled part introduction, the problem many teams are experiencing can’t be solved as easy. There is no tokens anymore but there isn’t enough money allowance to make significant changes. For that reason I am a bit sceptical about the whole budget cap. This is supposed to be the pinnacle of racing and yet people aren’t aloud to achieve what they can technologically due to budget caps.

          The same people who try to make the sport more accessible to all tiers of racing teams and yet snub Andretti entering because it isn’t “big” enough mind you.

        2. Teams are not allowed to run their windtunnel at the air speeds necessary to induce porpoising, and there is a strong budget cap that reduces the possibility of part experimentation.

          It’s not quite the same thing as the engine token system, but it is similar in that the teams with a problem are hampered by the rules, and can’t catch up.

        3. The token system was abandoned when Honda came back into F1.

          And before you say it, no, Mercedes did not have early access to the regs, nor were they responsible for the 1.6L V6 Turbo Hybrid formula. They simply spent more money on developing their engine than Ferrari or Renault.

      3. Who complained about RB rear wing? Who had the rules changed for superfast Pitstop’s by RB? Who used an innovative steering device?

        1. OH MY GOD!!!!

          Mercedes did something innovative??!?

          BAN THEM FROM F1!!!!!!!

    3. I hate to say it, but me too!

      Mercedes can solve the issue almost immediately but it will reduce their outright pace.

      1. Like McLaren does. They make the sensible choice

      2. Why not just quit the sport?

        If they’re not supposed to actually try to win, what’s the point in even showing up?

        1. most of the grid doesn’t compete for wins, why are they showing up?

    4. Quite right, i guess the thing about a broken clock is true.

      Norris also brought it up when asked about Hamilton/Mercedes – they can just run it higher. But off course that means losing some performance (although how much performance they lose by doing so is probably quite a bit different between the cars).

    5. Put a sensor in to measure porposing and bottoming out forces – if they too server force the team to raise the ride height. Sorted.

    6. @shimks

      I agree with Horner. The same way I agreed with Binotto when he commented on Red Bull’s attempt to increase the budget cap.

      This is why I find Horner to be the biggest hypocrite on the grid.

      Someone could easily have come out and said “Some teams are facing issues with the budget cap, but not all of them. It’s possible for Red Bull to solve their budget cap issues, they just reduce development efforts and car performance to stick within the budget.”

      Obviously, Horner has no shame in trying to push the FIA to increase the budget cap, but his moral compass seems to be on target when talking about porpoising.

      1. @todfod I don’t think CH is looking/asking for a rise in the cap though. As if he isn’t fully aware that would do nothing for the ones who can’t even meet the cap. Until I’m shown a direct quote from him that he wants a rise in the cap I’m saying he is asking for relief for all teams due to the huge rise in travel and freight costs, so that all teams will stand a better chance of competing in all the races while staying within the cap. I’m convinced that is what he means when he speaks of cap relief. Not a higher cap, just some assistance from F1 to all teams due to the extraordinary times we are in that moved the financial goal posts for all teams. Money meant for travel and freight, not to add to their development regimen. And they can be policed for that just as they are now.

    7. And Max can stop complaining about some bumps too. Deal with it!

    8. @shimks But it was OK for weight increase and added stays rule change?

      1. They all play the same game, no doubt about that; and they all call each other out wherever possible.

    9. yves (Bordeaux)
      14th June 2022, 9:55

      Yes like cap limit?

    10. I disagree. Remember this is the same red bull who got a rule change for the weight issues they had but now don’t want rule changes to help other teams. Every single team apart from RB have said changes need to be made.

  2. Broccoliface
    13th June 2022, 7:52

    Horner gets the game, and I’m inclined to agree that there’s a lot of theatrics. But as they were one of the heaviest cars and cried and lobbied successfully for a min weight increase this season, you can’t really moan if others scheme for some kind of ride height ruling because they’re more affected than you

    1. He says that himself: he would do the same. Regarding the weight rulechange: They did not pull the safety card there, so they got 80% of the teams behind that proposal.

  3. Mercedes are the best of the rest and are upwards of a second off the qualifying pace of the Red Bull. Is Horner’s suggestion that they should be 2/3 seconds off so the cars don’t bounce? Not great for the sport.

    Technically I agree with him, they’ve done a better job so should see the benefits of that. But isn’t it a pretty standard F1 process for the teams who are off the pace to look at the teams who have an advantage at the start of the season and look to curtail it somehow, either on safety or legality? And I’m sure Red Bull would have played their part in those sort of protests in the past.

    1. It wasn’t great for the sport to have 1 competitive engine in 2014 but despite all the whinging, the FIA remained strong and allowed Mercedes to keep their advantage they had because they did a better job than the rest.

      The same should apply now.

      1. Like I say, I tend to agree from a fairness perspective that if you’ve done a better job then you shouldn’t have that restricted.

        But, you’ve cited one example of an advantage that didn’t change, but there are others where things have changed. Alfa were the only team I think that were in the weight target. By your reckoning, all the other cars (including Red Bull) should have either been disqualified or told to shed parts even if it made them uncompetitive. Were you arguing for that to happen at the start of the season?

        This cannot be good for the drivers – either their bodies or their brains. You can’t just ask the teams to sacrifice performance for safety themselves as they won’t do it – they never have, hence increased safety regulations. Looking at the Ferrari and Mercedes drivers in particular (they go the most air time) and I’m very worried for their health if it continues. Either long term, or by it causing a serious accident.

        1. Alfa were the only team I think that were in the weight target. By your reckoning, all the other cars (including Red Bull) should have either been disqualified or told to shed parts even if it made them uncompetitive.

          You don’t get any penalty for being over the minimum weight limit, besides of course reduced performance. (just like with running your car in a way that is more comfortable to your drivers)

          1. A car that is outside of the regulations isnt allowed to compete, so if a car is over weight, its an illegal car. Doesn’t matter if it gives an advantage or not…

            I find the moaning about raising the spending limit worse than asking for a safety change…

          2. Proesterchen_nli
            13th June 2022, 12:45

            @Mosin

            There is only a minimum weight limit in Formula 1.

        2. What are you talking about? weight limit is the minimum weight. If they are above that it is their problem, if they are below that they are in breach. This smacks of F1 intellectual combat with an unarmed adversary.
          The current bouncing issue, is nothing to do with the rules, it is 100% about each individual car design trying to make the most of the rules. If the design hurts their performance and/or driver then they need to change the design, not the rules.

    2. I am not sure even RB have any idea why their car does not bounce while the others do. They probably just got lucky with their design. RB can not possibly be the only team that understands the full physics of the porpoising issue. However their overweight car was precisely their own fault and they would have known their design was heavy before they produced it. It was entirely in their control and yet they got a rule change for that…

  4. Most of the grid still have issues with porpoising and even the teams that have got on top of it still have it and it’s frankly dangerous as it can cause aero detachment and unpredictable grip levels. To pretend it’s not an issue to cling onto the advantage they’ve gained is far worse than those highlighting what a problem it is. Bring back active suspension from next year and lets innovate in the sport again. They should also look at bringing back interlinked suspension by mid season to help this year. That wouldn’t change things massively but would give teams more options to improve the issue. Maybe also add small bump in the budget to accommodate the change thus giving something RBR want too.

    1. Lets not forget all the crying RBR did about Mercedes and their power modes in qualifying when they couldn’t engineer a better system. Or indeed accusing Mercedes of cheating all season with no evidence at all.

    2. @slowmo The problem here is that you can’t rely on teams or drivers to address the safety issue as they will push performance to maximum bearable limit. That’s the reason it needs to be regulated by FIA in my opinion, and agree as you mentioned that systems are available to address that quickly. On the other hand, I’m also in favor of rewards for those that did a good job and think the modification should be introduced for next season but early so that teams throw their resources to the right problem and we don’t create a bigger gap between the teams.

      I also think that this porpoising has very little technological interest but such a huge role in the current rule that it will consume lots of resources for limited application plus the fact that teams can get huge advantage out of “luck” given the nature of the problem and difficulty to reproduce in wind tunnel or CFD runs. In addition, it pushes team to create dirty air through vortex or out-wash to avoid stalling the floor which is what the concept was trying to address. I would rather see a modification in the suspension and clamp down on floor modification to keep the ability to follow closely, and if the pack get bunched together as a result, I won’t complain.

      If it is a one season thing and teams know it will change next year, they are more likely to give up some perf for safety reasons once they are not in the hunt anymore while rewarding the teams that did a better job and can keep going at max potential.

      1. @jeanrien I agree that Ferrari and Red Bull shouldn’t be penalised for coming off best with the regulation change but it’s not unreasonable to point out that both Ferrari and Red Bull made gains in the engine department from Mercedes agreeing to hold off on freezing and locking down when they had the best engine. Also numerous times during Mercedes dominant periods there were concessions made to help other teams catch up with them. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable that they should have their advantage on the porpoising issues pegged back a little.

        People keep saying Red Bull did a better job but the honest truth of the matter is they may have just “lucked” into a car setup. We’ll never know in reality but certainly there is nothing on the record to suggest poroising was engineered out of the car in the design phase. The teams doing best just seem to have lucked into a design that they could dial it out best.

        My suggestion to bring back interlinked suspension is to give the teams more tools to dial out issues as a intermediary measure so the FIA can show they’ve made some concession on the grounds of safety this year, while long term I’d like to see Active Suspension come back into the mix as it would likely offer a lot to the sport.

        I do think the issue is hard to discuss as there is separate factors in the debate. The particular issue for the drivers being placed in pain this year is the bottoming out of the cars on the track. This is exacerbated by the fact the cars are porpoising so it’s constantly raising and smashing the car into the floor on the straights. Raising the ride height of the car will certainly ease the porpoising and carry the floor away from the track so it doesn’t bottom out but it will not eliminate porpoising altogether unless you raise it so far you remove the ground effect. So even with a raised car you still risk aero stall and detatchment in fast corners with the cars running with extreme porpoising.

        For those of you against the changes please ask yourselves why you don’t want anything to change. Is it because you selfishly want your team to maintain an advantage? Long term it’s really not in the best interests of the sport to have the silly amounts of porpoising we’ve seen this year and even those cars that have the least issues still are having some issues. There are solutions to the problem that would allow everyone to fight on a even keel and eliminate the issues altogether but I guess some teams don’t want to win fairly.

        1. The teams doing best just seem to have lucked into a design that they could dial it out best.

          You don’t really believe that do you?

          For those of you against the changes please ask yourselves why you don’t want anything to change. Is it because you selfishly want your team to maintain an advantage?

          Nope. No favourites here.

          Long term it’s really not in the best interests of the sport to have the silly amounts of porpoising we’ve seen this year

          That’s true. So the teams that have it had better find a solution, asap. Punishing the teams who don’t have it isn’t a fair and sporting solution for anyone, though.
          F1 is about building the fastest car to the given rules – not changing the rules to ‘oil the squeaky wheel’ so to speak.

          There are solutions to the problem that would allow everyone to fight on a even keel and eliminate the issues altogether but I guess some teams don’t want to win fairly.

          Some teams are winning fairly with the current rules. They found a way to make their cars work within those rules.
          But you (and Mercedes) are campaigning to have them changed – and we know full well what happens when rules change in F1… Some teams get it right, and some don’t.

          Either some people’s memory is exceptionally short (Mercedes domination for so many years) or they have a bit of bias in which teams are where in the pecking order.
          If all 10 teams start arguing for these changes, then there’s something to discuss. But right now, it’s just Mercedes getting it wrong and making a lot of noise about it.

          1. Ah, formatting….

          2. I do believe that phrase but I would change it slightly having re-read it to the below.

            “The teams doing best have have lucked into a design that they could dial it out best.”

            My first sentence in that paragraph gives my belief on this:
            People keep saying Red Bull did a better job but the honest truth of the matter is they may have just “lucked” into a car setup.

            The Red Bull still had porpoising issues in testing so suggestions they had it covered from the start are in my opinion false. It would appear their concept is less prone to porpoising issues. This could be due to them creating less downforce from their floor for example but there is no widespread agreement on why some teams have suffered so much more than others and likely will not be until years in the future. It’s just my opinion, you’re welcome to your own.

            I asked why you think they shouldn’t change. Your answer seems to be because you don’t think it should. That doesn’t seem to really answer why you think it’s acceptable to carry on with a safety issue into the future.

            I think by “some” you actually mean 2 teams. The whole point of the new rules was supposedly to improve the racing, it’s failing pretty miserably so far in that respect so some changes are definitely needed.

            My favourite team is actually McLaren who don’t have huge porpoising issues, the car is just slow. I still think the issue needs sorting though before we have a huge accident in a very fast corner.

          3. @slowmo I would ‘blame’ RBR’s minimal and insignificant amount of porpoising, right off the bat from pre-season testing, on Adrian Newey rather than on luck. He’s earned that kind of respect.

            From what I have read the likes of Mercedes with their zero sidepod concept means that they need a low car to keep a seal underneath ie. the vacuum, whereas the likes of Ferrari and RBR use their sidepod bodywork to help that happen. RBR can run their car higher, and sure Ferrari has porpoising in spite of using their sidepods, so there is room for improvement from them in terms of making it all work together (front wing, floor, sidepods, rear diffuser) like RBR has.

          4. I asked why you think they shouldn’t change. Your answer seems to be because you don’t think it should. That doesn’t seem to really answer why you think it’s acceptable to carry on with a safety issue into the future.

            That’s true. I don’t think it should change, especially not mid-season. Maybe for next year – but I still don’t believe that’s necessary either to eliminate this problem.
            As I’ve noted (in another article) the safety issue is not regulatory, but design specific. Other teams’ car designs have it under control, but Mercedes’ car design doesn’t. They chose it, and they need to change it and how they set it up as a team.
            The FIA doesn’t need to change it for them.

            As a hypothetical comparison – if a team built a car that weighed 1000kg it would be allowed to race. It would be slow, chew through tyres and be potentially dangerous in a crash, but it would still be legal.
            Should the rules be changed in that case to cater for 1000kg cars in impact testing? Should all cars be mandated to run at 1000kg then?

            I agree – the racing is no better. But I never expected it to be. I was quite vocal about that when the rule changes were being discussed and finally announced.
            Changes are absolutely needed IMO, but not the changes you are calling for.

            McLaren have noted that to reduce their porpoising and vibration issues, they now run their cars higher.
            Yeah, it’s made them slower – but that’s the compromise.

            Honestly, I don’t think luck is much of a factor in any of this. These people and their incredibly powerful design and simulation tools aren’t just fumbling around in the dark hoping to stumble on the perfect design. They understand their cars very well, and all the reasoning for designing them they way they do.
            All some teams have done differently to Mercedes (and Ferrari) is a combination of two things – creating a wider window where the aero stays attached, and running the car in such a way (including ride height and suspension stiffness) as to not run so close to the limits of the design.
            Don’t worry – Mercedes will figure it out in time. And the refinement won’t come through luck, but simply good design.

          5. @robbie Well in that case I sincerely hope Mercedes do get their concept working and dominate RBR and Ferrari in future and then you’ll see the hypocrisy as they cry to get the zero sidepod concept banned.

            Newey has got it wrong quite a few times in the last 8 years so yes there is an element of luck to your concept working better than everyone else’s otherwise he’d have the best car every year. This year we’ve mandated no interlinked suspension (again to hurt a dominant area of Mercedes), we’ve introduced new larger wheels which inherently change the suspension/ride of the cars. They’ve introduced new rules around how air is controlled off the front wing and also implemented ground effect venturi tunnels, just to name a few big changes.

            To get your concept to work well with all these changes with no data on them is nothing short of a miracle. Sure Newey has clearly made some good design choices in his car but you cannot model everything in CFD, paper and the tunnel. There is always an element of doubt when you put the car on the track that the design will work as expected.

          6. @slowmo I sincerely hope on your behalf you’re not holding your breath for the zero sidepod concept to become the most desirable way. Good to hear you sounding a bit more reasonable with your ‘luck’ comment though. Wrt the last 8 years imagine what Newey’s cars could have done with the best pu behind it.

          7. @robbie the question is if he could build the cars that would fit the best PU on the grid and still maintain that advantage. I have no idea on the zero sidepod concept, it seems like it has the potential to generate significant extra ground effect generated downforce which would mean Mercedes could shed a lot of aerodynamic wing load and hence drag. While ever the car is bouncing around though it’s unpredictable and unstable.

            If money was no object I’m sure they’d have fixed it by now and be comfortably quicker. Perhaps they should just say sod it to the budget and spend their way out of trouble and pay for it later. I do actually wonder if the FIA could or would even come down on a team that did do it. For example spend 300m this year and develop concepts that will allow you to dominate for years to come but just hold your hand up for the year and say I blew my budget, you can take all my points off me.

            I’m still miffed we didn’t get a McLaren resurgence this year. It’s bad enough they didn’t come up with a winning concept in the new rules but to compound it they messed up something as simple as brake ducts to go with it and tie their hands up for 3 races.

            @S – I’m just miffed the racing isn’t close in the slightest. We’re already looking like we have Red Bull and Ferrari, Mercedes next and then the rest. No doubt Ferrari are now going to be allowed to “fix” their reliability issues to lock in further power advantages for the next 4 years under the guise of reliability too. There really isn’t much to be excited about for the next 3 years if we continue on the current trajectory. Maybe I’m just having a grumpy Monday.

          8. Not going to even try to touch the “formatting”, well outside my pay-grade.

            “People keep saying Red Bull did a better job but the honest truth of the matter is they may have just “lucked” into a car setup.”

            Not sure about the luck part. In an article elsewhere, A. Newey discussed the porpoising issue with reference to his earlier experience with the phenomena. He indicated they had been able to model the problem and design around it. Mercedes and others have indicated their models didn’t show it so it wasn’t part of their design process.
            There are many references to all the clever geniuses being able to solve the problem, but it has been 4 months and some are appearing no further ahead than at the start. I am sure they are, but it isn’t obvious.
            An ironic twist, neither Red Bull or Ferrari could offer their solutions to any of the other teams without running afoul of the current rules. Not even a small slow leak.

          9. @slowmo – “Well in that case I sincerely hope Mercedes do get their concept working and dominate RBR and Ferrari in future and then you’ll see the hypocrisy as they cry to get the zero sidepod concept banned.” –
            This comment makes it very clear that your argument is based on and emotional attachment to Merc and your agenda (Maybe even hypocrisy).
            If you sit their pointing at hypocrisy, you need to point at all of them and in fact yourself and the entire human race, we are all hypocrites to some extent.

          10. I’m just miffed the racing isn’t close in the slightest.

            I feel your pain and totally agree with you.
            I’ve been waiting more than 30 years for F1 to do something about it that is guaranteed to work, but they never do. They just don’t seem to want it enough.

            And agreed again about the engines – but it’s the same forces behind that charade too.
            While F1 continues to give the participants the power to make the rules it will never be as good a racing series as it has the potential to be, nor as fair.

        2. Wasn’t Mercedes penalised as champions. Didn’t this result in them having less wind tunnel time to develop the new concept designs?

          Isn’t this part of the reason why Mercedes are struggling with this issue? Isn’t this what was intended by now allowing them equal time and resources to develop the new regulations?

          The FIA could have allowed the same access to resources for this new regulations. Even now they could take steps to address the deficiet.

          1. The only way to have given everyone equal resources for the new technical regs would have been to lower the budget cap to a level every team could reach.
            Naturally, the big teams squashed that idea long ago.

            As far as wind tunnel time, computing resources, etc, goes – this year, and these new cars, are really no different to any others from last year on.
            Last year had the same development BoP scale in place, just as next year will have and every year in the currently-planned future.
            You win the championship, you get more prize money than everyone else, but your technical challenge increases too. Equally, if you place lower in the championship, you receive less prize money but are allowed some more development time. The same happens to all teams.
            Hopefully it helps to increase competition throughout the championship over time.

            And no – Mercedes weren’t ‘penalised’ – this was simply a condition of their championship position.
            They could always have chosen to come second instead…. Or last.

    3. The Red Bulls show that this is not an insurmountable engineering issue.

      The Ferraris show that you can bunny hop like crazy and still be the quickest car in qualy.

      The Mercedes are crap because they didn’t do a good enough job modelling how it behaves on track, the people in charge are choosing to believe their data over reality, and the comfort and health of their drivers is apparently of no concern to them.

      1. It still doesn’t change the fact it’s dangerous.

        1. Sure – but it’s dangerous because the teams choose to run their car in that way. Others are running their cars in a way that isn’t dangerous so it’s clearly achievable.

          I don’t really understand what they are asking for… Do they want the FIA to say “Oh ok, well you can’t race then if it’s that dangerous. You can join back in with the rest once your car is safe to race.”

          1. So you want Redbull to run away with the championship and all other teams so slow down to avoid the bouncing? Ferrari has it too and it’s undoubtedly bad for the drivers

          2. Do you understand what it means if a car suffers aero detachment mid corner on a ground effect car? There is no engineering that away completely. Sure they could make the bottoming out have less effect on drivers but it’s not going to rid us of the effect of porpoising. Even cars that have it more under control are still dangerous.

            Porpoising is completely unsafe and at present the teams are trying to minimise the effects through setup and aero changes. There are technologies that already exist and have done for decades that would eliminate the problem properly (active suspension). Why are you so against them being introduced in future? The removal of the interlinked suspension systems have also added to the issues and complexity around solving the problem for this year too.

            Maybe we should bring back engine qualifying power modes for Mercedes so they can have the 3+ tenths back that were stolen from them for no other reason than to help out Red Bull. There are plenty of examples of decisions made in the sport over the years whereby changes were implemented for the good of the competition and were a detriment to those with the best performance at the time. I didn’t see you defending Mercedes right to run high power engine modes, flexible wings, DAS, etc over the last few years.

          3. Do you understand what it means if a car suffers aero detachment mid corner on a ground effect car?

            Probably worth pointing out that while the current cars do utilise ‘ground effect’ quite heavily, that’s not their only form of downforce creation.
            An aero detachment under the car may only represent 50% of the total aero load, meaning the car won’t just fly off into the wall in most cases, but merely oversteer, understeer or drift wide.

            I’m not sure why you are so supportive of active suspension when it is a sporting disaster. It can make cars faster and more consistent, no doubt – but that isn’t necessarily a positive in a sporting context.
            Quite the opposite, in my view – just as it was last time F1 allowed it.

          4. It would seem the stars are alligning.

            At the same time as we have these tempermental ground effect cars, we also introduce more dangerous tracks.
            Its not simply that the loss of ground effect might lead to overstear. On some of the more dangerous tracks this could mean overstearing into a concret wall, not a run off area.

            The previous era of ground effect cars only ended after it had taken the lives of a few drivers. aka the loss of downforce at high speeds into a crucial corner.

          5. Its not simply that the loss of ground effect might lead to overstear. On some of the more dangerous tracks this could mean overstearing into a concret wall, not a run off area.

            That’s the risk the the drivers and their teams have to accept and manage.
            An F1 car can kill people so easily at any time, even without under-car aero detachment – so this is no different.

            However, as noted – loss of 50% of downforce is unlikely to have life-changing consequences.

        2. If Mercedes build a dangerous car then the only option is to remove Mercedes from the competition.

      2. Even Perez at Red Bull has talked about porpoising causing him vision problems in the car, whilst both Ferrari drivers have been speaking to Russell to raise a formal complaint via the GPDA about the possibility of back injuries.

        If even those at the front are not happy, maybe that is a sign that the problem is much more widespread than you are prepared to accept?

        1. anon I see the Perez quotes are from early April. Not sure when the Ferrari drivers spoke to Russell but the point being it is the drivers doing the talking for the teams as Horner has pointed out. Are you sure ‘those at the front’ namely the drivers at RBR and Ferrari are currently not happy wrt porpoising? Or are they happy to be at the front and to live with what porpoising they have and don’t want that performance changed? Currently? When I checked out the quote you cited from SP from April 5/6 I also saw articles about how Mercedes would have this solved in 2 or 3 races. Now that they haven’t whereas one team ahead of them has barely had any, and one team ahead of them has it and is winning poles and races…but hey Horner says he’d play the same game…still doesn’t mean FIA needs to punish those who got it right. And it’s track specific too.

      3. the people in charge are choosing to believe their data over reality, and the comfort and health of their drivers is apparently of no concern to them.

        Not entirely disimilar to how the US Government and Military operated during the time of the Vietnam conflict

    4. @slowmo

      https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/articles/racing-tech/why-active-suspension-wont-solve-f1s-porpoising-problem

      Sorry but you sound a bit naive when it comes to ‘bring back active suspension for next year’ or ‘interlinked suspension by mid-season this year.’

      1. @robbie no what you seem to have missed in the article linked is that getting a system up and running wouldn’t be that hard in future and teams would be able to tune it and develop it as they go.

        As alluded to with this paragraph:
        No doubt if F1 teams were still permitted the various interlinked suspension systems and interters used in previous years (or even Renault’s tuned mass damper), it would be easier to get on top of the problem, but they are not, and have only traditional springs and dampers to work with.

        The teams have been using this technology for years, if it was allowed again in the regulations then some teams could spend the time and develop it. They may not get it onto the car this year but they’d at least be able to start the work and test it prior to next year to see if they could dial out the issue for the future. I mean specifically the interlinked suspension systems.

        As for the active suspension systems, sure enabling next year would be hard to have a fully dialled in system out of the gate but imagine what an advantage some teams like Williams, Haas and Aston Martin could gain from having some extra budget left over to develop these systems for next year.

        At the end of the day F1 should be about innovation, not changing the rules because it’ll be a bit hard to get stuff done doesn’t really sound part of the F1 ethos. As for Key’s comment about active suspension not being perhaps the best project when you have a cost cap, I’d argue as a spectator it’s the perfect sort of technology to improve the spectacle and the teams can spend as little or as much as they like on the project.

        1. @slowmo So you agree then a mid-season change is hardly on. But it sounds like Mercedes would like to have FIA change the rules because it is a bit hard for them to get stuff done. As to the spectacle I think millions and million are enjoying it just fine, including being in on the development race that we were told this initial season was going to bring. When I was checking out the comments of Perez cited by anon which were actually from the first week of April I also saw comments from Russell that it would just take them 2 or 3 races to get on top of the porpoising. Now that he has seen that it is not so easy for them, albeit while others like RBR are fine, now he has brought out the ‘danger’ word, that you are happily repeating. I think realistically you know that Mercedes have simply blown it and towards any of their complaints FIA, Liberty/Brawn etc need only point at RBR and say ‘it can obviously be done under the current regs.’

          1. @Robbie – What development race, there is none due to the budget cap now…

            Did you have any issues with the mid season change for engine qualifying modes?

            Generally speaking I don’t like mid season changes in rules but the whole point we were told before the start of these regulations was the FIA would move quickly to change the rules if required if something came up that was unintended or not working as expected with the rules. It was pretty clear in testing that few teams expected the issues of porpoising to be so severe. I read over the weekend that there was actually a proposal voted down last year to have a minimum ride height increase in the rules that was voted down.

            At what point will you accept it’s dangerous, when someone has a serious accident?

          2. @slowmo Lol of course there is a development race. Teams trying to shed weight, playing with their floors and wings etc.

            I didn’t have an issue with the engine quali modes because that was a very easy change and barely affected Mercedes.

            Again though, why would FIA move quickly when they only need to point at RBR and say ‘It can obviously be done under the current parameters.’ The best way for Mercedes to avoid a serious accident is to raise their car. Btw as severe as it was at Baku there was no serious accident, and since this is track specific Mercedes may not suffer this again as severely, unless they choose to go for pace over safety that is. You know…the new buzz words now that they haven’t been able to solve their problem…’safety’ and ‘danger’.

  5. “It would seem unfair to penalise the ones that have done a decent job versus the ones that have perhaps missed the targets slightly.”
    What about Alfa, who reached the previous minimum weight choice of 795 kg or the budget cap increase push?
    Otherwise, he’s spot-on in everything.
    One easy solution already exists for the porpoising issue & that’s voluntary ride height increment, which of course, teams are somewhat reluctant towards over performance impact.

  6. Chris Horton
    13th June 2022, 8:23

    Horner is 100% correct.

    Raise your car Mercedes.

  7. Mercedes are still busy arguing with the Universe to give up on its obviously flawed sense of reality and conform with Mercedes’ wind tunnel data, where their car is clearly dominant, just in case their pleas with the FIA fail.

  8. “It’s easy to say ‘it’s easy to stop the porpoising, just adjust the set-up and sacrifice a bit of performance’,” he added. “But in the end, due to the competitive nature of the game we’re in, obviously you want to go to the to the limit of what’s acceptable and also for what the drivers can survive on-track.”

    Wow… So basically, you need the FIA to step in and tell you that injuring your own drivers because you’re pushing them to the limits of what is “survivable” is not acceptable?

    It’s like a footballer screaming for a foul when it’s someone in their own team that kicked them.

  9. Horner isn’t wrong, but he is happy to take the complete opposite view whenever he and his boss consider that to be in Red Bull’s best interest.

    1. True that

      “I’d tell them to bitch as much as they could over the radio and make as big an issue out of it as they possibly could,” said Horner in response to a question from RaceFans. “It’s part of the game. It’s like somebody [diving] in a penalty box.”

      At least he is honest about being on par with Wolff when it comes to whining and tactics off track – like we’ve seen them do last season. It seems Hamilton might have been a bit theathrical with his climbing out of the car and announcing he might not race in Canada. Maybe it is all part of what Horner described here. Didn’t hear George complain a lot until prompted.. Mercedes have proven last season to be able to influence FIA to the extent they create an in season change (tyres last year) in their benefit, so Horners worries are very real

    2. ‘Horner isn’t wrong, but he is happy to take the complete opposite view whenever he and his boss consider that to be in Red Bull’s best interest.’

      Comment of the day I think. I do have some sympathy with Horner’s views but I think it’s interesting to contrast the comments of Horner compared to the more considered comments of Andreas Seidl.

      I think the issue of porpoising and how to correct it does need to be looked at across the board. Ferrari drivers have complained about it I recall and they are still of course, one of the teams who have got their car most correct.

      I still feel though that FIA should not be expected to just change the rules, mid-season to accommodate teams who have got this badly wrong. Unfortunately for Mercedes I think it’s time to accept they got their design wrong and accept the compromises this entails for this year.

      1. But Mercedes plays the ‘safety’ card just like last year when they got tyres better fitting their rear end of the car. That was also labeled a ‘safety issue’. Who at FIA is going to ignore the magic word ‘Safety’ to then later see some-one crash?

    3. Exactly man.

      Let’s analyse two rules that Red Bull has had polarised views on –

      1) Budget cap – Red bull say it should be increased because they can’t keep car development going at the current rate to win championships. They could stick within budget, and sacrifice some performance, but why risk a WDC loss. Here they vote for changing a rule.

      2) Porpoising – Red Bull say it shouldn’t be changed since they’ve managed it pretty well. Even though there are safety concerns, it’s possible for teams to manage it by shaving off performance. Let’s stick to the existing rules on this one and cripple competitors.

      I know every team looks out for themselves.. there’s just a different level of BS and hypocrisy every time Horner opens his mouth.

      1. Budget cap increase is a shared thought by Mercedes, ferrari and red Bull. Not RBR specific!
        Porpoising is only a safety concern when the speed is more important then the safety of the driver. The setup can be adjusted to avoid the consequences of porpoising.

      2. @todfod And again, I must have missed something so can you please provide quotes where CH says he wants a rise in the budget cap? I believe you are entirely misrepresenting what he is intending here. You actually think he is that naive to think he could get away with saying he wants a budget cap rise so he can spend more money on development? That is not at all what he is saying, unless you can provide quotes. He is talking about relief for all, and has cited the seven teams particularly who are not the top 3 teams. He worries that due to other massively rising costs such as travel and freight amongst others, there are teams that may have to miss races. This has nothing to do with him wanting more money so RBR can spend it on development. Do you think he is a high school student or something? Who would think that would fly? Would make any sense?

        If you are convinced this is what he is asking for I’d like to see his quotes that have convinced you this is his intention. I can’t find them. You obviously have. Please share.

        As to porpoising, other teams have managed it pretty well too, not just RBR. Why should those who haven’t be given special dispensation when there is evidence that porpoising can be made insignificant within the parameters of the technical regs and the budget caps? And anyway, if he was actually asking for a budget cap rise, which he isn’t, but if he was and it was given, wouldn’t that then help teams have more resources to solve porpoising?

        I think you are way off base with your assertions about CH. I also think media has been misrepresenting CH’s intention too. Unless of course there are actual quotes of him saying he is lobbying for a cap increase.

        I think he is asking for equal relief towards all teams to help them cover off the inflationary pressures, so that in that way all teams can get to all races this season and still be within the cap (or their budgets when the cap can’t be met by the lesser teams).

        1. Relief does not have to mean a cap rise. It can mean something like a cheque to each team for let’s say 5 mill to be used towards freight and travel.

  10. I can understand his point of view and probably there is some exaggerating from Ham to put pressure on MB and the FIA. But it’s not clear to me what kind of rule changes have been sugested and is there a formal reguest for some sort of change to stop the porpoising? If the FIA change the rules it also needs time to adapt for all the teams. Also I don’t believe the only problem for MB is the porpoising. The engine is underpowered based on the performance of all the teams wit a MB engine compared to the Ferrari powered teams.

    1. There engine might be underpowered a little but it’s not blowing up week in week out…

  11. I agree with Horner on this one.

    Moreover, those teams putting the health and safety* of their driver at risk, should be penalised or sanctioned. Is there a way for F1 to measure the porpoising forces? If so, a threshold should be set.

    (*) With safety I mean accidents caused by heavy porpoising.

    1. Well the FIA really seemed to take safety sensibly when they let a Alpha Tauri drive round with a half a duck taped rear wing. Maybe they should also black flag cars that can’t make a DRS rear wing work safely and reliably too.

      1. I haven’t seen anyone’s DRS work unsafely. Who are you referring to? There have, of course, been instances where DRS has failed. If it’s stuck open, the car has to pit as DRS can’t be open outside of the specified zones and if it won’t open, that’s a performance disadvantage and not a safety concern.

        1. I would suggest a driver having to press multiple times and not knowing whether the DRS wing will open or not or potentially close is a safety issue. Particularly when the reason it’s failing is it’s been manufacturing at too low a tolerance.

          1. Hypocrisiy is not Horner only i see…

          2. @slowmo – No-one’s DRS has failed to close. That would be a safety issue but it hasn’t happened and if it did, they’d be expected to pit. They certainly wouldn’t be allowed to drive around the whole lap with their DRS open.

            As for it not opening, that just costs you lap time… It’s not causing a safety issue. I guess it takes the driver’s attention away from driving a little bit having to look at the wheel but that’s no different to other mechanical issues they have to manage whilst in the car.

  12. Mercedes need a floor with taller and narrower tunnels to minimise the ride height affect on venturi area. Red Bull are the only team [whose floor I’ve seen in photos] who really appreciate this, don’t penalise them for knowing what they are doing and reaping the benefits.

    In contrast Mercedes are the worst in that respect. They must have identified via CFD that the wide and shallow venturi had the most potential for downforce, but in the real world of bumps and ripples it simply cannot be made to work. Their designers need to wake up and smell the coffee!

    How often is ‘driveability’ quoted as the most important factor for extracting the most from a car?

    1. How often is ‘driveability’ quoted as the most important factor for extracting the most from a car?

      Don’t know whether teams know this. But I prefer to have a driveable car, and then allow myself to extract the performance out of it, rather than one that I cannot drive but is potentially fast.

  13. I don’t see how anyone can back one specific team/person over this.
    All the moaning RB did to pull Mercs engine back over the previous few years when they/honda/Renault had done a bad job… more recently half the teams lobbying and getting an increase to the minimum weight (Inc Merc) when a bunch of teams had met the target… and let’s not forget a handful of teams are currently trying to get the budget cap increased, of which Horner has been the most vocal stating his team potentially won’t be able to afford to do the last 4 races without breaching it.
    This guy takes the high road when it suits him and moans like a child about everything else when it suits him.
    Ferrari & RB are the best part of a second and more ahead of the rest of the field and he’s still not happy when you have teams at the back not moaning they are not in the fight for wins as these rules promised, but they are below the weight limit and using balast and they are well under the budget cap. Maybe take a page out of their play book!

  14. These are moments Toto should start regretting the engine development freeze just to favour redbull

  15. Paul Bernard
    13th June 2022, 10:11

    Horner is very vocal at getting his way and complains none stop if he doesn’t. He has complained for years and years in order to have the rules changed to finally remove any means in which Mercedes better his team, which he has finally achieved.
    What he doesn’t understand is that everyone else doesn’t drag things to the lowest level in order to win.
    He managed to get rules changed so last year his high rake concept car had the greater speed, just as he had Mercedes different engine modes banned, because he couldn’t compete with those.
    He has even said that he wants the budget changing because he has overspent.
    But changing something for safety because the rest of the grid is asking for it for driver safety is too much.
    After a serious crash, people will look at how self centered this individual is.
    Not a fan at all. Never have been.

  16. Christian is right, and he knows it works – it’s what Red Bull did in the early Pirelli era when their car chewed up the new tyres too quickly compared to rival teams.

  17. I think this has blown way out of proportion. OK so they bounce a bit, they are racing drivers. If they don’t like it they can go home. I haven’t seen any WRC driver complaining that the ride is too bumpy. If Mercedes can’t sort it out, good luck next year. I haven’t seen any indication this is a security issue as well.

    There was a reason for stiffer and simpler suspensions, changing this mid season would be extremely unfair.

  18. Even if they were, which it is visually proven that they aren’t, you Mr Horner have done pretty worse in the past whenever something didn’t suit you.

    1. 100%. If the Red Bulls were bouncing like crazy and were off the pace, he’d be complaining that it’s unsafe and if the Mercedes was smooth and fast, Toto would be saying what Horner is saying now.

      Team bosses will say whatever they need to in order to benefit their team. Their view on things is almost worthless in terms of trying to gain an understanding of what is going on because everything they say, they say for a reason.

      If the Mercedes was dominating, they’d all be saying “Yeah it’s bouncy but it’s not a safety issue.” Hamilton would jump out of the car and even if he was in pain, you wouldn’t know it from looking at him. He’d be all smiles, would go over to celebrate with his team whilst somewhere in the background, Max would be stumbling out of his car and trying to stand in front of every camera he could find holding his back.

      The truth as always, is somewhere in the middle. There is clearly an issue with porpoising for some teams and the quick solution (without redesigning the car) is to run it as low as possible and as stiff as possible. On street circuits, this makes the ride horrific. If it’s as bad as Lewis and Mercedes are making it out to be, they’d adjust their setup but if it’s not an issue at all as Horner is saying, we wouldn’t be seeing the cars bouncing all over the place as is clearly visible.

      1. @petebaldwin I disagreed with you on a couple of points but this is the crux of the matter:

        The truth as always, is somewhere in the middle. There is clearly an issue with porpoising for some teams and the quick solution (without redesigning the car) is to run it as low as possible and as stiff as possible. On street circuits, this makes the ride horrific. If it’s as bad as Lewis and Mercedes are making it out to be, they’d adjust their setup but if it’s not an issue at all as Horner is saying, we wouldn’t be seeing the cars bouncing all over the place as is clearly visible.

        Ultimately there is an issue here, something does need changing, at some point the teams will start a serious dialogue about what those changes might be.

      2. @petebaldwin – “100%. If the Red Bulls were bouncing like crazy and were off the pace, he’d be complaining that it’s unsafe and if the Mercedes was smooth and fast, Toto would be saying what Horner is saying now.”

        Exactly- If you read Horner comments, he actually says so himself, It’s all part of the game.
        They are all hypocrites by their actions, no more, no less, but that is largely just deliberately playing the game.

  19. He’s got a point, but then he doesn’t as well.

    “Should have done a better job” OK, then you should have done a better job with your budget.

    Don’t change the porpoising, don’t change the budget cap. You can’t lobby for one and claim “too bad” for the other

    1. Its the teams that need to change the porpoising, not the FIA. Just like McLaren have raised their ride height to stop the bouncing, Merc just need to do the same, and suck it up that they will be a bit further off the pace (like Mclaren) The problem here is that the teams are putting performance over the comfort of their drivers, not the FIA having to change something up because its dangerous. Its Toto own choice that their car is bouncing. there is one simple fix, raise the ride height, job done. Problem is that a big corporate goliath like Mercedes wont admit when they are wrong (as in, a total floor in their design concept).

    2. On the one hand I agree that they should keep to the budget, but on the other hand inflation is really hurting hard this year.
      I doubt there will be many companies (in general, not just motorsport) that will be able to keep within budget. Everything is getting more expensive. For F1 teams for example, clearly the freight costs.
      So increasing their budgets for inflation does not seem too wild to request. Of course some teams (probably the top 3) will want more. I agree that should not be done.

  20. Its embarrasing FIA goes for such rules, where half the grid is kangarooing over the tracks. This is not a pinnacle of motorsports, but some soapbox racing. Even my 20 year old streetcar has more advanced suspension technics, than current F1 cars. Thats what FIA should care about, cause it is devastating for the marketing of F1. There are many series which look a lot more like motorsports currently. And I am not talking about Merc only, but about half the grid, or even all but 2.5 teams.

    1. Proesterchen_nli
      13th June 2022, 12:50

      It’s embarrassing to the competitors having believed (and some still do, apparently) their bad modeling data over reality, produced a car that cannot compete, and are now crying to the refs to change the rules because others on the grid did a better job.

      1. Its embarrasing that FIA changes the suspension rules in a way, that more than half of the grid doesnt look like professionell motorsports anymore. At the same time they claim F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsports. If so, then the teams should have freedom to use suspension technics, which is available in every national cup-championships or common street-cars.

        1. The other half seems to have working solutions so that’s the task Mercedes should set for itself.

    2. No more embarrassing than mandating an extremely complex engine that resulted in only 1 manufacturer being competitive for several years. Ultimately as was the case then, the embarrassment should be felt by those who have failed with their design.

      1. @petebaldwin didn’t they originally aim for a even simpler design but certain manufacturers argued against it and demanded a v6 or they’d quit (the usual suspects)?

  21. Could say the same for Horner complaining about the cost cap.

  22. Fred Fedurch
    13th June 2022, 11:54

    Meanwhile, back on Friday………….

    But, all of the performance is when you get the car low, so we say ‘ok, let’s just take a beating in our backs and in our necks and just get our car as low as possible to gain us performance.” – L.H.

  23. So, taking an estimated guess over what will now happen: Mercedes will get what they want. It is good of Horner to speak out but it will be in vain. Who at FIA is going against something that has to do with Safety? I expect no-one. It is very clever of Mercedes to play the safety card again (ref 2021 in-season tyre change to their advantage also based on ‘potential safety issues’). From a show perspective Liberty will also welcome Mercedes back in the mix, so no objections there either. Leaves no other conclusion than this will happen in the advantage of Mercedes.

    1. Still not clear to me what they want? Active suspension? minimum ride height? and how soon can you implement it in the new rules. If it helps the midfield to come closer and fight for podiums why not but if only MB benefits why should other reams agree?

      1. There will be more teams that will benefit. Competition wise it will level the field, so to that regard it is attractive. The teams that got it right will be disadvantaged however. Judging from last season FIA and Liberty are all for increasing competition, so personally I think Mercedes will get this. It is expected to be a rule chance wrt the suspension I heard. Don’t think full active suspension but something between what they have now and that.

  24. It is a safety concern, so porpoising should be banned. That means more ride height or your car is illegal.
    Oh wait that’s not what Toto wants, he wants the cake AND he wants to eat it. FIA must make it so they can run their concept without any drawbacks.

  25. Whilst I agree is principle, this season is effectively over already if something doesn’t change. With the budget cap teams can’t build a new chassis of a different design. The rule changes have made the sport even less enjoyable, last year we had 6 different race winners, this year it’s 3. Last nights Indycar race was light years ahead in terms of action than the Baku Grand Prix.

    1. Over the whole of last year there were maybe 6 different race winners, but in the first 6 races there were only 3: HAM, VER and PER.
      Make the right comparison please.

      And in only 4 races there were different winners.
      For the rest it was all VER or HAM.

      This year, cars can follow better and I’ve found the racing to be better.

    2. @emu55 Oh wow the season is over. Like we didn’t have like 4 seasons of total Mercedes domination lapping the entire field. (2014 a 2016 and 2020) I didn’t see any rule change then.

  26. Its easy and can be implemented. Just like you have a rule that specifies that the maximum deflection (in centimetres) the DRS flap can do and cars that don’t adhere to it are disqualified (Hamilton in Brazil 2021). One should be able to set a rule that determines what is the maximum bouncing the car can do at a pre-defined speed and this can be measured via sensor. If a car falls foul of this rule, it can be disqualified.

  27. Asked whether he believes that is what some teams are doing Horner replied: “Of course it is.”

    Racefans:

    Rival teams exaggerating concerns over porpoising to get rules break – Horner

    Oh, the media..

  28. This is all a bit of a red herring by Mercedes. For all the talk of prior years dominance being down to the engine and to a lesser degree aero, the primary party trick was Mercedes’ top tier implementation of hydraulic heave springs and FRIC prior to that. James Allison and team mastered it. It is no surprise that in the 2022 absence of these systems that Mercedes find themselves with a completely non compliant, erratically handling car. The porpoising has an impact for sure primarily on driver comfort, but as we’ve seen that can be managed and the car can still be quick. They are simply lobbying to be able to re-implement what they know how to do best. All of the teams realize this.

    1. @spencer yes I agree that it was the final big advantage they had left which allowed them a better aero base and one that RBR had never managed to beat. It was also why their low rake concept actually worked which nobody else could get working.

  29. But if it’s only affecting isolated people

    I see what he’s doing there.

    I wonder if RBR/others foresaw the porpoising (more than other teams) and designed their car around it (set-up windows).

    1. Whether they did or not, they will surely say they did to FIA now to stress them being disadvantaged should FIA change suspension rules

      1. Don’t forget about Adrian Newey and the experience he has from the first gen of ground effects. They don’t need to say they foresaw porpoising, they’re showing it. They’re showing us all it can be done under the current parameters of technical regs and budget caps. Here’s hoping if Mercedes gets the help of FIA intervention it will only make RBR even faster, but anyway it would be ridiculous for such a change to be made when it is such early days with these cars. As well, I’m not convinced FIA allowing a regs change toward reducing porpoising is suddenly going to make those suffering from it top form competitive with the snap of the fingers.

  30. From the video, the up and down motion of the drivers’ head looks violent enough to tear blood vessels in the brain. If the body gets out of sync with the car motion the vertebral arteries may be at risk for tearing. I would refuse to drive this car.

  31. In some ways Mr Horner is correct but so they overspent maybe on this issue and are crying that they need more money,
    Maybe the other 9 teams didn’t spend more
    So we have Lewis, George, Pierre and Kevin all suffering from issues of porpoising from bad backs and aggravated nerves…
    I never really understood why they changed to a much basic suspension, as with slightly better it would sort it out and lets not forget Indycar have ground effect but they don’t have porpoising ( i know its a spec series but really)
    I am not enjoying seeing cars bouncing and drivers being bounced around

  32. Not surprising that Christian Horner can’t empathise with those suffering from back pain, what with him not having a spine.

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      13th June 2022, 18:43

      COTY (comment of the year)! Geez, there should have been a warning there. I didn’t see that one coming at all.

    2. sergio perez is also an “old” driver.. he is not complaining..

      RBR should veto the changes all the way …
      increase the ride hight.. if it compromises performance.. solve that .. its a mercedes problem not a F1 problem

  33. Horner likes to stir the pot. Can’t agree that drivers are “exaggerating.” We are all watching it on video. And I don’t think teams are telling drivers, make sure you sound really bad during a VSC or when sky will be looking for radios to broadcast. That’s absurd.

    The teams who are suffering the most from the bouncing are going to say it’s a safety issue, beciase it is one, for them. But afaik no one is proposing some solution to help themselves and hurt RBR, because there is none on offer, despite internet aerodynamicists (i recently defended my doctoral thesis in multiple YT comment threads) thinking Mercedes have an easy fix on hand that happens to be illegal now. We all love a bit of intrigue but sometimes WYSIWYG.

  34. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    13th June 2022, 18:49

    I think the issue is manifold.

    First, there’s the physical damage to the drivers.

    Second, there’s the potential for a terrible accident as the car is unsettled and in case of an accident could end up going high and climbing over another car or potentially going low and flipping or going under a car.

    Third, these regs were supposed to make racing more exciting. Instead, this is turning out to be the most boring season.

    Didn’t they test these new regulations? I’m not sure how the issue can be addressed.

    1. @freelittlebirds The regs were extensively researched and negotiated with the teams involvement and blessing. Some teams have it in control, some teams not. That’s F1. How to address it? Stability in the regs. It is up to teams to develop themselves out of it if it is a problem for them and/or redesign their car for next year. Normal F1 stuff.

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        14th June 2022, 13:36

        @robbie I’m not sure it’s normal to have cars that are so unstable at high speeds. I don’t believe it’s fair to penalize a team but I’m also not sure how this is different from the tire delapidation issue that we had many years ago in terms of safety. It needs to be addressed. I doubt it will affect Red Bull adversely but for sure they do not want Mercedes in the fight but Mercedes isn’t 1 team, they represent 40% of the grid.

        1. @freelittlebirds That 60% then by your count has addressed it shows that it is up to the teams to address it because it is obviously within the regs and the caps for them to do so.

  35. “It would seem unfair to penalise the ones that have done a decent job versus the ones that have perhaps missed the targets slightly.”

    After all the rule changes over the last 8 years trying to do EXACTLY that to Mercedes while they were fairly dominating, this line honestly reads like satire. I generally like Horner but I can never tell if his ability to say this kind of stuff with a straight face is down to great acting skills or just an incredible absence of self-awareness.

  36. Mercedes & especially Lewis/George have perhaps been the most vocal but I don’t think they are the only team suffering from the bouncing & they are certainly not the only drivers that have complained about how much pain/discomfort they are in.

    There’s an article on Autosport today with Pierre Gasly saying basically the same thing the Mercedes drivers are, Both Ferrari drivers have raised it, Alonso called the ride of the cars the worst he’s ever experienced & Lando Norris made a comment on Sky while talking to Karun that suggest’s the ride of the Mclaren isn’t as good as everyone seems to think.

    Red Bull & many fans who just seem to hate Mercedes & Hamilton are framing it like they are the only team/drivers suffering & raising it as an issue but they are clearly just deaf to what others are saying because when other teams/drivers raise the same concerns they don’t get the same hatred thrown at them as Mercedes & it’s drivers do.

    Let’s be honest here. It’s clearly just the anti-Mercedes/Hamilton brigade who want Mercedes to do badly as punishment for winning so much while at the same time using the struggles as bait to discredit Hamilton’s success.

    This is clearly an issue which needs to be fixed. Yes teams can play a role but anyone who was watching F1 in the last era of ground effects knew this was going to be an issue because as I said yesterday the appallingly bad ride quality of ground effect cars was why drivers in the late 70s/early 80s hated driving them. It was an issue then in F1, indycar & Group C (And it led to some big accidents) & it’s just as bad an issue today. It was always going to be & there is only so much teams can do to fix it, Especially with this silly cost cap in place that prevents teams from making big development improvements to help fix this issues.

    1. Also on the regular comment of ‘just raise the car’.

      That isn’t as simple a fix as you make it sound. Yes it may help a bit but it could also cause other issues. And not just in terms of performance loss but also aerodynamic instabilities that could lead to further problems.

      Just look at Indycar where teams were raising the ride height on the ovals which subsequently caused an aero instability that made the cars exceptionally prone to lifting & flipping for very little reason.

      1. Indycars run a lot less downforce than F1, so of course will naturally be more prone to lift.
        F1 hasn’t seen a car ‘take off’ since Webber’s Valencia flight over Kovalainen – and that was entirely because of wheel to wheel contact, not aero.

        It’s not all about Mercedes and people’s distaste for them – it’s just that Mercedes are complaining the loudest.
        And given their previous success and the quality of the team, most people expect them to solve their issues pretty quickly as they have been doing for many years now.
        For them to resort to requesting rule changes to help them out of their technical and competitive hole is naturally going to raise a few eyebrows. And attract quite a bit of resistance…

        Wanting the regs to stay as they are (and were approved by the teams, lets not forget) is not anti-Mercedes at all.
        Wanting consistency is much bigger than how people feel about Mercedes.

  37. Jason Lashua
    13th June 2022, 22:21

    Mercedes car suffers from extreme porpoising (ostensibly worse than others)
    Mercedes continues experimental setups on hamilton’s car
    Hamilton continues to have the worst porpoising…grabbing his aching 37 year old back in agony

    Dare I suggest that Mercedes is porpoisely configuring hamilton’s car to destroy his back because they screwed up so bad they cant fix it and have no recourse other than to even the playing field by forcing a rules change to require minimum ride heights???

    Look FIA! it’s so bad! You have to do something! WE dont stand a chance if we raise our RH. It’s not faaaaaairrr!!!

  38. If the bouncing/porpoising can’t be eliminated there are specialized cushioning materials (see NASA link: https://spinoff.nasa.gov/node/9001) that can minimize the impacts on the drivers. Wrap the drivers in bubble wrap if needed.

  39. I doubt it. Horner will be doing what Merc do if he’s in the same position as them now. “Fair” isn’t really exist on his and Marko’s dictionary of words.

  40. The problem is as I see it that the Mercedes camp were so vocal about wanting to bring back active suspension back in testing as a solution to porpoising, that it’s hard not to believe that’s still their goal. Basically since day 1 they have been lobbying for the FIA to fix their problems through a regulations change with tech they’re fully prepared for.

    Therefore it’s really hard to sympathise with them and believe they are doing all they can within the team to fix the porpoising problem themselves.

  41. The Alpines were a leap and bound faster than the Merc’s without anywhere near as much bouncing. These guys that are whining and posing need to stop it and go back to their Teams to solve their concerns. This is not a rule issue, it is up to each team to produce the best car they can within the rules, that includes making the car drivable.

  42. In a report on another racing site:
    “Key Formula 1 technical figures discussed the prospect of porpoising, and ways it might be mitigated, well before the start of the 2022 season.
    t’s a point that has been visited at least once before, with the sport’s technical figures having discussed the likelihood of the issue in late 2021, with nothing done on the matter.
    “There is always a way to try to mitigate through the set-up,” said Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto.
    “This is a set of option you decide the bouncing effect.
    “I think that in terms of engineering, it’s a good challenge to have.
    “So I don’t think it’s a safety matter first,” he added, addressing the point raised by Russell and Sainz.

  43. +1. equally hypocritical, all of them pushing their agenda without telling the truth.

  44. Didn’t he whinge and moan in a similar manner when they banned blown diffusers ??

  45. I find it interesting that most are just saying “raise the ride height” as a solution to the porpoising.

    I suggest that if it was that simple, teams, including Mercedes, would have done it, even if it was just in P1, so they could measure just how much impact that would have.

    The fact is, we armchair experts don’t have floor details, nor de we really know what true impact raising the ride height will have.

    It’s conceivable that it might not solve it but instead make it worse (more travel)
    It’s conceivable that it could in fact cause lift instead of downforce
    It’s conceivable that we could see the return of cars flying off the track at speed because of a sudden loss of downforce.

    These teams are supposed to have some of the best and brightest engineers and yet some seem to have gotten things very very wrong. That to me suggests that all the modelling and all the wind tunnels in the world can’t emulate “real life” on a track and the thing that is missing is more track time for the problem to be properly analysed.

    To me the one thing that could be done, relatively simply, is to return the first two practice sessions to 90 minutes instead of the 60 minute sessions we have.

    That gives everyone, including RBR and Ferrari the opportunity to tune out any “issues” on track instead of what currently seems to be a bit of a guessing game or at the very least an extended time due to the current lack of track time they’re getting.

    1. The fact is, we armchair experts don’t have floor details, nor de we really know what true impact raising the ride height will have.

      Not specific to Mercedes’ floor perhaps – but there are people here with a solid understanding of, and experience with, fluid dynamics relating directly to car racing, and also suspension design and geometry, @dbradock.
      Raising the car can certainly prevent bottoming, which would make the drivers a lot more comfortable. It would also go some way to preventing the floor from stalling (or suffocating) causing the car to lift and oscillate.
      It would just come at the cost of outright performance, which is why they aren’t doing it.

      To me the one thing that could be done, relatively simply, is to return the first two practice sessions to 90 minutes instead of the 60 minute sessions we have.

      No need. Given the tools the teams have off-track these days, longer practice sessions are totally unnecessary and detract from the quality of the event.
      Lengthening practice would just revert F1 to having Fridays made up of cars sitting in garages for longer again. Boring.
      The teams would no doubt also demand more money for the increased session time, as is usual these days. Everything comes with a price tag.
      I’d rather see them nibble away and gradually improve the car over time, anyway. If it takes them all season to figure it out using the current sessions, then so be it.
      And if they don’t get it for a whole year, or 7, then so be that too.
      Issues and imperfection are what makes car racing interesting.

      1. You may be bored with the 90 minute sessions, I used to enjoy watching the teams, particular the lower and midfield ones experiment and incrementally improve their performances over the weekends. Even the big teams quite often made big gains which we’re frankly not seeing since the 60 minute sessions were brought in.

        The fact that there’s limits on the fluid dynamics time as well as wind tunnel use and the fact that there’s still pretty big issues suggests that your “solution” isn’t really translating to the track and that’s the problem. The cars need track time and they’re limited with that too. If you’re happy for it to take the rest of the year and possibly next, that’s fine. Me, I’d prefer they advance things a little quicker than that but that’s my opinion which I guess is as valid as yours.

        1. I used to enjoy watching the teams, particular the lower and midfield ones experiment and incrementally improve their performances over the weekends.

          So did I – but that was before telemetry and data pushed all that tuning into the virtual world, @dbradock.
          It’s not like the driver does some laps and then comes in and tells the team what the car is doing and how they want to adjust it anymore. The team already figured that out weeks ago in the simulators now.
          Actually driving it on the track is just for correlation and confirmation.

          What some (or most) of the teams are struggling with isn’t track time – it’s compromise. They don’t want to, and are resisting it as much as possible.
          Mercedes (especially) has a solution standing right in front of them that they simply don’t want to use because it will make them slower.

          Of course I expect to wait for a team to figure out their own issues. I don’t want the rules to change to satisfy them – I want them to show why (in this case) they’ve won 8 consecutive WCC’s. They’ve built the ‘best’ cars before using the same rules as everyone else, so surely they can do it again… Unless they did it due to other factors, such as superior budget and resources, or regulatory exploitation….
          60, 90 or even 300 minute sessions is irrelevant. Modern F1 cars are designed and run in such a narrow window that there isn’t much they can do with setup to fix these issues (other than make themselves slower). The issues are predominantly in car design, and that only changes in the factory – almost exclusively in the virtual world.

Comments are closed.