Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Baku Street Circuit, 2022

FIA issues new technical directive to reduce ‘porpoising’ on safety grounds

2022 Canadian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

The FIA has taken the first steps towards reducing Formula 1 cars’ ‘porpoising’, which has provoked complaints from many drivers in recent races.

The governing body of motorsport said on Thursday it has taken the steps in response to the degree of porpoising seen at races up to and including last weekend’s Azerbaijan Grand Prix.

Since the season began drivers from several teams have complained they have suffered painful rides in their cars.

This is partly due to porpoising, where cars rise and fall at high speed due to the designs of their floors, which have changed drastically this year in response to new regulations. Some teams have suffered this problem to a greater extent than others.

The teams as a whole are also running their cars much more stiffly than before in order to improve their performance. This change has made their cars less compliant over bumps.

Report: Montreal is “going to hurt” in stiff 2022 cars say drivers hoping for bouncing fix
The FIA has today issued a technical directive to teams advising them it will conduct more detailed inspections of the designs of their cars’ floors and how they wear during sessions.

It also promised to set a limit on the vertical movement of cars, to prevent drivers experiencing an unacceptably painful ride and risking injury. This limit will be set in consultation with F1’s teams.

The sport’s governing body also intends to discuss with teams how the cars could be changed to make them less susceptible to porpoising in the first place.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

FIA statement: FIA takes steps to reduce porpoising in the interests of safety

Following the eighth round of this year’s FIA Formula One World Championship, during which the phenomenon of aerodynamic oscillations (“porpoising”) of the new generation of Formula 1 cars, and the effect of this during and after the race on the physical condition of the drivers was once again visible, the FIA, as the governing body of the sport, has decided that, in the interests of the safety, it is necessary to intervene to require that the teams make the necessary adjustments to reduce or to eliminate this phenomenon.

A technical directive has been issued to give guidance to the teams about the measures the FIA intends to take to tackle the problem. These include:

1. Closer scrutiny of the planks and skids, both in terms of their design and the observed wear
2. The definition of a metric, based on the car’s vertical acceleration, that will give a quantitative limit for acceptable level of vertical oscillations. The exact mathematical formula for this metric is still being analysed by the FIA, and the Formula 1 teams have been invited to contribute to this process.

In addition to these short-term measures, the FIA will convene a technical meeting with the teams in order to define measures that will reduce the propensity of cars to exhibit such phenomena in the medium term.

The FIA has decided to intervene following consultation with its doctors in the interests of safety of the drivers. In a sport where the competitors are routinely driving at speeds in excess of 300km/h, it is considered that all of a driver’s concentration needs to be focused on that task and that excessive fatigue or pain experienced by a driver could have significant consequences should it result in a loss of concentration. In addition, the FIA has concerns in relation to the immediate physical impact on the health of the drivers, a number of whom have reported back pain following recent events.

Don't miss anything new from RaceFans

Follow RaceFans on social media:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2022 F1 season

Browse all 2022 F1 season 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...

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

137 comments on “FIA issues new technical directive to reduce ‘porpoising’ on safety grounds”

  1. Wise move, as sooner or later they would’ve needed to react anyway.

    1. And not before time. On matters of driver safety, as this clearly is, the FIA should be taking the lead, not simply treating the matter as a design issue for each team to get it right , or not.

      What we want is competitive cars where the driver isn’t put at risk to gain that competive edge.

      1. It is a design fault with the car. The teams can sacrifice performance, and eliminate it, but they don’t… FIA shouldn’t punish the teams that don’t have a problem, by giving the others a free pass to fix their mistakes.
        They didn’t when merc had the dominant pu.
        Put in rules to protect the drivers by penalties for excessive vertical g forces or a frequency of oscillation

    2. Not really. Fia blunder. The porpoising is not nice but the ride is poor because the cars are super stiff so that they perform better. What stopped cars from being as punishing as they are now was the fact the tyre wall deflected a lot more than it does at the moment, meaning the cars could only be as stiff as the tyre. The cars are as stiff as ever, the tyre is what changed.

      1. The measure is targetting vertical travel, ferrari is clearly the car that has more amplitude. In WEC toyota looks just like ferrari, isn’t the fia doing anything in wec? lmp2 look like the merc, short amplitude porpoising but high frequency.

        1. Actually, it’s targeting vertical acceleration, not travel. Larger amplitude doesn’t mean higher acceleration if the frequency is lower. The London Eye has a much larger amplitude than most rollercoasters…

    3. It also pushes the issue further down the line a bit. There aren’t any specific rules this weekend (other than closer scutiny of the floors which doesn’t really mean a lot..)

      We then head away from street circuits for a while with only Singapore remaining later in the season.

      I don’t imagine they’ll have any vertical G limits or anything like that until next season and with the data the teams all have, most will have sorted out their issues for next year.

  2. FIA is short for “Mercedes can’t hack it.”

    1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      16th June 2022, 17:41

      The way it reads though is MB have to stop their car porpoising. Every team has to follow suit. The directive isn’t that the ride height has to be raised to stop the car hitting the ground.

      If a car is within the directive then nothing has to be changed.

      On the face of it this actually is worse for MB.

      1. Not if you consider the part where teams are invited to share their ideas for changes to be implemented in the medium term.

        Who do you think will have the time and budget to devote to such a task? Who will be the leader in any technology chosen? And who will have to change their car from what is already working under the current rule set to a different development track altogether?

        1. The likes of Red Bull who aren’t porpoising will be less effected than Merc for example who would need to compromise performance in order to comply with any new oscillation rules.

      2. The directive, “Closer scrutiny of the planks and skids, both in terms of their design and the observed wear.”
        While it says they will be looking at the issue more closely, doesn’t really dictate anything about porpoising, only wear on the skids and floor sections.
        The reference to vertical accelerations and movement are yet to be defined. Pretty much a cop-out.
        Yes this is likely worse for MB as they look like the stiffest and lowest of the cars.
        The test will be to see if any team gets tagged (DQ’d…?) for excessive floor damage and plank wear.
        Montreal will be a great test as the track is likely to be very rough. Something about frost heave and high water tables.
        Expectation … sparks are gonna fly.

        1. @rekibsn I read elsewhere that while they will be talking/debating/consulting etc about this very much this weekend (I’m sure it’s all we’ll hear about) and starting the monitoring, it is too early days in this directive to be issuing any penalties this weekend.

    2. So you read the article (I hope, but I’m not holding my breath), and that’s what your little brain came up with did it? Huh.

    3. @proesterchen

      Dude… if anything, this directive is going to be a major setback for Mercedes and Ferrari.

      2. The definition of a metric, based on the car’s vertical acceleration, that will give a quantitative limit for acceptable level of vertical oscillations.

      Ferrari and Mercedes will have to shave off performance to make sure their cars are in the oscillation limit. Red Bull must be grinning from ear to ear.. looks like the FIA is going to hand them 2 championships in 2 consecutive years.

      1. Short term? Maybe. If they are fools.

        Medium-term? Mercedes will submit a wish list of rules changes in hopes of getting their flawed design working, which, if adopted, would put everyone else at a significant disadvantage for years to come.

        1. They are talking to all the teams so why would the FIA be stupid enough to only take what Mercedes say and go with that, surely all the teams will convene in the same direction which will more than likely be active suspension, so those that got it right still hold an aero advantage

          If Redbull is fast in the current regs how much faster could they go with Active suspension, I believe a lot faster

        2. @proesterchen – read it again please I beg you.

        3. What on Earth are you going on about? The FIA will merely regulate the oscillations. How did you go from that to “a wish list of rules that would put everyone else at a significant disadvantage for years to come?” Read the article again.

      2. @todfod

        looks like the FIA is going to hand them 2 championships in 2 consecutive years.

        FIA isn’t handing anything. They are doing perfectly fine as it is already.
        On top of that, drivers have been complaining. Lewis would do anything to not experience another Baku. Russell is warning that a terrible accident is going to happen. They want something to be done.

        Well, seems like the FIA is now stepping in to listen to Russell and Hamilton and do what the teams wouldn’t do as they keep on prioritizing performance over driver wellbeing: force them to stop subjecting the drivers to a detrimental, unsafe working environment.

        Same for all.

        1. All mb has to do is raise the car, and it will eliminate the problem, but the choose to risk the health and safety of their drivers instead

        2. @mattds Exactly. If anyone is handing RBR the Championships this season (which they are earning on merit obviously) it is the complaining drivers and their teams that have continued to punish said drivers to the ‘Max’;)

          RBR meanwhile continue to show what can be done under the current regs and caps without the intervention of a TD needed to save their drivers.

      3. Naughty Neutral
        16th June 2022, 23:08

        ‘ FIA is going to hand them 2 championships in 2 consecutive years. ‘

        Here we go again… The FIA doesn’t hand them anything! They would DESERVE those titles by having produced a better car!

        1. Exactly, Mercedes has got a bunch of F1 championships in recent (an earlier) years because they made a car that was way better than most of the other teams.

          The last 2 years this domination was over and now that other teams produced better cars some people say that the FIA is going to hand them the championships???

      4. The key technical term in the directive is “accelerations”.
        Ferrari can live with a lot of vertical movement and still keep accelerations low. The Mercedes, being more stiffly sprung will suffer higher accelerations with less movement. Again, this is not looking good for MB.
        It is the accelerations that are a pain in the back, neck, where-ever.
        One solution is to suspend the driver’s seat rather than work to soften the car. Easy, cheap and probably without any weight penalty. Yes, Colin Chapman would be cheering this on.

      5. Just on short term. Please read this part again:

        In addition to these short-term measures, the FIA will convene a technical meeting with the teams in order to define measures that will reduce the propensity of cars to exhibit such phenomena in the medium term.

        This means they will be helped to solve the problem. Mercedes did it again. Just like last year with the in season tyre change for ‘safety’. I feel the politics is too much in control. I can except a certain level, but Mercedes is being ridiculous and FIA way to dependent somehow on them

    4. This seems more like raise the ride height or get disqualified to me.

      1. Still we rise…

        1. ‘Still we rise’. Mark, that was awesome.

        2. It’s “Still I Rise.”

          1. Or “Still I Bounce”

          2. And I thought it was “All rise.”

      2. Read all off it please. The first part is just a smokescreen for the people and born out of fear something might go wrong before they get the chance to help Mercedes

    5. Maybe they can place a moratorium on this safety measure. You know… we already have precedent this year with the ridiculous drama around piercings. But I think we all know what’s going to happen with this particular issue. I hope the other teams take a scorched earth approach in fighting this. As far as I know, nobody else is calling for changes in regulations except Mercedes. Ferrari have bad bouncing as well, but their car is the fastest, so they’ve kept quiet.

    6. Mercedes will, like all other teams, loose performance. I think there will be an equal outcome.

    7. This directive will hurt Mercedes. This looks like a big win for Red Bull actually

  3. Barry Bens (@barryfromdownunder)
    16th June 2022, 17:38

    Good, that’s that done and dusted. I was afraid they’d push through a change to bring back active suspension on the grounds of safety because Mercedes keeps crying for it like a toddler, but so far they haven’t.

    1. the FIA will convene a technical meeting with the teams in order to define measures that will reduce the propensity of cars to exhibit such phenomena in the medium term.

      Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

    2. They should bring it back. This is F1, we want the cars as fast as possible, not making alterations to go slower.

  4. If FIA stick to “quantitative limit for acceptable level of vertical oscillations” for drivers safely, it can only mean bad news for Mercedes.

    Every teams that let their drivers to endure above those limit would be penalized.

    1. That’s how I was interpreting it as well. So it would also massively hurt Ferrari (who have a quick car but lots of porpoising) so potentially when this is all done and dusted, Red Bull are going to be miles ahead of everyone else.

      1. Ah yes. Ferrari could be hurt more than Mercedes. Even when their drivers never complain about it.

        1. Martin Eggett
          16th June 2022, 18:03

          Sainz complained

      2. @t1redmonkey I agree 100%. If after this change the championship becomes a race for one FIA really shot itself at the foot…

      3. Red Bull are going to be miles ahead of everyone else.

        For this season, which they are already running away with.

        But for the future, other teams get to change the playing field fundamentally, and could easily get a run on everyone else if they managed to get mitigation measures adopted that they have (a) already spent R&D on, (b) allows them to use a concept that is not suitable for the current rules, and (c) forces everyone else down the same road, enshrining their own head start.

        1. @proesterchen reliability aside, Ferrari is as fast or faster than Red Bull, as can seen by the pole position’s record. In the first year with a cost cap, they are changing regulations during the season for a “security” issue that hasn’t caused a single incident thus far. Doesn’t really seem fair from where I’m standing.

      4. Carlos was pretty vocal. Probably partly as an excuse to mask his poor performance.

        The rest of the team didn’t complain though.

        1. He’s always complaining when he’s losing to his teammate. His complaints might have backfired on the entire team though.

          The guy isn’t even a number 2 driver.. he’s a liability with a 2 year contract.

          1. Nice try, he is very close to his team mate’s speed in reality. to within 99.75% at least.

  5. Seems fair enough. They’re not bringing in any strict rules initially but will keep an eye on the floors and will set limits to the bouncing.

    There not much else that can be done – they teams are choosing not to fix the issues because they don’t want to sacrifice pace but at the same time, they seem to want the FIA to bring in rules to force them to slow down. Weird….

    1. they don’t want to sacrifice pace but at the same time, they seem to want the FIA to bring in rules to force them to slow down

      No, the interested parties want the rules to change because they didn’t do a good job and are now limited by the budget cap and development limits from catching up with the team/s that got it right.

      If you’re in that situation, any change is good change because at least you have the chance of tilting the playing field to the point where – in the best case scenario – you being behind under the current rules set puts you ahead under whatever are the rules going forward.

      1. True but what the FIA have said today is effectively “we’ll be keeping a close eye on you and will bring in limits to stop you running your car dangerously in future.” Nothing that will help the teams who are currently struggling.

        1. If Mercedes manage to convince the FIA to bring enough ride control options back in the medium-term, their concept may suddenly become the faster one on enough tracks to make them contenders or even favourites for the Championship.

          Remember, Mercedes are deeply enamoured with their current design to the point where they are pulling every string and lever available to them to change reality to more closely resemble their sim data.

          They may already have a solution, with the only problem being that its design is incompatible with the current rules set.

          1. read what the FIA have written. I know you hate Mercedes, and dont believe that Hamilton was in pain, but this directive will make Mercedes even more slower than Ferrari and Red Bull. this directive will hurt the teams with the most purpoising, as the FIA doesnt want the drivers getting hurt. There is nothing their that can help mercedes, you are being a conspiracy theorist.

          2. There is nothing their that can help mercedes, you are being a conspiracy theorist.

            You didn’t read the statement all the way through or managed to miss the part where Formula 1’s teams will have input on what changes to be implemented in the medium-term.

            I have clearly laid it out in the post you replied to what the outcome of that consultation could be. We will have to wait and see just how successful Mercedes are going to be in their lobbying efforts.

      2. For a start teams that are not bouncing (like RB) did not necessarily do anything specific to reduce the porpoising. As far as I know, no one can really pinpoint what is causing the issue on some cars and not others. So it is likely red bull got lucky and their design just happens to not exhibit the effect. Remember it was red bull who managed to not make their car light enough and then got the regulations changed so that they were not harmed by it… The teams that “did a good job” and got their cars within the weight limit were then effectively punished…. Because red bull could not build a lighter car….

        1. I find the suggestion that this was luck on anyone’s part unsupported by facts if not completely counterfactual.

          Aston Martin designed a car that was chasing downforce by running low and stiff (remind you of any other team?) and was a mess.

          The Aston Martin went to a design that allows for more compliance and a larger operating window, and not only does it run smoother, it’s quicker, too.

        2. This is complete nonsense. RB didn’t “get lucky” and Merc know what’s causing the bouncing and how to fix it. They just need to raise the car. But that kills the downforce and that’s why they won’t do it.

        3. Lee1 What an unfounded crock on both counts. Adrian Newey built a great car that from day one has displayed an insignificant amount of porpoising. As to weight, all teams have been overweight. All of them have struggled to get down to the minimum and that has been part of the development game throughout this season.

        4. All cars except Alfa Romean were too heavy…. so not only Red Bull. But they worked hard to get the car lighter and they are now somewhat near the limiet.

  6. So are the FIA claiming that teams are deliberately making their cars ‘porpoise’?

    1. Yes. For the sake of speed

    2. It’s not so much that they’re doing it on purpose as they are allowing it to continue to avoid sacrificing performance.

      Red Bull have clearly come up with a better floor design that doesn’t have the same propensity to porpoise. Merc and Ferrari have more issues with their designs, especially Mercedes, but could tune it out if they wanted to at the expense of performance. They’re choosing not to right now, or at least finding a compromise setup.

  7. I think with this MB finally must find a solution asap for their drivers. The teams will discuss and will know what Toto wants (bring back exotic suspensions etc) but he will hit a wall with the teams that are with RB and Ferrari.
    Mercedes can use this year to learn and rise from 2023 onwards.

    1. @bluechris

      Would be great to see Mercedes and Ferrari team up on active suspension against Red Bull though. Heck, Ferrari isn’t going to beat Red Bull if they have to reduce performance to meet porpoising requirements. At least with changes to the suspension regulations, they might stand a chance.

      1. I hope Merc do not get given a get out of jail free card with a suspension change. They had a huge advantage with the previous regulations which took years for the other teams to catch up because of the token system. I fear there will be more avoidable bouncing in Canada and more complaining.

      2. Where is all this talk about active suspension? Did I miss that in the article? I’ve not heard a single mention that it’s coming back.

      3. @todfod Lol Mercedes and Ferrari ‘team up on active suspension’ 😂…what a special world it must be inside your head.

        1. @robbie

          It’s as special as the world in your head, where Perez is considered an equal driver at Red Bull..LMAO

      4. Active suspesion in cars who are already heavy i don’t think that is physic possible so maybe in 2026.. not before.

  8. Wow, this actually looks like it might be quite a sensible approach, sparing the drivers of the cars affected and only hurting those who got their aero concept wrong. Red bull, Alpine, Alfa Romeo did a better job there, so they will suffer less and Aston Martin seems to have updated the car in a way that will probably pay off for them too.

    Not bad. Let’s see how it pans out in reality though.

  9. The Merc assistance program is in effect. Pathetic.

    1. Wrong. Go back and read it again, this time perhaps think it through yeah?

    2. Why do you hate Mercedes so much. You can’t afford one?

    3. This hurts Mercedes more than any other team, could end up towards the back of the midfield

    4. CheeseBucket
      16th June 2022, 20:41

      You clearly can’t read. Not to clever huh.

    5. This will literally do the opposite of that. Mercedes are the big losers with this new rule. The biggest winners are Red Bull.

    6. since last year, the FIA and stewards have help Red Bull the most, and this helps Red Bull even more!

    7. You say that but i don’t understand the rules even after reading it 4 times (bad written) but if everyone has to raise their cars i think Red Bull will be the biggest loser.

      Because there is no info on how much porpoising the limit is…

      So all lose performance but Red Bull the most IF the rideheight has to rise too much.

  10. Good decision from FIA. Bizarre that the anti-Mercedes/Hamilton lobby fail to realize that this means reducing the performance of the Mercedes (and probably Ferrari) relative to Red Bull in the short term (this season). Discussion on ‘medium term’ solutions clearly means allowing some other technology (active suspension or the like) to reduce purpoising, but that would not necessarily compromise or neutralise Red Bull’s current advantage.

    1. to reduce purpoising

      to porpoise on purpose?

      1. @seth-space nice catch! Now to get everyone using it…

      2. @seth-space It really wasn’t on porpoise…

    2. Wrong. In the medium term, Merc and others will need to find ways to generate the lost downforce they will lose by stopping the bouncing. Why do you assume the FIA will allow active suspension? It’s up to the teams to make the cars work under the rules. We could have years with Merc and others being much slower than RB if they can’t make their cars work under the current rules. Don’t believe me? We just had 7 years of Merc being unstoppable because of their power advantage and no one could catch up.

      1. @robbie Thanks for the link. The issue seems to be cost not that it can’t theoretically be solved. FIA also removed interters, which would have lessened the issue this year.

  11. So all you need to win races is a few good actors
    And continuous whinin towards the Marshals and the Fia
    Oh ………….. and your team is called Mercedes

    If you got it wrong ……….. Deal with It

  12. I think I’m reading this like everyone else, it’s a ‘kick in the goolies’ for Mercedes rather than something that will help them out…… initially. But lets see what comes of it.

    1. And is everyone else seeing the comments in bold now or have I done something?

      1. re: bold comments

        @keithcollantine probably missed a closing html tag at the end of his article.

        1. Accidental boldness. Is it any less bold than daring on porpoise?

      2. Nope – nothing you have done – unless I have done it too @bernasaurus

      3. Quite a few bold statements by commenters today ;)

  13. Potentailly bad news for Ferrari and the Championship fight.
    Probably the correct path though by the FIA.

  14. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    16th June 2022, 18:58

    I’m glad they consulted with medical staff. Clearly this type of bodily strain can affect your concentration, your judgment, and your ability to perform at this level. Combine that with an unstable car and you have a recipe for disaster.

  15. An intelligent response by the FIA. For cars with oscillation problems it will reduce both the driver’s discomfort and the car’s performance. However, teams will then have a safe baseline from which to develop their cars’ performance.

  16. This could hand the championship to Max and Rbr… the gift that keeps on giving but… Rbr created and awesome car, let’s see if Checo can make it interesting…

    Let’s hope Ferrari and Merc have fixes on the way.

    1. They already have the fix, it’s increasing the ride height of the car.

  17. Is anything happening from this weekend or is there a date for anything actually happening? That statement seems vague even for the FIA. The bit about closer scrutineering to planks is hilarious. Does that mean they haven’t been checking or giving teams a pass for plank ware?

    1. That’s exactly what it means. And who is really surprised?

      They don’t even care if both Williams drivers openly flaunt the blue flag rules, and even declare that they did so on purpose after the race.

  18. Return of active suspension? That would fix this. In 1993 it was expensive. Today it is (relatively) cheap.

    1. Active suspension was not banned because it was expensive.

      It was banned because Ferrari couldn’t get theirs to work properly.

    2. Naughty Neutral
      16th June 2022, 23:13

      … and give MB a free out of jail card? No way.

  19. Good.

    I’ve said it in previous comments that the FIA had to do something about this because it is a driver safety issue (something that could cause impact not just now – but lead to medical complications even decades after).

  20. Why the bold fonts in the comment section?
    It’s annoying.

    1. CheeseBucket
      16th June 2022, 20:43

      You’re annoying.

    2. The script is broken right at the end of the article.

  21. I recall seeing Mythbusters using shock indicator labels as a guide as to whether some event was going to cause injury or death to a person. I don’t see why the FIA can’t mandate drivers must have one attached to their body or crash helmet, e.g. a 25 g or 37 g shock impact label, and if that becomes activated then that driver is given some sort of punishment, e.g. a time penalty.

    1. @drycrust
      Drivers already have accelerometers in their ears.
      Doesn’t show what their butt is doing though it will record their head banging.

      1. Charlie Racing
        17th June 2022, 8:14

        Wow, really?!

        F1 keeps surprising me in regard of how highly technical and innovative the sport is.

      2. Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten all about that. Unfortunately there have been times when video “got lost” or “we can’t download it until we get the car back to the UK”, so a suitable patch on the car and another on the driver should be mandatory. If the patch is activated then the team can apply to the Stewards to explain why they shouldn’t receive some sort of penalty.

  22. Seems like a reasonable attempt at a solution. Very difficult to see if this will be sufficient, but there’s no way for them to implement a fix for porpoising without affecting some teams more than others. If the teams have a say in deciding the limit of vertical oscillations, it might be fairer than the FIA doing it behind closed doors.

    1. You’re overthinking this. The FIA will regulate porpoising. It’ll be up to the teams to figure it out, i.e. increase the ride height.

  23. Given the onboard cameras and how hard the drivers seem to be hit with this – and considering the amazing resistance they all have – this is a very normal reaction to protect them. As a pointer, most professional drivers already end up with brain damage if not outright Parkinson from their driving years, I can’t imagine the long term damage happening right now with these new cars.
    Any comment about team tactics feels slightly insensitive in that light

    1. Most professional drivers are brain damaged and/or get parkinson’s?!? Care to provide a reference to such a bold claim?

  24. The interesting element here is the floor wear checks, makes me think the skates will be outlawed on floors.

    1. @slowmo

      https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/the-red-bull-ice-skate-that-could-be-its-porpoising-cure/10287419/amp/

      Not sure about that, as the skates RBR employ also seemingly have great aero effect in helping eliminate porpoising. If teams could employ skates to as much affect as RBR have, (which to me is not a given since everything has to work together from front to rear on a car and (RBR style) skates on one car may not work on another car), you’d think FIA would promote them rather than ban them.

      1. I’m not sure floor’s scraping across the ground is ever something the FIA wanted or intended. There’s a reason they run the plank on the floor.

  25. FIA wants the teams to consult on this. How much is Adrian Newey expected to contribute? Perhaps the consultation should be amongst the teams that need to find solutions, otherwise they’ll be getting a freebie off Newey’s genius.

    1. That is the minimum they should do. Not sufficient however since the FIA knows the RB car. They have had a chance to properly examine it etc .. competition distortion is inevitable. Mercedes took the right angle in their lobby and Lewis theatrics sealed the deal. If you like this part of F1 then it is well played by them. Personally I do not like this part of F1 and am therefore terribly disappointed again today (after last years in season tyre change that hugely benefitted Mercedes as well). Mercedes were political paper champs last year, maybe they can do it again. To me it are hollow achievements.

  26. Why did they allow skid blocks on the plank in the first place? The plank itself was introduced to prevent teams running their cars so low that they scraped the ground, wasn’t it? Then adding skid blocks on it kind of defeats its purpose, at least in my view.

    Sounds like they are going for a number of complicated new rules regarding telemetry data, and modification of the skid block positions. If they instead simply removed all the plank-mounted skid blocks, teams would have to run their cars higher to prevent plank wear. Sounds like a good solution to me. That would make the cars slower, but everyone would be slower. And probably more consistent too, with under-body aero being less peaky at higher ride heights.

    Some cars would probably still bounce, but only on the suspension. Because bottoming out, and I suspect that is were the back-injuring hits are coming from, would get you disqualified by the worn down plank.

    1. Sparks…. we can’t not have the sparks :)

  27. I have an opinion
    17th June 2022, 3:27

    Is bold text off now?

    1. I have an opinion
      17th June 2022, 3:28

      Clearly not.

  28. Good, this is the right kind of instruction; get it right or face penalties… Simple.

    Teams shouldn’t be running an unsafe car in the first place and should be ashamed.

    1. @skipgamer Fair comment. PG shouldn’t have had to be brave and speak out as you put it on the other thread. It shouldn’t have had to get to where FIA has intervened with a TD. The teams suffering the most should have seen that if their drivers were suffering as they were then they had obviously pushed things too far and should have backed off and considered something a bit less performance-wise as their max, until they found other ways to get the speed back.

  29. I think the FIA should just introduce a spec suspension component for next year that raises the ride height by a set amount at a given speed. To keep costs down, it should be the most basic little hydraulically activated cylinder with a set throw that can be easily accommodated into the suspension design (something along the lines of those air cups that sit over coilovers for lowered cars). That way, teams can run whatever ride height they want and know that on the straights when porpoising/bouncing is at its’ worst, they’ll have the additional ride height to compensate.

    It would be an active suspension, but by making it a very basic spec part, it should be able to be implemented without substantial cost implications.

  30. I like the bold’s because i can read much much better with my mobile.

  31. Ian Stephens
    17th June 2022, 7:41

    In the 1980s Adrian Newey introduced ground effect. Cars went quicker but when they bounced (e.g. over a kerb) they lost control leading to big crashes. It was quickly banned because it was so dangerous.

    Now we want to make it easier to folllow and overtake so the FIA have employed aero engineers who could not hold more lucrative jobs in teams tocome up with new aero rules. They are too young to remember how dangerous ground effect was. They reduced wing downforce, which redued speeds, so they reintroduced ground effect to get downforce without turbulence. In doing so they have reintroduced the danger. As a side effect they have helped Adrian Newey’s team because he is the only designer who has experienced ground effect and solved the problems earlier in his career.

    All sports are games of chance. (Otherwise there would be no sports gambling.) In F1 risk means danger. By trying to reduce danger over the years the FIA has reduced the element of chance and found itself with the same team winning eight years in a row. To increase the element of chance they had to increase the risks, which increased the danger. They can not have it both ways (and nor can we). The choice is inevitably safe but boring vs exciting but dangerous.

    1. Ground effect was introduced to F1 in 1978 by Lotus. Newey only came to F1 10 years later in 1988 with March team. Do your research please ;)

      1. Ian Stephens
        17th June 2022, 23:17

        Thanks for that correction. My age is getting the better of my memory and I should have checked.

        I was sure I remembered seeing him at Brands Hatch or Silverstone very early in the 1980s, but in any case you are quite right that early ground effect was in use before that. I also realise that even if he was at races then he was not designing the cars, although he may have been involved with setting them up.

        The point is that the FIA inevitably has to choose between safety with predictability and unpredictably with danger in a sport where the consequences of a mistake are severe. Even the best engineers would struggle to find the right balance but the best engineers are bought up by the teams leaving the FIA to get by with what is left.

  32. A back day again for F1. Disgusted by the lobby and FIA falling for it.

    In addition to these short-term measures, the FIA will convene a technical meeting with the teams in order to define measures that will reduce the propensity of cars to exhibit such phenomena in the medium term.

    This is the essence of the statement. All other is to distract the people from what is really going on. Competition distortion of the purest kind.

  33. Point 1 is not a change, and if it is, it’s merely the FIA admitting they weren’t doing the inspections properly. Designs have always been restricted by the rules, and wear has similarly been limited. Point 2 is potentially a good idea, because this constant bouncing around is clearly not healthy for the drivers.

    The big issue is the last point: ‘The FIA will convene a technical meeting with the teams in order to define measures that will reduce the propensity of cars to exhibit such phenomena in the medium term.’

    That is exactly what Mercedes wanted all along.

    The FIA is falling for Mercedes’ theatrical complaints and stubborn refusal to sacrifice even a tenth of pace at the expense of their driver’s health and safety. And all that while F1 is only a third into the first season in nearly a decade where Mercedes isn’t dominating (but where they’re still easily the third fastest team). Never mind that other teams are proving that porpoising is not a necessary feature of these cars, that Ferrari is proving a porpoising car can also be fast, or that Red Bull is proving a fast car does not need to porpoise.

  34. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but for me it doesn’t seem there’s anything happening in the short term at all, apart from looking at the floor of the car. The metric to measure the level of porpoising is still under analysis and teams are invited to contribute, and in the longer term a technical meeting is called.
    So if your floor isn’t totally wasted compared to other teams it’s more or less as you were? And is the Mercedes floor in worse shape as the Red Bull floor after the race?

  35. A surprisingly good step forward from the FIA, both in terms of speed and sensibility. I’d been thinking of limiting vertical g-force, but vertical movement seems a good alternative that’s probably easier to mandate – assuming they can measure it accurately.

    I realise people won’t necessarily like the part about discussing technical solutions with teams about how to reduce propensity, but that’s simply because a team you like/dislike is doing better/worse as a result of the current regulations. F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, so there’s nothing wrong with potentially introducing technologies that allow cars to fully exploit under-floor downforce, given it promotes closer racing.

  36. Sergey Martyn
    17th June 2022, 16:53

    The only thing FIA can and should do is to install G-force sensors and black flag the cars with excessive porpoising.
    Then all the solutions will magically emerge.

Comments are closed.