[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Killed by Death

Indy threw a Red Flag with 4 laps remaining to finish under Green...Just sayin'

So who won KbD? where did Grosjean come if he was racing.

[///M Power-Belgium]

*****

[///M Power-Belgium]

Damn Mick !

[Killed by Death]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

So who won KbD? where did Grosjean come if he was racing.

ex f1 driver ericsson

GRO sucked then DNF

[F87source]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

at 2:50 sam collins says "...mercedes and they've really improved significantly, and we'll come back to that"
Except they don't come back to that.
I really hate it when things like that are said in video's...
Anyway, we all know now that the insanely stiff suspension setup with a low ride height of the MERC's is part of their solution against porpoising next to their new floor.
I wonder how that's going to be next week in Baku. Another street circuit. Maybe not as bumpy as Monaco (I really don't know tbh), but very high speeds.

I don't know maybe they need more data because it was literally on one race?


No we don't know that mercedes solved porpoising with an insanely stiff suspension there has been no evidence pointing towards that. A stiff suspension wouldn't solve porpoising, because if you go stiff enough to prevent the car from bottoming out - you lose all suspension articulation when you're under full aerodynamic load (because it has to be immensely stiff at the bottom end to prevent the car from going down any further) and no aerodynamic load. So you essentially have zero suspension and have no mechanical grip going over curbs or the smallest of bumps. If you go super stiff but still have a bit of movement near the bottom then a little bump will be enough to deflect the suspension just enough to get the floor to sink low enough for it to stall and set off a crazy oscillation cycle of bouncing. It is however a general trend for ground effects based cars to go stiffer to get better ride height control, but that is for all teams and is by no means a way to control porpoising. It is just like trying to run on bump stops, it simply will not work because if you are riding on bump stops you don't have any additional suspension movement at the bottom end of the shock travel.


Suspension dampening might help which is what redbull is speculated to have, but not always because porpoising is an aerodynamic phenomenon.


Having a low floor is just how to optimize ground effect, it doesn't solve porpoising. Reshaping of the tunnel, having a stiffer floor to stop flex, better vortices to seal off the underfloor also helps (kyle talks about that nasty tire squirt entering) and adding skates or reliefs to the floor is what helps solve it. There are other means too.



Yeah lets see how baku plays out, but bumpy tracks will not be helpful to any car this year as they are all so incredibly stiff. Like it was crazy the merc was bouncing even at low speed, so to me it really looks like just really stiff suspension. If the FIA allowed teams to have hydrualic dampers once more that should really help things. I don't know if mercedes necessarily have a top speed advantage, that might have been an anomoly (slip stream, setup etc) because it was a one time occurence and only on 1 of the mercedes.

[Killed by Death]

Ferrari needs a TP with balls and enthusiasm!!! Found our guy!!!

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by F87source

No we don't know that mercedes solved porpoising with an insanely stiff suspension there has been no evidence pointing towards that.

You have seen what ross brawn, ver and other have commented on that what I highlighted in one of my old posts?
And MERC ran insanely stiff suspension in Monaco; Hammie and RUS even complained about it.... Why o why.....
There's no evidence of that because you look the other way
RB/Ferrari had less problems with that.

Originally Posted by F87source

If the FIA allowed teams to have hydrualic dampers once more that should really help things.

Are oil filled shock absorbers banned?

[F87source]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

You have seen what ross brawn, ver and other have commented on that what I highlighted in one of my old posts?
And MERC ran insanely stiff suspension in Monaco; Hammie and RUS even complained about it.... Why o why.....
There's no evidence of that because you look the other way
RB/Ferrari had less problems with that.


Are oil filled shock absorbers banned?

There is no evidence running extremely stiffly is their porpoising solution, they ran extremely stiffly from the beginning of the season but that did nothing. Running stiff is the general trend to control ride height on these generations of ground effect based cars, because if you run low and soft and encounter some turbulence or bumps then you get a nasty oscillation because of the hysteresis between the suspension and the downforce generation. I'm not looking away, I am looking beyond the simplistic explanations of how people think porpoising is solved, and mercedes tried stiff suspension, setup, ride height, they even added a floor flick early on to bleed some air from under the floor to reduce down force nothing helped. The only thing that helped was redesigning the floor to deal with air flow.



I have no idea if oil filed dampers are banned, but im pretty sure having those external reservoirs connecting to the shock body where hydraulic fuild is allowed to flow through is banned. So an oil filled damper might not be as effective without this external reservoir. I am not sure, but the FIA really kneecapped all the teams by banning this.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by F87source

Yeah lets see how baku plays out, but bumpy tracks will not be helpful to any car this year as they are all so incredibly stiff. Like it was crazy the merc was bouncing even at low speed, so to me it really looks like just really stiff suspension. If the FIA allowed teams to have hydrualic dampers once more that should really help things. I don't know if mercedes necessarily have a top speed advantage, that might have been an anomoly (slip stream, setup etc) because it was a one time occurence and only on 1 of the mercedes.

Really interested to see Mercs speed in Baku, lets see this no sidepod design go to work.

It is clear Merc was struggling the most from bumps in Monaco track. In Spain they looked much better. I think their performance going forward will be very dependent on track type.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by F87source

There is no evidence running extremely stiffly is their porpoising solution,

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying its part of it.
Running überstiff suspension on arguably the most bumpy track of the year.... obviously they do this to irritate Hammy and Russel

I have no idea if oil filed dampers are banned, but im pretty sure having those external reservoirs connecting to the shock body where hydraulic fuild is allowed to flow through is banned. So an oil filled damper might not be as effective without this external reservoir. I am not sure, but the FIA really kneecapped all the teams by banning this.

What do you mean with "those external reservoirs"?
There's a rule against external reservoirs?
Afaik there's only a rule against active suspension, or suspenion that reacts to acceleration roll etc. No mass dampers, no level control etc.
But no rule against 'external reservoirs'. Rules are always against a characteristic function of a device. External reservoir is not really a characteristic function.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by M3WC

Really interested to see Mercs speed in Baku, lets see this no sidepod design go to work.

It is clear Merc was struggling the most from bumps in Monaco track. In Spain they looked much better. I think their performance going forward will be very dependent on track type.

There is suspicion that the w13's zero pod design was not for low drag high speed performance, in fact it was there because this design allows more air to flow over the top of the floor and thus generate the largest pressure differential between the top and bottom of the floor which in turn creates the most downforce. But a result is there is no side pod to shield the rear tires from air flow which means the rear tires create alot of dirty turbulence and thus produce a massive amount of drag (exposed rear tires are one of the most draggy parts of an f1 car amongst the wings).

So their design was a massive gamble at generating the most amount of downforce from the floor as possible.


Here is a speed trap from monaco, they were not the fastest, but the field was very closely packed together due to the nature of this circuit.

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying its part of it.
Running überstiff suspension on arguably the most bumpy track of the year.... obviously they do this to irritate Hammy and Russel





What do you mean with "those external reservoirs"?
There's a rule against external reservoirs?
Afaik there's only a rule against active suspension, or suspenion that reacts to acceleration roll etc. No mass dampers, no level control etc.
But no rule against 'external reservoirs'. Rules are always against a characteristic function of a device. External reservoir is not really a characteristic function.

I wouldn't call it a part of the solution if that is how all the cars are these days, it is just an innate part of the car design like how having an intake is an innate part of the engine. The real solution is the floor rework.

The hydrualic suspensions from last year all had remote reservoirs for the hydraulic fluid to be fed into, and it was these reservoirs where the trickery happened like mercedes valving it to allow the car to squat. This has all been banned, and I believe the remote reservoir was removed as well as part of the hydraulic suspension ban.

Yeah there is no active suspension etc, and this year no hydraulics either, which is why alot of teams are having issues with ride control vs. last year where the cars looked buttery smooth even over curbs. Why did they ban this? I am not sure, but it couldn't have saved that much money.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by F87source

The hydrualic suspensions from last year all had remote reservoirs for the hydraulic fluid to be fed into, and it was these reservoirs where the trickery happened like mercedes valving it to allow the car to squat. This has all been banned, and I believe the remote reservoir was removed as well as part of the hydraulic suspension ban.

I don't read anything about remote reservoirs in the technical rules...
And I don't read anything about hydraulic suspension (as in hydraulic shock absorbers) not being permitted.
Can you refer to a specific article in the rules?

Yeah there is no active suspension etc, and this year no hydraulics either, which is why alot of teams are having issues with ride control vs. last year where the cars looked buttery smooth even over curbs. Why did they ban this? I am not sure, but it couldn't have saved that much money.

Can you refer to what exactly they banned what you mean? Which extra rule or section you're specifically referring too?
A lot has changed but this is all a bit vague.
There is afaik no ban on using oil in dampers. At least not that I can find in the rules, so the exact paragraph/article would be helpful.
In fact I'm pretty sure there is no ban on using oil in dampers, as there is an article that refers to gas in dampers for the use to prevent cavitaton and their permissive spring constant.
For the rest is "hydraulic" or "hydraulics" quite a vague term. It just means that oil (actually not even oil, but a fluid in general) is moved around.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I don't read anything about remote reservoirs in the technical rules...
And I don't read anything about hydraulic suspension (as in hydraulic shock absorbers) not being permitted.
Can you refer to a specific article in the rules?



Can you refer to what exactly they banned what you mean? Which extra rule or section you're specifically referring too?
A lot has changed but this is all a bit vague.
There is afaik no ban on using oil in dampers. At least not that I can find in the rules, so the exact paragraph/article would be helpful.
In fact I'm pretty sure there is no ban on using oil in dampers, as there is an article that refers to gas in dampers for the use to prevent cavitaton and their permissive spring constant.
For the rest is "hydraulic" or "hydraulics" quite a vague term. It just means that oil (actually not even oil, but a fluid in general) is moved around.

I haven't read the rules directly so I can't refer you to the exact sporting regulation article.

But here is what the journalists and f1 reported:

1) https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...bTdd4bp8j.html

2) https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-...sion-headache/

in this one gary anderson says: "There are also more regulations to make sure the front and rear suspension work independently. In the past, this has been a bit vague but for this year remote helper springs or dampers mounted somewhere in the sidepods and hydraulically operated have also been outlawed."



So suspension is alot simpler now and there is less valving trickery that can be done.

[GuidoK]

yeah ok, but now you're saying something completely different.....

IT's not the use of oil in dampers that is outlawed, or it's reservoir...
It's the use of specific actuated valves (by body roll, acceleration, yaw) or specific links between suspension parts etc that are forbidden, and it's forbidden to store energy in the hydraulic system.
So a compressed gas spring is not allowed anymore. Or at least not one that is greater than 10N/mm. Which is used for another purpose.
So they all use steel (coil)springs again.

This was already ment/planned for 2021, but somewhere they decided to pospone that a year.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

yeah ok, but now you're saying something completely different.....

IT's not the use of oil in dampers that is outlawed, or it's reservoir...
It's the use of specific actuated valves or specific linkeages etc that are forbidden.

So what I said initially was I didn't know if oil filled dampers were allowed, but I knew all the hydrualic trickery was banned.

So the whole benefit of having oil in the damper is really negated without the valves and external reservoir. Because you can get some really benefical/desired dampening effects with these reservoirs and valves. So even if they are allowed oil filled dampers are the gains going to be significant?

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by F87source

So what I said initially was I didn't know if oil filled dampers were allowed, but I knew all the hydrualic trickery was banned.

No, specific hydraulic 'trickery' is banned... (I hate that word because trickery is a very non specific term used by those who dont understand imho...)

So even if they are allowed oil filled dampers are the gains going to be significant?

Do you even know how a shock absorber works?

Virtually all shock absorbers are oil filled. If you don't have that the car would rattle apart after 1 lap...
And there are still a lot of valves permitted (without a valve, an oil filled shock can't work anyways...).
So bump and rebound are still adjustable, they probably have a way to adjust progressivity, they probably have slow and high speedvalves etc etc.
But they cant have valves that act under position of the body, or acceleration or g forces.
For instance you can have steel balls in valves in shocks that say with braking are pushed foreward (inertia) and so block off a valve. This would be an anti dive valve. (and you can do the same with body roll (something that some koni shocks have etc)

[F87source]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

No, specific hydraulic 'trickery' is banned...



Do you even know how a shock absorber works?

Virtually all shock absorbers are oil filled. If you don't have that the car would rattle apart after 1 lap...
And there are still a lot of valves permitted.
So bump and rebound are still adjustable, they probably have a way to adjust progressivity, they probably have slow and high speedvalves etc etc.
But they cant have valves that act under position of the body, or acceleration or g forces.
For instance you can have steel balls in valves in shocks that say with braking are pushed foreward (inertia) and so block off a valve. This would be an anti dive valve. (and you can do the same with body roll (something that some koni shocks have etc)

That is the trickery - the remote reservoir which is quite large to facilitate these valves and don't fit in the spot where a traditional compact damper would fit. I use "trickery" so I don't have to type massive paragraphs each time (just like I don't feel like explaining how team strategy doesn't solely involve the feelings of the driver, and how it involves millions of simulations on super computers facilitated with having to provide drivers with lap times of drivers around them as they are essentially blind in the car). I don't feel like digging up all the articles about how mercedes use hystersis of the valves to facilitate their squat under load and only allow it to close upon braking.


Yes I know how a shock absorber works, I had remote reservoir jrz's before and mine were gas filled. This is where I suspected that they would switch to a different damper design if they couldn't retain the hydraulics, so I thought they would switch maybe to a substance/fluid that could change damping qualities based on load - which is proportional to speed which is what redbull is rumored to do to fix their porpoising. Hence why I was wondering if oil would provide the same benefits if they can't play with valving like they used to. Maybe they would want to play with other fluids or substances.

I don't know too much about the 2022 suspension stuff yet, because most of it is still fairly unknown and the only topics of discussion these days is aero. Because porpoising is the only thing that seems to matter now a days.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by F87source

That is the trickery - the remote reservoir which is quite large to facilitate these valves and don't fit in the spot where a traditional compact damper would fit.

the valves are mostly tiny (think of a 3mm steel ball that blocks a hole). one can easily build such valves in the shock body. (koni did for example on some automotive shocks)
It's not something dictated by a reservoir.
Again, reservoirs are not forbidden.
My guess is that you mean a hydropneumatic heave spring. Those are forbidden. It now has to have a metal spring, save the 10N/mm gas fill (which is a similar function to your JRZ's gas filled cannisters)

I use "trickery" so I don't have to type massive paragraphs each time

And by not specifying what you mean you're not making yourself clear...

(just like I don't feel like explaining how team strategy doesn't involve the feelings of the driver, and how it involves millions of simulations on super computers facilitated with having to provide drivers with lap times of drivers around them as they are essentially blind in the car).

And luckily we don't talk about that as that has nothing to do with shock construction...

This is where I suspected that they would switch to a different damper design if they couldn't retain the hydraulics, so I thought they would switch maybe to a substance/fluid that could change damping qualities based on load - which is proportional to speed which is what redbull is rumored to do to fix their porpoising.

That's still hydraulics....Hydraulica means literally flow of fluid, fluid in motion. They (rumoured) use an oil/fluid with non linear (non-newtonian?) viscous properties. (like for instance how some viscous LSD/couplings works; they often have a silicone based oil with non linear properties)

In fact it's most of the other dampers previously used that are forbidden. Thats why I said devices that store energy. They used to also have dampers that would work on storing kinetic energy.

But BTW virtually all shock absorbers (fluid filled) are also gas filled, just like your JRZ's: oil and gas filled. That's why I gave the allowed specs from the technical rules.
All the 'trickery" in your JRZ's remote reservoir is also allowed in F1 (although maybe the adjustment knobs have to be on the inside; the driver for sure isn't allowed to change those, and I also think mechanics aren't allowed to change them say during a pit stop)

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by F87source

That is the trickery

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I hate that word because trickery is a very non specific term used by those who dont understand imho...

Cause and (ground) effect (dynamics).

Both of you seem to look into handling consequences.

What about focusing more onto handling the source(s) ?

For example, what about dynamically handling the air flow processed beneath the car: is it allowed under the rules to use electronically operated gate valves for the 'gateways' channeling air flow under the car (gate valves partially restricting, possibly even intermittently, air flow at (very) high speed, reducing sufficient downforce to avoid contact with the track surface) ? Electronically operated: just like DRS is operated by the driver simply pushing a button.

I can imagine that this could upset the balance and likely could not make sense from an engineering point of view - but it's just a rough layman idea.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Cause and (ground) effect (dynamics).

Both of you seem to look into handling consequences.

What about focusing more onto handling the source(s) ?

For example, what about dynamically handling the air flow processed beneath the car: is it allowed under the rules to use electronically operated gate valves for the 'gateways' channeling air flow under the car (gate valves partially restricting, possibly even intermittently, air flow at (very) high speed, reducing sufficient downforce to avoid contact with the track surface) ? Electronically operated: just like DRS is operated by the driver simply pushing a button.

I can imagine that this could upset the balance and likely could not make sense from an engineering point of view - but it's just a rough layman idea.

We both are focusing on the handling such because I guess there is nothing else the teams can do besides that.


What you suggest would be absolutely incredible, but that would constitute active aero and is illegal in the current rule set. But it might be legalized for 2026 where they focus more on energy recovery so they will need active aero to help increase rear down force levels (so the rear wheels have more traction) under braking in order to optimize the energy recovery via the rear electric motors. Because currently when you brake the weight balance shifts alot towards the front axle so braking is mostly done by the front wheels, but if you can shift the weight onto the rear wheels there will be more traction for the rear wheels to perform braking and thus allow more energy to be recaptured.


It would be really cool to have active aero though, but maybe active suspension would be even better for this generation of car because you can control how close it rides to the ground, how soft the suspension is, what the allowed travel is, and you can stop the nasty oscilations and suspension hysteresis and effectively dial out porpoising all together. This means flexifloors will be no problem because even if the side of the floor bends down to create a "skirt" allowing better seal, the suspension won't let the car bottom out and stall the underbody air flow so you can get a massive boost in performance.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by F87source

What you suggest would be absolutely incredible, but that would constitute active aero and is illegal in the current rule set.

Although it serves a totally different purpose, but that idea sprung to mind from operating the air brake handle on gliders (operated with your left hand): it's purely mechanical, interfering with airflow to reduce speed + you can modulate 'how much brake' you give (from a bit resistance to full resistance).

Of course in F1 the purpose is to maintain high speed, but to avoid the car from porpoising. Hence, the idea of dynamically modulating the airflow under the car, either by restricting airflow gateways/channels or by dynamically channeling airflow (either more to the back or more to the sides in the fastest sections of the track, operated by an actuator, as switching railway tracks with a handle).

Or what about a diffuser that can be modulated (dynamical: different angle position settings with the touch of a button).

[M5Rick]

Sergio's joy