Thank you for this content. One of the major reasons I fell in love with F1 as an adult (I watched what I could when I was a kid in the 80s and 90s), is after I got a degree in electrical engineering and the engineering aspect of F1 is amazing. It is what separates F1 from every other series, IMO. I am American and just can’t get into spec series like indycar. I view Indycar like F2 and F3 because of its spec nature.
Too bad that they only drivers are featured, and all the parts about engineering side are basically hard to come around for the fans. Have no idea how to organise that part to be more exposed. Engineer to drive to survive :D
Couldn’t agree with this more. Only started watching nascar again cause I’m curious to see how the 7th gen car develops over the next 2 years before it’s all same same until the hybrid engine and dodge comes back. Indycar needs the dw14 chassis BAD the dw13 is just so old even the new engine regs aren’t gonna give it enough appeal to draw me back.
I think F2 is pretty impressive actually, isn't it within a second or half second of F1 with a tiny budget. Anyway agree with you 100% (fellow EEE degree here too 😃✌️👊)
I 1000% agree with you. Lmp1 racing was really interesting for a bit until manufacturers started pulling out. I think any series that allows development and changing of a car throughout a season makes it so much more exciting. The entire concept of BOP takes so much out of a racing series. Other series need to stop penalizing better engineered cars so that worse ones are more competitive. My dream is a racing series where the only regulations are that it must be road legal, fit certain safety requirements and maybe all on the same size tire or same tires. They would be allowed to develop a car throughout the season as long as it remains road legal. They also have to sell the car to the public. Maybe a rule where they only have a certain amount of fuel for each race. That's it. If manufacturers went all in the cars would be incredible. I also would love a series for aftermarket tuners where every team starts with the same road car but they can develop the car all they want as long as it remains road legal but they also have to offer the products they create for the car for sale to the public so they could theoretically have an identical car on the road. It would create a direct application to the road. Maybe Porsche could sponsor it with the 718 as the car or even Toyota/Subaru with the gt86/brz or the Nissan gtr. it would instantly create tons of aftermarket options for their own car.
And THIS is why I fell in love with F1. As an aerospace engineer, this kind of content never gets old. Great stuff Peter and Scarbs. 🙏🏽 P.S. Reminded me of my days with the old Milliken textbook!
I remember I was laughed at during launch season when I said "F1 teams will still HAVE to have a degree of rake on these Ground Effect cars." Guess who's laughing now?! It only makes sense from a performance point of view let alone on a porpoising point of view. Rake helps with the car turn-in as we saw with the RedBull of 2021 and helps with downforce generation, making the diffuser work harder by increasing the volume of air it has to work with. With porpoising it was as Scarbs pointed out, it gives the car more time before the rear bottoms out along with the behaviour of the rear suspension. I've been messing around with my own ground-effect aero on my model cars just to learn more about ground-effect since Pre-Season. However the model I've been working is essentially a skirted concept. I have yet to experiment with the skirtless philosophy these F1 cars are running now. But the skirted design has taught me quite a lot about the porpoising problem. I'm by no means an engineer though. Just a big F1 fan.
Excellent explainations from Scarbs, the thing that you haven't noted is that this WILL LEAD TO AN HORRIFIC ACCIDENT, if it's not fixed NOW, this will be especially so on a very fast (straight/loose curve) when they brake distinctly at the end of the straight and the car is unable to make a significant corner. Someone is going to have an uncontrolled accident when the car doesn't go into the corner if the driver is going very deep befor braking from the straight/curve into a significant corner and the car NOT responding to the suction of the aero.
Agreed. We’ve seen this before in the early ‘80s in F1 and Indycar-downforce created on a very narrow envelop for parameters, and when it goes wrong, it can happen at anytime.
3:25 Bam! Exactly what i was thinking previously as well. Downforce is nonlinear in relation to the ride height so In order to prevent the whole thing from oscillating, the suspension should balance out this non linearity as well.
The bummer here are the tyres which are always in line with suspension and those tyres are largely undamped .I would not be surprised to learn thecrear tyres are one of the rootcauses for those oscillations ....just why are suddenly cars fighting weight issues ? I tend to think the current underfloor philosophy is at fault: df rises with diminishing rideheight .You just cannot stop this qith spring and damping as tyre squash will increase as you stiffen up suspension.You cannot cure aero characteristic with out actively compensating for tyre squash -and thats not a passive suspension,right? the only solution is to develop the tunnels to account for tyre (!) squash characteristics ,so basically df needs to rise linear with diminishing ride heights .
@@marcush.1901 Mhhh. You sure that tyres can be damped? Flexing / moving rubber might damp a bit but other than that, isn't a tyre just a bunch of compressable air which itself behaves very much like a spring? (And not a damper?) I think people have the wrong understanding of what a damper actually does. I totally agree with the underfloor being at cause. The underfloor produces more DF with lower ride height. But that df then breaks off once the car reaches a critically low height. And then the spring kicks in, pushing it back up until the DF picks up again. Cycle repeats. But you can cure this by adjusting the suspension. With a normal suspension i.e. a spring for simplicity, the force is proportional to the compression length. But the countering force, the downforce, is not. It will produce an even larger force when the ride height gets lower and lower. You can counter that by using a spring that also is nonlinear, that is basically "over proportional" to the compression length. This way, the floor doesn't suck itself right down to the floor. At least in very much simplistic theory. And yes, you have to deal with the existing suspension characteristic that you "inherit" with the tyres. So that might be a limiting factor. Not sure if that's the case though. Weight issue is a separate topic. I think they simply didn't foresee how much weight was necessary to create a 2022 car that meats all the requirements and is fast. But the countering force, the downforce, is not. It will produce a even larger force when
Not really. The only way they could actually do this is by allowing the use of duel rockers on the heave springs. The only problem, they've been banned. Formula E does this by using an oscillating shaft connect to the shock absorbers pushnrods, but again, thats been banned. I think Formula 1 has banned itself into a corner.
@@marcush.1901 the tires are a spring, excuse me, the sidewall of the tire is a spring and the air inside is the absorber. The oscillation is from when both the suspension and the tires oscillations becoming synchronous. One is combining with the other and making one problem worse.
Very informative. Always entertaining listening to you two. I'm a MercAMGF1 fan and I fear that when the Silver Arrows get it right they will be under scrutiny by RBR as well as SkyF1 with some speculation about the legality of its fix. Brace yourselves.
I'm sure that will happen as well, but it happens to every team when they are at the front or when they make large improvements in lap times/race position. Ferrari has already had cheating allegations and it's only a month into the season. Nothing to brace for, happens all the time.
@@jesselund360 If you're talking about the wing- perfectly legal! Failed the stress test by 2mm while RBR wings were flapping all over the place and allowed to be taped under parc ferme??? If you're talking about the ROCKET ENGINE - perfectly withim the rules to fine tune the engine and set it at a high power mode as long as theres no change in mode after quali. Go study the rules and regs before commenting
Changes of bound and rebound are the simple, easy adjustments, they would've been the first things done in tests and practice sessions, they can put in variable rate springs and dampers but thats chasing a solution in the result of the problem, they need to look for a solution in the cause. They need to tune the air flow in the floor tunnels to not be so peaky and causing stalls. Its like pulling up in a plane that cant loop, the nose will go up as far it can, the slow speed air flow over the wings cause a stall, the nose will drop, the air flow will speed up again causing lift and the nose will start to go up again, they need to stop pulling up and stalling. Stop the peaks. Is it any wonder Adrian Neweys car is sorted? No they've altered the air flow.
exactly, they need to tune the venturis to stall later, just before max speed. Hard tune suspensions sounds like a patch (hard to achieve) not a solution
@@Pcomepdor In 1980 my Donnington GT championship winning ground effects GT car . i utilised dump vanes to achieve a measure of fine tuning control of the air flow / pressure entering the venturis . I achieved a dominant handling car using my own seat of the pants driving ability . A full width rear aerofoil mounted low down in the Venturi airflow acted like a mass airflow damper.
On point number 2, I've long wondered why teams don't take hints from race motorcycles. My understanding is air springs used in the front suspension (in combination with coil springs) have been banned, but on the rear of motorbikes they use a linkage to enable a single spring to provide a fairly complex progressive force in a very consistent and easy to specify way. It's a very reliable and race proven design, I'd think it holds up pretty well in a number of key areas, and I've not really been able to think why F1 teams haven't been inspired to redesign such a system for their own needs especially in the advent of new suspension rules and critical underfloor aero. For example I'd think it relatively easy to get the springs to be fairly constant throughout with a progressive nature only at the end of travel suggested here (and specifying where that progression started and how steep), or even the regressive system it seems was used last year by Merc.
The problem i see there is the fact that there is a swing arm on the bikes when there isn't that system on the F1 cars. You need to remember that every F1 car is using the engine block as part of the "frame" geometry. They cant employ alot of the systems from sportbikes. I think the solution is the same way Formula E does it.
Now that was a wicked invention….I remember seeing it as a kid and it literally blew my mind….+30yrs later and it’s still one of the best inventions in F1 I’ve ever seen….and something I always chuck in to the whole “what would an ultimate F1 /race car have on it” debate lol
Peter: As a F1 enthusiast, I have to wonder how the teams have gotten themselves into this spot. In other words, F1 has had ground effect cars before, so I can't believe that knowledge has been lost completely. So that brings me to a more basic idea that F1 2022 specs were released and the teams "gave it their best shot" at creating a design to be efficient... yet it seems like we are constrained by the old rub of "too many variables and not enough constants" combined with each team having its design locked in. I suppose the layman in me wonders how some of the most brilliant engineers in the world haven't grasped how to deal with this conundrum yet. To close, did the last generation of ground effect cars go through these problems too? Great interview with Craig, keep up the excellent content!
Yes. It has been mentioned in many videos. That the last generation of cars went through porpoising. And skirts were one way to fix it. And then active suspension. That was i think started by Lotus. But pioneered by Williams until it was banned at the time when Ayrton Senna joined Williams.
That had this issue before and solved it with sliding skirts to seal the air for leaking. That’s no longer allowed so they can’t just apply what they did before. You understand that aero is completely different than what it was back then so your whole well they did it in the past so why can’t they do it again is not how it works now. Plus there are limits on testing, budget, wind tunnel time… back then they could just throw money and test until they came up with a solution. They would basically test every time they were not racing and even had test drivers to develop new parts. It’s clearly not that simple these are the smartest people in their fields and are still not able to solve this problem.
The reason why the F1 teams were caught out by proposing in the first pre-season test a Barcelona is that you cannot simulate porpoising in a wind tunnel and the 60% models do not have full articulating suspension. CFD runs also would not activate and therefore reveal porpoising during the run. The best chance of simulating porpoising would be in the simulator as once the data acquisition is completed on-track the exact behaviour of the car can be replicated 1:1 in the simulator. The previous generation of ground effect F1 cars in the early 1980s did experience porpoising. A fundamental problem that occurs when using venturi tunnels and therefore ground effect to generate downforce is the introduction of pitch sensitivity into the car. For maximum operational efficiency of a venturi tunnel based car requires it to maintain a level stable plane to the travelling surface i.e. the track. The eventual solution after ground effect was banned as the car's cornering speeds exceeded track safety limits at the time was active suspension. With active suspension, all the conditions that would activate proposing are neutralized as the suspension setup is not compromised. The suspension would always be in the ideal state for any condition on the track, straights, corners, chicanes, acceleration and braking. The solution to fully resolve porpoising as Craig Scarborough stated would be multifaceted ranging from floor design, and suspension setup along with front and rear wing design to the CoP (Centre of Pressure) in an inert position as not create a leverage effect and trigger the porpoising oscillation.
A theory for Scarbs about Red Bulls front suspension- its an Anti-Yaw Suspension Layout. The Red Bulls outer fences are a double edged sword that create a lot of outwash. So they help a lot to push the front wheel wake outboard, what is very important. Its not a coincident that the two fastest cars are the two cars who obviously manage the front wheel wake best. But the Red Bull fences can also starve the floor under yaw. So yaw has to be reduced. Anti-Yaw Suspension.
Serious question for you both. I have recently been watching the older F1 races, and noticed that the older cars compared to the newer cars had much less aero, grooved tyres, were low to the ground with very little rake, some ground effects etc. But yet cornered, raced etc with no porposing on the same tracks. So why do the new cars need so much aero and so many bits and bobs plus slicks etc to do the same job? Also watched the Indy 500, and those cars had like no aero almost yet stick to the track still doing 200+mph???
You can't porpoise if you're not using ground effect. Also not that modern F1 cars are a lot more glued to the ground than older gen cars. In some older clips, you can still see the car's rear sliding out a bit. Modern cars have so much downforce, the only time you'll see high angle slides is when they're spinning out.
Great analysis. If you look back to days of Group C sports cars, you’ll see they had the same problem, and the solution will soon become apparent. You are on the right track, and I suspect Red Bull has figured that out.
Red Bull suspension is not Anti-dive. It's pro-dive. You can look the the angles and calculate this, but and intuitive way to look at it is: Upper element is tilted backwards. So under breaking the reaction forces pushing backwards on the tire (car wants to keep moving forward, brakes+road are pushing back on the wheels to slow the car down) will also "help" compress the springs, therefore dropping the nose. Pro-dive.
Penske Racing in the US had a coil over that you could set the pump threshold so stiff on smother roads and moves on bigger inputs like curbs could something like that be used on the third spring.
If you watch both the Mercedes & Ferrari in Melbourne.. Both cars bounce/porpoising around the same.. But the Ferrari is much quicker than the Mercedes.. So it's not just the bouncing that is affecting the Mercedes.
i think, having a progressive spring is a good thing to have a response that is distributed over a broader frequency range. that reduces the likelihood to energize one single resonance frequency. but my understanding is, that purpoising is happening at a certain frequency and you could dampen that specific frequency. you would need a pressure wave running through some material with a reflection at the end and bouncing back when the next pressure wave comes in. the question then is, if the frequency is depending on the weight of the car which changes throughout the race by burning fuel. if this is significant, then also the dampening thingy also needs to adapt the frequency over the whole race.
I know they were a difference in engineering and ethos with ground force cars, it was interesting to see the Alan Jones Williams from the ground force with skirts. On the top of the sidepods they had a couple of louvres (nicely polished), which would obviously cancel the bouncing when airflow was too fast, the stall happened, but that air was diverted out at the front of the sidepod. Almost like a dinosaur ferrarri , aston, or alfa
My opinion on all of this is some teams have the diffuser doing all the expansion. Problem with that is it's at the complete rear of the car and there's only so much that can be done with suspension. Add in a bunch of weight and you have what you see today. In the previous tunnel period, the tunnels were much more car centered - forward of where they are now. And if we think about Merc last year, their car rear sagged at high speeds. Add that all up and you have a #1 team go to #4 on pace. We're seeing many teams trim the rear of the floors in front of the tires to reduce sealing when the car is bottoming. As we're seeing big rear wings, it suggests those teams are trying to reduce DF at the rear from the diffuser but at a a huge drag penalty. We're also seeing RB running a skinny rear wing so they are benefiting from the tunnels and if they figure out how to improve balance they'll jump ahead of Ferrari as they have a big top speed advantage currently. have a lot of this figured out.
Excellent discussion and thank you both. The problem is a large number of variables whose solution should include Chaos Theory to sober ideas of simple solutions. The input variables out number output solutions. What happens with speed, time, and gravity alone are non-linear for measured inputs on technical data for it to be complete.
Good discussion on the suspension/spring/damper, I thought about the non linear springs and damper laws and I’m not an engineer (from my mountain bike experience…), so would expect F1 engineers to have cracked it within days… so that might mean that they need more knowledge/control of the aero rather that papering over the cracks with suspension (which would happened by now).
i thing with the classic approach you cannot filter out one single frequency which is the problem here. you need an absorber of a single frequency. and then the question is, if the porpoising frequency is changing with decreasing weight of the car by burning fuel.
making the floor vibrate once it realizes it’s lowest may keep laminar flow on the underside attached or at least more attached than it is when the entire body is bucking up and down.
Although I agree that these suspension tricks are the most likely to tame the porpoising, my intuition aka poor mans wind tunnel aka stupid mans wind tunnel, wonders if the practice of dumping 2/3 of the tunnel flow out the side of the floor may also have something to do with it.
To me it looked like the tires are reacting to the pressure changes below the floor, which means the suspension could be solid, and this tire effect is still there. I say, let them relieve the pressure beneath the floor at top speed with a controlled valve when the steering is straight, but turning action goes back to the normal floor ground effect. The ground effect, I'm betting, is like a bottle that whistles when you blow on it. The porpoising is a low frequency whistle.
This is a fluidics problem, not an aero problem: control for the underside pressure via a bleed. A fluidics amplifier should be investigated to maintain a reasonably constant underfloor pressure. Increasing speed will increase the downforce to a predetermined limit.
Peter, Scarbs... I've been a subscriber for some time... great analyses! A QUESTION: During in-car footage throughout the French GP I noticed a rhythmic "Shushhhh" "Shushhhh" "Shushhhh" "Shushhhh" sound... especially on medium / fast corners, and more pronounced with both the Ferrari and Red Bull. Our guess is that this was caused by high pressure air spillage from beneath the floor as it flexed. Did you notice it too, and do you have a better explanation?
There was a brief mention of it, but the thought was not developed. I have been curious about the cars needing to be compliant on the kerbs for best lap time and maybe bits damage limitation, as a suspension compromise, regarding porpoising? I'd also wonder about the floor touching the track being the cause of sudden downforce loss. Wouldn't floor venturi tunnels achieve their maximum if they are sealed. There is comment about aero sealing the floor edges, because of the inability to mechanically seal it? The long gone previous tunnel era seemed to have skirts that sealed directly against the track surface? Are the rear floor braces to save weight, or was aero flex designed into the floors, and the result was the inability to pass tech flex tests or a frequency could be started there? In overly simplified terms, I also wonder if the nose down stance of some cars at slower speeds, is just relative to the slight tail down look some of them have at high speed. Are the engineers trying to partially stall the wings at the top end? I wondered if the floor cutouts just forward of the rear brace area of the floor is to partially stall the floor, to some extent also on the top end? Thanks for the great piece.
One thing why I say it could be the tires is they are all new to everyone the team have know prior experience except this year....I'm glad scarbs mentioned motorcycle 3 times our suspension gets very tricky....an very elite works suspension make u want to ride...stick suspension makes u want load the van an go home
I've noticed this year, not just consistent sparking at the end of straights but skid blocks actually glowing red hot for several seconds, especially on the Red Bull cars. First time ever that I've seen this. It made me wonder what it does to the track surface?
While they do spark a lot cause red bull likes to run them as close as possible to the ground, I think the glowing your refering to is the visible light sensor for measuring the floor to ground height distance. They do scratch the surface though but its not much, the FIA has a set wear limit for the blocks and they are flat enough. Titanium while strong is soft enough, softer than steel, so it looks worse than it is.
All dampers have different bump and rebound rates, although most are preset. On a dirt bike this is fully adjustable. Again, I don't believe this issue can be resolved by such a simple tune otherwise it would have been done weeks ago
I noticed in Australia that the Ferrari would porpoise down one of the straights and then stop right as they turned in to the corner. On another track, with a turn the same speed as that straight in Australia, the Ferrari may porpoise through the turn and really hinder there pace. Just a thought but track layout is more of a factor than I thought it'd be. Look at Mclaren in Australia, who would've thought p5 and p6
I like this gentleman's suggestion an scarb hit on it....the trouble is I noticed it's the exact bounce height an travel distance an action that's coming right out of the tires...there has to be some forgiveness in the tires but that is where the bounce looks like its coming from...I race moto GP so my tuning of a down force car and knowledge is very low...they ask me to drive I can drive...the trouble is they can't make too much adjustments to the tires out side of what pirrelli recommends in the way of air pressure....there's no compression or rebound on the tires or knobb to adjust...Scarbs watch the Ferrari carefully in slow motion some one posted a 29 second video from the rear looking a Ferrari going away into a corner...u can see its the tires causing the bounce its not the tires fault but that is a non controllable area...I know upper an lower downforce is walking a line of balance...but the tires are the only thing teams can't redesign or adjust I don't know the air pressure window Max allowable an minimum allowance...go watch that rear of the Ferrari scarbs an ull see....u the teams are careful they have 1300 pound very sensitive rocket ship that loves to corner...an any minor adjustment mite affect another are of the car that is great....tire bounce....or flex let's call it.....it's the suspension rating if the tires I think air pressure fiddling mite be able to reduce it...but u know teams are already done that...
RE the redbull front geometry. It appears to me as if it would increase caster and therefore increase negative camber when lock is applied. Wouldn't this raise the ride height by transferring the contact patch further towards the inner edge of the tire ? It also looks like a pro-dive setup rather than anti dive. Without knowing the COG I can't say but tracing lines on a photo editor through the mounting points on the wishbones it looks as though the lines might intersect below the floor of the car in svsa
@peterwindsor My though was a compressible conicle bumpstop/damper to provide a progressive damped end region of the travel. Whether the cone is hollow or not, would depend on the requirements.
I raced moto GP that is why I noticed the timing an travel distance looks like tires are bouncing...if u ever been hard on a tire 100 mph an felt that bounce in a turn a ryttyhm
Wouldn’t increasing the height of the throat of the venturi tunnel to avoid stalling when the floor is in contact with the ground be a fix? Full suspension compression would still result in downforce from the floor without requiring stop gaps like raising the ride height? In conjunction with sharply rising rate heave springs and a heave damper valved to severely restrict rebound should allow the backend to settle
Question....Indy Car has had ground effects in place for decades. Porposing/bouncing has never been an issue that I can remember there. What is the difference between how Indy Car is doing things, versus F1?
If you look at the Merc with the zero pod setup, from the front, it looks pretty much like a F-117 stealth fighter doesn’t it? Flying wing concept. The fuselage provides lift of some sort. Done mostly for radar re-election attenuation, but based on Bernoulli’s principle, fair bet to think that lift is produced as it is an airfoil as to how it presents to moving air. Now let’s say that Mercedes’ has intentionally gone and designed this lift into their car to elevate the chassis, giving them a low drag situation at high speed, but under braking and low speed corners using the suspension to change the rake of the car to stall the fuselage lift so the floor could work, overcoming the lift from the fuselage and providing downforce. The problem I think they’re facing is the bodywork that is providing the lift doesn’t cover the entire car; there is fully two metres of front suspension bits and driver that is devoid of airfoil. So the centre of pressure of the car is far enough back so only the rear suspension is loaded and the car pivots around the front suspension in the plane of the axis the downforce is applied. According to my theory, it’s not the floor stalling but the fuselage lift that is disappearing under increasing OR decreasing pitching / angle of attack, which then sucks the car to the ground where the floor then stalls because of the contact and the car rises on its suspension and the oscillation, rinse and repeat. I’m betting that rear wing is just there for looks because of the ‘zero pod’ design, and the DRS probably doesn’t work on this car - at least not to the extent that it should. I’m sure most of you think I’m positively barmy on this - I’m no CFD guru. Just my $0.02. This concept of the flexi-floor has floored me though. I would have thought that the floor would have to be rigid not at the ends, but in the middle to provide crash structure type of support. Wow.
Definitely not an engineer here, so pardon my ignorance, but this is genuine curiosity. I’m curious if there is a way to use added aero in the rear diffuser to add lift to the rear just enough to keep the cars from bottoming out and essentially cancelling out some of the issues with most of the downforce coming from the floor. I also don’t know how much the regs allow for or if it’s even a legitimate way to think about it. I know downforce is key to keeping traction and grip where you want it, so creating lift would seem like it’s the opposite of what you’d want to do. I really don’t know, so it’s probably just a silly thought. Any input or explanation of the theory(downforce) and whatnot would be appreciated
I can figure it out I worked on the job sites it's the same situation what you do is put a dimple on the whole floor and tried a different spacing depth and how many you need but it's the dimples under the floor then upside down 🚘
"We know the Mercedes apparently has more downforce" Isn't this just what Mercedes *think* they potentially have based on the simulator, rather than actual evidence? Given that the first assumption by the media was that porpoising was down to aero stalling, when that isn't entirely true, we don't know for sure what the Mercedes currently has, except that their rear wing was making a lot more drag that other teams.
Why don't they make the aero stall progressive? Similar to what they mentioned with the increased rake, but without increasing rake. There has to be a transition zone where the floor ramps up to a point of no-return pre-stall and it is there where I'd think you'd want to purposely bleed off downforce and make the release much more subtle. This seems as though it would make the oscillation a little less violent and the car more controllable.
Everybody discusses mechanical solutions to porpoising which is just half of the situation. Can the designers not create a mixed cross section venturi, which has a less savage clearance to downforce curve? It way mean a slightly reduced maximum downloaded but one which is less sensitive to ride height variations.
Pretty obvious that most have underestimated the power of the ground effect, the tea tray is still almost under the driver's knees in most of the cars this year, Just like last year ! Whole different ball game this one folks ... too much rear under-car ground effect pressure plus the weight of the engine is creating the "Seesaw" and Havoc !!. This Tea tray should be far more forwards,,,Old hat maybe, but history has a way of teaching us great lessons, so look at the designs of Lotus in the late 70's and it's absolutely clear that the ground effect aero components are slap bang in the middle of the car, then you can start balancing the front and rear wings !
I've yet to hear any discussion addressing underfloor designs which target specific downforce values: it seems (speculating here) the universal goal of the designers of the cars is toward maximum downforce, full-stop. Aircraft wing design is (among many other considerations) an exercise in balance between lift and velocity. In summary of this consideration, the laminar flow of air over the surface of the wing will become disrupted at specific velocity, resulting in increased drag, reduced efficiency, etc. The point of transition on the surface of a wing at which that laminar flow is disrupted can be determined mathematically, as can other variables such as lift, and drag. Therefore, why not design the underfloor to these principles such that a given design is known to produce reliable, and consistent downforce-values over a range of velocities, topping-out at a known, maximum value directly corresponding to a maximum velocity? This design approach implies the elimination of variables: floor-generated downforce cease to be a variable, and rather become a fixed value in our equation. This, effectively becomes a baseline from which suspension can be tuned (bottom-up). And why not design 'wing' elements in the floor, rather than channels exclusively? Are there FIA regs which specifically prevent this? Design the underfloor as aerofoil(s), rather than as a passive 'vacuum' chamber. I suspect these ideas have been vetted in the board rooms, and design studios - but I've heard no discussion of such. Enjoying your commentary Peter - have been enjoying your work since your days on SpeedVision/Speed TV with Dave, et.al. Kind Regards.
I can imagine they are restricted by the regulations in regards to how much they can do to the underfloor. Apart from that, there's a lot we can't see as spectators and they are not obligated to tell us or the competition about any changes they make in that area, I think.
RB seem to be handling this the best and they or any team at that are not just gonna revel their secrets just so you can understand what is going on. All these pundits are just trying to explain what they can observe. I don’t know if they made any changes to the legality plank under the car with this generation but the teams are limited in what they can do due to the regs. That plus testing limits and budget limits to develop this new car plays an effect. These are the smartest people in the field and they will find a solution eventually. People just need to chill and enjoy the racing. It’s the drivers who are really feeling all the ossifications at the end of the day
Besides the tires scarbs u know the suspension has to have that little small bump absorption u know the little first part of the movement is that soft very sensitive part of the damping action....not sure if modern F1 cars have totally eliminated that...I still think the tires can't be adjusted enough like if they had rebound or compression damper knobbs
Motorbikes, which have a large percentage of unsprung weight, have used rising rate rear suspension for decades. Bike front suspension dives on the brakes but car suspension can be made to rise on the brakes brake loads are used to push upwards more than weight transfer pushes down. Hossack (a bike version of twin wishbones) can do this. F1 uses twin wishbones so why are they not properly using this geometry? How about the old fat 13 inch F1 tyres meant they never needed to worry so they don’t have the skills.
In my mind the ground effect should not be unsprung. So it would need ridiculous big suspension yokes that need to cover the whole floor. Than there will no ground effect-Purpoising.
Considering the tires act as part of the suspension, would last year's tires have been even worse for porpoising? Or would the stiffer suspension that comes with that setup cancel that out?
I've followed F1 for over 60 years. I'm not at all technical however the technology of F1 has always fascinated me. I wish more emphasis was placed on the engineers and teams and a little 'dumming done' for people like me would help. I'd like to see more Adrian Newey and his colleagues and less Hamilton and Verstappen.
I am wondering if Mercedes simply need to cut some round holes in their floor to allow the 'vacuum' to release. The number and position of the holes is up to them, but 'pulsing' rather signifies that there is no opportunity for the system to 'soft fail'. By 'soft fail' what I mean is that it could be that that the Mercedes is TOO efficient in generating downforce, and they need a way for the car to 'bleed' downforce at high speed. Me? I would get the Dremel out and start trying different size holes to bleed the 'over vacuum'...
That would be sacrificing low-mid speed performance. They'd essentially be building downforce at a slower rate. You're also not allowed to have holes above the floor. They did try a floor where the front edges where higher than the back, but it didn't work
Wouldn't a two-stage suspension allowing a flexing lower stage to account for tyre flex to couple with an upper stage to ensure a needed height help address porpoising?
Will the FIA have step in if the porpoising cannot be addressed by the impacted teams to allow changes to be made? A trigger I feel will be a big shunt put down solely to porpoising. Would 'flexing' front and rear wings aid in resolving the issue?
springs are to soft and they are trying to hold the car up with the shocks,springs hold the car up and shocks control weight transfer,compression is to soft on rear,front is to hard that is why the chassie moves up and down porpoising.The rear loads and unloads all the time
Is there any difference with bouncing and porpossing with pull rod and push rod suspension ie are cars with push rod bouncing less or are pull rod bouncing less or are they both bouncing the same and if pull rod or push rod is an answer can a car change from one to the other easily or is it a redesign for next year
On airplanes, leading edge slats, usually spring loaded, can change the angle of attack, which determines when a stall occurs. As the underside of the F1 cars seem to be inverted wings, could they simply just do an equivalent? Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
@@aximusroh6453 I don't know, but there're other STOL type kits available for general aviation planes that don't have moving parts. It's just a thought and someone in F1 must've thought of that.
2 weeks ago you had Peter Wright speaking on the channel and still no mention of “wing flutter” today… He explained very well how this is fundamentally an aerodynamical issue. It doesn’t matter how well someone knows how the suspension works if they’re oblivious to the aerodynamical factors at play. All the initial analysis of this “bouncing” were dead wrong, including your experts. All the best to everyone
I assume because the aerodynamic device (the floor) is not being actively moved. Rather it moves as a consequence of the suspension elements, kinda like the front and rear wings and brake ducts also move under suspension loads. What I find more confusing is that suspension of bodywork is allowed, even if its passive.
Simple - the FIA went to flat bottoms in 1983. The other solution that seemed to work a treat was 1980 Ligier JS/11 ‘clapet’, a spring loaded flap in the Venturi that opened up when the pressure in the tunnel got too low, thus limiting the level of downforce. I recall reading a series of articles written by Lincoln Cobb that described just such as this ‘valve’ that could limit downforce spikes and prevent the ride height from oscillations.
@@rockydesign3303 thank you for taking the time to reply and answering my question it is much appreciated. I enjoy the technical aspects of Formula 1, I find it fascinating the amount of detail that goes into every single race car.
Mercedes high centre of gravity probably does not help with porpoising either. So far we have had pretty smooth circuits. Let's see how W13 fare at Imola 😉
The teams are limited are using mass dampers now. Do mass dampers have valves? I'm not sure how mass dampers work on F1 cars. I'd love some description. Those moveable bibs are moveable aerodynamic surfaces. How are they legal? Red Bull seems to be having more front tire wear, maybe that front suspension layout has its drawbacks.
@@ASJC27 Reply. Thanks. I'm having trouble understanding 10.2.6 and 10.4.3 in the 2022 Tech Regs. I thought I had read or heard that they were using mass dampers since hydraulics were banned.
I don't think merc is suffering just because of porpoising, think their pu is a bit less compared to ferrari and honda, because ferrari too is suffering porpoising but see their speed compared to merc
Thank you for this content. One of the major reasons I fell in love with F1 as an adult (I watched what I could when I was a kid in the 80s and 90s), is after I got a degree in electrical engineering and the engineering aspect of F1 is amazing. It is what separates F1 from every other series, IMO. I am American and just can’t get into spec series like indycar. I view Indycar like F2 and F3 because of its spec nature.
Too bad that they only drivers are featured, and all the parts about engineering side are basically hard to come around for the fans. Have no idea how to organise that part to be more exposed. Engineer to drive to survive :D
Couldn’t agree with this more. Only started watching nascar again cause I’m curious to see how the 7th gen car develops over the next 2 years before it’s all same same until the hybrid engine and dodge comes back. Indycar needs the dw14 chassis BAD the dw13 is just so old even the new engine regs aren’t gonna give it enough appeal to draw me back.
I think F2 is pretty impressive actually, isn't it within a second or half second of F1 with a tiny budget. Anyway agree with you 100% (fellow EEE degree here too 😃✌️👊)
Absolutely agree. All of the wizards behind the curtain of F1 cars really interest me and i wish there was more focus on them.
I 1000% agree with you. Lmp1 racing was really interesting for a bit until manufacturers started pulling out. I think any series that allows development and changing of a car throughout a season makes it so much more exciting. The entire concept of BOP takes so much out of a racing series. Other series need to stop penalizing better engineered cars so that worse ones are more competitive. My dream is a racing series where the only regulations are that it must be road legal, fit certain safety requirements and maybe all on the same size tire or same tires. They would be allowed to develop a car throughout the season as long as it remains road legal. They also have to sell the car to the public. Maybe a rule where they only have a certain amount of fuel for each race. That's it. If manufacturers went all in the cars would be incredible. I also would love a series for aftermarket tuners where every team starts with the same road car but they can develop the car all they want as long as it remains road legal but they also have to offer the products they create for the car for sale to the public so they could theoretically have an identical car on the road. It would create a direct application to the road. Maybe Porsche could sponsor it with the 718 as the car or even Toyota/Subaru with the gt86/brz or the Nissan gtr. it would instantly create tons of aftermarket options for their own car.
And THIS is why I fell in love with F1. As an aerospace engineer, this kind of content never gets old. Great stuff Peter and Scarbs. 🙏🏽
P.S. Reminded me of my days with the old Milliken textbook!
Good chat, the Engineering is why I enjoy F1 to be honest.
No one else is reporting the kind of information in this video as far as I am aware. Very fascinating to learn all this. Top man Craig!
I remember I was laughed at during launch season when I said "F1 teams will still HAVE to have a degree of rake on these Ground Effect cars." Guess who's laughing now?! It only makes sense from a performance point of view let alone on a porpoising point of view. Rake helps with the car turn-in as we saw with the RedBull of 2021 and helps with downforce generation, making the diffuser work harder by increasing the volume of air it has to work with. With porpoising it was as Scarbs pointed out, it gives the car more time before the rear bottoms out along with the behaviour of the rear suspension. I've been messing around with my own ground-effect aero on my model cars just to learn more about ground-effect since Pre-Season. However the model I've been working is essentially a skirted concept. I have yet to experiment with the skirtless philosophy these F1 cars are running now. But the skirted design has taught me quite a lot about the porpoising problem. I'm by no means an engineer though. Just a big F1 fan.
where do you make your models?
@@MrDieselakias Blender (because it's what was available to me as a hobbyist) and use my mate's 3D printer to bring the designs to life
Excellent explainations from Scarbs, the thing that you haven't noted is that this WILL LEAD TO AN HORRIFIC ACCIDENT, if it's not fixed NOW, this will be especially so on a very fast (straight/loose curve) when they brake distinctly at the end of the straight and the car is unable to make a significant corner. Someone is going to have an uncontrolled accident when the car doesn't go into the corner if the driver is going very deep befor braking from the straight/curve into a significant corner and the car NOT responding to the suction of the aero.
Agreed. We’ve seen this before in the early ‘80s in F1 and Indycar-downforce created on a very narrow envelop for parameters, and when it goes wrong, it can happen at anytime.
3:25 Bam! Exactly what i was thinking previously as well. Downforce is nonlinear in relation to the ride height so In order to prevent the whole thing from oscillating, the suspension should balance out this non linearity as well.
The bummer here are the tyres which are always in line with suspension and those tyres are largely undamped .I would not be surprised to learn thecrear tyres are one of the rootcauses for those oscillations ....just why are suddenly cars fighting weight issues ?
I tend to think the current underfloor philosophy is at fault: df rises with diminishing rideheight .You just cannot stop this qith spring and damping as tyre squash will increase as you stiffen up suspension.You cannot cure aero characteristic with out actively compensating for tyre squash -and thats not a passive suspension,right?
the only solution is to develop the tunnels to account for tyre (!) squash characteristics ,so basically df needs to rise linear with diminishing ride heights .
@@marcush.1901 Mhhh. You sure that tyres can be damped? Flexing / moving rubber might damp a bit but other than that, isn't a tyre just a bunch of compressable air which itself behaves very much like a spring? (And not a damper?) I think people have the wrong understanding of what a damper actually does.
I totally agree with the underfloor being at cause. The underfloor produces more DF with lower ride height. But that df then breaks off once the car reaches a critically low height. And then the spring kicks in, pushing it back up until the DF picks up again. Cycle repeats. But you can cure this by adjusting the suspension.
With a normal suspension i.e. a spring for simplicity, the force is proportional to the compression length. But the countering force, the downforce, is not. It will produce an even larger force when the ride height gets lower and lower. You can counter that by using a spring that also is nonlinear, that is basically "over proportional" to the compression length. This way, the floor doesn't suck itself right down to the floor. At least in very much simplistic theory.
And yes, you have to deal with the existing suspension characteristic that you "inherit" with the tyres. So that might be a limiting factor. Not sure if that's the case though.
Weight issue is a separate topic. I think they simply didn't foresee how much weight was necessary to create a 2022 car that meats all the requirements and is fast. But the countering force, the downforce, is not. It will produce a even larger force when
Not really. The only way they could actually do this is by allowing the use of duel rockers on the heave springs. The only problem, they've been banned. Formula E does this by using an oscillating shaft connect to the shock absorbers pushnrods, but again, thats been banned. I think Formula 1 has banned itself into a corner.
@@marcush.1901 the tires are a spring, excuse me, the sidewall of the tire is a spring and the air inside is the absorber. The oscillation is from when both the suspension and the tires oscillations becoming synchronous. One is combining with the other and making one problem worse.
@@joshtheking1772 bring back the J damper!
Very informative. Always entertaining listening to you two. I'm a MercAMGF1 fan and I fear that when the Silver Arrows get it right they will be under scrutiny by RBR as well as SkyF1 with some speculation about the legality of its fix. Brace yourselves.
I'm sure that will happen as well, but it happens to every team when they are at the front or when they make large improvements in lap times/race position. Ferrari has already had cheating allegations and it's only a month into the season. Nothing to brace for, happens all the time.
Word but if they aren’t cheating, then they won’t have anything to fear
As well they should be!
Just don't do what you did after Brazil last year and you won't be cheating.
@@jesselund360 If you're talking about the wing- perfectly legal! Failed the stress test by 2mm while RBR wings were flapping all over the place and allowed to be taped under parc ferme??? If you're talking about the ROCKET ENGINE - perfectly withim the rules to fine tune the engine and set it at a high power mode as long as theres no change in mode after quali. Go study the rules and regs before commenting
Changes of bound and rebound are the simple, easy adjustments, they would've been the first things done in tests and practice sessions, they can put in variable rate springs and dampers but thats chasing a solution in the result of the problem, they need to look for a solution in the cause. They need to tune the air flow in the floor tunnels to not be so peaky and causing stalls. Its like pulling up in a plane that cant loop, the nose will go up as far it can, the slow speed air flow over the wings cause a stall, the nose will drop, the air flow will speed up again causing lift and the nose will start to go up again, they need to stop pulling up and stalling. Stop the peaks. Is it any wonder Adrian Neweys car is sorted? No they've altered the air flow.
exactly, they need to tune the venturis to stall later, just before max speed. Hard tune suspensions sounds like a patch (hard to achieve) not a solution
@@Pcomepdor In 1980 my Donnington GT championship winning ground effects GT car . i utilised dump vanes to achieve a measure of fine tuning control of the air flow / pressure entering the venturis . I achieved a dominant handling car using my own seat of the pants driving ability . A full width rear aerofoil mounted low down in the Venturi airflow acted like a mass airflow damper.
Love what you guys are doing here.
Two humble og's explaining things the layman can understand.
Love it!
POV, you’re a Mercedes’ team boss watching this: “WRITE THAT DOWN”
On point number 2, I've long wondered why teams don't take hints from race motorcycles. My understanding is air springs used in the front suspension (in combination with coil springs) have been banned, but on the rear of motorbikes they use a linkage to enable a single spring to provide a fairly complex progressive force in a very consistent and easy to specify way. It's a very reliable and race proven design, I'd think it holds up pretty well in a number of key areas, and I've not really been able to think why F1 teams haven't been inspired to redesign such a system for their own needs especially in the advent of new suspension rules and critical underfloor aero.
For example I'd think it relatively easy to get the springs to be fairly constant throughout with a progressive nature only at the end of travel suggested here (and specifying where that progression started and how steep), or even the regressive system it seems was used last year by Merc.
The problem i see there is the fact that there is a swing arm on the bikes when there isn't that system on the F1 cars. You need to remember that every F1 car is using the engine block as part of the "frame" geometry. They cant employ alot of the systems from sportbikes. I think the solution is the same way Formula E does it.
After the complications of porpoising on the lotus 80 ,Chapman devised the twin chassis 88(or87?)🤔 which was immediately banned
Now that was a wicked invention….I remember seeing it as a kid and it literally blew my mind….+30yrs later and it’s still one of the best inventions in F1 I’ve ever seen….and something I always chuck in to the whole “what would an ultimate F1 /race car have on it” debate lol
Peter:
As a F1 enthusiast, I have to wonder how the teams have gotten themselves into this spot. In other words, F1 has had ground effect cars before, so I can't believe that knowledge has been lost completely. So that brings me to a more basic idea that F1 2022 specs were released and the teams "gave it their best shot" at creating a design to be efficient... yet it seems like we are constrained by the old rub of "too many variables and not enough constants" combined with each team having its design locked in.
I suppose the layman in me wonders how some of the most brilliant engineers in the world haven't grasped how to deal with this conundrum yet. To close, did the last generation of ground effect cars go through these problems too?
Great interview with Craig, keep up the excellent content!
Yes. It has been mentioned in many videos. That the last generation of cars went through porpoising. And skirts were one way to fix it. And then active suspension. That was i think started by Lotus. But pioneered by Williams until it was banned at the time when Ayrton Senna joined Williams.
That had this issue before and solved it with sliding skirts to seal the air for leaking. That’s no longer allowed so they can’t just apply what they did before. You understand that aero is completely different than what it was back then so your whole well they did it in the past so why can’t they do it again is not how it works now. Plus there are limits on testing, budget, wind tunnel time… back then they could just throw money and test until they came up with a solution. They would basically test every time they were not racing and even had test drivers to develop new parts. It’s clearly not that simple these are the smartest people in their fields and are still not able to solve this problem.
The reason why the F1 teams were caught out by proposing in the first pre-season test a Barcelona is that you cannot simulate porpoising in a wind tunnel and the 60% models do not have full articulating suspension. CFD runs also would not activate and therefore reveal porpoising during the run. The best chance of simulating porpoising would be in the simulator as once the data acquisition is completed on-track the exact behaviour of the car can be replicated 1:1 in the simulator. The previous generation of ground effect F1 cars in the early 1980s did experience porpoising. A fundamental problem that occurs when using venturi tunnels and therefore ground effect to generate downforce is the introduction of pitch sensitivity into the car. For maximum operational efficiency of a venturi tunnel based car requires it to maintain a level stable plane to the travelling surface i.e. the track. The eventual solution after ground effect was banned as the car's cornering speeds exceeded track safety limits at the time was active suspension. With active suspension, all the conditions that would activate proposing are neutralized as the suspension setup is not compromised. The suspension would always be in the ideal state for any condition on the track, straights, corners, chicanes, acceleration and braking. The solution to fully resolve porpoising as Craig Scarborough stated would be multifaceted ranging from floor design, and suspension setup along with front and rear wing design to the CoP (Centre of Pressure) in an inert position as not create a leverage effect and trigger the porpoising oscillation.
Basically answer is that porpoising doesn't show up until they ran the cars for first time.
A theory for Scarbs about Red Bulls front suspension- its an Anti-Yaw Suspension Layout. The Red Bulls outer fences are a double edged sword that create a lot of outwash. So they help a lot to push the front wheel wake outboard, what is very important. Its not a coincident that the two fastest cars are the two cars who obviously manage the front wheel wake best. But the Red Bull fences can also starve the floor under yaw. So yaw has to be reduced. Anti-Yaw Suspension.
Serious question for you both. I have recently been watching the older F1 races, and noticed that the older cars compared to the newer cars had much less aero, grooved tyres, were low to the ground with very little rake, some ground effects etc. But yet cornered, raced etc with no porposing on the same tracks. So why do the new cars need so much aero and so many bits and bobs plus slicks etc to do the same job?
Also watched the Indy 500, and those cars had like no aero almost yet stick to the track still doing 200+mph???
You can't porpoise if you're not using ground effect. Also not that modern F1 cars are a lot more glued to the ground than older gen cars. In some older clips, you can still see the car's rear sliding out a bit. Modern cars have so much downforce, the only time you'll see high angle slides is when they're spinning out.
Great analysis. If you look back to days of Group C sports cars, you’ll see they had the same problem, and the solution will soon become apparent. You are on the right track, and I suspect Red Bull has figured that out.
Red Bull suspension is not Anti-dive. It's pro-dive. You can look the the angles and calculate this, but and intuitive way to look at it is: Upper element is tilted backwards. So under breaking the reaction forces pushing backwards on the tire (car wants to keep moving forward, brakes+road are pushing back on the wheels to slow the car down) will also "help" compress the springs, therefore dropping the nose. Pro-dive.
Penske Racing in the US had a coil over that you could set the pump threshold so stiff on smother roads and moves on bigger inputs like curbs could something like that be used on the third spring.
The engineering is always very interesting always enjoy these videos thanks.
If you watch both the Mercedes & Ferrari in Melbourne.. Both cars bounce/porpoising around the same..
But the Ferrari is much quicker than the Mercedes.. So it's not just the bouncing that is affecting the Mercedes.
SF bounced more than anyone else in Australia.
PU adapted better to E10 fuel
i think, having a progressive spring is a good thing to have a response that is distributed over a broader frequency range. that reduces the likelihood to energize one single resonance frequency.
but my understanding is, that purpoising is happening at a certain frequency and you could dampen that specific frequency. you would need a pressure wave running through some material with a reflection at the end and bouncing back when the next pressure wave comes in.
the question then is, if the frequency is depending on the weight of the car which changes throughout the race by burning fuel. if this is significant, then also the dampening thingy also needs to adapt the frequency over the whole race.
I know they were a difference in engineering and ethos with ground force cars, it was interesting to see the Alan Jones Williams from the ground force with skirts. On the top of the sidepods they had a couple of louvres (nicely polished), which would obviously cancel the bouncing when airflow was too fast, the stall happened, but that air was diverted out at the front of the sidepod.
Almost like a dinosaur ferrarri , aston, or alfa
The guy from Washington state has just thought this through so much 😊. Brings me joy as an F1 enthusiast to watch this whole video
My opinion on all of this is some teams have the diffuser doing all the expansion. Problem with that is it's at the complete rear of the car and there's only so much that can be done with suspension. Add in a bunch of weight and you have what you see today. In the previous tunnel period, the tunnels were much more car centered - forward of where they are now. And if we think about Merc last year, their car rear sagged at high speeds. Add that all up and you have a #1 team go to #4 on pace.
We're seeing many teams trim the rear of the floors in front of the tires to reduce sealing when the car is bottoming. As we're seeing big rear wings, it suggests those teams are trying to reduce DF at the rear from the diffuser but at a a huge drag penalty. We're also seeing RB running a skinny rear wing so they are benefiting from the tunnels and if they figure out how to improve balance they'll jump ahead of Ferrari as they have a big top speed advantage currently. have a lot of this figured out.
Excellent discussion and thank you both.
The problem is a large number of variables whose solution should include Chaos Theory to sober ideas of simple solutions.
The input variables out number output solutions. What happens with speed, time, and gravity alone are non-linear for measured inputs on technical data for it to be complete.
Increasing heave spring rate or using progressive rates seems so simple and easy to enact. The solution can't be such a simple bolt-on
I still remember the ruber rings used in f1cars, maybe now silicone terminals in the dumpers🤔🏎️🚀🙏
Good discussion on the suspension/spring/damper, I thought about the non linear springs and damper laws and I’m not an engineer (from my mountain bike experience…), so would expect F1 engineers to have cracked it within days… so that might mean that they need more knowledge/control of the aero rather that papering over the cracks with suspension (which would happened by now).
i thing with the classic approach you cannot filter out one single frequency which is the problem here. you need an absorber of a single frequency. and then the question is, if the porpoising frequency is changing with decreasing weight of the car by burning fuel.
Indeed! That’s why they were begging to get active suspension back!
making the floor vibrate once it realizes it’s lowest may keep laminar flow on the underside attached or at least more attached than it is when the entire body is bucking up and down.
why we've never seen this phenomenon on hyper cars or LMP1? since they too have large diffusers and low profile tyres?
Although I agree that these suspension tricks are the most likely to tame the porpoising, my intuition aka poor mans wind tunnel aka stupid mans wind tunnel, wonders if the practice of dumping 2/3 of the tunnel flow out the side of the floor may also have something to do with it.
To me it looked like the tires are reacting to the pressure changes below the floor, which means the suspension could be solid, and this tire effect is still there. I say, let them relieve the pressure beneath the floor at top speed with a controlled valve when the steering is straight, but turning action goes back to the normal floor ground effect. The ground effect, I'm betting, is like a bottle that whistles when you blow on it. The porpoising is a low frequency whistle.
This is a fluidics problem, not an aero problem: control for the underside pressure via a bleed. A fluidics amplifier should be investigated to maintain a reasonably constant underfloor pressure. Increasing speed will increase the downforce to a predetermined limit.
@@peterblake8318 I was also curious if it has a consistent frequency to it. That could be counter-tuned with a resonant cavity.
Happy Easter lads. love the video have a great extended weekend.
Peter, Scarbs...
I've been a subscriber for some time... great analyses! A QUESTION: During in-car footage throughout the French GP I noticed a rhythmic "Shushhhh" "Shushhhh" "Shushhhh" "Shushhhh" sound... especially on medium / fast corners, and more pronounced with both the Ferrari and Red Bull. Our guess is that this was caused by high pressure air spillage from beneath the floor as it flexed.
Did you notice it too, and do you have a better explanation?
There was a brief mention of it, but the thought was not developed. I have been curious about the cars needing to be compliant on the kerbs for best lap time and maybe bits damage limitation, as a suspension compromise, regarding porpoising?
I'd also wonder about the floor touching the track being the cause of sudden downforce loss. Wouldn't floor venturi tunnels achieve their maximum if they are sealed. There is comment about aero sealing the floor edges, because of the inability to mechanically seal it? The long gone previous tunnel era seemed to have skirts that sealed directly against the track surface? Are the rear floor braces to save weight, or was aero flex designed into the floors, and the result was the inability to pass tech flex tests or a frequency could be started there?
In overly simplified terms, I also wonder if the nose down stance of some cars at slower speeds, is just relative to the slight tail down look some of them have at high speed. Are the engineers trying to partially stall the wings at the top end? I wondered if the floor cutouts just forward of the rear brace area of the floor is to partially stall the floor, to some extent also on the top end?
Thanks for the great piece.
One thing why I say it could be the tires is they are all new to everyone the team have know prior experience except this year....I'm glad scarbs mentioned motorcycle 3 times our suspension gets very tricky....an very elite works suspension make u want to ride...stick suspension makes u want load the van an go home
I've noticed this year, not just consistent sparking at the end of straights but skid blocks actually glowing red hot for several seconds, especially on the Red Bull cars. First time ever that I've seen this. It made me wonder what it does to the track surface?
While they do spark a lot cause red bull likes to run them as close as possible to the ground, I think the glowing your refering to is the visible light sensor for measuring the floor to ground height distance. They do scratch the surface though but its not much, the FIA has a set wear limit for the blocks and they are flat enough. Titanium while strong is soft enough, softer than steel, so it looks worse than it is.
Scarbs making the rounds
All dampers have different bump and rebound rates, although most are preset. On a dirt bike this is fully adjustable. Again, I don't believe this issue can be resolved by such a simple tune otherwise it would have been done weeks ago
I noticed in Australia that the Ferrari would porpoise down one of the straights and then stop right as they turned in to the corner. On another track, with a turn the same speed as that straight in Australia, the Ferrari may porpoise through the turn and really hinder there pace. Just a thought but track layout is more of a factor than I thought it'd be. Look at Mclaren in Australia, who would've thought p5 and p6
Awesome, thanks for the insight.
I could listen to scarbs all day 👍...what a cool thing to meet this guy and pick his brain 😃
I like this gentleman's suggestion an scarb hit on it....the trouble is I noticed it's the exact bounce height an travel distance an action that's coming right out of the tires...there has to be some forgiveness in the tires but that is where the bounce looks like its coming from...I race moto GP so my tuning of a down force car and knowledge is very low...they ask me to drive I can drive...the trouble is they can't make too much adjustments to the tires out side of what pirrelli recommends in the way of air pressure....there's no compression or rebound on the tires or knobb to adjust...Scarbs watch the Ferrari carefully in slow motion some one posted a 29 second video from the rear looking a Ferrari going away into a corner...u can see its the tires causing the bounce its not the tires fault but that is a non controllable area...I know upper an lower downforce is walking a line of balance...but the tires are the only thing teams can't redesign or adjust I don't know the air pressure window Max allowable an minimum allowance...go watch that rear of the Ferrari scarbs an ull see....u the teams are careful they have 1300 pound very sensitive rocket ship that loves to corner...an any minor adjustment mite affect another are of the car that is great....tire bounce....or flex let's call it.....it's the suspension rating if the tires I think air pressure fiddling mite be able to reduce it...but u know teams are already done that...
RE the redbull front geometry. It appears to me as if it would increase caster and therefore increase negative camber when lock is applied. Wouldn't this raise the ride height by transferring the contact patch further towards the inner edge of the tire ?
It also looks like a pro-dive setup rather than anti dive. Without knowing the COG I can't say but tracing lines on a photo editor through the mounting points on the wishbones it looks as though the lines might intersect below the floor of the car in svsa
@peterwindsor My though was a compressible conicle bumpstop/damper to provide a progressive damped end region of the travel. Whether the cone is hollow or not, would depend on the requirements.
I raced moto GP that is why I noticed the timing an travel distance looks like tires are bouncing...if u ever been hard on a tire 100 mph an felt that bounce in a turn a ryttyhm
Wouldn’t increasing the height of the throat of the venturi tunnel to avoid stalling when the floor is in contact with the ground be a fix? Full suspension compression would still result in downforce from the floor without requiring stop gaps like raising the ride height? In conjunction with sharply rising rate heave springs and a heave damper valved to severely restrict rebound should allow the backend to settle
Question....Indy Car has had ground effects in place for decades. Porposing/bouncing has never been an issue that I can remember there. What is the difference between how Indy Car is doing things, versus F1?
If you look at the Merc with the zero pod setup, from the front, it looks pretty much like a F-117 stealth fighter doesn’t it? Flying wing concept. The fuselage provides lift of some sort. Done mostly for radar re-election attenuation, but based on Bernoulli’s principle, fair bet to think that lift is produced as it is an airfoil as to how it presents to moving air. Now let’s say that Mercedes’ has intentionally gone and designed this lift into their car to elevate the chassis, giving them a low drag situation at high speed, but under braking and low speed corners using the suspension to change the rake of the car to stall the fuselage lift so the floor could work, overcoming the lift from the fuselage and providing downforce.
The problem I think they’re facing is the bodywork that is providing the lift doesn’t cover the entire car; there is fully two metres of front suspension bits and driver that is devoid of airfoil. So the centre of pressure of the car is far enough back so only the rear suspension is loaded and the car pivots around the front suspension in the plane of the axis the downforce is applied. According to my theory, it’s not the floor stalling but the fuselage lift that is disappearing under increasing OR decreasing pitching / angle of attack, which then sucks the car to the ground where the floor then stalls because of the contact and the car rises on its suspension and the oscillation, rinse and repeat.
I’m betting that rear wing is just there for looks because of the ‘zero pod’ design, and the DRS probably doesn’t work on this car - at least not to the extent that it should.
I’m sure most of you think I’m positively barmy on this - I’m no CFD guru. Just my $0.02.
This concept of the flexi-floor has floored me though. I would have thought that the floor would have to be rigid not at the ends, but in the middle to provide crash structure type of support. Wow.
Great explaination as usual, love the shirt too.
Definitely not an engineer here, so pardon my ignorance, but this is genuine curiosity. I’m curious if there is a way to use added aero in the rear diffuser to add lift to the rear just enough to keep the cars from bottoming out and essentially cancelling out some of the issues with most of the downforce coming from the floor. I also don’t know how much the regs allow for or if it’s even a legitimate way to think about it. I know downforce is key to keeping traction and grip where you want it, so creating lift would seem like it’s the opposite of what you’d want to do. I really don’t know, so it’s probably just a silly thought. Any input or explanation of the theory(downforce) and whatnot would be appreciated
The thing that I find unfathomable is that no one’s simulators predicted this.
the question is, if there is a simulation model, that simulates everything together. if yes, the calculation power needed might be too much.
I can figure it out I worked on the job sites it's the same situation what you do is put a dimple on the whole floor and tried a different spacing depth and how many you need but it's the dimples under the floor then upside down 🚘
"We know the Mercedes apparently has more downforce"
Isn't this just what Mercedes *think* they potentially have based on the simulator, rather than actual evidence? Given that the first assumption by the media was that porpoising was down to aero stalling, when that isn't entirely true, we don't know for sure what the Mercedes currently has, except that their rear wing was making a lot more drag that other teams.
...would sawing the plank in half perpendicularly help to foil the underside airflow removing the bouncing...?
Why don't they make the aero stall progressive? Similar to what they mentioned with the increased rake, but without increasing rake. There has to be a transition zone where the floor ramps up to a point of no-return pre-stall and it is there where I'd think you'd want to purposely bleed off downforce and make the release much more subtle. This seems as though it would make the oscillation a little less violent and the car more controllable.
Everybody discusses mechanical solutions to porpoising which is just half of the situation. Can the designers not create a mixed cross section venturi, which has a less savage clearance to downforce curve? It way mean a slightly reduced maximum downloaded but one which is less sensitive to ride height variations.
Pretty obvious that most have underestimated the power of the ground effect, the tea tray is still almost under the driver's knees in most of the cars this year, Just like last year ! Whole different ball game this one folks ... too much rear under-car ground effect pressure plus the weight of the engine is creating the "Seesaw" and Havoc !!. This Tea tray should be far more forwards,,,Old hat maybe, but history has a way of teaching us great lessons, so look at the designs of Lotus in the late 70's and it's absolutely clear that the ground effect aero components are slap bang in the middle of the car, then you can start balancing the front and rear wings !
I've yet to hear any discussion addressing underfloor designs which target specific downforce values: it seems (speculating here) the universal goal of the designers of the cars is toward maximum downforce, full-stop.
Aircraft wing design is (among many other considerations) an exercise in balance between lift and velocity. In summary of this consideration, the laminar flow of air over the surface of the wing will become disrupted at specific velocity, resulting in increased drag, reduced efficiency, etc.
The point of transition on the surface of a wing at which that laminar flow is disrupted can be determined mathematically, as can other variables such as lift, and drag.
Therefore, why not design the underfloor to these principles such that a given design is known to produce reliable, and consistent downforce-values over a range of velocities, topping-out at a known, maximum value directly corresponding to a maximum velocity?
This design approach implies the elimination of variables: floor-generated downforce cease to be a variable, and rather become a fixed value in our equation. This, effectively becomes a baseline from which suspension can be tuned (bottom-up).
And why not design 'wing' elements in the floor, rather than channels exclusively? Are there FIA regs which specifically prevent this?
Design the underfloor as aerofoil(s), rather than as a passive 'vacuum' chamber.
I suspect these ideas have been vetted in the board rooms, and design studios - but I've heard no discussion of such.
Enjoying your commentary Peter - have been enjoying your work since your days on SpeedVision/Speed TV with Dave, et.al.
Kind Regards.
I can imagine they are restricted by the regulations in regards to how much they can do to the underfloor. Apart from that, there's a lot we can't see as spectators and they are not obligated to tell us or the competition about any changes they make in that area, I think.
RB seem to be handling this the best and they or any team at that are not just gonna revel their secrets just so you can understand what is going on. All these pundits are just trying to explain what they can observe. I don’t know if they made any changes to the legality plank under the car with this generation but the teams are limited in what they can do due to the regs. That plus testing limits and budget limits to develop this new car plays an effect. These are the smartest people in the field and they will find a solution eventually. People just need to chill and enjoy the racing. It’s the drivers who are really feeling all the ossifications at the end of the day
Progressive wound springs and high/ low speed compression damping settings might be the answer.
Besides the tires scarbs u know the suspension has to have that little small bump absorption u know the little first part of the movement is that soft very sensitive part of the damping action....not sure if modern F1 cars have totally eliminated that...I still think the tires can't be adjusted enough like if they had rebound or compression damper knobbs
Motorbikes, which have a large percentage of unsprung weight, have used rising rate rear suspension for decades.
Bike front suspension dives on the brakes but car suspension can be made to rise on the brakes brake loads are used to push upwards more than weight transfer pushes down. Hossack (a bike version of twin wishbones) can do this. F1 uses twin wishbones so why are they not properly using this geometry?
How about the old fat 13 inch F1 tyres meant they never needed to worry so they don’t have the skills.
In my mind the ground effect should not be unsprung.
So it would need ridiculous big suspension yokes that need to cover the whole floor.
Than there will no ground effect-Purpoising.
Considering the tires act as part of the suspension, would last year's tires have been even worse for porpoising? Or would the stiffer suspension that comes with that setup cancel that out?
I've followed F1 for over 60 years. I'm not at all technical however the technology of F1 has always fascinated me. I wish more emphasis was placed on the engineers and teams and a little 'dumming done' for people like me would help. I'd like to see more Adrian Newey and his colleagues and less Hamilton and Verstappen.
...should the underside of the car be arched...should...like the hull of a racing yacht...the underside be dimpled or grooved...?
Sounds like the shocks i had on my Motox bike in the late 70s.
Have they thought about Aeration? and or a Internal limiter?
Would say that the new wheels with smaller tyre profile would reduce impact of sidewall compression (not eliminate, but reduce). Great vid though!
the smaller side wall probably have less dampening properties, which increases the likelihood of resonances.
The reason for bringing in active suspension, was to solve the porpoising in the old days.
I am wondering if Mercedes simply need to cut some round holes in their floor to allow the 'vacuum' to release. The number and position of the holes is up to them, but 'pulsing' rather signifies that there is no opportunity for the system to 'soft fail'. By 'soft fail' what I mean is that it could be that that the Mercedes is TOO efficient in generating downforce, and they need a way for the car to 'bleed' downforce at high speed. Me? I would get the Dremel out and start trying different size holes to bleed the 'over vacuum'...
That would be sacrificing low-mid speed performance. They'd essentially be building downforce at a slower rate.
You're also not allowed to have holes above the floor.
They did try a floor where the front edges where higher than the back, but it didn't work
Surely that Mercedes is dangerous in its current setup? How can it be safe driving blind at 300kph?
Wouldn't a two-stage suspension allowing a flexing lower stage to account for tyre flex to couple with an upper stage to ensure a needed height help address porpoising?
Will the FIA have step in if the porpoising cannot be addressed by the impacted teams to allow changes to be made? A trigger I feel will be a big shunt put down solely to porpoising. Would 'flexing' front and rear wings aid in resolving the issue?
The FIA doesn't need to do anything. If porpoising is an issue, the team needs to raise the ride height
springs are to soft and they are trying to hold the car up with the shocks,springs hold the car up and shocks control weight transfer,compression is to soft on rear,front is to hard that is why the chassie moves up and down porpoising.The rear loads and unloads all the time
Is there any difference with bouncing and porpossing with pull rod and push rod suspension ie are cars with push rod bouncing less or are pull rod bouncing less or are they both bouncing the same and if pull rod or push rod is an answer can a car change from one to the other easily or is it a redesign for next year
THE NEXT RACE FOR MERCEDES....... SHOULD BE VERY SURPRISING FOR ITS COMPETITION
!!!!!!!!!
On airplanes, leading edge slats, usually spring loaded, can change the angle of attack, which determines when a stall occurs.
As the underside of the F1 cars seem to be inverted wings, could they simply just do an equivalent? Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
Would that constitute a moving part within the aerodynamic system? (no moving parts allowed apart from DRS)
@@aximusroh6453 I don't know, but there're other STOL type kits available for general aviation planes that don't have moving parts. It's just a thought and someone in F1 must've thought of that.
amazing content, thank you.
2 weeks ago you had Peter Wright speaking on the channel and still no mention of “wing flutter” today…
He explained very well how this is fundamentally an aerodynamical issue.
It doesn’t matter how well someone knows how the suspension works if they’re oblivious to the aerodynamical factors at play.
All the initial analysis of this “bouncing” were dead wrong, including your experts.
All the best to everyone
Motorcycle I have had a high speed wobble scary kinda
I'm naive enough to not understand how suspending your floor to the body with a spring does not create a moveable aerodynamic device.
I assume because the aerodynamic device (the floor) is not being actively moved. Rather it moves as a consequence of the suspension elements, kinda like the front and rear wings and brake ducts also move under suspension loads. What I find more confusing is that suspension of bodywork is allowed, even if its passive.
How did they deal with purposing in the late 70s and early 80s and how did they fix the problem ?
Simple - the FIA went to flat bottoms in 1983. The other solution that seemed to work a treat was 1980 Ligier JS/11 ‘clapet’, a spring loaded flap in the Venturi that opened up when the pressure in the tunnel got too low, thus limiting the level of downforce. I recall reading a series of articles written by Lincoln Cobb that described just such as this ‘valve’ that could limit downforce spikes and prevent the ride height from oscillations.
@@rockydesign3303 thank you for taking the time to reply and answering my question it is much appreciated. I enjoy the technical aspects of Formula 1, I find it fascinating the amount of detail that goes into every single race car.
A great analysis!
More Scarbs!
Mercedes high centre of gravity probably does not help with porpoising either. So far we have had pretty smooth circuits. Let's see how W13 fare at Imola 😉
The teams are limited are using mass dampers now. Do mass dampers have valves? I'm not sure how mass dampers work on F1 cars. I'd love some description.
Those moveable bibs are moveable aerodynamic surfaces. How are they legal?
Red Bull seems to be having more front tire wear, maybe that front suspension layout has its drawbacks.
No mass dampers on F1 cars. They are outlawed since the middle of 2006.
@@ASJC27 Reply. Thanks. I'm having trouble understanding 10.2.6 and 10.4.3 in the 2022 Tech Regs.
I thought I had read or heard that they were using mass dampers since hydraulics were banned.
So how would last years suspension rules help (or not)??? IJA
Why not put stops in so it cannot ground out?
scarbs is a real gentleman
... maybe standard FRIC returning could be the solution?
Interesting that Mercedes have the most downforce, once they get their big upgrade in Spain I am expecting massive lap time gains from this.
When are they bringing upgrades
Hope they reduce lots of weight too
Will believe it when it happens…
@@10DKJUMP well you can only talk about it until it does so people will talk about it…
Too much down force could mean too much tire wear so they might be fast in qualifying and then go backwards in the race
Are the new wheels and tires partly to blame?
Nice shirt
I don't understand why offset push rods have been banned there nothing over expensive about that was not necessary
Add more rear squat!
I think the Mass Damper should be brought back
I must say the only cars I don't see bouncing are the red bulls and McLaren. Ferraris car is bouncing but it doesn't seem to slow it down.
I don't think merc is suffering just because of porpoising, think their pu is a bit less compared to ferrari and honda, because ferrari too is suffering porpoising but see their speed compared to merc