Baku GP Talking Points - Failures and Shenanigans
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ย. 2024
- Treat yourself to 10% everything on Bellroy's site here: bellroy.com/pr...
The race in Baku was a Verstappen domination, with Ferrari failing and no one else getting close. There was interesting strategic choices at play, shenanigans on Saturday and a lot of back pain on display.
Yvanka Elena's thread on back injury: / 1535975516079013889
#Formula1 #F1 #AzerbaijanGP
------------------
Patreon: / chainbearf1
Twitter: / chainbear
Images: Getty
Music: "Chess Moves" by Telegrams
open.spotify.c...
I like how Ferrari fans are saying the championship is over while Red Bull fans are saying that it's not. Ferrari fans are so used to their team disappointing them that it's kinda sad.
as a (relatively) new fan (since 2019) and a tifosi I can speak definitely on the part of us
***pain. suffering. a g o n y .***
The pain never ends
Hahaha yeah well at least we are calmer because of it.
To be fair, at the moment this is turning out the same way Hamilton pulled away from Vettel in the years before in their championship battle. I'm not fan of either, but I'm just hoping it's not over, since I want a long battle and not have it be the same kind of domination we've already hated with Hamilton.
Insert meme here
Alonso is simply the spell-checker for FIA when they write their rulebook.
he doesn't give a shit, he just wants to race
Alonso is my favorite personality on the grid, easily. Would love to see the Alpine get some real pace and see what he could do. Still thinking about that quali lap in Australia
@@TedMan55 My absolute favorite too! His 'antics' are exactly like every team looking for loopholes/grey area to exploit. He gains an advantage from the rules and sometimes they change the rules after, just like engineering grey areas. Very smart, like the double diffusers..
Alonso: "you made a spelling error on page 35 line 13. Therfore I can cut the entire track."
@@briannam1082 a you yoking 😂?
I feel like with the porpoising issue the FIA needs to get involved, but raising the minimum ride height is not the way to fix it. They should make it so that teams cannot race if their drivers experience a certain amount of g's or set a limit on the amount that their cars can porpoise. If you are in violation of that then you are forced to raise the ride height.
This doesn't punish teams that have gotten it right and it punishes teams that prioritize performance over driver safety *cough cough* Mercedes.
I agree with this mostly because of the fact it screws mercedes over even more.
If it's so bad then Hamilton and Russell could just refuse to drive, and Hamilton can quit F1 or change teams.
Exactly this. Porpoising is hard to measure which is the tricky part of this, but it must be possible to set a maximum vertical G limit.
The only correct solution
Driver61 made a video on the porpoising issue and proposed something similar aswell
I've made this comment too many times now, but... Quick throwback to USA -05 when the Michelin runners were basically told 'it's the teams responsibility to bring the proper equipment'. And this is true. It is Mercedes' responsibility to give Hamilton a car he can safely drive. It would not be fair to bring in a minimum ride height that would 'punish' RedBull who have engineered around the problem better.
I've seen suggestions of having a vertical G-force ruling, which would limit the amount of porpoising allowed. This would force each team to account for drivers health and safety in whichever manner the team sees fit, without 'punishing' the teams who have engineered more stable cars.
Scarbs?
@@trackman07 Scarbs are highly beneficial.
1 word: halo.
If a rule is introduced, it should be about the amount of bouncing allowed, not a required ride hight or other mandated setup change, this way teams who have figured out a solution keep their solution and speed, and teams bouncing a lot will have to use a quick fix that will slow them down, until they figure out a permanent solution themselves.
Edit: Sorry, I just realized the comment I'm responding to basically said exactly what I did in the second half
@@listtamaru What about the halo?
I think the only fair rule change in relation to porpoising is to regulate how hard and how often the cars are allowed to bounce. Similar to how wing flex is regulated. This means that teams that have minimized the issue aren't punished
Exactly. When Mercedes complained about redbulls wing last year they changed how much it could flex (even though redbull already passed the test). They didn't say that everyone needs to change the angle of their wings
On the whole "you body gets older faster than you think" is totally true. Stay active because motion is lotion for your joints and the older you get the harder it gets to restart.
"motion is lotion" thanks I hate it
I have to enjoy what I have while I can. I'm on my way to the club to throw it back while I still can. Thank you Mr Bear.
I'm feeling it already...my back is in a bad place atm. Damn the early 30s...
@@Boom12 bend the knees... keep those lumbar muscles strong as well. Never let your butt bones take the strain, that way lies pain.
Scarbs and Peter Windsor suggest a maximum g for proposing, with black and orange flag being shown for cars exceeding this limit. This forces teams to protect their driver and doesn’t punish the teams that have the bouncing under control.
That last part is key and is why I think it's the best idea I've heard. Teams that have the propising under control shouldn't be punished by having to raise their ride height and lose downforce.
This
They did it :)
As much as a minimum ride height would help, it would unfortunately be grossly unfair to the teams that don't suffer from extreme porpoising and could safely run lower. They are losing lap time because other people haven't solved an issue.
Showing black and orange flags to cars with excessive porpoising could maybe work, but in the race and quali, it would probably be an end to the seas of the car because of Parc fermé, so this is also less than ideal
As mercedes would say, others have to catch up ...in this situation mercedes have to catch up or give up
The FIA introduce regulations to improve safety, competition and racing every year. Every single time it affects some teams more than others. Changing checks for flex wings last year, banning party mode, simplifying wings, banning blown diffusers, minimum weight mandates, changing the floor for 2021, etc etc etc. Innovations with huge performance benefits are frequently neutralised by the FIA, and this isn't even because of perfomance. Safety is important. A regulation change to improve safety would benefit merc and ferrari, yes, but changing the floors for safety reasons last year benefitted rb. This happens all the time.
@@b3nnaman But there is a difference between all the examples you gave and the current problem. The current problem has an easy solution that each team can implement separately - by just raising car height. And because each team has different amounts of porpoising, each team will need to raise it by different amounts. In other words, porpoising is a choice. Not a given due to the regulations like many of the things you listed. Mercedes are actively and purposely choosing performance over driver safety.
In this case, a team wide change wouldn't make sense. Only the offenders should be punished. It's different from things like the floor cutouts where everyone was getting too much downforce and it wasn't a choice teams were making but rather it was a result of the regulations. So they had to decrease the load on the tires by making the cutouts. The fact that it affects some more than others was an undesired side effect but also unavoidable. While in this case, it's very avoidable. If your car porpoises too much, you have to raise the height. Simple. The cars have accelerometers on board and it's very easy to quantify how much porpoising a car has (frequency and average G-force of the porpoising by reading accelerometer data)
Also, something being done poorly in the past is not a reason to keep doing it poorly in the future. In this case, a minimum ride height for everyone makes absolutely no sense. Especially because each team needs a different increase. Mercedes needing the most, meaning that anyone who has less porpoising then them (including Ferrari) and needs less height increase then them will actually be at a disadvantage... and that's everyone on the grid. In other words, relative to Mercedes, everyone will lose performance.
@@b3nnaman the solution of porpoising is super easy, and every team knows about this. Changing the floor rule in the mid-season is the most unfair decision for the teams that solved the porpoising issue.
@@Dyils Teams wouldn't run with halos given the chance, or crash structures or all the fire systems. Teams will always choose performance because that is their job. Driver safety is up to the FIA. Toto whinging when the solution is obvious is annoying, yeah, but you can't blame the teams and drivers choosing laptime over comfort really can you? At the end of the day, the pinnacle of motorsport and engineering in general, imo, shouldn't be a bunch of cars either going slow or bouncing around. Frankly, it looks stupid.
Regarding porpoising I really miss the option of an FIA regulation not about the car but about driver safety. If that is the goal of an FIA regulation, that should be it. So crudely said: teams are not allowed to race at such a ride height where the driver of the car is shaken more Than such and such. Use g forces, frequency, I don't know. But figure out what is hurting the drivers, figure out if it is damaging to them, cause there is a difference, and prevent that. Don't regulate the car specs to prevent this. That just isn't fair.
That's the issue, no one knows how to measure it. From changing track conditions that cause it, to different types of tracks (Mercedes thought they had it figured out before Baku, and then Baku's conditions threw a wrench in that). It won't be till next season at the earliest that anything can be done in terms of even knowing what specific conditions make it worse so that it can be measured for regulation. So until then something like minimum ride height would work.
On top of all this, safety regulations have to apply unilaterally, meaning every team must be effected by them, and they cannot create a biased system. Yes, some teams have been able to work the porpoising issue out, however giving them a pass and other teams that haven't a penalty is a biased system (Also it incentivises teams to find work arounds that don't necessarily benefit the drivers health, so it won't guarantee the purpose, which is the driver's long term welfare).
Also you're saying don't regulat the car specs, but then proposing they regulate the car specs (just only for teams that haven't worked porpoising out of the design, which, again, is not a unilateral regulation and creates a biased system that incentivises work arounds that don't guarantee the drivers' safety).
Measuring it is easy, knowing what causes it isn't. The fia already has the sensors required to measure acceleration on the car which they can use to enforce a maximum porpoising amplitude/frequency.
That safety regulations have to apply to everyone is obvious. This doesn't mean that it should hurt everyone. F1 is an engineering competition, so the team that designed the best car should win. If you've spent time and resources minimizing the porpoising on your car it would be unfair to say that you have to sacrifice a ton of performance because other people cant get their shit in order
@@crit-c4637 thanks for your reply. I get your point but disagree. Please compare to other safety regs. Like a crash test, The fia doesn't dictate the thickness, composition, length, weight or anything about the crash structure, just the amount of g force it has to be able to take, disapate and is allowed to transfer to the driver. This is just the same, The fia should't care how the teams do it but regulate the amplitude and frequency of the porpoising. And yes, if all else fails for a team, then they have to up the ride height on a particular circuit to conform to the regs.
I like the idea of the teams fighting not only against each other but also against the budget cap, if they keep the limit as it is, I think that will make the second part of the season very interesting.
The best solution I’ve heard/ seen, is Scott Mansell and Craig Scarborough’s idea in Driver61’a recent video, and that’s to set a maximum G force applied during porpoising (just say 1G for example) that the teams can’t exceed. If they do, FIA notifies them that they need to reduce it, maybe figure out how it can work with Parc ferme, and boom, problem solved. Teams that don’t suffer from porpoising don’t get hurt by others being helped out, or setting minimum ride heights, so everyone is at the same level, and teams that haven’t gotten their cars sorted have to run their cars safer until they can reduce porpoising. Every other idea feels to cheap for teams who have it bad, they get a free ticket to better performance, without actually doing anything, and the teams who have it under control don’t gain anything since they aren’t suffering with it. Makes the most sense to me
I think there needs to be some aspect of the bouncing that we can measure and then mandate that it not exeed some value.
In a way regulating the bouncing out of the cars without one blanket change that all the teams have to implement.
I imagine this sort of like the specs the helmet regulations provide. Basically achieve "property x" to be accepted but how you achieve that is up to the teams.
We miss you!! Hope all is well, I'm looking forward to the next video!
Best solution to the bouncing problem I think:
Mandate vertical g-force sensors and a maximum force to be recorded from the bouncing. All cars should comply, but those that control porpoising the best, won’t lose too much. Maintains both the technical challenge and the drivers’ health as a key factor.
I get that teams have been "penalized" for being innovative in the past, like the DAS-system, the F-duct or the double diffuser but this isn't some gimmick that a couple of teams have found in a grey area of the rules, these are the basic aero regulations. To then punish the teams that got it right is unfair especially when there's already a solution in raising the ride height.
Never thought I'd get a Khia reference in one of your videos but I love it. 😂 Gotta protect their necks and their backs (and other things).
It’s somewhat ironic that the main porpoising victim is the same pair that dominated in the last regulation set. Hamilton and Mercedes benefited massively from getting the last rule set right and essentially called on everyone else to do the same rather than change the rules.
Now they’ve botched this set up and want rule changes when other teams have gotten it right. They designed the car, they can fix it.
Except, it seems like they can't. lol
@@bethgriffiths4909 they can fix the safety, but it will cost them performance. Seems like they want both more safety and performance advantage. If it’s really that bad for health, raise the car while fixing the issue. For 7 years other teams have tried to catch up. If Mercedes want no competition they should start their own series.
Wasn't the point of the new reg to close the gaps between teams?
@@CernatSt no, the point was to allow for closer racing, getting rid of dirty air. And in fact, the grid is closer. Just not with a Merc on top, which is a great side effect if you ask me. They are the worst kind of losers.
Perez called it a miscommunication because they told him to box with code "tire 6" that he didn't understand
They also said Box, Box, but had just past the pit line
@@Mandykiss4500 With Max, the call to "Box opposite Leclerc" also came very late. So much so that they asked Max to confirm that he had stayed out.
I disagree with your opinion on Horner's comment. Every team in F1 will push for the tiniest marginal gain. Politics is just another avenue for that. To imply that other team bosses are less ruthless or more honest just rings naive to me.
Gaming the system is part of a team principal's job. If they are not trying to earn an advantage for their team by influencing the regulations then they are not doing a good job.
Every member of an F1 team is competing. The drivers are doing it on track. The engineers are doing it through design... and the team principals are doing it in multiple ways, one of which is influencing regulations in their favor.
Yeah, I also didn't get that comment, when Mercedes are obviously acting it up to force a rule change. It would be funny af, if the FIA stepped up and introduced a rule that teams have to limit porpoising any way they can, no matter the speed cost.
(In my opinion this is the solution anyway, since teams already measure propoising, just enforce a maximum based on the data available. If you're over the given amount, you're out for the race.)
I completely agree with you. Horner gets painted as the bad guy a bit too easily. Horner sure does seem to love playing it up though
@@thelostpiranha I mean, Horner would obviously do the same. Maybe not hurt his drivers in the process, but otherwise.
He is doing the same with the cost cap lol. I am pretty sure they have enough left, he just wants to secure more spending for the team. (And in that case too I believe things should stay the same, before anyone calls me a fanboy.)
Idk what’s up but so many British commentators and YTers just do not like Horner and really are tired of him.
What’s more interesting is that I think Christian is by far the most “honest” with the political theater F1 deals itself, and so many Brits simply want him to shut up.
Pretty sure it’s simply because he doesn’t respect Lewis as much as everyone wants him to.
The comments Chain Bear made in this video are not surprising but disappointing to hear.
I just wanted to let you guys know that as a very novice F1 fan, this is the most informative and educational channel I have found. Thank you and keep up the good work.
Even though I watched the race and have all kinds of videos pop up about this information, I will always watch your analysis. Great presentation as always
I really hope that Lewis' "accupunture" was actually dry needling, which is something you get from a qualified physiotherapist, and absolutely does work.
Yeah, I think it’s a step too far too just say acupuncture doesn’t work. It’s a blanket term, and some things it describes are legit.
F1 loves complicated solutions. So put limits on the g-load shocks that are experienced at a reference point in the cockpit. Teams would have to fix the issue enough to be below the limits. If it means having to raise the ride height to compensate for dodgy suspension, that's how it goes.
My back started its issues in my early 30's.
Today at 41 I have had two major back surgerys and deals with a spine infection.
Enjoy your body.
😢😢🙌
At Australia: OMG Red Bull keeps failing 3 races and Charles is already the champion😭😭
At Baku: OMG Ferrari is a disaster congratulations Red Bull on your championship😭😭
this man really made a my neck, my back reference LOL
"right now bounce it good, bounce this chassis just like you should"
After lap 21 both Reb Bull were given order to target a specific pace and basically just coasting to the end. No serious inferences can be based on their pace after Leclerc DNF'd.
7:51 personally, even seeing genuine mistakes and seeing people being rewarded kinda sucks too. Notably Charles last year in Monaco.
Horner's comments remind me of the "just drive slower" response to safety in F1 in the 60s and 70s.
f1 content during race week is the best thing ever.
love your stuff man! it's so nice hearing a level headed look after each race, especially if you accidentally glance at Twitter every once in a while
6:40 Ahh, who could blame him, just look at that cheeky grin!
the best channel, no bs, straight to the facts
As mentioned preciously, the FIA could implement a G-Force/Hz ceiling to protect the drivers. This would not punish those who’ve figured it out while also keeping drivers safe from their teams who haven’t figured it out.
If there is another major regulation change re:porpoising, keep it for next season for the aforementioned reasons.
Also, why not bring back the suspension banned in ‘21? From my understanding it wouldn’t add cost and could help with the porpoising. Active suspension could also be a great idea, as mentioned many times this season.
The only way we'd see Active Suspension make a return in its current form is if the Active Suspension Control Unit (ASCU) and its associated software is made a spec part. However, that's not exactly a possibility with teams running different suspension configs to each other meaning that the settings for one car might not work with another.
The my neck my back joke is world class
There is nothing wrong about the FIA stepping in and mandating teams to relieve the suffering of drivers.
Just do it in a way that acknowledges that teams who figured it out are in the clear and that teams who haven't have to take measures.
It's the only logical way of going about it.
Why mandate changes from a team that doesn't have a porpoising issue...?
Porpoising can be removed at the cost of performance, there's already a fix for it. If a team made a car that sucks to drive, them why should the FIA fix it?
@@Chunkybread because teams won't exchange performance for comfort and let the drivers suffer.
My post isn't that hard to understand.
It's funny that Mercedes have come across to state that the vibration issues they had in Baku were not porpoising derived but really stiff suspension (I've been saying that from the begining of the season: the vibration looked more like spring harmonics, Ferrari has real porpoising and it stops as soon as you step on the brakes).
IMO Mercedes poised their pilots to complain about the harshness of the ride so that FIA would allow active suspension back into F1... but it's backfiring.
There are some measures of vertical impact and frequency that can be mandated as a required minimum/maximum as to guarantee some quality of driving for the driver. Of course, this should be implemented taking into account the aspects of the human body, amount of energy transferred to the drivers' bodies and the consequent stress and structural fatigue over a lap, a race, a year of races, and even further. Some broad and interdisciplinary work, indeed. There could be quicker solutions, but this study should be carried out, at least for the next season.
The other thing to mention with the LEC vs VER/PER is the 2nd VSC caused by MAG on Lap 33, because that being cheap stop for Redbulls taking fresh Hards was a no-brainer even with LEC still in the game, but LEC didnt have a fresh hard, he had only Mediums and Softs with NOR having the longest medium stint at 20 laps, with STR going for the same 20 laps, so in the end, it would be little more exciting, but still with redbulls on top
"Leaving Lewis with a Well Done Baku!"
Best Formula 1 joke I've heard in a while
I love Lewis for all he represents, but I'm totally with you on 12:48.
9:33 What a throwback, gonna go to that song and comment "Chain Bear sent me here"
I personally believe in the vertical G limit proposal by former guest on the channel Tommo.
It's a good compromise I feel, as only Mercedes and co will have to modify the car, whereas Red Bull doesn't have to do much, if anything at all
I was a bit surprised to see that it wasn't mentioned honestly
A vertical G limit is incredibly had to police effectively. Sensing vertical G forces is relatively easy but decoding that information to detect what is important and regulatable is not.
@@DjDolHaus86 I see. More discussion/consideration and options are needed then
@@PuncakeLena For sure, I suspect the FIA are in discussion with the teams and engineers to find a relatively fair solution but I doubt it will come into effect this season unless something substantial happens. Currently there will be teams arguing that their cars are fine and that changes to the rules would be unfair to them and there will be teams arguing that the rules need to be changed before something bad happens, this is F1 rule making in a nutshell, trying to appease everyone but failing to make anyone happy.
@@DjDolHaus86 With Hamilton in significant risk of permanent spinal damage in Canada already, should he be in as much pain as is assumed I think it won't take long for an emergency ruling to take effect, potentially due to Hamilton no longer being able to drive for the rest of his life in the worst case
@@PuncakeLena if Hamilton is put in such a situation Mercedes should be heavily punished for sending an unsafe car onto the track
Love on how you show both sides of the argument, which both are true. Espescially about porpoising
I assure you that in case of fire adrenalin will be the ultimate painkiller
Perez said it was communication error bcs he was told to pit but was ahead of the pit entrance.
And after Leclercs retírement both RBs were told to keep a pace over 1:48 and Checo did and Max not at all. Checo even asked ir Max was doing as well.
Says something about this season's quality that what would be an above average race in a past turbo-hybrid season is, easily, below average in the 2022 season.
I've been waiting for this video. Love your analysis
Regarding queuing up to the line - as mentioned before, the cars have sensors. The order can be set by cars crossing a line out of the garage ('pit line') and then establishing order in the pit lane.
I wonder if there could be some kind of "seat suspension" that could ease the impact directly felt by the drivers. Although they would probably not like it cuz they would lose important feedback from the track.
mercedes is right, porpoising is dangerous therefore mercedes should be mandated to raise their ride height to make it safe, if they don't they should be thoroughly penalized.
You raise the ride height it porpoise more, you lower the ride height the porpoise goes away and then you bounce...... got it.... all the teams suffer from it, some more and some less.... Got it ?
Oh no was exactly what I said when Charles's race ended
IIRC, the drivers are monitored by load cells that measure G force in an impact. Surely these can be used to monitor the vibrations on a driver. All the FIA would have to do is define limits and if the porpoising breaches those load limits on, say, three occasions in a weekend then the car is black flagged or otherwise disqualified from the race. Simple.
“As a 38 Year-Old.” Wait until you get to 56 and your nuts are basically a sporran, my friend.
9:34 you know your classics! 😋😋
Raising the minimum ride height sounds like a great temporary solution. It can be implemented _right now,_ before any serious problems come from the porpoising, and then a proper solution can be implemented for next year. Don't wait till someone gets seriously hurt.
Merc fan
Love your videos! Glad you are able to post more frequently! Thank you, keep it up!
I read a few days ago that in the team radios both VER and PER were ordered to maintain the same pace, slower than the one both of them were running. Max kept running faster than the indicated pace even after the lots of times engineer told him to slow to the correct pace.
So, Max was faster this time just because he disobeyed the team orders. Red Bull must have freed Checo to adopt the pace he wanted to protect himself against Verstappen.
Nah. That was later in the race, when max was told no DRS. He was already ahead by that point.
The point Checo was told “no fighting” was when his tyres were dead and he was struggling for traction. Max was lapping 1.5s faster on somewhat fresher rubber.
You could let them fight for position, but with Russel 10 seconds behind do you really want him catching up because your drivers are too busy fighting eachother?
We know from Barcelona that Russel will take any opportunity to get ahead of a RB car, so why would you risk that?
Yeah, FIA had some record on banning revolutionary or game changing inventions. And we universally hate that. Looking at you, Renault Vibration Damper!
My quandary. I am a lifelong Ferrari fan who has finally had enough, after 15 years of being a fan of the most embarrassing team on the grid. However I really like chainbear and don’t want to unsubscribe.
A kind of middle way for the problem of porpoising might be to regulate a maximum for that. With the accelerometers on board, the FIA should be able to detect the amount of porpoising. This leaves development to the teams and protects the drivers at the same time. Especially if raising the ride height is the best fix for that problem.
Just want to point out that acupuncture is a real treatment that works for certain types of injuries. The traditional kind of acupuncture that most people think of is indeed pseudo-science, but what Lewis was probably (hopefully) talking about is a modern adaptation of it, which is proven to be helpful in dealing with certain injuries, including back/neck pain. It does not work as a cure alone, but it is something that helps healing when combined with other forms of treatment. I'm personally struggling with arm/wrist pain, and recently got acupuncture as part of my treatment from a licensed chiropractor, which was also approved by my doctor.
'Enjoy your bodies' didn't sound weird to me until I saw the accompanying subtitle, lol.
9:33 Their Neck, Their Back, Their ....
Alonso is just demonstrating proper Shithousery in his final F1 years and I love it.
As for the yellow flags in qualy, I thought of this: Say you have a track with clear and easy run-off area's like Baku, where drivers who can't make the turn can go down the escape road. If a driver does what Alonso does (or Rosberg in Monaco), make it so that he must stay down the escape road until any cars behind complete their hot lap, so that drivers caught immediately behind can still drive at full speed (if it's only one yellow flag, or maybe make a new caution colour to advise a driver has gone down the escape road but you can still continue your qualy lap). OR if it's a more serious incident like a driver crashing into a tecpro, car blocking the track etc, then wave double yellows and make drivers slow down properly for that. I believe it's unfair to delete lap times for just causing a yellow, as you have to give the driver the benefit of the doubt, and because drivers are usually pushing for their best lap at final part of qualy sessions so they don't get bumped off. That way, if a driver makes a genuine mistake, he doesn't get his time deleted. And there's no benefit to deliberately going off track, as the drivers behind won't be affected by you doing so. For tracks that have gravel/grass runoff's however, hopefully that's enough of a deterrent for drivers not to go off on purpose for risk of damaging the car.
Some people don't like gamesmanship but because I play football, I'm not only used to it but I think it's all part of the game. Like when you're winning and you take those few extra seconds to take a throw-in etc. People will say what Rosberg did in Monaco 2014 for example was "cheating", but really all he did was demonstrate a kinda loophole in the regulations to his advantage, so while it's dirty it's definitely not cheating. F1 has always been about using the regulations to whatever advantage you can get as a team/driver.
Love your videos! Hope to see you at the race this weekend in Montreal! 😁
I think that some form of active rear suspension should be introduced for next season, however in a limited function (not like the 90s). It can only be tuned to negate the bouncing and not anything else. How that can be implemented I don't know but there should be a way.
I think movable aero might be the solution, let the cars bleed off the pressure differential in a more controlled way so the cars can be 'trimmed' by the driver to strike a balance between ultimate downforce and comfort
You mean add more weight to the already over weight cars. 🤔🤔🤔.
Reb Bull told to do 48 and checo fallow the order but max didn’t that was the difference
already know it’s gonna be nice so… nice!
No mention of Ham using experimental parts not on Russell’s car, or Ham’s assertion that they chose discomfort over sacrificing performance? Or Toto’s claim that all the driver bar one were in support of changing the rules - which turned out to be an interpretation rather than factual.
No, Merc have screwed up and rather than admit that their design philosophy has failed, they are making as much noise about it as possible for the FIA’s sake.
Horner was being honest for a change and this is turned into a negative about Horner instead.
The "their neck, their back.....and other places" part really went above a lot of people's heads...i was deaaad 🤣🤣💀💀
Lmao if you know you know
Defo started singing a famous song in my mind
I was so surprised too! Glad some people noticed it, awesome song!
Regarding the danger of porpoising to the drivers, remember that the Texas super speedway was removed from the CART calendar a few years ago when the sustained G-forces were causing some of the drivers to experience near blackout conditions.
And also recall the 2005 US GP in Indianapolis where all but six cars declined to take the start. The track was found to be dangerous to most of the field. The FIA refused to make alterations to the track that were proposed by most of the field.
It is appropriate to alter the expectations of the racing to preserve the safety of of the drivers. This is done all the time.
I have sympathies for the teams who have this sorted out. After all, why penalize successful solutions because some of the teams seem unable to alter their cars to provide the safety that the drivers deserve?
If this was just one team where this was a problem then I'd say that altering the expectations is inappropriate. However, the bouncing/porpoising seems nearly universal. So it would seem that this is a legitimate safety issue. Clever people can solve this issue. And if that means revising our expectations, then so be it.
The fact that porpoising wasn't found or considered a huge problem in wind tunnel tests is a reminder that wind tunnel tests are ultimately just a simulation, and simulations aren't perfect.
Perhaps the FIA should consider making the reference cars actual cars for any future rule changes.
Run the reference car on a track, no need to pursue performance, but a functional reference car, so do some in-house FIA testing on the reference car to see if they missed any unforeseen issues like porpoising, then from there tweak the rules(and the reference car) to resolve said issue.
Their neck, their back, and...other places. Nice 😎
Ripper video. Thanks Chain Bear
Best measure is to cap the amount of porpoising G's a driver may be subjected to during the race.
I think FIA's approach to the TD is the most fair. It would effect those cars most that have the most oscillations. I'm somewhat doubtful about their ability to enforce it.
As someone who has suffered a severe spine issue, I agree! You can't even imagine the pain. And yes, go to a real doctor, not acupuncture, which is BS.
Great video, Chainbear. I absolutely love your work. Thank you
Yeah my spine is damaged in three places. Hearing Hamilton's radio made me a little sick ngl. It's easy to tell the drivers to 'suck it up' when you haven't been there yourself
If the FIA does anything, which I’m not sure they should, I think they should just say “okay here’s a short list of safety requirements you must reach. Meet those, within the regs, or don’t run.”
I think the classic example of the FIA 'unfairly' stepping in is Minimum Weights for cars.
The minima originally arrived because cars were getting to light and fragile to be safe (looking at you, Lotus, dipping your chassis in an acid bath). Teams could 'choose' to be safer, particularly in a crash, but that 'choice' would mean losing to less safe cars.
Thus, minimum weights, crash tests and mandated crash structures.
Unfairly penalising teams that got it right? Hmmm - Mercedes got it right with Qualification modes on their engines. Other engine manufacturers *could* have chosen to go that way but didn't. Didn't stop the FIA banning different modes in race an quali, did it? And there was no real suggestion that it was a safety issue.
Personally, how would I go? Rule on maximum impact on spine (standard model spine in each car, inspect after race?) this year, RB to reveal their method on this at the end of the season (or earlier if required for car design timelines) to other teams for next year. Maybe a minimum ride-height imposed as an emergency measure for a period this season whilst the sensors etc. are worked out.
qualification modes on engines was because of parc ferme
Fantastic video ! Really interesting :) Thanks !
Maybe FIA should mandate a maximum porpoising per lap instead of a set ride height.
Like "a car can't have more than 15 bounces per lap" or something on those lines
I think FIA should set a porpoising limit. So while the car isn't under the rule, it's DNS or DSQ. I could bet that the teams would find a way to make that better really fast.
Implement a maximum vertical G limit; similar to fuel flow regulations. It's monitored real time and can disqualify a car that violates the limit.
Here's an idea. If a driver complain about vibrations then the team is mandated to raise ride height until the driver feels comfortable. That will stop any bitching.
Acupuncture is only hoodoo if there's a viable alternative. As I understand it, the placebo effect is there whether you know it's bunk or not.
IMO the porpoising can't be left up to the teams, because they will always choose performance over their drivers' health and safety. The FIA has to step in here for the good of everyone
I don't really see why the FIA can't mandate a maximal porpoising. You can easily read the data on how much happens, just set a maximum on frequency and force (i.e. this frequency at that force allowed, more isn't) and police the teams. Anyone who repeatedly violates this (i.e. not just one hard kerb hit throughout the face or something) gets penalised or DSQ'd. This keeps the competition between the teams and ensures driver safety. Then teams like Mercedes can chase performance all they want, without ruining their drivers and moaning to the FIA. It's a rule, they can't break it and have to navigate it.
The porpoising issue should be solved by the combination of both perspectives. Yes, leave it up to the teams to figure it out, else it would be unfair to the teams that actually did. But also, yes FIA, come in with regulation protecting the health of drivers.. by mandating a maximum allowed porpoising. So the teams should be the ones to fix the issue, but they should also be bounded by regulation. You are allowed to make performance increases by say lowering ride height, but only if the porpoising stays manageable. If there is too much porpoising, we the FIA don't tell you how to fix it, but the car is just simply illegal at that state. To measure porpoising they could use metrics like G forces, the maximum amplitude change and/or the frequency. Set limits on the metrics, and allow for FP1 (and maybe FP2) to be a testing ground where it's okay if the teams are over the limits, but if they are they need to adjust the car before FP3 to be in regulation. So teams would still have the opportunity and responsibility to fix their issues on their own, but the drivers would be guaranteed to have not worse than managable levels of porpoising where it could be dangerous - so in qualy and the race
I’m sure there’s a sensor on the cars that measures vertical acceleration… set a maximum vertical acceleration and if a team exceeds it they get a black flag. I’m sure they’ll fall in line if that’s the risk they take for performance.
It's amazing how these channels completely ignore the circumstances of Max overtake on Perez (tyre deg) and what was actually happening when the Bulls were on their own after Charles DNF. They were told to stay on a delta, but only one of them actually did. Guess who? Yes, the one that beat his teammate in quali and got the fastest lap. The much "slower" Perez.
Correct, nobody listened the radio between Perez and race engineer and Max and his race engineer, Max was going at least 0.4s faster than target. Max is the faster driver but the differences are way smaller.
@@luciancucli5319 Well, I was watching Canada GP FP1 today and Crofty and Jenson Button were actually surprised about how Max was so fast and Perez wasn't in Baku. Not even the official broadcasters take the time to understand something they will purposely bring up during a live transmission. And I agree, Max is faster most of the time, but Checo is right up there this year.
"Bono, my back's gone!"
AHHHHH PUNS!!!
Well done lol
9:36
Have you been listening to a certain song recently lmao 🤣🤣
If there is a crash or yellow flag at the end, the timer should just have a few minutes added
This seems the obvious solution to me. The yellow and red flag disqualifying a lap might stop deliberately gaming but accidental mistakes still will result in ruined qualifying. Give enough time for all runners to get an extra lap done
So make a mistake on your flying lap force a yellow flag to recover
@@safcjcp then dont allow the one who made the mistake to have another try
I mean in theory the FIA could just mandate that the driver seat gets more comfortable. Make it nice and fluffy ;)
If they do make a technical directive it should not be about minimum ride height or active suspension. It should be a mandate on maximum porpoising. They have all the necessary tools to measure the g-forces that the drivers are exposed to and this way you're not punishing Alpine and Red bull for having done a good job.
Set a shock G limit. The teams have to stay under that, no matter what that takes. Easy and fair.
Good job Mr Chain Bear for calling out acupuncture bullshit
I really hope the FIA won't actively interfere with universal regulations regarding the porpoising. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, the teams are very much aware how to fix, or at least make the porpoising manageable. The part not many teams have managed to figured out so far is how to implement these fixes without it costing them lap time. Thus I believe it's the responsibility of the individual teams to build their cars in a way that doesn't endanger the driver driving them. Even if it results in larger gaps between the teams. It's obvious that the losers of the 2022 car development, such as Mercedes, would want universal regulations that ultimately neutralize a sizable chunk of the advantages and disadvantages of teams being or not being able to find good solutions for the porpoising, and from the viewpoint of fans, a grid where teams are closer to each other would result in more enjoyable races, but I think the car development is just as deeply part of formula 1 as the races themselves. The most reasonable regulation from the FIA would be laying down a clear maximum of g-force that is allowed to be generated from porpoising, thus the more stubborn teams can't risk the drivers' wellbeing for some tenths.