After some initially well laid out, but not factually correct
explanations about porpoising on the media, here's a video with some
insights by someone with more knowledge on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCerqccJWfM

--
Vasco Costa

AKA gluon. Enthusiastic about computers, motorsports, science,
technology, travelling and TV series. Yes I'm a bit of a geek.

Gemini: gemini://gluonspace.com/

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-6, Vasco Costa wrote:

> Yes I'm a bit of a geek.

you sound queer too

On 6/04/2022 4:22 pm, texas gate wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:50:38 PM UTC-6, Vasco Costa wrote:
>
>> Yes I'm a bit of a geek.
>
> you sound queer too

And I always though 'porpoising' was what TexArseHole does on his
boyfriend's dick.

geoff

On 4/5/2022 5:50 PM, Vasco Costa wrote:
> After some initially well laid out, but not factually correct
> explanations about porpoising on the media, here's a video with some
> insights by someone with more knowledge on the subject:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCerqccJWfM
>

Yes and no, but not really. 'Porpoising' is related to downforce, but
it's not aero 'flutter' or twist, it's fore-aft, chord-wise, pitch
instablity, with insufficient damping, not insufficient stiffness. The
change in tire compliance is a factor, however.

Vasco Costa wrote:

> After some initially well laid out, but not factually correct
> explanations about porpoising on the media, here's a video with some
> insights by someone with more knowledge on the subject:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCerqccJWfM

I thought the explanation on F1.com during testing was simple enough...
and that didn't rely on an analogy to something else that most people
not understanding porpoising already probably wouldn't understand any
better.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.analysis-what-is-porpoising-and-why-is-it-causing-the-f1-teams-a-headache-at.6O93LlvFMyY81L9LfSutcS.html

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 06/04/2022, Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought the explanation on F1.com during testing was simple enough...
> and that didn't rely on an analogy to something else that most people
> not understanding porpoising already probably wouldn't understand any
> better.
>
> https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.analysis-what-is-porpoising-and-why-is-it-causing-the-f1-teams-a-headache-at.6O93LlvFMyY81L9LfSutcS.html

While in general the simplest explanation is the best explanation, that
is not the case here. The movement itself is correctly described but the
reason why it becomes so aggravated on the W13 isn't really mentioned.

James Allison from Mercedes mentioned in one video that the media
pundits, such as the one on that video you linked, got it wrong. If the
reason was solely aero and simply caused by the downforce generated by
the underfloor making the car bottom down and then back up, every team
would have about the same levels of porpoising.

There are two main aspects behind it, damping and aero, in that order.
It's a compound problem, the bulk of the issue is probably related to
how well each team is able to control damping. It all starts with the
car being sucked to the ground, but this is a primary porpoising that
every team experiences and can, in most cases, be controlled with ride
height and changes to the design of the floor.

The real issue arises (like explained in the video I linked) from the
way the dampers react to this heave/pitch movement. The primary
porpoising generates a moderate oscillation movement but then the
dampers and general flexing characteristics of some cars, like the
Mercedes exacerbate it, to the point the floor could be damaged. It's a
bit like the natural oscillation frequency of their
suspension/damper/chassis combination happens to be very close to the
oscillation frequency induced by the underfloor aero. This leads to a
resonance effect that magnifies the amplitude of the oscillation and
therefore a much harder problem to solve compared to other teams, which
don't happen to have a similar natural oscillation frequency.

The rear suspension seems to be a bit more critical and perhaps a real
fix requires a redesigned geometry. The way the chassis and power unit
flex may also be a significant factor, which again highlights the
difficulty Mercedes is facing.

I'm sorry for the long reply and I reckon the goal of a neat description
wasn't met, however this is a bit more complex and that's why engineers
who know much more than us haven't figured a way to address it properly
yet.

--
Vasco Costa

AKA gluon. Enthusiastic about computers, motorsports, science,
technology, travelling and TV series. Yes I'm a bit of a geek.

Gemini: gemini://gluonspace.com/

On 06/04/2022, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
> Yes and no, but not really. 'Porpoising' is related to downforce, but
> it's not aero 'flutter' or twist, it's fore-aft, chord-wise, pitch
> instablity, with insufficient damping, not insufficient stiffness. The
> change in tire compliance is a factor, however.

I think the flutter and twist analogy makes more sense when you realise
that ground effect can be thought of as the whole car acting as a giant
wing. Lower pressure on the underfloor and higher pressure above the
car. The heaving and pitching movements are thus "flutter" and
"twisting" motions of the whole car as a wing of sorts.

Towards the end of the video he makes it clear that damping is the real
secret to cure extreme porpoising.

Like you said, tyres are probably a factor as well.

--
Vasco Costa

AKA gluon. Enthusiastic about computers, motorsports, science,
technology, travelling and TV series. Yes I'm a bit of a geek.

Gemini: gemini://gluonspace.com/

Vasco Costa wrote:

> On 06/04/2022, Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I thought the explanation on F1.com during testing was simple
> > enough... and that didn't rely on an analogy to something else
> > that most people not understanding porpoising already probably
> > wouldn't understand any better.
> >
> >
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.analysis-what-is-porpoising-and-why-is-it-causing-the-f1-teams-a-headache-at.6O93LlvFMyY81L9LfSutcS.html
>
> While in general the simplest explanation is the best explanation,
> that is not the case here. The movement itself is correctly described
> but the reason why it becomes so aggravated on the W13 isn't really
> mentioned.
>
> James Allison from Mercedes mentioned in one video that the media
> pundits, such as the one on that video you linked, got it wrong. If
> the reason was solely aero and simply caused by the downforce
> generated by the underfloor making the car bottom down and then back
> up, every team would have about the same levels of porpoising.
>
> There are two main aspects behind it, damping and aero, in that order.
> It's a compound problem, the bulk of the issue is probably related to
> how well each team is able to control damping. It all starts with the
> car being sucked to the ground, but this is a primary porpoising that
> every team experiences and can, in most cases, be controlled with ride
> height and changes to the design of the floor.
>
> The real issue arises (like explained in the video I linked) from the
> way the dampers react to this heave/pitch movement. The primary
> porpoising generates a moderate oscillation movement but then the
> dampers and general flexing characteristics of some cars, like the
> Mercedes exacerbate it, to the point the floor could be damaged. It's
> a bit like the natural oscillation frequency of their
> suspension/damper/chassis combination happens to be very close to the
> oscillation frequency induced by the underfloor aero. This leads to a
> resonance effect that magnifies the amplitude of the oscillation and
> therefore a much harder problem to solve compared to other teams,
> which don't happen to have a similar natural oscillation frequency.
>
> The rear suspension seems to be a bit more critical and perhaps a real
> fix requires a redesigned geometry. The way the chassis and power unit
> flex may also be a significant factor, which again highlights the
> difficulty Mercedes is facing.
>
> I'm sorry for the long reply and I reckon the goal of a neat
> description wasn't met, however this is a bit more complex and that's
> why engineers who know much more than us haven't figured a way to
> address it properly yet.

Well that simply doesn't add up, does it?

If you watched the video you would know this.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:24:51 PM UTC-6, Bigbird wrote:

> Well that simply doesn't add up, does it?
>
> If you watched the video you would know this.

Fuck off troll.
Stick to dog walking.
You are out of your league.