Injury risk from porpoising comparable to other sports – Verstappen

2022 Canadian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

Max Verstappen says the injury risk from porpoising is comparable to what competitors in other sports are exposed to.

Several Formula 1 drivers have said the poor ride they are suffering this year, due to porpoising or the stiffness of their set-ups, has significantly increased their discomfort inside the cars. Lewis Hamilton described the Azerbaijan Grand Prix as the most painful he has ever endured.

However Verstappen pointed out injuries are commonplace in other sports and believes F1 drivers should be willing to tolerate similar risks.

“There are a lot of sports out there where I think you damage your body in general,” he said. “Once you retire from your career, you won’t be like you were when you were 20, that’s simply how it is.

“Football players have problems with their knees, all sorts of injuries. Or when you’re a Motocross rider or Moto GP rider, the amount of bones they’ve broken in their body. You can always judge, ‘yeah is that the safest thing to do?’ No, but we are willing to take risk, that’s our sport, that’s what I love to do.”

Verstappen acknowledged the porpoising drivers have encountered is unpleasant but pointed out some teams can control it better than others.

“For sure, the porpoising we have at the moment is not nice and I don’t think is correct. But some teams are able to handle these things a lot better than others, so it is possible to get rid of it. So I don’t think we have to overdramatise what is happening at the moment.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

However Hamilton insisted the safety of competitors must be the sport’s overriding concern.

“I cannot stress more how important health is for us,” he said. “I think we’ve got an amazing sport here, but the safety has to be paramount, has to be the most important thing.”

He said he “definitely feel like I’m a little bit shorter” after his bruising race in Baku. “My discs are definitely not in the best shape,” he added, “and that’s not good for longevity.

“There are things that we can do to improve that for the drivers here. We want to arrive and do our job and put on a great show and race the safest and there is no need for us to have any injuries.

“So I just think we just need to work closely with the FIA and not take it lightly, which I don’t think they are, and continue to pursue.”

Daniel Ricciardo, who also complained about the punishing ride he suffered in Baku, revealed after Sunday’s Canadian Grand Prix a problem with his car had exacerbated his discomfort during the previous race.

“After Baku I found that we had something broke, so that’s why my bouncing was really bad,” he explained.

“It was better today,” he added. “Before turn eight there’s a few big bumps, which by the end of the race start to get you a little but nothing crazy.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2022 Canadian Grand Prix

Browse all 2022 Canadian Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...
Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

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

79 comments on “Injury risk from porpoising comparable to other sports – Verstappen”

  1. Repeat ad nauseam.

  2. So, unlike a lot of those sports, like American football and soccer which have been taking concussion risk serious for years now and also work a lot with fysio to look at preventing, preparing and treating injuring just like athletics, cycling, swimming, ice skating you name it, F1 then shouldn’t do something?

    Or perhaps like those other sports, when knowing, realizing it is a risk it makes the sport obliged to look at preventing and amending where it can, just like F1 has been doing for accident risk, dehydration and diet (weight limits set appropriately and including drivers so they don’t have to starve and dehydrate) etc.

    1. F1 drivers have the best fysios and doctors, comparable to any other sport. They are well taken care of, very rich, and their careers are short. During a GP weekend, they are safer than the pit crew, marshals or spectators with a lower chance of injury or death. We shouldnt be cuddelling them like they are kids.

      1. @vjanik

        During a GP weekend, they are safer than the pit crew, marshals or spectators with a lower chance of injury or death.

        Maybe you’ve not been watching F1 long enough to remember Jules bianchi.. the Felipe Massa spring.. etc. Racing a car at 200 mph is more dangerous than any other sport I can think of. Maybe American Football and Boxing are equally risky, but they’re contact sports, while F1 isn’t.

        We shouldnt be cuddelling them like they are kids

        You’re right. We should be breaking their backs… just because its fun to see a driver oscillate vertically.

        The point is that the FIA can improve regulations on safety grounds to prevent anything from happening in the future. Other sports such as boxing and American football can’t include a rule that says don’t touch your competitor.

        And before you get in to the argument of teams removing porpoising by reducing performance.. remember that they’re all fierce competitors, no one wants to give up performance for safety. This is where the rules and regulations of the sport make a difference. They set the safety threshold and let teams operate within that window.

        1. For a non contact sport there is a hell of a lot contact. Don’t know any other sport where you can have a 56G impact.

          1. Football, hockey, soccer… The range for a concussion is generally pegged at 90-100g.

        2. @todfod RBR have shown that within the current regs a team doesn’t have to reduce performance in order to reduce porpoising. Drivers’ safety is within the control of the teams as has been shown to be obvious, so no FIA intervention is needed. Hopefully, since some teams want to be stubborn and sacrifice their drivers discomfort for speed, they have now been forced to do something about it via this TD, for now they are being watched more closely. Their excuse that they are competitive animals and therefore must maximize performance is fine and all, but they can reduce their expectations as to what their maximum is if it means they are rattling their drivers fillings loose.

          Anyway, this directive is not for changing rules but for reminding teams to take better care of their drivers where they have chosen not to do so. I don’t think there is time to change the regs mid-season, nor is it in their budgets, nor should they anyway. RBR and others that aren’t punishing their drivers shouldn’t be penalized for their great work. TW would be saying the same thing if it was he in RBR’s position.

          TW instead is trying to claim ‘all’ drivers are ‘endangered’ and that simply is untrue. Untrue not just at all teams and for all drivers, but untrue at all venues. This is track specific. This is well within the teams to work this out. It is barely half way into the first season with these new cars and regs. The teams that are failing need to sort this as has shown can be done, and is being done, just as we were told at the start of the season would take some time. Teams just need to progress and learn with these new regs as is normal for F1, so they need to keep at it, see this season through, and take their lessons and apply them to next years cars. I’m sure even RBR will be doing that, and I’m sure what bothers TW the most is that they already have a head start and have had so since this season’s pre-season testing,

          1. I’m pretty sure you would be pushing a different opinion if RBR was suffering from porpoising but Mercedes were not, and they were out in front of both championships.

            RBR have shown that within the current regs a team doesn’t have to reduce performance in order to reduce porpoising. Drivers’ safety is within the control of the teams as has been shown to be obvious, so no FIA intervention is needed.

      2. Maybe you’ve not been watching F1 long enough to remember Jules bianchi.. the Felipe Massa spring.. etc.

        Bianchi was taking his own risks – had he obeyed the yellows as the rules state he’d still be with us today.
        Massa’s incident was the most unlikely thing that could ever have happened. And it could theoretically still happen today, given F1’s reluctance to use an Indycar-style Aeroscreen (which was originally developed by Red Bull for F1, lets not forget).
        And despite that, F1 is still one of the safest forms of motorsport in the world right now. I certainly second the suggestion that in terms of risk to participants and spectators, it remains one of the safest sports on the planet.

        You’re right. We should be breaking their backs… just because its fun to see a driver oscillate vertically.

        Now you’re just being silly.
        The teams create this environment and it is up to them to eliminate the extreme discomfort. The rules already forbid teams operating their cars in an unsafe manner – all that the FIA needs to do is define what unsafe actually means, and penalise teams for not meeting that requirement.
        At the moment, that has been made very difficult by F1’s modern structure, where the teams themselves resist any form of change that they don’t benefit from directly.

      3. CheeseBucket
        22nd June 2022, 18:56

        You aren’t too clever are you.

    2. All the sports you mention have mandatory equipment which is the same for all teams. In a sport where technical advantages are THE key to win, it comes across as rather silly to have everybody do the same.

      The only thing VER is pointing out is that while it is a problem, the teams can still fix a lot of it. But it seems teams are content to send their drivers out in a car that is damaging to their health, and the drivers seem to be OK driving it. They still have a brain and can make their own decision if it’s safe to drive or not, and the teams can make adjustments to make it acceptable if they are willing to give up lap time and money.

    3. It did take quite a bit of pressure (including court cases about neglect of responsibilities and liability for injuries) to get those sports to do that @bosyber!

      But I agree with the overall point that all those injuries are serious issues for many sports and all sports are looking at at least measuring them and many have started to look into ways to minimise them, indeed, let’s not forget that Indycar have strict protocols for head injury (and concussions) as well now (partly as a consequence of the NFL and football finally having to accept responsibility) which has also influenced F1 driver safety as well.

      And Tielemst – the point of the regulator in a sport like F1 (but this also goes for MotoGP or say bobsleighing – where rider safety is also a subject getting more attention right now) is also part of their responsibility: they are responsible to make sure the sport can be as safe for all participants and fans as is reasonably possible. That is exactly why the FIA does have the option to make regulatory changes if they are deemed necessary for safety reasons.

  3. Moto GP riders don’t break bones when going down a straight.

    Anyway, not surprisingly, the guy leading the championship and with a car that is working better than all others in the new regs doesn’t think there should be any changes. Those that are lagging behind and haven’t done as good a job on their cars think there should be.

    1. Those that are lagging behind and haven’t done as good a job on their cars think there should be.

      Yes indeed, ‘safety’ is an argument being used for political and sporting benefit.

      How unlike F1… /s

      1. Indeed, last centuries suspension technics are fine for a self-called pinnacle-of-motorsports-series. No matter that half the field is suffering, and races partly look like soapbox-races. Who cares as long as your favorite team / driver has advantages.
        Like a rogue marshall who dares to show a yellow flag, just cause a car stops on-track, when it doesnt help the preferred driver.
        How unlike a biased fan-opinion.

        1. I have no preference for who wins or loses, Roman, but you’ve repeatedly shown that you do. Sorry about the troubles your favourites are having right now – but chin up, they’ve had a good run and will sort it out in a year or 10.

          The suspensions systems in use are fine, as proven by the fact that pretty much all others use the same type that F1 does now. Linked and active suspension systems were was also developed last century, anyway – and proven to be an obstacle to decent on-track racing, which is a large part of why they were removed from F1.
          Pinnacle? Each series has a set of rules, and they are all unique and special in their own ways. F1 has the most money, if that’s what you mean… But sadly lacks in so many other ways.
          If you think it looks like soap-box racing, then why do you watch it? Actual soap box racing is far more entertaining than F1. At least they look like they want to be there and are having fun.

      2. Indeed. And it goes without saying that if the roles were reversed Max, Red Bull and their fans would be complaining in exactly the same way.

        1. @oweng And TW would be saying the same things CH is.

          1. @robbie Of course. So the dozens of comments attacking/defending one side or another are pretty pointless on all these articles. Unless people would argue the same point if their favourite team/driver was saying the opposite.

          2. @oweng But those on the TW side are wrong;)

  4. So I don’t think we have to overdramatise what is happening at the moment

    It’s easy to say that when you’re not having to endure it

    1. @gardenfella72 Exactly the point. RBR have shown that you don’t have to endure it, within the current regs no less.

      1. Well, if they can tell the other teams how to fix it, and those are allowed to do whatever is needed (extra budget outside of cap?), sure @robbie, otherwise you are talking your usual redbull geared bait and switch.

        1. @bosyber Your comment makes no sense.

        2. And there we are, @bosyber – you’ve returned us to 2014 when many were calling for Mercedes to give up their secrets.
          And the responses then? Yep – “It’s up to those teams to figure it out for themselves.”

      2. @robbie well, that wasn’t relevant to my comment but whatever you need to do to big up your favourite team, I guess

        1. @gardenfella72 No, RBR’s ‘bigness’ stands all on it’s own, but it is highly relevant to point out when you say ‘when you’re not having to endure it,’ that ‘a team’ shall we say then, is showing that the regs allow for not having to endure it.

          1. @robbie once again you completely and deliberately miss the point

            This is a safety issue and it’s patent from his comment that he cares for no-one’s safety but his own.

            RBR’s ‘bigness’ is an oxymoron. It’s the pettiest team in the paddock.

          2. But you are a lapdog so of course you would say that…

          3. @gardenfella72 I would be more receptive to the concept that this is a safety issue if I had a sense that this was all teams, and all drivers, at all tracks involved. It is far from that. The most extreme discomfort that mainly the two Mercedes drivers felt needn’t be repeated. The teams are evolving their cars as is their duty to their drivers. There is no pettiness from RBR in the paddock and they have a ton of support with their side of the argument from both within and without F1.

            To be clear, again, I would be absolutely on board with the concept of some lasting spinal damage etc if this was all teams and drivers at all tracks all season, but it is far far from that. Even LH who practically crawled out of his car after Baku and was only gloom and doom about his car and about Canada, had a complete reversal of fortune one week to the next.

            You are buying into the safety rhetoric because that is what teams that are lagging behind have brought out in order to garner support for rules changes.

          4. @robbie that makes no sense at all. So you’re saying that you’d only expect the FIA to act if every
            single driver was being affected at every single race?

            There is no pettiness from RBR in the paddock

            I’m sorry, mate, but you seem to be living in some kind of alternate reality there

    2. @gardenfella72 Exactly. There’s some confusion being made between what teams are effectively allowing/forcing their drivers to go through and the reality of the damage they may be causing them. Verstappen is right to say ‘not our problem, sort it out, we did’ but probably not right to minimize the damage to the spinal column and brain (decidedly not the same thing as damaging your knees). One thing is participating in an ‘extreme sport’ like F1 where lethal crashes are possible; another is repetitive injury to the central nervous system that can be avoided.

      1. @david-br And it is exactly that I have no sense that this needs be nor will be repetitive such that it will be a lasting problem. It’s not all drivers nor at all tracks as we just witnessed with LH from Baku to Canada.

      2. @david-br

        Verstappen is right to say ‘not our problem, sort it out, we did’

        I completely disagree. It shows a flagrant disregard for his fellow drivers but we all know he doesn’t care for their safety one bit, don’t we?

        1. @gardenfella72 Flagrant disregard is way overstating it for effect. Indeed he is concerned for his fella drivers, and has urged teams suffering from extreme porpoising to solve it within the regs just as they have, within the current regs, and without mid-season regs changes that would show a disregard for those teams for whom this is not much of an issue and who have gotten it right.

          1. @robbie he’s so concerned for his fellow drivers that he…
            Runs them off the track
            Brake tests them
            Parks his car on top of theirs and walks away without a second look


            has urged teams suffering from extreme porpoising to solve it

            Yeah, nah. Not even close.

        2. I guess my point is that there should be a trade-off: Red Bull get to keep their advantage this season and the other teams have to compromise on speed to meet safety margins, but long-term (i.e. from next season on) there needs to be acceptance from RBR that for the interest of the sport and the drivers, some other solution to the porpoising could be allowed. If @robbie is correct and they sort it out for themselves, fine, but that may not happen and I don’t see why some other technical solutions can’t be introduced with tweaks to the regulations. So far I’m underwhelmed by these cars in general. Sure they can race more closely than previous years with less turbulent air of the back of the car ahead, but they’re the very opposite of agile and don’t look much fun to drive most of the time.

  5. Classic `Iam alright Jack pull the ladder up `

    Perhaps after someone has a ruptured disc the FIA might do something…

    1. @f1-ploss As CH has pointed out, if a team is doing that to their drivers they can always be black flagged. Meanwhile it is exactly that ‘ruptured disc’ rhetoric that is the overdramatizing part of this. Merc have even just shown what can be done one race to the next and even one day to the next wrt how much they are deciding to punish their drivers. The teams just need to get on with it and shouldn’t have to be forced to, but now are, now that more eyes are on them via the TD that the ones complaining brought upon themselves. And how quickly the tables turned for Mercedes in Montreal, conveniently once they were being scrutinized more for their behaviour towards their drivers. LH went from hobbling out of his car to leaping out of his car once he had a better day, and this at a track that TW had warned he might not be able to race. Yeah, not just RBR but even the biggest complainers Mercedes have shown this is well within the teams to deal with within the current regs.

  6. Even louder knowing Horny-Horner,..

    1. Lewis, George, and the rest are barking at the wrong tree, push your technical team and race engineers to keep you on the safe side and develop your cars to be competitive while being safe for you, anything else is whining to leverage a rules change in your favor.

      FIA comming up with a measurement to define a maximum force and frecuency for bottoming is no different to crash tests, what sanctions and enforcing mechanisms are implemented is where the devil lay.

  7. When Hamilton says that “the safety of competitors must be the sport’s overriding concern.” I totally agree and it is the responsibility and duty of the teams to provide safe cars and not ones that are unsafe.
    If my road car fails its annual test because the suspension is faulty, it is my duty to fix it, not to lobby the authorities to change the regulations.

    1. @mrfrill Exactly, and RBR for example have shown that within the regs the drivers are safe. FIA and F1 have indeed taken drivers safety as their overriding concern, and have now gone a step further with this TD to ensure stubborn teams act rather than sacrifice their own drivers safety because they can’t bring themselves to, on their own, due to their own self-imposed ‘written in stone’ need for speed. There’s the innate competitive nature that I understand, and then there’s also them refusing to acknowledge that shouldn’t be an excuse and permission to punish their drivers anyway. Teams punishing their drivers can always decide their maximum needs be something a little less if they are torturing their drivers.

    2. Don’t forget to call for the roads to be resurfaced so they are smoother too, @mrfill.
      I mean – it’s not your fault that you lowered your car and stiffened the suspension, is it? There has to be someone else to blame.

  8. Max, Christian, Marko & others at Red Bull like to act like it’s not an issue for them but hasn’t Sergio Perez also said that he’s had visibility issues as a result of the bouncing & bottoming (Which is a different issue to porpoising) as a result of how stiff & low these ground effect cars need to be run.

    People are focussing only on the porpoising but the bigger issue is actually the bouncing & bottoming caused by how low & stiff a ground effect based car needs to be run. That is what many teams were suffering badly from in Baku, It’s what Sergio was talking about when saying he was having visibility issues & it’s something that despite the narrative isn’t a Mercedes only thing.

    This was also going to be a problem, It was a problem the last time F1 ran ground effect cars & was a problem many drivers at that time complained about which is why drivers of that era didn’t like driving the ground effect cars. And it wasn’t just an F1 thing, Was the same in Indycar which actually also banned ground effects at the end of 1982 for similar reasons to F1.

    This sort of super stiff ride quality with cars run super low is just how ground effect cars are.

    1. Good points there @roger-ayles, I saw an Mark Surer mentioning exactly that during a talk with a German publication (on youtube). They really should start to look at how to define safe limits to protect the drivers for the long haul.

    2. @roger-ayles I believe the quotes from SP have been taken (particularly by TW) from early April and made to sound like he is currently of that opinion. Well, put another way, the way I read his quotes from nearly 3 months ago he was explaining what CAN happen with porpoising at high speeds. I’m sure he would still agree with that, but I think his words are being twisted by certain folks motivated thus, to make it sound like he is currently experiencing in races blurred vision or what have you. I don’t think SP nor Max have actually complained about porpoising but rather just the odd patch of bumpy track here and there that they hope can be smoothed out for next year’s race. But of course TW wants to claim, in order to make his case for mid-season reg changes, that all drivers are complaining, which is untrue.

  9. Davethechicken
    22nd June 2022, 12:48

    Max comes across rather naive in this quote. He is speaking about things as if he is an authority, when he likely fundamentally doesn’t understand the risks.
    The risk of porpoising and brain injury or spinal injury is not known currently and is not therefore directly comparable to other sports.
    There is however precedent of repetitive head injury in other sport including rugby, bobsleigh, the NFL, boxing and many more, to warrant concern and involvement of the FIA.
    It seems plausible that porpoising could cause a risk of repetitive concussions which are known to be life shortening injuries for some individuals.
    It is entirely appropriate the FIA take the matter beyond the hands of individual teams.

    1. Max comes across rather naive in this quote. He is speaking about things as if he is an authority, when he likely fundamentally doesn’t understand the risks.

      I disagree. He comes across as someone who:
      a) isn’t suffering the consequences as much as others;
      b) has his own agenda, in that changing the rules to reduce or eliminate the problem may give his competitors a relative advantage, and;
      c) is an individual, with his own opinion.

      It is entirely appropriate the FIA take the matter beyond the hands of individual teams.

      I think it is appropriate that the FIA make it clear to the teams that allowing their cars to continue operating in such an unsafe manner will no longer be tolerated.
      As to the actual solution the teams come to – that should be their problem. If their only option is to be less competitive, then so be it.

      1. Davethechicken
        22nd June 2022, 13:42

        I didn’t interpret Max’s comments to being entirely selfish, more naive so we will disagree there.
        The FIA set the parameters for the competition. Unlike other sports they change the (technical) rules of the sport on at least an annual basis. F1 is unusual in this regard.
        If another sport governing body, changed the rules which then introduced a new and unforseen risk of harm for participants, then of course they would have to look into the sensibility of the rule change and adjust as needed.
        No one wants to see criminal action taken against the teams or FIA if someone comes to serious harm, but is that beyond the realms of possiblity? Adrian Newey and Sir Frank faced just that in the Italian courts after the death of Senna

        1. The FIA hasn’t introduced a new risk, or even re-introduced an old one. The teams have – some more than others.
          That risk can be sufficiently, or even entirely, eliminated through car design, setup and operation within the current rules, and within the current season. Within the same session, if necessary.
          And there remains a perfectly valid argument that running the cars the way some teams have been doing is breaking the rules anyway.

          The only people likely to bring about a court case for this would be the drivers, who are currently willingly jumping into the cars each and every session. They could always, you know… not. Personal choices and responsibility, and all.
          Bringing legal action against the FIA or even their own teams would only be an attempt to blame someone else for their own poor decisions. And a way to get more money…

          1. S I agree and can’t add much to your good points. I would say though that taking NFL football for example, yes of course there is the undeniable fact of what repeated head injury can do. This is far from the case with F1. We are not even half way into this first season with these cars, not all drivers are experiencing this, nor to the same degree, and it is track specific. A football player is going to experience this every game for every season he plays. An F1 driver will not likely be experiencing this by next season at the latest. And the ‘this’ is not a 300 pound dude running at speed into his helmet making actual impact on his head.

          2. Davethechicken
            22nd June 2022, 14:58

            “the only people likely to bring about a court case for this would be the drivers, who are currently willingly jumping into the cars each and every session. They could always, you know… not. Personal choices and responsibility, and all.
            Bringing legal action against the FIA or even their own teams would only be an attempt to blame someone else for their own poor decisions. And a way to get more money. ”

            I disagree. Senna did not initiate criminal proceedings against Williams. It was not about compensation. It was a criminal not civil investigation.
            Fundamentally the sport is dangerous and yes the teams would of course be implicated too, but as the rule maker, the FIA can’t allow a rule change that introduces new unforeseen risk to the competitors.
            Are you saying that the rule change hasn’t lead to porpoising or that porpoising is not a risk?

          3. All the teams agreed to these new cars and had a hand in developing them alongside Brawn’s team of researchers. The knew porpoising was possible. Could they have known to what degree some might have porpoising? Perhaps not. But there is a precedent with RBR and Alfa Romeo that within the regs porpoising can be made insignificant. At the start of the season the talk was that it was going to take them a handful of races to get on top of this. That some still haven’t is irrelevant. Even the biggest complainers Mercedes warned about how bad Canada was going to be and it wasn’t. LH had a terrible Friday and then even they who have suffered and complained the most found some relief for the rest of the weekend…a one day turnaround from ‘tragedy’ to glee. And they’re even more stoked for Silverstone now, such is the track specificity to this.

          4. It was a criminal not civil investigation.

            The authorities categorised it as a road death, and were trying to determine who, if anyone, had caused this totally unexpected incident that lead (in)directly to a person’s death.
            Even after more than a decade, no person or corporation was found to be responsible for the incident – the cause of which, itself, also remains undetermined.

            That’s completely different to any injuries that may result directly or indirectly from teams choosing to run their cars in a known risky manner that can be argued to be illegal right now.

            Are you saying that the rule change hasn’t lead to porpoising or that porpoising is not a risk?

            I think it’s pretty well medically determined and documented that such vibrations/forces can be harmful to health and safety.

            The rule changes have not lead to porpoising. They are merely a contributing factor.
            Porpoising is a result of a multitude of factors all around the car’s design, setup and operation that combine to create a certain outcome. The teams themselves are responsible for these combinations, not the FIA or the technical regulations – as such, the teams can easily avoid them, just as they avoid other combinations that might make them slower or make their tyres wear faster, for example.

            As Robbie states, all the teams knew what they were going into. They’ve had more than 2 years to design these cars and choose how they wish to run them, knowing full well that if they ran them a certain way, they could induce this issue.
            Still, they’ve chosen to do exactly that and ‘sacrifice’ their drivers for small competitive performance gains.

          5. @S

            The rule changes have not lead to porpoising.

            Yes they have. Porpoising has always been an issue with ground-effect cars so the FIA would have known that. Porpoising is also impossible to create in the wind tunnel given the FIA restrictions on speed and model size.

  10. I have pointed out before that Wolff cannot gain the authority of drivers. The safety route is the only way to change the rules for next season. I’m glad Christian reacted together with Max, but I’m afraid it’s a bit too late. In any case, it’s still not enough since Perez is also complaining. Binotto also failed to instruct Sainz… It all works in favour of the Austrian crybaby.

    1. Is Perez complaining, or is TW cherry-picking a quote from the first week of April and making it sound like Perez is also complaining currently?

  11. Davethechicken
    22nd June 2022, 15:23

    I take your point Robbie about some teams fixing it. I am aware if the cars drove at 5mph they wouldn’t porpoise but telling the teams to slow their cars ignores the point of the arguement.
    But let’s say a car crashes at high speed due to porpoising, similar to Senna, (different to the repetitive brain injury I know which is an evolving area and probable to lead to legal action in other sports in the future). But if that was a fatal crash, what would stop criminal proceedings against individuals in the team? With the rule change would the FIA not also be implicated? They are quite clearly aware this is potentially a safety issue, and have a duty to intervene for the safety of the competitors. Would to ignore this be negligent? That of course would be ultimately for a court to decide. Individuals in an organisation can be prosecuted.

    1. I get your argument, but I just think the words ‘safety issue’ have only been brought out because those using them know it will trigger a reaction. Early days of it this season the teams were going to get a handle on it in fairly short order. Who knows how to speak for the what ifs if there was an accident and a lawsuit, but there is precedent that indeed the current regs do not provide a safety issue that can’t be dialed out and that doesn’t appear at all tracks. Were it all drivers at all tracks at all times, perhaps different story. Nobody is saying drive 5 mph either.

      “They are quite clearly aware this is potentially a safety issue,” is true only in the sense that they have said through a TD we are watching your behaviour and if we have to will force you to do what you could have done yourselves …not punish your drivers so much.

      1. Davethechicken
        22nd June 2022, 16:24

        I do agree Robbie. The “safety issue” thing has potential to be used to gain performance, and F1 teams would have no qualms about that undesirable action. But ultimately if it is genuine then the drivers are the ones at risk. Many of them making clear that they are not one bit happy about it.
        I do note that Adrian Newey’s cars are the ones least affected (seemingly at least). Is that coincidental given what he must have gone through with the Senna trial? Probably it is. Maybe it isn’t. Who knows.

        1. Fair comment. And don’t get me wrong it is not like I don’t sympathize with the likes of LH and GR when they have suffered from this at it’s worst. And at the same time I am even a bit taken aback when I read headlines like I just did a bit earlier where Coutlhard for example has said basically if you’re too uncomfortable then step aside. He’s not the only F1 insider to speak this kind of language. I just think ultimately the teams will understand their cars more and more and get on top of this on their own and don’t need anything more than a TD prodding and certainly not a mid-season reg change nor even a next season reg change. But of course we’ll see.

  12. So can you tell us what kind of job you do? I bet it’s more dangerous than Bianchi’s job so you can criticize him so easily.

    1. Sure, we can criticise his decision to disobey double waved yellows – especially at such a fast corner, in heavy rain, with the added fact that he’d already completed an entire lap since the other incident had occurred there that required the yellows and extraction equipment in the first place.

      Nobody’s suggesting he wasn’t a highly talented racing driver and, by all reports, a wonderful person – but he made some very poor decisions in those moments that ultimately cost him his own life, and nearly claimed the lives of volunteer track workers as well.
      It was extremely unfortunate that the F1 community had been taking such a lax attitude to safety for so long that he clearly didn’t feel the need to obey the rules, as there would otherwise have likely been no penalty at all.

      Oh, and statistically, a huge number of jobs are more dangerous than being a racing driver.

  13. Red Bull Defence Force out in full I see.

  14. Few things.

    More drivers have complained about the stiffness of the ride of these cars and subsequent bouncing & heavy bottoming in private than have raised the concerns publicly.

    I’ll also say this. The Red Bull isn’t as smooth a ride as they would lead you to think. There’s a reason they are against the FIA even looking at data to come up with guidelines…. Which is afterall something that would have no affect on them if the cars ride was as fine as they say it is.

    Changing rules to make everyone raise there cars is obviously something that would impact RBR & would be unfair to teams who’s cars are running within the limits. But having data and asking only teams who’s cars are sending high loads to the drivers durjng the bottoming shouldn’t affect RBR given there claims regarding the cars ride quality.

    1. Thanks @gt-racer – your comments always come across as very insightful in a sea of not-so-helpful ones. I wasn’t aware that Red Bull were opposing the submission of data.

      1. @emma Makes sense to me. Why would they want to reveal hints at why/how Newey’s design is working so well? Of course it would affect RBR even if they themselves didn’t have to change anything. They’d be tipping their hand to help other teams become more competitive.

        1. @robbie – I’m not sure vertical movement measurements would give any hint as to the “why”. But that’s a moot point – the issue here is that the FIA wants to regulate the amount of bouncing drivers are subjected to. If that’s the case, won’t they need to measure the bouncing? Doesn’t the FIA rely on measurements in other areas of regulation? Should they exempt Red Bull from any such regulation because their cars appear not to be bouncing that much? Wouldn’t that be the same as not subjecting a particular car’s front wing to deflection tests just because it doesn’t appear to deflect on camera the same way as some others do?

          1. @Emma No that’s a fair comment. I suppose I was considering moreso the ‘consultation’ part of what they talked about with the teams, and I’m sure Adrian Newey could speak volumes on the issue, but how far should that go before he is revealing too much about what teams should do who have too much porpoising. But sure, consulting on how to come up with the math to measure bounce, fair enough. And of course there’s no reason to exclude RBR or Alfa Romeo from being measured by the same math.

  15. What’s the problem? If Mercedes and Ferrari just increase their ride-height with 10mm all their bouncing and porpoising would be over. But they refuse to do that. They choose to let their drivers suffer in their seats. So let them be.

    1. It’s not that simple, never has been.

  16. Prevention is better than suffering.

    That is why the FIA need to issue a ruling. To force teams to do the right thing by their drivers.

    If RBRs bouncing is within safety regulations then it’s not a problem.

  17. Where did Max study sports injury medicine?

    1. Apparently the same place a lot of the commenters here studied ethics.

  18. Ruud Schmitz
    23rd June 2022, 16:23

    They make too much money, so they worry about longlivity. No time to spend it after their careers are over. When making 20 mil+ a year…. That’s what you do…..

Comments are closed.