I like the fact that there are some teams struggling with design elements such as this and weight. I think it will really add into the racing this season and I hope they don't change the rules to make it easier.
I agree. The teams know how to fix the issue, they need to balance/sacrifice ground efx. Allowing active suspension add more cost in an era where a budget cap is in place. Let them get creative.
The problem is they banned the 3rd damper which is normally in charge of dealing with ride height and aerodynamic load. They(FIA) should’ve known how that would turn out.
I doubt they’ll bring active suspension back just because of the big performance advantage it offers it takes a lot of the driver skill out of their hands that and the cost of it
You could solve it with the Renault mass damper solution as well, or having rules that all cars have a minimum ride height they all need to have at all times.
Naah not really the trick that renault used was just to stabilise the front. Balancing the whole car is while different ballgame. And a much bigger mass is needed. Active suspension would be much better.
@@hallo_welt_ag they only had a 9kg damper on the front of the R26 never on the rear atleast not in any if the actual races. Just imagine the damper size needed for the whole car. Not so viable of a solution.
@@truedarklander i know but the bigger the mass of the object u want to damp the bigger your damper needs to be, which is clearly not feasible. It's physics 101.
I'm cool with the idea of active suspension return, though it will probably need to be regulated for obvious reasons. However, it is not the only solution to porpoising... Ross Brawn himself said that there are aero solutions and that he is waiting for the engineers to find them and how varied those innovations might be.
There are many solutions yes, the problem is finding one that doenst slow the car down. No porpoising but slower is not an option for f1 teams, they'll rather run the car hopping around, if its faster.
@@Vittinable This is exactly true and down to the teams to find the best solution to keep performance while maintaining stability. F1 is all about engineering solutions and which teams are able to capitolise on innovations over the rest of the field.
2:20 - "It wouldn't eradicate the problem - it's physics - but it would certainly help manage it." - James Key, McLaren Technical Director. 2:35 - "It appeals to engineers because it not only eliminates the problem but also allows..." - The Race's script writer... Surely the same script writer who had written in James Key's quote telling you that no, it won't eliminate the problem.
i think it would be cool to see active suspension again, however i think its a bit late for this year, maybe if the teams cant solve porposing then it would come in around 23/24
I personally like the idea of not optimizing every single corner of any track with the active system. The give and take will show in the results on race day among the teams.
@@vince.navarrete I'm with you. Honestly, I think things should be more in the driver's hands vs automated things. Take away driving modes. Replace it with only manually deployed ers. Drs, everywhere for everyone.
@@loganlachance1890 so in your eyes. The conditions arent already hectic enough so you want the drivers to manage 33 seconds of ERS on their own and drs too? DRS is there to help overtaking. If you could use it all the time then it becomes redundant.
Active suspension would both reduce the importance of the driver and make the racing worse. As a side thing, I think one benefit of the new regulations is that the cars and tires are stiffer, making them less capable of making grip over curbing. This will make track limits less of an issue because a well designed curb will convince the drivers not to drive on it because it costs them time. Currently they either have to resort to dangerously big curbing that will likely break something or just painting a line and telling drivers not to pass it. I don't like either of those last two options. Active suspension will get rid of that last benefit of stiff cars as the teams will be able to make the car compliant over curbing.
I would love to see a video about this years new suspensions. We’ve seen a lot about the new aero, but almost nothing about the suspensions, even though they’re as big a part of these new rules as the aero
Difficulties that teams run into when trying to design new cars for new rules is not the FIA's problem, they've changed too many rules over the past few years because someone complained after someone else discovered something clever.
I like the idea of high pressure air suspension as that will compress to w point then lock out preventing porpoising from taking place without the need for active suspension
I don't see teams being able to put together similar performing kits with the payout and funding being so skewed. Properly setting ride height so that the aero stops stalling sounds like a cheaper and easier solution.
This is supposed to be the highest form of racing and they can't figure out how to stop cars from porpoising yet all other forms of racing can figure it out? Sports cars have this issue NASCAR has this issue plenty of other forms of racing have had this issue and figured it out without active suspension... This is a comment made by a teenager that is getting way too much play!
@@jonlamontagne exactly. Every year during preseason testing, the lmp cars have this issue and by round 1 it's fixed. This is ridiculous for a series that has heave springs and forgiveable legality boxes.
Then you may as well make it a spec series, the teams need to figure it out mechanically. The thing that makes F1 what it is, is the technical wizardry that they do.
I am more worried on high speed corners that the car will depend on the floor to make it around the corner. Like Silverstone. What happens if a car is on the limite and the floor stalls out. Car looses downforce and get thrown off the track? I guess time will tell.
I believe the cars were only porpoising at near their maximum speed at Barcelona - in excess of 300 km/h. The high speed corners at Silverstone (and turn 3 at Barcelona) are quick but still are significantly slower. At Monza they may need to raise the ride height or make other changes to the car. Nothing dramatic. I suspect we will have forgotten all about this by the end of the year.
@@zoomosis oh definitely will not even be a footnote by the mid season break. This is just pre-season media blah blah. Like Hamilton's "retirement" lol
Incidentally I revisited active suspension just a few weeks ago on my channel... so having researched it, my feelings towards it are these: Active ride proved to be a huge performance differentiator in the 90s, with even teams that had active suspension experiencing wildly different performances, which meant that it added nothing to the quality of the racing. It should be down to the teams to figure out new ways to overcome these issues. McLaren have shown it's possible to design a car that doesn't porpoise. Many other teams are well on their way to resolving it entirely as well. It's down to them to rise to the technical challenge. To be totally honest, the mass damper from 2005-6 would be a better option.
No, it would be nice if the FIA weren't so hard nosed and scared of performance improvements and technological innovation instead. Active suspension would be a welcome return and helps push the series forward while keeping it at the very forefront of engineering and innovation as far as cars and motorsports are concerned. Of course it should go without saying that it would need some regulation but regulation is what the FIA is best at, even if the regulations itself and the results don't turn out to be any good.
@@RockSolitude I think it's an innovation that wouldn't add all that much to the show. Having seen how F1 in the early 90s was utterly dominated by Williams, while McLaren, Benetton, Ferrari and Lotus all ran active but were nowhere near... (Mansell was at times 2 seconds quicker than his own teammate let alone the rest of the field!) I don't feel it's the solution. I'd rather just let the teams each sort out their own issues.
@@RockSolitudeactive suspension would just be the new arms race that is all! This would just again lead to the rich getting richer! It is just a trick to fix something that a metal washer could do! This is something ALL forms of racing deal with yet they all have found solutions too! Your solution is like bringing a nuclear weapon to a knife fight. Let's watch how the knife fight goes first before we go to scorched Earth! They had 3 days of practice for the first time ever driving the car. If before the first GP we still are scared F1 could just make a minimum ride height for the rear of the car to stop it from happening just like the teams will do on their own anyway and just like every other form of motorsport that all deal with this same issue. Then work out a way of incorporating in some form of active suspension. But, let's not react to a teenager's comment that is being taken out of context because of limited story lines and drama coming out of the first test! George Russell made an off hand comment that is being blown up and I bet he wishes he never said it because of the traction it is gaining. His team hasn't had the issue and he was speaking in reference to the other teams. I would say it is gaining this much because Merc has some system it can use (Think DAS and their trick rear suspension last year) that this is getting so much play. If Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, and another team or two gave any support to this I would be more intrigued but this is not even being talked about by the other teams in the media. Aston, Ferrari, and Alpine all 3 teams most "affected" by this haven't backed this so it is not worth as much attention as we have given it!
you're mistaking the use of mass damper. mass damper is used to keep constant height of aerodynamic unlike active suspension that keep constant height of the car. mass damper would only be good for the solid suspension 2000s car aero
The more 'fun' question would be "Who is demanding active suspension most loudly?" Those teams could be the ones in most trouble. Let's not be making rule changes already, especially if that results in a less interesting season and unfair costs for teams that don't need it but would have to develop the system to keep up.
I absolutely think active suspension shouldn't come back into F1. There are ways the teams can stop their cars porpoising, they just don't want to do it because the performance of the car will be reduced, but that's part of the challenge. Some of the best engineers in the world want an easy fix, come on.
nope, porpoising is the effect that came with ever aggressive ground effect solution that even highly skilled engineer struggles. thats why its easier for active suspension to come back for engineers rather than struggle multiple years to fix a single problem and probably messing up other areas of the car
Engineers aren't magicians. There are physical limits to these problems, and active suspensions solve this and many more issues. They might actually prove to save money in the future because it solves so many issues that require development. Don't forget development is time and money.
Active suspension also makes the cars easier to drive. These are the best drivers in the world, the cars should be hard to drive. I'm hoping cars will be avoiding the curbs with ground effects. I'd love to see cars compete once again between the painted lines.
Thank you very much. Very interesting article. I believe Ross Brawn has it spot on! It's 100% up to the teams to sort it. Relying on certain types of technology (in the wrong way) would impede the interconnectivity between engineers, drivers and designers. It's truly a team sport.
I wish they brought active suspension back and let the engineers have more freedom. I like the new rules and the new cars and I'm happy to see so many different designs, but I do wish there was even more playground for the teams.
They could do it and then sell it as something as race developed since many of the manufactures offer such things in their road cars. Nice video. Keep up the good work.
Active suspension should only come back of teams are unable to fix porpoiseing by other means, and if it were to come back it should be a homologated component and not be actively developed.
By the way, doesn't that mean they aren't allowed to improve the design and submit it to FIA then? I think this is the other way around: Teams want a reliable but also quality parts for their car, so the proposal to create one could also be one way for the other teams to develop them behind the scene.
@@kohikappu because of the cost cap having teams actively developing something like an active suspension system would be a really bad idea. teams would probably have the ability to suggest improvements but honestly it is probably highly unlikely we will ever see active suspension again in f1
@@ringdingding7663 Yeah, changing the regulations now just because some teams are having issues is not fair on the teams who spent money on finding a solution, especially considering the cost cap
If things like active sospension and mass dampers can help out, by all means go for it. Ground effect cars always were a rough ride, and drivers have to be looked after. However, if the FIA doesn't want teams to exploit this, they should standardize it, like they did with the wheel covers
@@TheJackOfAllTrades777 I think that driver safety has to be taken into consideration, instead of performance. The floor can be damaged, and if it's bad enough it can be seriously dangerous for the drivers
FIA wants cars to be slower. Pirelli tires also wants F1 cars to be slower. The only people who want to go faster are the drivers, fans, and engineers. Ross Brawn could give 2 shi+s about how porpoising makes the car slower....because thats exactly what he wants.
@@DJUwU Teams are gonna make it faster and that's the point, they will go faster even if it becomes less safe, so you might as well components that can offset it.
@@F1ll1nTh3Blanks Its up to FIA to mandate the survival shell updates. To update HALO protocol. The survival shells can only take 1 hit from any direction...they should be able to take 1 hit from EACH direction.... But...FIA/Pirelli won't do the things necessary because they have a monopoly on the sport. Its not like the Bridgestone vs Michelin days where manufactures actually had to try in order for their products to be known as the standard... FIA finding FIA is at no fault for all of the 2021 race incident decisions should let you know all you need to know about FIA...
As the 2022 cars are a fair bit slower for the sake of cleaner air and better racing, active suspension could be a good way to close the gap and keep the speeds as high as they used to be while still having closer racing
Trading off performance with stability has always been an important part of car setup and I can see no reason why we should remove this from the equation. Active ride was fascinating however my vote is to leave it banned. Teams will always cite safety issues when they want to find more performance. If they really cannot make their cars safe, maybe they shouldn't be on the F1 grid?!
One alternative to active suspension I can think of would be to use position sensitive damping such that it would prevent the car from going further into the travel at certain velocities/frequency. Kindof like an extended version of hydraulic bump stops. One option would be to switch them on and off perhaps linked to the DRS toggle since the problem mostly occurs on straights.
They don’t need active suspension. Just let them have ‘fric’ back, or full decoupled hydraulic. Doesn’t need to be full active, just the ultimate reactive suspension
The only point i see for bringing back active suspensions is the 2022 regulations fail at producing close racing. Then we might want active suspension in a "DRS fashion": the car behind can use the active susp (or use "more of it") under certain conditions to allow it to follow closer in the corners.
I posted this exact idea on the Formula 1 Reddit a few weeks ago because of these reasons, but everyone said this is a dumb idea and just made fun of me.
I think Active Suspension should be reintroduced in '26. It is a really interesting and advanced technology and would be nice to see Formula 1 go one more step into the future.
All they need to do is develop a common hydraulic heave system much like the ones some of the teams were using up until last year. Set the perimeters to simply control ride height and speeds above 150-160 mph were the porpoising is most severe. Any team experiencing it under that speed will have to figure out how to stop it in other ways. In the first ground-effect era the solution was to use solid suspension stops on the car, that stopped the car from bottoming but put ridiculously high stresses on the chassis and suspension and sent brutal shocks through the drivers body. Alan Jones retired because he was worried about developing spinal problems from the stiff ride.
You know what else would make driving safer? Not having a driver. You wouldn't want that, and I wouldn't want a computer controlling the asset of the car
@@hardware64 That is a strawman, nobody wants self driving f1 cars. The suspension is not even something the driver directly controls. Traction control, ABS and such systems that alter the drivers inputs are banned and should stay banned. Active suspension does not take away from driver talent.
@@EirikHaug Did you miss the "stop reading the behaviour of the car and just diving in the corner trusting the active suspension to do its job" part of the video?
@@hardware64 No i did not. Active suspension makes the car more predictable and stable, and therefore easier to drive, yes. But its a LONG way from not putting a driver in the car because it drives itself.
If the FIA compromised over Active Suspension, by introducing a standard system for all the teams, it would mean that nobody would have an edge in terms of spending and it would only act in terms of minimising the aerodynamic bouncing when the cars get too close to the ground. It would be like the systems that help keep the Eurofighter Typhoon in the air (it's so unstable by design, to enable agility, that no human could react fast enough to counteract the forces on it)
I think Mercedes allready developed an active suspension system,they send George to say that it's necessary so they will have the upper hand when it's brought back.
The push for active suspension is an overreaction. The cars are brand new and teams will dial this problem out. If there is a performance cost, then that’s a limitation of the new formula, but all signs are pointing to these cars soon being quicker than 2021. Teams like McLaren should reap the rewards of designing a car for which this is less of a problem.
I might get shot down for this, but my memory tells me that while Lotus did indeed have active suspension (no springs at all, just hydraulics and electronics), the Williams still had conventional springs. What it had instead of active suspension was ride height control or reactive suspension, the job of which was to control both the ride height and alter the car's attitude under braking and acceleration in order to maximise performance.
Teams would be able to use active suspension as DRS, adjusting rake on the fly to deliberately stall parts of the floor and diffuser on the straights for minimum drag, while still having maximum downforce in the corners.
There are a lot of calls for previously banned components or concepts to make a concept in F1 or possibly even a spinoff subsidiary like Group-B. Most of the calls are for ones that make racing safer however.
Initially I thought active suspension might me a solution if it was a spec design used by all teams. But the more I think about it, we like to see innovation in F1 and not having active suspension forces teams to innovate to find solutions to the porpoising problem.
Okay, maybe I am looking at this in a very simple manner, but as the stalling of the floor that causes the porpoising effect is because the rear of the car gets to close to the road, why not simply add an adjustable bump stop to the suspension so that the cars minimum rear ride height can be set dependant on the race track and level of porpoising effect. So when the car gets porpoising you can limit how low the rear will get to the road surface, but it can be adjusted to adapt to driver and track. Obviously this would be manually set during practice and become fixed for the race, maybe later it could be electronically altered so that as conditions change so could the ride height limiter, but then the risk of adaptive behaviour being sneaked in could cause an issue. Re-introducing active suspension would risk taking things backwards and creating one dominant team, we want to see close racing and less one or two horse races.
Would be awesome to see F1 cars with all the tech of the FW14B (with modern day computing). With this said, it would be quite a big undertaking to include active suspension
The real problem would only be that if the development costs prevent certain teams from implementing it when others could, we would end up with some very dominant teams leaving everyone else in the dust. That is, until everyone could focus development on it
It would be nice, on the condition that this doesn't become a backdoor means for big teams like Mercedes or Ferrari to gain a significant competitive advantage again. (As a very rough example: The team with access to the greatest pool of computing power could make the very best map for training their suspension which could give them the 0.1 seconds per lap needed to keep a rival behind them.) And yes, in theory the difference in capability between rival teams like Merc and Red Bull would be smaller than teams that weren't really competing like Merc and Williams. But think about the sheer size of Mercedes and you begin to see how much they could bring to bear there.
A solid solution might be physical design changes and new aero parts, solutions that may be too late to work on for this year. If so this would be the only reason why active suspension should be reintroduced for this year
I know the regulations don't allow movable Aero (except DRS), but wouldn't it be cool, if you could stall the diffuser on demand? On the straight you don't really need the downforce anyway and it would also prevent porpoising...
porpoises is one problem with this car in track like monza with long straight other problem with this cars come from some track with lot of kerbs like Canada and other with bumpi surface like COTA Driving in this track can easily damage under body or even suspension, and damage to gearbox is more than before in this season with cust caps f1 must helps team to get over this problems don't forget main reason for changing the car was for safety reasons but with all things I said driving with this cars on the limits will be more dangerous than before
I think you missed an important point.... simulation and wind tunnels didn't highlight the issue so they will not help to solve the issue it needs track time which is limited and expensive.
While active suspension would fix the issue it would certainly be expensive as hell to make. I feel the active mass damper would be a cheeper and quicker choice to implement on current designs.
I think they should permit active suspension and allow teams to change the suspension when getting to certain straights. Maybe it even is possible to make this a standard part, so smaller teams don't have to spent tons of money to develop it (He literally says the last part in the video xD)
I like restrictions in some races, but nerfing the "ultimate" (lol) motorsport to less than production car standards seems dumb and why I couldnt care less about F1. They have no idea how much they damage their own sport.
Or; They (the teams) could simply set the car up better (bump stops equivalent), Vent the undercarriage at highly susceptible tracks. Or the FIA could simply re-allow a higher rake. All of these solve the porpoising problem without active suspension. Setups are always having to change for each track, this is just another variable to balance.
Could they do a spec setup? I know back in the day Williams were so dominant because theirs was by far and away the best and it mainly got banned because Ferrari couldn't work it out, although it was sold as a cost-cutting exercise that was rushed through (which then resulted in the mess that was 1994). Don't know how it'd work given the different pick up points/mounts/etc for each team.
I believe the teams knew about Proposing during development. Its something you cant get in a wind tunnel though and can only happen under real world conditions. They most likely made assumption on how the car would behave and once they hit the track they knew if they got it or not.
My first season was 1993, aged nine. As a techie, autistic sort of person, to have the driver aids wrenched away from me after just one season was most distressing…particularly as 1994 was an absolute disaster all round, directly because of banning those aids in a hurry…
I heard that the mass damper could also help with this issue although I don’t know enough about aero to actually back it up. maybe that’s a cheaper solution to this. However, I also agree with the people who think that it’s good teams are struggling with issues because it might produce better racing.
If this is a safety issue I don’t think there’s any question that it should come back. And if they’ve all got equal footing on it and it overdetermines the aero balance of the car, a really important differentiation point, in theory it should improve competition.
If someone at Mercedes is suggesting reintroducing something in order to “solve a problem” for “everyone”, you can safely bet that they mean reintroducing Weill either help them negate an advantage held by other teams who are not as affected by porpoising or because it will give them an advantage.
Yes bring it back and for all teams, surely the Fia looked back at previous ground effect cars and the drawback incurred by cars at that time, this could be a version designed to control the problems of todays cars and not the corner suspension
I would love to se active suspension in F1. But here's the twist, I don't want any system that essentially let the car know where it is on track, for anything which naturally include suspension. A car should be able to drive on any road at any time, without having to "learn" it's way around first - that is what the driver is for. So I guess what I want is rather "reactive" suspension. Active in that it's electronically controlled hydraulics, but not proactive as it should only be allowed live feed inputs.
Is variable spring rate allowed? I'm assuming not. Seems to be this would be a very simple way to allow teams to counteract a large amount of the porpoising problem while adding very little complexity. If the spring rate rises significantly the lower the car is, you can get to the point where you can't stall the underfloor because you can't overcome the spring force to do so.
McLaren seemed to solve porpoising issues with the front of their floor creating big vortices sealing the floor, whereas everyone else had done little with the floor.
Or, they just deal with it and deal with the cars being slower. That is the whole point of this stuff, to see how far you can push the car before it has issues.
I've thought for a long time they should allow things like frics back, let the teams try and gain performance from mechanical grip instead of relying heavily on aero. Active suspension though is a little too far.
The reintroduction of either active suspension or mass dampeners would solve the problem of porpoising that is experienced with ground effect cars. As a mechanical engineer, the pitch sensitivity that is introduced with ground effect cars is widely known. I think the reintroduction of a mass dampener would be the most cost-beneficial solution, as a complete redesign of the car would not be warranted. However, there is an incurred cost as the internal cooling, electronic, KERS and engine ad transmission packaging is optimized. The other secondary effect of the reintroduction of active suspension systems is that the car would be fully optimized for the entire lap and therefore greatly reduce the lap time. That would cause some F1 circuits to become too dangerous, as the cars would be too fast for the current safety technology that is employed at tracks. This is a problem that MotoGP may soon face with the advancement in downforce generating aerodynamics, sophisticated engine electronics and mapping, hole-shot devices, ride-height devices for corner exit and straights. The only problem holding back MotoGP bikes is the tire technology and the fact that they still spin up the rear wheel at over 320 km/h.
I'm wondering why is not suggested a "regulated/balanced suspension" rather than active suspension. I mean why couldn't drivers have a button in the wheel that help then to regulate suspension as they do with DRS, battery energy, brake balance, engy maps and so on? F1 could define a rule where drivers could only setup 3 or possible suspension setup before race and then drivers can select during race. That approach will make drivers and teams more competitive, won't they?
Bringing back active suspension is such a terrible idea. For starters it would make driving the cars way too easy compared to now. Secondly it would be dangerous as speeds would increase drastically. Its good that some teams are struggling with the new aerodynamics on the flip side look at the McClaren it looks like a really smart bit of design as they seem to be the furthest along at dealing with the porpoising.
While it is an optimum solution, maybe a venting of the floor controlled by the driver would be more of a challenge. Just as a pilot of a plane must trim the wings for a good flight, maybe a driver would have to trim the floor to give the most optimum drive and grip. More technology that becomes part of the car's auto system does not necessarily improve driving or racing. I'm not sure how sustained G-force drivers can take, but human bodies have physical limits that likely encroach on.
Sounds good to me. Traction control already tacitly exists in F1 anyway because the FIA didn't want differential development to become a thing. They saw it as a cheaper and easier solution (one which the teams were silently half-using anyway).
really great job with the video...every question that i had was addressed. I like the concept of few gadgets in racing. Is F1 less fun to watch if the cars are going at their ABSOLUTE fastest? I don't think so. Good racing can be had while driving 5% slower.
Sounds very expensive. A new issue formula 1 will face is budget limits. If something like active suspension is introduced, which is a huge money pit, teams will push to keep the development in budget aswell as push performance, resulting in a double wahmy for safety compromise
I like the fact that there are some teams struggling with design elements such as this and weight. I think it will really add into the racing this season and I hope they don't change the rules to make it easier.
I doubt they will. Some teams have it under control so it would negate the hard work they have done to ddsign a car that doesnt suffer
I agree. The teams know how to fix the issue, they need to balance/sacrifice ground efx. Allowing active suspension add more cost in an era where a budget cap is in place. Let them get creative.
The problem is they banned the 3rd damper which is normally in charge of dealing with ride height and aerodynamic load. They(FIA) should’ve known how that would turn out.
I doubt they’ll bring active suspension back just because of the big performance advantage it offers it takes a lot of the driver skill out of their hands that and the cost of it
I want to brick back manual gearboxes. You got skills, lets see it.
You could solve it with the Renault mass damper solution as well, or having rules that all cars have a minimum ride height they all need to have at all times.
Naah not really the trick that renault used was just to stabilise the front. Balancing the whole car is while different ballgame. And a much bigger mass is needed. Active suspension would be much better.
@@jimutjayadev they also used a Mass damper in the rear in 2006
@@hallo_welt_ag they only had a 9kg damper on the front of the R26 never on the rear atleast not in any if the actual races. Just imagine the damper size needed for the whole car. Not so viable of a solution.
@@jimutjayadev All you need is to damp the vibrations, not a full cancelation.
@@truedarklander i know but the bigger the mass of the object u want to damp the bigger your damper needs to be, which is clearly not feasible. It's physics 101.
I'm cool with the idea of active suspension return, though it will probably need to be regulated for obvious reasons. However, it is not the only solution to porpoising... Ross Brawn himself said that there are aero solutions and that he is waiting for the engineers to find them and how varied those innovations might be.
There are many solutions yes, the problem is finding one that doenst slow the car down. No porpoising but slower is not an option for f1 teams, they'll rather run the car hopping around, if its faster.
Well McLAren seems to have found a good solution.
@@Vittinable This is exactly true and down to the teams to find the best solution to keep performance while maintaining stability. F1 is all about engineering solutions and which teams are able to capitolise on innovations over the rest of the field.
@@edenjung9816 Exactly. Now it is for McLaren to keep that balance and secret and for the rest of the field to work it out.
Ross Brawn will ban an innovation if teams aren’t true to his “vision” what is acceptable. Lol
2:20 - "It wouldn't eradicate the problem - it's physics - but it would certainly help manage it."
- James Key, McLaren Technical Director.
2:35 - "It appeals to engineers because it not only eliminates the problem but also allows..."
- The Race's script writer... Surely the same script writer who had written in James Key's quote telling you that no, it won't eliminate the problem.
It's The Race. Par for the course.
i think it would be cool to see active suspension again, however i think its a bit late for this year, maybe if the teams cant solve porposing then it would come in around 23/24
How about the FRIC system used for mercedes a couple of years ago? it should fix the problem and be easier to implement
I personally like the idea of not optimizing every single corner of any track with the active system. The give and take will show in the results on race day among the teams.
@@vince.navarrete I'm with you. Honestly, I think things should be more in the driver's hands vs automated things. Take away driving modes. Replace it with only manually deployed ers. Drs, everywhere for everyone.
@@loganlachance1890 so in your eyes. The conditions arent already hectic enough so you want the drivers to manage 33 seconds of ERS on their own and drs too? DRS is there to help overtaking. If you could use it all the time then it becomes redundant.
@@Levitius_ it would certainly make things more interesting.
To save cost a jointly developed active suspension system would be amazing. Also a great new approach to solve engineering tasks in Formula 1...
That would push the sport closer into the realms of a same-spec series.
@@Nemoticon than maybe develop one together and then each team is free to improve it as the want it.
@@Nemoticon at least we would see which driver is fastest.
I don’t think it’s needed. Let the teams dial it out and the teams, like McLaren, that designed cars that porpoise less should reap the rewards.
Also, F1 are already talking about slowing cars down. This would certainly make them quicker this forcing F1 to slow them down. Seems like an oxymoron
Active suspension would both reduce the importance of the driver and make the racing worse.
As a side thing, I think one benefit of the new regulations is that the cars and tires are stiffer, making them less capable of making grip over curbing. This will make track limits less of an issue because a well designed curb will convince the drivers not to drive on it because it costs them time. Currently they either have to resort to dangerously big curbing that will likely break something or just painting a line and telling drivers not to pass it. I don't like either of those last two options.
Active suspension will get rid of that last benefit of stiff cars as the teams will be able to make the car compliant over curbing.
Thats why they should use gravel...
@@Chuckiele not a good idea..it would penalize the cars behind as well
@@RandomTheories wat?
@@Chuckiele I think he meant that the gravel would spill over to the track and hamper the cars behind the one that went over
@@LazloRTR didnt thought that I would need to explain that so thank you 🙂
I would love to see a video about this years new suspensions. We’ve seen a lot about the new aero, but almost nothing about the suspensions, even though they’re as big a part of these new rules as the aero
Difficulties that teams run into when trying to design new cars for new rules is not the FIA's problem, they've changed too many rules over the past few years because someone complained after someone else discovered something clever.
I like the idea of high pressure air suspension as that will compress to w point then lock out preventing porpoising from taking place without the need for active suspension
honestly, whatever will make the racing better and closer would be better no matter what!
I don't see teams being able to put together similar performing kits with the payout and funding being so skewed. Properly setting ride height so that the aero stops stalling sounds like a cheaper and easier solution.
This is supposed to be the highest form of racing and they can't figure out how to stop cars from porpoising yet all other forms of racing can figure it out? Sports cars have this issue NASCAR has this issue plenty of other forms of racing have had this issue and figured it out without active suspension... This is a comment made by a teenager that is getting way too much play!
@@jonlamontagne exactly. Every year during preseason testing, the lmp cars have this issue and by round 1 it's fixed. This is ridiculous for a series that has heave springs and forgiveable legality boxes.
Then you may as well make it a spec series, the teams need to figure it out mechanically. The thing that makes F1 what it is, is the technical wizardry that they do.
@@jonlamontagne different rules I geuss
I am more worried on high speed corners that the car will depend on the floor to make it around the corner. Like Silverstone. What happens if a car is on the limite and the floor stalls out. Car looses downforce and get thrown off the track? I guess time will tell.
It seems as though they are Fine in corners, but we Will have to wait and see
That was the main problem of the original ground effect era…break a skirt and you’re dead…
I believe the cars were only porpoising at near their maximum speed at Barcelona - in excess of 300 km/h. The high speed corners at Silverstone (and turn 3 at Barcelona) are quick but still are significantly slower.
At Monza they may need to raise the ride height or make other changes to the car. Nothing dramatic. I suspect we will have forgotten all about this by the end of the year.
@@zoomosis oh definitely will not even be a footnote by the mid season break. This is just pre-season media blah blah. Like Hamilton's "retirement" lol
The car will take off laterally completely out of control. That is why Ground Effects was banned.
Incidentally I revisited active suspension just a few weeks ago on my channel... so having researched it, my feelings towards it are these: Active ride proved to be a huge performance differentiator in the 90s, with even teams that had active suspension experiencing wildly different performances, which meant that it added nothing to the quality of the racing. It should be down to the teams to figure out new ways to overcome these issues. McLaren have shown it's possible to design a car that doesn't porpoise. Many other teams are well on their way to resolving it entirely as well. It's down to them to rise to the technical challenge. To be totally honest, the mass damper from 2005-6 would be a better option.
Exactly.
F1 is about finding solutions.
And thats what they should do.
Find a solution and not a cheap trick.
No, it would be nice if the FIA weren't so hard nosed and scared of performance improvements and technological innovation instead. Active suspension would be a welcome return and helps push the series forward while keeping it at the very forefront of engineering and innovation as far as cars and motorsports are concerned. Of course it should go without saying that it would need some regulation but regulation is what the FIA is best at, even if the regulations itself and the results don't turn out to be any good.
@@RockSolitude I think it's an innovation that wouldn't add all that much to the show. Having seen how F1 in the early 90s was utterly dominated by Williams, while McLaren, Benetton, Ferrari and Lotus all ran active but were nowhere near... (Mansell was at times 2 seconds quicker than his own teammate let alone the rest of the field!) I don't feel it's the solution. I'd rather just let the teams each sort out their own issues.
@@RockSolitudeactive suspension would just be the new arms race that is all! This would just again lead to the rich getting richer! It is just a trick to fix something that a metal washer could do! This is something ALL forms of racing deal with yet they all have found solutions too! Your solution is like bringing a nuclear weapon to a knife fight. Let's watch how the knife fight goes first before we go to scorched Earth! They had 3 days of practice for the first time ever driving the car. If before the first GP we still are scared F1 could just make a minimum ride height for the rear of the car to stop it from happening just like the teams will do on their own anyway and just like every other form of motorsport that all deal with this same issue. Then work out a way of incorporating in some form of active suspension. But, let's not react to a teenager's comment that is being taken out of context because of limited story lines and drama coming out of the first test! George Russell made an off hand comment that is being blown up and I bet he wishes he never said it because of the traction it is gaining. His team hasn't had the issue and he was speaking in reference to the other teams. I would say it is gaining this much because Merc has some system it can use (Think DAS and their trick rear suspension last year) that this is getting so much play. If Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, and another team or two gave any support to this I would be more intrigued but this is not even being talked about by the other teams in the media. Aston, Ferrari, and Alpine all 3 teams most "affected" by this haven't backed this so it is not worth as much attention as we have given it!
you're mistaking the use of mass damper. mass damper is used to keep constant height of aerodynamic unlike active suspension that keep constant height of the car. mass damper would only be good for the solid suspension 2000s car aero
The more 'fun' question would be "Who is demanding active suspension most loudly?" Those teams could be the ones in most trouble.
Let's not be making rule changes already, especially if that results in a less interesting season and unfair costs for teams that don't need it but would have to develop the system to keep up.
I absolutely think active suspension shouldn't come back into F1. There are ways the teams can stop their cars porpoising, they just don't want to do it because the performance of the car will be reduced, but that's part of the challenge. Some of the best engineers in the world want an easy fix, come on.
nope, porpoising is the effect that came with ever aggressive ground effect solution that even highly skilled engineer struggles. thats why its easier for active suspension to come back for engineers rather than struggle multiple years to fix a single problem and probably messing up other areas of the car
Engineers aren't magicians. There are physical limits to these problems, and active suspensions solve this and many more issues. They might actually prove to save money in the future because it solves so many issues that require development. Don't forget development is time and money.
Active suspension also makes the cars easier to drive. These are the best drivers in the world, the cars should be hard to drive.
I'm hoping cars will be avoiding the curbs with ground effects. I'd love to see cars compete once again between the painted lines.
Every engineer good or bad wants the easiest fix cause we are lazy
@@existentialTreat6 lmao
I would love active suspension to be developed at the highest level so the tech could become cheaper for production cars.
They could also bring back a simplified version of the interconnected hydraulic suspension they had a few years ago
@Hyi Vittu sure it is. It's most effective when every corner of suspension is being compressed
Thank you very much.
Very interesting article.
I believe Ross Brawn has it spot on!
It's 100% up to the teams to sort it.
Relying on certain types of technology (in the wrong way) would impede the interconnectivity between engineers, drivers and designers.
It's truly a team sport.
I wish they brought active suspension back and let the engineers have more freedom. I like the new rules and the new cars and I'm happy to see so many different designs, but I do wish there was even more playground for the teams.
your channel is most active f1 related channel in last 3 months when we all need more content about f1 in new era of f1 thanks for yours great work
They could do it and then sell it as something as race developed since many of the manufactures offer such things in their road cars. Nice video. Keep up the good work.
the "retro style" score card at the 4 minute mark is a very nice touch, i grew up w/ those when F1 was still on regular TV
Active suspension should only come back of teams are unable to fix porpoiseing by other means, and if it were to come back it should be a homologated component and not be actively developed.
By the way, doesn't that mean they aren't allowed to improve the design and submit it to FIA then?
I think this is the other way around: Teams want a reliable but also quality parts for their car, so the proposal to create one could also be one way for the other teams to develop them behind the scene.
@@kohikappu because of the cost cap having teams actively developing something like an active suspension system would be a really bad idea. teams would probably have the ability to suggest improvements but honestly it is probably highly unlikely we will ever see active suspension again in f1
The only reason this is being brought up is because Mercedes don't seem to know how to figure it out with aero...
True, this is why Russel shouts about it being a "safety concern" and that active suspension is the only fix
@@ringdingding7663 Yeah, changing the regulations now just because some teams are having issues is not fair on the teams who spent money on finding a solution, especially considering the cost cap
If things like active sospension and mass dampers can help out, by all means go for it. Ground effect cars always were a rough ride, and drivers have to be looked after.
However, if the FIA doesn't want teams to exploit this, they should standardize it, like they did with the wheel covers
@@TheJackOfAllTrades777 I think that driver safety has to be taken into consideration, instead of performance. The floor can be damaged, and if it's bad enough it can be seriously dangerous for the drivers
FIA wants cars to be slower. Pirelli tires also wants F1 cars to be slower.
The only people who want to go faster are the drivers, fans, and engineers. Ross Brawn could give 2 shi+s about how porpoising makes the car slower....because thats exactly what he wants.
@@DJUwU Teams are gonna make it faster and that's the point, they will go faster even if it becomes less safe, so you might as well components that can offset it.
@@F1ll1nTh3Blanks Its up to FIA to mandate the survival shell updates. To update HALO protocol. The survival shells can only take 1 hit from any direction...they should be able to take 1 hit from EACH direction....
But...FIA/Pirelli won't do the things necessary because they have a monopoly on the sport. Its not like the Bridgestone vs Michelin days where manufactures actually had to try in order for their products to be known as the standard...
FIA finding FIA is at no fault for all of the 2021 race incident decisions should let you know all you need to know about FIA...
“There have been calls for its return, because I CAN OPTION THE TECH ON A DAMN CIVIC!!!”
As the 2022 cars are a fair bit slower for the sake of cleaner air and better racing, active suspension could be a good way to close the gap and keep the speeds as high as they used to be while still having closer racing
Active suspension is common in most high end road cars. Thus if the common car can use it F1 should allow it.
Trading off performance with stability has always been an important part of car setup and I can see no reason why we should remove this from the equation. Active ride was fascinating however my vote is to leave it banned. Teams will always cite safety issues when they want to find more performance. If they really cannot make their cars safe, maybe they shouldn't be on the F1 grid?!
One alternative to active suspension I can think of would be to use position sensitive damping such that it would prevent the car from going further into the travel at certain velocities/frequency. Kindof like an extended version of hydraulic bump stops. One option would be to switch them on and off perhaps linked to the DRS toggle since the problem mostly occurs on straights.
They don’t need active suspension. Just let them have ‘fric’ back, or full decoupled hydraulic. Doesn’t need to be full active, just the ultimate reactive suspension
The only point i see for bringing back active suspensions is the 2022 regulations fail at producing close racing. Then we might want active suspension in a "DRS fashion": the car behind can use the active susp (or use "more of it") under certain conditions to allow it to follow closer in the corners.
No please no!
The funny thing is that a simple inerter in the suspension should make it pretty easy to tune out the porpoising. But even that's banned.
I posted this exact idea on the Formula 1 Reddit a few weeks ago because of these reasons, but everyone said this is a dumb idea and just made fun of me.
I think Active Suspension should be reintroduced in '26. It is a really interesting and advanced technology and would be nice to see Formula 1 go one more step into the future.
You're asking the impossible from F1 and the FIA here.
All they need to do is develop a common hydraulic heave system much like the ones some of the teams were using up until last year. Set the perimeters to simply control ride height and speeds above 150-160 mph were the porpoising is most severe. Any team experiencing it under that speed will have to figure out how to stop it in other ways.
In the first ground-effect era the solution was to use solid suspension stops on the car, that stopped the car from bottoming but put ridiculously high stresses on the chassis and suspension and sent brutal shocks through the drivers body. Alan Jones retired because he was worried about developing spinal problems from the stiff ride.
Active suspension also makes driving safer... If all teams run the system it will make the car mor stable through corners and reduce chances of spins
You know what else would make driving safer? Not having a driver. You wouldn't want that, and I wouldn't want a computer controlling the asset of the car
@@hardware64 That is a strawman, nobody wants self driving f1 cars. The suspension is not even something the driver directly controls. Traction control, ABS and such systems that alter the drivers inputs are banned and should stay banned. Active suspension does not take away from driver talent.
@@EirikHaug Did you miss the "stop reading the behaviour of the car and just diving in the corner trusting the active suspension to do its job" part of the video?
@@hardware64 No i did not. Active suspension makes the car more predictable and stable, and therefore easier to drive, yes. But its a LONG way from not putting a driver in the car because it drives itself.
@@EirikHaug I didn't mean to put them in the same plane, it's a step in that direction though.
If the FIA compromised over Active Suspension, by introducing a standard system for all the teams, it would mean that nobody would have an edge in terms of spending and it would only act in terms of minimising the aerodynamic bouncing when the cars get too close to the ground. It would be like the systems that help keep the Eurofighter Typhoon in the air (it's so unstable by design, to enable agility, that no human could react fast enough to counteract the forces on it)
The eurofighter problem is much harder, this one is relatively much more simple, since a suspension is such simple system in control.
I think Mercedes allready developed an active suspension system,they send George to say that it's necessary so they will have the upper hand when it's brought back.
They can't it's actually banned
Maybe you think too much.
Yawn
I just commented this topic in Formula 1 new top 10 videos and I really think that it is a great idea not only for faster cars but safer as well
Sounds like mercedes struggling with it and thats my guess why theyre calling for it to be allowed
The push for active suspension is an overreaction. The cars are brand new and teams will dial this problem out. If there is a performance cost, then that’s a limitation of the new formula, but all signs are pointing to these cars soon being quicker than 2021. Teams like McLaren should reap the rewards of designing a car for which this is less of a problem.
Active ride height with just 1 actuator could be a happy compromise. No need for full on 4 wheel active.
A spec active suspension would be great. So everyone is on the same page and drivers stay safe
They’ll get on top of it. They’ll learn why the underfloor is stalling and be better able to control the flow by designing the floor differently
I might get shot down for this, but my memory tells me that while Lotus did indeed have active suspension (no springs at all, just hydraulics and electronics), the Williams still had conventional springs. What it had instead of active suspension was ride height control or reactive suspension, the job of which was to control both the ride height and alter the car's attitude under braking and acceleration in order to maximise performance.
Put in solid links for the suspension with dampers that hold the chassis at the optimum height for the ground effect to work
Teams would be able to use active suspension as DRS, adjusting rake on the fly to deliberately stall parts of the floor and diffuser on the straights for minimum drag, while still having maximum downforce in the corners.
There are a lot of calls for previously banned components or concepts to make a concept in F1 or possibly even a spinoff subsidiary like Group-B. Most of the calls are for ones that make racing safer however.
Initially I thought active suspension might me a solution if it was a spec design used by all teams. But the more I think about it, we like to see innovation in F1 and not having active suspension forces teams to innovate to find solutions to the porpoising problem.
Okay, maybe I am looking at this in a very simple manner, but as the stalling of the floor that causes the porpoising effect is because the rear of the car gets to close to the road, why not simply add an adjustable bump stop to the suspension so that the cars minimum rear ride height can be set dependant on the race track and level of porpoising effect. So when the car gets porpoising you can limit how low the rear will get to the road surface, but it can be adjusted to adapt to driver and track. Obviously this would be manually set during practice and become fixed for the race, maybe later it could be electronically altered so that as conditions change so could the ride height limiter, but then the risk of adaptive behaviour being sneaked in could cause an issue. Re-introducing active suspension would risk taking things backwards and creating one dominant team, we want to see close racing and less one or two horse races.
Would be awesome to see F1 cars with all the tech of the FW14B (with modern day computing). With this said, it would be quite a big undertaking to include active suspension
The real problem would only be that if the development costs prevent certain teams from implementing it when others could, we would end up with some very dominant teams leaving everyone else in the dust. That is, until everyone could focus development on it
It would be nice, on the condition that this doesn't become a backdoor means for big teams like Mercedes or Ferrari to gain a significant competitive advantage again.
(As a very rough example: The team with access to the greatest pool of computing power could make the very best map for training their suspension which could give them the 0.1 seconds per lap needed to keep a rival behind them.)
And yes, in theory the difference in capability between rival teams like Merc and Red Bull would be smaller than teams that weren't really competing like Merc and Williams. But think about the sheer size of Mercedes and you begin to see how much they could bring to bear there.
You could just impose a bunch of arbitrary limits on computing and simulations like the FIA does for everything else in F1.
I'll give Russell credit for trying to put other drivers' safety first.
Yeah, because what's safer than a suspension system that can collapse on itself with any given number of system failures?
A solid solution might be physical design changes and new aero parts, solutions that may be too late to work on for this year. If so this would be the only reason why active suspension should be reintroduced for this year
I know the regulations don't allow movable Aero (except DRS), but wouldn't it be cool, if you could stall the diffuser on demand? On the straight you don't really need the downforce anyway and it would also prevent porpoising...
porpoises is one problem with this car in track like monza with long straight other problem with this cars come from some track with lot of kerbs like Canada and other with bumpi surface like COTA
Driving in this track can easily damage under body or even suspension, and damage to gearbox is more than before in this season with cust caps f1 must helps team to get over this problems don't forget main reason for changing the car was for safety reasons but with all things I said driving with this cars on the limits will be more dangerous than before
Active suspension with a controlled elements makes sense, make setting up the car much easier in the garage.
I think you missed an important point.... simulation and wind tunnels didn't highlight the issue so they will not help to solve the issue it needs track time which is limited and expensive.
While active suspension would fix the issue it would certainly be expensive as hell to make. I feel the active mass damper would be a cheeper and quicker choice to implement on current designs.
I think they should permit active suspension and allow teams to change the suspension when getting to certain straights. Maybe it even is possible to make this a standard part, so smaller teams don't have to spent tons of money to develop it
(He literally says the last part in the video xD)
I would give up DRS for active suspension...
I like restrictions in some races, but nerfing the "ultimate" (lol) motorsport to less than production car standards seems dumb and why I couldnt care less about F1. They have no idea how much they damage their own sport.
Or; They (the teams) could simply set the car up better (bump stops equivalent), Vent the undercarriage at highly susceptible tracks. Or the FIA could simply re-allow a higher rake. All of these solve the porpoising problem without active suspension. Setups are always having to change for each track, this is just another variable to balance.
Could they do a spec setup?
I know back in the day Williams were so dominant because theirs was by far and away the best and it mainly got banned because Ferrari couldn't work it out, although it was sold as a cost-cutting exercise that was rushed through (which then resulted in the mess that was 1994).
Don't know how it'd work given the different pick up points/mounts/etc for each team.
I believe the teams knew about Proposing during development. Its something you cant get in a wind tunnel though and can only happen under real world conditions. They most likely made assumption on how the car would behave and once they hit the track they knew if they got it or not.
No changes should be made. It’s a tough problem that the teams should sort out, and those teams who bring a better solution should be rewarded
Similar to running your tyres are different camber and toe angles. Go beyond what the tyre can handle and it explodes, that's on you
My first season was 1993, aged nine. As a techie, autistic sort of person, to have the driver aids wrenched away from me after just one season was most distressing…particularly as 1994 was an absolute disaster all round, directly because of banning those aids in a hurry…
I heard that the mass damper could also help with this issue although I don’t know enough about aero to actually back it up. maybe that’s a cheaper solution to this. However, I also agree with the people who think that it’s good teams are struggling with issues because it might produce better racing.
If this is a safety issue I don’t think there’s any question that it should come back. And if they’ve all got equal footing on it and it overdetermines the aero balance of the car, a really important differentiation point, in theory it should improve competition.
If someone at Mercedes is suggesting reintroducing something in order to “solve a problem” for “everyone”, you can safely bet that they mean reintroducing Weill either help them negate an advantage held by other teams who are not as affected by porpoising or because it will give them an advantage.
Yes bring it back and for all teams, surely the Fia looked back at previous ground effect cars and the drawback incurred by cars at that time, this could be a version designed to control the problems of todays cars and not the corner suspension
I would love to se active suspension in F1. But here's the twist, I don't want any system that essentially let the car know where it is on track, for anything which naturally include suspension. A car should be able to drive on any road at any time, without having to "learn" it's way around first - that is what the driver is for. So I guess what I want is rather "reactive" suspension. Active in that it's electronically controlled hydraulics, but not proactive as it should only be allowed live feed inputs.
Is variable spring rate allowed? I'm assuming not. Seems to be this would be a very simple way to allow teams to counteract a large amount of the porpoising problem while adding very little complexity. If the spring rate rises significantly the lower the car is, you can get to the point where you can't stall the underfloor because you can't overcome the spring force to do so.
I keep hearing the term ‘ ground effect’ cars. Aren’t all f1 cars use the floor as downforce? Whats the difference this year to last year
McLaren seemed to solve porpoising issues with the front of their floor creating big vortices sealing the floor, whereas everyone else had done little with the floor.
Honestly I'd rather see FRIC get another go instead of the active suspension from the 90s.
Or, they just deal with it and deal with the cars being slower. That is the whole point of this stuff, to see how far you can push the car before it has issues.
Would it be possible for them to put a bump stop on the current suspension to keep the car from bottoming out?
I think it could have been solved easily by allowing the teams access to the heave spring damper that was outlawed for 2022, same with inerters.
Imagine. F1 today could have abs, traction control, active suspensions and for wheel steering. How cool would that be !
Not at all. All those things reduce the impact of the drivers skill. It would make it so much less about being a good driver, and 100% about the car.
I've thought for a long time they should allow things like frics back, let the teams try and gain performance from mechanical grip instead of relying heavily on aero. Active suspension though is a little too far.
The reintroduction of either active suspension or mass dampeners would solve the problem of porpoising that is experienced with ground effect cars. As a mechanical engineer, the pitch sensitivity that is introduced with ground effect cars is widely known. I think the reintroduction of a mass dampener would be the most cost-beneficial solution, as a complete redesign of the car would not be warranted. However, there is an incurred cost as the internal cooling, electronic, KERS and engine ad transmission packaging is optimized. The other secondary effect of the reintroduction of active suspension systems is that the car would be fully optimized for the entire lap and therefore greatly reduce the lap time. That would cause some F1 circuits to become too dangerous, as the cars would be too fast for the current safety technology that is employed at tracks. This is a problem that MotoGP may soon face with the advancement in downforce generating aerodynamics, sophisticated engine electronics and mapping, hole-shot devices, ride-height devices for corner exit and straights. The only problem holding back MotoGP bikes is the tire technology and the fact that they still spin up the rear wheel at over 320 km/h.
Keep up the good work guys, No. 1 - F1 channel!!!!!
I love coming home after college and having one of these videos to listen to while unpacking.
team lotus 63-78 dominant era + 50 victories from clark, hill, andretti, de angelus, senna, piquet, hakkinen & herbert
I still feel like a tuned mass damper could be the answer to this whole problem.
What about the Mass damper? Wouldn't that solve it too?
I'm wondering why is not suggested a "regulated/balanced suspension" rather than active suspension. I mean why couldn't drivers have a button in the wheel that help then to regulate suspension as they do with DRS, battery energy, brake balance, engy maps and so on? F1 could define a rule where drivers could only setup 3 or possible suspension setup before race and then drivers can select during race. That approach will make drivers and teams more competitive, won't they?
I would say impossible without touching the budget cap. And only if it would has to be a standard component for all the same.
Bringing back active suspension is such a terrible idea. For starters it would make driving the cars way too easy compared to now. Secondly it would be dangerous as speeds would increase drastically.
Its good that some teams are struggling with the new aerodynamics on the flip side look at the McClaren it looks like a really smart bit of design as they seem to be the furthest along at dealing with the porpoising.
I don't understand why active suspension was outlawed anyway, It's a genuine clever solution and should be developed further.
While it is an optimum solution, maybe a venting of the floor controlled by the driver would be more of a challenge. Just as a pilot of a plane must trim the wings for a good flight, maybe a driver would have to trim the floor to give the most optimum drive and grip. More technology that becomes part of the car's auto system does not necessarily improve driving or racing. I'm not sure how sustained G-force drivers can take, but human bodies have physical limits that likely encroach on.
I never thought I'd hear Edd say "yump." This has made my day. XD
It only needs a basic early Lotus style Active system to cure porpoising and not the dominating William's set up from the 90s.
Might as well allow Traction Control and ABS if you legalise Active suspension
Sounds good to me. Traction control already tacitly exists in F1 anyway because the FIA didn't want differential development to become a thing. They saw it as a cheaper and easier solution (one which the teams were silently half-using anyway).
really great job with the video...every question that i had was addressed. I like the concept of few gadgets in racing. Is F1 less fun to watch if the cars are going at their ABSOLUTE fastest? I don't think so. Good racing can be had while driving 5% slower.
Sounds very expensive. A new issue formula 1 will face is budget limits. If something like active suspension is introduced, which is a huge money pit, teams will push to keep the development in budget aswell as push performance, resulting in a double wahmy for safety compromise