Poll: Canadian Grand Prix 2022, Montreal - Race 9

Rate the 2022 Canadian Grand Prix out of ten


  • Total voters
    95
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Associate
Joined
29 Oct 2019
Posts
795
That's a poor example, tyres are identical for everybody. The teams don't design the tyres it's outside of their control, the complete opposite of the porpoising situation.

And if it is health and safety you are so worried about then get Mercedes to change their car/set up. The 9 other teams are managing it, yet the rules need to change mid-season? For one team who refuses to take responsibility for how THEY are pushing their own drivers' health?

Sorry but the rules are the same for everyone, Mercedes only care about performance and are using the excuse of health to try and keep some semblance of performance.

I have no issue with new rules regarding this for next season, but to change it mid-season for one team? You can see why the other team principles are not happy.
They design the car around the tyres and changing them affected the pecking order because they can't redesign them overnight. The other 9 teams are not managing it, drivers from all teams have complained.
 
Associate
Joined
2 Jul 2004
Posts
1,305
What mid season rule changes have there been before out of interest?
Quali mode is the one that annoyed me, merc were too good with it and others campaigned to get it banned mid season successfully.
Now all of a sudden they are crowing if you haven't done a good enough job its your own fault and you cannot change the rule mid-season. What changed?
The goal posts keep moving.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Posts
4,316
Location
Location, Location!
They design the car around the tyres and changing them affected the pecking order because they can't redesign them overnight. The other 9 teams are not managing it, drivers from all teams have complained.

I fully expect the drivers to complain, that does not mean the same as them being in favour of mid-season rule changes.

And why do so many team principles disagree with Mercedes?
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2003
Posts
13,378
Location
Chengdu
There are many here who could never say a bad word about Mercedes, ever. Understandable I guess.
When you have other team principals raising eyebrows at things they are doing though, maybe you can accept a little that Merc are the same as every other team. A holes.
They were definitely in the know about the technical directive before it was announced.
 
Associate
Joined
29 Oct 2019
Posts
795
They were definitely in the know about the technical directive before it was announced.
This is merely speculation and very likely nothing more than a distraction, Binotto was complaining about the former Mercedes employee joining before this even happened. A floor stay isn't exactly the most complicated thing to manufacture and it would make sense that they already had it if they had been asking for it to be approved.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jun 2004
Posts
2,576
What mid season rule changes have there been before out of interest?

Mid season rule changes aren't unusual.

As has been mentioned you've had the requirement to use a fixed engine mode from qually onwards, FRIC was banned mid-season (which also affected Mercedes the most), the x-wing sidepod wings, Bridgestone via Ferrari had the Michelin front tyres outlawed mid-season for having too wide a contact patch despite them being used for 18 months. Though not a mid-season rule change the 2021 cars were meant to have been a continuation of the 2020 cars but changes were made to the rear of the floor which affected the low rake cars the most. Mass dampers went mid-season as well, presumably because Ferrari couldn't get theirs to work so they complained.
 
Associate
Joined
21 Jul 2005
Posts
1,520
Location
New York
If a team has done a good enough job to limit the porpising then this rule change won't affect them.

No driver or team should be in the position of having to make a choice between driver health and speed
 
Associate
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
513
Location
Sussex
how about the merc FRIC, the front and rear connected suspension, that was banned mid season iirc
not safety issue, just clarifying rules and performance differences to the wining team
horner is so 2 faced its a wonder he still has a good site occasionally.

now a safety issue is effecting some teams more then others and drivers want the regulating body the fia to intervene - quite rightly imo.
all they need to do is come up with a quantifiable number and say if drive is experiencing more then this amount of g force/ vibration then you must rise the ride hight/change setup until you reduce the problem
teams will then soon find ways to keep the numbers within spec and safer for the drivers
then next year you tighten the numbers slightly and problem becomes solved. if teams are bouncing they are forced to give up performance.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
15,441
Location
London
If a team has done a good enough job to limit the porpising then this rule change won't affect them.

No driver or team should be in the position of having to make a choice between driver health and speed
The problem with what the FIA has done so far is that the teams will still aim to be on the edge of the acceptable number. Here you go George, drive with a 2g bounce, but not a 2.5g bounce. I'm sure we have enough research available to know that 0.5g less will save you from a long term spinal injury... err not :rolleyes:

The problem with the drivers is that alot of them aren't going to want to rock the boat. Everyone's been in a position where they don't want to cause a fuss at work.. Put that into a multi-billion dollar sport where you're in a seat where there's literally an entire paddock of guys queuing up behind you to take it if you don't perform. If the team gets an inkling you're making excuses or they feel you're making the designers/engineers/team's lives more difficult, well it's not helpful is it. That's why I think it actually is important that Toto is standing up for this on behalf of the drivers.

Honestly, just ditch these stupid cars already.. :o
 
Caporegime
Joined
19 May 2004
Posts
26,767
Location
Nordfriesland, Germany
The limit is rather more likely to be set at 0.5g (which would also hit RB) than 2g. But the limit is also intended as a temporary fix while they work out a better solution, although that may not come until next year. I thought the restrictions on suspension were OTT but they've turned out to be much worse than I expected.
 
Associate
Joined
21 Jul 2008
Posts
1,585
Location
Outside the asylum
Just out of curiosity, I had a quick look at the HSE site which summarises the UK's The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 as:
  • Exposure action value of 0.5 m/s2 A(8) at which level employers should introduce technical and organisational measures to reduce exposure.
  • Exposure limit value of 1.15 m/s2 A(8) which should not be exceeded.
If you look at the Regulations themselves it presents the 'A(8)' exposure calculation method which takes account of exposure time per day or week, and also includes a vibration frequency weighting (presumably as some frequencies do more damage than others).

So under UK Law at least, it seems permissible to exceed the 0.5 and 1.15 ms-2 values if it's not 'all day'.

If the FIA are going to follow the same sort of methodolgy (and do teams not have to comply with local legislation anyway?) it's not going to be as simple as just measuring g; exposure time and vibration frequencies will also be needed. It will be interesting to see how this is actually implemented and policed, as there are some potentially bonkers outcomes.
 

EVH

EVH

Don
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
30,167
Location
Wales
The irony is Mercedes wanted a universal ride height bump but the FIA mandated an extra stay (to stiffen the floors). In a way, it's hurt Mercedes as they tried the extra stay and it didn't seem to make much difference.

All the political shenanigans are par for the course of F1. Like RB's flexi wings, McLaren's F-duct, Ferrari's definitely legal engine, honest guv and Merc's DAS.... no team are happy to give up an advantage and no one wants to accept they've got it wrong at design stage, so we end up in a weird middle ground where the moaners win :o
 

EVH

EVH

Don
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
30,167
Location
Wales
Just out of curiosity, I had a quick look at the HSE site which summarises the UK's The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 as:
  • Exposure action value of 0.5 m/s2 A(8) at which level employers should introduce technical and organisational measures to reduce exposure.
  • Exposure limit value of 1.15 m/s2 A(8) which should not be exceeded.
If you look at the Regulations themselves it presents the 'A(8)' exposure calculation method which takes account of exposure time per day or week, and also includes a vibration frequency weighting (presumably as some frequencies do more damage than others).

So under UK Law at least, it seems permissible to exceed the 0.5 and 1.15 ms-2 values if it's not 'all day'.

If the FIA are going to follow the same sort of methodolgy (and do teams not have to comply with local legislation anyway?) it's not going to be as simple as just measuring g; exposure time and vibration frequencies will also be needed. It will be interesting to see how this is actually implemented and policed, as there are some potentially bonkers outcomes.
Indeed... those values are absolute too so they will in trouble if they exceed the ELV (exposure limit value) and be in breach of the regulations.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
36,673
Ferrari have concerns about a former advisor to Toto Wolff being appointed to the FIA?

Well it's good job that a former Ferrari team principal was never appointed as the FIA president then, or that a former Ferrari team principal was never appointed to be the CEO of the Formula One Group.

:rolleyes:
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Jan 2008
Posts
5,349
Location
Manchester
Just out of curiosity, I had a quick look at the HSE site which summarises the UK's The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 as:
  • Exposure action value of 0.5 m/s2 A(8) at which level employers should introduce technical and organisational measures to reduce exposure.
  • Exposure limit value of 1.15 m/s2 A(8) which should not be exceeded.
If you look at the Regulations themselves it presents the 'A(8)' exposure calculation method which takes account of exposure time per day or week, and also includes a vibration frequency weighting (presumably as some frequencies do more damage than others).

So under UK Law at least, it seems permissible to exceed the 0.5 and 1.15 ms-2 values if it's not 'all day'.

If the FIA are going to follow the same sort of methodolgy (and do teams not have to comply with local legislation anyway?) it's not going to be as simple as just measuring g; exposure time and vibration frequencies will also be needed. It will be interesting to see how this is actually implemented and policed, as there are some potentially bonkers outcomes.

If you're going to use local laws how are you going to calculate the exposure? Lets use merc as an example, located in UK and race here once a year. The drivers are only exposed for 3 days for about 3hrs per day. You could argue that the few hrs in 3 days over 12 months is not excessive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom