Why ‘unfair’ F1 porpoising rule change needs to be looked at

The battle lines over a potential rule change in Formula 1 to help dial out the porpoising nightmare that many are suffering have become clear.

On one side are a section of drivers who are fed up of the battering they are getting from their cars constantly bouncing and bottoming out on tracks. They feel that the way the current rules are framed forces them (for competitive reasons) to go with the low ride-height super stiff setup that means an inevitable bit of pain.

On the other side of the debate are the teams whose cars are not so prone to the phenomenon and, through good engineering or sheer good luck, have dialled out the problem so it has not become an issue for them. They argue that everyone is operating to the same rule book, so just because some teams have not managed to get on top of matters, it would be unfair to penalise them with a rule change that would wipe away the legitimate advantage they have right now.

The arguments on both sides of the debate have genuine merit – for both safety and sporting equity are important values in F1. And it is that very fact of two core principles being at the heart of the issue that makes the outcome not so easy to plot – for there is inevitably going to have to be some compromise.

What’s important to understand straight away though is that the drivers complaints are not some political stunt aimed at getting an immediate change of the rules to haul the bouncing teams back into contention.

George Russell, who is a director of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association (GPDA), may have a vested interest in finding ways to help his Mercedes team get some assistance in curing the W13’s problems, but his comments to both the FIA and the media are not about ripping up the rule book immediately. Were he and his Mercedes team playing their political cards then Russell’s calls for debate on the matter would have been followed up by strong backing for immediate change from his bosses.

Instead, Mercedes’ senior management are quite level-headed about the whole thing.

As Mercedes trackside engineering director Andrew Shovlin said when asked about the issue: “I think this [ground effect] formula will always be less comfortable than the big suspension travel that we used to have at the rear.

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes W13

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

“But from our point of view, as a team, and as an engineering organisation, we need to look at who's done the best job and make sure we're at that level, rather than looking to the FIA to try and help us out, because any change in the rules will not be overnight.

“And also from a regulatory point of view, it's very difficult to do significant changes at this stage of the season. So the team's focus is very much on solving our issues. But you know, we are very sympathetic to the issue for drivers have.”

Red Bull team boss Christian Horner is right that an immediate rule change to help the porpoising sufferers would be unfair on the teams that aren’t suffering problems. However, the sport’s history is full of examples where intervention on certain rules or technical aspects has come from outside to hold back runaway teams or do something for the greater good of the pitlane.

As Ferrari’s Carlos Sainz said: “Is it necessary to F1 to have 20 drivers at the end of each race with back issues?

You only need to rewind back to the start of this season when a number of outfits (including Red Bull) lobbied the FIA to get the minimum weight increased when it became clear a majority of teams had ended up with too bulky designs.

The eventual change was harsh on Alfa Romeo, which had put a lot of effort in to hit the original mark perfectly. But, in the end, compromise and bigger picture thinking won in averting an all-out spending war.

It is just the latest example of numerous examples where intervention has happened that has been unfair on a minority.

Think mass dampers, double diffusers, flexi-wings, blown diffusers, qualifying engine modes, cuts to the floor to reduce downforce, the floor strakes for this year. The list goes on and on….

Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB18

Photo by: Red Bull Content Pool

There are occasions where what’s good for F1 as a whole has to take precedent over the fortunes of a small number of teams. And that even counts when only competitiveness at stake, for the FIA has long had a rule that allows for any significant advantage that a team has got from some clever idea to be outlawed.

Article 1.5 of F1’s technical regulations states that: “Any new system, procedure or technology not specifically covered by these regulations, but which is deemed permissible by the FIA Formula One Technical Department, will only be admitted until the end of the championship during which it is introduced.

“Following this the Formula One Commission will be asked to review the technology concerned and, if they feel it adds no value to Formula One in general, it may be specifically prohibited by the FIA.

“Any team whose technology is prohibited in this way will then be required to publish full technical details of the relevant system or procedure.”

The reference about adding ‘value’ to F1 is an intriguing one here, and should certainly be central to any discussions over the next few months about whether or not porpoising cars is something that grand prix racing thinks is healthy for the sport (less alone the drivers enduring the back pain).

The real issue at stake here is more about the bigger picture of F1 over the next three or four years until the next car concept comes into play in 2026.

Does F1, both its team and its drivers, really want to face several campaigns where there is this constant battle between competitiveness and comfort, where drivers are forced to put up with something that is not being helped by the limited freedom that teams have within the regulations to cure it? As Ferrari’s Carlos Sainz said: “Is it necessary to F1 to have 20 drivers at the end of each race with back issues?

Carlos Sainz, Ferrari F1-75

Photo by: Ferrari

“My personal opinion is that with the technology that there is nowadays why do we need to carry this painful situation into our careers, when you can put a really easy solution to it?

“So it's more a matter of is it really worth it? Like, is it necessary when there's possibly a very easy solution to put in place? I don't think so. I think it's not necessary and we should all, teams included, think about the driver health."

What’s needed then is sensible debate and some detailed discussions between F1’s technical chiefs and the FIA about what can be done. After all, there is no rule that can be put in place that says simply: “Thou shalt not porpoise” because the triggers for it are both aerodynamic and mechanical.

The arguments on both sides of the debate have genuine merit – for both safety and sporting equity are important values in F1

The solution is also not a simple minimum ride height or tougher plank rules to lift all the cars off the floor into an area where the porpoising isn’t a problem. Instead, F1 should look at what improved tools can be given to teams to help them manage the situation better from next year and beyond.

Could it be just going back to the hydraulic actuation suspension systems the previous generation of cars had? Is it about opening the door for active suspension? Is it allowing the return of mass dampers?

An intelligent response like this to get rid of porpoising by next year at the earliest would be a boost to the drivers, could help close up the grid, would help all teams equally and would deliver good value for F1 in not making the sport look like it is stuck with a problem it could not cure in the 1980’s.

There is no reason for F1 not to look to address the problem, and it’s for the FIA to find the solution that satisfies both the team and drivers.

Lando Norris, McLaren MCL36, Fernando Alonso, Alpine A522, Daniel Ricciardo, McLaren MCL36, the remainder of the field at the start

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images