Wolff’s ‘rebound’ and the controversy continues

The controversy over the ‘porpoising’ and rebound of vehicles is far from over. Rather the opposite. It was revived in Canada by the surprising intervention of the FIA ​​before the Grand Prix. The highest body decided to act against ‘porpoising’ announcing a change to the regulations in the middle of the course which did nothing but create intense debate between the teams. After Hamilton and Mercedes put pressure on the FIA, claiming the rebound of cars this year was a safety issue affecting all teams and not just Mercedes, where Lewis exited his car in Baku with clear movements of suffering from severe back pain, the FIA ​​announced that it will evaluate the vertical accelerations of each car, that if it reaches the set maximum, it must rise from the ground at least 10 millimeters , although there is a risk of not being included if the rebound continues. In addition, on that same Thursday it announced that it would allow teams to reduce their bounce by adding a second brace from the lateral area toward the ground to harden the bottom.

The surprise was that on Friday, Mercedes carried that second tie rod to one of its cars, something that raised suspicions because some teams didn’t understand how Mercedes might have reacted so early to the communication. FIA. Some of his opponents doubted whether the star team had been notified before, something Mercedes explicitly denied. Some teams said this second support was illegal, as the FIA ​​had not changed the regulations for Canadian GPs to include that part. He advised its use, but it has not yet been reflected in GP regulations.

Knowing that if they were to use it in qualifying, Mercedes could have used a piece that was actually illegal and could cause them classification due to possible protests by their opponents, the stars decided to remove that second tie rod from the car. . Of course, Toto Wolff didn’t miss the opportunity to add fuel to the fire in his statements, making sure many of his rivals were playing political games with an issue as important as the safety of pilots.

Toto was angry

Just a week ago, some questioned the ailments behind Hamilton and his speech calling for a change to FIA technical regulations for driver safety. Verstappen, Chris Horner or Norris clarified that if a team doesn’t want their vehicle to bounce and be dangerous, they just have to raise it higher off the ground and lose speed. In addition, Horner, boss of Red Bull, and Verstappen consider that changing the rules in the middle of the year is “unfair” and in this way it is about benefiting from “a team that has done worse. work “.

For this reason, in Canada Wolff fired a bullet, making sure, as Hamilton did at the press conference on Friday, that there were drivers who were in front of the cameras not really saying what they thought about rebound of current cars so simply as not in conflict with the political position of their ranks.

“It’s a sport where you’re trying to maintain a competitive advantage or get it. But this situation is over. All the drivers, at least one on each team, said they were in pain after Baku, which they have difficulty.car keeping on track or blurry vision Team managers try to manipulate supposedly maintain competitive advantage and use politics when the FIA ​​tries to make quick repairs to somehow put their vehicles in a better position, it’s not sincere. And that’s what I told them “, Wolff pointed out, annoyed.

“I’m not just talking about Mercedes. In Baku, all cars have suffered in one way or another and continue to do so here. (in Canada, because of potholes). The vehicles are too stiff. The cars bounced, or whatever you want to call it, “ He added.

“Of course, people will doubt whether my position is sincere or not. That’s why I say it’s not just our problem. If a Red Bull driver says he has reached 300 km/h and with these problems ‘you may also lose your sight under braking or not be able to position the car correctly’, as Pérez said, then you will listen to what Sainz is saying, what Ricciardo, Ocon, Magnussen and our two drivers are saying … This is not just a problem for our team. It’s a design issue with ground effect cars that needs to be addressed before we have a worse situation, whatever it is, ”Wolff said, clarifying that the recession was not resolved simply by increasing the cars “because raising them is not. solve the rigidity of aerodynamic natures “.

Mercedes clarified in front of Canada that its problem is no longer the ‘porpising’ (rebound effect caused by the sudden loss and return of the ground effect). If that wasn’t the case when that ‘porpoising’ was solved, when the car’s height was lowered the ground touched the potholes of the Baku and Canada tracks and caused a lot of rebounds. For his part, Ocon highlighted the difference in the Montreal press room: “There are two things. We shouldn’t mix the ‘porpoising’ with the general hardness of the car. Because there are corners where, for example in Monaco, after the tunnel, when I play the piano, I feel hard in my body and it’s not a question of a bounce on the straight. It’s also a hardness of the car in general and it’s not necessarily the porpoising that you have on the straight.

“There are long-term effects that we can’t judge. But at any moment it could be a safety hazard, and pulling small manipulations or instructing pilots is unfortunate,” Wolff concludes.

Horner replied

After Wolff’s words, the response from his Red Bull counterpart didn’t last long. “The problem with the Mercedes is more serious than any other car. I know other drivers are complaining. Our riders have never complained of bouncing. They said that on some circuits it’s good to fix them or re -fix them. release them, ”said the Milton Keynes Team Principal. “But we don’t have any problems with the rebound. The problem is that they’re driving their car too hard. I think the problem is the concept of it, rather than the regulation.”

For his part, Ferrari boss Mattia Binotto has spoken out against the way the FIA ​​tried to solve the porpoising problem before Canada, saying it did not follow proper procedures.