Well, CFD, wind tunnel, and running sim work is different, and it depends on what the issue is that determines which is used to attempt to solve the issue. The car is allegedly a beast in the simulator, where porpoising doesn’t happen at all. Sim work mostly tests setup work, like spring rates, damper response/rebound curves, alignment specs, etc. They are limited on wind tunnel time (it is a sliding scale based on constructors standings, taken at two points during a calendar year), but the rest they can still do as much as they want, as long as it’s all within the salary cap. So, essentially as much as their amount of paid staff can do. The problem with the wind tunnel WRT porpoising is that it’s really hard to simulate the issue due to a few reasons: A) It would damage the “rolling road” belt (its like a huge treadmill) B) You are limited to 180kph in the wind tunnel, which is well below where porpoising happens C) Wind tunnel models are 60% scale, and while many airflow characteristics behave the same on a 60% scale model, not all of them do They ran with a shitload of Kiel probes on the car in testing, so they can measure the aero load at the time the porpoising occurs and it will give them an idea of what to try to alleviate it, but it will take time to develop a mature solution.