2021 Italian Grand Prix - Monza, Sep 10 - 12

[Tvetovnato]

What a nonsense ...

Lol, OK. Look at the stewards decision and get back again. I also urge you to go onboard with Lewis in Hungary when chasing Alonso and looking at turn two, where Alonso always runs Hamilton out of road when Hamilton is trying the outside move. Lewis has to abort at least a couple of times to avoid a crash. And he does it without whining about it, since it’s common sense for racing drivers with proper schooling.

Since you just need to be right, and apparently don't want to understand the discussion point: you're right, have a beer !

I understand the discussion point perfectly and try to reason, and feel no need to be right. What I feel the need to is to stand up to what is proper and sporting racing behaviour. However, with you cutting me off with no counter arguments other than ”nonsense” and ”have a beer”, it’s probably better to discuss with someone else then.

[langedweil]

So you must believe Max should have been penalised for the incident at the della roggia chicane then?

Not really, because I really hate the charade of penalties for really everything these days. These things, but also things like the 2x 5s for Ham last year because of those starts, the penalty for Nor @Austria. It doesn't do anything for the spectacle ..
Look, this isn't about Max or Ham, it's in general ..

[langedweil]

I understand the discussion point perfectly and try to reason, and feel no need to be right. What I feel the need to is to stand up to what is proper and sporting racing behaviour.

Well, it's you that brings in Hungary while being a complete different, and fully clear scenario; T2 is really 1 corner.

[NathanOlder]

So you must believe Max should have been penalised for the incident at the della roggia chicane then?

Not really, because I really hate the charade of penalties for really everything these days. These things, but also things like the 2x 5s for Ham last year because of those starts, the penalty for Nor @Austria. It doesn't do anything for the spectacle ..
Look, this isn't about Max or Ham, it's in general ..

May I suggest watching Nascar or the British Touring Cars if you want to watch drivers taking lumps out of each other with no penalties. F1 is not like that.

Also you were saying how Lewis was lucky to only get a 10 second penalty for the SIlverstone incident so that would suggest you are not against penalties, more against a driver. You should surely have been arguing how lewis was unlucky with the penalty, not lucky.

[sosic2121]

Imo, that's one of the reasons why Lewis positioned his car the way he did. If Lewis had gone all the way left when he cleared pit exit, then Max would have just gone up the inside. By putting his car close to the middle of the track, Lewis is forcing Max to choose an avenue of attack, and to commit to it. Forcing Max to commit, gives Lewis more options.

I get that .. so he commits to the utter outside (the green), makes the corner with ease and is imho opinion sufficiently alongside for T2 to at least earn some space.
But apparently T1 and T2 now count as one according to the stewards ruling (opposed to Hungary's T2 & T3), and I sincerly think that line of thinking is wrong. It limits racing a step further and is again a step closer to DRS-only overtakes. In that case we might as well put the PU's on the dyno and the chassis in a windtunnel, and decide in March who will be WDC/WCC. Saves a lot of money and time lost as all weekends come back to us.

So you must believe Max should have been penalised for the incident at the della roggia chicane then?

I don't know if he believes that, but I do.

I know that max received his penalty because he was considered to optimistic because he was behind on the approach to the corner, but IMO that line of thinking is false in this particular case due to Lewis coming out of pits, being slower and having less grip due to colder tires...

[langedweil]

Also you were saying how Lewis was lucky to only get a 10 second penalty for the SIlverstone incident so that would suggest you are not against penalties, more against a driver. You should surely have been arguing how lewis was unlucky with the penalty, not lucky.

I'm not against penalties, I'm against stupid penalties for nearly everything, just to fullfill today's days need to always blame something/someone. It's almost matchfixing these days.
Silverstone he was lucky to step away with only 10s and a race win considering what happened; it didn't affect him in the net result.
But I guess you and I will hardly ever agree on anything ..

[Hammerfist]

As for Wolff's tactical foul remark; I highly doubt these two guys would crash on purpose. If however one of then was making an However, both being off and adding zero points deficit by DNF suited both drivers equally. Motive was there for both.

No, it only suited Verstappen. It didn’t suit Hamilton-being ahead in the race and behind in the championship and at the time on course for a three, seven or ten point gain- in the slightest.

Well, that's just being conveniently short-sighted; if Lewis would have given the space desired by Max, Max would/could be ahead, and Lewis would therefore lose even more points (besides the 2 of the sprint). The one guy leading the other one after that corner would have (most likely) gained points, so yes there really was an incentive for both; not just Max. And that is what's making Toto's reasoning of foul play ridiculous at the very least

They were battling for 3th and 4th btw, so it would have been only 3pts; but still 3pts. There was no chance either one of them would take down the McL's ..

I don't think there was no chance for Lewis to get the Mclarens, he did pass Norris at the end of the first stint and with the stickier rubber and lighter fuel I think he had a great shot at passing both of them. Max would have likely finished p4 as the Honda was never making an impression on the Mercedes PU down the straights.

[Gillian]

The Honda PU is fine, drag was a problem for Red Bull.

[Juzh]

The Honda PU is fine, drag was a problem for Red Bull.

Red bull had the least amount of drag of any car this race and they were still losing out early in acceleration, only in top end they were starting to gain back time, but then it was way too late to overtake anyone in a competitive car.

And dont bring me up the rake argument, mclaren has the same or more than red bull and they were quite clearly fastest car on the straight even with like double the wing compared to red bull.

Bottom line is mercedes engine has more outright power and on tracks where everyone runs more or less equally low downforce Red bull is unable to compensate with their (probably) better handling car.

[Gillian]

Drag and downforce are not the same thing. More power means higher top speed. More drag means it will take longer to get there. You probably understand that?

I would not claim Honda to have more power than Mercedes, but there is no big power difference that I can see. I don't believe that, but if you do that is fine ofcourse.

I would not use Monza as proof Honda is far behind Mercedes in power output. That's my point.

[flmkane]

Drag and downforce are not the same thing. More power means higher top speed. More drag means it will take longer to get there. You probably understand that?

I would not claim Honda to have more power than Mercedes, but there is no big power difference that I can see. I don't believe that, but if you do that is fine ofcourse.

I would not use Monza as proof Honda is far behind Mercedes in power output. That's my point.

Thats not right. More drag = less top speed for a given power output. More power = more top speed at given drag.

Also more drag = less acceleration, more power = greater acceleration.

In short, drag reduces the resultant force acting on the car at any given speed, and thus static equilibrium is reached at a lower speed.

For a given level of aero effeciency, drag and downforce are proportional, partly because of viscous drag and partly because of the horizontal component of the pressure on the wings and diffuser. To say that drag and downforce are not the same thing is fundamentally unsound because the horizontal component of the resultant pressure force always exists even if you assume viscosity is zero.

So basically put, downforce and drag are the vertical and horizontal components of the same force.

[Andres125sx]

I´d say drag and downforce are like power in and power out of a motor, both are related and proportional, but improving (or decreasing) efficiency you can change one and keep the other constant

In this case (comparing different F1 cars) we can´t assume efficiency is the same as they´re different cars and different concepts , so basically we have two unknowns in the equation, drag and power, so we should not assume X car has more power than Y car because top speed or acceleration are better

[Just_a_fan]

Drag and downforce are not the same thing. More power means higher top speed. More drag means it will take longer to get there. You probably understand that?

I would not claim Honda to have more power than Mercedes, but there is no big power difference that I can see. I don't believe that, but if you do that is fine ofcourse.

I would not use Monza as proof Honda is far behind Mercedes in power output. That's my point.

Thats not right. More drag = less top speed for a given power output. More power = more top speed at given drag.

Also more drag = less acceleration, more power = greater acceleration.

In short, drag reduces the resultant force acting on the car at any given speed, and thus static equilibrium is reached at a lower speed.

For a given level of aero effeciency, drag and downforce are proportional, partly because of viscous drag and partly because of the horizontal component of the pressure on the wings and diffuser. To say that drag and downforce are not the same thing is fundamentally unsound because the horizontal component of the resultant pressure force always exists even if you assume viscosity is zero.

So basically put, downforce and drag are the vertical and horizontal components of the same force.

But not all drag is associated with downforce, of course. Indeed, a fair percentage of a car's drag is just stuff like the wheels/tyres, suspension arms, etc.

[flmkane]

Drag and downforce are not the same thing. More power means higher top speed. More drag means it will take longer to get there. You probably understand that?

I would not claim Honda to have more power than Mercedes, but there is no big power difference that I can see. I don't believe that, but if you do that is fine ofcourse.

I would not use Monza as proof Honda is far behind Mercedes in power output. That's my point.

Thats not right. More drag = less top speed for a given power output. More power = more top speed at given drag.

Also more drag = less acceleration, more power = greater acceleration.

In short, drag reduces the resultant force acting on the car at any given speed, and thus static equilibrium is reached at a lower speed.

For a given level of aero effeciency, drag and downforce are proportional, partly because of viscous drag and partly because of the horizontal component of the pressure on the wings and diffuser. To say that drag and downforce are not the same thing is fundamentally unsound because the horizontal component of the resultant pressure force always exists even if you assume viscosity is zero.

So basically put, downforce and drag are the vertical and horizontal components of the same force.

But not all drag is associated with downforce, of course. Indeed, a fair percentage of a car's drag is just stuff like the wheels/tyres, suspension arms, etc.

Absolutely agree on that.

[Zynerji]

Drag and downforce are not the same thing. More power means higher top speed. More drag means it will take longer to get there. You probably understand that?

I would not claim Honda to have more power than Mercedes, but there is no big power difference that I can see. I don't believe that, but if you do that is fine ofcourse.

I would not use Monza as proof Honda is far behind Mercedes in power output. That's my point.

Thats not right. More drag = less top speed for a given power output. More power = more top speed at given drag.

Also more drag = less acceleration, more power = greater acceleration.

In short, drag reduces the resultant force acting on the car at any given speed, and thus static equilibrium is reached at a lower speed.

For a given level of aero effeciency, drag and downforce are proportional, partly because of viscous drag and partly because of the horizontal component of the pressure on the wings and diffuser. To say that drag and downforce are not the same thing is fundamentally unsound because the horizontal component of the resultant pressure force always exists even if you assume viscosity is zero.

So basically put, downforce and drag are the vertical and horizontal components of the same force.

But not all drag is associated with downforce, of course. Indeed, a fair percentage of a car's drag is just stuff like the wheels/tyres, suspension arms, etc.

I'd almost say more than half of the form drag comes just from the tyres...