2023 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[Spoutnik]

Unfortunately I think it's over to mount a challenge for P2 in the WDC
Too bad, Lewis drove a great race

Probably true, but who knows Perez could have his own two week no point streak. Certainly would be a better bet than it happening to Hamilton.

The last tracks will suit Checo driving style more. At worse he will finish P5 on these track, if he made no mistakes

[ValeVida46]

Puts the new floor into question. Was the pace from the upgrade or running an illegal car?

Would Ferrari's floor have also been illegal at the previous venues it raced at?

[AR3-GP]

Puts the new floor into question. Was the pace from the upgrade or running an illegal car?

Would Ferrari's floor have also been illegal at the previous venues it raced at?

The floor itself is not illegal on either car. It's the plank wear that was deemed excessive. If one chooses to call the plank the "floor" then it's a semantics thing...

However, when a car exhibits excessive plank wear, then it implies the car was benefitting from a setup configuration which would not pass tech at the end of the GP. Maybe Merc needed to raise the car or run stiffer suspension to reduce the bottoming. We don't know what the performance of such a car would have been but it likely would have been slower.

[AMG.Tzan]

Puts the new floor into question. Was the pace from the upgrade or running an illegal car?

“randomly” checked 4 out of the 20 cars! There’s your answer

[j_ste]

On the upside. That they could run the car low, on that track and not suffer any significant ride issues. Could mean they might have finally solved bouncing.

[organic]

On the upside. That they could run the car low, on that track and not suffer any significant ride issues. Could mean they might have finally solved bouncing.

Unfortunately we won't know until Vegas I think. Even the W13 could be run to the ground at Mexico due to the thinner air meaning less df so hopping wasn't triggered

[ValeVida46]

However, when a car exhibits excessive plank wear, then it implies the car was benefitting from a setup configuration which would not pass tech at the end of the GP. Maybe Merc needed to raise the car or run stiffer suspension to reduce the bottoming. We don't know what the performance of such a car would have been but it likely would have been slower.

That's a total stab in the dark.

We don't know the level of wear. It might just have been outside the rules by a fraction and not by margins that required raising the car to point that has an effect on performance. If it was out by a millimetre it falls foul, but does not require a huge set up change that would have a negative ramifications on time.
We can also reference Ferrari who were excessively wearing the plank.
Their performance relative Mercedes was far slower than the order of previous races.
As both Ferrari and Mercedes have said this was a risk of the limited running for Sprint and Race weekend, this is a feature of that limited running on a bumpy track. They both passed the sprint race inspection after all.

The race caught a couple of teams out, it is also highly likely that of the top 4 cars 2 fall foul, you can be near on certain that other teams besides Mercedes and Ferrari would have also been pretty much on or over the limit.
That's a stab in the dark too, but when 50% of a 4 team sample falls foul, you're on good grounds to think others will have too.
But as ever, the FIA insist on only saying what was wrong, and what the punishment is, without going into any detail as to the level of transgression ie how far out the plank was worn.

[Cs98]

Puts the new floor into question. Was the pace from the upgrade or running an illegal car?

Would Ferrari's floor have also been illegal at the previous venues it raced at?

Why would it be? The obvious point here is that Merc's pace relative to RB and McL may have been a consequence of running the car illegally low to the ground, gaining performance from that instead of the upgrade.

[Cs98]

Puts the new floor into question. Was the pace from the upgrade or running an illegal car?

“randomly” checked 4 out of the 20 cars! There’s your answer

Run a legal car and you will pass "random" checks. All his biggest competitors were checked, so no point crying about it.

[ValeVida46]

Puts the new floor into question. Was the pace from the upgrade or running an illegal car?

Would Ferrari's floor have also been illegal at the previous venues it raced at?

Why would it be? The obvious point here is that Merc's pace relative to RB and McL may have been a consequence of running the car illegally low to the ground, gaining performance from that instead of the upgrade.

How is it obvious? Ferrari's relative pace was slower for exactly the same thing.
Unless of course there is a cognitive bias in isolating Mercedes.

[Mosin123]

Would Ferrari's floor have also been illegal at the previous venues it raced at?

Why would it be? The obvious point here is that Merc's pace relative to RB and McL may have been a consequence of running the car illegally low to the ground, gaining performance from that instead of the upgrade.

How is it obvious? Ferrari's relative pace was slower for exactly the same thing.
Unless of course there is a cognitive bias in isolating Mercedes.

Always bias in the Merc thread, We are normally hearing how the FIA and stewards let LH get away with every thing....

[Cs98]

Would Ferrari's floor have also been illegal at the previous venues it raced at?

Why would it be? The obvious point here is that Merc's pace relative to RB and McL may have been a consequence of running the car illegally low to the ground, gaining performance from that instead of the upgrade.

How is it obvious? Ferrari's relative pace was slower for exactly the same thing.
Unless of course there is a cognitive bias in isolating Mercedes.

Ground effect cars run lower to the ground generate more downforce, that much is obvious after two years with these regs. Ferrari's raw pace was as fast as anybody, and their race pace was faster than usual finishing only 15 seconds behind Max. We can not draw any positive conclusions about the real relative pace of competitors running illegal cars. The fact that Merc introduced an upgrade and ran the car illegally obfuscates what is what performance wise, hence why I said it puts the new floor into question. Soon enough we will know what is what.

I do believe there is a cognitive bias, though perhaps not the one you do.

[Juzh]

Would Ferrari's floor have also been illegal at the previous venues it raced at?

Why would it be? The obvious point here is that Merc's pace relative to RB and McL may have been a consequence of running the car illegally low to the ground, gaining performance from that instead of the upgrade.

How is it obvious? Ferrari's relative pace was slower for exactly the same thing.
Unless of course there is a cognitive bias in isolating Mercedes.

Yes, teams are obsessing over milometers of ride height and run their cars so much on the limit because there's absolutely no performance to be gained from it. Makes sense.

[basti313]

Puts the new floor into question. Was the pace from the upgrade or running an illegal car?

“randomly” checked 4 out of the 20 cars! There’s your answer

Run a legal car and you will pass "random" checks. All his biggest competitors were checked, so no point crying about it.

Yes, I think the point that only 4 cars were checked is just wrong. They checked all top cars.

[Luscion]

I think it's fair to say RB would have lost some performance running their car higher than usual, and maybe I'm completely off but I also wonder if there's more from Merc as well. I would assume even though they failed the plank wear tests that they wouldn't have dropped the car as low as it could go on say, a track like Mexico, I guess we'll find out this week