2023 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[Cs98]

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.

Ferrari were slower relative their rivals. They used a floor that was legal in previous races. They were found to have worn the plank at this venue. Illegal floor?

No, the clear and indisputable bias is that the upgrade must have made it an illegal floor when it's abundantly clear that a fully legal floor at previous venues fell foul of the wear rate.
So why would it bring the new floor into question when a rivals previously legal floor is also among the Disqualified?
It wouldn't unless there was a bias.
And 15 seconds behind Max with max starting in 6th and literally cruising behind others in the first half of the race....
The level of bias is that there's even a rewriting of Narrative.

Hamilton was gapping Charles at over 0.5 a lap on the same compound. When last did that happen?

You are isolating one team and just randomly throwing around words to incite a reaction.

You seem to be under the illusion I am calling the new Merc floor illegal That is incorrect. I am calling into question whether the apparent performance step we saw is due to the new floor or the fact they were running the car illegally (running it too low). It's a perfectly valid point since both Merc and Ferrari (who were also too low) were closer relative to RB than we have come to expect. The answer will be seen in the coming races, but you should pay more attention to what I am actually arguing instead of reading into it what you want me to be saying. That is the only bias I am seeing here.

[mwillems]

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.

Ferrari were slower relative their rivals. They used a floor that was legal in previous races. They were found to have worn the plank at this venue. Illegal floor?

No, the clear and indisputable bias is that the upgrade must have made it an illegal floor when it's abundantly clear that a fully legal floor at previous venues fell foul of the wear rate.
So why would it bring the new floor into question when a rivals previously legal floor is also among the Disqualified?
It wouldn't unless there was a bias.
And 15 seconds behind Max with max starting in 6th and literally cruising behind others in the first half of the race....
The level of bias is that there's even a rewriting of Narrative.

Hamilton was gapping Charles at over 0.5 a lap on the same compound. When last did that happen?

You are isolating one team and just randomly throwing around words to incite a reaction.

You seem to be under the illusion I am calling the new Merc floor illegal That is incorrect. I am calling into question whether the apparent performance step we saw is due to the new floor or the fact they were running the car illegally (running it too low). It's a perfectly valid point since both Merc and Ferrari (who were also too low) were closer relative to RB than we have come to expect. The answer will be seen in the coming races, but you should pay more attention to what I am actually arguing instead of reading into it what you want me to be saying. That is the only bias I am seeing here.

Given the state of this track, if they went back in time and changed the setup and it did indeed retard performance, I don't think they'll have the same issue anywhere else although others might find a little from being less conservative with their own setups. But it is an argument with no end until the next race is run, and even then I'm sure someone will find grey area!

[ValeVida46]

mclaren had an upgrade in singapore and has since left ferrari for dust. Interestingly ferrari only managed to close up by running their car in such a state they couldn't guarantee legality over a race distance.

Also, never did I say mercedes' own upgrade is the reason for illegality lol. Upgrade is probably perfectly legal if ran further off the ground and/or on a more stiffly sprung car. If however it is run too low to the ground then these problems can occur.

Out of a sample size of 4 cars 2 were illegal. That's 50% failure on an apparent random check.
There will have been other non Ferrari-Merc teams who would likely have been marginal on these too.
That's the nature of the game. Is what it is. I'm not complaining about the DQ, if it's out it's out.

And you quoted me in a reply to someone who said the floor was illegal. So not you per se.
I mean for a so called technical website, there's folk calling a floor illegal...which would mean neither Merc of Ferrari start the race.

[Cs98]

Ferrari were slower relative their rivals. They used a floor that was legal in previous races. They were found to have worn the plank at this venue. Illegal floor?

No, the clear and indisputable bias is that the upgrade must have made it an illegal floor when it's abundantly clear that a fully legal floor at previous venues fell foul of the wear rate.
So why would it bring the new floor into question when a rivals previously legal floor is also among the Disqualified?
It wouldn't unless there was a bias.
And 15 seconds behind Max with max starting in 6th and literally cruising behind others in the first half of the race....
The level of bias is that there's even a rewriting of Narrative.

Hamilton was gapping Charles at over 0.5 a lap on the same compound. When last did that happen?

You are isolating one team and just randomly throwing around words to incite a reaction.

You seem to be under the illusion I am calling the new Merc floor illegal That is incorrect. I am calling into question whether the apparent performance step we saw is due to the new floor or the fact they were running the car illegally (running it too low). It's a perfectly valid point since both Merc and Ferrari (who were also too low) were closer relative to RB than we have come to expect. The answer will be seen in the coming races, but you should pay more attention to what I am actually arguing instead of reading into it what you want me to be saying. That is the only bias I am seeing here.

Given the state of this track, if they went back in time and changed the setup and it did indeed retard performance, I don't think they'll have the same issue anywhere else although others might find a little from being less conservative with their own setups. But it is an argument with no end until the next race is run, and even then I'm sure someone will find grey area!

Other teams will lower their cars on smoother tracks, the relative performance picture could thus shift. We already know from comments from team members that a few mm of ride height can be worth several tenths of lap time. If you caught a glimpse of any of those off-board shots comparing the ride height of the Merc, RB and Ferrari from behind it was obvious we are talking about substantial differences.

[mwillems]

You seem to be under the illusion I am calling the new Merc floor illegal That is incorrect. I am calling into question whether the apparent performance step we saw is due to the new floor or the fact they were running the car illegally (running it too low). It's a perfectly valid point since both Merc and Ferrari (who were also too low) were closer relative to RB than we have come to expect. The answer will be seen in the coming races, but you should pay more attention to what I am actually arguing instead of reading into it what you want me to be saying. That is the only bias I am seeing here.

Given the state of this track, if they went back in time and changed the setup and it did indeed retard performance, I don't think they'll have the same issue anywhere else although others might find a little from being less conservative with their own setups. But it is an argument with no end until the next race is run, and even then I'm sure someone will find grey area!

Other teams will lower their cars on smoother tracks, the relative performance picture could thus shift. We already know from comments from team members that a few mm of ride height can be worth several tenths of lap time. If you caught a glimpse of any of those off-board shots comparing the ride height of the Merc, RB and Ferrari from behind it was obvious we are talking about substantial differences.

I did suggest in my post that others would find time

But on the setup, you have to factor in suspension setup, the difference can still be marginal, we do not know. Perhaps Merc ran stiffer.

I was not aware of the suggested time difference or of the ride height differences. That said, I'm more inclined to see what happens in the next race, there is too much room for people to assume both ways in this discussion

[Cs98]

Given the state of this track, if they went back in time and changed the setup and it did indeed retard performance, I don't think they'll have the same issue anywhere else although others might find a little from being less conservative with their own setups. But it is an argument with no end until the next race is run, and even then I'm sure someone will find grey area!

Other teams will lower their cars on smoother tracks, the relative performance picture could thus shift. We already know from comments from team members that a few mm of ride height can be worth several tenths of lap time. If you caught a glimpse of any of those off-board shots comparing the ride height of the Merc, RB and Ferrari from behind it was obvious we are talking about substantial differences.

I did suggest in my post that others would find time

But on the setup, you have to factor in suspension setup, the difference can still be marginal, we do not know. Perhaps Merc ran stiffer.

I was not aware of the suggested time difference or of the ride height differences. That said, I'm more inclined to see what happens in the next race, there is too much room for people to assume both ways in this discussion

I am also interested in what happens next, that will be the answer to the question I was rasing.

Pic for clarity

[mwillems]

Other teams will lower their cars on smoother tracks, the relative performance picture could thus shift. We already know from comments from team members that a few mm of ride height can be worth several tenths of lap time. If you caught a glimpse of any of those off-board shots comparing the ride height of the Merc, RB and Ferrari from behind it was obvious we are talking about substantial differences.

I did suggest in my post that others would find time

But on the setup, you have to factor in suspension setup, the difference can still be marginal, we do not know. Perhaps Merc ran stiffer.

I was not aware of the suggested time difference or of the ride height differences. That said, I'm more inclined to see what happens in the next race, there is too much room for people to assume both ways in this discussion

I am also interested in what happens next, that will be the answer to the question I was rasing.

Pic for clarity https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F857807WEAA ... =4096x4096

Well the RB could be misleading in itself as we know it has a setup that isn't a fan of Austin or Singapore and their bumps, so how much could they have pushed the ride height if they wanted? How much were they restricted? It's pretty much known that the performance from Red Bull would be retarded here due to setup and that appears to be a picture of why. The picture doesn't suggest how much wear there was on the plank and just how much the Mercedes needed to be raised or how much stiffer the suspension needed to be.

I understand the concern that the platform may have been flattered, my opinion is that they are likely still fast relative to Mclaren and Ferrari, obviously RB have a good advantage that will stay, if not made slightly smaller. Despite everything Toto was extremely happy, you could see he felt like the platform had moved forward substantially.

But time will tell, however I don't see that picture as a smoking gun.

[CHT]

Running the car lower will certainly give the car some performance advantage due to ground effects.
Hope this will not end up going one step forward and two steps back

[ValeVida46]

You seem to be under the illusion I am calling the new Merc floor illegal That is incorrect. I am calling into question whether the apparent performance step we saw is due to the new floor or the fact they were running the car illegally (running it too low). It's a perfectly valid point since both Merc and Ferrari (who were also too low) were closer relative to RB than we have come to expect. The answer will be seen in the coming races, but you should pay more attention to what I am actually arguing instead of reading into it what you want me to be saying. That is the only bias I am seeing here.

Had Max not had his quali time deleted he'd have been 10 seconds+ up the road by the first pitstops. So you're ignoring this to postulate the gaps have come down. That's unequivocal bias I'm afraid.
McLaren had issues with tyre life even to those outside of Ferrari and Mercedes. As Norris said:

We knew our struggles, we knew what was going to be difficult today. And it was just the degradation but the pace over the first 10 laps of every stint

Ignoring this to further form a basis of a fundamentally unprovable speculation is also bias.

Running 1mm closer to the ground might make the plank wear more, but it certainly won't give you a 0.7 faster time in the sprint and 0.5 in the race.

I'll repeat, less FP running time and a sprint weekend is not conducive to teams getting their optimum set up.
We saw the mess at Qatar what happens when there's less running.
It stands to reason and scrutiny that if the car was legal for the sprint race, and was disqualified for the actual race, that for large periods of the race the plank was legit and oversight due to lack of run time is far more accurate than an intentional clickbait "running it illegally".

[Cs98]

You seem to be under the illusion I am calling the new Merc floor illegal That is incorrect. I am calling into question whether the apparent performance step we saw is due to the new floor or the fact they were running the car illegally (running it too low). It's a perfectly valid point since both Merc and Ferrari (who were also too low) were closer relative to RB than we have come to expect. The answer will be seen in the coming races, but you should pay more attention to what I am actually arguing instead of reading into it what you want me to be saying. That is the only bias I am seeing here.

Had Max not had his quali time deleted he'd have been 10 seconds+ up the road by the first pitstops. So you're ignoring this to postulate the gaps have come down. That's unequivocal bias I'm afraid.
McLaren had issues with tyre life even to those outside of Ferrari and Mercedes. As Norris said:

We knew our struggles, we knew what was going to be difficult today. And it was just the degradation but the pace over the first 10 laps of every stint

Ignoring this to further form a basis of a fundamentally unprovable speculation is also bias.

Running 1mm closer to the ground might make the plank wear more, but it certainly won't give you a 0.7 faster time in the sprint and 0.5 in the race.

I'll repeat, less FP running time and a sprint weekend is not conducive to teams getting their optimum set up.
We saw the mess at Qatar what happens when there's less running.
It stands to reason and scrutiny that if the car was legal for the sprint race, and was disqualified for the actual race, that for large periods of the race the plank was legit and oversight due to lack of run time is far more accurate than an intentional clickbait "running it illegally".

This race is clearly not a good benchmark for a new upgrade when it is revealed you've ran the car illegally.

Let's just put it on record, we both think each other are biased. I mean, you accused me of calling the floor illegal when I did no such thing. Clear bias. But who cares? Make a good argument instead of resorting to these claims of bias.

The plank wear was not measured after the sprint race. And it's not the plank wear itself that yields performance. Setting the car up too low will yield a performance advantage for the entire race, even before the plank has worn down below the limit. This is a clear performance advantage and thus we will have to wait to truly evaluate the effect of their new floor.

[Cs98]

Well the RB could be misleading in itself as we know it has a setup that isn't a fan of Austin or Singapore and their bumps, so how much could they have pushed the ride height if they wanted? How much were they restricted? It's pretty much known that the performance from Red Bull would be retarded here due to setup and that appears to be a picture of why. The picture doesn't suggest how much wear there was on the plank and just how much the Mercedes needed to be raised or how much stiffer the suspension needed to be.

I understand the concern that the platform may have been flattered, my opinion is that they are likely still fast relative to Mclaren and Ferrari, obviously RB have a good advantage that will stay, if not made slightly smaller. Despite everything Toto was extremely happy, you could see he felt like the platform had moved forward substantially.

But time will tell, however I don't see that picture as a smoking gun.

The smoking gun was the DQ which essentially validated what the picture was suggesting. But we will see, I'm sure the upgrade has had some positive effect, we'll see how much.

[mwillems]

Well the RB could be misleading in itself as we know it has a setup that isn't a fan of Austin or Singapore and their bumps, so how much could they have pushed the ride height if they wanted? How much were they restricted? It's pretty much known that the performance from Red Bull would be retarded here due to setup and that appears to be a picture of why. The picture doesn't suggest how much wear there was on the plank and just how much the Mercedes needed to be raised or how much stiffer the suspension needed to be.

I understand the concern that the platform may have been flattered, my opinion is that they are likely still fast relative to Mclaren and Ferrari, obviously RB have a good advantage that will stay, if not made slightly smaller. Despite everything Toto was extremely happy, you could see he felt like the platform had moved forward substantially.

But time will tell, however I don't see that picture as a smoking gun.

The smoking gun was the DQ which essentially validated what the picture was suggesting. But we will see, I'm sure the upgrade has had some positive effect, we'll see how much.

We know it was illegal, we don't know how substantially so and more importantly what the impact will be on performance, and I'm not sure those pictures add anything to that debate, we also have no idea what other settings they could have used to maintain the low ground clearance but minimise hitting bumps before even raising the ride height.

A mistake happened, and over the next few races we will determine if the package is better, and to be fair this track was always an outlier and not a great one to evaluate performance as it demands an approach to setup not needed at most other circuits.

[Luscion]

Well the RB could be misleading in itself as we know it has a setup that isn't a fan of Austin or Singapore and their bumps, so how much could they have pushed the ride height if they wanted? How much were they restricted? It's pretty much known that the performance from Red Bull would be retarded here due to setup and that appears to be a picture of why. The picture doesn't suggest how much wear there was on the plank and just how much the Mercedes needed to be raised or how much stiffer the suspension needed to be.

I understand the concern that the platform may have been flattered, my opinion is that they are likely still fast relative to Mclaren and Ferrari, obviously RB have a good advantage that will stay, if not made slightly smaller. Despite everything Toto was extremely happy, you could see he felt like the platform had moved forward substantially.

But time will tell, however I don't see that picture as a smoking gun.

The smoking gun was the DQ which essentially validated what the picture was suggesting. But we will see, I'm sure the upgrade has had some positive effect, we'll see how much.

I think even though Merc ride height was too low that there's a possibility they can go even lower on tracks that aren't really bumpy like COTA, I can't imagine they slammed it as low as it could possibly run and said screw it on a track like COTA, but simply didn't raise it enough. I don't think Merc will be as close to RB in Mexico and it might be hard to judge their performance over McLaren there as it's a track that suits the Merc a lot more with all the low speed corners, might have to wait till Barcelona.

[ValeVida46]

Pic for clarity

What clarity?

There's no lap number.
There's not even any indication if one was from practice, a warm down lap, a race lap, a quali lap, zip.
Without that, it's nothing but confirmation bias. Again.

[dans79]

Pic for clarity

What clarity?

There's no lap number.
There's not even any indication if one was from practice, a warm down lap, a race lap, a quali lap, zip.
Without that, it's nothing but confirmation bias. Again.

Yu can't even be sure it's the same corner!