Another quali lesson for the team to be learnt it seems.
Surely It’s better to be in Q3 with no new set of tyres (iirc Pirelli hand a new set out to all drivers who reach Q3 anyway?) than to be out in Q1 with 3 new sets of tyres….
Yep, although I think the new tyre question was confused by needing several laps to get heat into them properly too.CjC wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 14:36Ok just watched Q1, I think the car is a top 10 car but not putting new tyres on seems to have hindered their progress through the session.
Another quali lesson for the team to be learnt it seems.
Surely It’s better to be in Q3 with no new set of tyres (iirc Pirelli hand a new set out to all drivers who reach Q3 anyway?) than to be out in Q1 with 3 new sets of tyres….![]()
It wasn't to do with the wing, not in that sense anyway. If you look at the speeds in the fastest laps of Q1 for those that qualified at the front of the session in Q3, you can see we are the fastest and second fastest in top speed.... Until DRS opens. And then we take a hit.
Good point. This is a more thoughtful analysis. Still it's difficult not to correlate those cars with low top speeds to cars that will find racing difficult.mwillems wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 16:22It wasn't to do with the wing, not in that sense anyway. If you look at the speeds in the fastest laps of Q1 for those that qualified at the front of the session in Q3, you can see we are the fastest and second fastest in top speed.... Until DRS opens. And then we take a hit.
Overall we didn't lose too much time on the straights apart from to Merc. Our time was lost in the corners.
The top speed is misleading as it only represent our speed on 10% of the straights. The other 90% we are not struggling and that difference with DRS open is not what is killing us here.
To a degree that is correct, some extra k's would have snuck us into Q2 possibly. But that's it, the rest of the gap is in the corners.AR3-GP wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 16:24Good point. This is a more thoughtful analysis. Still it's difficult not to correlate those cars with low top speeds to cars that will find racing difficult.mwillems wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 16:22It wasn't to do with the wing, not in that sense anyway. If you look at the speeds in the fastest laps of Q1 for those that qualified at the front of the session in Q3, you can see we are the fastest and second fastest in top speed.... Until DRS opens. And then we take a hit.
Overall we didn't lose too much time on the straights apart from to Merc. Our time was lost in the corners.
The top speed is misleading as it only represent our speed on 10% of the straights. The other 90% we are not struggling and that difference with DRS open is not what is killing us here.
This is going to seem roundabout, but in a way, the top speed given their wing is still the problem. The straightline performance is judged not only by how they are relative to Ferrari/RB/Merc on the straights, but also relative to how slow they are in the corners because normally there shoud be a tight correlation between losing time in the corners, and gaining it back on the straights. We have seen this with the Williams.mwillems wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 16:32To a degree that is correct, some extra k's would have snuck us into Q2 possibly. But that's it, the rest of the gap is in the corners.AR3-GP wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 16:24Good point. This is a more thoughtful analysis. Still it's difficult not to correlate those cars with low top speeds to cars that will find racing difficult.mwillems wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 16:22
It wasn't to do with the wing, not in that sense anyway. If you look at the speeds in the fastest laps of Q1 for those that qualified at the front of the session in Q3, you can see we are the fastest and second fastest in top speed.... Until DRS opens. And then we take a hit.
Overall we didn't lose too much time on the straights apart from to Merc. Our time was lost in the corners.
The top speed is misleading as it only represent our speed on 10% of the straights. The other 90% we are not struggling and that difference with DRS open is not what is killing us here.
But if you look at the telemetry, we gain a small amount of time to Ferrari, a reasonable amount against RB and lose to Merc, so the straights weren't too much a problem.
This is why I keep tyring to highlight in here how misleading that top speed number is, because with DRS closed this car is a slippy as any in whichever DF configuration.
You have a point but I'm not sure how much it alters things, just because the affect of the wing in corners is less in general due to the balance of the DF going to the floor, and because these are slower corners, lessening again the important of the wing. But I think you're right to suggest that it is a factor because it will have some impact.AR3-GP wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 16:48This is going to seem roundabout, but in a way, the top speed given their wing is still the problem. The straightline performance is judged not only by how they are relative to Ferrari/RB/Merc on the straights, but also relative to how slow they are in the corners because normally there shoud be a tight correlation between losing time in the corners, and gaining it back on the straights. We have seen this with the Williams.mwillems wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 16:32To a degree that is correct, some extra k's would have snuck us into Q2 possibly. But that's it, the rest of the gap is in the corners.
But if you look at the telemetry, we gain a small amount of time to Ferrari, a reasonable amount against RB and lose to Merc, so the straights weren't too much a problem.
This is why I keep tyring to highlight in here how misleading that top speed number is, because with DRS closed this car is a slippy as any in whichever DF configuration.
On the 2nd runs in Q1, Norris is only gaining ~1 tenth on the DRS straight after T12 on Ver and maybe 1.5 tenths on the non DRS straight just before. It's not massive.
With how slow they are in the corners, you would think they should be hitting mach 7. He's dropping 1 tenth per corner just in the 1st sector. If that's only worth 1 extra tenth on 2 straights, then it's simply not quick enough to justify the low downforce.
Did you look at this chart the same way you look at it in FP. I know you claimed VER was much lower on engine mode but here it looks like VER is slower on the straight (early part) in a similar way. Maybe that is how they choose to deploy their battery?
Yes I think it was engine mode for RB, they were losing time today above 250kph when drag was starting to bite acceleration and when DRS was open they picked up, suggesting they were just being impeded by the bigger wing. Yesterday the RB speed dropped off considerably even with DRS open and their speeds on the straight were less competitive in general.FittingMechanics wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 17:05Did you look at this chart the same way you look at it in FP. I know you claimed VER was much lower on engine mode but here it looks like VER is slower on the straight (early part) in a similar way. Maybe that is how they choose to deploy their battery?
My suspicion is that teams usually run the same engine modes in FP on all tracks and that it should be easy to compare.
Stella seems to suggest the sameCjC wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 14:36Ok just watched Q1, I think the car is a top 10 car but not putting new tyres on seems to have hindered their progress through the session.
Another quali lesson for the team to be learnt it seems.
Surely It’s better to be in Q3 with no new set of tyres (iirc Pirelli hand a new set out to all drivers who reach Q3 anyway?) than to be out in Q1 with 3 new sets of tyres….![]()
Stella, is just so good, he is honest and explains things well.CjC wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 22:48Stella seems to suggest the sameCjC wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 14:36Ok just watched Q1, I think the car is a top 10 car but not putting new tyres on seems to have hindered their progress through the session.
Another quali lesson for the team to be learnt it seems.
Surely It’s better to be in Q3 with no new set of tyres (iirc Pirelli hand a new set out to all drivers who reach Q3 anyway?) than to be out in Q1 with 3 new sets of tyres….![]()
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mcla ... /10548470/