This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
I'm not sure deg was bad yesterday, ok it was not class of the field, but without lapped cars in the fuc*ing way and botched pitstop Max would have started the last stint with 8s, which is perfectly good (forget about 2023 gap, we won't enjoy anymore that kind of advantage), the problem is that in last stint the pace simply was not there since the beginning, for whatever reason, used medium, practice done mainly on full tank (but can you criticize them for this ? first stint is when you have to pull out of DRS range without burning the tyres); hoperfully they can find answers to this last stint problem which seems a trend now, anyway if deg IS the problem, then Silverstone won't be good
in general I think that weekend execution was not good, starting from the choice of saving two hard instead of two medium (only top team to do this), the pitstop of course, and the silence about Lando's coming penalty, why tf they didn't inform him ? I can't help but think that had they told Max that Lando was about to get a penalty, all of this show wouldn't have happened
anyway, another weekend which by the end seemed heading to a point loss, ended up with a point gain; well, Max maybe didn't emerge as a "winner", he got a ton of critics, "old Max" bs spreading again, but haters gonna hate I guess, so who cares.
Deg was indeed bad for RB20 yesterday. What confuses me even more is the explanation for the 'setup-change' between Sprint and Quali, made by Marko+Horner - "it was for race pace".
The notion that it's the aero-imposed stiff suspension that causes accelerated tyre wear, seems more likely, with every passing race.
Full tank fuel + aero load => the total pre-loading in the springs is keeping the tyres happy when subjected to varying impacts from the road - bumps, dips and kerbs. The moment fuel load is removed, the total preloading becomes lesser and springs are way too stiff to keep the tyres happy in relation to the varying impacts from the load => glaringly evident in slow speed ckts like Monaco, the chicane kerbs in Imola/Canada etc - tyres aren't pressed back enough into the ground during rebound, even resulting in actual bouncing ("jumping like kangaroo"). This doesn't affect in high speed corners even if kerb riding is involved, as the pre-loading is back to necessary levels thanks to the aero-press at high speed.
And because the stiffness of suspension is imposed due to floor design and ride -height windows, this might not be something that can be solved by 'development' - this very likely is a baked-in limitation coming from the RB19-->RB20 design change.
Just a theory.
Mercedes built the w13 with this super stiff suspension and found out. Why have red bull done this?
I remember usa 22, italy 21 and now here, but there may be others. All these slow stops resulted in position loss while battling for the lead.
Im sure perez had a few of them as well.
I'm not sure deg was bad yesterday, ok it was not class of the field, but without lapped cars in the fuc*ing way and botched pitstop Max would have started the last stint with 8s, which is perfectly good (forget about 2023 gap, we won't enjoy anymore that kind of advantage), the problem is that in last stint the pace simply was not there since the beginning, for whatever reason, used medium, practice done mainly on full tank (but can you criticize them for this ? first stint is when you have to pull out of DRS range without burning the tyres); hoperfully they can find answers to this last stint problem which seems a trend now, anyway if deg IS the problem, then Silverstone won't be good
in general I think that weekend execution was not good, starting from the choice of saving two hard instead of two medium (only top team to do this), the pitstop of course, and the silence about Lando's coming penalty, why tf they didn't inform him ? I can't help but think that had they told Max that Lando was about to get a penalty, all of this show wouldn't have happened
anyway, another weekend which by the end seemed heading to a point loss, ended up with a point gain; well, Max maybe didn't emerge as a "winner", he got a ton of critics, "old Max" bs spreading again, but haters gonna hate I guess, so who cares.
Deg was indeed bad for RB20 yesterday. What confuses me even more is the explanation for the 'setup-change' between Sprint and Quali, made by Marko+Horner - "it was for race pace".
The notion that it's the aero-imposed stiff suspension that causes accelerated tyre wear, seems more likely, with every passing race.
Full tank fuel + aero load => the total pre-loading in the springs is keeping the tyres happy when subjected to varying impacts from the road - bumps, dips and kerbs. The moment fuel load is removed, the total preloading becomes lesser and springs are way too stiff to keep the tyres happy in relation to the varying impacts from the load => glaringly evident in slow speed ckts like Monaco, the chicane kerbs in Imola/Canada etc - tyres aren't pressed back enough into the ground during rebound, even resulting in actual bouncing ("jumping like kangaroo"). This doesn't affect in high speed corners even if kerb riding is involved, as the pre-loading is back to necessary levels thanks to the aero-press at high speed.
And because the stiffness of suspension is imposed due to floor design and ride -height windows, this might not be something that can be solved by 'development' - this very likely is a baked-in limitation coming from the RB19-->RB20 design change.
Just a theory.
I could get onboard with that. I watched both Max and Lando's final stint onboard and its clear how much better mclaren is out of final corner, T1 and T4. Norris cuts them easily, jumping over those kerbs and gaining time. Max had to avoid them all together and when he tried it once in final corner car immediately got unsettled and he had to get out of the throttle.
Basically mclaren is able to take kerbs i've not yet seen anyone else take.
There was a convo between Max and GP Max said something like You need to tell me what do do e 7th gear' A bit later 'something like Strat 6 please Max to what Max responded with a 'No'.
I am also curious about the 7th gear thing. The later message which he said 'no' to was, 'mid [diff] 6 if you prefer'.
There was nothing wrong in regards to gear selection. It's just that during a race car will get faster as it burns off fuel and as it looks like it was really marginal whether to pull 8th or just stay in 7th on high fuel.
“I think the first stint was quite good then at the end of that first stint I caught quite a bit of traffic, we should have boxed, because I just gave up free lap time,” he said.
“So we basically did a lot of things wrong today, I think starting with strategy, then the pit stops were a disaster, the first one was really bad, the second one even more of a disaster.
“Then you give free lap time, six seconds over those two pit stops, then of course it’s a race again and that’s why we put ourselves in that position.
“Today was just very bad, I have no explanation why suddenly the car just transformed from an OK balance in the first stint to just undriveable behaviour afterwards.
“Which normally indicates something was also wrong, but even with that we should have won today without so many errors in the pit stops.”
“They both felt bad so I don’t think we did the wrong thing with the tyres,” he elucidated.
“My balance in the first stint wasn’t even that bad, but I don’t know why the car started to feel worse and worse throughout the race.
“So that is also something we have to look into, that maybe something broke on the car.”
“I’m complaining about the tyres, we didn’t pit, I was stuck in traffic, bad, bad execution with the pit stops, so everything just went wrong.”
It’s similar to Canada when the fuel load burned off and they switched to dry tires. He said it was like the suspension was locked.
It’s a good theory by Juzh about how weight affects the suspension preload and mass damping dynamics which may conspire to cripple the car. A potential explanation for why it doesn’t show in qualifying is that in qualy the corner speeds are much higher so the extra downforce is making the car “heavier” (I.e the “dynamic mass” in qualy trim might actually be heavier than a race lap at 1/3rd tank with 5-6 seconds slower pace).
Something like this needs to be attacked head on by actually doing race sims at these fuel loads in my amateur opinion
Last edited by AR3-GP on 01 Jul 2024, 12:59, edited 5 times in total.
For those who don't have time to watch 24 min Lando vs Max, an F1 site has summarized his [peter Windsor] opinion. Translated:
'First the crash: whose fault was it, Max Verstappen or Lando Norris?' Windsor gets straight to the point with the analysis of the Austrian Grand Prix on his YouTube channel. 'I'm probably the wrong person to ask this, because I have said time and time again that there is a difference between the sporting regulations, which indicate that you must always give the driver space on the outside, and what we all expect. knowing that it is the essence of motorsport, namely 'whose' the corner belongs. That's always the driver on the inside. We all know that.'
Windsor is disappointed that the sporting regulations were written by someone who, in his opinion, has no understanding of racing. 'Yet there is someone who wrote this rule in the sporting regulations that as a driver you must be given a lot of space on the outside and that he is not allowed to push you wide. If he does, he will be punished. That's actually how it works, and this drives me crazy, and many others with me," the 72-year-old believes.
Verstappen had the race under control for a long time, but in the second half of the race everything collapsed like a house of cards. 'Max rode on used tires, and Lando on a new set. That makes a big difference in performance with relatively little fuel. In addition, Max lost about four seconds due to a pit stop delay. He didn't come out of the pit lane with a six-second lead - which would have been enough for the win even on used tires - but he drove out with Norris in his mirrors.'
After the team's mistake, a titanic battle ensued. 'Austria has three DRS zones, so that made him a sitting duck. It was fascinating at that moment to see how Max was going to win that race. It seemed unimaginable that Max Verstappen would not win the Austrian Grand Prix. It is Red Bull's home race, and he has been leading since the start. He was on pole position, he won the sprint race, and he was on pole position for the sprint race,” Windsor summed up.
There was also a lot to be said for a different result. 'Yet there didn't seem to be any way that Norris wouldn't win, as he had three DRS zones and new tyres, and the McLaren was clearly faster when it comes to grip. He would not lose against the Red Bull on the straights either, because of the DRS', the Englishman indicates.
It did not take long before the attack was opened. 'There was a lot of confusion because of the DRS, which resulted in large speed differences. As a result, Norris arrived at the corner faster by fifteen to twenty kilometers per hour without even trying," Windsor noted. “He was on the outside of turn three a few times, and that's one of the passing spots. He went wide and shot through, and had to give the spot back to Max. He did that too. Then he tried it on the next straight, towards turn four, and that didn't really work.'
The fight moved again to the third corner, where Verstappen also fought a hard duel with Charles Leclerc in 2019. 'That meant he had to try again at turn three. There they go more than 300 kilometers per hour, and you have to brake for a very slow bend. That's where you have the biggest disadvantage without DRS. Lando wanted to stay on the outside, then cut back coming out of turn three and catch him before turn four. That would have worked too, but the problem is in the rules.'
'How would Max defend, given the sporting regulations, and given that he is a driver who wants to win the Grand Prix?' Windsor wonders. 'Of course he wants to defend his place. Max was doing very well up to that point, and at that moment too. He was sitting in the middle of the road when he was in danger of being overtaken. He kept moving just a little bit to the outside before turn three, just enough to distract Lando. Lando complained that Max moved in response to his movement, but Max did this very well. He did that beautifully," Windsor is full of praise for the world champion's actions.
Windsor then discusses the lap of the crash, lap 63. 'Max braked perfectly, even though he didn't have as much grip as Lando Norris. He didn't slow down and sat in the middle of the road. He protected the corner, making it clear that Lando could not overtake him on the inside. Lando now also obediently went to the the outside. He wanted to do an undercut at the exit. If you look closely at Max's onboard footage, he doesn't steer back to the left at all.'
According to Windsor, the race management incorrectly assessed the incident. 'What actually happens is that the bend bends a bit to the left, but he doesn't steer himself. The race management thinks he is steering to the left, but he does nothing at all. He just keeps the steering wheel straight. The real problem is that the speed difference is artificially magnified due to DRS," he repeats his criticism of the opening of the rear wing.
Ultimately it led to contact. 'The left rear of the Red Bull hit the right front of the McLaren. The Red Bull immediately had a flat tire, and the McLaren not much later. As a result, Norris dropped out. Verstappen was punished for steering to the left. That's just strange. That penalty did not matter, because Verstappen finished fifth anyway," said Windsor.
Perez had a big hole in his sidepod from contact with Piastri in T4 on the opening lap. This would explain some of the lack of speed. Perez has never been good in Austria. He struggled to stay inside the track limits in the previous seasons. The new gravel traps would have slowed him psychologically. He also has too many incidents in T4 at this track.
I would much rather see Alonso or Hulkenberg in the car in Silverstone.
The decision to not just keep Perez, but actually offer him a potentially 2 year extension on top of his current contract, is so mind bogglingly bizarre that I cannot justify/explain it by any reason except that he might have some dirt on Horner and he blackmailed the guy into keeping his seat.
It's absolutely ridiculous to waste a top seat like this. Especially considering that RedBull in the past was known for the exact opposite of what they have done now. Promoting young talent and giving them a shot to show what they're made off.
Emag wrote:The decision to not just keep Perez, but actually offer him a potentially 2 year extension on top of his current contract, is so mind bogglingly bizarre that I cannot justify/explain it by any reason except that he might have some dirt on Horner and he blackmailed the guy into keeping his seat.
It's absolutely ridiculous to waste a top seat like this. Especially considering that RedBull in the past was known for the exact opposite of what they have done now. Promoting young talent and giving them a shot to show what they're made off.
Pérez has 1+1. Red Bull thinks this pace is only temporary and he will improve, but if not, he will be fired and Tsunoda will take his seat.
Has there been a race all year that required more than 1 stint on hards? Red Bull did a 23(?) lap Sprint race on medium tires. Why would they consider needing 2 sets of hards for the race?
Has there been a race all year that required more than 1 stint on hards? Red Bull did a 23(?) lap Sprint race on medium tires. Why would they consider needing 2 sets of hards for the race?
To be fair the decision was already made on Friday FP1, when they went out on mediums, while other teams used hards.
It is quite possible that RedBull realized during sprint that M-H-M will be better, but tyre allocation was already fixed by then.
I'm just speculating but maybe they set-up their cars considering they have new hards (be slightly faster, but use the tyre more). Maybe this is what Marko meant by they changed the setup after sprint thinking about the race.
And during the race they realized that M is still better choice than H.
I remember that weather forecast was super hot for Sunday, maybe they thought hard was better race tyre with a 50°C track; then yesterday it was less hot then expected and the medium proved to be better; a mistake in the end.
Has there been a race all year that required more than 1 stint on hards? Red Bull did a 23(?) lap Sprint race on medium tires. Why would they consider needing 2 sets of hards for the race?
To be fair the decision was already made on Friday FP1, when they went out on mediums, while other teams used hards.
It is quite possible that RedBull realized during sprint that M-H-M will be better, but tyre allocation was already fixed by then.
I'm just speculating but maybe they set-up their cars considering they have new hards (be slightly faster, but use the tyre more). Maybe this is what Marko meant by they changed the setup after sprint thinking about the race.
And during the race they realized that M is still better choice than H.
Has there been a race all year that required more than 1 stint on hards? Red Bull did a 23(?) lap Sprint race on medium tires. Why would they consider needing 2 sets of hards for the race?
To be fair the decision was already made on Friday FP1, when they went out on mediums, while other teams used hards.
It is quite possible that RedBull realized during sprint that M-H-M will be better, but tyre allocation was already fixed by then.
There was always a built-in assumption that they were going to do the sprint on the medium coming into the weekend, if they were saving 2 hards for the race. It seems like a logical inconsistency to acknowledge that the medium would survive 23 laps and then not plan on using it for the race. Of course, nothing can be done now, and I understand that it was a mistake, but still, it was really a mess
