2024 São Paulo Grand Prix - Interlagos, Nov 01 - 03

[venkyhere]

I think your animation just shows how much faster his car is compared to the backfield.
I mean he plainly just goes faster on a less advantageous line. He's not doing and special driving. That said, he did some good stuff. But mainly staying out on old tires until the race interruption is what won it for him.

The animations mostly show braking. This is not Verstappen having a faster car - this is Verstappen braking late, with everyone else braking early.

The lap 1 animation shows him taking a different line, which is faster, but the other drivers don't have the confidence to take. That's just a 2016 repeat. He's not going on a less advantageous line - he just understands wet weather better than most drivers, and has the confidence to go for it. It's like that Horner quote about when Horner realized he wasn't cut out to be a racing driver, because the guy in front of him were driving in a way where he just thought "I can't do that. I don't have that confidence." I suspect many drivers feel the same way in the wet - they don't have the confidence to go for some lines that others do.

Having a car which is stable in the rain helps if course, and Red Bull was able to provide that this weekend.

Do you think such reasoning is going to convince the naysayers ?
People who don't/don't-want-to understand the 'tradeoff between grip and geometric lines in the wet' will never get it. Don't waste your time. Confirmation bias refusing to acknowledge talent, is not just the bane of F1 or racing or sport or the corporate world even, it's the bane of society in general.

[Sieper]

I must say that, at the moment, I enjoy it massively. Lovely jubbly!

[venkyhere]

So much effort on a technical forum to discredit what was an obviously great drive.

Red flag or not, they all started together after that and Max eventually cleared off into the distance. Every driver had the same opportunity at that time to go with him, and they didn't.

same opportunity implies the cars are equal ,alpine is a car over a second slower in a dry race so as the track was getting drier they were bound to lose track of Max.

what about the McLarens/Ferrari/Mercedes chasing the Alpines ? They were all on fresh inters weren't they ? Why were they not able to pass the slower Alpines which have the weakest engine on the grid ? Russel sat behind Gasly for 20 laps after the second safety car. So were everyone behind him, it was a train. No one had the confidence to take a different line or be a bit adventurous with brakes, to 'make a move'.

When it's wet, peak/near-peak performance of the engine or the brakes doesn't matter, because there is no peak grip like the dry - "performance of the machine" gets equalized, especially in this 3rd season of the 'tightest-rules-era' where even in the dry, the performance gap between slowest and fastest cars is the smallest, after all these decades of vast differences between the cars. The grip balance setup of the car, how the drivers use their brake bias settings, what throttle maps are used etc etc is the only 'machine wise difference'. The real difference is how the human driving it, keeps the tyres warm without hurting them, what lines he uses to find grip etc.

[Vanja #66]

I have to admit, it's surprising how no one even considers Alpine taking a chance with risky extreme wet setup before morning Q and nailing it. Oakes as a former racer surely had his hands all over such a decision

[venkyhere]

It's amazing how there is no such thing as 'truth' and everything is a 'narrative'.

Here is Jonathan Noble, claiming that 5mm extra tyre diameter causing a 5mm extra ride height (actually 2.5mm), combined with less stiffer sidewalls of the inter tyre, screwed up the aero map of some teams more than for the others (as if teams were unaware of this, especially when they are allowed to change the car post sprint, before the two wet sessions on Sunday) : https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/did- ... /10670924/ It's a well written deep dive, cafefully cherrypicking data, inorder to ensure that those who read it go away with the takeaway - "it was the car, not the driving that decided the result of the race".

Here is a youtube channel, where the guy analyses the 'actual driving' : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQTE02S ... JsYXB0aW1l

[organic]

I have to admit, it's surprising how no one even considers Alpine taking a chance with risky extreme wet setup before morning Q and nailing it. Oakes as a former racer surely had his hands all over such a decision

Indeed but ocon said post-race that it was a full dry setup.. but could be rubbish

[Farnborough]

It's amazing how there is no such thing as 'truth' and everything is a 'narrative'.

Here is Jonathan Noble, claiming that 5mm extra tyre diameter causing a 5mm extra ride height (actually 2.5mm), combined with stiffer sidewalls of the inter tyre, screwed up the aero map of some teams more than for the others (as if teams were unaware of this, especially when they are allowed to change the car post sprint, before the two wet sessions on Sunday) : https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/did- ... /10670924/ It's a well written deep dive, cafefully cherrypicking data, inorder to ensure that those who read it go away with the takeaway - "it was the car, not the driving that decided the result of the race".

Here is a youtube channel, where the guy analyses the 'actual driving' : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQTE02S ... JsYXB0aW1l

Interesting perspective there. MV is really a step beyond most in his appreciation of just how the grip is available, and just as importantly, how it leeches away at certain points. Before that race started I felt it was right into his zone of skills, and so it proved.

We both contributed to RB 20 thread in reference to that chassis and it's more obvious static rake, which I feel was very useful here in this wet race scenario. It may not be able to produce an absolute peak load in dry performance,, with diminished track adhesion present though it should give a wider window of operation. It's already naturally in that slightly lifted status to easily accept the inter tire envelope of performance.

Evidence I could observe .... when that RB was exiting Juncao ? there is a big compressive lift in track surface there approximately 100 mtrs out .... this chassis was compressing up to the peak, to then drop over that with a relatively "sumptuous " travel on rear suspension post that kick up. It just showed a softer more mellowed and extended rear travel in that scenario. That in itself promotes rear grip without spiking chassis load accumulation into the tire to cause the tire to go over peak and loose traction.

Tire wall stiffness, in that linked article. I can't readily see that they were saying it moves to stiffer, is that something I've missed ?
Ordinarily, with diminished tire to surface "grip" a tire needs to be more flexible in it's overall structure to maintain the desired movement (within itself) to generate chassis response. Even more so when it will be run at reduced ambient temperature plus water cooling. Also one reason to chase cooling water when they are used on a drying track.

This stuff is more a tire specific thread to get deeper into detail, but then someone will likely come along to hand out ridicule to an open conversation .... like they did in that under/oversteer thread

[Vanja #66]

Indeed but ocon said post-race that it was a full dry setup.. but could be rubbish

Dry setup for wet sounds like extreme setup to me

[Bill]

So much effort on a technical forum to discredit what was an obviously great drive.

Red flag or not, they all started together after that and Max eventually cleared off into the distance. Every driver had the same opportunity at that time to go with him, and they didn't.

same opportunity implies the cars are equal ,alpine is a car over a second slower in a dry race so as the track was getting drier they were bound to lose track of Max.

what about the McLarens/Ferrari/Mercedes chasing the Alpines ? They were all on fresh inters weren't they ? Why were they not able to pass the slower Alpines which have the weakest engine on the grid ? Russel sat behind Gasly for 20 laps after the second safety car. So were everyone behind him, it was a train. No one had the confidence to take a different line or be a bit adventurous with brakes, to 'make a move'.

When it's wet, peak/near-peak performance of the engine or the brakes doesn't matter, because there is no peak grip like the dry - "performance of the machine" gets equalized, especially in this 3rd season of the 'tightest-rules-era' where even in the dry, the performance gap between slowest and fastest cars is the smallest, after all these decades of vast differences between the cars. The grip balance setup of the car, how the drivers use their brake bias settings, what throttle maps are used etc etc is the only 'machine wise difference'. The real difference is how the human driving it, keeps the tyres warm without hurting them, what lines he uses to find grip etc.

The law of physics don't change because we got water on the track. A vcarb would not transform and became an rb20 because of rain .if a car has inherent problem like bouncing eg aston then it becomes even more difficult to control in the rain.lewis had his problems with his car it became worse in rain ,we know he is a good driver in rain but was helpless on sunday.

[Sieper]

I have to admit, it's surprising how no one even considers Alpine taking a chance with risky extreme wet setup before morning Q and nailing it. Oakes as a former racer surely had his hands all over such a decision

This. They gambled all out, with both cars, not only with the set-up, but also with the red flag (both cars) and why not in their situation. And Ocon imho is very good in the wet too, and it payed off.

A very smart race and now they can afford to keep people on. To me this is what F1 is about.

[venkyhere]

We both contributed to RB 20 thread in reference to that chassis and it's more obvious static rake, which I feel was very useful here in this wet race scenario. It may not be able to produce an absolute peak load in dry performance,, with diminished track adhesion present though it should give a wider window of operation. It's already naturally in that slightly lifted status to easily accept the inter tire envelope of performance.

I don't know much about aerodynamics to comment on how it helps ; but of all cars out there, for sure it looked to me as well, that the RB20 had a little 2021-like rake when looking at it side on and following the floor edge from front to rear. What I meant to really point out was, that motorsport article talked as if teams wouldn't have taken the extra diameter of the inter tyre (esp since they knew that both Q and race were going to be full of rain and that slicks were out of the picture) into account, when setting up the ride height of their cars. It's pretty basic.

Evidence I could observe .... when that RB was exiting Juncao ? there is a big compressive lift in track surface there approximately 100 mtrs out .... this chassis was compressing up to the peak, to then drop over that with a relatively "sumptuous " travel on rear suspension post that kick up. It just showed a softer more mellowed and extended rear travel in that scenario. That in itself promotes rear grip without spiking chassis load accumulation into the tire to cause the tire to go over peak and loose traction.

The most interesting thing was how much kerb Max was taking in Juncao, proper Monaco-like to shoot it straight over the kerb without much steering and then V-eeing it after landing on the tarmac. Everyone else (except Russel I think for a bit) was following the traditional U-line through Juncao, refusing to touch the kerb. Your observation of relatively softer and longer travel rear suspension ties very well into this kerb riding.
But wasn't the RB20's biggest problem a super stiff suspension setup (especially front) ? Have they solved it ?

Tire wall stiffness, in that linked article. I can't readily see that they were saying it moves to stiffer, is that something I've missed ?
Ordinarily, with diminished tire to surface "grip" a tire needs to be more flexible in it's overall structure to maintain the desired movement (within itself) to generate chassis response. Even more so when it will be run at reduced ambient temperature plus water cooling. Also one reason to chase cooling water when they are used on a drying track.

This stuff is more a tire specific thread to get deeper into detail, but then someone will likely come along to hand out ridicule to an open conversation .... like they did in that under/oversteer thread

oops! my bad. Meant to type 'less stiffer' and swallowed the 'less'. Have corrected it, thanks for the pointer.

[Rikhart]

Max and Charoes race really well together, on many occasion too.

Charles is not getting his head messed up like Lando is by British "press" pressure along with Zac's push to stand up to "bullying" as seen to represent it.

You could use Lando quote about Max "he got what he desreved" and apply that to Brazil race ... for Max he understood fully how to race here.

There's this pervading British led and USA (zac) feeling that they need to correct someone else's behaviour rather than fully considering their own application throughout this year.

Fabulous response to all the pressure a majority are trying to force on MV .

Definitely a masterclass we've witnessed.

Some races in the start of 2022 were just some of the best duels I have ever seen, with Max vs Charles. It was amazing, and lo and behold, they didn't crash, no one got penalized, no one started crying on the radio.

It was eye candy.

[TFSA]

Do you think such reasoning is going to convince the naysayers ?
People who don't/don't-want-to understand the 'tradeoff between grip and geometric lines in the wet' will never get it. Don't waste your time. Confirmation bias refusing to acknowledge talent, is not just the bane of F1 or racing or sport or the corporate world even, it's the bane of society in general.

When people are debating each other, their goal is rarely to convince the other part. Their goal is to convince other people observing the debate.

[mzso]

I think your animation just shows how much faster his car is compared to the backfield.
I mean he plainly just goes faster on a less advantageous line. He's not doing and special driving. That said, he did some good stuff. But mainly staying out on old tires until the race interruption is what won it for him.

The animations mostly show braking. This is not Verstappen having a faster car - this is Verstappen braking late, with everyone else braking early.

The lap 1 animation shows him taking a different line, which is faster, but the other drivers don't have the confidence to take. That's just a 2016 repeat. He's not going on a less advantageous line - he just understands wet weather better than most drivers, and has the confidence to go for it. It's like that Horner quote about when Horner realized he wasn't cut out to be a racing driver, because the guy in front of him were driving in a way where he just thought "I can't do that. I don't have that confidence." I suspect many drivers feel the same way in the wet - they don't have the confidence to go for some lines that others do.

Having a car which is stable in the rain helps if course, and Red Bull was able to provide that this weekend.

Do you think such reasoning is going to convince the naysayers ?
People who don't/don't-want-to understand the 'tradeoff between grip and geometric lines in the wet' will never get it. Don't waste your time. Confirmation bias refusing to acknowledge talent, is not just the bane of F1 or racing or sport or the corporate world even, it's the bane of society in general.

People don't need to worship him, just because he's your favorite. He drove well, he also had the best car of the day.

Do we need to get organized in camps over every opinion?

It's amazing how there is no such thing as 'truth' and everything is a 'narrative'.

Here is Jonathan Noble, claiming that 5mm extra tyre diameter causing a 5mm extra ride height (actually 2.5mm), combined with less stiffer sidewalls of the inter tyre, screwed up the aero map of some teams more than for the others (as if teams were unaware of this, especially when they are allowed to change the car post sprint, before the two wet sessions on Sunday) : https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/did- ... /10670924/ It's a well written deep dive, cafefully cherrypicking data, inorder to ensure that those who read it go away with the takeaway - "it was the car, not the driving that decided the result of the race".

Here is a youtube channel, where the guy analyses the 'actual driving' : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQTE02S ... JsYXB0aW1l

Ironically. Two posts later you just surge with confirmation bias.

[Espresso]

The most interesting thing was how much kerb Max was taking in Juncao, proper Monaco-like to shoot it straight over the kerb without much steering and then V-eeing it after landing on the tarmac. Everyone else (except Russel I think for a bit) was following the traditional U-line through Juncao, refusing to touch the kerb. Your observation of relatively softer and longer travel rear suspension ties very well into this kerb riding.
But wasn't the RB20's biggest problem a super stiff suspension setup (especially front) ? Have they solved it ?

Max let the car flow around in the rain..just using the track he minimizes accelerating and braking.
Touch the curb. Grip on the outside wheels, rotate the car.
Off the curb. Shortly more grip on the inside, stop rotation…

And I found some comments on Social Media.
But the critics would probably also bash these posters as amateurs…

Lewis:”Amazing drive, congrats", along with a fist-bump emoji.

Fernando: "Fantastic drive, congrats."