F1 The Wash Up - Previous 2024 Race Weekends

[Vader]

Speaking of chickenshit.

Can you imagine the uproar in here and elsewhere if they did just that and it failed? Reckon you'd be in here going batshit (which is an even lower quality of manure I'm told).

In the end it didn't matter a toss.

Agreed.

The bigger criticism is them not telling Piastri to start chasing LeClerc sooner. If he'd started the chase, and possibly overtaken him, on the original hard tyres, then anything could have been possible at the end.

 

[Neale4brownlow]

This race was really one that got away from Piastri. There were so many "what if" scenarios which could have seen him emerge as the winner, but didn't. Most are team mistakes, but not all.

• What if they setup the car for wet qualifying, instead of dry? Surely this cost Oscar track position from the start of the race.
• What if they didn't completely **** up the tyre strategy in Q3? Again, costing him multiple spots on the grid.
• What if they tell him to start chasing LeClerc earlier, not waiting for the 3rd set of tyres? If he start the pursuit earlier, then maybe he catches him with more time to spare for the Mercedes pursuit.
• What if Oscar doesn't overshoot the pit box, costing himself an extra 2 seconds in the pit stop?
• What if he gets past LeClerc on the 1st attempt, giving himself an extra lap for the Mercedes pursuit?

So near, yet so far.

He only got as close as he did because Russell held up Lewis.

Russell wouldn't have even been in that position if he wasn't underweight.

I think Piastri's had a few "what if" scenarios this year but I reckon he got the maximum out of it this race.

 

[Vader]

Much, much prefer to see him go for the win than 'fail'. Don't reckon many here would begrudge them rolling the dice. i called it at the time i wanted him to stay out. Post race Karun said the exact same thing that it cost him the win.

Who knows...

• Maybe Piastri's car would have had the same weight problems as Russell's, with the extra tyre deg from doing a one-stopper?
• Maybe Mercedes issue team orders, allowing Hamilton to overtake Russell and chase down Piastri?

I certainly wouldn't be quoting Karun as a source for anything. If Karun says it cost Piastri the win, then it almost certainly didn't.

What I do know is that there were about 5 other things which contributed to Piastri not being in a position to win the race, without having to adopt a high-risk one-stop strategy.

 

[Neale4brownlow]

Speaking of strategy calls - Danny Ric suffered again from a bad one from his team putting him on softs at the start.

I suppose their thinking was that there's often a safety car in the opening laps at Spa and using a counter tyre strategy had a fair chance of giving some positions in that first stint. But no safety car and so he loses out.

An example of what happens when a gutsy strategy goes wrong.

It didn't really hurt them in the end when the early pit stop from the first stint was certainly the right call with anyone pitting early undercutting those who stayed out for a longer first stint.

 

[Festerz]

Much, much prefer to see him go for the win than 'fail'. Don't reckon many here would begrudge them rolling the dice. i called it at the time i wanted him to stay out. Post race Karun said the exact same thing that it cost him the win.

That's where your argument falls apart.

 

[Bedi]

Who knows...

• Maybe Piastri's car would have had the same weight problems as Russell's, with the extra tyre deg from doing a one-stopper?
• Maybe Mercedes issue team orders, allowing Hamilton to overtake Russell and chase down Piastri?

I certainly wouldn't be quoting Karun as a source for anything. If Karun says it cost Piastri the win, then it almost certainly didn't.

What I do know is that there were about 5 other things which contributed to Piastri not being in a position to win the race, without having to adopt a high-risk one-stop strategy.

haha yeah maybe. Interesting Ted's take that the lack of post-race lap meant he couldn't pick up extra weight from rubber on the track

 

[happy_eagle]

Speaking of strategy calls - Danny Ric suffered again from a bad one from his team putting him on softs at the start.

I suppose their thinking was that there's often a safety car in the opening laps at Spa and using a counter tyre strategy had a fair chance of giving some positions in that first stint. But no safety car and so he loses out.

An example of what happens when a gutsy strategy goes wrong.

In the end though, this meant that he pit first and ultimately the undercut was the strategy of choice today.

He went from 14th to 10th by pitting early (forced by the Soft tyres).
He then undercut Albon on the second pit stop because he was pitting earlier.

 

[Vader]

He only got as close as he did because Russell held up Lewis.

Maybe

Russell wouldn't have even been in that position if he wasn't underweight.

I call bullshit on that. The reason he was underweight was because of extra tyre degradation from running long, the flipside of which was slower lap times.

I think Piastri's had a few "what if" scenarios this year but I reckon he got the maximum out of it this race.

I disagree. The McLarens were clearly the fastest cars on Sunday, yet they only managed 3rd (2nd after DQ) and 6th (5th after DQ). The fact that the fastest cars didn't win says that they clearly didn't get "the maximum" out of the race.

A combination of poor strategy, and Piastri overshooting the box on his 2nd stop is what cost him the victory.

Woeful tyre strategy in Q3 cost them multiple grid positions, and hence track position on Sunday. Combine this with pulling the trigger too late on the LeClerc chase. Do not underestimate how much this contributed to Hamiton's lead, which Piastri had to close down late in the race.

 

[Vader]

haha yeah maybe. Interesting Ted's take that the lack of post-race lap meant he couldn't pick up extra weight from rubber on the track

As has been pointed out previously, they knew about the lack of parade lap before the race began. They should have been planning for a lack of marbles when they setup their cars for the start line.

 

[ptrg]

 

[Gak Attack]

Also video of Dan having a happy chat with Horner. He did well in the race despite yet more incompetence from the team over the weekend.

 

[Barrybran]

This thread blew up a bit.

It's not unreasonable for Red Bull to expect Checo to hold his position. Verstappen is moving the opposite way through the field and would have come closer to Piastri / Leclerc had Perez moved out of the way earlier.

I don't know the weight rules of F1 but I'd be surprised if tyres are included in the standard weight given that and fuel are the variable elements (outside of damage). Still, Mercedes have let a Russell down, who drove a fantastic stint.

 

[Jatz]

I wondered if that might have been the case. I don't remember seeing him pit, or hearing them mention it, but it would explain why the gap between himself & Sainz was so large.

Did it to get the fastest lap from Lando I believe. Was a free hit.

 

[Vader]

This thread blew up a bit.

It's not unreasonable for Red Bull to expect Checo to hold his position. Verstappen is moving the opposite way through the field and would have come closer to Piastri / Leclerc had Perez moved out of the way earlier.

I don't know the weight rules of F1 but I'd be surprised if tyres are included in the standard weight given that and fuel are the variable elements (outside of damage). Still, Mercedes have let a Russell down, who drove a fantastic stint.

Cars have to weigh at least 798 kg after the race, and after they've been drained of fuel.

So... tyre degradation & marble pick-up counts towards the weight. Fuel does not.

Russell's car weighed 798 kg before they drained the fuel, and 796.5 kg after they drained 2.5 L of fuel from the tank.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07...squalified-after-winning-belgium-f1/104153358

 

[Jatz]

As has been pointed out previously, they knew about the lack of parade lap before the race began. They should have been planning for a lack of marbles when they setup their cars for the start line.

The more I think of it, the more I think it's stupid they're allowed to pick up marbles at other tracks.

If the only way they make weight is by slowly driving off line on a cool down lap, once the race has been completed, it really shouldn't be counted.

 

[Barrybran]

The more I think of it, the more I think it's stupid they're allowed to pick up marbles at other tracks.

If the only way they make weight is by slowly driving off line on a cool down lap, once the race has been completed, it really shouldn't be counted.

That's why I'm surprised tyres would be included in the overall weight. I would have thought the actual car itself, the element that can be fixed, would be the element scrutinised.

 

[BomberFan355]

The more I think of it, the more I think it's stupid they're allowed to pick up marbles at other tracks.

If the only way they make weight is by slowly driving off line on a cool down lap, once the race has been completed, it really shouldn't be counted.

It’s always been like that.

 

[Vader]

Did it to get the fastest lap from Lando I believe. Was a free hit.

I understand the reasoning... I just wasn't aware of it until I read the thread this morning.

 

[Neale4brownlow]

Maybe

I call bullshit on that. The reason he was underweight was because of extra tyre degradation from running long, the flipside of which was slower lap times.

I disagree. The McLarens were clearly the fastest cars on Sunday, yet they only managed 3rd (2nd after DQ) and 6th (5th after DQ). The fact that the fastest cars didn't win says that they clearly didn't get "the maximum" out of the race.

A combination of poor strategy, and Piastri overshooting the box on his 2nd stop is what cost him the victory.

Woeful tyre strategy in Q3 cost them multiple grid positions, and hence track position on Sunday. Combine this with pulling the trigger too late on the LeClerc chase. Do not underestimate how much this contributed to Hamiton's lead, which Piastri had to close down late in the race.

If the long stint is to blame for Russell being underweight then its also the reason he won at all.

All other cars were compliant. Russell was not. If he had compliant car then he would have had to 2 stop like everyone else and therefore been out of contention.

If they ran the car heavier knowing they were doing a single stop then he would've been slower through the whole race and again not been in contention.

 

[ReidBetweenTheLines]

139K views · 1.6K reactions | 👀 Meeting at the end of the Grand Prix between Laurent Mekies, Christian Horner and Daniel Ricciardo. 🧐 Ricciardo's reaction could mean a promotion to... | By Bayla Sports F1Facebook

👀 Meeting at the end of the Grand Prix between Laurent Mekies, Christian Horner and Daniel Ricciardo. 🧐 Ricciardo's reaction could mean a promotion to...

www.facebook.com

Daniel met with Horner post race. Looks to have a spring in his step as he leaves..

 

[Vader]

If the long stint is to blame for Russell being underweight then its also the reason he won at all.

Yes... both winning & being underweight have the same root cause. That is not the same as saying that being underweight resulted in him winning the race.

All other cars were compliant. Russell was not. If he had compliant car then he would have had to 2 stop like everyone else and therefore been out of contention.

I can't help but wonder how many other cars would have come in underweight if they'd chosen to adopt the one-stop strategy. Russell wasn't the only driver to consider it, though he was the only driver to actually do it.

If they ran the car heavier knowing they were doing a single stop then he would've been slower through the whole race and again not been in contention.

He was underweight by 1.5 kg. The car weighed 796.5 kg instead of 798 kg - a difference of 0.2%. That's what the car weighed at the finish of the race. Given that the weight loss was due to tyre degradation, the car was probably only non-compliant for the last few laps.

The flipside to the lower tyre mass was a lower lap speed, due to limited grip. Swings & roundabouts. I am far from convinced that being 0.2% underweight for 3-4 laps was the difference between him winning and "not being in contention".

As for "knowing they were doing a single stop" - they didn't. They were planning on doing a two-stopper, the same as everyone else. However, they changed plans mid-race, when it became clear that the tyres weren't degrading anywhere near as badly as everyone had predicted. They should have planned for this possibility, but it was never their Plan A.

 

[Neale4brownlow]

Yes... both winning & being underweight have the same root cause. That is not the same as saying that being underweight resulted in him winning the race.

I can't help but wonder how many other cars would have come in underweight if they'd chosen to adopt the one-stop strategy. Russell wasn't the only driver to consider it, though he was the only driver to actually do it.

He was underweight by 1.5 kg. The car weighed 796.5 kg instead of 798 kg - a difference of 0.2%. That's what the car weighed at the finish of the race. Given that the weight loss was due to tyre degradation, the car was probably only non-compliant for the last few laps.

The flipside to the lower tyre mass was a lower lap speed, due to limited grip. Swings & roundabouts. I am far from convinced that being 0.2% underweight for 3-4 laps was the difference between him winning and "not being in contention".

As for "knowing they were doing a single stop" - they didn't. They were planning on doing a two-stopper, the same as everyone else. However, they changed plans mid-race, when it became clear that the tyres weren't degrading anywhere near as badly as everyone had predicted. They should have planned for this possibility, but it was never their Plan A.

Do we even know that tyres are factored into the weigh-in? I'd be surprised if it is.

What about Hamiltons win in silverstone a few years ago when he didnt even finish the in-lap. His tyres were literally shredded. He'd have been weighed in with 3 tyres on the car.

 

[Vader]

Do we even know that tyres are factored into the weigh-in? I'd be surprised if it is.

What about Hamiltons win in silverstone a few years ago when he didnt even finish the in-lap. His tyres were literally shredded. He'd have been weighed in with 3 tyres on the car.

What else could account for it? There's no way the two Mercedes cars started at different weights, yet Hamilton's came in over the limit and George was under. The only difference was the amount of tyre deg on their respective cars.

I'm open to suggestions as to other possible causes, but this is the only theory which has made sense so far.

 

[Hawks1523]

Holy shit I only just saw the DQ!

****ing take that, another win for Lewis!

 

[Vader]

Here's a good article, explaining how the weight ruling works:
https://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/e...hat-cost-russell-belgian-gp-victory/10640014/

The rule that quashed Russell’s victory and handed a second win of the season to Hamilton is Article 4.1 of F1’s technical rules, regarding “minimum mass” of each car.

This states: “The mass of the car, without fuel, must not be less than 798kg, at all times during the competition.

“If, when required for checking, a car is not already fitted with dry-weather tyres, its mass will be determined using a set of dry-weather tyres selected by the FIA technical delegate.”

Presumably the 2nd part of the rule is applied when a car finishes on 3 tyres (e.g. Hamilton at Silverstone, when his tyre blew out on the last lap).

Note: The article discusses the rule, and the lengths they went to when weighing the car. It doesn't explain why the car was underweight in the first place.