[Official] Japanese Grand Prix 2023: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 17 of 23

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Because literally everyone knows that rideheight was the issue in Singapore.

Just as literally everyone knows rideheight is the prime reason for their domination of the last couple of years.

Also, it's funny they call it a "discarded" floor - as I guess they haven't worked out that teams routinely use FP1 etc. for part and set-up validation for future races.

Could not those ride height issues at Singapore have been caused by revisions to the floor?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Could not those ride height issues at Singapore have been caused by revisions to the floor?

No they’re caused by having to run higher due to the track surface.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

I imagine that Red Bull putting Perez back out after "retirement" having been able to "repair" the car, which conveniently let him serve the outstanding penalty for incompetence before retiring again, is within the rules - but I found it very cynical....so Red Bull........


I'd almost forgotten Verstappen was in it as we almost never saw him on the C4 coverage, but obviously he produced a masterly drive. Good work by McLaren

Lap 14 Pit Stop - 43 minutes, 10.513 seconds.

[crmalcolm]

With credit to F1DataAnalysis:

"RedBull's new floor might be worth up to 8km/h

In FP1 only VER used the new floor
Minimum speeds in turn 6 were 180 (VER) and 168 (PER)

In FP2, they both ran the new floor
VER reached 184 (+4 over FP1), PER 180 (+12 over FP1!) A 12-4=8km/h higher improvement

[broadrun96]

How DARE you question the speed of a new part? Don't you know our fearless reporter thinks all new parts are just for show and don't actually provide a benefit, it's just more design and build time cause they're bored at the factory.

Or maybe he just thinks we will all believe he's more insider than reporters with actual comments and engineers who know what they are looking at

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

With credit to F1DataAnalysis:

"RedBull's new floor might be worth up to 8km/h

In FP1 only VER used the new floor
Minimum speeds in turn 6 were 180 (VER) and 168 (PER)

In FP2, they both ran the new floor
VER reached 184 (+4 over FP1), PER 180 (+12 over FP1!) A 12-4=8km/h higher improvement

Yes, but the point was that the floor revisions didn't return them to the top, as TK erroneously claimed. They were going to be up there anyway, as Singapore was a known outlier.

[crmalcolm]

To take it back to Kravitz's comments about the upgraded floor and wing being the reason for Red Bull's improvements (over Singapore), it is not as simple as dismissing him as being wrong, because there is some truth in what he said.

The reality is that it is much more complicated than just a ride height issue, and also more complicated than just a floor and wing development. But TK is in the unenviable position of having to explain things to an audience that may not comprehend the nuances of F1 technology but will also be criticised by some for 'dumbing down' what he says.

The issue stems back to Red Bull's issues at Singapore, which were more than just a matter of having to raise the ride height. That was a contributing factor, but not the cause of the decline in performance (compared to the field).

It is true that the RB19 can run lower than its rivals at almost every track. Which means going into Singapore, Red Bull would have been forced to make a larger ride height change than most. This meant the car ended further away from its sweet spot by default.

But the story does not start and end with ride height. Having to make a change to the ride height does not automatically prevent a good car from performing strongly, but a circuit that forces more compromises also creates more possibility for things to go wrong and that is what happened at Red Bull.

The issues started in the simulator. Horner: 'our simulation before the weekend didn’t lead us to the right conclusion, and then you have to unravel your way out of that. We were just not in the right operating window for the car, particularly over a single lap. When you are not there, the tyres feel horrible, everything just doesn’t work.'

When you look across the whole weekend, Red Bull moved closer to their sweet spot for the circuit, but admit themselves they sometimes got that wrong too.
Monaghan: 'We’ve made some mistakes [...] some errors we made along the way. We had some problems Friday morning, had a different set of problems Friday afternoon. It looked like we were making some progress on Saturday afternoon in FP3, and then we overshot a little bit for qualifying. I think we compounded some errors'

Then you throw in the floor. This was an upgrade the team brought to the track at Singapore, but they had to eliminate as a cause of the issues and so reverted to the previous iteration. Monaghan: 'It casts all sort of doubts and questions in your mind. We weren’t on it and as settled as we have enjoyed at the majority of the races up to this one, so of course we question ourselves.'

Roll on to Japan. The team can bring the car back to its 'normal' ride height, but they also reintroduced the new floor. The FP1 session allowed them to compare old vs new, and the results show the new floor as being an improvement. With the improved floor giving much more vertical load to the car, Red Bull were able to run a wing that had medium downforce. This surprised many in the pitlane, as Red Bull have previously ran high in terms of downforce compared to the field. The single DRS zone was also a factor here, meaning the DRS effect was minimised.

So, when TK told the viewers that the new floor and wing setup was why they performed so well, he was partly right (to an extent).
The Red Bull ride height was low, bringing the car back closer to the sweet spot. The new floor improved the vertical load, allowing a less draggy wing to be applied.
The ride height, new floor and wing setup were all reasons why Red Bull were back at the front.

[Richard C]

I can't comment on Kravitz's comments one way or another as I didn't hear them. I agree there is a challenge of condensing a complex and multidimension topic (aka "dumb it down") for the audience as you say. Question is.. Is Ted actively doing that, or is he just letting his mouth run without a lot of brain engagement.

It's easy to make everything one dimensional such as "it was the ride height". I think that is fine in general. It can sometimes result in over simplification of a topic. I tend to think RBR's Singapore challenges may have revolved around a non-optimal ride height, but other issues were at play as well. Same for performance in Japan.

Richard

[Richard C]

Oh, there was also some who were calling out the timing of the new ruling around flexible wings and the RBR Singapore performance. With the insinuation that this hit RBR. I think Max or someone at RBR said... "No... Lets see what happens in Japan". So they clearly knew it was NOT flexi wing issues and that the car was going to perform in Japan.

Richard

[Richard C]

My son and I were talking during the race yesterday about how if RBR didn't exist, how exciting the season would be. That "best of the rest" has been a real fight with teams moving up and down over the season. I am not saying RBR should be discounted. I am a fan of the technical side of the sport so I really appreciate how good of a job RBR is doing. Not to mention how good Max is.

Richard

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

To take it back to Kravitz's comments about the upgraded floor and wing being the reason for Red Bull's improvements (over Singapore), it is not as simple as dismissing him as being wrong, because there is some truth in what he said.

The reality is that it is much more complicated than just a ride height issue, and also more complicated than just a floor and wing development. But TK is in the unenviable position of having to explain things to an audience that may not comprehend the nuances of F1 technology but will also be criticised by some for 'dumbing down' what he says.

The issue stems back to Red Bull's issues at Singapore, which were more than just a matter of having to raise the ride height. That was a contributing factor, but not the cause of the decline in performance (compared to the field).

It is true that the RB19 can run lower than its rivals at almost every track. Which means going into Singapore, Red Bull would have been forced to make a larger ride height change than most. This meant the car ended further away from its sweet spot by default.

But the story does not start and end with ride height. Having to make a change to the ride height does not automatically prevent a good car from performing strongly, but a circuit that forces more compromises also creates more possibility for things to go wrong and that is what happened at Red Bull.

The issues started in the simulator. Horner: 'our simulation before the weekend didn’t lead us to the right conclusion, and then you have to unravel your way out of that. We were just not in the right operating window for the car, particularly over a single lap. When you are not there, the tyres feel horrible, everything just doesn’t work.'

When you look across the whole weekend, Red Bull moved closer to their sweet spot for the circuit, but admit themselves they sometimes got that wrong too.
Monaghan: 'We’ve made some mistakes [...] some errors we made along the way. We had some problems Friday morning, had a different set of problems Friday afternoon. It looked like we were making some progress on Saturday afternoon in FP3, and then we overshot a little bit for qualifying. I think we compounded some errors'

Then you throw in the floor. This was an upgrade the team brought to the track at Singapore, but they had to eliminate as a cause of the issues and so reverted to the previous iteration. Monaghan: 'It casts all sort of doubts and questions in your mind. We weren’t on it and as settled as we have enjoyed at the majority of the races up to this one, so of course we question ourselves.'

Roll on to Japan. The team can bring the car back to its 'normal' ride height, but they also reintroduced the new floor. The FP1 session allowed them to compare old vs new, and the results show the new floor as being an improvement. With the improved floor giving much more vertical load to the car, Red Bull were able to run a wing that had medium downforce. This surprised many in the pitlane, as Red Bull have previously ran high in terms of downforce compared to the field. The single DRS zone was also a factor here, meaning the DRS effect was minimised.

So, when TK told the viewers that the new floor and wing setup was why they performed so well, he was partly right (to an extent).
The Red Bull ride height was low, bringing the car back closer to the sweet spot. The new floor improved the vertical load, allowing a less draggy wing to be applied.
The ride height, new floor and wing setup were all reasons why Red Bull were back at the front.

Blimey, talk about overthinking things.

Point was TK was clear on the grid as to why the RB was back at the top. He was talking complete ********. As usual. For someone who has been around so long, he has ridiculously little understanding of what he is seeing.

[chillibowl]

So everyone is in agreement then?

Here we prefer the ‘overthinking’ fan to the rubbish people with access deign to share?

Love your posts cr!

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

So everyone is in agreement then?

Here we prefer the ‘overthinking’ fan to the rubbish people with access deign to share?

Love your posts cr!

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

Although there's plenty here who prefer wishful thinking over using even one eye LOL.

[chillibowl]

indeed...such is the nature of fandom on a fan forum.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The issue stems back to Red Bull's issues at Singapore, which were more than just a matter of having to raise the ride height. That was a contributing factor, but not the cause of the decline in performance (compared to the field).

back to our regular programming...

this is where i am at or was when i suggested that their issues may have been personnel related in the RB thread. of course i am just speculating (what else can i do), but given how unbelievably right this team has gotten everything this year it is very surprising that either through development, race preparation, procedurally over the weekend that their issues came just from setup, an area they have truly excelled in otherwise?

easy enough to dismiss it tho as just being a blip or down to one thing like ride height but surely there is more to the story and one i suspect RB have themselves spent or will spend time on working out what went wrong with their flow that weekend.

of course i can appreciate the answer may just be down to the technical side and while my mindset may lead me more to focusing on the human element as a contributory factors, i can accept that i was way off with my speculation.

but runs of form like the one RB have been on are rare in any sport and this blemish on their otherwise spotless score card may really be one of the more interesting stories of this season right?

anyways, i hope you guys keep talking about it!

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by peebee2

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

Although there's plenty here who prefer wishful thinking over using even one eye LOL.

Yeah, but unverified 'expertise' really isn't worth any more than the wishful thinking. You already know that only too well.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

No they’re caused by having to run higher due to the track surface.

So they didn't bring a revised floor to Singapore?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

So they didn't bring a revised floor to Singapore?

They bring a different/revised floor to every race. Like all top teams, they have different spec floors to suit various tracks, and they use FP1 to validate set ups. The Singapore issue is known to hurt RBR more than others as they run low. Yes, as I could hardly be bothered to write before, they made some set up errors to compound the problem, but RBR are at their worst such tracks. No other teams can run as low as they do without exaggerated porpoising.

The floor version at Suzuka was not the reason they returned to the top. It was primarily due to being able to run lower again.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

They bring a different/revised floor to every race. Like all top teams, they have different spec floors to suit various tracks, and they use FP1 to validate set ups. The Singapore issue is known to hurt RBR more than others as they run low. Yes, as I could hardly be bothered to write before, they made some set up errors to compound the problem, but RBR are at their worst such tracks. No other teams can run as low as they do without exaggerated porpoising.

The floor version at Suzuka was not the reason they returned to the top. It was primarily due to being able to run lower again.

Isn't the floor a determining factor as to how low a car can, or cannot be run?

[S griffin]

Obviously Red Bull found the right set up after being stuck in midfield in Singapore. Shame no one was able to challenge Verstappen. Where was the rain when we needed it?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Isn't the floor a determining factor as to how low a car can, or cannot be run?

In the current underbody era, I would say the floors (regardless of team) probably have a particular optimal ride height that gives the best performance. I think Singapore is just an example of a street circuit in which lower ride heights (such as what might work best for Red Bull) can also result in excessive wear on the legality plank. So it's not the "floor" that decides "how low can you go", but most probably the circuit. Even then it is still not one dimensional. You could make the suspension very stiff and still run low on a bumpy circuit, but then the car might be skating all over the place.

crmalcolm already called out what RBR/Horner has said regarding Singapore. I have also read a Horner comment from somewhere in which he said that knowing what they know now after Singapore, that if they were to do it all over again (get the setup right), it's not like the car would be a bullet. They still have challenges at some circuits with street circuits (not particularly smooth) being the likely common factor.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

While floor upgrades and Ted Kravitz are both in discussion - I notice that TK was also connected to a potential leak of AlphaTauri’s brand new upgraded floor at Suzuka.

I haven't seen the footage, but it seems that during his piece in the pit lane, teams were moving floors around. Red Bull had their floor all wrapped and covered to prevent others from getting a visibility of the upgrades.
For AlphaTauri though, that was not the case, as team members were seen moving the floor without any covers through the pitlane.
TK was able to notice the upset that broadcasting the images might cause, and intervened 'Maybe don’t show the bottom of the floor. They don’t want us to see that. Pan away Lee, pan away. Don’t show the floor, there we go. We’re not looking at the floor, because their upgrades actually have worked really well.'

It does raise the question - teams should be aware that cameras are always operating in the pit lane, so if they bring a component through without covers, is the onus on the broadcaster to not show images?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

While floor upgrades and Ted Kravitz are both in discussion - I notice that TK was also connected to a potential leak of AlphaTauri’s brand new upgraded floor at Suzuka.

I haven't seen the footage, but it seems that during his piece in the pit lane, teams were moving floors around. Red Bull had their floor all wrapped and covered to prevent others from getting a visibility of the upgrades.
For AlphaTauri though, that was not the case, as team members were seen moving the floor without any covers through the pitlane.
TK was able to notice the upset that broadcasting the images might cause, and intervened 'Maybe don’t show the bottom of the floor. They don’t want us to see that. Pan away Lee, pan away. Don’t show the floor, there we go. We’re not looking at the floor, because their upgrades actually have worked really well.'

It does raise the question - teams should be aware that cameras are always operating in the pit lane, so if they bring a component through without covers, is the onus on the broadcaster to not show images?

I saw this video on TikTok. I thought it was Alpine but I admit I wasn't paying that much attention.

It's harsh to link it to Ted as part of a leak - it was 100% the teams fault. They were just walking down the pit lane and the floor came out in full view in front of them on camera.

[Sodemo]

Looking at the onboards mounting on the front wings, plenty of teams still have really bendy wings, this was at Suzuka.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Looking at the onboards mounting on the front wings, plenty of teams still have really bendy wings, this was at Suzuka.

I will have to pay attention at the next race. I think it is impossible to get zero movement (zero is pretty absolute). But there were some older 2023 videos floating around of what to me looks very much like DRS style flexing. I assume it was all about drag reduction at higher speed.

If it continues to be an issue, I expect they will continue to tweak the level of inspection. I think part of the new rules is that the CAD diagrams and construction methods are to be provided with the idea that it becomes more obvious if some type of flexure has been built into the design. But this also reminds me a bit of the 1995 Toyota cheat for their WRC car in which it was not obvious when looking at the design, but rather how it was assemble in a way to allow for some air to bypass the restrictor. The point being even the diagrams may not show/expose any "creativity" that may not be legal.

Richard