Formula 1

[icowden]

It's a bit weird criticising F1 for this stuff.

Why? Just about everyone watching recognised that this was manifestly unfair. It didn't end as a race because one driver was given a massive advantage over the other. If Masi had wanted to end with a race, he should have left the back markers as they were. As @byegad said - Max had the ability, the speed and, thanks to luck*, the tyres to be in with a chance of taking Hamilton and the back markers. It would likely have come down to the line and been a fantastic race.

Instead, Max was given the biggest advantage it was possible to give, short of letting him overtake Hamilton and restart leading the race. It wasn't a sporting decision, it was a decision to hand Red Bull the victory on a plate, gift-wrapped, with a bow on top and sparkles.

*Mercedes only real chance to do an extra tyre change would have been earlier in the race, but would have gifted Max the lead - and given that Masi had already allowed Max to be dangerous / let him run people off the road, the risks were too big - I think against any other driver they might have risked it knowing that Hamilton had a good chance at a secure overtake.

 

[classic33]

Why? Just about everyone watching recognised that this was manifestly unfair. It didn't end as a race because one driver was given a massive advantage over the other. If Masi had wanted to end with a race, he should have left the back markers as they were. As @byegad said - Max had the ability, the speed and, thanks to luck*, the tyres to be in with a chance of taking Hamilton and the back markers. It would likely have come down to the line and been a fantastic race.

Instead, Max was given the biggest advantage it was possible to give, short of letting him overtake Hamilton and restart leading the race. It wasn't a sporting decision, it was a decision to hand Red Bull the victory on a plate, gift-wrapped, with a bow on top and sparkles.

*Mercedes only real chance to do an extra tyre change would have been earlier in the race, but would have gifted Max the lead - and given that Masi had already allowed Max to be dangerous / let him run people off the road, the risks were too big - I think against any other driver they might have risked it knowing that Hamilton had a good chance at a secure overtake.

Didn't Hamilton gain a lasting advantage, and not give the position back as required, at the start of the race. Shortcut taken over two corners. Nothing done then, or even mentioned by Mercedes.

 

[matticus]

Why?

Because we can only read the first sentence of posts now?

 

[Reynard]

I don't see the need for all of the changes in the car design especially if they say that they are trying to keep costs down .
If you took out Lewis and Max you would have close racing . The fact that they are way above the others tends to make it a procession.
I don't like the idea of close racing but prefer teams to come up with new ideas or having different tyre manufacturers which come up with different tyre compounds . The idea of a hoard of F1 cars closely grouped together reminds me of Formula Ford racing and would be boring .

I have a mate who dabbles in classic FF1600 - and raced in the Senior championship back in '89. FF1600 is hardly boring - think pinball on wheels... The difference is, of course, that FF1600 has no aero at all, which is why the racing can be so close. The cars rely purely on mechanical grip.

It will be interesting to see if reverting to ground effect to generate downforce will actually change anything. I don't remember the racing in the early 80s being that close, but then, in my defence, I was only seven in 1982 when I first got interested.

 

[byegad]

I have a mate who dabbles in classic FF1600 - and raced in the Senior championship back in '89. FF1600 is hardly boring - think pinball on wheels... The difference is, of course, that FF1600 has no aero at all, which is why the racing can be so close. The cars rely purely on mechanical grip.

It will be interesting to see if reverting to ground effect to generate downforce will actually change anything. I don't remember the racing in the early 80s being that close, but then, in my defence, I was only seven in 1982 when I first got interested.

It was much a race as most eras. The Ground Effect may be better understood now, than then, but I doubt it. Back then certain teams got it dead right and won many races, much like the last 20 yrs.

 

[Reynard]

It was much a race as most eras. The Ground Effect may be better understood now, than then, but I doubt it. Back then certain teams got it dead right and won many races, much like the last 20 yrs.

Ground effect is very definitely better understood now, and the means of achieving it are better, although the basic principles of accelerating the airflow in a confined space and thus reducing the air pressure certainly haven't changed.

In the late 70s / early 80s, it was more of a "let's throw it on the car and see what works" kind of thing, as there were very few wind tunnels and no computer modelling. All the maths was pen-and-paper. There was, though, a heck of a lot of testing. What that did, though, was showcase how the different designers of the era (Colin Chapman, Gordon Murray, Patrick head, Harvey Postlethwaite, John Barnard) approached what they saw as a solution to the rules and the way of engineering (often around!) those rules. Think of the Brabham fan car and the twin-chassis Lotus 88...

Back when I was an engineering undergraduate in the mid 1990s, we were using computational fluid mechanics on a reasonably regular basis, right alongside looking at airflow with smoke, but the software we used back then was so very basic compared to what's been used now, nearly thirty years later. It allows you to visualize exactly what's happening, and to tweak as you go.

Now, there is a lot less hit-and-hope when it comes to race car engineering, simply because there is so much more data available. And that's why all the cars look so similar these days, as everyone is, through the use of computer software, being pointed towards the same optimal solutions.

It also explains why the cars are so damn fugly!

 

[CXRAndy]

Now more conversations publicised between Masi and Redbull.

Basically, Redbull suggested, let only those cars in-between Hamilton and Verstappen through, block the rest- Masi agreeing, saying understood

Completely contrary to the rules in that situation

 

[figbat]

Now more conversations publicised between Masi and Redbull.

Basically, Redbull suggested, let only those cars in-between Hamilton and Verstappen through, block the rest- Masi agreeing, saying understood

Completely contrary to the rules in that situation

With Masi using the same language to justify his call that RB had used to promote their case. In paraphrase it was something like:

RB: "Hey, just let those few cars through and don't bother waiting before restarting - then we have a motor race"
MM: "OK"
[Situation unfolds as outlined by RB]
Toto: "I say chap, that's not on"
MM: "It's called a motor race Toto".

I'm still angry about it.

 

[figbat]

Back when I was an engineering undergraduate in the mid 1990s, we were using computational fluid mechanics on a reasonably regular basis, right alongside looking at airflow with smoke, but the software we used back then was so very basic compared to what's been used now, nearly thirty years later. It allows you to visualize exactly what's happening, and to tweak as you go.

Now, there is a lot less hit-and-hope when it comes to race car engineering, simply because there is so much more data available. And that's why all the cars look so similar these days, as everyone is, through the use of computer software, being pointed towards the same optimal solutions.

Off topic a bit, but this reminds me of the several times I spent talking with the Thrust SSC and Bloodhound SSC teams. During one discussion on the Bloodhound car they outlined all the computational modelling they have now compared to what they had in 1997 for Thrust SSC. They also said that they had retrospectively applied the new modelling technology to the old car and discovered that they were within a whisker of disaster, even though the modelling at the time had shown they were OK.

 

[Reynard]

Off topic a bit, but this reminds me of the several times I spent talking with the Thrust SSC and Bloodhound SSC teams. During one discussion on the Bloodhound car they outlined all the computational modelling they have now compared to what they had in 1997 for Thrust SSC. They also said that they had retrospectively applied the new modelling technology to the old car and discovered that they were within a whisker of disaster, even though the modelling at the time had shown they were OK.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. The real difference is down to sheer computational power, and the number of iterations the system is set up for.

When I was working on the development of the Transit Connect back in the day, we were still double-checking the stress analysis modelling using good old-fashioned maths. There was a certain amount of fudging going on to make things "fit"

 

[icowden]

Didn't Hamilton gain a lasting advantage, and not give the position back as required, at the start of the race. Shortcut taken over two corners. Nothing done then, or even mentioned by Mercedes.

No. He was not required by the race director or stewards to give the place back. He was deemed to have passed successfully and given the time advantage back. I think most would agree that that was an odd call, but it wasn't an unusual call particularly, and Lewis would have passed Max anyway (assuming Max didn't crash into him) given his speed advantage at that point.

 

[CXRAndy]

Off topic a bit, but this reminds me of the several times I spent talking with the Thrust SSC and Bloodhound SSC teams. During one discussion on the Bloodhound car they outlined all the computational modelling they have now compared to what they had in 1997 for Thrust SSC. They also said that they had retrospectively applied the new modelling technology to the old car and discovered that they were within a whisker of disaster, even though the modelling at the time had shown they were OK.

I know the owners who supplied some of the carbon fibre to the bloodhound project

 

[classic33]

No. He was not required by the race director or stewards to give the place back. He was deemed to have passed successfully and given the time advantage back. I think most would agree that that was an odd call, but it wasn't an unusual call particularly, and Lewis would have passed Max anyway (assuming Max didn't crash into him) given his speed advantage at that point.

He passed whilst off the track, which isn't something that should be done, rejoining with a visible advantage that wasn't there beforehand due to missing a turn. An advantage that wasn't given back.

 

[BrumJim]

Off topic a bit, but this reminds me of the several times I spent talking with the Thrust SSC and Bloodhound SSC teams. During one discussion on the Bloodhound car they outlined all the computational modelling they have now compared to what they had in 1997 for Thrust SSC. They also said that they had retrospectively applied the new modelling technology to the old car and discovered that they were within a whisker of disaster, even though the modelling at the time had shown they were OK.

I've got the book about Thrust 2 and Thrust SSC, and this notes that Thrust 2 was whithin a whisker of disaster, mainly because they were engineering on the hoof a bit. As you noted, they only found this out when running the simulation and checking it against real-world landspeed record data, i.e. what happend on Thrust 2.
The book is a fascinating insight into the engineering and team building. The UK was traditionally at the forefront of speed records until the Americans took over with the jet / rocket cars. I guess we were being a little too traditional and stuck in our ways. Then Richard Noble comes along and puts an element of professionalism into the escapade, which other record attempts haven't yet emulated. But the engineering was fascinating, where they did the calculations for the air flow, but then wanted to validate them with a practical test. Which isn't easy when you are looking at supersonic air flows.

The team-building bit was also interesting, i.e. how to manage a group of top-of-their-specialism professionals when you are simply a rich man with a bid dream. Also that the venture only worked financially because they got the record. Without it they would have been bankrupt.

 

[figbat]

I've got the book about Thrust 2 and Thrust SSC, and this notes that Thrust 2 was whithin a whisker of disaster, mainly because they were engineering on the hoof a bit. As you noted, they only found this out when running the simulation and checking it against real-world landspeed record data, i.e. what happend on Thrust 2.
The book is a fascinating insight into the engineering and team building. The UK was traditionally at the forefront of speed records until the Americans took over with the jet / rocket cars. I guess we were being a little too traditional and stuck in our ways. Then Richard Noble comes along and puts an element of professionalism into the escapade, which other record attempts haven't yet emulated. But the engineering was fascinating, where they did the calculations for the air flow, but then wanted to validate them with a practical test. Which isn't easy when you are looking at supersonic air flows.

The team-building bit was also interesting, i.e. how to manage a group of top-of-their-specialism professionals when you are simply a rich man with a bid dream. Also that the venture only worked financially because they got the record. Without it they would have been bankrupt.

I also have the book - I got it signed by Richard Noble and Andy Green. 😎