Excited for Spa. It's a fun track. There'll be a lot of tributes to Anthoine Hubert it sounds like, which I'm glad they are doing. Juan Manuel Correa is there also for this race as part of the anniversary of the crash. He gets his big metal rod thing off his leg soon and he might be able to walk again after that. He's targeting returning to racing next year.
This is something I can't remember ever seeing, Helmut Marko has come out and defended Albon and admitted the team screwed up Albon's car's setup last race, which explained why he struggled so much with his tires. Marko never admits fault or mistakes so this is new. Maybe he and Red Bull have finally learned that dumping ridiculous amounts of pressure on people who are just barely not rookies is not a good way to do things. It's no coincidence that every driver they've chucked into the Red Bull seat after only a rookie year has struggled. When Marko talked about Gasly last year, it was always in much less certain terms, and he didn't actually defend Gasly. It was always "we'll see how things go" and in general he was much less supportive.
edit: holy shit Ferrari is slow. The engine stuff is really showing here. Ferrari and the two Ferrari using teams making up 6 of the bottom 8 positions. Leclerc 1.6 seconds off the lead.
Merc looked very strong in qualifying today. Bottas managed P2 despite clearly struggling to match Hamilton.
Apparently both Merc and Red Bull brought substantial updates to this race. Merc's upgrade worked as expected. Red Bull's upgrade has supposedly made the car much more stable, which is something both Verstappen and Albon were asking for. The on-boards for the cars have showed that the car is much less skittish now. It seems like Albon has a lot more confidence in the car now too, he's been pretty close to Verstappen. He gave Verstappen a tow for the last lap of Q3 after Verstappen gave him one in Q2 which explains how they were able to beat each other by 0.3-0.5 seconds in each session.
Renault is continuing to be quite quick at another circuit, though apparently they are running a fairly low downforce setup so they could struggle in the second and third sector in the race. McLaren hasn't been as fast but they expected this to be the case at this track since it doesn't suit their downforce setup. Racing Point seem to be struggling a bit. They brought new parts so I wonder if they are possibly just having setup issues.
Ferrari... What do you even say? That was brutal. Kimi almost pipped Charles for a Q2 spot. The team with the fastest car last year barely made it past Q1 this year. I feel kinda bad for Sainz since he's going from a team making obvious upward progress to a team that is looking increasingly defeated and literally cannot fix parts of their car issues for next year due to the restrictions in place.
Yeah completely lost interest in this season after the first couple of races, specially when it was confirmed that budget caps were to be in place and that new rules were only for 2022.
That is essencially 2 free years for Mercedes, which in my case means 2 years of listening to sky folks going on about hamilton all broadcast....even worse when this super competitive (\s) extended era eventually made him overcome the records of the old greats.
This season could have been something with the new calendar and all that, but it seems its going to be even worse than last year, by no fault of Mercedes (well due to their merit), but this isnt racing.
The Ferrari implosion continues with all 6 Ferrari engines in the bottom 8 with Williams... This is going to be fun when Monza arrivies.
As for Spa, Hamilton will lap the Ferraris maybe twice?
I agree with the British media hardon for English drivers but that has been forever for the English broadcasts. Most of the pundits, even the guest ones like Rosberg, have improved. Lets not talk about you know who haha
You know it's a bad season when even Spa is dull, and Spa is one of the best tracks of the year.
Merc were untouchable yet again. The only highlights of this race were Renault and Gasly. Renault appear to have genuine pace to be the third fastest car after the last two races. Had Ricciardo not been stuck behind Gasly and Perez after the safety car for a few laps he probably could have got in range to try to pass Verstappen near the end. Ricciardo put in fastest sectors and fastest laps for the last several laps in a row and ended just barely behind Verstappen.
Kimi overtaking the Ferraris in his Sauber is a pretty good summary of Ferrari's current form. Hearing Vettel basically threaten his engineer over strategy again was amusing.
Red Bull used Albon as a test bed for Verstappen again. There's no other explanation for why they would put medium tires on that early when literally every other car was putting on hards. There's no way those tires would last to the end when everyone thought even the hards were marginal.
Naturally the Sky people still used Albon losing a place after his tires fell of the cliff as a means of criticizing him since there's literally nothing else they can come up with to talk about this season due to how dull it is. Karun pointed out that Albon couldn't be blamed for his team gambling on strategy and then of course Paul di Resta used that as a cue to criticize Albon for a couple minutes straight. di Resta used to be good but lately he's decided to be the contrarian, hyper-critical guy and it's bad. I've stopped watching practice because of him.
Sky in general continues to be irritating to listen to. He who must not be named continues to get shoutier and louder every race (the duller the race, the louder he gets), not to mention he keeps saying obviously wrong stuff. One instance this race:
Brundle: DRS isn't available for another lap. *literally two seconds later* Croft: Ricciardo has DRS and is going for the pass on Perez Brundle: ...
I miss BBC's F1 coverage. In Canada we used to get BBC but then TSN signed a big deal with Sky. I wish they would have went with Channel 4's. Couthard and company were so much better than Brundle and Croft are now.
I guess it's kinda telling I wrote more about Sky than the race itself...
Probably its just me, but the 2020 onboard does seem to have vibrations, which i don't see on the 2019 onboard. It must feel really sucky to be driving a worse car ...
On August 31 2020 16:09 fLyiNgDroNe wrote: Probably its just me, but the 2020 onboard does seem to have vibrations, which i don't see on the 2019 onboard. It must feel really sucky to be driving a worse car ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz3kxdZa2pM
2019 one seems to have a much better camera, and probably better shake management, which would account for most of the vibrations you're seeing.
The lacking pace of Ferrari isn't a mystery. They got caught cheating with their engines in 2019, had to roll back a lot of development in that area, and now they are lacking massive straight line speed, which was their biggest strength before (The rest of their car was always subpar).
On August 31 2020 16:09 fLyiNgDroNe wrote: Probably its just me, but the 2020 onboard does seem to have vibrations, which i don't see on the 2019 onboard. It must feel really sucky to be driving a worse car ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz3kxdZa2pM
2019 one seems to have a much better camera, and probably better shake management, which would account for most of the vibrations you're seeing.
The lacking pace of Ferrari isn't a mystery. They got caught cheating with their engines in 2019, had to roll back a lot of development in that area, and now they are lacking massive straight line speed, which was their biggest strength before (The rest of their car was always subpar).
If this was a court, that statement would have been dangerous. Ferrari was caught with something FIA suspected was not legal but could not prove that that was indeed the case, even after significant testing, either by wrong readings from instruments, or because they couldnt simply figure it out.
That's why there was a confidential settlement of the issue, the FIA could not figure it out, and giving significant details about why, would harm Ferrari because everyone would know how the ferrari engine works. But the newspiece about a confidential settlement lead to people ramping the speculation over 9000.
In essence, due to that grey/red area that FIA wanted to make sure Ferrari was not crossing (despite being unable to prove it), that was discussed and agreed in the settlement, lead to Ferrari making significant changes to their engine which, coupled with the change in design philosophy (which you can then argue is just BS, obviously), produced this disgrace of a car for 2020.
On August 31 2020 16:09 fLyiNgDroNe wrote: Probably its just me, but the 2020 onboard does seem to have vibrations, which i don't see on the 2019 onboard. It must feel really sucky to be driving a worse car ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz3kxdZa2pM
2019 one seems to have a much better camera, and probably better shake management, which would account for most of the vibrations you're seeing.
The lacking pace of Ferrari isn't a mystery. They got caught cheating with their engines in 2019, had to roll back a lot of development in that area, and now they are lacking massive straight line speed, which was their biggest strength before (The rest of their car was always subpar).
If this was a court, that statement would have been dangerous. Ferrari was caught with something FIA suspected was not legal but could not prove that that was indeed the case, even after significant testing, either by wrong readings from instruments, or because they couldnt simply figure it out.
That's why there was a confidential settlement of the issue, the FIA could not figure it out, and giving significant details about why, would harm Ferrari because everyone would know how the ferrari engine works. But the newspiece about a confidential settlement lead to people ramping the speculation over 9000.
In essence, due to that grey/red area that FIA wanted to make sure Ferrari was not crossing (despite being unable to prove it), that was discussed and agreed in the settlement, lead to Ferrari making significant changes to their engine which, coupled with the change in design philosophy (which you can then argue is just BS, obviously), produced this disgrace of a car for 2020.
Yes, the circumstances around the whole investigation is a mystery that we will probably never know the full extent of. But the result is the same. 1. FIA investigates Ferrari. 2. FIA and Ferrari makes a settlement in secret, one which we know nothing about other than the fact that a fine was part of the agreement. Aka FIA found something wrong, but could not disclose it. 3. Ferrari's engine's suddenly produce a much much lower amount of power the very next race, an issue that has plagued them until this day.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to put two and two together about this.
The FIA have no proof that whatever Ferrari had was actually used during a race, and all the evidence is circumstantial. According to any available telemetry, Ferrari's car was legal. Not good enough for the hundreds of millions of damage it would do to both Ferrari and F1 as a brand. Better to settle on the side.
Technically speaking it's pretty cool.
Basically the fuel flow meter reads at 2200Hz. By adding a 2200Hz sinusoidal component of some sort, you could trick the sensor into reading low or high by varying the phase. But there were a few thoughts as to how the sensor was being tricked. The additional encrypted random reading sensor killed the fuel flow trickery.
1. Running the High voltage lines right by the sensor. The sensor specifications state that it should be immune to electrical interference, but 800V@double or triple digit Amps can definitely induce a current in nearby electronics, especially if there happens to be an AC component, at 2200Hz specifically, with phase dependant on engine mode. They only need a few% change in sensor reading to pull this off.
2. 2200 Hz vibration in the fuel itself. Hard to do, but if a resonant frequency of your pump is 2200Hz, by varying the phase of the pump you can change the fuel flow measurement.
3. Interfering with the fuel measurement itself. The fuel flow sensor uses a sonar pulse to measure, but if you were to send an interfering pulse, you can change the phase/TOF/Frequency readback of the sensor.
No matter which way the sensor was being tricked(could be more than 1 at the same time, with each only having a small effect), the end effect is the same. Aggregate fuel usage would line up, with only some Ferrari garage software knowing the true fuel usage, based on ECU mode/ERS/throttle, and they'd just line it up with the FIA measurement by the end of the race.
The effect would be greatest in qualifying, where they effectively could save fuel for 2 laps (in/outlap), and then deploy it for qualifying. The effect is greatly lessened in race, because any fuel they overspend needs to be saved elsewhere(eg. fast corners/short straights and near top speed) to make the fuel measurement line up at the end of the race.
On September 01 2020 04:56 Amui wrote: The FIA have no proof that whatever Ferrari had was actually used during a race, and all the evidence is circumstantial. According to any available telemetry, Ferrari's car was legal. Not good enough for the hundreds of millions of damage it would do to both Ferrari and F1 as a brand. Better to settle on the side.
And how exactly do you possess this information? Considering none of the other F1 teams even have it. Also, if Ferrari was completely within regulations, they wouldn't have done a frikkin backroom deal where they just accepted the fine without making a fuss. And the timing of their engines suddenly becoming a lot worse immediately afterwards is too suspicious to just ignore.
On September 01 2020 04:56 Amui wrote: The FIA have no proof that whatever Ferrari had was actually used during a race, and all the evidence is circumstantial. According to any available telemetry, Ferrari's car was legal. Not good enough for the hundreds of millions of damage it would do to both Ferrari and F1 as a brand. Better to settle on the side.
And how exactly do you possess this information? Considering none of the other F1 teams even have it. Also, if Ferrari was completely within regulations, they wouldn't have done a frikkin backroom deal where they just accepted the fine without making a fuss. And the timing of their engines suddenly becoming a lot worse immediately afterwards is too suspicious to just ignore.
The information on the technical regulations and what data the FIA measures is freely available on the FIA website. Fuel flow is one of the easiest sensors to check for breach of technical regulations. Ocon got DQ'd for some ridiculously small amount over at CotA in 2018 for example.
I don't disagree that they were cheating. However the way they were cheating shows up on the speed/acceleration trace, which is not regulated beyond accuracy, or else indirectly through things like sonic analysis of the car during acceleration(how fast the revs increase in non-traction limited zones with full deployment). There's a breach of sporting regulations in this case, but not of the technical regulations as they are written, at least until the technical directives from the FIA came out(my opinion). It certainly is a gray area. The fuel flow rate(as measured by the sensor) is the limiting regulation on power output, but if it is being bypassed there wouldn't be any other indication of trickery. There is no regulation regarding ICE output, only on the MGU-K deployment/recovery, with MGU-H being unlimited.
IIRC the backroom deal was also due to intellectual property reasons. Disclosure would necessarily give other teams info on the Ferrari PU, which while illegal through fuel flow, undoubtedly has some innovations and so on that would be considered trade secrets.
On August 31 2020 01:58 Wombat_NornIron wrote: Has Brundle just declined over the years or is he just not to your tastes? Always liked him way, way back in the day.
At present I do see a little in my local bar in the background, rarely with the sound on alas so can’t really comment much on the current pundits!
Brundle is mostly fine and I'm sure he would be better if he had a better co-commentator. He's not the person people have issues with. Brundle was good with DC, he was good with James Allen, and he was good with Murray.
The issue is Sky's continued heavy usage of David Croft. When Croft first started commentating F1 with Brundle he was actually pretty good. He didn't yell and was basically a James Allen-like commentator. However, over the last few years his commentary style has basically been reduced to shouting for a huge chunk of the race and trying to hype things up in a way that feels incredibly forced. The first lap of every single race now is Croft basically shouting out a million words a second and it's at the point where Brundle basically can't get a word in. And it's not just that he says a lot, but he says a lot of wrong stuff while doing so and he completely drowns out Brundle most of the time. Not just that, but he has to shout about every overtake attempt and hype up every pass, which rings hollow when a lot of the passes are basically DRS passes. He also has a habit of outright ignoring what Brundle is saying. That example in my previous post is one of many times that has happened.
Croft also goes for the most controversial take on everything happening in the race. If someone says something on the radio, Croft immediately goes full TMZ. Hamilton will comment on something, say Red Bull's car being easier on tires, and Croft will assume he means he thinks Red Bull is cheating. If a crash happens, Croft places blame and makes assumptions before they even see video of what happened. In one of the earlier races this year during a time when everyone in F1's media was criticizing Vettel constantly (since they always pick a driver of the week to criticize in tandem. This week it's Giovinazzi), Leclerc hit a curb and ended up smashing into the back of Vettel and before onboard video was even shown Croft was already blaming Vettel for the incident. Similarly, when Kvyat had that heavy crash Croft immediately assumed Kvyat made a mistake and lost it. As soon as they showed the onboard, Brundle pointed out (correctly) that it was actually probably a rear suspension failure.
On September 05 2020 23:50 Excludos wrote: Well done Mercedes for being the only team with brains in the qualifying
You'd think the others would have figured this shit out by now. Bottas even said that Mercedes factored in the potential time losses from trying to get a slipstream and they found it wasn't worth it compared to just getting clean laps.
I genuinely think we might see Mercedes lap the entire field tomorrow. They said the engine mode ban would work in their favour, and we've seen nothing to suggest otherwise. They said that the ban opens up the equivalent of half a race more worth of engine usage or alternatively they can run the engine at more power for the same number of races. The latter is what they have chosen to do by the sounds of things.
Add in Ferrari continuing to imitate Sauber and Monza being Red Bull's bogey track, and we've got a pretty dull race in store. Though if we ignore Mercedes it should be decent I guess. From P3 downwards it's very close. It's something like 4 tenths separating P3 to P10 in qualifying today.
On August 31 2020 01:58 Wombat_NornIron wrote: Has Brundle just declined over the years or is he just not to your tastes? Always liked him way, way back in the day.
At present I do see a little in my local bar in the background, rarely with the sound on alas so can’t really comment much on the current pundits!
Brundle is mostly fine and I'm sure he would be better if he had a better co-commentator. He's not the person people have issues with. Brundle was good with DC, he was good with James Allen, and he was good with Murray.
The issue is Sky's continued heavy usage of David Croft. When Croft first started commentating F1 with Brundle he was actually pretty good. He didn't yell and was basically a James Allen-like commentator. However, over the last few years his commentary style has basically been reduced to shouting for a huge chunk of the race and trying to hype things up in a way that feels incredibly forced. The first lap of every single race now is Croft basically shouting out a million words a second and it's at the point where Brundle basically can't get a word in. And it's not just that he says a lot, but he says a lot of wrong stuff while doing so and he completely drowns out Brundle most of the time. Not just that, but he has to shout about every overtake attempt and hype up every pass, which rings hollow when a lot of the passes are basically DRS passes. He also has a habit of outright ignoring what Brundle is saying. That example in my previous post is one of many times that has happened.
Croft also goes for the most controversial take on everything happening in the race. If someone says something on the radio, Croft immediately goes full TMZ. Hamilton will comment on something, say Red Bull's car being easier on tires, and Croft will assume he means he thinks Red Bull is cheating. If a crash happens, Croft places blame and makes assumptions before they even see video of what happened. In one of the earlier races this year during a time when everyone in F1's media was criticizing Vettel constantly (since they always pick a driver of the week to criticize in tandem. This week it's Giovinazzi), Leclerc hit a curb and ended up smashing into the back of Vettel and before onboard video was even shown Croft was already blaming Vettel for the incident. Similarly, when Kvyat had that heavy crash Croft immediately assumed Kvyat made a mistake and lost it. As soon as they showed the onboard, Brundle pointed out (correctly) that it was actually probably a rear suspension failure.
That makes sense, I mean from my childhood anyway Murray Walker and Brundle made a great combination, the former still being up there with my favourite commentators of any sport out there.
Well that was a fun race. It turns out if you take Mercedes out of the equation, things get much better. Happy for Gasly even though I was more cheering for Sainz. Gasly has continued to do quite well this season. Stroll has to be kicking himself since he probably could have easily won that one if he didn't make a colossal mess of his start.
Hopefully the new rules will allow these types of races to become more common. With Ferrari and Mercedes's budgets set to roughly halve and be in line of where Racing Point, McLaren, etc. are already operating at, there should be something resembling closing up. Mercedes won't be able to chuck insane amounts of funding at aero development anymore and will have to completely restructure themselves operationally.
The engine mode stuff did seem to have an impact in the race, which was cool. Bottas was on the radio complaining about not being able to change modes. I guess now they both can't turn their engine down temporarily to cool (the new rule is if you turn your engine down you can't turn it back up) nor can they crank their engines back into qualifying mode to do overtakes. It certainly made Mercedes look mortal the second they weren't in the lead. Even Hamilton wasn't sailing past people anymore like in the past. It's like their 2014-2016 weakness for being in dirty air has returned but this time they can't compensate with their engine.
Red Bull were nowhere. Verstappen's engine had issues but even without he didn't seem racy and Albon was apparently missing half of his floor for most of the race after his collisions.
I imagine Danny Ric has to happy about his McLaren move now. McLaren were the best non-Mercedes team today (and have been up there quite frequently this season), and next year they will have the Merc engine.
EPT
