Post

Vanja H

@AeroTechVH

Apr 21 • 13 tweets • 9 min read • Read on X

Scrolly

#F1 #SaudiArabianGP 2025

🟧/🟦 - The Controversial Moment

So we've had the 1st one of those this year and we can do a deep dive on the incident from multiple angles

First, let's examine the ruling. The Stewards observe Piastri as the attacker and rule he was significantly alongside so he had the right to be given room. Ok, he had the room - he was on the inside...

Second part is especially important - Verstappen left the track on his own in Stewards view. This is not true and it was clear as day - he was pushed off and it's easy to be proven.

The problem with this ruling is that it completely contravenes the ruling in Mexico 2024 regarding Verstappen pushing Norris off - which was a fair penalty. There we have two points:

- Norris was ruled to be ahead at entry, apex and exit and thus was to be given enough room on the outside and this is correct
- it is noted he is pushed off (true) and gives back position to Sainz as he cuts the 2nd corner significantly

Being ahead at the apex and being pushed off - we remember this for later, even though stewards ignored these points

1. T1 Apex in Jeddah

Via Google Maps we can observe the corner 100% accurately and we can establish the kerbs are symmetrical around the apex axis. So the 3rd white block marks the apex of the corner - we remember this for later too

2. Outside Evidence of Track Position

On overhead photo we see that Verstappen is ahead at exit and is not going to be given room on the outside

From Russell's car we see that Max appears to be ahead on entry and apex too. We also see Piastri is extremely wide and off-line and does not give space

Piastri probably understeered, carrying too much speed for inside line, which doesn't matter for ruling and is just an explanation of what probably happened

3. Inside Evidence - Verstappen's angle

At the entry into T1, Verstappen was ahead

At the apex of T1, Verstappen was ahead

Being pushed off, Verstappen doesn't tun right immediately and actually keeps turning left - there is no evidence whatsoever he didn't plan to make the corner. This is important for ruling because Stewards are clear that he left the track on his own

4. Inside Evidence - Piastri's angle

We can see clearly also from Piastri's onboard that he wasn't ahead of the apex and thus shouldn't have been ruled entitled to close the door on the outside

Moreover, due to understeer most likely, he can just barely keep the car on the inside of track limits in T2 apex. He was never going to give enough room to Verstappen, but it doesn't matter if this was on purpose or due to understeer.

5. Telemetry

We do have available telemetry of Lap 1 and I zoomed in at T1-2 chicane via @f1insightshub

We can see clearly:

- Piastri has better initial acceleration, validating telemetry accuracy ✅
- Verstappen was much earlier on brakes, ie Piastri was much later on brakes and this is especially important because you usually need to be a touch earlier on brakes when you are on the inside line
- Verstappen reduces deceleration by reducing brake pressure from 227m mark, but he's still on brakes obviously (telemetry only shows brakes on/off)
- Piastri releases brakes deep into the corner at around 300m mark for a moment
- Piastri is earlier on throttle at exit, but as Verstappen is already out of track, he also has a longer radius on his line and he accelerates quicker

So Piastri was late onto brakes in an attempt to get to the apex first, but didn't make it as Verstappen regulated his brake pressure to ensure he is ahead

6.1. False argument 1

A screenshot from F1 TV is used to demonstrate Piastri was ahead at the apex. The shot is completely blurry where these two are and there are no reference lines to be drawn

Video compression software can and does warp individual frames when they are blurry, so this shot proves nothing actually

We've already seen from both cars and Russell's view that Verstappen was conclusively ahead at the apex

6.2. False argument 2

Two examples of racing and overtaking situations are provided as evidence that Verstappen should have backed off. Firstly, these are illustrations provided by a blog in 2014 and rules have been changed multiple times since

f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the…

Secondly, the case where Verstappen should have backed off relies on the situation where he's behind on corner exit - and he was ahead quite clearly.

7. Conclusion

This Controversial Moment was controversial simply because Stewards made it so. They followed completely different logic compared to Mexico 2024, the one that was convenient to lay the blame on Verstappen - there is no other explanation at this point

The fact they ignore Verstappen was pushed off WHILE HE WAS AHEAD and didn't leave track of his own choice is especially concerning. This now gives precedent to future moves where not even position at the apex matters, you can simply dive on the inside and if you have half a car alongside - the other driver must yield. That's not racing, that's bullshit

This would make defending driver lose multiple positions when he's defending through a chicane like this, because when pushed wide he must decelerate significantly to slow down, let the attacked ahead and turn towards the 2nd apex. Again - that's not racing, that's bullshit

In reality, this was one of many cases of T1-2 chicane battle on 1st lap that was always given leeway because it's lap 1, tyres are cold and drivers are extra hot-headed. In fact, they gave leeway to F2 drivers who made exact same attack-defense maneuvers on that same weekend!

Thanks for sticking around for this one 🤓

8.1. Yes, Max was making that corner without Piastri on inside

Due to popular demand and twisting my own words, here's why there's plenty of evidence Verstappen was on route to make the corner easily without Piastri on the inside

- Verstappen was slower in T1 Lap 1 than T1 Lap 4 and other racing laps, and so was Piastri - so this means neither carried too much speed
- Verstappen's steering angle on entry is virtually the same on Lap 1 and racing laps - so this means he wasn't going to miss the exit and go off (especially being slower on apex on Lap 1!)
- Verstappen's steering angle is clearly lower on Lap 1 at the apex, because he'd hit Piastri otherwise
- Verstappen was almost on the racing line on entry by choice, he opened the corner to give himself room to turn

8.2. Videos as supplements

9. Did Piastri intend to leave the room?

First I thought he understeered, but steering angle suggests otherwise. Defending against Russell on Lap 4 restart, he was again on the inside line and takes the corner at a sharp angle again

He carries +10kmh into apex and manages to turn the wheels a lot more without any issues. This suggests he didn't actually intend to give room to Verstappen on Lap 1, even though he didn't complete the overtake and Verstappen was actually ahead of him at apex and exit

@QAThomasNoUnity

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

More from @AeroTechVH

Vanja H

@AeroTechVH

May 22

#F1 #ImolaGP #EmiliaRomagnaGP 2025

⬛️ Final Verdict on Mercedes' struggles - Thread ⬛️

Imola was one of the worst races for Mercedes in the last 12 months and it coincided with many changes made to the car on this weekend:

🔸 all-new stiffer front wing
🔸 stiffer rear wing construction
🔸 all-new rear suspension geometry
🔸 updated front suspension internal mechanics
🔸 updated front suspension fairings
🔸 updated engine cover for cooling purposes

There are 4 main reasons to consider on why Mercedes struggled in Imola:

🔸 stiffer wings (aero updates) recreated old balance problems
🔸 mechanical (front and rear) updates recreated old balance and tyre management problems
🔸 too many new parts made it impossible to find optimal setup - on top of working with C6 compound for the 1st time
🔸 W16 simply does carry over the same issue of overheating tyres as W15 did

We should consider all of them in detail before the final verdict

1) Stiffer wings (aero updates) recreated old balance problems

Both new front wing and updated rear wing structure are now stiffer than before. I wrote about both in detail:

🔸 front -> x.com/AeroTechVH/sta…
🔸 rear -> x.com/AeroTechVH/sta…

@RosarioGiuliana made a great comparison over old front wing geometry update

Mercedes only managed to find decent balance with W15 once they introduced new flexy front wing in Monaco, allowing them to take 4 wins later in the season. Upcoming TD018 update in Spain forced them to reduce their flexing and in turn, they also had to reduce rear wing flexing as well

This probably caused some balance issues because the car will behave differently than before. I don't think it's the root issue, or better to say - one race is not a big enough evidence of that

2) Mechanical (front and rear) updates recreated old balance and tyre management problems

@RosarioGiuliana and @Reel_SonoDas provided some great comparison of suspension updates

As far as I can tell, new rear end may be designed for more anti-squat and anti-lift, which could be in conjunction with new front wing and the need to re-balance the rear end at high speed - because more load is now generated at the front

These mechanical changes alone shouldn't be the core issue, based on what we've seen these 3.5 seasons from Merc - their mechanical updates almost always brought improvement, while aero updates have been problematic more often

Read 7 tweets

Vanja H

@AeroTechVH

May 14

#F1 #F1Tech 2025

🟥 Ferrari's Rear End Issues - Deep Dive Analysis and Shocking Problem - Thread 🟥

First of all - a huge appreciation is not enough for all the insight @Auto_Racer_it teams brings us with every article, for every team on the grid. Thank you, everyone from the team, especially to @GiulyDuchessa @SmilexTech @RosarioGiuliana @_Paolo_27 👏👏👏

It's been a month and a half now that the F1 community and fans understand that Ferrari's SF25 has big problem with the rear end - more specifically, with taking on and absorbing peak compression loads in high-speed corners and end-of-straight scenarios. Testing in Bahrain showed a Ferrari that has the 2nd most potential on the grid, Australia Friday showed they might even compete on equal foot with McLaren

And then it all fell away, not taking the China Sprint sessions into account. The car was already rumoured to be running higher in Australia Q and R for some reason, while China Sprint threw those conclusions out the window briefly.

Then came the China Race, but more importantly - the China post-race scrutineering. Leclerc's Ferrari was under-weight and Hamilton's Ferrari had the plank skid worn too much

"How did you guys manage to mess this up so bad again?" was the question asked all around the world...

Ok, I admit - I've censored and dialled-down that "question" massively 😆

It's all about the tyres!

Let's get the basics straight. With these 2022-25 Venturi/GE cars you need to find a very small window for suspension operation and reconcile all the following criteria

1) tyres need to remain in the right temperature window in low, medium and high-speed corners and in all the braking and traction zones
2) the car needs to be as low to the ground as possible at all times, with the same aero-mechanical setup in Q and Race
3) due to extremely non-linear downforce load generation across different speeds, you need a very soft car in low speed (rear end in particular) traction zones - and you need a very stiff and stable car in high-speed zones (on both axles)

These 3 criteria are the basics and very crudely explained, the finesse that these cars require is much higher and the magic that F1 suspension engineers make is astonishing - especially taking into account that this rule set is extremely limiting on suspension design freedom

Point 1) The Tyres

To keep them in the right window as often as possible, the suspension must be designed to transmit the right amount of energy onto tyres at the right time

If you have a car too stiff all the time, you transfer too much energy directly onto tyres and this then probably leads to excessive thermal degradation. Ferrari experienced this in full in early 2023, when SF23 was eating tyres in Bahrain like mad

If you have a car too soft all the time, you may never transfer enough energy in high-speed sections and you'll also probably run into plank skid wear issues - like Ferrari did in COTA 2023 and China 2025

Read 12 tweets

Vanja H

@AeroTechVH

May 13

#F1 #F1Tech 2025

🏁 F1 Brake Duct Magic - Analysing Online Theories - Thread 🏁

Bonus Explanation - why are some cars (🟧) overheating their tyres more than others when following

Starting at the beginning is a good place to start - brake ducts are aerodynamic surfaces designed to guide the airflow around the brake discs and callipers, to improve and enhance their cooling capabilities. In 2022, blow-through-wheel ducts were outlawed and this meant teams needed to start over and redesign everything about them

4 years later, we now have a myriad of brake duct designs all over the grid, some working better than others. The questions about McLaren's solution are valid but - in my view - overblown and I will explain that later

The main things to remember about brake ducts now are:

🔸 they are very complex and very optimised for clean airflow
🔸 they are multi-level ducts within the internal wheel volume
🔸 they are enclosed on the outside with a mandate cover called the "cake tin"

@RosarioGiuliana posted an article for @wearetherace on this topic, with a focus on McLaren's solution

the-race.com/formula-1/clue…

Rosario made a phenomenal illustration, displaying the complexity of multi-level flow management withing these fantastic brake duct designs. You probably won't be surprised to read that all these complex ducts have one common problem - handling internal losses

These losses are their biggest problem in terms of pure aerodynamics, ducts need to feature clean flow paths, as unobstructed as possible. Obstructions, poor fits, poor surface finish are all things that mean internal loss of pressure and velocity. These not only increase internal drag, they also mean poor cooling performance as the air pressure drop happens before it reaches the target

As ridiculous as it may sound, we may now be entering a phase where going for better cooling of brakes may be a better performance path than cutting drag by allowing brakes to run hotter. By keeping tyres cooler, you can extract better performance and ensure you keep them in their optimal window for longer

An interesting video by B Sport was published last week, from a former F1 design engineer Martin Buchan, and I've grabbed a few screenshots posted below

If you can keep this "cooling" material in the same phase all the time, while allowing it to absorb lots of latent heat needed to start the phase change where it keeps the same external temperature - you can have your cake and eat it. Or in this case - you can line some of that material on the inside of cake tin and keep the heat away from tyres when you don't need it

Martin flirts with an idea of McLaren using flow path regulator, switching between running hotter and colder air between brakes and drums depending on the temperature of tyres and some parts of assembly

🔸 when you want to warm-up your tyres, the hot air from brakes goes around other components
🔸 when you want to keep them cool, the flow is reversed

This is the right idea to solve a complex issue, but unfortunately it would be very illegal due to rule 15.1.3 defining shape-memory materials and later defining it as prohibited in 15.4.1

"A material that is configured to move reversibly between two (or more) different shapes when it is subjected only to a non-mechanical uniform stimulus (thermal, electrical, magnetic, optical, etc.), or exhibits a reversible phase change when subject to an applied stress. For clarity, this does not include consequential geometric changes that result solely from the effects of thermal expansion."

Here we also have a part of definition of "Phase Change" which is seemingly prohibited. This also may seemingly prohibit "Phase Changing Materials" but in my view - only if the phase change actually happens

If you can keep this "cooling" material in the same phase all the time, while allowing it to absorb lots of latent heat needed to start the phase change where it keeps the same external temeprature - you can have your cake and eat it. Or in this case - you can line some of that material on the inside of cake tin and keep the heat away from tyres when you don't need it

Both of these ideas remain to be verified, in my view some advanced materials that absorb lots of heat without changing their external temperature are almost definitely used

Read 7 tweets

Vanja H

@AeroTechVH

May 5

#F1 #MiamiGP 2025

🟥 Ferrari's Team Order Drama - Long Thread🟥

AKA - How they failed to get both cars ahead of Antonelli

AKA - "What the fuck was even that?!?" Award in 2025 already goes to Ferrari

So, when we look at the Laps 34-57, we see some interesting stuff right away

🔸 Ferrari moved Leclerc even though they were both catching Antonelli consistently and even though Leclerc was in lower PU mode (we will see later)
🔸 Antonelli and Hamilton were very inconsistent in clean air, while Leclerc was quite consistent in dirty air, even though more often without DRS
🔸 Leclerc demonstrated he had a lot of pace in hand, gaining 1s over Antonelli in just 2 laps after 15 laps of pushing in dirty air

Let's take a deep dive and see what happened at which point via @f1insightshub

If we compare Hamilton's laps in clean air on Mediums vs Leclerc's laps in dirty air on Mediums (1st Stint behind Sainz) we see significant inconsistency in overpass section, while also having inconsistency in S1 with a big mistake on T2 exit on Lap 47

On lap 28, Leclerc demonstrated how much more pace he had in S1 once he got released from Sainz since lap 26 - fun fact, not relevant in this analysis

Now if we compare Leclerc's laps 38 (let HAM pass) and next 2 laps, we see 2 things

🔸 On lap 39 he suffered a lot in S1, first lap in dirty air on Hards
🔸 On lap 40 he already corrected his line (started going tighter to avoid some part of dirty air), pushed a bit more and ran an equal S1 as in clean air

This means only 1 thing, as he later confirmed in his interview - he wasn't pushing too much in early laps and wanted to get his tyres into right window because there were 20 laps to catch and overtake Antonelli. He also WASN'T using regular PU mode and he was probably saving some fuel as well since he wasn't pushing in high-speed to get his tyres into window properly

WE MUST PUT AN EMPHASIS ON THIS POINT - these two pieces of information are crucial, and Ferrari must have known Leclerc had 3-4 tenths a lap in hand that he can use very quickly. On lap 38 he was 5.0s behind Antonelli when he lifted and lost 1.5s there

Hamilton couldn't pass Leclerc without being let go, even though he had DRS, quicker tyres and higher PU mode. This situation is a sign that without the DRS the car behind does not have significant pace advantage. Often in years before, Sainz was pushing in early laps and got in DRS behind Leclerc only to be dropped a few laps later - which is why Ferrari let them race and didn't let him pass on Team Orders. Albon took Sainz earlier in Stint 1 and they were on same tyres and against Team Orders - this is an example of what it means when a driver has clear pace advantage in the same car

Due to Hamilton's pressure, Ferrari succumbed even though they never did this with Sainz and shouldn't have done it this time either - rightfully

Like I said, already before this point Hamilton didn't have clear pace advantage because he couldn't pass on his own and telling Leclerc to let him go was clearly a mistake. This was done with 18 laps left and Leclerc would clearly be able to catch Antonelli easily because he had 3-4 tenths in hand once he got the required heat cycle in his Hards. Hamilton would have also taken Antonelli by following Leclerc in DRS on straights and carefully saving tyres in corners

All of this is clear even without taking into account how far behind Leclerc Hamilton was in previous 5 races - which really should have been a clear "No, don't do it!" for Ferrari's pit wall

Read 7 tweets

Vanja H

@AeroTechVH

Mar 24

#F1 #ChineseGP 2025

🟥 Another Ferrari blunder - what happened? 🧵

A double-DSQ happened to Ferrari before, in 1999 Malaysian GP. It was the first race for Schumacher after his injury and Ferrari managed to secure 1-2 finish after Coulthard retired. After the race, their bargeboards were deemed illegal, protruding 10 mm above the nominal limit on both cars

However, Ferrari overturned this ruling with an appeal, citing improper measurement by FIA (it was 4.5 mm with proper measuring) and manufacturing tolerances (5 mm) not taken into account. It was clever engineering, pushing the manufacturing boundaries as Rory Byrne established this as one of many practices as Chief Engineer, while also exposing FIA's amateurish measurement technique - not taking into account their own floor reference plane when measuring cars

This time - it won't happen. Both cars were disqualified on slam-dunk grounds and Ferrari made indefensible operational errors with their two cars. Period.

Taking a look at both cases below ⬇️

Hamilton's car had an excess plank wear of 0.5mm. Doesn't sound like much, but it's 5% of 10 mm nominal thickness and means it was 15% worn out in total

The car was simply put too low, too soft in the rear or (the most likely scenario) a combination of both. It was a wrong setup as he cleared right after the race:

"Basically, I had a good car in the Sprint, and we made some changes to try to improve, but we got worse in qualifying, and it was even worse in the race."

“Who said we changed the ride height? We made other changes. Of course, we adjusted that too, but it wasn’t a huge factor. However, putting everything together, the situation got significantly worse. Charles had tested some things in Bahrain that I hadn’t tried, but we both followed that path, and it wasn’t the right one, so we must not repeat it"

The factor of worn-tread tyres on his car wasn't present as he had to make the 2nd pit stop. He was vocal about leading the setup direction this weekend and he did a good job for the Sprint and made a big mistake for the Race along with his engineers - without even taking worn plank into account

As if having a damaged front wing in a racing incident wasn't enough for Leclerc, his race was actually ruined before it even started. No, it wasn't about being underweight, it was about strategy preparation.

As the team prepares for Qualifying, they have to take various aspects into account regarding the race including the tyre strategy range. Is it a definitive 1-stop, 2-stop, 3-stop, could it be a variation etc? This has a direct influence on weight balance and overall weight of the car getting prepared - since ballast isn't one of the few things available for adjustment in Parc Ferme conditions

His team did make a preparation for a 1-stop (Plan C in their radio exchange) so they had to have taken into account the tyre wear. There won't be a huge weight difference between a tyre set run for 30 or 40 laps, so the bottom line is - the car weight ballast wasn't actually prepared for a 1-stop strategy even if their pit wall did consider it.

As they pushed very hard in early laps of the stint on Hards, they probably understood later on it's gonna be very hard to finish the race on a competitive pace - and of course they couldn't do it. Everything was screaming at them to give up track position and switch to the 2nd set of Hards just like Hamilton and try to fight back with Max in the final laps. We will never know, but this may have given them a chance to be over minimal weight and keep at least one car in the final standings.

Final post ⬇️

Read 4 tweets

Vanja H

@AeroTechVH

Dec 26, 2024

#F1 Season 2022-2024 Car Development Recap

🟥 Sidepod Development - Ferrari 🟥

Why Ferrari changed so much to change so little? 🤔

Photo credit - none of the photos are my own, only some illustrations and wording. Large majority comes from @AlbertFabrega @RosarioGiuliana @Auto_Racer_it @xavigazquez @Motorsport @Giorgio_Piola

At the start of 2022, Ferrari ran conventional-but-odd looking sidepods on F1-75. They were carved on the top side into a tub-shaped "bowls" and left many puzzled, but together with jjn9128 and Vyssion on @f1technical forum I made some rudimentary CFD simulations to find out.

Simulations showed a decent amount of pressure recovery on rear-facing surfaces, which means there was some drag-reduction at hand. Some of those surfaces were also top-facing, which means downforce generation. There was a bad separation on the side that I couldn't resolve (not enough curvature on the bottom corner most likely) which did influence final results, but not enough to skew the overall conclusion

F1-75 sidepods generated a lot of outwash with blunt frontal sidepod surface, while also reducing drag and adding some downforce with tapering rear end combined with tub-shaped top surface

BONUS FEATURE - insides of F1-75 sidepod with some extra explanation I added

Read 12 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Vanja H

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @AeroTechVH

Vanja H

Vanja H

Vanja H

Vanja H

Vanja H

Vanja H

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!