Vanja H Profile picture
Apr 21 13 tweets 9 min read Read on X
#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 pointsImage
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 Image
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 happenedImage
Image
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 ownImage
Image
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.Image
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 aheadImage
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 apexImage
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.Image
Image
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 🤓Image
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 turnImage
Image
Image
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 exitImage
Image
@QAThomasNoUnity

• • •

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

Keep Current with Vanja H

Vanja H Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @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 ⬇️Image
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 accountImage
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 ⬇️Image
Read 4 tweets
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.Image
Image
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 surfaceImage
Image
BONUS FEATURE - insides of F1-75 sidepod with some extra explanation I added Image
Read 12 tweets
Dec 3, 2024
So what's going on with #Ferrari 's experimental floor? 🤔

Is it really still experimental if they used it in #F1 Qatar race? Will they use it in Abu Dhabi again?

Those are not the question's I will try to answer in this thread. Rather, I will focus on aerodynamic consequences and why Ferrari said it doesn't add downforce, but it does expand the working window and stability

Apparently, @dr_obbs @brakeboosted @organicmeasure @f1net and other's think I should decode Ferrari's top secrets 😂

So, let's get into it! 👇

PS Do bear with me, I've prepared a lot of illustrations 😅Image
One of the best and most useful CFD results I've seen, regarding 2022 F1 floors and entire underside, was performed single-handedly by Latios and he shared it also on @f1technical forum:

f1technical.net/forum/viewtopi…

Worth noting, as of May 2023, Latios is an aerodynamics engineer in @WilliamsRacing F1 Team! 🤯 I think that's quite a big credibility bonus to results he published!

Rear floor corner is a very important area for aerodynamic development for a long time. Especially since 2022, it is very closely related to diffuser flow stability while cornering, in yaw, going over corners. In short - in all the "troubled" situations a car finds itself many times in a single lap!

Latios shared several results, one of which was a study between semi-accurate RB18 and F1-75 geometries. The biggest thing we see here is how different geometries have a big influence on local flow and interaction with diffuser vortex generation, vorticity and overall resulting diffuser downforce generationImage
At this point, I would also share another important illustration+result he shared, showing how the actual geometry of the floor corner can impact the local vortex and pressure distribution.

This area of F1 cars is so sensitive, it is basically the most-often updated floor area and it has been dramatically changed on every single F1 car since 2022. Every team changed the local philosophy a lot since early 2022 and things only now seem to be slightly more "stable"

It has been so important, Ferrari dropped from a race winning car in 2022 to a troubled 5th best car in early 2023! 🤯Image
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

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

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(