The United States GP chat & prediction thread

I wonder if the 1.5psi increase in rear tyre pressure hurt Merc more than some others?
Kimi managed to do whole race on ultras and softs.
Lewis used super softs and 2 new sets of softs.
Max softs and a set of super softs.

So looks to me like the change in rake from extra pressure hurt Merc.
Looks like 2 interesting issues with too much fuel used and ocon too high fuel flow!

 

Had Merc used their second set of tyres better and just stayed off Kimi, they then wouldn't have had to abuse the third set. They kinda shafted themselves.

 

Not if Leclerc challenges him he won’t .

 

I think the fans saw the obvious so why didn't Merc, it was more than inept, maybe it was scripted, who knows. But then, the tactical calls on Bottas in previous races could not have been scripted, other by Merc of course. It was very very odd that they didn't call him in.

 

I agree. It was really annoying seeing the last laps unfold with mercedes strategically denying Lewis the win, not for the first time. They'd seen him stuck behind a slower Kimi so it's not that they would have expected him to get past Kimi and Max as well. I wasn't bothered about Lewis winning the title at Austin it's just that it seemed a lot of illogical things were going on, including the tyre pressure rise. Maybe there was some scripting to keep the title race alive, but I certainly hope not.

 

Either way they haven't kept the title alive really so I can't see what the point would be. It's inconceivable that we can have three races without Hamilton scoring 5 points.

It's equally inconceivable that Seb will win the next three races. Or any at this rate.

 

The only thing that hurt Mercedes is that they had an opportunity to pit Hamilton when he had almost 18 seconds on Kimi. He would have come back out very close to him with fresher tyres and with the pace he would have given Kimi a good challenge. If they knew Hamilton couldn't go to the end on the second set of tyres, why wait until Kimi cut the lead to just under 8 seconds, with not many laps in hand? In that case Hamilton wouldn't have had to worry about Verstappen crash kid, because he would have been in front of him. I don't buy Toto's excuse about Mercedes didn't have the pace... When Hamilton came out from the last pitstop that car was sailing. I don't think you have to be a genius to work that one out...Mercedes strategy beat them yesterday...in fact, they had no strategy at all. They threw away the win, or 2nd place at least.

 

By giving Vettel a 3 place penalty?

 

An interesting take on the reasons for Mercs strategy decisions on Sunday. Could they have made either one or two stop strategy work? Perhaps not.

The real reason Lewis Hamilton didn't win the title in Austin - ESPN UK https://apple.news/A8htPUapYTLylXrtOhuFpKw

 

Interesting article. Lewis's first stop under vsc should have helped make the 2 stop strategy work. Maybe he just went after Kimi too quickly. Still doesn't explain the late second stop but I guess at least it made for a more interesting race.

 

Can anyone clarify how Hamilton was able to make up nearly 2 seconds under the VSC. Was Kimi just going slow?

 

Was that the same as Vettel achieved earlier in the season when he pitted under the safety car, Lewis could go faster in the pit lane before the speed limiter kicked in? Also, I don't know if it was camera angle but I thought I saw Lewis slow up as he came on track, i assumed it was camera angle at the time, I didn't notice the 2 second gain.

 

There's definitely a "technique" to the vsc. Vettel managed to drop one Renault and catch the other Renault under the vsc. I guess it depends how close you're able to get to a delta. Saving a tenth each marshal post is a huge gain over a lap.

 

We've seen this a number of times with different drivers. The vsc is a great idea as it does stop the artificial nature of a full safety car bunching the pack up.all the time, but someone always seems to benefit from it each time.

 

This is true.
BLS makes the most important point: it is not an exact science because it relies upon humans: each and every driver needs to drive as close as possible but also be above the delta time in every marshalling sector (the distance between marshalling posts). This means that some will leave slightly bigger differences than the absolute 'perfect' optimum. Another important point is that some will make better use than others of (or be more efficient in) the beginning and ending of the VSC (or SC) – which can yield a sometimes surprising and significant difference between drivers.

All that matters is that a driver exceeds the required VSC time in each and every marshalling sector. If they drive even more slowly than is required, it is their problem…

 

Casting aside strategy, what hurt Mercedes more than anything else in Austin was their own decision to avert a possible appeal from Ferrari about their rear wheels, apparently designed to aid cooling. Despite the fact that the FIA had already investigated and approved the Mercedes design, the team was concerned about the possibility that an appeal could in theory at least, overturn the FIA's own decision!

For this reason, they elected to 'play safe' to avoid potentially acrimonious fallout which might threaten the result as well as public perception.

What I will be interested in is how the situation will play out here in Mexico. I am certain Mercedes will not risk disqualification and will therefore be seeking absolute assurance before running their 'blown' rear wheels again. Mercedes must prove beyond doubt that their design is entirely focussed upon cooling and does not provide any aerodynamic advantage.

It seems to me that reverting to 'non-blown' wheels has allowed overheating problems to re-occur.

 

They got clarification from.the stewards. The rims are cleared snd are legal. So mercedes are free to use them this weekend.

 

Mercedes cleared by FIA to use new rear wheel design with holes in rim
0
F1
Luke Smith
26 Oct 2018
Mercedes given clearance by the FIA to use its new rear wheel concept first seen in practice in Austin, with the holes in the design being declared legal.

please log in to view this image

Mercedes has been cleared by the FIA stewards to use a new rear wheel design featuring holes in the rim following a request for clarification from the Formula 1 team.

Mercedes was first spotted to be using the new rear wheel design early in the United States Grand Prix weekend in Austin, only for the team to then return to its regular design where the holes are covered up for fear of a possible protest from a rival team.

5774263478001
CrashTV:

In a bulletin issued by the FIA race stewards in Mexico on Thursday ahead of this weekend's on-track action, it was confirmed that Mercedes had requested further clarification after receiving an advisory from the FIA technical department earlier this month.

"Art 12.8.1 of the Technical Regulations permits 'spacers on the inboard mounting face of identical specification on all wheels for the same axle.' Mercedes runs such a spacer on their rear wheels and in order to reduce the heat flow across the junction between the axle and the wheel, they have added a number of small holes and grooves for cooling," the FIA report reads.


"Following the 2018 race in Japan, understanding that this scheme was in question, Mercedes requested clarification from the FIA’s Technical Department, as to whether this arrangement violated Art 3.8 of the Technical Regulations, which says in part 'any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.' The question therefore, was whether the air passing through these holes and grooves violated this provision.

"The FIA’s Technical Department provided advice to the team, which in part confirmed that in the opinion of the Technical Department, that the configuration of the part in question would be in compliance with the Technical Regulations."

The stewards explained that while their jurisdiction "extends solely to this event" in Mexico, thus preventing them from making a more generalised interpretation of the technical ruling, they agreed that "the opinion of the FIA technical department is correct" when it said the rim would comply with the regulations.

"Therefore, the Stewards confirm that should Mercedes run the part as described in the correspondence between Mercedes and the FIA’s Technical Department, the Stewards would consider this part to be in conformity with the regulations, but only with respect to the points raised in Mercedes request," the statement concludes.

please log in to view this image

1540166442.jpg
THE STEWARDS' REPORT IN FULL

The Stewards received a written request by Mercedes Benz Grand Prix, Ltd, operating as Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsports (“Mercedes”) to settle a matter, as is provided for in the International Sporting Code’s Art 11.9 “Authority of the Stewards”, specifically Art 11.9.2.b which states that “They may settle any matter which may arise during an Event, subject to the right of appeal provided for in the Code.”

Art 12.8.1 of the Technical Regulations permits “spacers on the inboard mounting face of identical specification on all wheels for the same axle.” Mercedes runs such a spacer on their rear wheels and in order to reduce the heat flow across the junction between the axle and the wheel, they have added a number of small holes and grooves for cooling. Following the 2018 race in Japan, understanding that this scheme was in question, Mercedes requested clarification from the FIA’s Technical Department, as to whether this arrangement violated Art 3.8 of the Technical Regulations, which says in part “any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.” The question therefore, was whether the air passing through these holes and grooves violated this provision.

The FIA’s Technical Department provided advice to the team, which in part confirmed that in the opinion of the Technical Department, that the configuration of the part in question would be in compliance with the Technical Regulations.

As with all advice given to the teams by the FIA’s Technical Department, the teams are reminded in those documents that they are “Advisory in nature and do not constitute Technical Regulations. it is for the Stewards, and ultimately the FIA International Court of Appeal, to offer binding interpretations of the Technical Regulations.“

Thus Mercedes requests: “A) Confirmation from the Stewards of the interpretation of Article 3.8 of the Regulations as set out in the FIA’s Clarification and so the legality of the Part; or “B) details of all changes required to the Clarification such that certainty surrounding the correct interpretation of Article 3.8 is achieved.”

The Stewards find that:

1. Our jurisdiction extends solely to this Event, and therefore decline to make a generalized interpretation of Art. 3.8. Further, we agree with the FIA Technical Department’s position that this would have to be addressed on a case by case basis, taking into account, at least, the specific points in the FIA Technical Department’s document of the 16th of October, 2018.

2. The FIA’s Clarification and acceptance of the part specifically states that it is limited to the part presented by Mercedes in their submission to the FIA and that alternative design options would have to be considered separately.

3. The opinion of the FIA Technical Department is correct when they state:
“Regarding the legality of the holes in the spacer: “1. To determine whether the holes have an aerodynamic influence, one has to consider their size, shape and function. Small holes will tend to have primarily a cooling function, and while we can at times consider cooling to be an aspect of aerodynamic performance, we feel that cooling of very localized areas (as in your design) can be acceptable. “2. The spacer is specifically part of the wheel assembly (as mentioned in Article 12.8.1), so provided its main function is that of a spacer, we feel that having some localized bleeding of the flow for cooling can be acceptable. The fact the spacer rotates is inherent in its function, in much the same way that the wheel rim spokes rotate. Hence for the above reasons, we consider the spacer geometry you have adopted to be permissible, although we would reserve [the] right to judge alternative geometries, and to change this view if (for example) the spacer were to grow beyond its primary function (that of a spacer) and if the holes were to become big enough to have a more significant aerodynamic effect.”

Therefore, the Stewards confirm that should Mercedes run the part as described in the correspondence between Mercedes and the FIA’s Technical Department, the Stewards would consider this part to be in conformity with the regulations, but only with respect to the points raised in Mercedes request.

Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal the decisions of the Stewards (with the exception of those referred to in Article 12.2.4 of the FIA International Sporting Code), in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

 

Yes. Thanks dhel. Just been informed.
The problem for clarification – and the reason Mercedes were concerned and 'played safe' in Austin – is that the Stewards at any particular meeting might interpret the advice from the FIA differently and potentially NOT in accordance with the directive – which always refers back to the appointed Stewards who rule over what happens at each and every meeting.

That said, it is not completely 'cut and dried'. For instance, there is still the potential for appeal – and Mercedes may still run the risk of any such appeal retrospectively over-riding the decision of the Race Stewards.

It may seem incongruous to some, but this is the nature of cutting edge technology in competition – and most obviously manifested in F1.
Rules are always interpreted; and ultimately, interpretation becomes the new rule…