The 2022 to present F1 regulations which determined the type of cars we have now. These are massively dependent on ground effect to be competitive.
Poll: Official 2025 Las Vegas Grand Prix Race Thread - Las Vegas Strip Circuit - Race 22/24
- Thread starter chrismscotland
- Start date
- Status
Not entirely. Alonso has come out today and said some interesting things that correlate with McLarens explanations of the bumpy track causing some of their problems https://racingnews365.com/fernando-alonso-launches-scathing-las-vegas-criticism-not-f1-standard
I assumed he was being sarcastic but if not then here's a quick guide as to why ground effect is so dangerous; https://flowracers.com/blog/why-did...ou1q6G-3PGBw92XVsJqQkU8SuMlPMtPkt_UgSB_bKT5Cr
Which AM then catered for in their setup and didn't get a double DSQ.
A quote from that same article, correlated by how the ground effect cars have performed since 2022 showing they aren’t dangerous at all.
"However, teams and the FIA have learned from the past, and they designed it to be safer and more effective for 2022 and beyond".
Alonso's statement was also more about the track being extremely slippery. He does state the bumps were at the limit but not over.
"However, teams and the FIA have learned from the past, and they designed it to be safer and more effective for 2022 and beyond".
Alonso's statement was also more about the track being extremely slippery. He does state the bumps were at the limit but not over.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 16,393
- Location
- The land of milk & beans
Good channel that - they seem to have filled the space left after Yelister got nuked.
Basically stating that Mclaren wasn't running the car too low but it was porpoising, a previously eliminated early phenomenon of these ground effect cars, that caused the excessive plank wear.
I don’t recall who it was but when watching one of the onboards (non McLaren) I saw their head bouncing around way more than they generally do nowadays. Thought it was odd at the time.
I thought porpoising was related to ride height anyway.
Last edited:
Indeed, one of the workarounds is to increase the ride height from normal to alleviate the effects of porpoising. But in this case, because of the lack of race simulations in practice, McLaren weren't aware of the severity of the bouncing until well into the race. However there is no evidence Mclaren were running a lower ride height than normal, or any different to any other car.
It maybe they brought some changes in the aero or suspension setups that resulted in this unexpected phenomenon.
Here’s an interesting take:
.jpg)
www.sportbible.com
Oh to know who was suspected and who complained
There certainly was one car way faster than the other at Brazil wasn’t there? 
McLaren To Be ‘Monitored’ by FIA at Qatar GP As Teams Make ‘Loophole’ Complaint
McLaren will be 'monitored' at this weekend's Las Vegas Grand Prix
Oh to know who was suspected and who complained
There certainly was one car way faster than the other at Brazil wasn’t there? Agree, it was definitely McLaren who were suspected. They won the race so clearly the fastest car, were suspected of using phase change material to gain tyre advantage, and were disqualified at the next race due to plank issues. Embarrassing really.Here’s an interesting take:
McLaren To Be ‘Monitored’ by FIA at Qatar GP As Teams Make ‘Loophole’ Complaint
McLaren will be 'monitored' at this weekend's Las Vegas Grand Prix
Oh to know who was suspected and who complained
Yeah, I mean if you look at the primary school way of working things out that is how you'd assume it works. Back in the real world the amount of time you spent slowed down to pit, stand stationary to have your wheels changed and then get back out again would be a factor too.
You could be the slowest car and win, if all the others cars spend more time doing "other things".
I'm curious what material they think they can make skid blocks out of that doesn't expand when heated? Besides the skid block material is precisely specified anyway, they have to use one of two Titanium alloys.
Excellent, thank you! These sort of videos really help give the full picture to what's going on in races. The TV coverage has been very poor at times and the commentators miss things too. Fortunately, yelistener has won an appeal against one of his copyright strikes so his channel lives for now.
I was responding to our resident Red Bull newsletter, so no point using actual facts.
But I guess to respond to your remedial view on car performance. Didn’t Norris qualify first in the sprint, win the sprint, qualify first in the race and win the race? Seems like something the fastest car would do.
Again you could be the fastest car on track and lose due to factors outside of your control. Look at quali as a one lap race if you get a yellow flag you usually lose out on optimal fastest performance. Being in front means you finish the race in the quickest time, and if you are using the term fastest only to mean the car that finishes the race in the least amount of time then he person who finished first is always the fastest.
However if you are wanting an honest conversation, and looking at the overall fastest car on the track, then you look at the circumstances that stopped that car from taking the 1st place, be that pit stop error, back markers fighting or many other factors that stop the car progressing even though it is the fastest car. Mechanical and non-mechanical factors all play their part, e.g. you wouldn't call the fastest car one that has to lift and coast from lap 2, however if you have a car that starts in the pits and finishes 3rd but only misses out on a win due to, back markers or a slow pit stop they could be deemed as the fastest car without having the shortest race length.
The overall average speed of a car over the number of laps take away the pit stops and such would be the optimal way to measure the fastest car and driver.
But you're talking about fastest just on numbers, which isn't the full picture. Yes, a car other than the 1 in the lead could have the highest average speed but that doesn't consider circumstance.
McLaren didn't need to push their car to keep 1st, which is often the case when the leading car is comfortably ahead (in terms of performance) of the rest, whereas Max did need to push to maximise points. He was also on a completely different strategy having started from the pit lane. It's like saying Kimi had the fastest or 2nd fastest car in Vegas because he gained a bunch of positions but in an actual head-to-head, it might not have been as favourable.
- Status