F1 Wing Trick That Helped Oscar Piastri Win the Azerbaijan GP(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
F1 Wing Trick That Helped Oscar Piastri Win the Azerbaijan GP
https://www.thedrive.com/news/the-ingenious-f1-wing-trick-that-helped-oscar-piastri-win-the-azerbaijan-gp
50 comments
Azerbaijan is an ally of Turkey, whereas Armenia has historically been more aligned with Russia. As a result, the west (NATO) is fairly lenient with Azerbaijan when it comes to conflicts between the two countries, or is at least hesitant to intervene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_...
Thanks for the context. That's must be what I was missing
F1 isn't picky about it's partners and race locations.
I mean they raced in Russia until the war escalated in 2022, unbothered by the literal crimea annexation. They also race in Saudi Arabia with it's terrible human rights record. They even raced in 2022 when a huthi(?) rocket exploded not too far from the track. They have zero morales regarding such things, only sanctions can stop F1 from dealing with shady nations paying for some sportswashing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Jeddah_missile_attack
I mean they raced in Russia until the war escalated in 2022, unbothered by the literal crimea annexation. They also race in Saudi Arabia with it's terrible human rights record. They even raced in 2022 when a huthi(?) rocket exploded not too far from the track. They have zero morales regarding such things, only sanctions can stop F1 from dealing with shady nations paying for some sportswashing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Jeddah_missile_attack
But, both your examples prove they do have morals about these things. They no longer race in Russia. And afaik, the West are big supporters of Saudis fight against the Houthis. Saudi also never annexed any land recently
They no longer race is Russia because it's no longer possible due to sanctions. Their hand was forced in this case.
The SA case just shows a complete disregard for the safety of everyone involved. Telling personnel to either perform as usual or be denied an exit visa is quite the statement.
The SA case just shows a complete disregard for the safety of everyone involved. Telling personnel to either perform as usual or be denied an exit visa is quite the statement.
Makes sense
Not really, they terminated the contract on February 24 immediately.
South Africa under apartheid - sporting sanctions were no issue for F1. I'm sure they didn't stop cigarette ads from a sense of morality. In fact anything deliberately associating itself with F1 is pretty suspect - maybe not everything but load your prior as you see fit.
I see google chrome ads on mclaren cars where it used to be marlboro... Oracle sponsor too. There's the list: https://formularapida.net/en/f1-2024-list-of-partners-sponso...
I enjoy F1, but let's be realistic about what it is and isn't.
I see google chrome ads on mclaren cars where it used to be marlboro... Oracle sponsor too. There's the list: https://formularapida.net/en/f1-2024-list-of-partners-sponso...
I enjoy F1, but let's be realistic about what it is and isn't.
Crimea style? Regardless of moral side under international law that land is Azerbaijan
I wonder how long it has been since the drivers' championship was decided by a contest of driving superiority rather than the engineering the competing drivers were sitting in?
Would AI win yet? Has to be an easier problem to solve than driving in traffic.
Would AI win yet? Has to be an easier problem to solve than driving in traffic.
Firstly, drivers' ability is still very, very important. But secondly, and more importantly, F1 has always been about the engineering more than the driving. If that isn't for you, there's plenty of other racing leagues where they're driving equal(ish) cars.
As for AI... they're trying that. It isn't working out well yet. https://a2rl.io/
As for AI... they're trying that. It isn't working out well yet. https://a2rl.io/
it's called constructor championship, after all.
Look at Red Bull last race, Verstappen as one of the best drivers managed to eek out a second place and has been consistently scoring well despite having a slower car than McLaren. Compare that to Perez who is nowhere near.
The differences in performance between these cars is so small that in fact the driver makes a lot of difference in a relative sense and not an absolute sense.
The differences in performance between these cars is so small that in fact the driver makes a lot of difference in a relative sense and not an absolute sense.
> The differences in performance between these cars is so small that in fact the driver makes a lot of difference in a relative sense and not an absolute sense.
This is a really good way of putting it.
This is a really good way of putting it.
Is it? How do you end up with dominant drivers for years that magically become non dominant if the difference is “small”. See Vettel, Hamilton..
I’d say the difference is large.
I’d say the difference is large.
You're discounting the human variable there. We're not machines. Look at other sports and you can see other athletes be dominant for years, then "magically" become non dominant after a single bad season (sometimes after a single bad game!). Factors like age and confidence play a huge role in human performance.
I don’t disagree. But in these cases I’m more inclined to believe teams bridged large engineering gaps between competitors or teams failed in adapting to new rules. My core argument is that if the engineering deficit was small, domination would be a rarer trait in F1
> I wonder how long it has been since the drivers' championship was decided by a contest of driving superiority rather than the engineering the competing drivers were sitting in?
I’ve been following F1 since the mid 90’s. It has always been about both the engineering and the driving. That’s what makes it fun (to me).
If you put a great driver in a bad car, they won’t do well because the car limits them. If you put a bad driver in a great car, they won’t do well because they limit the car. If you put a great driver in a great car that doesn’t fit their style, they’ll do okay but not great. You need a great car and a great driver and they have to fit.
But here’s the thing: A great driver will be able to outperform the car and is more adaptible to variance in car performance.
You also have to keep in mind F1 margins are incredibly tight. The first 7 qualifying times were within 1 second in Baku this weekend. 1 second for 7 drivers. The difference between first and last was 2.3 seconds.
Over the whole grand prix the distance between first and last amounted to 148 seconds. That means the slowest driver was just 3seconds per lap slower than the fastest driver on average.
The margins are absolutely ridiculous when you think about it.
I’ve been following F1 since the mid 90’s. It has always been about both the engineering and the driving. That’s what makes it fun (to me).
If you put a great driver in a bad car, they won’t do well because the car limits them. If you put a bad driver in a great car, they won’t do well because they limit the car. If you put a great driver in a great car that doesn’t fit their style, they’ll do okay but not great. You need a great car and a great driver and they have to fit.
But here’s the thing: A great driver will be able to outperform the car and is more adaptible to variance in car performance.
You also have to keep in mind F1 margins are incredibly tight. The first 7 qualifying times were within 1 second in Baku this weekend. 1 second for 7 drivers. The difference between first and last was 2.3 seconds.
Over the whole grand prix the distance between first and last amounted to 148 seconds. That means the slowest driver was just 3seconds per lap slower than the fastest driver on average.
The margins are absolutely ridiculous when you think about it.
> The margins are absolutely ridiculous when you think about it.
Except when that RB has rocketship mode on.
Except when that RB has rocketship mode on.
Driving superiority is absolutely still an important factor. It's probably more important, since an inferior driver will kill himself in the best engineered car on the planet.
It's like saying that because of the new high tech swimsuits and caps, the olympics is a contest of clothing superiority. Technique is still king, but a couple percentage points of advantage from your equipment is absolutely huge at those levels.
It's like saying that because of the new high tech swimsuits and caps, the olympics is a contest of clothing superiority. Technique is still king, but a couple percentage points of advantage from your equipment is absolutely huge at those levels.
> It's probably more important
No, it absolutely is not - the opposite actually. F1 history is full of mediocre drivers getting catapulted into top spots by rocket-cars, only to fall back into mediocrity once competing teams catch up on the engineering.
It's also why everyone knows that, outside the 2-3 top teams that dominate the table on any given year, the real competition is between drivers in the same team, because it's the only fair fight for drivers (since both have basically the same car).
Driver skill is definitely a factor, don't get me wrong, but F1 is 95% about the car.
No, it absolutely is not - the opposite actually. F1 history is full of mediocre drivers getting catapulted into top spots by rocket-cars, only to fall back into mediocrity once competing teams catch up on the engineering.
It's also why everyone knows that, outside the 2-3 top teams that dominate the table on any given year, the real competition is between drivers in the same team, because it's the only fair fight for drivers (since both have basically the same car).
Driver skill is definitely a factor, don't get me wrong, but F1 is 95% about the car.
In F1 there has been a lot of effort to make sure drivers don't kill themself, e.g. the HANS (Head and Neck Support) which prevents the heavy helmet from snapping the driver's neck on impact, or the "Halo" which protects the driver when cars flip over. And these are just two of the most visible safety measures. Not saying someone completely inexperienced couldn't manage to kill himself, but most people would probably not even get to that point, they would simply fail to get the car into gear without killing the engine...
Despite the improvements (the halo, most recently), freak accidents may yet happen. I mean, this is a scary pic of one of the best drivers on the circuit almost killing another: https://archive.fo/I6brp
from: https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/articles/single-seaters/f...
from: https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/articles/single-seaters/f...
Another freak accident where the halo undoubtedly saved a life is Zhou's crash off the start at Silverstone 2022: https://youtu.be/B2XHq9d4OWI?feature=shared
That picture is scary, but it's not showing him nearly dying - it's showing the HALO device doing exactly why it was added.
I'm not denying motorsports are dangerous - particularly F1 - but it has become much, much, much safer over the past 10-15 years.
I'm not denying motorsports are dangerous - particularly F1 - but it has become much, much, much safer over the past 10-15 years.
You are 100% correct, but that’s a photo of Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton, who were each others primary competitors at the time, and each have rabid fan bases. Whenever they have an incident together the commentary is usually (or at least was at the time) completely unhinged. A lot of people seriously claimed Max was trying to kill Lewis after that incident at Monza.
Hamilton was not nearly killed, not even a scratch. Its just showing how well the safety measures work for the modern cars.
2016 might be the most clear one. Hamilton and Rosberg were both driving for Mercedes. In 2021, Hamilton nearly won it in his Mercedes despite Red Bull having the better car for most of the season.
The thing is, the teams putting in the money and effort to build the best cars also want to hire the best drivers. I don't think it's too surprising that the best drivers in the best cars get the best results.
There is an autonomous racing league now. You can watch races on YouTube. The cars don't go nearly as fast, and they're much more prone to boneheaded mistakes than human drivers. It wouldn't be safe to have them race against humans. But I do expect them to improve.
The thing is, the teams putting in the money and effort to build the best cars also want to hire the best drivers. I don't think it's too surprising that the best drivers in the best cars get the best results.
There is an autonomous racing league now. You can watch races on YouTube. The cars don't go nearly as fast, and they're much more prone to boneheaded mistakes than human drivers. It wouldn't be safe to have them race against humans. But I do expect them to improve.
In 2021 Hamilton was robbed of the title by Michael Masi. :o(
There are racing series outside of Formula 1 that provide drivers with the same [1][2] hardware and aim to test their piloting skills, and there are yet other series where different cars are given handicaps to maintain a "balance of performance" between them. You may already watch a lot of motorsport, but for anyone who is interested to learn more: some spec series include IndyCar, F2, Super Formula, and Formula E.
[1] modulo some natural variance, leading to situations where a wealthy go-karting competitor can buy a dozen of the same go-kart and pick the engine with the most horsepower
[2] modulo differences in finding the setup of the vehicle, which can be done more effectively if you have the best engineering team or otherwise throw the most time and money at it
[1] modulo some natural variance, leading to situations where a wealthy go-karting competitor can buy a dozen of the same go-kart and pick the engine with the most horsepower
[2] modulo differences in finding the setup of the vehicle, which can be done more effectively if you have the best engineering team or otherwise throw the most time and money at it
I think the best racing is even smaller, like TCRs, Mazdas, and Clio cup. The series you mentioned are great but they’re all open wheel formula racing, which is fast and tends to be less about car to car racing and more about perfection and absolutely sending it when others make mistakes. One make or multiclass races are the best, though, you are correct. GT racing and F1 are all different cars with different performance and you get hot cars with bad BoPs.
Aside from some especially uncompetitive seasons, driver skill has evidently always been a factor. The gap between Max and Checo has shown the importance of driver skill during the recent RedBull dominance, and during the Mercedes hybrid dominance, the gap between Hamilton and Bottas showed the same thing. Mercedes > RedBull > Mercedes was an incredibly common podium during that era. With Bottas and Checo are also both great drivers in their own right.
The only confounder is really that the top teams have the ability to attract the top driving talent, so it can look like driving skill matters less than it actually does at times.
The only confounder is really that the top teams have the ability to attract the top driving talent, so it can look like driving skill matters less than it actually does at times.
It’s always been a combination of driver skill and engineering, along with cleverly working around the rules. It’s never been another way.
[deleted]
Last time was probably 2008 when Hamilton won the driver's championship. Ferrari had a great car, came very close to the driver's, and won the constructors.
Might happen this year as well, with Verstappen still favorite to win, but McLaren having the best car.
Might happen this year as well, with Verstappen still favorite to win, but McLaren having the best car.
Check out Autonomous Racing League https://youtu.be/TPzBH-7ckO0
Interesting article. It does include the word "scrutineering" which I found amazing. Is this F1 jargon? I haven't followed F1 since the year Nigel Mansell and Ricardo Patrasi came in 1-2 almost every race.
The term scrutineering isn't F1 specific jargon but largely used in most forms of motorsport where the vehicle/bike is inspected to ensure it complies to a set standard.
For example in another sport motocross, dirt bikes need to pass scrutineering to ensure the bikes are within specification. This often includes checking the riders gear to ensure it is safe.
For example in another sport motocross, dirt bikes need to pass scrutineering to ensure the bikes are within specification. This often includes checking the riders gear to ensure it is safe.
In American motorsports such as NASCAR, the term "tech inspection" is used for those stuff.
The term 'scrutineering' arguably extends beyond adherence to technical specifications to include procedural regulations within the sport. I'm not sure if this also applies to 'tech inspection' in e.g. NASCAR.
I've only heard it used in elections before. Each candidate will nominate scrutineers to ensure the count is valid.
I don't think it's that ingenious - many teams have been working on the wing flex for a long time. Red Bull famously in 2011 and 2017 for example.
The McLaren F-duct, the Mercedes toe-in reducing steering wheel, and asymmetric braking systems in the 1990s McLarens and supposedly this year's Red Bulls were examples of true ingenuity, I think.
The McLaren F-duct, the Mercedes toe-in reducing steering wheel, and asymmetric braking systems in the 1990s McLarens and supposedly this year's Red Bulls were examples of true ingenuity, I think.
Get the wing to yield exactly how they want it to from aero loads, but somehow lay up the carbon so it doesn't yield unacceptably under FIA static load tests? I think that's probably ingenious.
Maybe a similar challenge in some respects to how structural engineers had to use very clever composite design to make the X-29A's forward-swept wing's leading edge curl down when the wing flexed up, lest an increase in angle of attack become self-reinforcing to the point of a stall or catastrophic wing failure.[0] These kinds of designs are frequently asymmetric and unbalanced (meaning different numbers of +/-45 plies) which can create internal stresses during curing, sometimes making them difficult to produce and extract from a mold without breaking the part or the mold and still getting the shape you want in the end.
[0] https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/sweeping-forward-developing...
Maybe a similar challenge in some respects to how structural engineers had to use very clever composite design to make the X-29A's forward-swept wing's leading edge curl down when the wing flexed up, lest an increase in angle of attack become self-reinforcing to the point of a stall or catastrophic wing failure.[0] These kinds of designs are frequently asymmetric and unbalanced (meaning different numbers of +/-45 plies) which can create internal stresses during curing, sometimes making them difficult to produce and extract from a mold without breaking the part or the mold and still getting the shape you want in the end.
[0] https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/sweeping-forward-developing...
It's clever, but not original, so it's not ingenious :)
“One weird trick”
Anyone know more about that? Just curious