Grand Prix Rejects

Post your choices for Reject of the Race!

1. Perez - At this point he's just a joke.
2. Hamilton - Messing up the same corner over and over and losing a win to it.

1) Perez - lost seven places, Max gained six. 'Nuff said

2) Norris - bottling at turn one kept him stuck in DRS trains all day

sswishbone wrote: ↑28 Jul 2024, 14:35 1) Perez - lost seven places, Max gained six. 'Nuff said

2) Norris - bottling at turn one kept him stuck in DRS trains all day

Mind you, Red Bull do have to take a little bit of criticism for the strategy they gave Perez - the pit box call was clearly solely intended to move him out of Verstappen's way, but it also resulted in him having to run a sub-optimal strategy that compromised his race relative to Sainz.

Not really sure there were any real standouts for me, fairly sensible race all in.

I think McLaren deserve some stick for contriving to finish 3rd and 6th with probably the fastest car; Norris in particular ruined his race with that small mistake at the start which condemned him to an afternoon of DRS trains. That said, handing out an ROTR for putting half a tyre wide at La Source on lap 1 seems harsh to me.

Perez would be my other stand-out. Fair enough he's the weakest of all the drivers of the top 4 teams, and fair enough I got the impression he was called in for his second stop simply to get him out of Verstappen's way. Even still, he was still miles off the pace and dropped down the order like a stone. The more that the others catch up with Red Bull, the more he looks like a liability.

mario wrote: ↑28 Jul 2024, 14:40

sswishbone wrote: ↑28 Jul 2024, 14:35 1) Perez - lost seven places, Max gained six. 'Nuff said

2) Norris - bottling at turn one kept him stuck in DRS trains all day

Mind you, Red Bull do have to take a little bit of criticism for the strategy they gave Perez - the pit box call was clearly solely intended to move him out of Verstappen's way, but it also resulted in him having to run a sub-optimal strategy that compromised his race relative to Sainz.

Mind you, that wouldn't have happened had he not been so poor in his first stint

Nothing really rejectful - perhaps Sergio's application for redundancy?

1. Mercedes. Ruined an amazing drive from George by unfueliing the car leaving it underweight and getting him DNQ'd. Stupid job there.

2. Perez. Yes Red Bull pitted him to get out of Max's way but here is the thing. He shouldn't be holding up Max considering he started 2nd and Max started 11th!!!!! Red Bull gave Perez the task of stopping Mclaren and he didn't. Quite frankly seeing what Pace Max had before Sunday, I think Red Bull were expecting him to win this race or at least be on the poduim. He hasn't finished in the top 6 since Miami. Enough is enough now.

Hm Lando Norris. Seemed to keep going off and lost time doing this. Should have got a better result.

Hm Sauber. Zhou's car failed.

When was the last time that there was no real clear contenders for ROTR?

McLaren are probably the closest I can think of due to Lando's odd strategy to go long in the first stint and then do nothing with that and willingly stay stuck behind Verstappen, along with Norris making a couple of mistakes. The start wasn't the only mistake he made. Then you had Piastri lose time in the pit stop.

Actually no, I have one.

Everyone who thought that Max was going to win this race by miles

Even with the caveats, I have to go with Perez.

With the news breaking that Russell is likely to be disqualified for an underweight car, the ROTR can only be Mercedes, the absolute morons. Way to wreck one of the greatest drives of the 2020s.

Mercedes, for getting Russell dsq'd with an underweight car

Russell's car for being underweight.

Londoner wrote: ↑28 Jul 2024, 16:31 With the news breaking that Russell is likely to be disqualified for an underweight car, the ROTR can only be Mercedes, the absolute morons. Way to wreck one of the greatest drives of the 2020s.

Mind you, there will be those wondering how much of a benefit being slightly under the weight limit had on Russell's performance, which is going to put that little bit of doubt in some minds about that achievement.

Sergio Perez and Mercedes.

Its between Mercedes - 1.5 kg is a massive amount, seriously? And Checo - goodbye Red Bull contract. Front row to last of the top 4 teams on the road.

Mercedes - What a bunch of wankers. 1.5 kilos is a fairly large amount (BAR in 2005 was 5.x kilos and was considered "extreme" by the stewards.) If it happened to any other driver, you'd feel bad for them.

Red Bull - Going to lose the WCC for sure, and may very well lose the WDC too. All the internal chaos is killing the team.

Alpine - Should they stay or should they go? No one cares. Pretty shite Deadpool livery too.

James1978 wrote: ↑28 Jul 2024, 20:02 Its between Mercedes - 1.5 kg is a massive amount, seriously? And Checo - goodbye Red Bull contract. Front row to last of the top 4 teams on the road.

What's interesting is it's now being suggested that Russell's strategy of one stopping might have contributed towards him falling below the weight limit in the first place.

It's been suggested that Mercedes, like most of the other teams, had expected the race to require two stops due to the wear rate they'd seen in the limited running in the practice sessions. Russell's decision to switch to a one stop strategy meant that his tyres were much more heavily worn than they'd originally expected, and it's been suggested the extra wear on his tyres might have been enough to drop him below the minimum weight limit.

mario wrote: ↑29 Jul 2024, 05:39 It's been suggested that Mercedes, like most of the other teams, had expected the race to require two stops due to the wear rate they'd seen in the limited running in the practice sessions. Russell's decision to switch to a one stop strategy meant that his tyres were much more heavily worn than they'd originally expected, and it's been suggested the extra wear on his tyres might have been enough to drop him below the minimum weight limit.

Seeing as Robert Kubica's significant tyre wear was viewed as the primarily cause for his car being underweight and getting disqualified from the 2006 Hungarian Grand Prix, that makes full sense to me.

Mercedes for my ROTR.

Mercedes for me too. If Russell had retained his position, I would have correctly predicted 7 out of the top 10 in the predicament predictions, now I don't even want to know!

Forti wrote: ↑29 Jul 2024, 07:25

mario wrote: ↑29 Jul 2024, 05:39 It's been suggested that Mercedes, like most of the other teams, had expected the race to require two stops due to the wear rate they'd seen in the limited running in the practice sessions. Russell's decision to switch to a one stop strategy meant that his tyres were much more heavily worn than they'd originally expected, and it's been suggested the extra wear on his tyres might have been enough to drop him below the minimum weight limit.

Seeing as Robert Kubica's significant tyre wear was viewed as the primarily cause for his car being underweight and getting disqualified from the 2006 Hungarian Grand Prix, that makes full sense to me.

Mercedes for my ROTR.

As an idle exercise, I thought I'd roughly try to ballpark how much additional wear might have been required for Russell to drop below the minimum weight limit.

The surface area of the front tyres would be about 1.38 square metres, whilst the rear tyres is about 1.83 square metres, which means the total surface area is roughly 3.21 square metres, or roughly 32,100 square centimetres.

The rubber used in a car tyre seems to have a unit mass of about 1.1 grams per cubic centimetre, so 1500g (1.5kg) of rubber would have a volume of approximately 1363.6 cubic centimetres. Dividing that volume by the approximate surface area of the tyres gives a thickness of tyre rubber of about 0.04cm, or an average additional wear rate of roughly 0.4mm.

Now, I have made some rather rough approximations there, but I think it's roughly in the right ballpark. That amount of wear doesn't seem that wildly high, so it could be within the margin of error that Mercedes would have worked to following the curtailed free practice sessions - add to that the possibility that Mercedes might have been pushing a bit closer to the limits to close the gap to the front, and it does seem like a plausible potential explanation.

1) Russell's underweight car - This is the first time the on-the-road winner has been DSQ'd since Schumacher in 1994 if memory serves me correct. (Since Irvine was reinstated at Malaysia in 1999)

2) Red Bull - They still insist on retaining Perez, at least until the end of this season, HE'S USELESS, GUYS! HOW MUCH LONGER IS IT GOING TO TAKE YOU TO REALISE THAT? Sorry Sergio but Dietrich Mateschitz must be turning in his grave by now.

mario wrote: ↑29 Jul 2024, 19:35
As an idle exercise, I thought I'd roughly try to ballpark how much additional wear might have been required for Russell to drop below the minimum weight limit.

The surface area of the front tyres would be about 1.38 square metres, whilst the rear tyres is about 1.83 square metres, which means the total surface area is roughly 3.21 square metres, or roughly 32,100 square centimetres.

The rubber used in a car tyre seems to have a unit mass of about 1.1 grams per cubic centimetre, so 1500g (1.5kg) of rubber would have a volume of approximately 1363.6 cubic centimetres. Dividing that volume by the approximate surface area of the tyres gives a thickness of tyre rubber of about 0.04cm, or an average additional wear rate of roughly 0.4mm.

Now, I have made some rather rough approximations there, but I think it's roughly in the right ballpark. That amount of wear doesn't seem that wildly high, so it could be within the margin of error that Mercedes would have worked to following the curtailed free practice sessions - add to that the possibility that Mercedes might have been pushing a bit closer to the limits to close the gap to the front, and it does seem like a plausible potential explanation.

While this is almost certainly the reason, the only thing that gives me pause is that Alosno was able to score points one stopping and be ok. He almost assuredly is driving a heavier car, but it still is something to consider.

Was Alonso always on a one-stopper though or did they change from a two stop mid-race? I think that's the critical point more than anything.

Takes a lot for me to feel sympathy for Russell but this certainly is that lot. Terrible shame for him.

Wallio wrote: ↑30 Jul 2024, 15:57

mario wrote: ↑29 Jul 2024, 19:35
As an idle exercise, I thought I'd roughly try to ballpark how much additional wear might have been required for Russell to drop below the minimum weight limit.

The surface area of the front tyres would be about 1.38 square metres, whilst the rear tyres is about 1.83 square metres, which means the total surface area is roughly 3.21 square metres, or roughly 32,100 square centimetres.

The rubber used in a car tyre seems to have a unit mass of about 1.1 grams per cubic centimetre, so 1500g (1.5kg) of rubber would have a volume of approximately 1363.6 cubic centimetres. Dividing that volume by the approximate surface area of the tyres gives a thickness of tyre rubber of about 0.04cm, or an average additional wear rate of roughly 0.4mm.

Now, I have made some rather rough approximations there, but I think it's roughly in the right ballpark. That amount of wear doesn't seem that wildly high, so it could be within the margin of error that Mercedes would have worked to following the curtailed free practice sessions - add to that the possibility that Mercedes might have been pushing a bit closer to the limits to close the gap to the front, and it does seem like a plausible potential explanation.

While this is almost certainly the reason, the only thing that gives me pause is that Alosno was able to score points one stopping and be ok. He almost assuredly is driving a heavier car, but it still is something to consider.

It probably isn't the only reason, as there are other potential factors in play there too - for example, it's been indicated that Russell was running a lower ride height than Hamilton, so some of the lost weight also comes from higher floor wear. It's also been pointed out that Mercedes reverted some parts back to an earlier specification between FP2 and FP3, and it's possible that some components might have had a slightly different weight that was mistakenly not accounted for when re-ballasting the car.

That said, as some have noted previously, there is a precedent for tyre wear being cited as a reason for a driver failing the minimum weight limit (Kubica in the 2006 Hungarian GP). Given that case, it was more of a thought exercise to see how plausible it might be as a contributing factor, and it does seem that it could have been enough that, combined with a few other aspects, it might have helped tip the balance in the wrong direction.

It is also fair to point out that some other teams did also run one stop strategies, particularly Aston Martin, so it's not entirely unexpected. That said, it has been pointed out that, at least in their case, Aston Martin did send their drivers out on long runs on the hard tyres during the practice sessions, so they probably would have had better data on wear rates for the harder tyres.

It therefore sounds like Aston Martin's original plan was for a two stop strategy, but they had also factored in the option of switching to a one stop strategy into their pre-race plans.