Grand Prix 2024 Belgian Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion

After a hectic 5 races in 6 weeks, we Finish the 1st half of the season at 1 of the great wonders of the F1 world: Spa Francorchamps. Liberty Media has done a good job, as we are in the Currently of 1 of the most unexpected classic seasons. However, the uncertainty of Spa's place beyond 2025 is a travesty. The mere consideration of removing Spa indicates that Liberty Media has much to learn. i Understand their profit-driven motives, but they also must understand it's essential to protect the classics; this would lead to a more graceful acceptance of new races. They wouldn't dare remove Monza from the calendar, and the same should apply to Spa, as well as Silverstone, Monaco, Suzuka, and Interlagos. As I often say in sports, tampering with history can be risky because it papers over the cracks very well, and a poor race is more easily forgiven at Spa than in Qatar.

i was thinking is their circuit in the world with more Iconic places than at Spa Francorchamps. La Source, Eau Rouge, Kemmel straight, Les Combes, Pouhon, Stavelot , Blanchimont & Bus Stop Chicane. thats Just the modern 4.5 mile circuit & not the historic 9.3 mile circuit & spa 1966 incredibly was a big part of F1 history because it was where Jackie Stewart started his relentless pursuit on safety

"I had a big shunt at Spa, because the race track was ridiculously unprotected, I knocked down a telegraph pole and went into a woodcutter's hut. I ended up trapped in a farmyard. Graham Hill and Bob Bondurant got me out of the car and it took them 30 minutes – there were no marshals at all. I was soaked in fuel. I got Graham to take all my clothes off because I was going in and out of consciousness and I was burning. It was a much higher octane fuel than today. Then, I was lying naked on the floor while they tried to get some marshals, ambulances and there was nothing. They had to get tools from spectators' cars to get me out, The medical centre was ridiculous, cigarette ends on the floor. After that, I had a specialist who was good at resuscitation as well as everything else. He came to every race I went to."

This weekend, we find ourselves in the midst of an incredibly tight season with seven different winners already, and I can guarantee nobody anticipated this. Ironically, I thought F11 was in danger & on the verge of decline with Verstappen's growing dominance. Yet here we are, witnessing this level of variety for the first time in 12 years, and it's only the 4th time weve seen this since 1986, following 2003, 2008, & 2012, all of which led to a title decider. So, perhaps there is still hope Moreover, only the seasons of 1975, 1977, 1982, 1983, 1985, 2003, & 2012 have seen more different winners in a season. therefore who knows what we will see, another race where the podium could any 1 of the big 7. Mclaren are the big favourites after their recent form but they are fragile, Mercedes had great Pace in Silverstone a similarly very high speed circuit & never count out Max Verstappen

also is this Perez's Final race for a while or ever. because its heavily rumoured by the summer Break he had to either be 100pts behind Verstappen or in the top 5 if verstappen was top. & with just 26pts to play for he is 142 behind Max & in 7th, 25pts behind Piastri in 5th. so to be safe Perez has to win his 1st race for 15 months & hope Piastri doesnt score

 

[Brogan]

I would read that.

 

[The Artist.....]

The fuel has to be pumped out because every car will finish the race with different levels of fuel in the car. What happens for example if the car in 10th finishes a lap down for example?

As for weighing the whole car, it should always be weighed with everything that was on the car the minutes it finishes the race and returns to the pits. Putting control tyres on for example could lead to teams being more likely to run under weight if the know those underweight hubs and would be taken off and not weighed as part of the cars total.

Back in the early 80's teams would add all sorts of parts to add weight to the car. Brabham used a heavier front wing. Tyrell a sed lead pellets in their fuel tank. Not forgetting the water cooled brakes comedy

The key thing is that the cars are required to run in a spec that is at or above the minimum weight level with the fuel pumped out - BAR tried the defence that the car never dropped below the minimum weight level, and were banned for 3 races (and some wanted to ban them for the entire 2005 season).

There is a ridiculous situation where teams instruct drivers to drive over the marbles on the way in to the pits to pick up as much discarded rubber as possible, to tip the scales above the minimum weight level. This means that cars will, at the end of the race, be underweight, until they drive over the marbles. The team that does this to the most extreme can run the most underweight.

If the wheels and tyres are not included in the weight limit (as they shouldn't be, as they are replaced during the race), then yes teams might run lightweight wheels, but that will come with the risk that the wheels break, and cause the car to retire. However, there would be no incentive to come in a few laps before the end, having built up a lead with a massively underweight car, before putting the 50kg wheels on at the final stop...

 

[cider_and_toast]

I believe the only reason we still have weight limits is to prevent teams running drivers that are 2ft tall and weight 3 stone wet through.

 

[FB]

You mean Alain Prost, or Le Nain as the French Press dubbed him when he moved to Switzerland as a tax exile.

 

[cider_and_toast]

Imagine how much lighter he would have been without that enormous snozzer?

 

[F1Brits_90]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1818625229591073278

https://twitter.com/x/status/1818625821613211973

 

[Brogan]

So not a great strategy call then considering the excess tyre and plank wear, which resulted in the too low weight.

 

[Dartman]

That is where the team overrides the driver, they have the data the driver doesn't, yes the tyres are good and yes he can win, but he will be disqualified, tell him there is a problem and box.

 

[cider_and_toast]

I think it was still worth a try. As I've said on a number of occasions, the drivers feel for their car no longer counts for anything if it's all in the hands of a pre-race simulator.

Bloody planks under cars

 

[The Artist.....]

Bloody planks under cars Bloody teams running their cars too close to the ground!

There, fixed that for you!

 

[cider_and_toast]

The original purpose of the plank was to quickly get rid of the flat bottom on cars in the wake of the Imola tragedy.

I couldn't give the furry crack of a rats arse how close they run the cars to the ground. A wooden plank that rubs away is a silly solution anyway.

 

[FB]

But plank wear did get Michael Schumacher disqualified in a couple of races so let's not degenerate it's importance too much.

 

[Dartman]

The need for a plank with ground effect under the new regulations is ridiculous, the plank is actually protection for the extremely technical floor, without the plank the floor will be damaged on grounding and the car will slow and even the ground clearance may increase which will again slow the car. The plank now seems to have a twofold purpose, disqualification for too much wear and floor protection, I'm not into regulations but though the plank has a standard size, does it have a regulation distance of protrusion below the lowest extremity of the floor?

 

[F1Brits_90]

wasnt the plank another legacy of senna e

 

[Dartman]

I wasn't just Senna, there were a number of accidents in the 94, San Moreno GP that were put down to a loss aerodynamics due to the car bottoming out with a flat floor on low tyre pressure, thus the plank was introduced to keep a regulated ride height, the teams then introduced the titanium skid plate to avoid excessive wear on the plank, which also protects the very clever aerodynamic floor

 

[FB]

The FIA asked the teams to put titanium skid blocks on the cars a few years ago as the "sparks" are exciting. They serve no purpose on the current machines other than to improve the show.

 

[Wombat]

This is a very long post and, certainly, nobody is obligated to read it. I was just so upset and disgusted by what Merc did to Lewis that I had to do something to get it out of my system so I decided to just write it all down. When a team accords equal status to its drivers as Merc has done then it is obligated to show no favoritism and ensure that they are allowed to compete on equal terms—same car, same strategy (different starting tire choices are understandable here when one of the drivers is starting far back on the grid), etc. I believe that with equal status drivers the only fair and legitimate occasions to favor the trailing driver in a race is if, in the latter part of a season, only that driver is battling for the WDC or in a race where neither driver is battling for the win but an unforeseen circumstance arises that could only be applied to the trailing driver that affords him the opportunity to get the win for the team (neither of these special circumstances was at play in this race). Otherwise, for the sake of fairness, trust and maintaining good driver and team chemistry and relations, the team is honor bound to issue team orders to rectify the unfair situation it created. I found it appalling and disrespectful that Merc would undermine and betray Lewis in this fashion. Note also that if the race had been a few laps longer Merc could have lost the win altogether to Piastri because George had held up Lewis (who was the faster driver) and Merc had allowed this.

To begin with, I take exception to the media pundits who have belittled Lewis’ win, the ones who are basically saying that he just inherited or was gifted the win as though he had just been poking around with no chance of getting the victory until fate fortuitously handed it to him. I have a different, and I believe, fairer, more realistic perspective. In my view GR is the one who (prior to the DSQ) had been gifted the win by his team by literally placing him ahead of Lewis by giving him a superior strategy (that they had denied to his teammate) that unfairly gave him an advantage over Lewis. It has been reported that in pre-race meeting Lewis had discussed doing a one-stop and that it was his preference but the team decided on a two-stop for both drivers. From 3rd on the grid Lewis made his way into the lead on lap 3 and proceeded to dominate the race, brilliantly controlling it, managing his tires and his lead, going only as fast as needed to keep the 2nd place car out of DRS range. When told to box before his stops Lewis told the team that his tires were still good but they called him in anyway and (trusting his team) he complied with the two-stop strategy that the team had him adhere to. In the meantime, while Lewis was dominating the race George was mired in 5th place, completely out of contention for the win and headed for no better than a 4th or 5th place finish.

After the second round of stops it was clear that Lewis had everyone covered and was going to be the winner. But then, with nothing to lose and seeing that the performance deg. on the hard tire was rather minimal, Merc changed GR’s strategy from the planned two-stop (which would have placed him back in 4th or 5th place, out of contention for the win) which they had held Lewis to, to what turned out to be the more superior one-stop (Merc didn’t even have the decency to inform Lewis of this immediately so that he could adjust his race pace accordingly). So in essence, what Lewis’ own team did was take the win away from him (the driver who had masterfully dominated the race and was made to adhere to what turned out to be an inferior two-stop strategy) and hand it to his teammate (who had never been in contention for the win) by giving George a superior strategy. I can understand Merc trying something different when the minimal tire performance deg, became apparent in order to try for a 1-2 finish or just to get George a little higher finish than 5th. However, it’s extremely unfair for a team (with equal status drivers) to steal a well-deserved win away from their driver who had dominated the race and looked to be the clear winner (and who had dutifully followed the strategy they put him on) and hand it to his teammate (who had never been in contention for the win) by ultimately favoring him with the advantage of a superior strategy that the dominant driver had not been given. Lewis had every right to feel betrayed by his own team, to feel that they had inequitably taken a hard earned win away from him and handed it to George. Merc should have acknowledged the unfair situation it had created and acted accordingly. They should have acknowledged that Lewis had done everything the team had ordered him to do and had masterfully dominated the race accordingly; that it was then unfair for the team to deny Lewis the win by giving George a superior, advantageous strategy which was the only reason why he was ahead of Lewis and not back in 5th. Team orders should have been given so that the driver who had dominated the race (Lewis) wasn’t screwed over by his own team (and they still would have obtained their 1-2 finish).

A basically similar situation had occurred just a week prior in Hungary involving the McLaren drivers. Piastri was leading that race over Lando. A strategy change by McL then unfairly (to Oscar) allowed Lando into the lead over Oscar. Much to McL’s credit, the team acknowledged the unfair nature of what had resulted from its inequitable strategy call and did the right thing by issuing team orders. So, even with this fresh example of fairness and integrity Merc refused to do what was fair and equitable and instead allowed the win to be stolen from Lewis by letting their unfair, gifted placing of George in front of Lewis to stand. The contrasting manner in which the media covered these two situations is also rather disturbing. Oscar’s win was not belittled. He was greatly praised and deemed the deserving winner, his victory not gifted to him by the issuing of team orders which were acknowledged to be fair and just. On the other hand, Lewis (who had dominated his race to a much greater extent than Oscar had) was said to have just inherited and been gifted the win.

I was dismayed at some of what occurred post-race (before the DSQ). The unreserved celebrations by Merc for George contained no hint of sympathy or care about what the team had done to Lewis, no sobered tempering of their jubilation due to any considerations that by its inequitable strategy the team had taken a hard-earned win away from Lewis and handed it to George. I was especially put off by the absurd “tire whisperer” comment. George isn’t known to be particularly great at conserving his tires but Lewis is and he’s much better at it than George. If George could do a one-stop then there’s no doubt that Lewis could have also (and done it even better) had the team let him and he thus would have finished well ahead of George on an equal strategy. Another consideration is that the performance deg. of the hard tires turned out to be rather minimal (though they lost tire mass as usual) so tire conservation wasn’t quite as difficult a task. Had FP3 not been so rain-sodden, teams likely would have discovered this before the race.

Yes, in the end Lewis (the driver who dominated the race and was the most deserving winner) got the win. But under the circumstances he was denied the elation, the special joyful celebration and accolades that come with a win. Instead of elation and satisfaction he was left with a bad taste in his mouth, a feeling that he had been undermined and betrayed by his team, that media pundits were stating that his hard-earned win was somehow tainted, and an initial feeling (before the DSQ, which included the podium ceremonies) that another race had been stolen from him…and with the latter, a haunting feeling of déjà vu from Abu Dhabi 2021.

 

[Dartman]

There was no disrespect to Lewis, if you watched the race, GR called the one stop and the team agreed, the explanation was if he stopped the 5th was the result, if he one stopped then he would move up, though he wasn't expected to win, when team mates race the the one behind has to overtake, the one in front is not obliged to make it easy. We don't do fan boy here we discuss the pros and cons and you haven't.

 

[Brogan]

I've said it before but Hamilton had the better strategy.

He won.

Russell was disqualified.

 

[F1Brits_90]

i dont think anything dodgy happened. nobody thought a 1 stop was possible. as ted said in the notebook they were all blinded by their computers & the collective confirmation bias. & russell was going to be 7th anyway. so he went for the hail mary & this was the 1 in 100 where it worked

everyone assume he would lose so much under traction & it never materialised.