Because people are not just interested in this race, but rather the implications for future races looking at relative pace.
When quoting from an article, please quote all the relevant parts, not just the part that suits a particular narrative or provides a snippet of ammunition to mock fellow members :IntrinsicVoid wrote: ↑06 May 2024, 13:05Asked specifically though about Horner’s suggestions of his pace drop being down to damage, Verstappen replied: “It didn't feel different, so I don't know. Maybe it was already damaged. I don't know. I mean I hit that thing and then my pace was the same so I didn't really know if there was damage.”
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10607603/
Though I’m relieved that in addition of the technical topics of this forum we also have people spiritually connected with the driver and the car and can assess the performance drop at any given time.
Red Bull later explained that Verstappen’s remarks about the damage had come before he had seen the car – with it fairly obvious that there was damage.
Horner had explained that its race data showed Verstappen was well down in performance through Turn 1, which would have accounted for the advantage that Norris had.
“He lost two-and-a-half-tenths in Turn 1 every lap,” he said. “Whether that was because of the damage, when you actually see the pictures of what was missing, it wasn't designed like that."
Furthermore, Verstappen gave a quote in the Red Bull press release later in the evening clarifying how clear the damage was.
“When we took the car back to the garage, we also found that the floor was damaged and had a hole in which could have been picked up from hitting the cone,” he remarked.
Don’t get me wrong, my intention was to underline what Max felt after the damage. The way I see it this goes more with the narrative that RB didn’t have the usual balance which is also backed by the pace even before the damage.venkyhere wrote: ↑06 May 2024, 14:36When quoting from an article, please quote all the relevant parts, not just the part that suits a particular narrative or provides a snippet of ammunition to mock fellow members :IntrinsicVoid wrote: ↑06 May 2024, 13:05Asked specifically though about Horner’s suggestions of his pace drop being down to damage, Verstappen replied: “It didn't feel different, so I don't know. Maybe it was already damaged. I don't know. I mean I hit that thing and then my pace was the same so I didn't really know if there was damage.”
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10607603/
Though I’m relieved that in addition of the technical topics of this forum we also have people spiritually connected with the driver and the car and can assess the performance drop at any given time.
Red Bull later explained that Verstappen’s remarks about the damage had come before he had seen the car – with it fairly obvious that there was damage.
Horner had explained that its race data showed Verstappen was well down in performance through Turn 1, which would have accounted for the advantage that Norris had.
“He lost two-and-a-half-tenths in Turn 1 every lap,” he said. “Whether that was because of the damage, when you actually see the pictures of what was missing, it wasn't designed like that."
Furthermore, Verstappen gave a quote in the Red Bull press release later in the evening clarifying how clear the damage was.
“When we took the car back to the garage, we also found that the floor was damaged and had a hole in which could have been picked up from hitting the cone,” he remarked.
Many of us thought it was just the way they setup the car poorly to work with H, but when there is confirmation of floor damage and words like 'hole' etc used, the kind of sensitivity these machines have to the flow underneath is more likely to be aggravating the already poor H tyre grip+balance and masquerading as 'just more low grip and more front-v-rear balance issues' to the driver.
I think when we are presented data which is contrary to our opinion, we should be open to corrections.
It was quite a hit when the car landed on the bollar mounting. An already struggling balance, coupled with a hit to the diffuser, no wonder would have taken decent performance out of the car. Self inflicted, but nevertheless, undeniable loss of performance to the car.Emag wrote: ↑06 May 2024, 14:38To me it looks like the floor edge looks exactly the same before it hits the ground and after it hits the ground. This seemingly "big damage" doesn't explain the lack of pace in the sprint though. Max was barely faster than Charles, if faster at all.
It was an off weekend by RedBull for one reason or another, but to put so much credit to this "damage" is ridiculous. Max only pulled 1.5s on Piastri before he hit the bollard. Pace was bad before and it was bad after, as per Max's words.
That doesn't mean Landos win wasn't 100% on merit. Hitting the bollard was Max's mistake.venkyhere wrote: ↑06 May 2024, 12:32After looking at that floor-damage clip, my perspective has changed completely.
Notwithstanding the RB20 config leading to non-deal balance on H tyres, Max drove almost 2/3rd the laps with underfloor damage and poor tyre grip, and still maintained P2. Hats off.
So Max/RedBull fans can breath a sigh of relief -
"VER wasn't relegated to P2 purely on pace delta, the car was injured"
Lando was clearly faster than Max before he got any damage. Red Bull simply had an off day and Mclaren(or at least Norris' upgraded one) were perfectly locked in.