F1 2025

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's ChatGPT's take on the question

How much too low: McLaren’s plank wear suggests they were only fractions of a millimeter too low in key regions (e.g., ~0.12 mm to ~0.26 mm beyond the safe wear margin).

Lap time gain: That tiny extra lower ride height could plausibly give them a few hundredths of a second per lap, maybe up to ~0.03 s or so, depending on the track. But it's not likely to be a huge “big chunk” performance increase: the gains from being borderline low are small, but in F1, every little bit counts.
Click to expand...

chatgpt.com

ChatGPT - Plank wear and lap time

Shared via ChatGPT
chatgpt.com chatgpt.com
 
quovadis said:
The plank wear is as a result of the driving style and the setup of the car where ride height is one factor especially when we're talking tolerances in the fractions of a mm.
Click to expand...
You're not adding anything new to the conversation. From the start this has all been clear, what's not clear is what quantities we're talking here. How much too low were they, and what is the estimated gain from being that much (little) lower?
 
Speedster said:
You're not adding anything new to the conversation. From the start this has all been clear, what's not clear is what quantities we're talking here. How much too low were they, and what is the estimated gain from being that much (little) lower?
Click to expand...
They're not dragging the skid blocks around the track. The height of the car varies at different speeds in the corners, on the curbs, on the straight, under DRS, when accelerating, when braking, when following, when in clear air etc all as a result of the setup they choose. The gain is mostly grip and cornering speed so you can brake/turn in later and carry higher speeds etc. They will have tuned it to the limit to get the best performance. If the rate of wear is higher than expected then that's simply miscalculations in tolerances or surface friction etc.
 
Speedster said:
You're not adding anything new to the conversation. From the start this has all been clear, what's not clear is what quantities we're talking here. How much too low were they, and what is the estimated gain from being that much (little) lower?
Click to expand...
Well quantities depends on the track and conditions. But it would be millimetres.
The lower the car the faster it goes. This is the main reason Ferrari went slower and slower during the year because they had to raise the car's height, mainly due to porposing. Thast why Hamilton got disqualified earlier this year and also in many races you see them doing well and then later they have to lift and coast to save the floor.

So yes ride height make a huge difference even a few mm's.
And then how low you can go depend from track to track, you have to consider porposing(this is a variable on different cars), bumpy tracks, high speed tracks the cars are sucked down lower, etc.

And then the big unknown is who was cheating the most with the expanding Titanium to setup cars lower and not have plank wear.. If that was McLarens secret, they might have problems for the last two races, only time will tell.
 
quovadis said:
They're not dragging the skid blocks around the track. The height of the car varies at different speeds in the corners, on the curbs, on the straight, under DRS, when accelerating, when braking, when following, when in clear air etc all as a result of the setup they choose. The gain is mostly grip and cornering speed so you can brake/turn in later and carry higher speeds etc. They will have tuned it to the limit to get the best performance. If the rate of wear is higher than expected then that's simply miscalculations in tolerances or surface friction etc.
Click to expand...
Once again, you're just saying what we all know. The engineers will have models for all of this. How much did they get it wrong by? And what is the estimated laptime benefit from their error?
 
Last edited:
PCWARITM said:
Not sure how you could accurately measure those heights on a car with a suspension and rubber tyres. The mind boggles… and it’s about race distance too. Everyone’s car bottoms out to some degree.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure those engineers know exactly how to measure it, which is why they almost always get it right. Wet practices meant they couldn't test accurately. I don't believe for a moment the engineers don't know exactly how far they missed it by.
 
Speedster said:
Once again, your just saying what we all know. The engineers will have models for all of this. How much did they get it wrong by? And what is the estimated laptime benefit from their error?
Click to expand...
They didn't set the car to x mm from the ground if that's what you're asking. Every parameter and driving style will result in different wear - they predict it based on the expected race conditions and the track itself and they got it wrong.
 
quovadis said:
They didn't set the car to x mm from the ground if that's what you're asking. Every parameter and driving style will result in different wear - they predict it based on the expected race conditions and the track itself and they got it wrong.
Click to expand...
Now we're getting somewhere. How much did they get it wrong by?
 
Speedster said:
Now we're getting somewhere. How much did they get it wrong by?
Click to expand...
Did they get what wrong by?

Norris had two measurements of 0.12mm and 0.07mm. Piastri had three 0.04mm and 0.26mm and 0.1mm.

That doesn't mean the car was those measurements lower...
 
quovadis said:
Did they get what wrong by?

Norris had two measurements of 0.12mm and 0.07mm. Piastri had three 0.04mm and 0.27mm and 0.1mm.

That doesn't mean the car was those measurements lower...
Click to expand...
Exactly. So how much higher did the cars need to be to have been safe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X