Technical: Why Williams got hit in Brazil

[F1Rumors]

From The Brazil GP Grapevine:

The irony, of course, is that neither Verstappen or Barrichello is entirely to blame for their accidents - and all four participants gave accurate accounts concerning how the accident happened. Schumacher and Montoya did, as they claim, both brakes at around their normal braking point. However, that was was several yards earlier than either Barrichello or Verstappen expected to brake: the Williams was set up with significantly lower downforce, which increases straight line speed at the expense of cornering speed - and braking distances. Not only that, in those critical yards, the following driver would close considerably on the decelerating Williams, suffering a significant loss of downforce themselves, making their own braking far less effective.

Of course, that is no excuse for hitting the car ahead. Any driver who claims to be one of the top ten in the world today should be capable of establishing that another car can have a different braking point, and reacting to it. This is, after supposed to be the very pinnacle of motorsport.

Just my tuppence worth...

[Dino IV]

AtlasF1 right? There you see their problem. To little fine writers, too many page fillers who think they understand something about it but obviously don't.

The Williams was set up with significantly lower downforce, which increases straight line speed at the expense of cornering speed - and braking distances.

Not true. Montoya stuck his feet through the monocoque on the tarmac to outbreak TGF or did he suddenly get a short braking distance sent from heaven?

Not only that, in those critical yards, the following driver would close considerably on the decelerating Williams, suffering a significant loss of downforce themselves, making their own braking far less effective.

Not true either. That loss of effectiveness is less than last year and I can't remember dumb head-on collisions like this from the past season.

[Ray Bell]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dino IV
[B]AtlasF1 right? There you see their problem. To little fine writers, too many page fillers who think they understand something about it but obviously don't.[QUOTE]


Hmmm... someone here might have seen the Fans impeded thread, its cause and its aftermath...

heh... and the intense defence of it all..

[Dino IV]

Ehmm, lost you there, Ray. I just use that site because the newssection is very user-friendly, plus it features the sector times and speeds, and I don't want to plough through Galeforcef1 for that.

Chapeau bas for the likes of Ludvigsen and Capps ofcourse and in no means disrespecting their work, but it seems as if there are others who don't research their work as thoroughly and that brings the level down again. Or is that the whole idea behind the Grapevine?

[F1Rumors]

Originally posted by Dino IV
AtlasF1 right? There you see their problem. To little fine writers, too many page fillers who think they understand something about it but obviously don't.

From this, I understand you to mean that you know more about the goings on in this sport than all the writers at Atlas-F1. Ignoring, for now, the Journal's reputation for quality, on the basis that sometimes everyone prints something inaccurate, I am interested in your criteria for dismissing the piece out of hand -- I do know that you did not go and read the article, so you do not even know who wrote it...

The Williams was set up with significantly lower downforce, which increases straight line speed at the expense of cornering speed - and braking distances.

Not true. Montoya stuck his feet through the monocoque on the tarmac to outbreak TGF or did he suddenly get a short braking distance sent from heaven?

Two things on that:

1. Schumacher braked early -- if you read Montoya's post race statements, he comments on Schumacher braking earlier than he strictly needed to, giving the Columbian a chance to pass from (his words) two cars behind.
2. He was on the limit -- one reason for squeezing Schumacher into T2 was to prevent the Ferrari having the inside line. The second, which is apparent if you watch the replay, is that Montoya ended up braking very deep into the corner, as a result of braking at the very last moment

So, Montoya was right on the braking limit, and Schumacher was not. And anyway, even Williams admit their cars were optimised for relatively low downforce...

Not only that, in those critical yards, the following driver would close considerably on the decelerating Williams, suffering a significant loss of downforce themselves, making their own braking far less effective.

Not true either. That loss of effectiveness is less than last year and I can't remember dumb head-on collisions like this from the past season.

OK -- now I know you are lacking information on aerodynamics. These accidents were a product of two cars running dissimilar downforce... here's some technical fact for you to consider:

• At high speed, the biggest factor component for grip is aerodynamic -- downforce;
• Under braking, at very high speeds (150-220 mph), grip is initially directly related to downforce, with a very small mechanical component;
• Under braking, the front wheels provide most (varies by team: 65-80%) of the retardation, ie are the more important factor for grip;
• Whilst aero effects from the car in front is down on 2000, it is still a fact that Formula One cars create a massive hole in the air -- force down on the car is largely the effect of vertical movement of the air displaced;
• Get too close to the car in front, and you will lose some downforce from your front wings -- the closer you get, and the faster you are travelling, the greater the downforce lost;
• Lose 40% of your front downforce, from being close to the car in front, and you will lose 25-35% of your total high speed braking capacity.

So, between different braking points -- which only need to differ by some 15-20 yards -- and unexpected loss of downforce, we can see the potential for mishap.

But that doesn't change the fact that these drivers, who are supposed to be the best in the world, should not have run down the car in front!

Just my tuppence worth...

[gp19]

I feel very sorry for Montoya. ((I went to the left to let him pass, and the moment he was past I went back to my race line. And before I knew it, I was on his rear wing. I feel very sorry for Montoya. But for sure I didn't do it on purpose. Also, we looked to our data, and our data tells us a lot. I was 40 metres earlier on the brakes, with about 60kph less speed than the laps before, so obviously he was braking very early - at least earlier than I expected. And that's why I hit him. I nearly climbed over his car, took my left front corner off, I spun and that was it. When I touched him my speed was about 170kph.")) From auto race so what do you think of that???????
gp19

[FormulaMag]

To little fine writers? These websites wouldn't get the hits they get if they have "to little fine writers". Atlas F1 and F1Rumors are two of the nets leading F1 Sites.

The faster you go the longer it takes to stop. Schumacher told in the press conference that he jumped on the brakes early because their was a Minardi in front of him and he couldn't see where JPM was.

As a following car gets closer to the car infront they are going through their dirty air which causes the loss of mechanical grip, their for braking doesnt have the same effect as when your alone on the track.

I suggest you know what your talking about before you talk in future.

http://www.formula-magazine.net

[kuchi]

Now tis is a good thread, I like you guys fighting eventough I know little about technical specs. in F1, I´m more a fan writter, but it is always fun to read guys like you posting here. I mean dino nows **** about what he is talking. Anyway thanks for the information F1rumors, now we have a reliable source in here.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by FormulaMag
Schumacher told in the press conference that he jumped on the brakes early because their was a Minardi in front of him and he couldn't see where JPM was.

Hmmm... I think this might have been when Coulthard passed him?

My reference to Atlas F1 was to do with their story carried a couple of days after the Australian GP where they have quoted a cheap sensationalist daily regarding the behaviour of fans after the marshal was killed.

Anyone keen to know about it all might first look at Vandas' thread in Trackside entitled 'That sound I will never forget'...

Suffice to say that the story remained in the atlas newsroom well after two spectators revealed that it was not true.

Atlas' Nostalgia Forum is fantastic, but I've got to say that the tone of this forum is much better than their regular Readers' Comments forum... though it's much slower. So I was bitterly disappointed with the way that this story was defended after two eyewitnesses revealed that it wasn't true.

But it's not for me to say how Atlas' site measures up overall. My only beef is with the way this issue was handled, and it seems there's always news in there that's up to date and worthwhile. There's a balance, too, with the various historical articles and technical articles.

[Dino IV]

"From this, I understand you to mean that you know more about the goings on in this sport than all the writers at Atlas-F1." Reading ain't that hard that it would allow this freedom of interpretation. When I tell you I don't fancy brandy a lot, I am not actually saying that I don't like any alcoholic drinks, do I?

1. About the alledged Monza set-up of the Williams:
Re 1.: Read Montoya's statement again. He's joking, not reviewing his telemetry.
Re 2.: No, you think you see that limit, that's something else. Juan takes TGF wide on purpose and explained that in the same interview. (try the Q&A on Autosport.com for once )

Want some real information? Here you go:

RACE (from GaleforceF1.com)
Sector 1
1 R.Schumacher 19.000s
2 J.Montoya 19.138s
3 D.Coulthard 19.232s
4 J.Villeneuve 19.278s
5 M.Schumacher 19.311s
6 O.Panis 19.324s

Sector 2
1 R.Schumacher 38.901s
2 D.Coulthard 39.378s
3 M.Schumacher 39.424s
4 J.Montoya 39.548s
5 E.Irvine 39.601s
6 O.Panis 39.752s

Sector 3
1 O.Panis 17.541s
2 R.Schumacher 17.655s
3 J.Montoya 17.570s
4 D.Coulthard 17.681s
5 J.Villeneuve 17.693s
6 M.Schumacher 17.770s

What do we know of the track characteristics in relation to the sector times?
That first and third sector are high-speed with less downforce required and the second sector (which is lasts as long as first and third together) is low-speed and requires high downforce.
So what do these figures tell us?
Jacques Villeneuve turns in top 6 times in first and third sector and doesn't show up in the second, ergo conclusio deliberate choice for a low downforce set-up. Same goes for Panis who clearly catches the best tow over S/F.
Eddie Irvine only shows up in the second sector, thus running a relatively high downforce set-up.
The two Williams drivers, DC and TGF are the only ones who perform equally well in all three sectors, ergo a well balanced downforce setup.

2. About downforce in the braking area
"OK - now I know you are lacking information on aerodynamics."
Just curious but how do you know that? If you'd actually know me that's not the thing you should bring up. Obviously not knowing me that's quite a long shot, well maybe not on some forums ...

Your facts are describing nothing new for this year, except for a small mention of some little less downforce at the front. I'd only say that the efficiency of the front wing has suffered a bit, but I guess the topteams will be pretty much on par with last year's values in Imola. The shorter side channels of the diffuser and 'only' five element rearwing have proven the same fluke at the rear. Fact though is that this little gain in groundclearance makes the frontwing less sensitive for pressurevariations ie turbulence compared to last year. Fact is that the turbulent wake of the cars at high speed is less disturbing than last year. That's what I already pointed out in that one sentence. If cars are problematic right now as you're saying, they'd have been even more last year. And they weren't, so the cause for this accident lies somewhere else. Simple driver failure ain't that unthinkable right?

[FormulaMag]

Originally posted by Dino IV
Simple driver failure ain't that unthinkable right?

But three times in three races, all three to Williams cars? There has to be more to it then drivers forgetting to brake at their braking point.

Verstappens quotes:

"I got the blue flag, so I knew somebody was lapping me. And I saw a Williams car coming, and obviously it was Montoya. On the back straight, I went to the left to let him pass, and the moment he was past I went back to my race line. And before I knew it, I was on his rear wing. I feel very sorry for Montoya. But for sure I didn't do it on purpose. Also, we looked to our data, and our data tells us a lot. I was 40 metres earlier on the brakes, with about 60kph less speed than the laps before, so obviously he was braking very early - at least earlier than I expected. And that's why I hit him. I nearly climbed over his car, took my left front corner off, I spun and that was it. When I touched him my speed was about 170kph."

"It shows a 35 or 40 metre difference. What's happening with the Williams? It happened in Melbourne, it happened again to Ralf in this race, and now it happened to Montoya in the race. Obviously they're really going very quick in a straight line. Maybe they're running very little down force, and maybe they have to brake early."


http://www.formula-magazine.net

[FormulaMag]

maybe Williams drivers simply like getting it up the rear....

[Dino IV]

I read Vandas thread here at 10-10's so I figure where it's been about, Ray. I second your opinion about the rest. Nostalgia is best on the web for sure, Readers Comments not my atmosphere.

Formulamag > When you buy this months second number of F1 Magazine you'll find a photoseries of JV during the Melbourne clash with Ralf. On one of them you'll see an inboard shot just at the point where JV's nose has risen a bit in the air after the initial touch. In the back at somewhere between 25-40 metres you see the 100 m sign. At that moment JV has bridged the little gap to the decellerating Ralf and already clashed. So Ralf slowed down at about 150 m. That's highly unusual and either a mistake or some sort of technical problem.

Ralf's accident in Malaysia was just a little nick by Barrichello, like he did before with Frentzen. Rubens' mistake clearly.

In this case the 40 metres and 60 kph you mention are absolute nonsense. When he would have behaved as he said he does, he wouldn't have hit him at all. The FIA has their own data recording equipment aboard for crashes like these so they'll know the answers. And Arrows clearly didn't have any, that's why they pulled back their appeal and went Jos to excuse himselft at Montoya.

So the just-Williams attacks are just coincidence I guess.

[slicktoast]

Or... maybe the scuttle among the F1 cars around the F1 transports is that the Williams is the sexiest little thing, especially from behind.

[Run Free]

Originally posted by F1Rumors

But that doesn't change the fact that these drivers, who are supposed to be the best in the world, should not have run down the car in front!

Just to remember to you that even the driver you named as "the best professional" one, Schumacher, ran down the car in front...and then accused the driver to have tried to kill him, if I remember well.

The fact is: three races, three accidents involving the two Williams being hit from behind . Almost two of them (RS in Australia, JPM in Brazil) where braking VERY EARLY. Three circumstantial proof are a proof. Williams are dangerous. VERY dangerous if you remember what happened in Australia.

I don't know aerodynamics, but I think that if it was a consequence of the new rules, those kind of accidents shouldn't have happened only to Williams, but to almost all the cars. But they involved only Williams, and only they were braking so early. So, what's wrong with Williams?

[Dino IV]

JPM didn't brake early, Run Free. He braked about a quarter past the 100 m sign. That's not early that's normal. Jos hit the Williams at the moment Juan steered in (one should brake before the corner, no?), veered over the rear end of the Williams and shot onto the grass. Jos simply braked way too late.

[F1Rumors]

Original post by Dino IV
from this, I understand you to mean that you know more about the goings on in this sport than all the writers at Atlas-F1

You answer that without answering "I am interested in your criteria for dismissing the piece out of hand -- I do know that you did not go and read the article, so you do not even know who wrote it..." -- that's to say, you responded to an implication which was not a question, but avoided the actual question: on what basis did you dismiss that article, considering you did not visit the page in question?

Same source
What do we know of the track characteristics in relation to the sector times?

Considering downforce levels, sector times alone are not definitive. Panis, we all know, was running low downforce -- but also ran low fuel. Montoya was running more fuel, and got taken out before completing his run, so his sector times are not conclusive evidence of what he could do... even so, that is not really the point: if you look at the gap between Montoya and [pick rival], you will see that the two straights gave him an advantage against both Schumacher and Coulthard, but they closed up again over the remainder of the lap. Absolute downforce is not the point: the evidence here is only Montoya had significantly less downforce than Schumacher or Coulthard.

Barrichello and Verstappen, I inferred, ran downforce which was relatively significantly higher than the Williams they contacted: it's the relative difference that is important here, and so different to what we consider "normal" circumstances.

Re: loss of downforce from being close to the car in front -- I take it you have no argument to the statement "there will be some loss of front downforce from following the car in front, which will worsen with speed and/or decreasing gap"? It's just another factor...

Originally posted by Run Free
The fact is: three races, three accidents involving the two Williams being hit from behind. Almost two of them (RS in Australia, JPM in Brazil) where braking VERY EARLY. ... But they involved only Williams, and only they were braking so early. So, what's wrong with Williams?

And here we deal with the actual nub of the matter...

Williams' braking was early, compared to the competition, as a result of the relatively speaking lower downforce on the car. This is not an indication of anything being wrong with the car, or the driver. There is no rule dictating maximum braking distance, so Williams are not obliged to run higher downforce to decrease it. Nor are the competition obliged to run less downforce to match Williams. In fact, this is about the strategic choices of the teams and drivers, and their ability to understand their opponents, and anticipate actions and reactions. You will notice that both accidents in Brazil occurred after a Williams was put into the path of a car with higher downforce, and therefor a later braking point. The rest is history.

As witness, I should like to call upon the expert testimony of Dino IV: Dino IV, please lean on your understanding of aerodynamics to explain the chain of events, and errata, should the following hypothetical situation take place:

Car with relatively low downforce is lapping a car with relatively high downforce; the latter moves off the racing line to be lapped, then returns to the line approx 200 meters from a medium speed corner. Both are travelling at speeds around 180mph -- the lapping car going, say, 10mph faster. (This is similar to the Ralf/Jos situation).

Dino IV:

1. where would the cars brake, relative to each other?
2. what influence could the cars have on each other?
3. what would be the impact, if the faster car (being on different tyres) has a slightly reduced cornering speed?
4. finally, in all honesty, could you dismiss the possibility that a relative difference in downforce was the significant factor in the Williams collisions?

We await your response...

For my part, I say it was definitely driver error - aerodynamic influence or not, these guys should be aware that others do not have the same braking point, and should react appropriately!

Changing the subject...

Originally posted by Run Free
Three circumstantial proof are a proof

"Three circumstantial proof are a proof" ?? Indeed? So, if the stock market drops three days in a row, the world economy is going to collapse? No? Well how about three months? Three years? When does incidental evidence become proof? This philosophical debate belongs offline, methinks!

Just my tuppence worth...

[JoMiSaP]

The Williams were hit from behind simply because the drivers following them misjudged the braking distance.

In the first lap incident there was a fight for position and an accident happened in the same way than in a lot of other GPs.

In the Montoya-Verstappen accident there was a driver error on Verstappen side. Nothing strange there. Verstappen should get a two race ban for taking out the leader of the race while being lapped.

[Billy_Hunt]

I'll just put in my pennies worth then leave you to it.
I'm sure the williams was running low down force and JPM's car was very full of fuel. Now I'm no tech head but I'm sure driving an heavier car with less down force JPM would have to brake sooner than a lighter car with less fuel and higher downforce .
I recall JPM smoking his tyres a couple of times during the middle sector, while TGF was in close pursuit this confirms he was struggling to slow the car and he did push TGF a bit wide when he took him .
I thnk the factors here are all the above except for the one that there is something seriously wrong with the williams if thats the case how did JPM manage to lead for half the race with TGF close behind, him being on a lighter fuel load, if the williams was braking so much earlier than everyone else I'm sure TGF would have took full advantage of this.
Joss made a big error no matter which way you look at.
JPM can brake as late as he likes or needs to, as can any driver

[eatapc]

F1Rumors has explained the Williams "up the butt" problems/coincidences with insight and clarity. Thanks you. A combination of downforce, tires, racing circumstances and driver error explains why the Williams cars keep getting run into while braking.

DinoIV, when you say that "Jos hit the Williams at the moment Juan steered in," you make an interesting point. The SpeedVision commentators remarked that something looked wrong with the Williams because it was taking so long to slow down, but at the turn in point the two cars involved should have been going their slowest. If both cars were capable of taking the corner at similar speeds, and if their lines through the corner were similar, a misjudgment by Jos should have resulted in a tap, not a big crash. And if the Williams cars use earlier braking points than others (and clearly they do), the crash should have happened early in the braking zone, not later -- as it did with JV and Ralf in Australia. What gives?

[Dino IV]

F1rumors > "on what basis did you dismiss that article, considering you did not visit the page in question?"
> What's there to visit? They don't feature any authors or sources in the Grapevine, soo except for a change of entourage around the message there's no additional info. If you want any reviews though before you feature your text in the future I'd be willing cooporate.

F1rumors > "Absolute downforce is not the point: the evidence here is only Montoya had significantly less downforce than Schumacher or Coulthard."
And what's that evidence? All top sector times are run on low fuel. Montoya was heading for his pits in a couple of laps and did well in the second sector. Ralf put down fastest second sector time by about half a second. No one is capable of doing that with 'significant less downforce'. Where do you base your 'high' downforce setting for Jos on? Even if Jos would have set-up his car aimed for the second sector he would have had a tough job equalling the Wiliams pace there.

F1rumors > "I take it you have no argument to the statement "there will be some loss of front downforce from following the car in front, which will worsen with speed and/or decreasing gap"? It's just another factor..."
That's omnivalid .. A 1000 hp engine is stronger than a 1 hp engine right?

F1rumors > "Williams' braking was early, compared to the competition, as a result of the relatively speaking lower downforce on the car"
Well no, read all of the above ... Jos runs an Arrows remember ...

F1rumors > "As witness, I should like to call upon the expert testimony of Dino IV: Dino IV, please lean on your understanding of aerodynamics to explain ..."
You told me you knew for sure I don't know anything about this. I asked you how did you come to this conclusion and you didn't answer me ... try that and I'll give you some stuff to write about that's actually realistic.

[carbonfibre]

Check the rear wing settings in this pic, and let me know who is running more rear wing.


You can't run laps 2 or 3 seconds faster than back markers simply with straightline speed. An important component of the Williams lap times are going to be related to braking distances. Montoya was actually complimented by Schumacher on his late-braking prowess.

JPM didn't pass Schumi, on cold tires AND with more fuel no less, by braking early. Ralf set the race fast lap at 1.15'692, which was eight-tenths quicker than the 2nd fastest lap, Coulthard. Ralf is not braking early, and neither is JPM. Montoya is showing just the type of controlled aggression I expected, and early braking is not part of his repertoire.

Jos SCREWED UP! Plain and simple. I can't even believe that these discussions are going on. We should be thrilled that F1 now has 3 top level teams - instead, "expert" cynics are condemning Williams for things that they can't control - namely the responsibility of the following drivers. And Arrows can spin the telemetry however they want, but if the telemetry supports their position, show it to the media. If the telemetry supports their position, why did they withdraw their appeal of Verstappen's fine?

No, Jos just got caught out by driving back into the slipstream of the Williams, picking up speed in the process, missing his braking point, and probably being distracted also by checking his mirrors to see if he was about to be threatened by Fisichella. That gives an idea of Verstappen's lap times - he was running with a freakin Benetton! In fact, Fisi's quickest lap was over 1 second faster than Verstappen's best, 1.17'830 to 1.18'875. Go figure!

[Ray Bell]

When did Jos pit... or did he?

If he had, his extra tankage on board would have been a contributing factor as well...

Agreed, this discussion shouldn't be going on.

[eatapc]

Originally posted by carbonfibre
I can't even believe that these discussions are going on. We should be thrilled that F1 now has 3 top level teams - instead, "expert" cynics are condemning Williams for things that they can't control - namely the responsibility of the following drivers.

Would someone please explain to me what's wrong with this discussion? It's interesting. People do seem to be taking offense at each other for no reason (ancient quarrels I really don't care about), but the technical discussion itself has been informative. Very few posts have condemned Williams, and I think everyone is happy that a third team has joined the top rank. That the Williams cars keep getting run into from behind is a odd situation that fairly screams for comment and analysis.

[Valve Bounce]

Originally posted by carbonfibre


No, Jos just got caught out by driving back into the slipstream of the Williams, picking up speed in the process, missing his braking point, and probably being distracted also by checking his mirrors to see if he was about to be threatened by Fisichella.

Exactly my sentiments. I find this statement very difficult for anyone to refute if they went and saw the tape of the race again.