1248 replies to this topic

[SagemX]

Well well.

 

https://twitter.com/...468236660363268

 

"The FIA steps in and issues a technical directive to reduce porpoising on safety grounds. Includes “the definition of a metric, based on the car’s vertical acceleration, that will give a quantitative limit for acceptable level of vertical oscillations” #F1 #CanadianGP"

Edited by SagemX, 16 June 2022 - 16:17.

[FullOppositeLock]

Well well.

https://twitter.com/...468236660363268

"The FIA steps in and issues a technical directive to reduce porpoising on safety grounds. Includes “the definition of a metric, based on the car’s vertical acceleration, that will give a quantitative limit for acceptable level of vertical oscillations” #F1 #CanadianGP"

https://www.motorspo...-driver-health/

Good news. Let’s see where this takes us.

[vas04614]

https://www.fia.com/...nterests-safety
 

 

 

 The definition of a metric, based on the car’s vertical acceleration, that will give a quantitative limit for acceptable level of vertical oscillations. The exact mathematical formula for this metric is still being analysed by the FIA, and the Formula 1 teams have been invited to contribute to this process.

This could take some time to come up with the metric

[GentlemanDriver091]

An FIA statement said: “Following the eighth round of this year’s FIA Formula One World Championship, during which the phenomenon of aerodynamic oscillations (‘porpoising’) of the new generation of Formula 1 cars, and the effect of this during and after the race on the physical condition of the drivers was once again visible, the FIA, as the governing body of the sport, has decided that, in the interests of the safety, it is necessary to intervene to require that the teams make the necessary adjustments to reduce or to eliminate this phenomenon.”

The FIA has referred to two short-term means by which the technical directive will allow it to tackle the problem.

The first is described as “closer scrutiny of the planks and skids, both in terms of their design and the observed wear”.

This would suggest that any evidence of the underside of the car hitting the ground too aggressively could lead to instructions to alter set-ups, which could include the need to raise the ride heights that would mitigate the savagery of the impacts.

The second part is described as “the definition of a metric, based on the car’s vertical acceleration, that will give a quantitative limit for acceptable level of vertical oscillations”.

“The exact mathematical formula for this metric is still being analysed by the FIA, and the Formula 1 teams have been invited to contribute to this process.”

The timescale for the implementation of this metric has not been made public, although it is unlikely to be in effect during the Canadian Grand Prix weekend.

There is no lack of data for the FIA to refer to, as in addition to that gathered by the car the drivers also wear an in-ear accelerometer that can measure the forces they are subjected to.

https://the-race.com...safety-reasons/

[SagemX]

https://twitter.com/...476991271804929

 

We've got our hands on TD039 & tell you all the details. New porpoising limits will be set before FP3. If a team can't supply a setup deemed to be safe, they have to raise ride by 10mm. Cars will be disqualified. if still above the limits.

[ARTGP]

Weird because it doesn’t tell a lot about porpoising, just if it hits the ground.

 

Here's the rest:

 

 

From now on, the world federation wants to check the vertical oscillations and forces on the drivers in all cars. For this purpose, not only the wear of the plank under the car is more strictly regulated, but also the measured values of the two acceleration sensors near the center of gravity of the vehicle are evaluated in order to determine data on the up and down movements.
If a certain limit is exceeded, the team will have to adjust the setup and possibly change the vehicle height or spring rate. The limit value will be communicated to the teams before the third training. Cars that do not meet this value will be classified as unsafe and disqualified.

FIA: Penalties for excessive bouncing | AUTO MOTOR UND SPORT (auto-motor-und-sport.de)

[FullOppositeLock]

https://twitter.com/...476991271804929

 

We've got our hands on TD039 & tell you all the details. New porpoising limits will be set before FP3. If a team can't supply a setup deemed to be safe, they have to raise ride by 10mm. Cars will be disqualified. if still above the limits.

Full article translated:

 

Drivers' complaints about their cars being too stiff were successful. The FIA ​​is now limiting the amount of bouncing allowed. If excessive vertical forces are measured, the ground clearance must be increased. That can turn the World Cup upside down. We have the details.
Michael Smith
06/16/2022
The FIA ​​has never reacted so quickly. In Baku, many drivers complained that their cars bottomed out too much and, above a certain speed, began to sway so violently that they developed back problems and headaches that could lead to loss of concentration. Already in Montreal, the teams are supposed to get their hands dirty if they drive their cars too low and thus create the aerodynamically and mechanically generated bouncing.
The world association wants to check the vertical oscillations and forces on the drivers in all cars with immediate effect. To this end, not only the wear and tear of the plank under the car is regulated more strictly, but also the measured values ​​of the two acceleration sensors near the center of gravity of the vehicle are evaluated in order to determine data on the up and down movements.
If a certain limit is exceeded, the team has to adjust the setup and possibly change the vehicle height or the spring rate. The limit will be communicated to the teams before the third practice session. Cars that do not meet this value will be considered unsafe and will be disqualified.

Classification as "dangerous construction"
The FIA, in its Technical Directive TD039, states that the phenomenon of vertical oscillation, commonly referred to as "bouncing" or "porpoising", is a property that has been observed with growing concern since this year.
Combined with little ground clearance, low adjustment and minimal suspension travel, they have led to many drivers complaining about too much grounding on the track. This can lead to health problems or even accidents.
"In a sport in which the participants regularly reach speeds of over 300 km/h, the driver must be fully concentrated at all times," explains the association in a statement. "Fatigue and pain can have a significant impact if it disrupts concentration. The FIA ​​is also concerned about the medium-term physical impact on the health of drivers, many of whom have complained of back pain after recent races."
The world association now regards cars that rob the driver of full control as a "dangerous construction". Therefore, under Article 1.3 of the Technical Regulations, any car that is classified as dangerous can be disqualified. The measures were therefore introduced with immediate effect in order to reduce the rocking of the cars to a tolerable level. They apply from the Canadian GP onwards.

 

The limit is fixed by the third training session
In a first step, the wear and tear on the floor panel under the car is studied more closely. For this purpose, a metric value is defined as a criterion for the extent of the oscillations. An analysis of how this parameter is determined is ongoing and will continue over the two training sessions on Friday.
The so-called "Az signal" for the vertical acceleration during the up and down movements is transmitted directly to the FIA ​​control unit. In this way, the scrutineers can see at any time how hard the car hits the road at high speeds.
It is still being discussed how the Az signal should be evaluated, whether peak values ​​or average forces should be taken into account. The teams measuring these values ​​for their own setup analysis are invited to share their methodology with the FIA.
The teams still don't know what the rule holders consider an acceptable value. It should be known before the third training session. Teams then need to determine the oscillations over three consecutive laps with DRS disabled at race speed. If there is a suspicion that the driver is deliberately driving slowly, the attempt is considered failed. The same applies when you close the gap on another car.

 

Ten millimeters up for violations
Once the FIA ​​has determined a "safe set-up" for each individual vehicle, the ride height, spring rates and damper settings, and aerodynamic configuration may no longer be changed. Exceptions are:
1. The car may be set even higher
2. Weather Changes
3. Cooling demand adjustments
4. Tire pressures
5. Front wing adjustment
If a competitor wishes to return to a previously used setup, they must first demonstrate to the FIA ​​that these adjustments meet safety criteria. All parameters such as vehicle height, suspension travel and aerodynamic configuration must be submitted to the FIA ​​in the voting sheets after the third practice session, together with the corresponding oscillation values.
If a competitor is not able to meet the FIA ​​limits and therefore a safe setup, they must use the setup that is closest to the limits and then increase the rear ground clearance by a further ten millimeters without changing the suspension travel or the aerodynamic configuration.
Because of the short-term announcement, the teams for the Canadian GP are considering allowing a second support cable for the floor a little further forward or stiffening the floor, as Haas did in Barcelona, ​​for example.
For 2023, phenomena such as bouncing should be ruled out from the outset. Thus, the edges of the sub-floors could be raised, the floor area reduced and a ban on wings on the floor edge could be considered. The teams are therefore asked to report to the FIA ​​on the results of the development of the 2023 cars.

Bad for Mercedes, good for Red Bull
The FIA ​​campaign could turn the world championship upside down. Teams are particularly affected whose cars have been subject to strong bouncing movements on the straights and who have landed hard on a bumpy track surface. These include Mercedes and Ferrari in particular. But the McLaren and Alpha Tauri drivers also complained about excessive shaking movements after the Azerbaijan GP.
The protests from Mercedes drivers may have backfired. If the cars have to be raised as a consequence, then they will slow down. This hits the Mercedes W13, which only works in a small window, particularly hard. Ferrari has more leeway in terms of vehicle height. Red Bull will be happy about the new technical directive. The cars of the championship leader were never affected by bouncing.
Some teams in midfield could also benefit. Teams like Aston Martin, Alfa Romeo or Alpine. Aston Martin has made the car more resilient to changes in ride height with its B version and can now go higher without losing too much speed. From the start, Alpine and Alfa Romeo let themselves down when it came to ground clearance and therefore never complained about bouncing problems.
In these circles in particular, people are satisfied with the way the FIA ​​has reacted to the drivers' criticism. Tenor: "It would have been bad if the rules had been changed now just because some teams can't deal with this problem. Like the minimum weight. And like you try with the inflation surcharge. The solution to this problem is as simple as it is the FIA ​​now prescribes. If you hit the road too hard, you simply have to put your car higher."

Edited by FullOppositeLock, 16 June 2022 - 17:24.

[Gareth]

I've created a new thread, and split posts out of the "Russell" one, so new visitors to the forum can spot that this is where the new TD (and possible new future changes) are being discussed.

 

I've moved over the posts that included the main news items from the original thread. I guess ideally I would move everything, but that's over 250 posts and I'm not sure I have that many mouse clicks in me today! Hope this is an ok compromise but any issues do drop me a PM as I appreciate it's not ideal.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Beri]

Thanks Gareth!

[P123]

I'm surprised Marko is having a hissy, even if standard practice.  Perhaps it is in relation to more attention being placed on plank wear that concerns them most.  But reading that from the fIA, I was surprised it wasn't a given anyway.  Going by how badly the Merc and others were hitting the ground in Baku, more than a few were wondering how they were getting away with not wearing the plank.  Seems maybe because the FIA were a bit lax on that.  Whatever safe limit that the FIA come up with, you'd expect the car with the most comfortable ride to be quids in, and that is the Red Bull.

[Beri]

To ask my same question on here as well;

 

I just wonder how they will define whether it is just frequent bottoming out or porpoising under this new set of rules. Because bottoming out is something usual.

[Cliff]

I'm surprised Marko is having a hissy, even if standard practice. Perhaps it is in relation to more attention being placed on plank wear that concerns them most. But reading that from the fIA, I was surprised it wasn't a given anyway. Going by how badly the Merc and others were hitting the ground in Baku, more than a few were wondering how they were getting away with not wearing the plank. Seems maybe because the FIA were a bit lax on that. Whatever safe limit that the FIA come up with, you'd expect the car with the most comfortable ride to be quids in, and that is the Red Bull.

The plank part is bothering them as RB is able to run super low and the car is bottoming out. He’s right that it’s BS because there’s no proof that has a health risk. RB is being pegged back because Merc can’t get their sh*t together.

[Sash1]

To ask my same question on here as well;

 

I just wonder how they will define whether it is just frequent bottoming out or porpoising under this new set of rules. Because bottoming out is something usual.

 

They don't care, they adress oscillations and peak measurements irregardles of the cause.

[Sash1]

The plank part is bothering them as RB is able to run super low and the car is bottoming out. He’s right that it’s BS because there’s no proof that has a health risk. RB is being pegged back because Merc can’t get their sh*t together.

 

And Haas, Ferrari, Alpha Tauri, etc, etc. Schumacher, Ghasly, Magnusson, Sainz have also complained. Who gives a F about Mercedes. There were many reports from drivers who are still sore from Baku and needed an abnormal amount of treatments just to get back in shape. Not only Hamilton and Russel.

Edited by Sash1, 17 June 2022 - 10:40.

[Whitelightning]

Why is Marko so angry about this? Isn’t this going to hurt Ferrari more than Redbull. He was very upset.

[Casey]

The plank part is bothering them as RB is able to run super low and the car is bottoming out. He’s right that it’s BS because there’s no proof that has a health risk. RB is being pegged back because Merc can’t get their sh*t together.

 

They could let the car hit the spring stops on the spot where the plank would hit the ground .

[Beri]

Why is Marko so angry about this? Isn’t this going to hurt Ferrari more than Redbull. He was very upset.

 

Which makes me think that this directive will hit Red Bull harder than one might assume.

[Henri Greuter]

I wonder, if teams need to make changes to the cars due to this rule, does this have to be covered within the budget cap as well or will there be a kind of additional budget permitted for this because of unforeseen circumstances requiring money to be spend on this?

[HP]

The plank part is bothering them as RB is able to run super low and the car is bottoming out. He’s right that it’s BS because there’s no proof that has a health risk. RB is being pegged back because Merc can’t get their sh*t together.

You sure? RB are said to have a pretty high ride height. Visibly higher than Merc for example. Bottoming out also means the car gets a much higher vertical deceleration, as the road surface doesn't act like a damper spring.

[Casey]

Why is Marko so angry about this? Isn’t this going to hurt Ferrari more than Redbull. He was very upset.

 

 

Maybe to not act too agreeable while laughing in his fist .

[Baddoer]

Late is better than never. Now get this porproposing out for good!

[HP]

 

 

 

Which makes me think that this directive will hit Red Bull harder than one might assume.

 

There has been data shown, that showed Merc had one of the lowest vertical G's of all teams. RBR was higher, Ferrari the highest. I guess we'll find out soon how accurate this all is.

 

But then, Marko seems seldom happy anyway.

[F1Lurker]

Why is Marko so angry about this? Isn’t this going to hurt Ferrari more than Redbull. He was very upset.

From reading the technical directive, it seems like the FIA will update the technical regulations to improve driver comfort. That means not having porpoising as a default characteristic of the regulations and probably to improve driver comfort on the many bumpy tracks in F1. This is probably what Red Bull doesn't like. They now have the best car out of the gate and with the budget cap and no regulation changes they might be able to maintain their advantage for years. But with active suspension or other floor or suspension changes their initial advantage would be lost and who knows who would react best to the new changes.

[FullOppositeLock]

Why is Marko so angry about this? Isn’t this going to hurt Ferrari more than Redbull. He was very upset.

 

I suspect he's just posing anger and drawing a line in the sand for the upcoming meeting with tech representatives to discuss medium to long term measures.

[Whitelightning]

Maybe to not act too agreeable while laughing in his fist .

😂😂😂😂 Can imagine they all go mad then as soon as they are behind closed doors start laughing

[jstrains]

This is a disgusting theatre organised by Wolff and Co. to hurt Red Bull (if they cannot win, why should Red Bull)... 

[P123]

The plank part is bothering them as RB is able to run super low and the car is bottoming out. He’s right that it’s BS because there’s no proof that has a health risk. RB is being pegged back because Merc can’t get their sh*t together.

Last weekend the claim was Merc were running lower.  But if Red Bull or them are wearing the plank then it is entirely correct that is looked at- which it should have been anyway.

 

But it's not just a Mercedes problem.  The FIA have greater responsibility that goes beyond fan dismissals because Mercedes is one of the teams affected by porpoising or because it was George Russell that originally highlighted the issue in terms of driver wellbeing.  Sainz, Gasly, Schumacher, Magnussen etc have all raised issues, and they are from a variety of teams.

[FullOppositeLock]

From reading the technical directive, it seems like the FIA will update the technical regulations to improve driver comfort. That means not having porpoising as a default characteristic of the regulations and probably to improve driver comfort on the many bumpy tracks in F1. This is probably what Red Bull doesn't like. They now have the best car out of the gate and with the budget cap and no regulation changes they might be able to maintain their advantage for years. But with active suspension or other floor or suspension changes their initial advantage would be lost and who knows who would react best to the new changes.

 

You just cannot help yourself can you? I guess you hope if you say this often enough it might become reality? The current situation is that the FIA may update the technical regulations. Porpoising is not a "default characteristic" of these regulations, it's a physical phenomenon that some teams' designs seem more susceptible to than others.

[statman]

Craigh Scarborough

@Scarbstech

 

How will the @FIA know what vertical loads an #F1 car is suffering when porpoising/bouncing? Its the SDR (Safety Data Recorder) box Theres one in every cockpit with internal & externally mounted accelerometers. This will record and save the force/frequency of the hits

 

[kumo7]

Perhaps he fears a deviance. 

 

I second to this note that at this point there isn't much to control the vertical acceleration during the race, real time. Obviously any set-up change during or before qualification can limit the rain running or special Sunday morning race setup and so on.

[statman]

Potential impact on teams, given setup etc:

 

Advantage (++), Disadvantage (--) by F1Analysis:

 

Red Bull (++)

Ferrari (--)

Mercedes (--)

McLaren (++)

Alpine (--)

Alfa (++)

Haas (--)

AlphaTauri (++)

Aston (++)

Williams ("lack raw downforce on the car")

[mariner]

I think I should have posted this here 

 

As somebody old enough to remember the FiSA/FOCA wars triggered , on the surface, by ground effects this has all the signs of similar trouble.

 

hHe FIA clearly didn't think through , or analyse , all the side effects of going back to ground effects.

 

30 years ago that might have ben forgivable as they lacked technical resources. Today the FIA has vast technical resources and can produce detailed specs for every part - and usually does.

 

BUT they dropped the ball badly and now the "urgent fix" risks another war between some teams and the FIA.

 

IF the final safety directive doesn't help Mercedes it will be fine. If it suddenly makes Mercedes competitive  all hell will ,  I think, break loose.

 

Of course a fundamental engineering solution to a super harsh ride for aero gain hurting drivers is available of the shelf - the Lotus 88

[KWSN - DSM]

And Haas, Ferrari, Alpha Tauri, etc, etc. Schumacher, Ghasly, Ericsson, Sainz have also complained. Who gives a F about Mercedes. There were many reports from drivers who are still sore from Baku and needed an abnormal amount of treatments just to get back in shape. Not only Hamilton and Russel.

 

Ericsson?

[Ali623]

AMuS:

 

It is quite possible that the values determined in the practice session will lead to the conclusion that the FIA was too quick & more test work will be necessary before a final porpoising limit is made. Many teams believe that the TD can only be implemented at a later race.

 

A legal dispute could also arise. The TD refers exclusively to aerodynamically generated bouncing, which is called "porpoising". Most teams have this under control by now. In Monaco / Baku, the new cars suffered by the many bumps.

 

However, mechanically generated bouncing cause the same problems for drivers. Therefore, you cannot separate one from the other. And who wants to find out whether the ground contact was aerodynamically or mechanically generated.

 

There was a certain amount of "Schadenfreude" in the paddock. George Russell and Carlos Sainz had led the campaign, and now their teams could be the ones suffering the consequences if the FIA enforces the TD without compromise.

 

The people at Mercedes believe that other teams will also be affected. These include Ferrari, Alpha Tauri, Haas, McLaren and Aston Martin.

 

Aston Martin is calm. With the A-Version they would have had a massive problems. The B-Version is much more frugal. 

 

Vettel: "It had improved. We still have ground contact, but it doesn't hurt. I don't know why it's such a problem with some others either."

 

Mercedes has a package for Montreal that will reduce the bouncing. This was already planned before the TD. The floor was stiffened and further slots were added to the edges. The FIA's offer to add a second support strut was gratefully accepted.

 

And if everything don’t work? Mercedes would have to raise its car according to the TD. But the geometry of the rear suspension sets limits. 

 

"At some point we can't go any higher." 

 

In that case, Mercedes would not be allowed to race if the FIA is consistent.

 

 

 

Could get messy...

[Spillage]

Am I right in thinking that this measure will force teams to make compromises on ride height to prevent porpoising whilst not punishing those teams that don't have a problem with it? Because that sounds fair to me.

Edited by Spillage, 17 June 2022 - 13:13.

[MattK9]

I'm surprised Marko is having a hissy, even if standard practice.  Perhaps it is in relation to more attention being placed on plank wear that concerns them most.  But reading that from the fIA, I was surprised it wasn't a given anyway.  Going by how badly the Merc and others were hitting the ground in Baku, more than a few were wondering how they were getting away with not wearing the plank.  Seems maybe because the FIA were a bit lax on that.  Whatever safe limit that the FIA come up with, you'd expect the car with the most comfortable ride to be quids in, and that is the Red Bull.

I dont really understand why Red Bull/Marko would be having a hissy fit. If Ferrari are forced to raise the ride height of their cars more than the Red Bull cars, arent Red Bull going to get a massive advantage over their nearest competitor?

 

Isnt this the best outcome for Red Bull?

[KWSN - DSM]

I wonder, if teams need to make changes to the cars due to this rule, does this have to be covered within the budget cap as well or will there be a kind of additional budget permitted for this because of unforeseen circumstances requiring money to be spend on this?

 

This is F1, so one never knows, I would think it should be the teams spending within the cap, however what makes sense and follow what we here like to refer to as 'spirit of the rules' often is not how the rules are interpreted and applied.

[Ivanhoe]

But if Red Bull or them are wearing the plank then it is entirely correct that is looked at- which it should have been anyway.

Why? Tolerances for wear of the plank are set out in the rules (1mm) and is measured post race. As long as Red Bull stays within the tolerances they should be alright.

[ANF]

Potential impact on teams, given setup etc:
 
Advantage (++), Disadvantage (--) by F1Analysis:
 
Red Bull (++)
Ferrari (--)
Mercedes (--)
McLaren (++)
Alpine (--)
Alfa (++)
Haas (--)
AlphaTauri (++)
Aston (++)
Williams ("lack raw downforce on the car")

Here's my analysis:

Drivers (+++)

[Casey]

Marko reacted a couple of days ago to the news that Mercedes contacted the FIA, maybe it's just a rehash of that old statement brought as new again for clickbait .

[Wuzak]

As somebody old enough to remember the FiSA/FOCA wars triggered , on the surface, by ground effects this has all the signs of similar trouble.

 

hHe FIA clearly didn't think through , or analyse , all the side effects of going back to ground effects.

 

30 years ago that might have ben forgivable as they lacked technical resources. Today the FIA has vast technical resources and can produce detailed specs for every part - and usually does.

 

These regulations were largely driven by FOM.

 

The FIA doesn't have the resources it should because Mosley sold the commercial rights to Bernie for a song.

[P123]

Why? Tolerances for wear of the plank are set out in the rules (1mm) and is measured post race. As long as Red Bull stays within the tolerances they should be alright.

Why?  Because by their own words the FIA seem to suggest they weren't paying much attention.  But it's merely as guess as to that being behind Marko's lastest press strop.  But as mentioned above, maybe just a rehash of some prior quotes.

[Wuzak]

Why? Tolerances for wear of the plank are set out in the rules (1mm) and is measured post race. As long as Red Bull stays within the tolerances they should be alright.

 

They only check in certain locations, though.

 

Maybe they will check in more locations?

[KWSN - DSM]

Why?  Because by their own words the FIA seem to suggest they weren't paying much attention.  But it's merely as guess as to that being behind Marko's lastest press strop.  But as mentioned above, maybe just a rehash of some prior quotes.

 

If they have been lax, and are now applying the rules as written, then for the teams...."Tough s...." - There can no complaining over existing rules being implemented, just follow the rules.

[SenorSjon]

I dont really understand why Red Bull/Marko would be having a hissy fit. If Ferrari are forced to raise the ride height of their cars more than the Red Bull cars, arent Red Bull going to get a massive advantage over their nearest competitor?

 

Isnt this the best outcome for Red Bull?

 

Perhaps they are finishing on an update that can run the car lower without much problems, but could get disallowed due to this TD. Then it is millions down the drain in the budget cap era.

[Sash1]

Ericsson?

 

Ther other son

[FullOppositeLock]

Perhaps they are finishing on an update that can run the car lower without much problems, but could get disallowed due to this TD. Then it is millions down the drain in the budget cap era.

I don’t see why? If the (hypothetical) update was safe it could still be used. If not, it shouldn’t be used in the first place.

[RedRabbit]

Am I right in thinking that this measyre will force teams to make compromises on ride height to prevent porpoising whilst not punishing those teams that don't have a problem with it? Because that sounds fair to me.

That seems to be it exactly. Basically, the sensible approach, and hopefully this is a sign of how the new leadership will be dealing with the sport.

It's excellent news, even though I would prefer Ferrari to win, there's no knee-jerk reaction as before, but a fair and solid directive.

I genuinely hope that any suspension changes for next year will just be kept to the minimum and allow a third spring, which is supposed to control the bounce more effectively.

[Rumblestrip]

Potential impact on teams, given setup etc:

 

Advantage (++), Disadvantage (--) by F1Analysis:

 

Red Bull (++)

Ferrari (--)

Mercedes (--)

McLaren (++)

Alpine (--)

Alfa (++)

Haas (--)

AlphaTauri (++)

Aston (++)

Williams ("lack raw downforce on the car")

 

I'd argue Alpine should be ++, but I don't think anyone will really know until the race weekend os over.

[Casey]

New rules bring Mercedes car to new heights