2026 Chinese Grand Prix - Shanghai, March 13-15

[venkyhere]

Feels like anyone trying to use overtake into T14 is going to lose that gained position down to T1 as they run out of energy.

The back straight is long enough that the slipstream might be enough, even though it's weak.

would have been interesting if SLM applied to 13-14 as well.
@AR3-GP, I will stick to my guns and make my bold prediction in this official race thread as well, at the risk of looking like a total clown after the weekend :
Ferrari dominates sector1, Mercedes dominates sector3, Redbull aces T7-T8 (only) but doesn't dominate sector2.

[_cerber1]

How does this circuit compare in the energy regen? Melbourne was meant to be the 4th worst. China looks to be better with more stops after long straights.

[basti313]

Feels like anyone trying to use overtake into T14 is going to lose that gained position down to T1 as they run out of energy.

The back straight is long enough that the slipstream might be enough, even though it's weak.

would have been interesting if SLM applied to 13-14 as well.
@AR3-GP, I will stick to my guns and make my bold prediction in this official race thread as well, at the risk of looking like a total clown after the weekend :
Ferrari dominates sector1, Mercedes dominates sector3, Redbull aces T7-T8 (only) but doesn't dominate sector2.

I am more and more puzzled...why do you think anyone else but Merc dominates? Regeneration will be more easy for everyone, it is not like an extra mushroom for Ferrari.

[PlatinumZealot]

This one is about in the middle, IIRC.

But this track has two straights one after another and that could be a problem.

That's why I think we have to come up with a better metric than just the total braking energy. The problem is that if the braking energy is concentrated in 1 sector, then you can still end up with needing to harvest a lot on straights in other parts of the track.

China is a good example of this. It has two straights that are back to back.

Yeah, total braking energy is quite misleading. Proper metric would be to rank how much energy you can recharge by braking before each long straight, and then add weights for straight length. So a track with less energy but two straights on opposite sides of the circuit would rank better then energy rich track with two straights back to back.

Kinetic energy is Velocity squared.. So you would get to recharge after the first straight much more energy than you do in the twisty sections depending on how luch lift and coast you can get away with. I don't see two back to back straights being a problem if you can recharge sufficiently after the first straight. For china there are two braking zones between the two big straights so might not be as bad as we think. I think it's a worse situation to have a bunch of high speed turns without any braking!

[venkyhere]

The back straight is long enough that the slipstream might be enough, even though it's weak.

would have been interesting if SLM applied to 13-14 as well.
@AR3-GP, I will stick to my guns and make my bold prediction in this official race thread as well, at the risk of looking like a total clown after the weekend :
Ferrari dominates sector1, Mercedes dominates sector3, Redbull aces T7-T8 (only) but doesn't dominate sector2.

I am more and more puzzled...why do you think anyone else but Merc dominates? Regeneration will be more easy for everyone, it is not like an extra mushroom for Ferrari.

The increased recharging opportunity can bridge the 'gap' to Mercedes, so Ferrari is in with a chance ; and the long-corners (1-2-3 & 11-12-13) offer an opportunity where LeClerc will be a master at preserving his front tyres, much better than both Mercedes drivers. Plus, I expect Ferrari's rear tyres to retain grip for longer, given the 'extra' DF from the exhaust blowing.

[AR3-GP]

It's going to be a cold weekend in China. Cars normally suffer from graining here.

[hollus]

I’d have thunk that both snail corners in China would offer many seeeeeeeconds of recharge, one in Li-Co and the other in partial throttle, but they are not obvious in that graph.

How does this circuit compare in the energy regen? Melbourne was meant to be the 4th worst. China looks to be better with more stops after long straights.

[venkyhere]

It's going to be a cold weekend in China. Cars normally suffer from graining here.

min tyre pressures are high, won't help at all.

[HungarianRacer]

I wouldn't have thought it would be after the first race that the Ferrari hype train takes off, after finishing distant 3rd and 4th...

Norris calling their cornering speeds "unbelievable" has really invigorated the steam I suppose, which now has evolved into "fastest in all corners" on this forum... Has anyone bothered to check if it's actually true though?



Now, I cannot vouch for the credibility of this image as I have no idea about the reputation of the publisher, but let's assume this is accurate:



Considering that the two Mercs spent well over half the race distance on 13 and 16 laps older tyres (resp. LEC, resp. HAM), and the fact that Antonelli was stuck behind slower cars (and Russell behind Leclerc) for the first few laps of the race (not to mention the lack of need for the Mercs to push and a host of other caveats)...

.... and we haven't even delved into inherit drag levels of each chassis (which we cannot infer from top speeds anymore for obvious reasons), I would wager a guess that it wasn't just down to PU superiority/driving style efficiency that Hadjar could outqualify both Red Cars despite ACTUALLY being slower than them in all corners unlike the Mercs, so that might be a cue that the Prancing Horses are on the draggier side of the scale...

... the "best chassis" claims after a single race and THE EVIDENCE that one event provided, are - to say the least - quiet premature...

Shanghai's supposed to be the most front-limited track on the calendar, Ferrari's proported superior downforce and tyre nursing ability mainly concers the rear axle, so apart from the eased need for excess harvesting, I don't even get how this track should favour them based on the arguments layed out, but we'll see...

[venkyhere]

Norris calling their cornering speeds "unbelievable" has really invigorated the steam I suppose, which now has evolved into "fastest in all corners" on this forum... Has anyone bothered to check if it's actually true though?

Oh yes, it just took me 3 mins to check.
This is race lap5, on same tyres, nearly full tanks of fuel.



does this screenshot support Norris' claim ?

https://i.postimg.cc/c4hNJD1F/Kepkivaga ... rlay-o.png

Now, I cannot vouch for the credibility of this image as I have no idea about the reputation of the publisher, but let's assume this is accurate:

https://i.postimg.cc/pLw5CMmQ/image.png

Considering that the two Mercs spent well over half the race distance on 13 and 16 laps older tyres (resp. LEC, resp. HAM), and the fact that Antonelli was stuck behind slower cars (and Russell behind Leclerc) for the first few laps of the race (not to mention the lack of need for the Mercs to push and a host of other caveats)...

Trust me, Russel was properly pushing (with the benefit of slipstream in the straights), chasing LeClerc in the above screenshot. I think now you have the 'data'. Btw, this is a better data point to compare, since Ferrari were experiencing 'weird deployment issues' with their software in quali.

[SB15]

Mercedes will cruise to another 1-2

I think Ferrari can win.

That depends on circumstances

[AR3-GP]

Mercedes will cruise to another 1-2

I think Ferrari can win.

That depends on circumstances

Audi can win with "circumstances".

Ferrari don't need circumstances. I think they have the antidote for the silvers: The macarena wing.

[SB15]

I think Ferrari can win.

That depends on circumstances

Audi can win with "circumstances".

Ferrari don't need circumstances. I think they have the antidote for the silvers: The macarena wing.

Still I think that depends on the circumstances of everything working in their favor! yeah that got the extra top speed advantage but it ultimately depends on their outright pace of the course of the race. Plus, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the race starts since both Kimi's and George's battery went to zero.

I still give credit for Ferrari doing a phenomenal job over the winter break after last season, but against those Merc... think that's bit too optimistic but we'll see.

[AR3-GP]

Still I think that depends on circumstances, yeah that got the extra top speed advantage but it ultimately depends on their outright pace of the course of the race. Plus, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the race starts since both Kimi's and George's battery went to zero.

The battery only activates above 50km/h so that's not the sole reason why Mercedes had bad starts. The Mercedes had trouble leaving their grid box because big turbo and long first gear makes the revs drop too low. Hadjar, Norris, and both ferraris had better 0-50km/h.

China has many low speed corners. The Ferrari was imperious in the corners in Melbourne. The Mercedes suffers from understeer. Ferrari could have the fastest package here. and Lewis Hamilton is a Shanghai sorcerer.

[HungarianRacer]

Norris calling their cornering speeds "unbelievable" has really invigorated the steam I suppose, which now has evolved into "fastest in all corners" on this forum... Has anyone bothered to check if it's actually true though?

Oh yes, it just took me 3 mins to check.
This is race lap5, on same tyres, nearly full tanks of fuel.

https://i.ibb.co/bgGdNwsx/Australia-GP- ... -v-LEC.png

does this screenshot support Norris' claim ?

https://i.postimg.cc/c4hNJD1F/Kepkivaga ... rlay-o.png

Now, I cannot vouch for the credibility of this image as I have no idea about the reputation of the publisher, but let's assume this is accurate:

https://i.postimg.cc/pLw5CMmQ/image.png

Considering that the two Mercs spent well over half the race distance on 13 and 16 laps older tyres (resp. LEC, resp. HAM), and the fact that Antonelli was stuck behind slower cars (and Russell behind Leclerc) for the first few laps of the race (not to mention the lack of need for the Mercs to push and a host of other caveats)...

Trust me, Russel was properly pushing (with the benefit of slipstream in the straights), chasing LeClerc in the above screenshot. I think now you have the 'data'. Btw, this is a better data point to compare, since Ferrari were experiencing 'weird deployment issues' with their software in quali.

On lap 5, a.k.a. when Russell was firmly stuck behind Leclerc's dirty air?... And you argue this is better data for comparing cornering prowess than qualy lap telemetries in clean air with supposed deployment issues(?)... Your words, not mine...