On the day of the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand units of the Grand Fleet were at the Kiel Regatta as guests of the Kaiser who also attended.

Von Tirpitz was a genuine nutcase who successfully turned Britain from staunch ally to bitter adversary.

“Staunch ally”, really?

Without his excessive influence over Kaiser Wilhelm we may wonder if WW1 would have happened.

I wonder what do you even mean under this.

The immediate cause was that an Archduke was shot in Sarajevo and it seemed the Serbian cabinet was not at all innocent in the accident. For Austria the traditional way of responding to this was a war, and it did (after some wavering with some odd details *).
And then, of course…

The greatest single underlying cause of the War was the system of secret alliances which developed after the Franco-Prussian War. It gradually divided Europe into two hostile groups of Powers who were increasingly suspicious of one another and who steadily built up greater and greater armies and navies.

Again, the elephant in the room is Britain — after Napoleon and before end of World War ? the role of France was such that term “Franco-Prussian War” cannot reflect the real situation more than “Russo-Ukrainian War”.

Germany let itself be pulled into full commitment, sure. So did the rest.

Which exactly part of this mess would maybe NOT happen without Von Tirpitz?

Germany could drag its feet? What could this possibly accomplish? Brits or their pawns crush its ally, and make it look useless. While the borders of the firmly controlled British vassals creep closer. Thus Germany gets further isolated until its turn eventually comes, and then it will have to fight Brits from a much worse position.
How this could be expected to somehow end better for anyone but Brits? What other outcome could be expected?

* Sidney Fay notes that Count Tisza opposed it, then flipped, what were his real reasons? No one knows, he got assassinated.

Von Tirpitz was a genuine nutcase who successfully turned Britain from staunch ally to bitter adversary. Without his excessive influence over Kaiser Wilhelm we may wonder if WW1 would have happened.

Well towards the end of the century, both German and British naval policy continued to view France (and to a lesser extent Russia) as the chief objects of anxiety.

How does it make sense?

France at the time was a hopeless British puppet; Napoleon was the last serious attempt to break the hold. This did not stop until after WWII; many are still outraged that some French people dared to concede they were conquered by someone else, instead of sacrificing themselves and families for their proper destiny as British vassals.

Russia under Alexander II: just stopped being a British puppet and was moving to a secure position, the conflict was expected to escalate (q.v. Kipling among the others).

Russia after Alexander II: increasingly confused and isolated (alliance with Japan broke) and soon too much of British influence restored to act against the Sun-never-setting empire. Nicholas II was not a puppet only because he was too much of a weather-vane (Kaiser convinced him to sign the Bjorko Treaty too [1], but this was a dead end, perhaps because the court had pro-British bobbleheads rather than pro-German ones). Until the brief and fatal return of Brit-puppet status in WWII.

Either way, after Tsushima the Russian Navy was not much of “object of anxiety” for any foreign power.

[1] see on “Willy” and “Nicky” here: https://archive.org/details/jstor-1835392