planetf1.com

5 lap sample is plenty to make the point the Lotus guy was making and that's the sample he gave (25-30) so why change it?. Going further back from the point he got the mode isn't going to make the situation any clearer for anyone and we could be here all day.

Yes its the oil burn quali mode that's allegedly worth 15-30bhp extra so he'd have had it for 1 run in Q3 I'd imagine.

The problem is its not very good that the manufacturer can withhold performance from a customer until if or when it suits them to give them a little extra. So Ferrari's could end up fighting different Williams than the Mercedes do and so on.

There's nothing wrong with Manufacturers withholding something for themselves in my book, that's just perks of being the works team for me, but that should be a permanent situation rather than "Ooh you can have it when it suits us to mess with our competitors but you'll never have it normally or especially against us".

That's too far for me and another example of the power certain Manufacturers are wielding and the monopoly over performance that they have and the influence over results it brings. Getting stuck behind a Williams or FI should be as tricky for Mercedes as it is anyone else.

(This example is Mercedes but I'd be shocked if Ferrari didn't do it with their customers too)

A run of poles will just as likely keep you in the championship hunt. I can think of a lot more situations where a driver has 8+ podiums but didn't compete for the championship but can't think of any off hand where 8+ poles didn't.

Montoya got 7 poles in 2002 almost every season there is a driver with 7+ podiums but not challenging for the championship

2017 - Ricciardo
2016 - Ricciardo/Verstappen/Vettel
2015 - Vettel
2014 - Ricciardo
2013 - Alonso/Webber/Raikkonen
2012 - Raikkonen/Hamilton
2011 - Button/Webber/Alonso

It happens almost ever year. You had to go back 15 years to find an example of that happening with poles.

You make a fair point in that it depends on what someone would consider "consistent". 7 or 8 of anything isn't actually consistent in a 18-20 race season, which takes Montoya's 2002 out. I was wrong to reference it

Pole just plays a role in the real stuff, which is the race. It's just one of a number of factors in determining the actual successes of Sunday

At least pole plays a functional role, as opposed to Fastest Lap - a real pointless stat

I still find it very confusing, when exactly was this mode use, also upon scrutiny we seem to have gone from the hysteria of 8 tenths quicker down to 3 tenths quicker, you do acknowledge this had to be the qualifying mode which Grosjean used to qualify 4th, strange that it would be seen as a mode not previously been allowed to Lotus, also I believe it's generally known that such modes shorten the life of the engine and that's why they are used sparingly.

From what he said it sounds like from Lap 30 he got it for a while and I assume he meant it hadn't been allowed in the race before.

They do yeah (Shorten the life) but the point was it wasn't up to Lotus if they got to use it and it was only when Mercedes wanted Ferrari challenged that they got it. I think that's the bit people have a problem with.

Does it really matter though? It doesn't seem to have given anything like the advantage claimed.
Much ado about nothing.

I think anyone that watched Bottas V Stroll in Baku can see just want Merc can go to if they really want.

Not 8ths no but its about 15-30bhp as I understand it which isn't insignificant around Spa. Its about the deficit between Renault and Ferrari for example. The 5ths mds puts forward sounds more in the ballpark but we've got to remember the mode itself only brings some of that while the car's improvements with more power adds to it like they mention.

I'd still rather the Manufacturers kept stuff just for themselves rather than do things like this and give customers access only when it suits them.

This is such a bizarre story, and for it to come out well after 2 years is even more bizarre.
I will never stop being puzzled by how the customers do not make more of a fuss about those " secret special engine modes".
But then again, we do not really know if it's the manufacturers restricting those modes or the customers not wanting to use the full allocation of power units due to costs.

I think the customers know the contract they signed up to, & the Merc ones will not want to ruin their relationship with the best manufacturer at the moment.

I do think there is also the "tolerance" argument though, no coincidence that the majority of Merc engine failures happen within the works team. The risk vs reward isn't there for the customers. If they had a customer pushing for a title we might see something different.

You make a fair point in that it depends on what someone would consider "consistent". 7 or 8 of anything isn't actually consistent in a 18-20 race season, which takes Montoya's 2002 out. I was wrong to reference it

Pole just plays a role in the real stuff, which is the race. It's just one of a number of factors in determining the actual successes of Sunday

At least pole plays a functional role, as opposed to Fastest Lap - a real pointless stat

From what he said it sounds like from Lap 30 he got it for a while and I assume he meant it hadn't been allowed in the race before.

They do yeah (Shorten the life) but the point was it wasn't up to Lotus if they got to use it and it was only when Mercedes wanted Ferrari challenged that they got it. I think that's the bit people have a problem with.

Not 8ths no but its about 15-30bhp as I understand it which isn't insignificant around Spa. Its about the deficit between Renault and Ferrari for example. The 5ths mds puts forward sounds more in the ballpark but we've got to remember the mode itself only brings some of that while the car's improvements with more power adds to it like they mention.

I'd still rather the Manufacturers kept stuff just for themselves rather than do things like this and give customers access only when it suits them.

Who pays for the blown engine bills, I'm guessing that would be Mercedes?

Customers let loose with engine modes and Mercs blowing up quite regularly, you get my drift?

This is such a bizarre story, and for it to come out well after 2 years is even more bizarre.
I will never stop being puzzled by how the customers do not make more of a fuss about those " secret special engine modes".
But then again, we do not really know if it's the manufacturers restricting those modes or the customers not wanting to use the full allocation of power units due to costs.

Yeah there's definitely good reasons why the customers are happy enough not to have them, failures are far more costly to them than the advantages of having the mode on balance.

But if they wanted to risk it then I think it should be ok and not just when it suits the manufacturer.

Would they be prepared to cover the costs, this being Lotus who had little money, also it's not good publicity for Mercedes having their engines blowing up, I'm sure the onus is on Mercedes to cover the cost of failures?

Why would Mercedes pay for it?. If customers didn't have to pay for replacements they'd be running the engine hard all the time.

No I don't get the drift?.

The onus isn't on Mercedes, particularly if the team aren't operating the engine within thresholds.

I've never seen an engine contract (although I'd love to), but I would guess there are various scenarios listed whereby if a team operate to a certain tolerance then the cost is Mercedes'. If they operate outside of that, it is the customer's.

Instances like this, you could call it a handshake but I have no idea how they can open up another mode, which comes with a higher risk of failure, before turning it back down again - all whilst accounting for the what if scenario of that engine failing early..

Customers have to pay for up to a maximum of 4 engines, they might get away with using 1 engine less so that saves them money, however I don't believe that customers have to pay for engine failures that take them beyond the 4 engine limit, they could go bust.

Would they be prepared to cover the costs, this being Lotus who had little money, also it's not good publicity for Mercedes having their engines blowing up, I'm sure the onus is on Mercedes to cover the cost of failures?

Where did you read that?. I could understand having an upper limit to ward off anything ridiculous that could leave them bust but 4 seems generous to me.

Well that's what could be worked out and if the customer was happy to run the risk and cover the cost to get the full works software package then let them.

Or just withhold the best Software for yourself. Either or would be fine by me. What I'm not keen on is the customer being able to get access to higher modes but only when it suits the supplier.

Maybe you have misunderstood?

This year the engine limit is 4 engines so a deal is made at say $15M for the engines, now imagine poor engine reliability and you use 8 engines, do you think the customer is going to receive a bill for $30M?

The reality is they can't cover the costs and they don't want to cover the costs, the request to have the mode as often as they pleased for one showed the lack of understanding of the harm done to the engine also it was asked under the guise of if it blows up then you pay for it.

On Mercedes' part they don't want their customer engines blowing up with all the negative press of customer's being given inferior parts, look at Renault presently with STR or earlier in the season with Verstappen.

Regarding the earlier discussion concerning wheelbase, does anyone actually know the wheelbase measurements for the 2017 Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull?

Mercedes-3760mm
Ferrari-3594mm
Red Bull-3557mm


For 2018 according to Gazzetta...

Mercedes-3660mm
Ferrari-3654mm


So they are converging really so if the PU is in the ballpark we should see more competition at every type of track hopefully.

Have Gazzetta done their 2018 Ferrari sketch yet? That is an annual occurrence and its almost entirely guess work once the car launches.

Thanks, Lotus49. I had been looking for this data for months without success.