planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:50 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

who is faster? Merc or Ferrari?
Poll runs till Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:35 am
Ferrari 38%  38%  [ 43 ]
Mercedes 62%  62%  [ 69 ]
Total votes : 112
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23154
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Hamilton and Vettel actual evidence makes him quicker in qualifying than Vettel so it's not all the car.

Where's your evidence for that? Have they ever been teammates? Have they ever even shared the same teammate?

And are you really going to deny that Mercedes has been faster over one lap this year, or deny the relevance of track position?

There is no way anyone can argue that Ferrari has been the best car overall this season. Best race pace? Maybe. How about when you take these three factors into consideration:

1. Qualifying Speed
2. Reliability
3. Engine Power

There is no way you can argue that Ferrari has been the best car without some serious dishonesty.


King... it is all about making the Merc an "inferior" car so as to "big up" Lewis over all other drivers, in particular Vettel.

Actually you have it backwards. No one has claimed that the Mercedes is an inferior car. Some have claimed that the Ferrari is inferior and the facts simply don't support that claim. It's funny how you choose to chime in by totally misrepresenting what's happened in the discussion thus far.

I literally just gave 3 reasons to why I believe Mercedes has been a better car than Ferrari overall and nobody has refuted them yet.

Given that Mercedes leads the WCC by >100 points, the facts do kind of prove that they have the better car.

Reason for the bulk of the difference, Kimi Raikkonen.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4119
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Hamilton and Vettel actual evidence makes him quicker in qualifying than Vettel so it's not all the car.

Where's your evidence for that? Have they ever been teammates? Have they ever even shared the same teammate?

And are you really going to deny that Mercedes has been faster over one lap this year, or deny the relevance of track position?

There is no way anyone can argue that Ferrari has been the best car overall this season. Best race pace? Maybe. How about when you take these three factors into consideration:

1. Qualifying Speed
2. Reliability
3. Engine Power

There is no way you can argue that Ferrari has been the best car without some serious dishonesty.


King... it is all about making the Merc an "inferior" car so as to "big up" Lewis over all other drivers, in particular Vettel.

Actually you have it backwards. No one has claimed that the Mercedes is an inferior car. Some have claimed that the Ferrari is inferior and the facts simply don't support that claim. It's funny how you choose to chime in by totally misrepresenting what's happened in the discussion thus far.

I literally just gave 3 reasons to why I believe Mercedes has been a better car than Ferrari overall and nobody has refuted them yet.

Given that Mercedes leads the WCC by >100 points, the facts do kind of prove that they have the better car.

Yes you gave three reasons that are vague and non-specific. I could just as easily list reasons for Ferrari:
1. Race pace
2. Much wider setup window
3. Versatile and fast everywhere
4. Better on tires

It's just as easily done for Ferrari. Of course you didn't bother to list the strengths of both cars; you simply focused on the one that helps you push this narrative you've been aggressively pushing since the end of the last race. Using the fact that Mercedes is winning in the points as "proof" is not valid. Not when you consider how many crashes and DNFs Raikkonen and Vettel have had this year and how the team has dropped the ball in the last few races. That points gap isn't there because of the car's performance level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10628
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
I personally think Vettel would have easily won the race in Japan if not for his sparkplug.


Track position remains very important and I don't think Hamilton would have been easily overtaken. Unlike Max in Malaysia, Vettel was his direct title competitor, so chances are he would have fought more than he did Max.

Seeing how Vettel had a hard time passing Bottas on old tyres, I'm having a hard time imagining him passing Hamilton on equal tyres. So it would have probably needed an undercut.

You forget that Verstappen was unable to stay within undercut range of Hamilton, I doubt that would have been the case with Vettel?


I don't think I'm forgetting anything? My point, somewhere in there with the mixup Vettel-Verstappen, was that Vettel would have probably had to play it all on the undercut. I don't think it would have necessarily been an easy win for Vettel.

_________________
Supporting all drivers with surnames starting with "V".

Proud member of the "It's Toro Rosso, not Torro Rosso" action committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3429
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Where's your evidence for that? Have they ever been teammates? Have they ever even shared the same teammate?

And are you really going to deny that Mercedes has been faster over one lap this year, or deny the relevance of track position?

There is no way anyone can argue that Ferrari has been the best car overall this season. Best race pace? Maybe. How about when you take these three factors into consideration:

1. Qualifying Speed
2. Reliability
3. Engine Power

There is no way you can argue that Ferrari has been the best car without some serious dishonesty.


King... it is all about making the Merc an "inferior" car so as to "big up" Lewis over all other drivers, in particular Vettel.

Actually you have it backwards. No one has claimed that the Mercedes is an inferior car. Some have claimed that the Ferrari is inferior and the facts simply don't support that claim. It's funny how you choose to chime in by totally misrepresenting what's happened in the discussion thus far.

I literally just gave 3 reasons to why I believe Mercedes has been a better car than Ferrari overall and nobody has refuted them yet.

Given that Mercedes leads the WCC by >100 points, the facts do kind of prove that they have the better car.

Reason for the bulk of the difference, Kimi Raikkonen's* rotten luck compared to Bottas's great luck.


*Cheeky edit for accuracy. ;)

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20646
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No, because qualifying may not always have gone Hamilton's way as much as it has done now

Hamilton was only 3 points in front there is some missing logic somewhere?

No, there isn't. The point was that without Mercedes qualifying advantage to rely on, Lewis may not have taken pole at every race and may have sometimes found himself in Vettel's default position of chasing the leader, i which case the races may have unfolded differently to now.

In the other thread i discussed Bahrain with you, which is a decent example. Vettel led from the start, because Lewis got away poorly. Lewis hunted him down, but (partially because of a penalty for pit lane shenanigans) couldn't do anything. It had nothing to do with the Ferrari being quicker and it's likely that Lewis may well have won from pole if he hadn't botched the start. So if other races had him not starting from pole, then the points table may have ended up looking very different to what it does now.

You've just given an example were pole didn't matter in your theory were pole counts for everything.

Only superficially. Lewis messed up the start and shouldn't have allowed Vettel to get in front of him. I'm loving how you are missing the entire point


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9568
Location: Ireland
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Surely for "faster now" recent results are the most relevant?

surely they are quite track specific? e.g. Ferrari was obviously faster in Malaysia, but Mercedes were obviously faster in Japan


Could be, could not be. Japan may just really suit Merc. It's very similar to Silverstone so it makes sense for Merc to be especially good there.

But don't forget they weren't that good. Verstappen was right up behind Hamilton at the end. It wouldn't have surprised me at all to see Vettel faster in the race.

Considering how close Max got in the end there is every reason to believe Vettel could have fought for that win :thumbup:

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9568
Location: Ireland
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
I personally think Vettel would have easily won the race in Japan if not for his sparkplug.


Track position remains very important and I don't think Hamilton would have been easily overtaken. Unlike Max in Malaysia, Vettel was his direct title competitor, so chances are he would have fought more than he did Max.

Seeing how Vettel had a hard time passing Bottas on old tyres, I'm having a hard time imagining him passing Hamilton on equal tyres. So it would have probably needed an undercut.

You forget that Verstappen was unable to stay within undercut range of Hamilton, I doubt that would have been the case with Vettel?


I don't think I'm forgetting anything? My point, somewhere in there with the mixup Vettel-Verstappen, was that Vettel would have probably had to play it all on the undercut. I don't think it would have necessarily been an easy win for Vettel.

Absolutely. If the undercut didn't work out then we could have ended up watching a Spa 2.0

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8528
mcdo wrote:
Absolutely. If the undercut didn't work out then we could have ended up watching a Spa 2.0


I can't see the undercut working for Vettel. Mercedes had Bottas back there to halt any early undercutting by Ferrari. As soon as a window opened up, Mercedes would have pitted Hamilton into it and got Bottas out the way immediately. -Much like they did in Spa (although no Bottas variabel then which makes Japan even harder to win).

Ironically, Bottas' gearbox change made this race very hard for Vettel to win. His best chance may have been pitting the same lap as Hamilton and trying to go into the pits on his gearbox.

I am not sure why more teams don't do the straight pit fight anymore, if the car ahead pits before you into clean air the only way you can get him is if a SC comes out during the laps you stayed out. Which brings me to how to fix a race ....

Imagine the Spa scenario.

1) Hamilton pits first to avoid being undercut
2) Vettel stays out
3) Raikkonen crashes heavily during the laps Vettel has stayed out and brings out the SC
4) Vettel pits under the SC, takes the lead and win.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23154
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
I personally think Vettel would have easily won the race in Japan if not for his sparkplug.


Track position remains very important and I don't think Hamilton would have been easily overtaken. Unlike Max in Malaysia, Vettel was his direct title competitor, so chances are he would have fought more than he did Max.

Seeing how Vettel had a hard time passing Bottas on old tyres, I'm having a hard time imagining him passing Hamilton on equal tyres. So it would have probably needed an undercut.

You forget that Verstappen was unable to stay within undercut range of Hamilton, I doubt that would have been the case with Vettel?


I don't think I'm forgetting anything? My point, somewhere in there with the mixup Vettel-Verstappen, was that Vettel would have probably had to play it all on the undercut. I don't think it would have necessarily been an easy win for Vettel.

No but Hamilton would have had less control of the race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23154
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
King... it is all about making the Merc an "inferior" car so as to "big up" Lewis over all other drivers, in particular Vettel.

Actually you have it backwards. No one has claimed that the Mercedes is an inferior car. Some have claimed that the Ferrari is inferior and the facts simply don't support that claim. It's funny how you choose to chime in by totally misrepresenting what's happened in the discussion thus far.

I literally just gave 3 reasons to why I believe Mercedes has been a better car than Ferrari overall and nobody has refuted them yet.

Given that Mercedes leads the WCC by >100 points, the facts do kind of prove that they have the better car.

Reason for the bulk of the difference, Kimi Raikkonen's* rotten luck compared to Bottas's great luck.


*Cheeky edit for accuracy. ;)

Kimi must be the unluckiest driver in F1 then if that's the reason for the bulk of his performances these past 4 years.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23154
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No, because qualifying may not always have gone Hamilton's way as much as it has done now

Hamilton was only 3 points in front there is some missing logic somewhere?

No, there isn't. The point was that without Mercedes qualifying advantage to rely on, Lewis may not have taken pole at every race and may have sometimes found himself in Vettel's default position of chasing the leader, i which case the races may have unfolded differently to now.

In the other thread i discussed Bahrain with you, which is a decent example. Vettel led from the start, because Lewis got away poorly. Lewis hunted him down, but (partially because of a penalty for pit lane shenanigans) couldn't do anything. It had nothing to do with the Ferrari being quicker and it's likely that Lewis may well have won from pole if he hadn't botched the start. So if other races had him not starting from pole, then the points table may have ended up looking very different to what it does now.

You've just given an example were pole didn't matter in your theory were pole counts for everything.

Only superficially. Lewis messed up the start and shouldn't have allowed Vettel to get in front of him. I'm loving how you are missing the entire point

It's hard for me to remember past races but Bottas was on pole and Vettel undercut him because he was slow, Hamilton would have been stuck behind Bottas anyway and got undercut by Vettel, in fact he would have undercut both of them with Bottas being so slow.

For me the dynamic has been that the Mercedes has been the better qualifying car but Ferrari have the better race car, if you take away that advantage from Mercedes then you are left with Ferrari being the better car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3429
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Actually you have it backwards. No one has claimed that the Mercedes is an inferior car. Some have claimed that the Ferrari is inferior and the facts simply don't support that claim. It's funny how you choose to chime in by totally misrepresenting what's happened in the discussion thus far.

I literally just gave 3 reasons to why I believe Mercedes has been a better car than Ferrari overall and nobody has refuted them yet.

Given that Mercedes leads the WCC by >100 points, the facts do kind of prove that they have the better car.

Reason for the bulk of the difference, Kimi Raikkonen's* rotten luck compared to Bottas's great luck.


*Cheeky edit for accuracy. ;)

Kimi must be the unluckiest driver in F1 then if that's the reason for the bulk of his performances these past 4 years.


It isn't and no-one claimed it was.

But it's the reason for a good chunk of the difference in the WCC this season. Faultless in Spain,Baku,Singapore and Malaysia but scored no points. Gearbox penalty in Jpn and a couple of points lost in Silverstone didn't help and again nothing to do with his performance but all about his rotten luck.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20646
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Hamilton was only 3 points in front there is some missing logic somewhere?

No, there isn't. The point was that without Mercedes qualifying advantage to rely on, Lewis may not have taken pole at every race and may have sometimes found himself in Vettel's default position of chasing the leader, i which case the races may have unfolded differently to now.

In the other thread i discussed Bahrain with you, which is a decent example. Vettel led from the start, because Lewis got away poorly. Lewis hunted him down, but (partially because of a penalty for pit lane shenanigans) couldn't do anything. It had nothing to do with the Ferrari being quicker and it's likely that Lewis may well have won from pole if he hadn't botched the start. So if other races had him not starting from pole, then the points table may have ended up looking very different to what it does now.

You've just given an example were pole didn't matter in your theory were pole counts for everything.

Only superficially. Lewis messed up the start and shouldn't have allowed Vettel to get in front of him. I'm loving how you are missing the entire point

It's hard for me to remember past races but Bottas was on pole and Vettel undercut him because he was slow, Hamilton would have been stuck behind Bottas anyway and got undercut by Vettel, in fact he would have undercut both of them with Bottas being so slow.

For me the dynamic has been that the Mercedes has been the better qualifying car but Ferrari have the better race car, if you take away that advantage from Mercedes then you are left with Ferrari being the better car.

I'm really not convinced the Ferrari has been the better race car. That would make Bottas vastly better than Kimi and I don't see much reason to believe that


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23154
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No, there isn't. The point was that without Mercedes qualifying advantage to rely on, Lewis may not have taken pole at every race and may have sometimes found himself in Vettel's default position of chasing the leader, i which case the races may have unfolded differently to now.

In the other thread i discussed Bahrain with you, which is a decent example. Vettel led from the start, because Lewis got away poorly. Lewis hunted him down, but (partially because of a penalty for pit lane shenanigans) couldn't do anything. It had nothing to do with the Ferrari being quicker and it's likely that Lewis may well have won from pole if he hadn't botched the start. So if other races had him not starting from pole, then the points table may have ended up looking very different to what it does now.

You've just given an example were pole didn't matter in your theory were pole counts for everything.

Only superficially. Lewis messed up the start and shouldn't have allowed Vettel to get in front of him. I'm loving how you are missing the entire point

It's hard for me to remember past races but Bottas was on pole and Vettel undercut him because he was slow, Hamilton would have been stuck behind Bottas anyway and got undercut by Vettel, in fact he would have undercut both of them with Bottas being so slow.

For me the dynamic has been that the Mercedes has been the better qualifying car but Ferrari have the better race car, if you take away that advantage from Mercedes then you are left with Ferrari being the better car.

I'm really not convinced the Ferrari has been the better race car. That would make Bottas vastly better than Kimi and I don't see much reason to believe that

Bottas scored more points than Massa every season, the totals being 407-308, and I believe someone has chronicled all of Kimi's bad luck under unlucky Kimi, lucky Bottas.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20646
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
You've just given an example were pole didn't matter in your theory were pole counts for everything.

Only superficially. Lewis messed up the start and shouldn't have allowed Vettel to get in front of him. I'm loving how you are missing the entire point

It's hard for me to remember past races but Bottas was on pole and Vettel undercut him because he was slow, Hamilton would have been stuck behind Bottas anyway and got undercut by Vettel, in fact he would have undercut both of them with Bottas being so slow.

For me the dynamic has been that the Mercedes has been the better qualifying car but Ferrari have the better race car, if you take away that advantage from Mercedes then you are left with Ferrari being the better car.

I'm really not convinced the Ferrari has been the better race car. That would make Bottas vastly better than Kimi and I don't see much reason to believe that

Bottas scored more points than Massa every season, the totals being 407-308, and I believe someone has chronicled all of Kimi's bad luck under unlucky Kimi, lucky Bottas.

I have no issue with him scoring more points, but if he has a worse car to boot, then that makes the gulf even wider. I don't believe that's representative of the gap between them


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1622
pokerman wrote:
There is a route to the 2 drivers:-

Vettel - Kimi - Alonso - Massa - Bottas - Hamilton

Surely you cannot be serious about this?

I guess that Fisichella is better than Hamilton? After all, he beat Button by a bigger margin than Lewis did.

You are seriously going to use a 5-step process to determine that Hamilton is better than Vettel and therefore Ferrari must be a better racecar than Mercedes? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1622
sandman1347 wrote:
Yes you gave three reasons that are vague and non-specific. I could just as easily list reasons for Ferrari:
1. Race pace
2. Much wider setup window
3. Versatile and fast everywhere
4. Better on tires

1 and 4 are basically the same, so are 2 and 3. You have 2 reasons, not 4.

1/4 is not true, overall when you add up the number of races where Ferrari has had better pace as opposed to Mercedes, it's almost completely level. Unless of course you want to count minuscule differences like Australia/China/Spain/Belgium as automatically in favor of Ferrari.

2/3 isn't true either. There have been at least as many cases where Ferrari has been miles off the pace as Mercedes.

Vettel has lost a net 42 points compared to Hamilton just on engine power alone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:46 am 
Online

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 470
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Yes you gave three reasons that are vague and non-specific. I could just as easily list reasons for Ferrari:
1. Race pace
2. Much wider setup window
3. Versatile and fast everywhere
4. Better on tires

1 and 4 are basically the same, so are 2 and 3. You have 2 reasons, not 4.

1/4 is not true, overall when you add up the number of races where Ferrari has had better pace as opposed to Mercedes, it's almost completely level. Unless of course you want to count minuscule differences like Australia/China/Spain/Belgium as automatically in favor of Ferrari.

2/3 isn't true either. There have been at least as many cases where Ferrari has been miles off the pace as Mercedes.

Vettel has lost a net 42 points compared to Hamilton just on engine power alone.


Could you clarify why you are able to state as fact that Ferrari are down on engine power to Mercedes.
The speculation I can find by searching the issue suggests Ferrari have caught up if not surpassed the Mercedes PU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10628
Laz_T800 wrote:
Could you clarify why you are able to state as fact that Ferrari are down on engine power to Mercedes.
The speculation I can find by searching the issue suggests Ferrari have caught up if not surpassed the Mercedes PU.


I think Monza points in that general direction, where almost all Mercedes cars got into the points and Mercedes had an incredible display of dominance over Ferrari. Couple that to the general tendency that Ferrari's forte seem to be tracks where power output is less important than chassis & aero.

Nothing conclusive, but I can see why one would think that way.

_________________
Supporting all drivers with surnames starting with "V".

Proud member of the "It's Toro Rosso, not Torro Rosso" action committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2160
mds wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Could you clarify why you are able to state as fact that Ferrari are down on engine power to Mercedes.
The speculation I can find by searching the issue suggests Ferrari have caught up if not surpassed the Mercedes PU.


I think Monza points in that general direction, where almost all Mercedes cars got into the points and Mercedes had an incredible display of dominance over Ferrari. Couple that to the general tendency that Ferrari's forte seem to be tracks where power output is less important than chassis & aero.

Nothing conclusive, but I can see why one would think that way.


King thinks Vettel lost 42 points in Russia, Spain and Belgium due to engine power alone which is completely wrong and been shown to be false.

_________________
Podiums: 1st Spain 2016, 2nd Germany 2016 and 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:51 am 
Online

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 470
mds wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Could you clarify why you are able to state as fact that Ferrari are down on engine power to Mercedes.
The speculation I can find by searching the issue suggests Ferrari have caught up if not surpassed the Mercedes PU.


I think Monza points in that general direction, where almost all Mercedes cars got into the points and Mercedes had an incredible display of dominance over Ferrari. Couple that to the general tendency that Ferrari's forte seem to be tracks where power output is less important than chassis & aero.

Nothing conclusive, but I can see why one would think that way.


I think that perception is heavily coloured towards Mercedes due to the wet qualifying which caught Ferrari out.
The practice session data and the race data point to a far more even picture.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4312
Location: Michigan, USA
Laz_T800 wrote:
I think that perception is heavily coloured towards Mercedes due to the wet qualifying which caught Ferrari out.
The practice session data and the race data point to a far more even picture.

... the race where Vettel was 36 seconds behind a pair of cruising Mercs? How is that supposed to paint a more even picture?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:33 am 
Online

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 470
Exediron wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
I think that perception is heavily coloured towards Mercedes due to the wet qualifying which caught Ferrari out.
The practice session data and the race data point to a far more even picture.

... the race where Vettel was 36 seconds behind a pair of cruising Mercs? How is that supposed to paint a more even picture?


Indeed they did win easily.
I've tried to discern using the data as to whether that was down to engine power or not.
There is nothing in that data that suggests it was, certainly all the speed traps are far from conclusive?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20646
F1_Ernie wrote:
mds wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Could you clarify why you are able to state as fact that Ferrari are down on engine power to Mercedes.
The speculation I can find by searching the issue suggests Ferrari have caught up if not surpassed the Mercedes PU.


I think Monza points in that general direction, where almost all Mercedes cars got into the points and Mercedes had an incredible display of dominance over Ferrari. Couple that to the general tendency that Ferrari's forte seem to be tracks where power output is less important than chassis & aero.

Nothing conclusive, but I can see why one would think that way.


King thinks Vettel lost 42 points in Russia, Spain and Belgium due to engine power alone which is completely wrong and been shown to be false.

I'm not sure it's been shown to be false. The counter just takes a different view.

In Russia it has to be said the Ferrari had no answer to the Mercedes on the straight. They made up time in the twisty bits, but where power counted the Merc definitely looked stronger in my view.

In Spain Lewis breezed by Vettel, where Vettel struggled with Bottas. Some of it will be tyres, but I'm sure the PU played its part, too.

Belgium, well, I know some say it was all down to Lewis lifting, but the fact he could even pull away while Vettel had DRS tells me that engine power certainly helped.

So engine power alone may not be quite right, but it was certainly a significant contributing factor IMO


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20646
Laz_T800 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
I think that perception is heavily coloured towards Mercedes due to the wet qualifying which caught Ferrari out.
The practice session data and the race data point to a far more even picture.

... the race where Vettel was 36 seconds behind a pair of cruising Mercs? How is that supposed to paint a more even picture?


Indeed they did win easily.
I've tried to discern using the data as to whether that was down to engine power or not.
There is nothing in that data that suggests it was, certainly all the speed traps are far from conclusive?

Monza is generally considered to be a power circuit, is it not? That they had such a commanding advantage there would tend to suggest that the Merc is more powerful?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1622
With a little bit more horsepower, Vettel would have won in Russia, Spain, Austria and Belgium. That's a 28 point gain, and Hamilton would have lost 14 points (not win in Spain and Belgium), which equates to a net 42 point loss for Vettel.

Russia: Bottas' start was not much better than Vettel (it was only marginal). However, Bottas was already fully ahead of Vettel before the braking zone in turn 1. That's because Mercedes had 4 km/h more top speed than Ferrari.

Spain: Vettel is 2.0 seconds/lap faster than Bottas, yet it takes him 5 laps to overtake and he has to make the move stick under braking. Hamilton is 1.0 second/lap faster than Vettel and passes him with ease before the braking zone with DRS. With equal engine power, Vettel wins this race easily.

Austria: Vettel lost pole because of the 2 tenths than Bottas pulled on him between turn 1 and turn 2. Vettel is clearly faster than Bottas at the end of the race but cannot even mount an attack.

Belgium: We saw a brutal demonstration of Mercedes power live on television so I don't even need to say anything here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:51 am 
Online

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 470
KingVoid wrote:
With a little bit more horsepower, Vettel would have won in Russia, Spain, Austria and Belgium. That's a 28 point gain, and Hamilton would have lost 14 points (not win in Spain and Belgium), which equates to a net 42 point loss for Vettel.

Russia: Bottas' start was not much better than Vettel (it was only marginal). However, Bottas was already fully ahead of Vettel before the braking zone in turn 1. That's because Mercedes had 4 km/h more top speed than Ferrari.

Spain: Vettel is 2.0 seconds/lap faster than Bottas, yet it takes him 5 laps to overtake and he has to make the move stick under braking. Hamilton is 1.0 second/lap faster than Vettel and passes him with ease before the braking zone with DRS. With equal engine power, Vettel wins this race easily.

Austria: Vettel lost pole because of the 2 tenths than Bottas pulled on him between turn 1 and turn 2. Vettel is clearly faster than Bottas at the end of the race but cannot even mount an attack.

Belgium: We saw a brutal demonstration of Mercedes power live on television so I don't even need to say anything here.


You're trying to make facts up to fit your opinion.
Everything you have wrote could easily be down to something other than just engine advantage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 12:49 pm
Posts: 669
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Hamilton and Vettel actual evidence makes him quicker in qualifying than Vettel so it's not all the car.

Where's your evidence for that? Have they ever been teammates? Have they ever even shared the same teammate?

And are you really going to deny that Mercedes has been faster over one lap this year, or deny the relevance of track position?

There is no way anyone can argue that Ferrari has been the best car overall this season. Best race pace? Maybe. How about when you take these three factors into consideration:

1. Qualifying Speed
2. Reliability
3. Engine Power

There is no way you can argue that Ferrari has been the best car without some serious dishonesty.

The Mercedes is the best qualifying car but I would say that the Ferrari has been the best race car and that's basically why the WDC was 50/50 going into Singapore before Vettel/Ferrari imploded.

Regarding engine power you seem to be trying to define this as the difference in 2 equal cars, but if you think that it gives Mercedes so much extra performance then you have to think that the Ferrari has to be the better car sans engine, but I know you won't consider that.

There is a route to the 2 drivers:-

Vettel - Kimi - Alonso - Massa - Bottas - Hamilton

The reason why it was going 50/50 was also related to Hamilton/Mercedes having sub-par performances in 2 race weekends (Russia, Monaco).

Whilst in your route to the 1st&2nd drivers, with Vettel being the link, if you throw in Verstappen and Ricciardo too, all of the 6 drivers you mentioned above should just retire from F1 in shame NOW... if it was that reliable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2160
Laz_T800 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
With a little bit more horsepower, Vettel would have won in Russia, Spain, Austria and Belgium. That's a 28 point gain, and Hamilton would have lost 14 points (not win in Spain and Belgium), which equates to a net 42 point loss for Vettel.

Russia: Bottas' start was not much better than Vettel (it was only marginal). However, Bottas was already fully ahead of Vettel before the braking zone in turn 1. That's because Mercedes had 4 km/h more top speed than Ferrari.

Spain: Vettel is 2.0 seconds/lap faster than Bottas, yet it takes him 5 laps to overtake and he has to make the move stick under braking. Hamilton is 1.0 second/lap faster than Vettel and passes him with ease before the braking zone with DRS. With equal engine power, Vettel wins this race easily.

Austria: Vettel lost pole because of the 2 tenths than Bottas pulled on him between turn 1 and turn 2. Vettel is clearly faster than Bottas at the end of the race but cannot even mount an attack.

Belgium: We saw a brutal demonstration of Mercedes power live on television so I don't even need to say anything here.


You're trying to make facts up to fit your opinion.
Everything you have wrote could easily be down to something other than just engine advantage.


This is a common theme, a few changes from the initial post though ;) and all these 4 situations was anything but horsepower alone.

Bottas got a better start than Vettel in Russia and was right behind him. Bottas spent enough time in the slipstream and even with the same engines Bottas would have taken the lead.

In Spain the delta was 2 seconds between the softs and mediums. The Ferrari would have overtaken the Mercedes in a reversed situation.

It’s pretty easy to see you can’t overtake at Austria in similar cars. The straights are not long enough.

Belgium - Mercedes cars was specially set up for the 1st and 3rd sectors. Ferrari couldn’t get close running in the dirty air to enable DRS. That’s just F1.

_________________
Podiums: 1st Spain 2016, 2nd Germany 2016 and 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23154
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Only superficially. Lewis messed up the start and shouldn't have allowed Vettel to get in front of him. I'm loving how you are missing the entire point

It's hard for me to remember past races but Bottas was on pole and Vettel undercut him because he was slow, Hamilton would have been stuck behind Bottas anyway and got undercut by Vettel, in fact he would have undercut both of them with Bottas being so slow.

For me the dynamic has been that the Mercedes has been the better qualifying car but Ferrari have the better race car, if you take away that advantage from Mercedes then you are left with Ferrari being the better car.

I'm really not convinced the Ferrari has been the better race car. That would make Bottas vastly better than Kimi and I don't see much reason to believe that

Bottas scored more points than Massa every season, the totals being 407-308, and I believe someone has chronicled all of Kimi's bad luck under unlucky Kimi, lucky Bottas.

I have no issue with him scoring more points, but if he has a worse car to boot, then that makes the gulf even wider. I don't believe that's representative of the gap between them

You've ignored what's been said about Kimi having worse luck than Bottas.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23154
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
There is a route to the 2 drivers:-

Vettel - Kimi - Alonso - Massa - Bottas - Hamilton

Surely you cannot be serious about this?

I guess that Fisichella is better than Hamilton? After all, he beat Button by a bigger margin than Lewis did.

You are seriously going to use a 5-step process to determine that Hamilton is better than Vettel and therefore Ferrari must be a better racecar than Mercedes? :lol:

Whereas you can just decide who or what is better based on your gut feeling, it's amazing how past performance can be totally ignored.

Regarding Button he was only 20 years old when he entered F1 with 2 years of car experience behind him, you could also reference his rookie year when he got beat by Ralf Schumacher, again using inexperienced drivers in order to prove a point

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23154
Exediron wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
I think that perception is heavily coloured towards Mercedes due to the wet qualifying which caught Ferrari out.
The practice session data and the race data point to a far more even picture.

... the race where Vettel was 36 seconds behind a pair of cruising Mercs? How is that supposed to paint a more even picture?

How do you account for Red Bull being quicker than Ferrari if it was all about engine power, what I heard is that they went the wrong way with set up.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23154
Zoue wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
I think that perception is heavily coloured towards Mercedes due to the wet qualifying which caught Ferrari out.
The practice session data and the race data point to a far more even picture.

... the race where Vettel was 36 seconds behind a pair of cruising Mercs? How is that supposed to paint a more even picture?


Indeed they did win easily.
I've tried to discern using the data as to whether that was down to engine power or not.
There is nothing in that data that suggests it was, certainly all the speed traps are far from conclusive?

Monza is generally considered to be a power circuit, is it not? That they had such a commanding advantage there would tend to suggest that the Merc is more powerful?

So why did Red Bull do so well, Ricciardo started from the back of the grid and finished 4 seconds behind Vettel and 20 seconds in front of Kimi, maybe it was the Ferrari car itself?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4119
Migen wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Hamilton and Vettel actual evidence makes him quicker in qualifying than Vettel so it's not all the car.

Where's your evidence for that? Have they ever been teammates? Have they ever even shared the same teammate?

And are you really going to deny that Mercedes has been faster over one lap this year, or deny the relevance of track position?

There is no way anyone can argue that Ferrari has been the best car overall this season. Best race pace? Maybe. How about when you take these three factors into consideration:

1. Qualifying Speed
2. Reliability
3. Engine Power

There is no way you can argue that Ferrari has been the best car without some serious dishonesty.

The Mercedes is the best qualifying car but I would say that the Ferrari has been the best race car and that's basically why the WDC was 50/50 going into Singapore before Vettel/Ferrari imploded.

Regarding engine power you seem to be trying to define this as the difference in 2 equal cars, but if you think that it gives Mercedes so much extra performance then you have to think that the Ferrari has to be the better car sans engine, but I know you won't consider that.

There is a route to the 2 drivers:-

Vettel - Kimi - Alonso - Massa - Bottas - Hamilton

The reason why it was going 50/50 was also related to Hamilton/Mercedes having sub-par performances in 2 race weekends (Russia, Monaco).

Whilst in your route to the 1st&2nd drivers, with Vettel being the link, if you throw in Verstappen and Ricciardo too, all of the 6 drivers you mentioned above should just retire from F1 in shame NOW... if it was that reliable.

The bolded part is nonsensical. 2 off weekends for Hamilton at that point but what about Canada and Silverstone for Vettel? What about Baku? If anything, Vettel had more off weekends up to that point in the season but neither Hamilton nor Vettel made a lot of mistakes this year. Both have performed to an EXTREMELY high level So that's NOT the reason the points battle was close at all.

What's with all these BS excuses since this last race? The uptick in bogus explanations here in the forum has spiked since Japan...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23154
Migen wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Hamilton and Vettel actual evidence makes him quicker in qualifying than Vettel so it's not all the car.

Where's your evidence for that? Have they ever been teammates? Have they ever even shared the same teammate?

And are you really going to deny that Mercedes has been faster over one lap this year, or deny the relevance of track position?

There is no way anyone can argue that Ferrari has been the best car overall this season. Best race pace? Maybe. How about when you take these three factors into consideration:

1. Qualifying Speed
2. Reliability
3. Engine Power

There is no way you can argue that Ferrari has been the best car without some serious dishonesty.

The Mercedes is the best qualifying car but I would say that the Ferrari has been the best race car and that's basically why the WDC was 50/50 going into Singapore before Vettel/Ferrari imploded.

Regarding engine power you seem to be trying to define this as the difference in 2 equal cars, but if you think that it gives Mercedes so much extra performance then you have to think that the Ferrari has to be the better car sans engine, but I know you won't consider that.

There is a route to the 2 drivers:-

Vettel - Kimi - Alonso - Massa - Bottas - Hamilton

The reason why it was going 50/50 was also related to Hamilton/Mercedes having sub-par performances in 2 race weekends (Russia, Monaco).

Whilst in your route to the 1st&2nd drivers, with Vettel being the link, if you throw in Verstappen and Ricciardo too, all of the 6 drivers you mentioned above should just retire from F1 in shame NOW... if it was that reliable.

Its based over multiple of years, whereas with Ricciardo/Verstappen that is just the 1 year, 2014, even then it puts Hamilton and Ricciardo level with Verstappen top of the pile but still leaving Vettel at the bottom of the top 5.

I've noticed one or 2 posters also have a methodology for doing this that also places Vettel at the bottom of the top 5.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 4126
Location: LONDON...!
Laz_T800 wrote:
mds wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Could you clarify why you are able to state as fact that Ferrari are down on engine power to Mercedes.
The speculation I can find by searching the issue suggests Ferrari have caught up if not surpassed the Mercedes PU.


I think Monza points in that general direction, where almost all Mercedes cars got into the points and Mercedes had an incredible display of dominance over Ferrari. Couple that to the general tendency that Ferrari's forte seem to be tracks where power output is less important than chassis & aero.

Nothing conclusive, but I can see why one would think that way.


I think that perception is heavily coloured towards Mercedes due to the wet qualifying which caught Ferrari out.
The practice session data and the race data point to a far more even picture.

That is just plain WRONG!!!

Lap 24 Hamilton turns down his engine and cruised home.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:47 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 470
Clarky wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
mds wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Could you clarify why you are able to state as fact that Ferrari are down on engine power to Mercedes.
The speculation I can find by searching the issue suggests Ferrari have caught up if not surpassed the Mercedes PU.


I think Monza points in that general direction, where almost all Mercedes cars got into the points and Mercedes had an incredible display of dominance over Ferrari. Couple that to the general tendency that Ferrari's forte seem to be tracks where power output is less important than chassis & aero.

Nothing conclusive, but I can see why one would think that way.


I think that perception is heavily coloured towards Mercedes due to the wet qualifying which caught Ferrari out.
The practice session data and the race data point to a far more even picture.

That is just plain WRONG!!!

Lap 24 Hamilton turns down his engine and cruised home.


And.... what's that got to do with who has the more powerful engine?
It's obvious that Mercedes had a lap time advantage, the debate is about whether this is down to an engine advantage.

Monza is being used as an example to show why its obvious that Mercedes engine is up on power over Ferrari's.
Up until the wet Qualification Ferrari were up there with Mercedes. Ferrari were then nowhere, slower than the Red bulls.
Points to Ferrari doing something with car set up which compromised there out and out pace more than Mercedes finding a massive advantage in engine power.
Rewind to Spa, another power circuit, where was Mercedes advantage there?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2160
Clarky wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
mds wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Could you clarify why you are able to state as fact that Ferrari are down on engine power to Mercedes.
The speculation I can find by searching the issue suggests Ferrari have caught up if not surpassed the Mercedes PU.


I think Monza points in that general direction, where almost all Mercedes cars got into the points and Mercedes had an incredible display of dominance over Ferrari. Couple that to the general tendency that Ferrari's forte seem to be tracks where power output is less important than chassis & aero.

Nothing conclusive, but I can see why one would think that way.


I think that perception is heavily coloured towards Mercedes due to the wet qualifying which caught Ferrari out.
The practice session data and the race data point to a far more even picture.

That is just plain WRONG!!!

Lap 24 Hamilton turns down his engine and cruised home.


Monza wasn’t all about engine power. Yes Mercedes probably have a better PU but the time difference wasn’t just about the engine but Ferrari mucked up that weekend all round. Shown by how RB closed up to Vettel.

_________________
Podiums: 1st Spain 2016, 2nd Germany 2016 and 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23154
Laz_T800 wrote:
Clarky wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
mds wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Could you clarify why you are able to state as fact that Ferrari are down on engine power to Mercedes.
The speculation I can find by searching the issue suggests Ferrari have caught up if not surpassed the Mercedes PU.


I think Monza points in that general direction, where almost all Mercedes cars got into the points and Mercedes had an incredible display of dominance over Ferrari. Couple that to the general tendency that Ferrari's forte seem to be tracks where power output is less important than chassis & aero.

Nothing conclusive, but I can see why one would think that way.


I think that perception is heavily coloured towards Mercedes due to the wet qualifying which caught Ferrari out.
The practice session data and the race data point to a far more even picture.

That is just plain WRONG!!!

Lap 24 Hamilton turns down his engine and cruised home.


And.... what's that got to do with who has the more powerful engine?
It's obvious that Mercedes had a lap time advantage, the debate is about whether this is down to an engine advantage.

Monza is being used as an example to show why its obvious that Mercedes engine is up on power over Ferrari's.
Up until the wet Qualification Ferrari were up there with Mercedes. Ferrari were then nowhere, slower than the Red bulls.
Points to Ferrari doing something with car set up which compromised there out and out pace more than Mercedes finding a massive advantage in engine power.
Rewind to Spa, another power circuit, where was Mercedes advantage there?

Yeah now we are in the land of were Mercedes can turn the engine down and still have a massive power advantage over Ferrari.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10628
sandman1347 wrote:
The bolded part is nonsensical. 2 off weekends for Hamilton at that point but what about Canada and Silverstone for Vettel? What about Baku? If anything, Vettel had more off weekends up to that point in the season but neither Hamilton nor Vettel made a lot of mistakes this year. Both have performed to an EXTREMELY high level So that's NOT the reason the points battle was close at all.


How was Canada an off-weekend for Vettel? Heaps faster than his teammate both in qualification as well as in the race.
Silverstone, sure he didn't outqualify Raikkonen but it's not like he was nowhere compared to Raikkonen that weekend either.

Baku, definitely though.

_________________
Supporting all drivers with surnames starting with "V".

Proud member of the "It's Toro Rosso, not Torro Rosso" action committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Covalent, Laz_T800, mas, Mr-E, Option or Prime, Stanton, TheGiantHogweed, veffy and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group