planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:17 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: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4069
mds wrote:
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.

If not for getting into a collision in the first corner in Canada, Vettel would have finished on the podium easily.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3376
While Mercedes do still have a small power advantage we can't just assume more power=they should have won. Canada for instance Ferrari were thought to have more power than Mercedes which is what tipped the FIA to the extra oil tank.

So if we're saying power was the reason Ferrari didn't win Russia etc.. then surely we have to view Canada as a Ferrari track that Lewis outperformed Seb on and one that got away.

Drag has been more important than power this year and the lwb for Mercedes helps keep it 'skinnier' than the swb Ferrari with the higher sidepods. The benefits Ferrari get at the tracks like Hungary are a trade off they have to put up with elsewhere. Much like the trade off Merc have to put up with on tight twisty tracks.

Ferrari had blown axles to help cut this drag before Baku but lost it under the moveable aero rule and they've suffered a bit on straights since like we saw in Spa.

_________________
"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: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:02 am
Posts: 572
Location: India
Ferrari have won 4races this year with 4 more race to go. Assuming both of them win 2 races each that would make 12-6 wins which looks bad. Having said that they have mode huge improvement compared to 2016 where they were win-less. I do not think their engine is as good as Mercedes but race pace, tyres, they have advantage. Mercedes biggest strength is still their engine, qualifying.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM9-GK3MeLI


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 544
Think there has been a lot of back and forth on which package has been faster each race weekend, and it is fairly clear that there is very little between the two cars pace wise. Some weeks Mercedes holds the advantage, others Ferrari and some there really is nothing between them. Simply counting race wins does not give a true account of the year and don't think anyone would ever dispute that - that is clear from the fact that Ferrari didn't win in Singapore or Malaysia but I don't think many would argue that they did't have the faster car. Qualifying aside, I don't believe anyone could draw anything meaningful from Japan as to where the cars stood given Lewis, Kimi and Bottas were all in different races.

What has become clearer is that Mercedes have the more reliable car, which will probably be decisive. What is less clear is how much of that is out of their control, and how much is down to putting to much stress on the PU. Also how much affect on reliability did Vettel's incidents in Singapore and Malaysia have. I have no doubt this will divide opinion between the Hamilton and Vettel fans, but would be more interested if there are any rumors from the pit whether there is any connection.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1609
F1_Ernie wrote:
KingVoid wrote:

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.

No he would not have. Hamilton has a similarly better start and spent just as much time in Rosberg's slipstream in 2015 and was only able to get alongside into the braking zone. Bottas was fully past Vettel before the braking zone. That is engine power and nothing more. Bottas was 4 km/h faster than Vettel on the straight.

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

It took Vettel 5 laps to pass Bottas with a bigger speed advantage than Hamilton had, and he had to make the move stick on the brakes. Hamilton was fully past Vettel even before the braking zone.

If Vettel had a Mercedes engine, he would have passed a Bottas easily, and won.

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

The straight between turn 1 and turn 2 is long enough for Bottas to gain 2 tenths in qualifying.

Quote:
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.

As per usual, you conveniently forgot to mention that Mercedes had 5 km/h more than Ferrari on the straight which made it impossible for Vettel to pass.

Vettel lost Russia, Spain, Austria and Belgium because of an inherit disadvantage in his car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1609
pokerman wrote:
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

Now you've changed your criteria from rookie (Rosberg) to inexperienced (Button). :lol:

Your argument is terrible. You've used a 5-step process to try to prove that Hamilton is better than Vettel, it's not the slightest convincing as it relies on logic like "Alonso beat Kimi by a slightly bigger margin than Vettel is", and it assumes that driver performance is very constant.

It's such a flawed argument, Mansell fairer better than Rosberg against Prost despite the Rosberg beating Mansell in the same car. If I tried to look hard enough, there are probably a hundred examples that show your argument is terrible but of course you would find an excuse for each one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
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

Now you've changed your criteria from rookie (Rosberg) to inexperienced (Button). :lol:

Your argument is terrible. You've used a 5-step process to try to prove that Hamilton is better than Vettel, it's not the slightest convincing as it relies on logic like "Alonso beat Kimi by a slightly bigger margin than Vettel is", and it assumes that driver performance is very constant.

It's such a flawed argument, Mansell fairer better than Rosberg against Prost despite the Rosberg beating Mansell in the same car. If I tried to look hard enough, there are probably a hundred examples that show your argument is terrible but of course you would find an excuse for each one.

How is that changing my criteria?

It's a much better system then basically just guessing or even wanting one driver to be better, driver performance does fluctuate that's why you check over several years, but I understand why such things being so defining is sometimes not welcome.

With the Prost/Mansell/Rosberg match up, what were the numbers, also 1 year match ups are not ideal without several cross checks, one reason why I don't necessarily look at Ricciardo being 0.17s quicker than Vettel as being defining.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
KingVoid wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
KingVoid wrote:

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.

No he would not have. Hamilton has a similarly better start and spent just as much time in Rosberg's slipstream in 2015 and was only able to get alongside into the braking zone. Bottas was fully past Vettel before the braking zone. That is engine power and nothing more. Bottas was 4 km/h faster than Vettel on the straight.

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

It took Vettel 5 laps to pass Bottas with a bigger speed advantage than Hamilton had, and he had to make the move stick on the brakes. Hamilton was fully past Vettel even before the braking zone.

If Vettel had a Mercedes engine, he would have passed a Bottas easily, and won.

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

The straight between turn 1 and turn 2 is long enough for Bottas to gain 2 tenths in qualifying.

Quote:
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.

As per usual, you conveniently forgot to mention that Mercedes had 5 km/h more than Ferrari on the straight which made it impossible for Vettel to pass.

Vettel lost Russia, Spain, Austria and Belgium because of an inherit disadvantage in his car.

I'm not a technical person but high rake cars tend to have a lower top speed, then there is a matter of how much rear wing you put on the car.

I remember the Williams cars always tended to have a higher top speed than the Mercedes cars because they lacked downforce, downforce creates more drag, even though we often get told how customer teams have weaker engines, the Mercedes was much the quicker car though.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8812
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
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

Now you've changed your criteria from rookie (Rosberg) to inexperienced (Button). :lol:

Your argument is terrible. You've used a 5-step process to try to prove that Hamilton is better than Vettel, it's not the slightest convincing as it relies on logic like "Alonso beat Kimi by a slightly bigger margin than Vettel is", and it assumes that driver performance is very constant.

It's such a flawed argument, Mansell fairer better than Rosberg against Prost despite the Rosberg beating Mansell in the same car. If I tried to look hard enough, there are probably a hundred examples that show your argument is terrible but of course you would find an excuse for each one.

How is that changing my criteria?

It's a much better system then basically just guessing or even wanting one driver to be better, driver performance does fluctuate that's why you check over several years, but I understand why such things being so defining is sometimes not welcome.

With the Prost/Mansell/Rosberg match up, what were the numbers, also 1 year match ups are not ideal without several cross checks, one reason why I don't necessarily look at Ricciardo being 0.17s quicker than Vettel as being defining.

No it isn't. In fact, in some cases it's worse, like in your example.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20581
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
KingVoid wrote:

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.

No he would not have. Hamilton has a similarly better start and spent just as much time in Rosberg's slipstream in 2015 and was only able to get alongside into the braking zone. Bottas was fully past Vettel before the braking zone. That is engine power and nothing more. Bottas was 4 km/h faster than Vettel on the straight.

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

It took Vettel 5 laps to pass Bottas with a bigger speed advantage than Hamilton had, and he had to make the move stick on the brakes. Hamilton was fully past Vettel even before the braking zone.

If Vettel had a Mercedes engine, he would have passed a Bottas easily, and won.

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

The straight between turn 1 and turn 2 is long enough for Bottas to gain 2 tenths in qualifying.

Quote:
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.

As per usual, you conveniently forgot to mention that Mercedes had 5 km/h more than Ferrari on the straight which made it impossible for Vettel to pass.

Vettel lost Russia, Spain, Austria and Belgium because of an inherit disadvantage in his car.

I'm not a technical person but high rake cars tend to have a lower top speed, then there is a matter of how much rear wing you put on the car.

I remember the Williams cars always tended to have a higher top speed than the Mercedes cars because they lacked downforce, downforce creates more drag, even though we often get told how customer teams have weaker engines, the Mercedes was much the quicker car though.

I don't think we've ever been told they have weaker engines. We have been told the manufacturers have access to better software modes, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10593
sandman1347 wrote:
mds wrote:
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.

If not for getting into a collision in the first corner in Canada, Vettel would have finished on the podium easily.


Sometimes you can't help "getting into a collision".

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11999
mds wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mds wrote:
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.

If not for getting into a collision in the first corner in Canada, Vettel would have finished on the podium easily.


Sometimes you can't help "getting into a collision".


I think you're slightly getting the wrong end of the stick here. The line of conversation started examining who would have more points if their seasons had gone perfectly. Obviously Canada is not Vettel's fault but he would have taken more points had it not happened so needs to be factored in when trying to calculate a perfect season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1609
pokerman wrote:
It's a much better system then basically just guessing or even wanting one driver to be better, driver performance does fluctuate that's why you check over several years, but I understand why such things being so defining is sometimes not welcome.

With the Prost/Mansell/Rosberg match up, what were the numbers, also 1 year match ups are not ideal without several cross checks, one reason why I don't necessarily look at Ricciardo being 0.17s quicker than Vettel as being defining.

In that case, how can Bottas-Hamilton be defining as we've seen less than a season of that?

Why should Button-Fisichella not count as it was Button's second season and there was lots of testing back then?

Or are you just trying to make new criteria as you go along to suit your agenda?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1609
In a perfect season (no team or driver mistakes), Hamilton should/would have won in Australia, Bahrain, Russia, Baku, Austria; and took a podium in Monaco and Hungary.

Australia: Mercedes should have waited to clear Verstappen before pitting Hamilton. It's not like Vettel would have ever passed him on track anyway.
Bahrain: Lewis pressed the DRS button too early in qualifying, that would have got him pole. Then he wouldn't have got a penalty for holding up Ricciardo.
Russia: Hamilton only needed to match Bottas' performance to win the race.
Monaco: Ferrari was too fast but a podium was definitely possible
Baku: headrest
Austria: Hamilton should have qualified on pole, then not get a gearbox penalty, and win the race
Hungary: Hamilton outqualifies Bottas and finishes on the podium. Maybe Lewis could have even won with Vettel's steering issues.

Hamilton won regardless in China, Spain, Canada, Britain, Belgium and Italy.

It was perfectly possible for Hamilton's results in the first 13 races to be 11 wins and 2 third places, which would have put his WDC total on 305 points after Monza. The championship would have been long over then before Vettel and Ferrari began making mistakes Singapore-present.

People never nitpick the season of the driver who wins the WDC to see how they could/should have performed better. They only nitpick the season of the driver who didn't win.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 458
KingVoid wrote:
In a perfect season (no team or driver mistakes), Hamilton should/would have won in Australia, Bahrain, Russia, Baku, Austria; and took a podium in Monaco and Hungary.

Australia: Mercedes should have waited to clear Verstappen before pitting Hamilton. It's not like Vettel would have ever passed him on track anyway.
Bahrain: Lewis pressed the DRS button too early in qualifying, that would have got him pole. Then he wouldn't have got a penalty for holding up Ricciardo.
Russia: Hamilton only needed to match Bottas' performance to win the race.
Monaco: Ferrari was too fast but a podium was definitely possible
Baku: headrest
Austria: Hamilton should have qualified on pole, then not get a gearbox penalty, and win the race
Hungary: Hamilton outqualifies Bottas and finishes on the podium. Maybe Lewis could have even won with Vettel's steering issues.

Hamilton won regardless in China, Spain, Canada, Britain, Belgium and Italy.

It was perfectly possible for Hamilton's results in the first 13 races to be 11 wins and 2 third places, which would have put his WDC total on 305 points after Monza. The championship would have been long over then before Vettel and Ferrari began making mistakes Singapore-present.

People never nitpick the season of the driver who wins the WDC to see how they could/should have performed better. They only nitpick the season of the driver who didn't win.


BIB, you are still making things up. Hamilton "I lost two tenths from Turn 10 to 11, the DRS didn't engage in qualifying".
You may think that the reason was because he messed up the timing of the activation but I can't find anything to back that up with.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this analysis.
Basically saying if things had gone differently in races, Lewis could have won them, isn't exactly ground breaking stuff?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20581
mikeyg123 wrote:
mds wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mds wrote:
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.

If not for getting into a collision in the first corner in Canada, Vettel would have finished on the podium easily.


Sometimes you can't help "getting into a collision".


I think you're slightly getting the wrong end of the stick here. The line of conversation started examining who would have more points if their seasons had gone perfectly. Obviously Canada is not Vettel's fault but he would have taken more points had it not happened so needs to be factored in when trying to calculate a perfect season.

Might be a bit of confusion. I thought the line of conversation was more on whether the drivers had each had a perfect season (i.e. executed everything faultlessly with things that were in their control)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20581
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It's a much better system then basically just guessing or even wanting one driver to be better, driver performance does fluctuate that's why you check over several years, but I understand why such things being so defining is sometimes not welcome.

With the Prost/Mansell/Rosberg match up, what were the numbers, also 1 year match ups are not ideal without several cross checks, one reason why I don't necessarily look at Ricciardo being 0.17s quicker than Vettel as being defining.

In that case, how can Bottas-Hamilton be defining as we've seen less than a season of that?

Why should Button-Fisichella not count as it was Button's second season and there was lots of testing back then?

Or are you just trying to make new criteria as you go along to suit your agenda?

yeah, I'm struggling to reconcile the idea of one year not being defining while including Alonso/Kimi and Hamilton/Bottas (the latter's not even completed a year yet!), not to mention Hamilton/Alonso! Not that I think it is necessarily defining, but it does seem a bit of a case of having cake and eating it when some single years are included and others - which conveniently don't support the point - are not


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20581
Laz_T800 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
In a perfect season (no team or driver mistakes), Hamilton should/would have won in Australia, Bahrain, Russia, Baku, Austria; and took a podium in Monaco and Hungary.

Australia: Mercedes should have waited to clear Verstappen before pitting Hamilton. It's not like Vettel would have ever passed him on track anyway.
Bahrain: Lewis pressed the DRS button too early in qualifying, that would have got him pole. Then he wouldn't have got a penalty for holding up Ricciardo.
Russia: Hamilton only needed to match Bottas' performance to win the race.
Monaco: Ferrari was too fast but a podium was definitely possible
Baku: headrest
Austria: Hamilton should have qualified on pole, then not get a gearbox penalty, and win the race
Hungary: Hamilton outqualifies Bottas and finishes on the podium. Maybe Lewis could have even won with Vettel's steering issues.

Hamilton won regardless in China, Spain, Canada, Britain, Belgium and Italy.

It was perfectly possible for Hamilton's results in the first 13 races to be 11 wins and 2 third places, which would have put his WDC total on 305 points after Monza. The championship would have been long over then before Vettel and Ferrari began making mistakes Singapore-present.

People never nitpick the season of the driver who wins the WDC to see how they could/should have performed better. They only nitpick the season of the driver who didn't win.


BIB, you are still making things up. Hamilton "I lost two tenths from Turn 10 to 11, the DRS didn't engage in qualifying".
You may think that the reason was because he messed up the timing of the activation but I can't find anything to back that up with.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this analysis.
Basically saying if things had gone differently in races, Lewis could have won them, isn't exactly ground breaking stuff?

well, he said no team or driver mistakes. The point is to demonstrate that Mercedes is the better car and Ferrari being close has been down to circumstance, not car superiority


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10593
mikeyg123 wrote:
mds wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mds wrote:
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.

If not for getting into a collision in the first corner in Canada, Vettel would have finished on the podium easily.


Sometimes you can't help "getting into a collision".


I think you're slightly getting the wrong end of the stick here. The line of conversation started examining who would have more points if their seasons had gone perfectly. Obviously Canada is not Vettel's fault but he would have taken more points had it not happened so needs to be factored in when trying to calculate a perfect season.


Well, I had interpreted "having an off-weekend" as a driver not performing good enough and thus losing points, since it was being compared with Hamilton's Russia and Monaco weekends.

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2140
Why are Monaco, Russia and Austria counted as mistakes for Hamilton and people presume he would beat Bottas. Bottas was quicker and better those 3 weekends and maybe Bottas should be applauded for this rather than assuming he would just be beaten. Hamilton wasnt good enough to beat Bottas, in every sport the best don't always win.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2140
KingVoid wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
KingVoid wrote:

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.

No he would not have. Hamilton has a similarly better start and spent just as much time in Rosberg's slipstream in 2015 and was only able to get alongside into the braking zone. Bottas was fully past Vettel before the braking zone. That is engine power and nothing more. Bottas was 4 km/h faster than Vettel on the straight.

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

It took Vettel 5 laps to pass Bottas with a bigger speed advantage than Hamilton had, and he had to make the move stick on the brakes. Hamilton was fully past Vettel even before the braking zone.

If Vettel had a Mercedes engine, he would have passed a Bottas easily, and won.

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

The straight between turn 1 and turn 2 is long enough for Bottas to gain 2 tenths in qualifying.

Quote:
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.

As per usual, you conveniently forgot to mention that Mercedes had 5 km/h more than Ferrari on the straight which made it impossible for Vettel to pass.

Vettel lost Russia, Spain, Austria and Belgium because of an inherit disadvantage in his car.


Nope, there was also other factors which you always seem to conviently forget on purpose. The cars are equal on race day but little things can be the deciding factor and not just engine power alone.

Haha, just watched Russia 2015 and 2017 starts. They are totally different and Bottas got a better start on the clean side of the grid. If that's the best you have got it confirms to me what I already thought that there's no point in having a debate.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20581
F1_Ernie wrote:
Why are Monaco, Russia and Austria counted as mistakes for Hamilton and people presume he would beat Bottas. Bottas was quicker and better those 3 weekends and maybe Bottas should be applauded for this rather than assuming he would just be beaten. Hamilton wasnt good enough to beat Bottas, in every sport the best don't always win.

Well to be fair even Hamilton thought he had a poor qualifying. And being half a second off the pace of a guy he normally comfortably beats does suggest he wasn't having a great day at the office. And in Monaco he left it too late to challenge for Q3, as his banker lap was uncharacteristically poor. Monaco's not the place to leave things to chance.

Austria, maybe, as things were close. But even if you say that Bottas was just really good that day, the fact remains that Hamilton didn't maximise the car, as Vettel didn't do in e.g. Monaco. And as a result he lost points

I agree the best doesn't always win. But the point of the exercise is to see where drivers may have dropped points, so the above is surely relevant?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2140
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Why are Monaco, Russia and Austria counted as mistakes for Hamilton and people presume he would beat Bottas. Bottas was quicker and better those 3 weekends and maybe Bottas should be applauded for this rather than assuming he would just be beaten. Hamilton wasnt good enough to beat Bottas, in every sport the best don't always win.

Well to be fair even Hamilton thought he had a poor qualifying. And being half a second off the pace of a guy he normally comfortably beats does suggest he wasn't having a great day at the office. And in Monaco he left it too late to challenge for Q3, as his banker lap was uncharacteristically poor. Monaco's not the place to leave things to chance.

Austria, maybe, as things were close. But even if you say that Bottas was just really good that day, the fact remains that Hamilton didn't maximise the car, as Vettel didn't do in e.g. Monaco. And as a result he lost points

I agree the best doesn't always win. But the point of the exercise is to see where drivers may have dropped points, so the above is surely relevant?


If Hamilton maximised all his weekends he deffiantly would have improved his position. I just thought people presumed he would beat Bottas who was also performing better at the beginning of the season. Hamilton hasn't always performed well at Austria and Russia and I'm sure Russia is a track Bottas enjoys. Just some weekends the other guy beats you.

Regarding Bottas something doesn't seem right with him. His confidence seems low and mentally he doesn't look good which plays a big part. I read Mercedes wanted him to race with the upgrades in Malaysia to compare data so he is deffiantly playing the number 2 role. Playing a number 2 role is maybe something he thought he would be ok with but when push comes to shove it has affected him.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20581
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Why are Monaco, Russia and Austria counted as mistakes for Hamilton and people presume he would beat Bottas. Bottas was quicker and better those 3 weekends and maybe Bottas should be applauded for this rather than assuming he would just be beaten. Hamilton wasnt good enough to beat Bottas, in every sport the best don't always win.

Well to be fair even Hamilton thought he had a poor qualifying. And being half a second off the pace of a guy he normally comfortably beats does suggest he wasn't having a great day at the office. And in Monaco he left it too late to challenge for Q3, as his banker lap was uncharacteristically poor. Monaco's not the place to leave things to chance.

Austria, maybe, as things were close. But even if you say that Bottas was just really good that day, the fact remains that Hamilton didn't maximise the car, as Vettel didn't do in e.g. Monaco. And as a result he lost points

I agree the best doesn't always win. But the point of the exercise is to see where drivers may have dropped points, so the above is surely relevant?


If Hamilton maximised all his weekends he deffiantly would have improved his position. I just thought people presumed he would beat Bottas who was also performing better at the beginning of the season. Hamilton hasn't always performed well at Austria and Russia and I'm sure Russia is a track Bottas enjoys. Just some weekends the other guy beats you.

Regarding Bottas something doesn't seem right with him. His confidence seems low and mentally he doesn't look good which plays a big part. I read Mercedes wanted him to race with the upgrades in Malaysia to compare data so he is deffiantly playing the number 2 role. Playing a number 2 role is maybe something he thought he would be ok with but when push comes to shove it has affected him.

I think you may have a point regarding Bottas. He certainly seems a shadow of his former self and it's pretty noticeable how different the two halves of the year have been. Maybe his confidence has taken a dive, as you say


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
Covalent wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
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

Now you've changed your criteria from rookie (Rosberg) to inexperienced (Button). :lol:

Your argument is terrible. You've used a 5-step process to try to prove that Hamilton is better than Vettel, it's not the slightest convincing as it relies on logic like "Alonso beat Kimi by a slightly bigger margin than Vettel is", and it assumes that driver performance is very constant.

It's such a flawed argument, Mansell fairer better than Rosberg against Prost despite the Rosberg beating Mansell in the same car. If I tried to look hard enough, there are probably a hundred examples that show your argument is terrible but of course you would find an excuse for each one.

How is that changing my criteria?

It's a much better system then basically just guessing or even wanting one driver to be better, driver performance does fluctuate that's why you check over several years, but I understand why such things being so defining is sometimes not welcome.

With the Prost/Mansell/Rosberg match up, what were the numbers, also 1 year match ups are not ideal without several cross checks, one reason why I don't necessarily look at Ricciardo being 0.17s quicker than Vettel as being defining.

No it isn't. In fact, in some cases it's worse, like in your example.

No I believe we can't have any system that might take away what a person's might believe.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
KingVoid wrote:

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.

No he would not have. Hamilton has a similarly better start and spent just as much time in Rosberg's slipstream in 2015 and was only able to get alongside into the braking zone. Bottas was fully past Vettel before the braking zone. That is engine power and nothing more. Bottas was 4 km/h faster than Vettel on the straight.

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

It took Vettel 5 laps to pass Bottas with a bigger speed advantage than Hamilton had, and he had to make the move stick on the brakes. Hamilton was fully past Vettel even before the braking zone.

If Vettel had a Mercedes engine, he would have passed a Bottas easily, and won.

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

The straight between turn 1 and turn 2 is long enough for Bottas to gain 2 tenths in qualifying.

Quote:
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.

As per usual, you conveniently forgot to mention that Mercedes had 5 km/h more than Ferrari on the straight which made it impossible for Vettel to pass.

Vettel lost Russia, Spain, Austria and Belgium because of an inherit disadvantage in his car.

I'm not a technical person but high rake cars tend to have a lower top speed, then there is a matter of how much rear wing you put on the car.

I remember the Williams cars always tended to have a higher top speed than the Mercedes cars because they lacked downforce, downforce creates more drag, even though we often get told how customer teams have weaker engines, the Mercedes was much the quicker car though.

I don't think we've ever been told they have weaker engines. We have been told the manufacturers have access to better software modes, though.

I'm lost to what the difference is there?

_________________
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: Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
mikeyg123 wrote:
mds wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mds wrote:
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.

If not for getting into a collision in the first corner in Canada, Vettel would have finished on the podium easily.


Sometimes you can't help "getting into a collision".


I think you're slightly getting the wrong end of the stick here. The line of conversation started examining who would have more points if their seasons had gone perfectly. Obviously Canada is not Vettel's fault but he would have taken more points had it not happened so needs to be factored in when trying to calculate a perfect season.

Autosport have done a calculation of perfect seasons that has Vettel 55 points in front.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23004
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It's a much better system then basically just guessing or even wanting one driver to be better, driver performance does fluctuate that's why you check over several years, but I understand why such things being so defining is sometimes not welcome.

With the Prost/Mansell/Rosberg match up, what were the numbers, also 1 year match ups are not ideal without several cross checks, one reason why I don't necessarily look at Ricciardo being 0.17s quicker than Vettel as being defining.

In that case, how can Bottas-Hamilton be defining as we've seen less than a season of that?

Why should Button-Fisichella not count as it was Button's second season and there was lots of testing back then?

Or are you just trying to make new criteria as you go along to suit your agenda?

The model is still not complete but there are numerous cross references:-

Bottas - Massa - Alonso - Hamilton

Vettel - Kimi - Massa - Alonso - Hamilton

Even as a rookie the numbers are very favourable for Hamilton in respect to Vettel and would very much predict Hamilton beating 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: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6623
pokerman wrote:
Autosport have done a calculation of perfect seasons that has Vettel 55 points in front.

Can you give the breakdown or link the article? I'd be interested to see as a 114 point swing seems a bit much to me just off the top of my head. I can only assume they've done Vettel's perfect season but not also taken into account Hamilton's lost points?

Edit: just done some rough calculations and the most I can make it is 101 points gained for Vettel when being generous in a few instances (e.g. assuming he should have besten Kimi in Britain and got 2nd place), and that's before taking Hamilton's lost points into account. I may have missed some stuff but a 114 net gain seems impossible to me.


Last edited by Black_Flag_11 on Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20581
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:

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.

No he would not have. Hamilton has a similarly better start and spent just as much time in Rosberg's slipstream in 2015 and was only able to get alongside into the braking zone. Bottas was fully past Vettel before the braking zone. That is engine power and nothing more. Bottas was 4 km/h faster than Vettel on the straight.

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

It took Vettel 5 laps to pass Bottas with a bigger speed advantage than Hamilton had, and he had to make the move stick on the brakes. Hamilton was fully past Vettel even before the braking zone.

If Vettel had a Mercedes engine, he would have passed a Bottas easily, and won.

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

The straight between turn 1 and turn 2 is long enough for Bottas to gain 2 tenths in qualifying.

Quote:
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.

As per usual, you conveniently forgot to mention that Mercedes had 5 km/h more than Ferrari on the straight which made it impossible for Vettel to pass.

Vettel lost Russia, Spain, Austria and Belgium because of an inherit disadvantage in his car.

I'm not a technical person but high rake cars tend to have a lower top speed, then there is a matter of how much rear wing you put on the car.

I remember the Williams cars always tended to have a higher top speed than the Mercedes cars because they lacked downforce, downforce creates more drag, even though we often get told how customer teams have weaker engines, the Mercedes was much the quicker car though.

I don't think we've ever been told they have weaker engines. We have been told the manufacturers have access to better software modes, though.

I'm lost to what the difference is there?

weaker engines implies a constant inferiority. Better software modes are situation-specific (e.g. qualifying). It's very different


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6623
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Autosport have done a calculation of perfect seasons that has Vettel 55 points in front.

Can you give the breakdown or link the article? I'd be interested to see as a 114 point swing seems a bit much to me just off the top of my head. I can only assume they've done Vettel's perfect season but not also taken into account Hamilton's lost points?

Edit: just done some rough calculations and the most I can make it is 101 points gained for Vettel when being generous in a few instances (e.g. assuming he should have besten Kimi in Britain and got 2nd place), and that's before taking Hamilton's lost points into account. I may have missed some stuff but a 114 net gain seems impossible to me.

Edit again: I forgot to include Malaysia, assuming he wins that I make it exactly 114 points, maybe I've done the exact same analysis as Autosport :lol: doesn't include Hamilton's issues though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4471
pokerman wrote:
The model is still not complete but there are numerous cross references:-

Bottas - Massa - Alonso - Hamilton

Vettel - Kimi - Massa - Alonso - Hamilton

Even as a rookie the numbers are very favourable for Hamilton in respect to Vettel and would very much predict Hamilton beating Bottas.

If rewritten with quantifiers:
Bottas > Massa < Alonso = Hamilton

Vettel > Kimi = Massa < Alonso = Hamilton

Since what you're ultimately trying to get to is using team mate comparisons to judge the relative abilities between 2 drivers who've never been paired. The first equation, prior to this year before they were team mates, could've been seen as Bottas possibly being as good as Hamilton. i.e. He beat Massa, who was also beaten by Alonso, who tied Hamilton.

Now that there's almost a whole season to compare Bottas to Hamilton directly as team mates we know he's not as good, but this shows how trying to make any kind definitive statement about how two drivers will compare from that A>B<C<D type of logic is pointless. And your second example becomes even more strained by adding a fifth driver to the mix.

Even if you say Bottas didn't beat Massa by as much as Alonso did so he was bound to be worse than Hamilton you're losing the context of driver abilities varying from year to year as well as team dynamics. (Alonso certainly got preferable treatment at Ferrari while things were even between drivers at Williams)

Edit: Messed up quotes

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:34 pm
Posts: 10
I'll just leave this here.......

Quote:
Sergio Marchionne

“Without being arrogant, I think it (the car) is at the same level if not better than Mercedes’ today.

“I’m sure if we’d not had any problems like in the last three races, we would be having a different discussion.”


*From PF1 main page

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4069
KingVoid wrote:
In a perfect season (no team or driver mistakes), Hamilton should/would have won in Australia, Bahrain, Russia, Baku, Austria; and took a podium in Monaco and Hungary.

Australia: Mercedes should have waited to clear Verstappen before pitting Hamilton. It's not like Vettel would have ever passed him on track anyway.
Bahrain: Lewis pressed the DRS button too early in qualifying, that would have got him pole. Then he wouldn't have got a penalty for holding up Ricciardo.
Russia: Hamilton only needed to match Bottas' performance to win the race.
Monaco: Ferrari was too fast but a podium was definitely possible
Baku: headrest
Austria: Hamilton should have qualified on pole, then not get a gearbox penalty, and win the race
Hungary: Hamilton outqualifies Bottas and finishes on the podium. Maybe Lewis could have even won with Vettel's steering issues.

Hamilton won regardless in China, Spain, Canada, Britain, Belgium and Italy.

It was perfectly possible for Hamilton's results in the first 13 races to be 11 wins and 2 third places, which would have put his WDC total on 305 points after Monza. The championship would have been long over then before Vettel and Ferrari began making mistakes Singapore-present.

People never nitpick the season of the driver who wins the WDC to see how they could/should have performed better. They only nitpick the season of the driver who didn't win.

Now do that For Ferrari and you'll find that they could have won many races that they didn't if they were "perfect" too. Of course you didn't do that for Ferrari because your agenda is to make it seem like Vettel was driving a Torro Rosso or something...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20581
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
In a perfect season (no team or driver mistakes), Hamilton should/would have won in Australia, Bahrain, Russia, Baku, Austria; and took a podium in Monaco and Hungary.

Australia: Mercedes should have waited to clear Verstappen before pitting Hamilton. It's not like Vettel would have ever passed him on track anyway.
Bahrain: Lewis pressed the DRS button too early in qualifying, that would have got him pole. Then he wouldn't have got a penalty for holding up Ricciardo.
Russia: Hamilton only needed to match Bottas' performance to win the race.
Monaco: Ferrari was too fast but a podium was definitely possible
Baku: headrest
Austria: Hamilton should have qualified on pole, then not get a gearbox penalty, and win the race
Hungary: Hamilton outqualifies Bottas and finishes on the podium. Maybe Lewis could have even won with Vettel's steering issues.

Hamilton won regardless in China, Spain, Canada, Britain, Belgium and Italy.

It was perfectly possible for Hamilton's results in the first 13 races to be 11 wins and 2 third places, which would have put his WDC total on 305 points after Monza. The championship would have been long over then before Vettel and Ferrari began making mistakes Singapore-present.

People never nitpick the season of the driver who wins the WDC to see how they could/should have performed better. They only nitpick the season of the driver who didn't win.

Now do that For Ferrari and you'll find that they could have won many races that they didn't if they were "perfect" too. Of course you didn't do that for Ferrari because your agenda is to make it seem like Vettel was driving a Torro Rosso or something...

In a perfect season, assuming no failures or mistakes, Vettel should have won in Malaysia and Singapore. If we're assuming no mistakes by other drivers, too, then a podium was up for grabs in Canada, Baku and GB. Let's call it 2nd in Baku, as Bottas wasn't that good. I'm undecided on Japan as I think there's not enough data, but given the qualifying gap I'm assuming 2nd was the best available there, since Bottas wasn't that impressive. I don't see Vettel winning any other races. Which gives Vettel an extra 74 points by my reckoning. But, of course, he'd lose e.g. Australia and Bahrain if Lewis had gained his theoretical maximum there, which would reduce that to 60 extra. Which would put him on 307 after Japan, by my (admittedly hasty) calcs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11999
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
In a perfect season (no team or driver mistakes), Hamilton should/would have won in Australia, Bahrain, Russia, Baku, Austria; and took a podium in Monaco and Hungary.

Australia: Mercedes should have waited to clear Verstappen before pitting Hamilton. It's not like Vettel would have ever passed him on track anyway.
Bahrain: Lewis pressed the DRS button too early in qualifying, that would have got him pole. Then he wouldn't have got a penalty for holding up Ricciardo.
Russia: Hamilton only needed to match Bottas' performance to win the race.
Monaco: Ferrari was too fast but a podium was definitely possible
Baku: headrest
Austria: Hamilton should have qualified on pole, then not get a gearbox penalty, and win the race
Hungary: Hamilton outqualifies Bottas and finishes on the podium. Maybe Lewis could have even won with Vettel's steering issues.

Hamilton won regardless in China, Spain, Canada, Britain, Belgium and Italy.

It was perfectly possible for Hamilton's results in the first 13 races to be 11 wins and 2 third places, which would have put his WDC total on 305 points after Monza. The championship would have been long over then before Vettel and Ferrari began making mistakes Singapore-present.

People never nitpick the season of the driver who wins the WDC to see how they could/should have performed better. They only nitpick the season of the driver who didn't win.

Now do that For Ferrari and you'll find that they could have won many races that they didn't if they were "perfect" too. Of course you didn't do that for Ferrari because your agenda is to make it seem like Vettel was driving a Torro Rosso or something...

In a perfect season, assuming no failures or mistakes, Vettel should have won in Malaysia and Singapore. If we're assuming no mistakes by other drivers, too, then a podium was up for grabs in Canada, Baku and GB. Let's call it 2nd in Baku, as Bottas wasn't that good. I'm undecided on Japan as I think there's not enough data, but given the qualifying gap I'm assuming 2nd was the best available there, since Bottas wasn't that impressive. I don't see Vettel winning any other races. Which gives Vettel an extra 74 points by my reckoning. But, of course, he'd lose e.g. Australia and Bahrain if Lewis had gained his theoretical maximum there, which would reduce that to 60 extra. Which would put him on 307 after Japan, by my (admittedly hasty) calcs.


Sorry, I've lost this thread a bit. So that would make it a possible max of 307 for Vettel and how much for Hamilton?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20581
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
In a perfect season (no team or driver mistakes), Hamilton should/would have won in Australia, Bahrain, Russia, Baku, Austria; and took a podium in Monaco and Hungary.

Australia: Mercedes should have waited to clear Verstappen before pitting Hamilton. It's not like Vettel would have ever passed him on track anyway.
Bahrain: Lewis pressed the DRS button too early in qualifying, that would have got him pole. Then he wouldn't have got a penalty for holding up Ricciardo.
Russia: Hamilton only needed to match Bottas' performance to win the race.
Monaco: Ferrari was too fast but a podium was definitely possible
Baku: headrest
Austria: Hamilton should have qualified on pole, then not get a gearbox penalty, and win the race
Hungary: Hamilton outqualifies Bottas and finishes on the podium. Maybe Lewis could have even won with Vettel's steering issues.

Hamilton won regardless in China, Spain, Canada, Britain, Belgium and Italy.

It was perfectly possible for Hamilton's results in the first 13 races to be 11 wins and 2 third places, which would have put his WDC total on 305 points after Monza. The championship would have been long over then before Vettel and Ferrari began making mistakes Singapore-present.

People never nitpick the season of the driver who wins the WDC to see how they could/should have performed better. They only nitpick the season of the driver who didn't win.

Now do that For Ferrari and you'll find that they could have won many races that they didn't if they were "perfect" too. Of course you didn't do that for Ferrari because your agenda is to make it seem like Vettel was driving a Torro Rosso or something...

In a perfect season, assuming no failures or mistakes, Vettel should have won in Malaysia and Singapore. If we're assuming no mistakes by other drivers, too, then a podium was up for grabs in Canada, Baku and GB. Let's call it 2nd in Baku, as Bottas wasn't that good. I'm undecided on Japan as I think there's not enough data, but given the qualifying gap I'm assuming 2nd was the best available there, since Bottas wasn't that impressive. I don't see Vettel winning any other races. Which gives Vettel an extra 74 points by my reckoning. But, of course, he'd lose e.g. Australia and Bahrain if Lewis had gained his theoretical maximum there, which would reduce that to 60 extra. Which would put him on 307 after Japan, by my (admittedly hasty) calcs.


Sorry, I've lost this thread a bit. So that would make it a possible max of 307 for Vettel and how much for Hamilton?

Well, assuming KV's calcs above are right, take a base of 305 after Monza and work out what Hamilton 's best finishing positions would be after that. In bus at mo so a little tricky but will look later


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:27 pm
Posts: 129
This is all a futile exercise in my opinion. In years to come all people will remember is a season that started very promising indeed with form swinging from one team to the other from race weekend to race weekend, until the last quarter from the Asian leg where Ferrari suffered reliability misfortune. Except for Monza there is not a race where Ferrari's pace was found lacking, and even that was probably due to set-up. If anything it was Mercedes who even found themselves down as the 3rd best team in some races. Ferrari fans themselves will be using this year as evidence that the team can indeed keep up in-season development with the likes of Redbull and Mercedes if not surpassed them. They will know that in 2017 Ferrari had a great car. Vettel and the top brass all agree their car is equal if not better than Mercedes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5191
bonecrasher wrote:
This is all a futile exercise in my opinion. In years to come all people will remember is a season that started very promising indeed with form swinging from one team to the other from race weekend to race weekend, until the last quarter from the Asian leg where Ferrari suffered reliability misfortune. Except for Monza there is not a race where Ferrari's pace was found lacking, and even that was probably due to set-up. If anything it was Mercedes who even found themselves down as the 3rd best team in some races. Ferrari fans themselves will be using this year as evidence that the team can indeed keep up in-season development with the likes of Redbull and Mercedes if not surpassed them. They will know that in 2017 Ferrari had a great car. Vettel and the top brass all agree their car is equal if not better than Mercedes.


Which ones out of curiosity?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:27 pm
Posts: 129
Siao7 wrote:
bonecrasher wrote:
This is all a futile exercise in my opinion. In years to come all people will remember is a season that started very promising indeed with form swinging from one team to the other from race weekend to race weekend, until the last quarter from the Asian leg where Ferrari suffered reliability misfortune. Except for Monza there is not a race where Ferrari's pace was found lacking, and even that was probably due to set-up. If anything it was Mercedes who even found themselves down as the 3rd best team in some races. Ferrari fans themselves will be using this year as evidence that the team can indeed keep up in-season development with the likes of Redbull and Mercedes if not surpassed them. They will know that in 2017 Ferrari had a great car. Vettel and the top brass all agree their car is equal if not better than Mercedes.


Which ones out of curiosity?

Singapore and Malaysia?


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: Google Adsense [Bot] 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