planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:54 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

who is faster? Merc or Ferrari?
Poll ended at Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:35 am
Ferrari 37%  37%  [ 44 ]
Mercedes 63%  63%  [ 74 ]
Total votes : 118
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27867
Malkiiin wrote:
Did anyone else catch Lewis' comments post-race on Sky?

I cant remember the exact wording, but he alluded to things on the car that Mercedes knew about and would need to resolve in the off-season to contend for the championship next year? He said he wasnt allowed to say what it was?

Is he alluding to the narrow set-up window, sporadic competitiveness or do Mercedes know there are fundemental issues with the package that are too engrained to eradicate in-season?

Can anyone shed any more light on whether there was more to it than just set-up issues?

It's the design of the car and I think it basically revolves around the long wheel base, obviously something they can't remedy for this year.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14176
Invade wrote:
An argument can easily be made that Lewis has figured out the car better as the season has progressed leaving his team-mate in the dust, implying that he was not as on it as Vettel at the beginning of the season which may skew some early season rankings - but is that Lewis' fault or the fault of the car if true?

A key point seems to me that when Merc hook is up, they are more clearly the best than any other team leading to Grand Chelems for Lewis and whatnot. However, it appears to be a somewhat fickle beast. Does that mean that the Mercedes the best car based on it typically having more potential but that the margin for error is so tight that it's common for them to lose out to Ferrari or can we assume that the teams have done equally well to extract what they can out of their packages, have even enough driver lineups, and yet it's lead to Merc having roughly a 100 point lead in the WCC. That's a big lead.

PS, a 118 point lead now: 503-385.

How does one reconcile such a huge WCC advantage and the cars being too close to call thus far?


Ferrari have lost around 75 points in the last race two races alone.... And Merc have probably gained 25ish. See how misleading the WCC table can be?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14176
Some talk of quali performance making the Merc sound unbeatable. It's 9/5 to Hamilton in his quali battle with Vettel. Had Seb been able to qualify yesterday it probably would have been 9/6.

Not exactly dominance....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm not, really. I just take a different view.

E.g. in Australia Vettel said he was pushing as hard as he could just to keep up: he couldn't have gone any quicker. When Lewis went in Vettel didn't up his pace, but remained fairly constant. The cars looked pretty even to me. Spain was difficult to tell because they had wildly differing strategies, but in the opening stint, when on the same tyres, the gap was pretty constant. They looked reasonably equal to me. if anything, I thought the Merc had the edge - Hamilton overtook Vettel, after all - but it was too close to say with any certainty.

In Russia, Hamilton had a poor race, so our benchmark was Bottas. And he chose to be the hare, sprinting off at the beginning of the stint in order to open a gap before the stops. Vettel was quicker at the end, but there again Bottas had changed his tyres earlier, so was running at a disadvantage towards the end. Nothing there tells me that the Ferrari was the faster car. We know from almost all the other races that Hamilton is normally quicker than Bottas, so who knows what may have happened if Hamilton had been on song?

In Bahrain the Mercs were substantially faster than the Ferraris in qualifying. Again, they used different tyre strategies, so comparisons are difficult, but Hamilton finished 6.7s behind Vettel, while having to take a 5s time penalty. Vettel was quicker in the first half of the race, but Hamilton was quicker in the second half. His fastest lap was over a second faster than Vettel's.

Finally, China. I don't know why that would be considered a Ferrari race. Hamilton was significantly faster in the first half of the race (although to be fair Vettel had Verstappen in front), while Vettel clawed back ground towards the end. But again, Hamilton's fastest lap was quicker than Vettel's, and towards the end of the race he was most likely just bringing it home. So I don't see where Ferrari had an advantage

For what it's worth, I agree that the cars are reasonably closely matched for the most part. But I also think the qualifying advantage lies with Mercedes and more often than not it gives a big advantage in the race itself. It's much harder to overtake than to keep the lead.

sandman1347's standards of what makes Ferrari the best car are pretty simple: they have to be somewhat in the same ballpark as Mercedes and that automatically makes them the best car.

However, Mercedes is never the best car unless they enjoy 2016 levels of dominance (like Canada, Baku, Silverstone, Monza).

The fact that he wants to make it seem like Hamilton heroically won in China and Belgium with an inferior car is both dishonest and laughable.

Sigh, really? Making things up and putting words in other people's mouths does nothing to further the discussion. To address the races in question:

China-Vettel ended up stuck in traffic for much of this race while Hamilton was out in front. From the time Vettel got past Raikkonen and Ricciardo, he was clearly the fastest man on track. Hamilton's comments were that he was pushing flat out through the end of the race to maintain his lead (though the lead was still diminishing).

Spain- Vettel admittedly dropped pole here due to a minor mistake in qualifying. The qualifying margin was still less than a tenth of a second and Mercedes are stronger relative to Ferrari on Saturday than they are on Sunday. Hamilton won the race primarily due to strategy. Mercedes used the faster tire for their final stint while Ferrari were on the slower tire. That combined with the VSC eliminating some of Vettel's gap (again down to strategy as Ferrari could have pitted Vettel during the VSC too if they wanted to) gave Lewis the chance to win the race. On raw pace, Ferrari had the edge there (as you would expect considering the characteristics of the cirucuit).

Russia-This one is really debatable but I think evidence suggests that, during the race, Ferrari were at least as fast as Mercedes if not quicker. The race certainly ended with Vettel breathing down Bottas's neck and complaining about traffic getting in the way while Raikkonen gapped Hamilton in third. We're talking about race pace guys. Not who can squeeze out the fastest single lap.

Belgium-This one is pretty obvious actually. Ferrari had quicker long run pace all through practice and Vettel was visibly held up by Hamilton during the race; unable to make the pass the couple of times he had a go. Because he was unable to get into the lead and into clean air, we don't have concrete proof that he would have turned quicker lap times but the fact that Hamilton was never able to pull any kind of gap indicates that he couldn't do so. It is certainly not safe to have the car behind within striking distance to undercut you in the pits. Much the same can be said for Australia where Hamilton was unable to pull any kind of gap to Vettel; who was breathing down his neck from the moment the lights went out.

Anyway, let's say we call these races debatable. We're left with several races where it was very close and only a handful where either team was in a position of substantial supremacy. Canada, Austria, England, Baku and Monza for Mercedes. Spain, Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia for Ferrari. These are the ones that are pretty much no-doubters. There are the same number for both teams. For the other races, in general you would loosely say that Mercedes perhaps has a slight edge on Saturday and that Ferrari perhaps has a slight edge on Sunday.

The main point is that it is unreasonable to claim a car advantage on the year for EITHER team as there clearly has not been a consistent car advantage for either of them. The fact that Mercedes are behind both Ferrari and Red Bull of late would suggest that a much stronger case could be made for Ferrari being the stronger car overall (if you had to pick one).

Sorry, I just can't agree on Spain, for reasons given above. Other than that, I can agree on the rest as regards clear advantage. But it still leaves those (e.g. Spa) where qualifying tips the balance again. Vettel referenced this at the British Grand Prix, where he called it a "game changer." When looking at car advantages I feel this cannot be overlooked, in which case for me the advantage over the year has clearly rested with Mercedes.

As regards the latest races, the only one going against conventional wisdom was Malaysia. The others were all predicted beforehand. I suppose you could add Spa, in that it was supposed to be an outright Mercedes track, but it ended up being more equal (apart from qualifying, obviously), but otherwise Malaysia has been the only surprise. So I think it's premature to speak of Mercedes being behind of late, as it could easily be an anomaly. Maybe the heat had something to do with it, as that tends to favour the Ferraris anyway?

I think the qualifying advantage is blown out of proportion to be honest. At least as it pertains to these two teams. Ferrari have a Q3 mode as well. A lot of the perception of Mercedes' qualifying advantage comes from Hamilton's laps in qualifying. In this last race, for example, there is no way that car should have been on pole (Q3 mode or not). Hamilton has been putting in some insane laps in qualifying this year; beating Bottas at times by nearly a second. I think the perception of this qualifying advantage would basically not even be there if there were two Bottas-level drivers at Mercedes. You've also ignored the race pace advantage for Ferrari. You cannot claim Mercedes' qualifying edge while ignoring Ferrari's race pace edge. That's an imbalanced way of looking at things.

I haven't ignored it. We've basically gone through a number of races in detail where we discussed them, while you're been saying that you think the cars are largely equal. So where now is this race pace advantage?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1882
mikeyg123 wrote:
Invade wrote:
An argument can easily be made that Lewis has figured out the car better as the season has progressed leaving his team-mate in the dust, implying that he was not as on it as Vettel at the beginning of the season which may skew some early season rankings - but is that Lewis' fault or the fault of the car if true?

A key point seems to me that when Merc hook is up, they are more clearly the best than any other team leading to Grand Chelems for Lewis and whatnot. However, it appears to be a somewhat fickle beast. Does that mean that the Mercedes the best car based on it typically having more potential but that the margin for error is so tight that it's common for them to lose out to Ferrari or can we assume that the teams have done equally well to extract what they can out of their packages, have even enough driver lineups, and yet it's lead to Merc having roughly a 100 point lead in the WCC. That's a big lead.

PS, a 118 point lead now: 503-385.

How does one reconcile such a huge WCC advantage and the cars being too close to call thus far?


Ferrari have lost around 75 points in the last race two races alone.... And Merc have probably gained 25ish. See how misleading the WCC table can be?


I do but does it cancel out everything else that has transpired thus far in the season? My basic thinking is that it's hard for me to see the Ferrari as actually being the better car thus far as a reasonable argument based on the WCC standings under the assumption that the driver pairings are roughly equal (which BTW is not something I'm claiming to assume myself).

So this is devil's advocate stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1882
mikeyg123 wrote:
Some talk of quali performance making the Merc sound unbeatable. It's 9/5 to Hamilton in his quali battle with Vettel. Had Seb been able to qualify yesterday it probably would have been 9/6.

Not exactly dominance....



Yeah, I think the qualifying over the last 5 races should have probably ended up 3-2 to Ferrari leading to a racing edge and equal or slight quali edge but we know what happened to poor Vettel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1882
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
An argument can easily be made that Lewis has figured out the car better as the season has progressed leaving his team-mate in the dust, implying that he was not as on it as Vettel at the beginning of the season which may skew some early season rankings - but is that Lewis' fault or the fault of the car if true?

A key point seems to me that when Merc hook is up, they are more clearly the best than any other team leading to Grand Chelems for Lewis and whatnot. However, it appears to be a somewhat fickle beast. Does that mean that the Mercedes the best car based on it typically having more potential but that the margin for error is so tight that it's common for them to lose out to Ferrari or can we assume that the teams have done equally well to extract what they can out of their packages, have even enough driver lineups, and yet it's lead to Merc having roughly a 100 point lead in the WCC. That's a big lead.

PS, a 118 point lead now: 503-385.

How does one reconcile such a huge WCC advantage and the cars being too close to call thus far?

Some valid points here but again, quite one-sided. Certainly Ferrari seemed unable to extract the potential from their car in Italy for example. All leading to my position that any claim of superiority for either Mercedes or Ferrari on the season as a whole is not valid.



Yes, I agree that more or less, but just think that the extent of Mercedes dominance when they get it right creates an interesting illusion and conundrum which is maybe falsely bolstered by the current points totals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 185
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Singapore and Malaysia have been Mercedes's two worst circuits over the last four years, and they coincidentally are in the same region of the world. Malaysia has the highest temperatures, and this season's Mercedes in particular has a particularly narrow operating window when it comes to tyres. If they continue to have the problems when they return to more typical climate then we can suggest they are in crisis, but at the moment I think it is a blip.

The Red Bull was clearly a superior race car to them today, and the Ferrari appeared to be in a different league - but as it was pointed out earlier Mercedes were fairly amazing at Silverstone... at the exact opposite end of the track temperature scale. Japan will probably be closer to typical European temperatures, but after that it will prove to be a lottery.


Yeah, James Allen holds a similar view:

"Mercedes were down after the race and the debrief went on an hour longer than scheduled, as they sought to understand why the car did the same thing as in Bahrain in April. On a hot track with certain types of corner the car slides, overheads the surface of the tyre and that destroys the grid. It wasn’t a problem in qualifying because that took place at 1700 local time, when it was cooler. The race was 1500 and heat was a problem."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27867
SR1 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Singapore and Malaysia have been Mercedes's two worst circuits over the last four years, and they coincidentally are in the same region of the world. Malaysia has the highest temperatures, and this season's Mercedes in particular has a particularly narrow operating window when it comes to tyres. If they continue to have the problems when they return to more typical climate then we can suggest they are in crisis, but at the moment I think it is a blip.

The Red Bull was clearly a superior race car to them today, and the Ferrari appeared to be in a different league - but as it was pointed out earlier Mercedes were fairly amazing at Silverstone... at the exact opposite end of the track temperature scale. Japan will probably be closer to typical European temperatures, but after that it will prove to be a lottery.


Yeah, James Allen holds a similar view:

"Mercedes were down after the race and the debrief went on an hour longer than scheduled, as they sought to understand why the car did the same thing as in Bahrain in April. On a hot track with certain types of corner the car slides, overheads the surface of the tyre and that destroys the grid. It wasn’t a problem in qualifying because that took place at 1700 local time, when it was cooler. The race was 1500 and heat was a problem."

Hopefully the problem is only specific to those two tracks then.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1731
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Migen wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

Does it becomes a "fact" automatically just because its the endorsed opinion of a Hamilton fan?

How things change. There was some outcry after the very 1st race, mainly from Hamilton fans due to Hamilton's failure to overtake Verstappen which ultimately cost him the win in Australia that, its impossible to overtake, track position is king ect... but now you guys are trying hard to strip away the importance of qualifying (track position) out of it when it comes to who has the faster car? Isnt that a little too convenient?

This isn't about groups of fans vs. groups of fans. If you disagree, then explain which of those circuits you think my conclusion was incorrect on. And for god's sake consider context! There are SOME circuits where track position is king. There are SOME circuits where overtaking is nearly impossible. That doesn't apply to EVERY circuit on the calendar.

For tracks like that, you would probably take a small deficit in race pace in order to have the edge in qualifying but at a track like Malaysia, for example, you want to have the fastest RACE car.

The only races where the Ferrari was clearly faster were Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia. And all of those were pretty much anticipated at the start of the season, with the sole exception of Malaysia. Clearly, Mercedes performed below expectations here, but it's a little early to say it's a trend.

For the rest of the races, Mercedes were either quicker, or it was close. But even when they weren't noticeably quicker, they still often had the qualifying advantage that gave them an additional edge, such as at Spa.

All in all the advantage has lain with Mercedes for the bulk of the season

You're forgetting Spain, Russia, Bahrain, China, Australia; all races where Ferrari were faster on race day.

I guess it's down to the perception that, when your strength happens to be your power unit, that is somehow a different level of advantage. I think the Ferrari chassis is fundamentally superior but the Mercedes PU is better (especially in Q3 mode). Only the real engine circuits give Mercedes an edge. We've now reached a stage where, on aero circuits, they are behind not just Ferrari but Red Bull as well. Ferrari, by comparison, are fast everywhere. Monza was the only circuit where they seemed lost.

Anyway, I am still not claiming that Ferrari have the better car on the season. I'm simply pointing out how absurd it is to say that Mercedes have. The cars are closely matched, end of story really.


I'd actually go ahead and claim that. Ferrari is clearly better of the two. If I were Mercedes I'd be very worried right now. I can easily see Red Bull and Ferrari both beating Mercedes at Suzuka.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5444
Invade wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
An argument can easily be made that Lewis has figured out the car better as the season has progressed leaving his team-mate in the dust, implying that he was not as on it as Vettel at the beginning of the season which may skew some early season rankings - but is that Lewis' fault or the fault of the car if true?

A key point seems to me that when Merc hook is up, they are more clearly the best than any other team leading to Grand Chelems for Lewis and whatnot. However, it appears to be a somewhat fickle beast. Does that mean that the Mercedes the best car based on it typically having more potential but that the margin for error is so tight that it's common for them to lose out to Ferrari or can we assume that the teams have done equally well to extract what they can out of their packages, have even enough driver lineups, and yet it's lead to Merc having roughly a 100 point lead in the WCC. That's a big lead.

PS, a 118 point lead now: 503-385.

How does one reconcile such a huge WCC advantage and the cars being too close to call thus far?

Some valid points here but again, quite one-sided. Certainly Ferrari seemed unable to extract the potential from their car in Italy for example. All leading to my position that any claim of superiority for either Mercedes or Ferrari on the season as a whole is not valid.



Yes, I agree that more or less, but just think that the extent of Mercedes dominance when they get it right creates an interesting illusion and conundrum which is maybe falsely bolstered by the current points totals.

I think Monza is really the only circuit where Mercedes seemed to be totally dominant. This last race in Malaysia would have been just as dominant for Ferrari had they not had all those technical issues with the engines. I don't think Mercedes have looked more dominant when they are on it. I think it has been about equal in that regard. Certainly the Mercs never got a sniff in Monaco and couldn't do anything about the Ferraris in Hungary despite the fact that Vettel was nursing an injured car the whole time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5444
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Sigh, really? Making things up and putting words in other people's mouths does nothing to further the discussion. To address the races in question:

China-Vettel ended up stuck in traffic for much of this race while Hamilton was out in front. From the time Vettel got past Raikkonen and Ricciardo, he was clearly the fastest man on track. Hamilton's comments were that he was pushing flat out through the end of the race to maintain his lead (though the lead was still diminishing).

Spain- Vettel admittedly dropped pole here due to a minor mistake in qualifying. The qualifying margin was still less than a tenth of a second and Mercedes are stronger relative to Ferrari on Saturday than they are on Sunday. Hamilton won the race primarily due to strategy. Mercedes used the faster tire for their final stint while Ferrari were on the slower tire. That combined with the VSC eliminating some of Vettel's gap (again down to strategy as Ferrari could have pitted Vettel during the VSC too if they wanted to) gave Lewis the chance to win the race. On raw pace, Ferrari had the edge there (as you would expect considering the characteristics of the cirucuit).

Russia-This one is really debatable but I think evidence suggests that, during the race, Ferrari were at least as fast as Mercedes if not quicker. The race certainly ended with Vettel breathing down Bottas's neck and complaining about traffic getting in the way while Raikkonen gapped Hamilton in third. We're talking about race pace guys. Not who can squeeze out the fastest single lap.

Belgium-This one is pretty obvious actually. Ferrari had quicker long run pace all through practice and Vettel was visibly held up by Hamilton during the race; unable to make the pass the couple of times he had a go. Because he was unable to get into the lead and into clean air, we don't have concrete proof that he would have turned quicker lap times but the fact that Hamilton was never able to pull any kind of gap indicates that he couldn't do so. It is certainly not safe to have the car behind within striking distance to undercut you in the pits. Much the same can be said for Australia where Hamilton was unable to pull any kind of gap to Vettel; who was breathing down his neck from the moment the lights went out.

Anyway, let's say we call these races debatable. We're left with several races where it was very close and only a handful where either team was in a position of substantial supremacy. Canada, Austria, England, Baku and Monza for Mercedes. Spain, Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia for Ferrari. These are the ones that are pretty much no-doubters. There are the same number for both teams. For the other races, in general you would loosely say that Mercedes perhaps has a slight edge on Saturday and that Ferrari perhaps has a slight edge on Sunday.

The main point is that it is unreasonable to claim a car advantage on the year for EITHER team as there clearly has not been a consistent car advantage for either of them. The fact that Mercedes are behind both Ferrari and Red Bull of late would suggest that a much stronger case could be made for Ferrari being the stronger car overall (if you had to pick one).

Sorry, I just can't agree on Spain, for reasons given above. Other than that, I can agree on the rest as regards clear advantage. But it still leaves those (e.g. Spa) where qualifying tips the balance again. Vettel referenced this at the British Grand Prix, where he called it a "game changer." When looking at car advantages I feel this cannot be overlooked, in which case for me the advantage over the year has clearly rested with Mercedes.

As regards the latest races, the only one going against conventional wisdom was Malaysia. The others were all predicted beforehand. I suppose you could add Spa, in that it was supposed to be an outright Mercedes track, but it ended up being more equal (apart from qualifying, obviously), but otherwise Malaysia has been the only surprise. So I think it's premature to speak of Mercedes being behind of late, as it could easily be an anomaly. Maybe the heat had something to do with it, as that tends to favour the Ferraris anyway?

I think the qualifying advantage is blown out of proportion to be honest. At least as it pertains to these two teams. Ferrari have a Q3 mode as well. A lot of the perception of Mercedes' qualifying advantage comes from Hamilton's laps in qualifying. In this last race, for example, there is no way that car should have been on pole (Q3 mode or not). Hamilton has been putting in some insane laps in qualifying this year; beating Bottas at times by nearly a second. I think the perception of this qualifying advantage would basically not even be there if there were two Bottas-level drivers at Mercedes. You've also ignored the race pace advantage for Ferrari. You cannot claim Mercedes' qualifying edge while ignoring Ferrari's race pace edge. That's an imbalanced way of looking at things.

I haven't ignored it. We've basically gone through a number of races in detail where we discussed them, while you're been saying that you think the cars are largely equal. So where now is this race pace advantage?

What I said was that they were about equal with Mercedes perhaps having a slight edge on Saturday while Ferrari perhaps has a slight edge on Sunday. You seem to be claiming that they are equal on Sunday but with Mercedes having an advantage on Saturday. I totally disagree with this. I think Ferrari have generally been faster in the races. I also would reiterate that the qualifying edge is not nearly what you make it out to be. Both teams have a Q3 engine mode and I do think that Mercedes' mode is more substantial but I don't think it's giving them more than 1 or 2 tenths over Ferrari's version at this point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:43 am 
Invade wrote:
,... and yet it's lead to Merc having roughly a 100 point lead in the WCC. That's a big lead.

PS, a 118 point lead now: 503-385.

How does one reconcile such a huge WCC advantage and the cars being too close to call thus far?


That is largely almost all down to DNFs and some of them at the worst possible times. Ferrari have had 3 DNFs and a back row start in 2 races that likely would have been 1-2's or at least double podiums with both cars ahead of both Mercedes. Singapore and Malaysia. That is about 60-70 point swing on its own, not to mention the total DNF stats.

Total DNFS;

Lewis;0
Bottas;1 (engine)

Kimi;4 (3 collisions, engine)
Vettel;1 (collision)

5-1 in DNFs. 1-1 in mechanical DNFs, so its actually driver and not car related. The cars are pretty equal on reliability overall now. Ferrari having held the reliability advantage all season until Malaysia.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
SR1 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Singapore and Malaysia have been Mercedes's two worst circuits over the last four years, and they coincidentally are in the same region of the world. Malaysia has the highest temperatures, and this season's Mercedes in particular has a particularly narrow operating window when it comes to tyres. If they continue to have the problems when they return to more typical climate then we can suggest they are in crisis, but at the moment I think it is a blip.

The Red Bull was clearly a superior race car to them today, and the Ferrari appeared to be in a different league - but as it was pointed out earlier Mercedes were fairly amazing at Silverstone... at the exact opposite end of the track temperature scale. Japan will probably be closer to typical European temperatures, but after that it will prove to be a lottery.


Yeah, James Allen holds a similar view:

"Mercedes were down after the race and the debrief went on an hour longer than scheduled, as they sought to understand why the car did the same thing as in Bahrain in April. On a hot track with certain types of corner the car slides, overheads the surface of the tyre and that destroys the grid. It wasn’t a problem in qualifying because that took place at 1700 local time, when it was cooler. The race was 1500 and heat was a problem."

Hopefully the problem is only specific to those two tracks then.

I'd be genuinely surprised if it wasn't. I think people are panicking way too early and I expect normal service will be resumed shortly. It's probably a throwback to the car being a diva to set up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Sigh, really? Making things up and putting words in other people's mouths does nothing to further the discussion. To address the races in question:

China-Vettel ended up stuck in traffic for much of this race while Hamilton was out in front. From the time Vettel got past Raikkonen and Ricciardo, he was clearly the fastest man on track. Hamilton's comments were that he was pushing flat out through the end of the race to maintain his lead (though the lead was still diminishing).

Spain- Vettel admittedly dropped pole here due to a minor mistake in qualifying. The qualifying margin was still less than a tenth of a second and Mercedes are stronger relative to Ferrari on Saturday than they are on Sunday. Hamilton won the race primarily due to strategy. Mercedes used the faster tire for their final stint while Ferrari were on the slower tire. That combined with the VSC eliminating some of Vettel's gap (again down to strategy as Ferrari could have pitted Vettel during the VSC too if they wanted to) gave Lewis the chance to win the race. On raw pace, Ferrari had the edge there (as you would expect considering the characteristics of the cirucuit).

Russia-This one is really debatable but I think evidence suggests that, during the race, Ferrari were at least as fast as Mercedes if not quicker. The race certainly ended with Vettel breathing down Bottas's neck and complaining about traffic getting in the way while Raikkonen gapped Hamilton in third. We're talking about race pace guys. Not who can squeeze out the fastest single lap.

Belgium-This one is pretty obvious actually. Ferrari had quicker long run pace all through practice and Vettel was visibly held up by Hamilton during the race; unable to make the pass the couple of times he had a go. Because he was unable to get into the lead and into clean air, we don't have concrete proof that he would have turned quicker lap times but the fact that Hamilton was never able to pull any kind of gap indicates that he couldn't do so. It is certainly not safe to have the car behind within striking distance to undercut you in the pits. Much the same can be said for Australia where Hamilton was unable to pull any kind of gap to Vettel; who was breathing down his neck from the moment the lights went out.

Anyway, let's say we call these races debatable. We're left with several races where it was very close and only a handful where either team was in a position of substantial supremacy. Canada, Austria, England, Baku and Monza for Mercedes. Spain, Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia for Ferrari. These are the ones that are pretty much no-doubters. There are the same number for both teams. For the other races, in general you would loosely say that Mercedes perhaps has a slight edge on Saturday and that Ferrari perhaps has a slight edge on Sunday.

The main point is that it is unreasonable to claim a car advantage on the year for EITHER team as there clearly has not been a consistent car advantage for either of them. The fact that Mercedes are behind both Ferrari and Red Bull of late would suggest that a much stronger case could be made for Ferrari being the stronger car overall (if you had to pick one).

Sorry, I just can't agree on Spain, for reasons given above. Other than that, I can agree on the rest as regards clear advantage. But it still leaves those (e.g. Spa) where qualifying tips the balance again. Vettel referenced this at the British Grand Prix, where he called it a "game changer." When looking at car advantages I feel this cannot be overlooked, in which case for me the advantage over the year has clearly rested with Mercedes.

As regards the latest races, the only one going against conventional wisdom was Malaysia. The others were all predicted beforehand. I suppose you could add Spa, in that it was supposed to be an outright Mercedes track, but it ended up being more equal (apart from qualifying, obviously), but otherwise Malaysia has been the only surprise. So I think it's premature to speak of Mercedes being behind of late, as it could easily be an anomaly. Maybe the heat had something to do with it, as that tends to favour the Ferraris anyway?

I think the qualifying advantage is blown out of proportion to be honest. At least as it pertains to these two teams. Ferrari have a Q3 mode as well. A lot of the perception of Mercedes' qualifying advantage comes from Hamilton's laps in qualifying. In this last race, for example, there is no way that car should have been on pole (Q3 mode or not). Hamilton has been putting in some insane laps in qualifying this year; beating Bottas at times by nearly a second. I think the perception of this qualifying advantage would basically not even be there if there were two Bottas-level drivers at Mercedes. You've also ignored the race pace advantage for Ferrari. You cannot claim Mercedes' qualifying edge while ignoring Ferrari's race pace edge. That's an imbalanced way of looking at things.

I haven't ignored it. We've basically gone through a number of races in detail where we discussed them, while you're been saying that you think the cars are largely equal. So where now is this race pace advantage?

What I said was that they were about equal with Mercedes perhaps having a slight edge on Saturday while Ferrari perhaps has a slight edge on Sunday. You seem to be claiming that they are equal on Sunday but with Mercedes having an advantage on Saturday. I totally disagree with this. I think Ferrari have generally been faster in the races. I also would reiterate that the qualifying edge is not nearly what you make it out to be. Both teams have a Q3 engine mode and I do think that Mercedes' mode is more substantial but I don't think it's giving them more than 1 or 2 tenths over Ferrari's version at this point.

OK, see what you are saying now. Was a bit stumped for a while.

I don't agree that the Ferraris have a race pace edge, for reasons already stated. But it's clear that there's enough ambiguity to warrant two diametrically opposed views, since we appear to have polar opposite views on the cars' relative race pace. I hope we can at least agree that neither can be claimed as fact?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1882
Zoue, are you expecting Mercedes to be ahead on aggregate from here on? How close do you suspect Red Bull will be to Mercedes and Ferrari for the rest of the season?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Invade wrote:
Zoue, are you expecting Mercedes to be ahead on aggregate from here on? How close do you suspect Red Bull will be to Mercedes and Ferrari for the rest of the season?

I am expecting Mercedes to be ahead, yes. I think these last couple of tracks have never played to Mercedes' strengths and the doom and gloom is being grossly exaggerated. It's still Mercedes' title(s) to lose IMO.

For the same reason, I suspect Red Bull's resurgence is also being exaggerated. Last year they were pretty good at Malaysia, too, don't forget. If it rains in Japan I expect them to be strong, but otherwise I'm reasonably confident normal service will be resumed.

As regards Ferrari, I think they will still be close to Mercedes but I haven't seen any evidence they have leap-frogged them in the development battle. Let's not forget after Italy, just three races ago, everybody was saying how Mercedes had suddenly surged ahead and left Ferrari behind. Two bad races later, on tracks which have never been great for Mercedes (they've only actually ever won Malaysia once throughout their otherwise-dominant turbo era, while their record at Singapore has not been much better), and suddenly they're in trouble? I don't buy it, I'm afraid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1882
Zoue wrote:
Invade wrote:
Zoue, are you expecting Mercedes to be ahead on aggregate from here on? How close do you suspect Red Bull will be to Mercedes and Ferrari for the rest of the season?

I am expecting Mercedes to be ahead, yes. I think these last couple of tracks have never played to Mercedes' strengths and the doom and gloom is being grossly exaggerated. It's still Mercedes' title(s) to lose IMO.

For the same reason, I suspect Red Bull's resurgence is also being exaggerated. Last year they were pretty good at Malaysia, too, don't forget. If it rains in Japan I expect them to be strong, but otherwise I'm reasonably confident normal service will be resumed.

As regards Ferrari, I think they will still be close to Mercedes but I haven't seen any evidence they have leap-frogged them in the development battle. Let's not forget after Italy, just three races ago, everybody was saying how Mercedes had suddenly surged ahead and left Ferrari behind. Two bad races later, on tracks which have never been great for Mercedes (they've only actually ever won Malaysia once throughout their otherwise-dominant turbo era, while their record at Singapore has not been much better), and suddenly they're in trouble? I don't buy it, I'm afraid.


Ferrari do have working upgrades though and there's a quick turnaround for Mercedes to make their own work. I don't see any way in which Ferrari can get far enough ahead of Mercedes to be favourites for the titles. I'm pretty sure it's in the hands of Mercedes at this stage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:24 am 
Mercedes were actually quite weak in Japan last year. Verstappen finished the race 5 seconds behind Rosberg and ahead of the recovering Hamilton. Kimi was also only 0.3 off of pole. If anything, Mercedes were weaker in Japan last year than Malaysia.

I could see Japan go either way, 1) Mercedes 1-2 or close to it or 2) Ferrari and Red Bull being as quick


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
Here's the average speed of each renaming circuit, based on 2016 qualifying times. Note that all speeds are in km/h and that all these qualifying sessions were dry.

Suzuka: 231
COTA: 234
Mexico: 197
Interlagos: 219
Abu Dhabi: 202

For further comparison, here are the average speeds of the previous four rounds (again, same rules):

Spa: 236
Monza: 257
Singapore: 178
Malaysia: 215


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
It seems to me that when the average speed is over 230-ish, we go away from Ferrari and into Mercedes territory.

None of the remaining circuits are tracks that blatantly favor one car (like Monaco or Monza). I'd hazard to guess that Merc will have an advantage in Japan and Ferrari in Mexico, but other than that it's unclear.

The real question will be how much difference the 10 extra horsepower Ferrari's new engine provides will make. We haven't seen it in qualifying yet.


Last edited by KingVoid on Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
lamo wrote:
Mercedes were actually quite weak in Japan last year. Verstappen finished the race 5 seconds behind Rosberg and ahead of the recovering Hamilton. Kimi was also only 0.3 off of pole. If anything, Mercedes were weaker in Japan last year than Malaysia.

I could see Japan go either way, 1) Mercedes 1-2 or close to it or 2) Ferrari and Red Bull being as quick

It was changeable conditions, though, which tends to level the field. Depends what the forecast is for this weekend


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:36 am 
KingVoid wrote:
It seems to me that when the average speed is over 230-ish, we go away from Ferrari and into Mercedes territory.

The real question will be how much difference the 10 extra horsepower Ferrari's new engine provides will make. We haven't seen it in qualifying yet.


Interesting data. Spa race day seems like the big anomaly in all this


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Mercedes were actually quite weak in Japan last year. Verstappen finished the race 5 seconds behind Rosberg and ahead of the recovering Hamilton. Kimi was also only 0.3 off of pole. If anything, Mercedes were weaker in Japan last year than Malaysia.

I could see Japan go either way, 1) Mercedes 1-2 or close to it or 2) Ferrari and Red Bull being as quick

It was changeable conditions, though, which tends to level the field. Depends what the forecast is for this weekend

I don't remember any rain in either qualifying or the race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:38 am 
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Mercedes were actually quite weak in Japan last year. Verstappen finished the race 5 seconds behind Rosberg and ahead of the recovering Hamilton. Kimi was also only 0.3 off of pole. If anything, Mercedes were weaker in Japan last year than Malaysia.

I could see Japan go either way, 1) Mercedes 1-2 or close to it or 2) Ferrari and Red Bull being as quick

It was changeable conditions, though, which tends to level the field. Depends what the forecast is for this weekend


Was it? Qualifying wasn't judging by the times. Didn't the race start a tiny bit damp for the first couple of laps only. I know some grid slots were wet and some weren't, that is all I can remember.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
lamo wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
It seems to me that when the average speed is over 230-ish, we go away from Ferrari and into Mercedes territory.

The real question will be how much difference the 10 extra horsepower Ferrari's new engine provides will make. We haven't seen it in qualifying yet.


Interesting data. Spa race day seems like the big anomaly in all this

Not in qualifying, though. Mercedes enjoyed a comprehensive advantage, which would tend to fit with the above. Strange that they couldn't maintain that in the race


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Mercedes were actually quite weak in Japan last year. Verstappen finished the race 5 seconds behind Rosberg and ahead of the recovering Hamilton. Kimi was also only 0.3 off of pole. If anything, Mercedes were weaker in Japan last year than Malaysia.

I could see Japan go either way, 1) Mercedes 1-2 or close to it or 2) Ferrari and Red Bull being as quick

It was changeable conditions, though, which tends to level the field. Depends what the forecast is for this weekend


Was it? Qualifying wasn't judging by the times. Didn't the race start a tiny bit damp for the first couple of laps only. I know some grid slots were wet and some weren't, that is all I can remember.

Lewis lost a bunch of positions at the start, which was reportedly at least in part due to him starting on a damp patch (although to be fair, he said that wasn't an issue). Was giving him the benefit of the doubt. But in any event, it meant him being stuck in traffic and having to fight his way through the field. Rosberg did enough to bring his car home and was never under threat. If Lewis hadn't had a bad start it probably would have been an easy 1-2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
KingVoid wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Mercedes were actually quite weak in Japan last year. Verstappen finished the race 5 seconds behind Rosberg and ahead of the recovering Hamilton. Kimi was also only 0.3 off of pole. If anything, Mercedes were weaker in Japan last year than Malaysia.

I could see Japan go either way, 1) Mercedes 1-2 or close to it or 2) Ferrari and Red Bull being as quick

It was changeable conditions, though, which tends to level the field. Depends what the forecast is for this weekend

I don't remember any rain in either qualifying or the race.

It was before the start. The track was damp in patches at the beginning, which impacted a few starts. Should have made that clear


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:06 am 
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Mercedes were actually quite weak in Japan last year. Verstappen finished the race 5 seconds behind Rosberg and ahead of the recovering Hamilton. Kimi was also only 0.3 off of pole. If anything, Mercedes were weaker in Japan last year than Malaysia.

I could see Japan go either way, 1) Mercedes 1-2 or close to it or 2) Ferrari and Red Bull being as quick

It was changeable conditions, though, which tends to level the field. Depends what the forecast is for this weekend


Was it? Qualifying wasn't judging by the times. Didn't the race start a tiny bit damp for the first couple of laps only. I know some grid slots were wet and some weren't, that is all I can remember.

Lewis lost a bunch of positions at the start, which was reportedly at least in part due to him starting on a damp patch (although to be fair, he said that wasn't an issue). Was giving him the benefit of the doubt. But in any event, it meant him being stuck in traffic and having to fight his way through the field. Rosberg did enough to bring his car home and was never under threat. If Lewis hadn't had a bad start it probably would have been an easy 1-2


Yes it would have been a 1-2 but so would every single race without start line and reliability issues, but the gap to the 3rd place car would have been smaller than in Malaysia 2016 and one of the smallest of the season.

The qualifying gap (Mercedes to none Mercedes) was off the top of my head I believe the 3rd smallest all year with only Monaco and Spa being closer. Which might explain why Spa was a bit of an anomaly this year, maybe that isn't such a big Mercedes track after all.

Japan was one of Mercedes weakest tracks last year. COTA was back to more normal, pole by 0.5 and won the race a lot more comfortably. 20 seconds.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2955
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 89580.html

Well worth translating and having a read. It mentions Mercedes have been the quickest car in one grand prix since the summer which is Monza.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
What a heroic drive it was from Hamilton to win in Belgium with such a terrible car disadvantage.

Seriously, the fact that so many people on here want to give Spa to Ferrari shows just how low the standards are for Ferrari to have the fastest car.

That's like me giving Hungary to Mercedes on the basis that Hamilton's speed advantage when he cleared Bottas was just as big as Ferrari's advantage at the start of the race (when Vettel's car was healthy), and completely ignoring qualifying and track position.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2955
KingVoid wrote:
What a heroic drive it was from Hamilton to win in Belgium with such a terrible car disadvantage.

Seriously, the fact that so many people on here want to give Spa to Ferrari shows just how low the standards are for Ferrari to have the fastest car.

That's like me giving Hungary to Mercedes on the basis that Hamilton's speed advantage when he cleared Bottas was just as big as Ferrari's advantage at the start of the race (when Vettel's car was healthy), and completely ignoring qualifying and track position.


Every race report I read said Ferrari was the better race car.
You literally have to go overboard and make out the Ferrari was like the last 3 years. No one has made out the Mercedes had a terrible car disadvantage apart from you.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
F1_Ernie wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
What a heroic drive it was from Hamilton to win in Belgium with such a terrible car disadvantage.

Seriously, the fact that so many people on here want to give Spa to Ferrari shows just how low the standards are for Ferrari to have the fastest car.

That's like me giving Hungary to Mercedes on the basis that Hamilton's speed advantage when he cleared Bottas was just as big as Ferrari's advantage at the start of the race (when Vettel's car was healthy), and completely ignoring qualifying and track position.


Every race report I read said Ferrari was the better race car.
You literally have to go overboard and make out the Ferrari was like the last 3 years. No one has made out the Mercedes had a terrible car disadvantage apart from you.


I suspect 90% of that, was english speaking journos.

Also the Ferrari was so good in Spa on race day the only time it had a chance of passing was a SC restart when Hamilton was in the wrong mode.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5444
KingVoid wrote:
What a heroic drive it was from Hamilton to win in Belgium with such a terrible car disadvantage.

Seriously, the fact that so many people on here want to give Spa to Ferrari shows just how low the standards are for Ferrari to have the fastest car.

That's like me giving Hungary to Mercedes on the basis that Hamilton's speed advantage when he cleared Bottas was just as big as Ferrari's advantage at the start of the race (when Vettel's car was healthy), and completely ignoring qualifying and track position.

No it's not at all like that. If you look at pretty much any analysis of the race itself, it confirms that Ferrari were a bit faster on race pace. Particularly towards the end of stints, Mercedes dropped off significantly while Ferrari maintained much longer.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/08/ ... mate-feud/
This is one of the more comprehensive breakdowns of the weekend and it outlines that Most of the advantage Mercedes had in qualifying was owed to simply doing an extra run (and using an extra set of Ultrasofts). That's how they got pole; by prioritizing it. Ferrari prioritized having an extra set of Ultras for the race. On pace, they were quicker. Hamilton said as much after the race.
https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/08/28 ... y-quicker/

Of course you'll probably say that Hamilton was lying or something along those lines. Though when he makes a comment defending Vettel's driving at the start in Singapore you appeal to his authority...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
F1_Ernie wrote:
Every race report I read said Ferrari was the better race car.

Most of these journos don't know anything the average forumer doesn't know. They watch the race, look at the lap times, listen to interviews given by people like Wolff and Hamilton (both who downplay their car, but for different motives). Then come to a conclusion. Plus more often than not, there's an agenda there too.

Mercedes was half a second quicker in qualifying (the only reason Vettel ever got so close in Q3 was because of slipstream), then was always able to keep the Ferrari over a second behind apart from a safety car restart. But sure, keep telling yourself that Lewis won with an inferior car if it makes you feel better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2955
Rockie wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
What a heroic drive it was from Hamilton to win in Belgium with such a terrible car disadvantage.

Seriously, the fact that so many people on here want to give Spa to Ferrari shows just how low the standards are for Ferrari to have the fastest car.

That's like me giving Hungary to Mercedes on the basis that Hamilton's speed advantage when he cleared Bottas was just as big as Ferrari's advantage at the start of the race (when Vettel's car was healthy), and completely ignoring qualifying and track position.


Every race report I read said Ferrari was the better race car.
You literally have to go overboard and make out the Ferrari was like the last 3 years. No one has made out the Mercedes had a terrible car disadvantage apart from you.


I suspect 90% of that, was english speaking journos.

Also the Ferrari was so good in Spa on race day the only time it had a chance of passing was a SC restart when Hamilton was in the wrong mode.


Do you know how difficult it is for similar cars to overtake? Do you forget Mercedes set the car up specially for the straights to defend. Pretty simple things in racing and specially under these regs. Such poor points when its common knowledge how hard it is to overtake. No doubt Vettel would have been quicker if he was in front.

Doesn't matter if the journos are English or not. Amus do power rankings after every race and had the Ferrari fastest.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2955
KingVoid wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Every race report I read said Ferrari was the better race car.

Most of these journos don't know anything the average forumer doesn't know. They watch the race, look at the lap times, listen to interviews given by people like Wolff and Hamilton (both who downplay their car, but for different motives). Then come to a conclusion. Plus more often than not, there's an agenda there too.

Mercedes was half a second quicker in qualifying (the only reason Vettel ever got so close in Q3 was because of slipstream), then was always able to keep the Ferrari over a second behind apart from a safety car restart. But sure, keep telling yourself that Lewis won with an inferior car if it makes you feel better.


Here we go, journos have agendas blah blah blah. Usual rubbishcomes out.

You can win grand prixs in slightly slower cars. You are the one who keeps making it the difference is massive.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Last edited by F1_Ernie on Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2955
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repor ... rix-report

Mark Hughes saying the Ferrari was quicker. How the SC helped Hamilton with a tyre suffering from blistering and Ferrari looks after its tyres better.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
sandman1347 wrote:
No it's not at all like that. If you look at pretty much any analysis of the race itself, it confirms that Ferrari were a bit faster on race pace. Particularly towards the end of stints, Mercedes dropped off significantly while Ferrari maintained much longer.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/08/ ... mate-feud/
This is one of the more comprehensive breakdowns of the weekend and it outlines that Most of the advantage Mercedes had in qualifying was owed to simply doing an extra run (and using an extra set of Ultrasofts). That's how they got pole; by prioritizing it. Ferrari prioritized having an extra set of Ultras for the race. On pace, they were quicker. Hamilton said as much after the race.
https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/08/28 ... y-quicker/

You don't gain half a second by doing an extra run on ultrasoft. Hamilton was half a second faster than Vettel on his first run in Q3, and then should have been half a second quicker than Vettel again on his second run, if it wasn't because of Vettel gaining 0.200s thanks to slipstream. This is not an advantage that an extra run can give you.

Image
source:f1fanatic

You claim that Mercedes dropped off significantly at the end of the stint, yet the 1.773s advantage Hamilton enjoyed over Vettel just before he pitted at the end of lap 11 was the biggest his advantage was in that entire stint. Similarly, there was no sign of any drop-off in Hamilton's second stint just before the safety car. He had a 1.953s advantage over Vettel just before the SC came out on lap 30, which was (again) the biggest advantage he enjoyed all stint.

In the final stint, Hamilton was on softs and Vettel was on ultrasofts. The US should have been in theory 1.4 seconds quicker than the soft, yet Vettel was still easily able to keep Hamilton at armslength. Vettel never even seriously threatened Hamilton even with DRS.

Keep telling yourself Ferrari was quicker though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
F1_Ernie wrote:
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2017-belgian-grand-prix-report

Mark Hughes saying the Ferrari was quicker. How the SC helped Hamilton with a tyre suffering from blistering and Ferrari looks after its tyres better.

Mark Hughes :lol:

He's an even bigger Hamilton fan than James Allen, and that's some achievement, because the latter was basically chased away from commentary on Formula 1 because he became completely unbearable when Hamilton entered the sport.

You've just named some sources that do nothing different from what I do (listen to interviews and look at laptimes). They just feel the need to put a dishonest spin to it and make it seem like their national hero heroically won with an inferior car.


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: No registered users 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