planetf1.com

You seem to be taking this extremely personally and you are only looking at results. Results come from a combination of factors. They are not purely down to the car. Based on your way of looking at things, you would conclude that Mercedes were faster last weekend in Singapore. Instead of making emotional arguments, present some form of empirical support for your arguments.

In Belgium Hamilton was clearly holding Vettel up on pace. If Hamilton had the pace to open a gap, he would have opened one much like he did at Monza, Singapore or pretty much any race where he has had the pace to do so. The fact that he didn't gap Vettel means that he couldn't gap him. The Ferrari was quicker there during the race. Vettel just couldn't find a way around Hamilton. In no way was Hamilton quicker during the race. They had to be perfect with their strategy in order to maintain the lead and would have lost it had Vettel been able to pull off a pass or if Ferrari were able to execute the overcut.

In your last sentence you said Mercedes are generally as fast or faster during the race. Again, this is blatantly false. Read the race-by-race breakdowns that are listed in here and you will see that in the races this year Ferrari have been faster more often than not. Qualifying goes to Merc and some people would say that they would prefer the slight edge on Saturday over the slight edge on Sunday but you have to come back to reality in order to really engage in this conversation in a meaningful way. Your use of exaggerated statements here is bizarre.

This does not make Ferrari the best car of the weekend. Mercedes had 5 kmh more top speed than Ferrari on the kemmel straight, where Vettel constantly was losing 0.3 seconds relative to Mercedes. The dirty air made it extremely difficult to even get close to the car in front, much less pass him. Vettel only had two opportunities. The start and the restart, on both occasions he didn't have DRS, and the slipstream was not even enough to get him alongside before he began losing speed again.

And there have been occasions in the past where Hamilton has played games up front when he's clearly much quicker than the rest. China 2015 is the perfect example of this.




A car that has won 4 races this season is better on Sunday than a car that has won 9 races this season? The only way anyone could argue this is if they have a dishonest agenda and are trying to underhandedly elevate one driver and undermine the other. Which, let's be fair, is exactly what is going on here.

Yes, Ferrari probably should have won in Singapore had they not crashed. Guess what though? You can easily make a similar "what if" case for Mercedes in Australia, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan. Hungary and Monaco were just about the only races this season that Mercedes could not have won. Even in Monaco, Bottas was only 0.045 seconds from pole. Neither Mercedes or Ferrari have completely maximized their season, but after 14 races luck and mistakes usually even themselves out, and you get a realistic perception of who has the better car.

The fact is that Mercedes has won 9 races, and Ferrari has won 4. This is not because Hamilton is the greatest driver of all time, or because Ferrari sucks at team management. This is because, more often than not, Mercedes is the car to have over a race weekend.

Again your argument is basically, "Mercedes have won more races so they must be the better car." This is a flawed argument in that winning races is down to more factors than just the car. The team, strategy, drivers, luck, etc. all factor in. I refuse to have a discussion with someone who is not intellectually honest. I'm going to list out the tracks this year and which of the two had the most race pace. Let me know if you disagree.

Australia-Ferrari
China-Ferrari
Bahrain-Even
Russia-Ferrari
Barcelona-Ferrari
Monaco-Ferrari
Canada-Mercedes
Baku-Mercedes
Austria-Mercedes
England-Mercedes
Hungary-Ferrari
Spa-Ferrari
Italy-Mercedes
Singapore-Ferrari (based on FP1-3 and Qualifying)

Your very low standards of what makes the Ferrari the best car of the weekend opposed to what makes Mercedes the best car of the weekend shows glaring bias.

China - how? I've already explained this before. Mercedes was faster in qualifying. In the race, Vettel's gamble under the VSC did not pay off, but Hamilton never looked threatened and Vettel was never able to close the gap in any significant way until the end of the race when Hamilton was cruising. Bottas finished right behind Raikkonen despite spinning under the SC and losing a bunch of time.

Russia - Bottas would have been on pole had he strung his 3 best sectors together. He pulled 5.5 seconds on Vettel in the first half of the race, before his usual poor stint, but he still won. Hamilton had an unusual poor weekend. Had he been on it, easy Mercedes 1-2.

Spain - the only time Hamilton and Vettel were on the same tyres, Hamilton was more than keeping up with Vettel and even catching him in the latter half of the stint. After Vettel pitted, they went on different strategies so no more direct comparison.

Belgium - I've already extensively explained this. Mercedes was faster in qualifying which gave it track position advantage before the race even began. Mercedes had 5 kmh more top speed than Ferrari on the kemmel straight, where Vettel constantly was losing 0.3 seconds relative to Mercedes. The dirty air made it extremely difficult to even get close to the car in front, much less pass him. Vettel only had two opportunities. The start and the restart, on both occasions he didn't have DRS, and the slipstream was not even enough to get him alongside before he began losing speed again.

Your standards of what makes Ferrari the fastest car are simply much lower than what makes Mercedes the fastest car. That's the only way one can rationalize Ferrari being quicker.

Read my comment before you post. My comment was about race pace only....

Let's just agree to disagree.

Vettel couldn't get close at the best overtaking point, even with DRS. Mercedes' extra grunt saw to that. And I'm pretty sure Vettel said he couldn't have gone any faster than he did. I was there and although Vettel kept pace with Lewis, he wasn't exactly harrying him and there was plenty of air between the cars. It wasn't obvious to me that the Ferrari was the quicker car. It seemed to go by sector but overall there wasn't a lot in it.

In any event, I'm not sure I see that it matters. It's pretty uncontested that the Mercedes was definitely the car to have in qualifying, and at Spa that decided the race. So the Mercedes was the car to have in Belgium. Like at the majority of races.

The point made earlier not by you was the Mercedes was faster in the race. This is completely false. I read many articles saying Ferrari was faster and Hamilton himself said Ferrari was faster on race pace. All i'm saying Is Mercedes was no way the faster car on Sunday. Just because a car finishes 1st doesnt mean it was faster.

It was clear to me Hamilton was holding up Vettel. You would need to be so much quicker to even attempt an overtake let alone get past. The cars are too equal for that. It's basically the same as the last 3 years. Once you're in the dirty air you have no chance, your affected once you're within 5 seconds.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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

Man this thread has gone off topic over the last page and a half. But if I'm honest, I thought it was a bit much to predict what Rosberg would have done "if" he was here. He isn't so I really don't know. But some comparisons were interesting to read, but I don't really like guessing when I know it isn't happening. I'm not sure if I'd rather see this thread argue about Mercedes's and Ferrari's pace or go back on topic!

I agree with you that the cars are too close generally to allow them many chances to overtake. But doesn't that just reinforce the importance of qualifying? It's no good being (maybe) slightly faster in the race if you don't get the opportunity to use the extra pace you may have. Spa is a near text-book example of that. If your car is better on Saturday, then that gives you a clear advantage on Sunday. Which means the better car to have at the weekend is the one that gives you that edge?

I'm in no way saying that's a fait accompli, BTW. Clearly, both Vettel and Hamilton have to work at it and (to me at least) they appear quite evenly matched. But any advantage is still an advantage and for me it's been advantage Mercedes for the most part this season. And looking ahead to the remaining races that looks set to continue. Unless Ferrari can up their game on Saturday, it's a Mercedes title to lose

If anyone gives Belgium to Mercedes then by that thinking Spain is given to Ferrari because they held a bigger advantage there.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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

I was talking about race pace and regarding Mercedes being quicker in the race at Spa. Like I said before regarding 1 stoppers don't help Ferrari and any car with better race pace. 2 stoppers allow the car in 2nd to change strategy or react to the car in front. 1 stoppers benefit the car in 1st. Ferrari would have had the advantage in Spa but the SC really helped Mercedes.

Looking at just Sunday's there really isn't much in it between the cars. Last year Rosberg got applauded for having better starts and some even said they was great overtakes so the starts is one area Ferrari can beat Mercedes.

Maybe this discussion should be moved to another thread if needed.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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

Since this thread is essentially become Hamilton and Vettel, then I think its kind of irrelevant to just pick which car was better on each weekend. Its more relevant to say who of Hamilton or Vettels car was better for the weekend. For example in Austria, Hamilton + 5 place grid penalty moves the weekend toward Vettel having the better car.

In light of that, lets look at the maximum each driver could have got this year and how many points they would have in that scenario-

Hamilton:
Russia, he could have won here (+13 points)
Monaco, third was possible if he was on top form (+9)
Austria, starting at least 6th in a one stop race, 3rd would be absolute best (+3)
Hungary, should have got 3rd here (+3)

Hamilton is 28 points below delivering perfection from his package every weekend. That would make his 263 points become 291.

Vettel:
Canada, third, maybe even 2nd was possible but we will be generous and give him benefit of doubt for lap 1 collision. He came 4th

Baku, should have won once Hamilton's head rest came loose (+13 points)

GB, 2nd was possible with Bottas starting 8th. Its where Kimi would have finished. Got caught behind Max and had to go really aggressive with his 2nd stint length to undercut Max and then was too aggressive on his tyres defending against Bottas both of which meant his tyres are finished with 2 laps to go. If he had qualified 2nd (like Kimi) he would have had an easy P2 without tyre issues. (+12 points)

Singapore, the win was definitely possible. Poor start and then too aggressive (+25)

That has Vettel 50 points down on delivering perfection every weekend and would make his 235 into 285.

The Mercedes is the better car but given that Hamilton has had mechanical issues in two races it makes the season very even. If both had maximised I see the table looking something like 291-285 in Hamiltons favour at the moment.

Vettel has had a better car in; Baku, Austria, Hungary, Monaco, Singapore, Australia (6)
Hamilton has had a better car in; GB, Monza, Russia, Canada, Spa (5)
Close to call; China, Bahrain, Spain (3)

how?

In Baku Lewis qualified a full second ahead of the nearest Ferrari. The only thing that worked in Ferrari's favour was circumstance - i.e. Lewis' headrest working loose. As it is Vettel scraped over the line by two tenths of a second. I'm struggling to see how you could call the Ferrari a better car. Lewis had pole advantage and that monster straight meant the Ferraris were never going to get past without some luck

Vettel's car was better than Hamilton. You could argue Bottas' Merc was the car to have though but I think Lamo is only comparing Hamilton and Vettel.

Are we talking because of the headrest? Because I would class that more as luck than having a better car.

He's trying to isolate driver performance between the two of them so including something that was totally outside of the driver's control would be counter-productive. With the headrest issue as a given, Vettel had the better overall circumstance to win the race than Hamilton there even though the Mercedes was faster around the circuit.

Vettel lost around 6 seconds behind Bottas when his new soft tyres was at there quickest.
Vettel lost around 6 seconds due to the VSC and 2 seconds due to Hamilton's good outlap.
Vettels stint on the soft tyre was shortened due to the VSC, he would have done a longer middle stint on the soft tyres which would have extended the gap even more. This would have shortened the last stint on the medium slower tyres.
Hamilton wouldn't have won that race without luck. Ferrari had the faster car and alot more than Mercedes had over Ferrari at Spa which Mercedes clearly wasn't the faster car anyway.

So Ferrari was easier faster at Spain. I couldn't find anyone than a few people on here who said otherwise.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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

I'll check it out. But the fact you bring it up now suggests there's some controversy about that opinion?

Hmm, not sure I'd view it like that, but I see where you're going with it

I think its a more holistic view to consider these things than simple saying outright Mercedes had a quicker car in x y and z.

Austria and Baku show this papers over some keys issues. Vettel has also been bulletproof this year thus far and whilst the Mercedes is quicker we have Bottas on 1 DNF due to engine failure and a +5 grid penalty and Hamilton with a head rest issue and + grid penalty. Both have had a mechanical/car problem affect 1/7 of there races. It negates some of Ferrari's speed deficit.

If Bottas had finished in Spain, he would be 8 points behind Vettel now...

I simply can't leave this alone lamo. Your own analysis shows that you do not see a speed defecit for Ferrari on the whole for the season and yet you continue to post comments like this. The cognitive dissonance baffles me. Especially coming from you!

I can kind of see that from a fortune perspective, but not from a better car one. Might be semantics to some, but it makes it hard to justify for me. I'm more comfortable saying the Merc was better in Baku, but Vettel got lucky, than that Vettel had a better car. I think that misrepresents the situation and paints a picture somewhat different to reality.

It might have been the fastest car but "better car" is different. Maybe its better to phrase it "better position".

With regards to Better/faster car you only have to look at 2005 in the 4 races Kimi took his grid penalties. He had clearly the fastest car and would have won all 4, but he started them way back and Alonso beat him in all of them. Also over that season the Mclaren was clearly the fastest car but not the best car.

My speed analysis has Mercedes ahead 60% to 40% on pure speed on given weekends. That is a slender margin.

My Vettel-Hamilton analysis allowing for car problems moves it to 50-50.

Still going down the semantics road(!), the car wasn't poor mechanically, it just had a mechanic get sloppy in fastening the headrest. It had nothing to do with design flaws or tolerances. You could argue that part of the reason Kimi's McLaren was so quick was because they engineered everything to the nth degree and they compromised quality for performance. Therefore the mechanical fragility was a property of the car, in which case I'd agree it was fastest but not best. But I don't see that applies here. No mechanical compromises were made, it was just a momentary lack of care by a mechanic, so I see that differently and would still class the Merc as best over the weekend.

Mercedes said it was a design flaw and not a mechanic putting it in incorrectly. The foam expands as it gets hotter. The FIA stipulate before each session which foam should be used and this is decided by the temperature. There are 2 or 3 types.

Due to the unique circumstance of it coming out mid race and going back in, the foam had expanded due to a change in temperature and it became too big to fit in properly and the locking headers were no longer long enough to hold it properly. It was actually a design flaw and Mercedes for the next race had extended the the length of the fitting bolt so this can't happen again.

With regards to 2005, creating a list that shows that it was the fastest car in 14 out of 18 races would be misleading, that title wasn't winnable for Kimi. Just like creating a list that the Mercedes was the fasted car in x y z this year. Although obviously to a much smaller degree this year.

However you class the cars at Baku, Hamilton got the best result possible with 5th. Vettel came 4th and should have won.

If it's stipulated by the FIA it's hardly a design flaw. I don't see it, sorry

What don't you see? The point he's making is very simple. Given the malfunction with the headrest, the car that Hamilton was driving was always going to have to make that additional stop. Because of that, it was not the better car to be in that day. Is that not painfully obvious?

I see the point he's making, as I already mentioned in previous reply to you. I just don't agree with the definition of better car that is being made. Why can't you see (or accept) that?

There's no denying Vettel got lucky, which he somewhat mitigated by his actions against Lewis. But the original discussion was about which car was better on any given weekend and I don't agree that something like this shows a worse car. I believe it gives a false impression of how it was that weekend. Lewis had a better car, but worse luck. That I can agree with

The securing method isn't stipulated by the FIA. What held it in wasn't long enough an re-designed. I've had lots of these over the years, the back of it has like a male lego piece that slots into a female groove on the car. Once the foam had expanded the male lego nob wasn't long enough to form a secure connection with the female part of the car.

You can see the pins in this picture. The foam at the back of the headrest changed colour too, its normally light pink. Maybe where it has swollen up.

I don't think it's quite true to say that it wasn't long enough. All they said was that the length of the locking pins "most likely played a part," which could simply mean they required more care to re-attach. Wolff said he'd never seen that before and they subsequently changed the pins as a precaution, which is different

I think you're missing the point of the exercise to be honest. He's trying to isolate driver performance. He has made corrections for races with mechanical or other car issues. This is such a race.

In the original discussion, everyone had Baku as a Mercedes track. The discussion we're having now is a different one.

I'm sorry but I thin you're being deliberately difficult. In Baku you were more likely to win with the car Vettel was sitting in than Hamilton and that is the point. The reasons for that are not relevant for this line of discussion.

Ok to all those making a case for the Ferrari, if you were given a choice between the Ferrari and the Mercedes to fight for thr championship in what car will you choose?

That's right, a different discussion here all together and I think a more accurate one.

Similarly, If Vettels steering issue caused him to DNF in Hungary, the fact he had a car advantage that weekend would have be meaningless.

First half of the season, a Ferrari, 2nd half up to now, the Merc.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 2 Podiums | 1 Win

I did acknowledge that it was perhaps a question of semantics, but it seems you missed that bit. I simply feel that calling a car "better" gives a false impression of the weekend. I've acknowledged Vettel was lucky and Hamilton unlucky, but it appears that's not enough for you?