planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:58 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
mas wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mas wrote:
The difference between Vettel and Hamilton has basically been Hamilton's problems in getting a good set-up in qualifying with these 2017 tyres on the 2017 Mercedes with Bottas generally handing it better. In the race he's fine as the tyres get warmed up ok but he is starting out of position in qualifying giving Bottas a head start in a few races.

Vettel has basically been ok from the start of the season with both the car and tyres which is why we are seeing a peak Vettel this season. Raikkonen had a problem with the tyres in the first few races but he has found a set-up to fix that which is why he was genuinely competitive with Vettel in the last few races. Of course it is too late for him now and he will be relegated to a supporting role for Vettel for the rest of the season.

So Hamilton still has his tyre qualifying problem out of the top four which means regardless of how fast the Mercedes is and how well the following tracks suit the Mercedes Vettel still has an excellent chance of the WDC if Hamilton still qualifies out of position to his racepace in coming races.

and yet Hamilton still has 6 poles to Vettel's 2. I don't think the difference between them may be put down to Hamilton's qualifying problems. On the contrary, Hamilton's better qualifying record has enabled him to stay in touch with Vettel and without it he'd be even further behind him in the points. The Merc's extra qualifying grunt has kept them in the game and should have propelled them ahead

The Ferrari has been easier on the tyres than the Mercedes in the first half which has helped Vettel overcome an inferior starting position to Hamilton a few times but Hamilton's qualifying problems in a few races have actually made him look more like Kimi than Kimi it's been that bad. Vettel has had better qualifying consistency in respect to his competitors along with consistently good racepace and tyrewear. If 2014 showed how bad Vettel can be when the car is not quite there for him 2017 is showing how good he can be when the car really suits him.

Given that Hamilton has started behind Vettel only four times this year, including one occasion where Ferrari appeared to have a clear track advantage, I still don't see how his qualifying has had a significant negative impact on his points standing relative to Vettel. Russia and Monaco were undoubtedly poor, but otherwise he's finished within a couple of tenths of Bottas, so who's to say that Bottas didn't just have an excellent qualifying on those occasions? I don't think there's enough evidence to say that qualifying has been any kind of negative differentiator: on the contrary, I'd say the evidence points to Hamilton's qualifying as being the main reason why he's the leading Mercedes driver. If he'd been anything like Kimi then he'd be trailing the pack so far, but that's not the case by a long shot


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Spain wasn't anything to do with a better engine, that was to do with different tyre compounds and the large delta between the tyre compounds. Plus Bottas and the VSC eliminated all of Vettel's advantage.

IMO Mercedes only have a clear advantage at some tracks in the races, less than Redbull had over Ferrari. Mercedes are usually faster on one compound then Ferrari the next. Ferrari normally has better tyre life and can run in the dirty.

How do we know what Vettel could do in Austria once in clear air ? Plus he pitted first out the leading cars and still caught Bottas.

I reckon its that close that one severe reliability issue will decide the championship.

This myth again. Vettel usually has better tyre life and can run in the dirty air. Looking at the other Ferrari wouldn't have you reaching that conclusion


The myth of using Kimi as any sort of benchmark. He should have been out the Ferrari years ago.

Maybe, but there's still more evidence to point to it being the driver more than the car


I would say it is regarding tyre life because Hamilton was better than Bottas on his tyres in Hungary even though Bottas was in clear air.

With Kimi being in the dirty air I don't think he has the pace most of the time to keep up.

I don't understand how this is evidence that the Ferrari is better on its tyres than the Mercedes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Spain wasn't anything to do with a better engine, that was to do with different tyre compounds and the large delta between the tyre compounds. Plus Bottas and the VSC eliminated all of Vettel's advantage.

IMO Mercedes only have a clear advantage at some tracks in the races, less than Redbull had over Ferrari. Mercedes are usually faster on one compound then Ferrari the next. Ferrari normally has better tyre life and can run in the dirty.

How do we know what Vettel could do in Austria once in clear air ? Plus he pitted first out the leading cars and still caught Bottas.

I reckon its that close that one severe reliability issue will decide the championship.

This myth again. Vettel usually has better tyre life and can run in the dirty air. Looking at the other Ferrari wouldn't have you reaching that conclusion


You can apply that kind of logic else where...

Looking at the other Mercedes. Vettel is beating Bottas 7-4 in qualifying.
So is the Mercedes better over 1 lap or not? In one drivers (Hamiltons) hands yes.
Is the Ferrari kinder to its tyres? In one drivers hands (Vettel) yes.

Its debatable if its the driver or car in each case. My feeling is the Mercedes is better over 1 lap and the Ferrari slightly kinder to its tyres, using Kimi with regards to how kind the Ferrari is to his tyres is the same as using Bottas to show the Mercedes 1 lap pace - misleading.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Spain wasn't anything to do with a better engine, that was to do with different tyre compounds and the large delta between the tyre compounds. Plus Bottas and the VSC eliminated all of Vettel's advantage.

IMO Mercedes only have a clear advantage at some tracks in the races, less than Redbull had over Ferrari. Mercedes are usually faster on one compound then Ferrari the next. Ferrari normally has better tyre life and can run in the dirty.

How do we know what Vettel could do in Austria once in clear air ? Plus he pitted first out the leading cars and still caught Bottas.

I reckon its that close that one severe reliability issue will decide the championship.

This myth again. Vettel usually has better tyre life and can run in the dirty air. Looking at the other Ferrari wouldn't have you reaching that conclusion


You can apply that kind of logic else where...

Looking at the other Mercedes. Vettel is beating Bottas 7-4 in qualifying.
So is the Mercedes better over 1 lap or not? In one drivers (Hamiltons) hands yes.
Is the Ferrari kinder to its tyres? In one drivers hands (Vettel) yes.

Its debatable if its the driver or car in each case. My feeling is the Mercedes is better over 1 lap and the Ferrari slightly kinder to its tyres, using Kimi with regards to how kind the Ferrari is to his tyres is the same as using Bottas to show the Mercedes 1 lap pace - misleading.

Vettel is a four times WDC and has a reputation as a pretty good qualifier, whereas the size of some of the gaps that Hamilton has over Bottas show that the latter's not always getting the best out of the car, sometimes by a considerable amount. The faster driver is the only measure we have of what a car is capable of, so I don't think your theory holds much water, I'm afraid.

However, we know that Kimi has never once - once - demonstrated any kind of tyre longevity this year. Not even close. But we also know that Vettel has shown superior tyre management (both now and in the past) not only to the opposition but also to his own team mate. We know that the pair of them have equal equipment, so the only logical conclusion is that it's Vettel who's getting the best out of the tyres and not that it's some inherent property of the car. If it was, why can't Kimi unlock it? It seems to me to be just a convenient excuse to explain away Vettel's performances, but there's no real science behind it.

Coming back to your theory: unless you feel that Hamilton is intrinsically much, much faster than Vettel - for which there is no evidence - then it's unlikely that he would normally be able to put in the kind of gaps that we've seen. Therefore the logical conclusion is that the Mercedes is the faster car over a single lap. Both Wolff and Vettel have also mentioned this and I see no reason to doubt it. You can of course believe otherwise but if so you're not really allowing the facts to lead you to a conclusion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 1859
The Ferrari being better on its tyres is not really a myth when many pundits have talked about it and I have seen alot of articles talking about the same thing.
Ferrari running in the dirty air better than the Mercedes has been mentioned alot. I can't see how all these people involved in F1 can be wrong.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
F1_Ernie wrote:
The Ferrari being better on its tyres is not really a myth when many pundits have talked about it and I have seen alot of articles talking about the same thing.
Ferrari running in the dirty air better than the Mercedes has been mentioned alot. I can't see how all these people involved in F1 can be wrong.

Well, I've often wondered myself. Sometimes they seem just as capable of jumping on bandwagons as anybody else.

Just one bit of evidence that it's the car and not the driver would be helpful. Just one


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Spain wasn't anything to do with a better engine, that was to do with different tyre compounds and the large delta between the tyre compounds. Plus Bottas and the VSC eliminated all of Vettel's advantage.

IMO Mercedes only have a clear advantage at some tracks in the races, less than Redbull had over Ferrari. Mercedes are usually faster on one compound then Ferrari the next. Ferrari normally has better tyre life and can run in the dirty.

How do we know what Vettel could do in Austria once in clear air ? Plus he pitted first out the leading cars and still caught Bottas.

I reckon its that close that one severe reliability issue will decide the championship.

This myth again. Vettel usually has better tyre life and can run in the dirty air. Looking at the other Ferrari wouldn't have you reaching that conclusion


You can apply that kind of logic else where...

Looking at the other Mercedes. Vettel is beating Bottas 7-4 in qualifying.
So is the Mercedes better over 1 lap or not? In one drivers (Hamiltons) hands yes.
Is the Ferrari kinder to its tyres? In one drivers hands (Vettel) yes.

Its debatable if its the driver or car in each case. My feeling is the Mercedes is better over 1 lap and the Ferrari slightly kinder to its tyres, using Kimi with regards to how kind the Ferrari is to his tyres is the same as using Bottas to show the Mercedes 1 lap pace - misleading.

Vettel is a four times WDC and has a reputation as a pretty good qualifier, whereas the size of some of the gaps that Hamilton has over Bottas show that the latter's not always getting the best out of the car, sometimes by a considerable amount. The faster driver is the only measure we have of what a car is capable of, so I don't think your theory holds much water, I'm afraid.

However, we know that Kimi has never once - once - demonstrated any kind of tyre longevity this year. Not even close. But we also know that Vettel has shown superior tyre management (both now and in the past) not only to the opposition but also to his own team mate. We know that the pair of them have equal equipment, so the only logical conclusion is that it's Vettel who's getting the best out of the tyres and not that it's some inherent property of the car. If it was, why can't Kimi unlock it? It seems to me to be just a convenient excuse to explain away Vettel's performances, but there's no real science behind it.

Coming back to your theory: unless you feel that Hamilton is intrinsically much, much faster than Vettel - for which there is no evidence - then it's unlikely that he would normally be able to put in the kind of gaps that we've seen. Therefore the logical conclusion is that the Mercedes is the faster car over a single lap. Both Wolff and Vettel have also mentioned this and I see no reason to doubt it. You can of course believe otherwise but if so you're not really allowing the facts to lead you to a conclusion


That was my sole point. Judge the car on what the faster/better driver gets out of it and if the second car doesn't then they are under performing.

Likewise, Bottas is significantly slower on one tyre compound per race, almost without fail. Is that him or a trait of the car that Hamilton somehow overcomes? I would wager it is a Bottas shortfall just like its a Kimi shortfall to not be as good on the tyres as Vettel hence you won't find me saying the the Mercedes is only good on one tyre per race because I am not judging the car on the weaker driver.

My post clearly says Mercedes is the faster car over 1 lap so your third paragraph I am not sure what you are arguing against. I was using this example to show that using the 2nd car can be misleading.

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


Last edited by lamo on Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 1859
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Spain wasn't anything to do with a better engine, that was to do with different tyre compounds and the large delta between the tyre compounds. Plus Bottas and the VSC eliminated all of Vettel's advantage.

IMO Mercedes only have a clear advantage at some tracks in the races, less than Redbull had over Ferrari. Mercedes are usually faster on one compound then Ferrari the next. Ferrari normally has better tyre life and can run in the dirty.

How do we know what Vettel could do in Austria once in clear air ? Plus he pitted first out the leading cars and still caught Bottas.

I reckon its that close that one severe reliability issue will decide the championship.

This myth again. Vettel usually has better tyre life and can run in the dirty air. Looking at the other Ferrari wouldn't have you reaching that conclusion


You can apply that kind of logic else where...

Looking at the other Mercedes. Vettel is beating Bottas 7-4 in qualifying.
So is the Mercedes better over 1 lap or not? In one drivers (Hamiltons) hands yes.
Is the Ferrari kinder to its tyres? In one drivers hands (Vettel) yes.

Its debatable if its the driver or car in each case. My feeling is the Mercedes is better over 1 lap and the Ferrari slightly kinder to its tyres, using Kimi with regards to how kind the Ferrari is to his tyres is the same as using Bottas to show the Mercedes 1 lap pace - misleading.

Vettel is a four times WDC and has a reputation as a pretty good qualifier, whereas the size of some of the gaps that Hamilton has over Bottas show that the latter's not always getting the best out of the car, sometimes by a considerable amount. The faster driver is the only measure we have of what a car is capable of, so I don't think your theory holds much water, I'm afraid.

However, we know that Kimi has never once - once - demonstrated any kind of tyre longevity this year. Not even close. But we also know that Vettel has shown superior tyre management (both now and in the past) not only to the opposition but also to his own team mate. We know that the pair of them have equal equipment, so the only logical conclusion is that it's Vettel who's getting the best out of the tyres and not that it's some inherent property of the car. If it was, why can't Kimi unlock it? It seems to me to be just a convenient excuse to explain away Vettel's performances, but there's no real science behind it.

Coming back to your theory: unless you feel that Hamilton is intrinsically much, much faster than Vettel - for which there is no evidence - then it's unlikely that he would normally be able to put in the kind of gaps that we've seen. Therefore the logical conclusion is that the Mercedes is the faster car over a single lap. Both Wolff and Vettel have also mentioned this and I see no reason to doubt it. You can of course believe otherwise but if so you're not really allowing the facts to lead you to a conclusion


To be fair to Kimi he did show tyre longevity in Hungary but wasnt allowed to use it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Spain wasn't anything to do with a better engine, that was to do with different tyre compounds and the large delta between the tyre compounds. Plus Bottas and the VSC eliminated all of Vettel's advantage.

IMO Mercedes only have a clear advantage at some tracks in the races, less than Redbull had over Ferrari. Mercedes are usually faster on one compound then Ferrari the next. Ferrari normally has better tyre life and can run in the dirty.

How do we know what Vettel could do in Austria once in clear air ? Plus he pitted first out the leading cars and still caught Bottas.

I reckon its that close that one severe reliability issue will decide the championship.

This myth again. Vettel usually has better tyre life and can run in the dirty air. Looking at the other Ferrari wouldn't have you reaching that conclusion


You can apply that kind of logic else where...

Looking at the other Mercedes. Vettel is beating Bottas 7-4 in qualifying.
So is the Mercedes better over 1 lap or not? In one drivers (Hamiltons) hands yes.
Is the Ferrari kinder to its tyres? In one drivers hands (Vettel) yes.

Its debatable if its the driver or car in each case. My feeling is the Mercedes is better over 1 lap and the Ferrari slightly kinder to its tyres, using Kimi with regards to how kind the Ferrari is to his tyres is the same as using Bottas to show the Mercedes 1 lap pace - misleading.

Vettel is a four times WDC and has a reputation as a pretty good qualifier, whereas the size of some of the gaps that Hamilton has over Bottas show that the latter's not always getting the best out of the car, sometimes by a considerable amount. The faster driver is the only measure we have of what a car is capable of, so I don't think your theory holds much water, I'm afraid.

However, we know that Kimi has never once - once - demonstrated any kind of tyre longevity this year. Not even close. But we also know that Vettel has shown superior tyre management (both now and in the past) not only to the opposition but also to his own team mate. We know that the pair of them have equal equipment, so the only logical conclusion is that it's Vettel who's getting the best out of the tyres and not that it's some inherent property of the car. If it was, why can't Kimi unlock it? It seems to me to be just a convenient excuse to explain away Vettel's performances, but there's no real science behind it.

Coming back to your theory: unless you feel that Hamilton is intrinsically much, much faster than Vettel - for which there is no evidence - then it's unlikely that he would normally be able to put in the kind of gaps that we've seen. Therefore the logical conclusion is that the Mercedes is the faster car over a single lap. Both Wolff and Vettel have also mentioned this and I see no reason to doubt it. You can of course believe otherwise but if so you're not really allowing the facts to lead you to a conclusion


That was my sole point. Judge the car on what the faster/better driver gets out of it and if the second car doesn't then they are under performing.

Likewise, Bottas is significantly slower on one tyre compound per race, almost without fail. Is that him or a trait of the car that Hamilton somehow overcomes? I would wager it is a Bottas shortfall just like its a Kimi shortfall to not be as good on the tyres as Vettel hence you won't find me saying the the Mercedes is only good on one tyre per race because I am not judging the car on the weaker driver.

My post clearly says Mercedes is the faster car over 1 lap so your third paragraph I am not sure what you are arguing against. I was using this example to show that using the 2nd car can be misleading.

Depends what for. If a car is gentle on its tyres then you'd reasonably expect both drivers to benefit from that. Kimi once got credit for being gentle on his tyres during his Lotus days, but the fact that Grosjean also made them last pretty well tends to suggest it was more car than driver. But this year Kimi hasn't even come close to exhibiting any kind of tyre longevity. On the contrary, he's often complained about failing grip while Vettel is happily pounding away faster laps, often in traffic while Kimi has been in free air.

If one driver is slower than his team mate in qualifying, then it's pretty fair to say he's slower. There's no need to look for excuses. And if one driver is not as good as another with his tyres, then it's equally fair to say he's just not as good at looking after his tyres as the other driver. Or put another way, if one driver is faster at qualifying, people tend to say he's a better qualifier. Likewise, if one driver is better at managing his tyres, people don't usually look to the car to explain it. But it seems that because Vettel has been better than the Mercedes pair (although I strongly suspect it's because he's been better than one particular driver), then we are suddenly looking to give the credit to the car?

I seem to recall Perez built up a reputation as a tyre wizard, largely because he was demonstrably better than his team mate. Why is this case different, do you think?

If Kimi also showed some tyre magic, then I'd happily say that the car's the star. But since he's not shown even the slightest ability to make his tyres last longer, I don't really get why people are saying the Ferrari must be extra special with its tyres. Where is the evidence?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Spain wasn't anything to do with a better engine, that was to do with different tyre compounds and the large delta between the tyre compounds. Plus Bottas and the VSC eliminated all of Vettel's advantage.

IMO Mercedes only have a clear advantage at some tracks in the races, less than Redbull had over Ferrari. Mercedes are usually faster on one compound then Ferrari the next. Ferrari normally has better tyre life and can run in the dirty.

How do we know what Vettel could do in Austria once in clear air ? Plus he pitted first out the leading cars and still caught Bottas.

I reckon its that close that one severe reliability issue will decide the championship.

This myth again. Vettel usually has better tyre life and can run in the dirty air. Looking at the other Ferrari wouldn't have you reaching that conclusion


You can apply that kind of logic else where...

Looking at the other Mercedes. Vettel is beating Bottas 7-4 in qualifying.
So is the Mercedes better over 1 lap or not? In one drivers (Hamiltons) hands yes.
Is the Ferrari kinder to its tyres? In one drivers hands (Vettel) yes.

Its debatable if its the driver or car in each case. My feeling is the Mercedes is better over 1 lap and the Ferrari slightly kinder to its tyres, using Kimi with regards to how kind the Ferrari is to his tyres is the same as using Bottas to show the Mercedes 1 lap pace - misleading.

Vettel is a four times WDC and has a reputation as a pretty good qualifier, whereas the size of some of the gaps that Hamilton has over Bottas show that the latter's not always getting the best out of the car, sometimes by a considerable amount. The faster driver is the only measure we have of what a car is capable of, so I don't think your theory holds much water, I'm afraid.

However, we know that Kimi has never once - once - demonstrated any kind of tyre longevity this year. Not even close. But we also know that Vettel has shown superior tyre management (both now and in the past) not only to the opposition but also to his own team mate. We know that the pair of them have equal equipment, so the only logical conclusion is that it's Vettel who's getting the best out of the tyres and not that it's some inherent property of the car. If it was, why can't Kimi unlock it? It seems to me to be just a convenient excuse to explain away Vettel's performances, but there's no real science behind it.

Coming back to your theory: unless you feel that Hamilton is intrinsically much, much faster than Vettel - for which there is no evidence - then it's unlikely that he would normally be able to put in the kind of gaps that we've seen. Therefore the logical conclusion is that the Mercedes is the faster car over a single lap. Both Wolff and Vettel have also mentioned this and I see no reason to doubt it. You can of course believe otherwise but if so you're not really allowing the facts to lead you to a conclusion


To be fair to Kimi he did show tyre longevity in Hungary but wasnt allowed to use it.

Did he? Are we comparing his tyre management to a driver who had a car with steering issues?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
There are very few races where a comparison can be made, but Kimi was kinder to his tyres in Austria than Vettel.

1) Austria
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... 0Raikkonen
Kimi was 5 seconds behind once he cleared traffic on lap 3. Vettel was the faster driver for 17/18 laps when both had clean air early in the stint. The last 14 laps of the stint - Kimi faster in 10, Vettel 4. Both ran in clean air for this entire comparison. There are very few other incidences for comparison this year but this one is a direct comparison with both in clean air and Kimi was slightly better at the end of the stint despite being quite a bit slower earlier in the stint.

Kimi actually did a 1m 08.7 on 41 lap old tyres - his fastest lap of the race up until that point. Vettel fastest lap of the first stint was set on lap 15 of a 32 lap stint - 1m 09.00, his times fell away/ levelled off whilst Kimi's got quicker throughout.

2) GB
Vettel destroyed his 2nd set of tyres after 25 laps and started lapping over 2 seconds per lap slower than his stint best that he set just a few laps before. Kimi's were fine after 25 laps and he was running about 0.2-0.3 off of his own fastest lap of the stint. His puncture was not related to wear either, unlike Vettels.

Which races was Vettel clearly kinder to the tyres than Kimi, I think it happened once or twice in the early races but what is the evidence for Vettel being much kinder on the tyres than Kimi? Not that I doubt it, I just can't see it in the numbers and don't remember which races it was

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


Last edited by lamo on Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1740
Kimi had a set-up issue with these hard 2017 Pirellis at the start of the season which affected both qualifying and wear but he's on top of that now so he can do the car full justice as Vettel has been doing from the very start.

However he's in a full supporting role now so won't be allowed to challenge Vettel unless there is another team in between them on track. I also am not sure how enamoured Ferrari will be with Vettel now that he's playing games with future contracts with one eye on Mercedes. They will support him fully this year due to his lead but may take a more neutral stance next year. 2019 could see both Kimi and Sebastian out of Ferrari with say two out of Ricciardo/Hamilton/Leclerc in the cars.

_________________
"Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
There are very few races where a comparison can be made, but Kimi was kinder to his tyres in Austria than Vettel.

1) Austria
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... 0Raikkonen
Kimi was 5 seconds behind once he cleared traffic on lap 3. Vettel was the faster driver for 17/18 laps when both had clean air early in the stint. The last 14 laps of the stint - Kimi faster in 10, Vettel 4. Both ran in clean air for this entire comparison. There are very few other incidences for comparison this year but this one is a direct comparison with both in clean air and Kimi was slightly better at the end of the stint despite being quite a bit slower earlier in the stint.

Kimi actually did a 1m 08.7 on 41 lap old tyres - his fastest lap of the race up until that point. Vettel fastest lap of the first stint was set on lap 15 of a 32 lap stint - 1m 09.00

2) GB
Vettel destroyed his 2nd set of tyres after 25 laps and started lapping over 2 seconds per lap slower than his stint best a few laps before. Kimi's were fine after 25 laps and he was running about 0.2-0.3 off of his own fastest lap of the stint. His puncture was not related to wear either, unlike Vettels.

Which races was Vettel clearly kinder to the tyres than Kimi, I think it happened once or twice in the early races but what is the evidence for Vettel being much kinder on the tyres than Kimi? Not that I doubt it, I just can't see it in the numbers and don't remember which races it was

Austria: Kimi wasn't really slightly better at the end of the stint. On lap 20, the last lap where Vettel had been continuously quicker, the gap was 10.395s. On lap 33, the last lap before Vettel pitted, the gap was 10.600s. So Vettel had actually increased the gap. After Kimi pitted, the gap between them was 17.188s. Yet on the penultimate lap (I tend to exclude the last lap as drivers often slow right down) that had increased to 19.369, despite Vettel being on tyres that were 10 laps older. Not an advert for Kimi being better with his tyres at all.

Or how about Canada, where Vettel came from dead last on lap 7 to catching Kimi by lap 41. He was again consistently quicker than Kimi, despite Kimi being on tyres that were 12 laps fresher. Again, not an advert for Kimi being better on his tyres. We know what happened in Monaco, of course, where Vettel took off like a scalded cat after Kimi went in.

Of course, Australia was where the Ferrari reputation for better tyre management was coined, despite the fact that Bottas and Kimi pitted within a lap of each other and Bottas had been consistently quicker until then. Vettel earned that reputation by being able to stick to Hamilton's gearbox all through the first stint and yet still emerge quicker once Hamilton pitted. But what people conveniently ignore is that Vettel was also faster than Kimi, despite the fact that Kimi had been running most of the race in clear air. How does that reconcile with the Ferrari being better on its tyres and not the driver?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
-The gap grew 4.9 to 10.4 in the first half of the stint. Kimi was slower when the tyres were fresher.
- As they wore down, Kimi then matched Vettel as you correctly say.
- Kimi's times got quicker the longer the stint went on.
- Vettels times got slightly slowly from the middle of the stints on wards.

Kimi made the tyres last longer and had a better pace than Vettel by the end of the stint at a track Vettel had been stronger on all weekend. Kimi also made them last longer than Bottas who did a 31 lap stint with his best pace around laps 21-24 after which he began to lose a tiny bit of pace. Kimi's 1m 8.7 on 41 lap old tyres was a pretty special lap on such old tyres, it was only 0.45 slower than Vettels fastest lap of the race of the race at that point, set on brand new tyres.

The second stint doesn't show much, in the first stint both were pushing. The second stint Kimi had nothing to push for, he came out 5th behind a faster Hamilton and his finishing position was decided. Vettel was pushing to try to win the race so its not really comparable. Also, the gap increase was nearly entirely down to 1 lap were Kimi lost 2.2 seconds (lap 56) maybe held up or an error.

Canada > I really don't see what you are trying to show in regards to tyre saving. You are comparing the pace of Vettel to Kimi when Kimi was stuck behind a Force India for 41 laps. Vettel did nearly catch him by lap 41 yes, but they had both stopped once at that point. Vettel was only ever 22 seconds behind Kimi in Canada and its 16 seconds to stop, so he was never more than a net 6 seconds behind him. But back to tyre saving, whilst Vettel did well to 43 lap stint, we have no idea how Kimi's tyre saving was/ might have been as his pace was dictated by the FI directly in front of him for the entire time he had old tyres on - so there is no comparison to be made at this race. On further reflection - I am sure you agree?

Australia > Kimi vs Bottas suggests the Ferrari better on its tyres quite clearly...

- First 14 laps, Bottas quicker in 13/14 and builds 7.1 gap
- Lap 15-25, Gap is reduced to 5.9 seconds. Bottas pits lap 25.
- Lap 15-25, Kimi faster on 6 laps, Bottas faster on 5.
- Bottas fastest lap of stint, lap 13/25, pace drops toward end of stint. Last 3 laps of stint at +0.5, +0.5 and 1 second slower than his fastest lap of stint.
- Kimi fastest lap of stint, lap 23/26, is at his quickest at the end of the stint. His last 3 laps of the stint are his fastest 3 of the stint.

I am now not sure where the Vettel better at saving the tyres than Kimi thing comes from? Is this from 2015-2016 as I am not seeing it this year. Which race did he clearly show this in this season? But looking all through the data, it does seem the Ferrari being better on the tyres in Australia for both drivers. The rest of the season is harder to read as we have had very few opportunities to find out. Kimi was the best with the tyres of anybody in Austria. Hamilton possibly made his tyres last maybe 2 laps longer than Vettel in Spain. Both Ferrari's were better on the tyres in Russia. The only track Mercedes appear to have a tyre life edge was Silverstone which was probably due to having a huge speed advantage that they didn't need to abuse the tyres, that and Ferrari trying to make up for the floor ban.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2599
lamo wrote:
-The gap grew 4.9 to 10.4 in the first half of the stint. Kimi was slower when the tyres were fresher.
- As they wore down, Kimi then matched Vettel as you correctly say.
- Kimi's times got quicker the longer the stint went on.
- Vettels times got slightly slowly from the middle of the stints on wards.

Kimi made the tyres last longer and had a better pace than Vettel by the end of the stint at a track Vettel had been stronger on all weekend. Kimi also made them last longer than Bottas who did a 31 lap stint with his best pace around laps 21-24 after which he began to lose a tiny bit of pace. Kimi's 1m 8.7 on 41 lap old tyres was a pretty special lap on such old tyres, it was only 0.45 slower than Vettels fastest lap of the race of the race at that point, set on brand new tyres.

The second stint doesn't show much, in the first stint both were pushing. The second stint Kimi had nothing to push for, he came out 5th behind a faster Hamilton and his finishing position was decided. Vettel was pushing to try to win the race so its not really comparable. Also, the gap increase was nearly entirely down to 1 lap were Kimi lost 2.2 seconds (lap 56) maybe held up or an error.

Canada > I really don't see what you are trying to show in regards to tyre saving. You are comparing the pace of Vettel to Kimi when Kimi was stuck behind a Force India for 41 laps. Vettel did nearly catch him by lap 41 yes, but they had both stopped once at that point. Vettel was only ever 22 seconds behind Kimi in Canada and its 16 seconds to stop, so he was never more than a net 6 seconds behind him. But back to tyre saving, whilst Vettel did well to 43 lap stint, we have no idea how Kimi's tyre saving was/ might have been as his pace was dictated by the FI directly in front of him for the entire time he had old tyres on - so there is no comparison to be made at this race. On further reflection - I am sure you agree?

Australia > Kimi vs Bottas suggests the Ferrari better on its tyres quite clearly...

- First 14 laps, Bottas quicker in 13/14 and builds 7.1 gap
- Lap 15-25, Gap is reduced to 5.9 seconds. Bottas pits lap 25.
- Lap 15-25, Kimi faster on 6 laps, Bottas faster on 5.
- Bottas fastest lap of stint, lap 13/25, pace drops toward end of stint. Last 3 laps of stint at +0.5, +0.5 and 1 second slower than his fastest lap of stint.
- Kimi fastest lap of stint, lap 23/26, is at his quickest at the end of the stint. His last 3 laps of the stint are his fastest 3 of the stint.

I am now not sure where the Vettel better at saving the tyres than Kimi thing comes from? Is this from 2015-2016 as I am not seeing it this year. Which race did he clearly show this in this season? But looking all through the data, it does seem the Ferrari being better on the tyres in Australia for both drivers. The rest of the season is harder to read as we have had very few opportunities to find out. Kimi was the best with the tyres of anybody in Austria. Hamilton possibly made his tyres last maybe 2 laps longer than Vettel in Spain. Both Ferrari's were better on the tyres in Russia. The only track Mercedes appear to have a tyre life edge was Silverstone which was probably due to having a huge speed advantage that they didn't need to abuse the tyres, that and Ferrari trying to make up for the floor ban.


Yeah...Vettel is usually quicker in the race, so that can fool a lot of people but the tyre management has been pretty similar with both Ferrari drivers. Ferrari has screwed Raikonnen on a few occasions too, leaving him out when he should have pitted or pitting him earlier than he should. So generally yes, I would agree that the Ferrari overall is better than the Merc with tires, though that seems to have evened out somewhat after Monaco.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
-The gap grew 4.9 to 10.4 in the first half of the stint. Kimi was slower when the tyres were fresher.
- As they wore down, Kimi then matched Vettel as you correctly say.
- Kimi's times got quicker the longer the stint went on.
- Vettels times got slightly slowly from the middle of the stints on wards.

Kimi made the tyres last longer and had a better pace than Vettel by the end of the stint at a track Vettel had been stronger on all weekend. Kimi also made them last longer than Bottas who did a 31 lap stint with his best pace around laps 21-24 after which he began to lose a tiny bit of pace. Kimi's 1m 8.7 on 41 lap old tyres was a pretty special lap on such old tyres, it was only 0.45 slower than Vettels fastest lap of the race of the race at that point, set on brand new tyres.

The second stint doesn't show much, in the first stint both were pushing. The second stint Kimi had nothing to push for, he came out 5th behind a faster Hamilton and his finishing position was decided. Vettel was pushing to try to win the race so its not really comparable. Also, the gap increase was nearly entirely down to 1 lap were Kimi lost 2.2 seconds (lap 56) maybe held up or an error.

Canada > I really don't see what you are trying to show in regards to tyre saving. You are comparing the pace of Vettel to Kimi when Kimi was stuck behind a Force India for 41 laps. Vettel did nearly catch him by lap 41 yes, but they had both stopped once at that point. Vettel was only ever 22 seconds behind Kimi in Canada and its 16 seconds to stop, so he was never more than a net 6 seconds behind him. But back to tyre saving, whilst Vettel did well to 43 lap stint, we have no idea how Kimi's tyre saving was/ might have been as his pace was dictated by the FI directly in front of him for the entire time he had old tyres on - so there is no comparison to be made at this race. On further reflection - I am sure you agree?

Australia > Kimi vs Bottas suggests the Ferrari better on its tyres quite clearly...

- First 14 laps, Bottas quicker in 13/14 and builds 7.1 gap
- Lap 15-25, Gap is reduced to 5.9 seconds. Bottas pits lap 25.
- Lap 15-25, Kimi faster on 6 laps, Bottas faster on 5.
- Bottas fastest lap of stint, lap 13/25, pace drops toward end of stint. Last 3 laps of stint at +0.5, +0.5 and 1 second slower than his fastest lap of stint.
- Kimi fastest lap of stint, lap 23/26, is at his quickest at the end of the stint. His last 3 laps of the stint are his fastest 3 of the stint.

I am now not sure where the Vettel better at saving the tyres than Kimi thing comes from? Is this from 2015-2016 as I am not seeing it this year. Which race did he clearly show this in this season? But looking all through the data, it does seem the Ferrari being better on the tyres in Australia for both drivers. The rest of the season is harder to read as we have had very few opportunities to find out. Kimi was the best with the tyres of anybody in Austria. Hamilton possibly made his tyres last maybe 2 laps longer than Vettel in Spain. Both Ferrari's were better on the tyres in Russia. The only track Mercedes appear to have a tyre life edge was Silverstone which was probably due to having a huge speed advantage that they didn't need to abuse the tyres, that and Ferrari trying to make up for the floor ban.

what you are writing just simply isn't true, I'm afraid. It's complete nonsense to say that Kimi made the tyres last longer in Austria, or that he had better pace than Vettel at the end of the stint. I've just showed you that in the last ten laps Vettel actually increased the gap. The best you can say is that Kimi was matching Vettel by the end, but this is mitigated by the fact that Vettel's tyres had taken a much bigger pounding than his over the first twenty laps, so in reality Vettel should have been much slower by then. It's sheer fantasy to say that Kimi's tyre management was in any way equal to Vettel's at any stage of that race. You are just seeing what you want to see, I'm afraid, not what the facts are telling you.

The second stint shows that Vettel was faster on older tyres. I'd tend to agree that Kimi probably wasn't pushing, but you certainly can't conclude that he was close to vettel on tyre management without suspending reality for a lot of guesswork.

It's the same story vs Bottas. Bottas had extended his lead over Kimi to 20.279s by the time he pitted on lap 41. In the ten laps before he pitted there were only two laps - 32 and 37 - where Kimi was faster. Two. Yet from this you conclude that Kimi made them last longer? All it tells us is that Kimi was slow and that he stayed out far too long on tyres that were losing him ground to the opposition. Kimi didn't make them last longer. He just stayed out long past their sell-by date.

I'll get to the other points later but your reasoning is highly suspect so far


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:

Australia > Kimi vs Bottas suggests the Ferrari better on its tyres quite clearly...

- First 14 laps, Bottas quicker in 13/14 and builds 7.1 gap
- Lap 15-25, Gap is reduced to 5.9 seconds. Bottas pits lap 25.
- Lap 15-25, Kimi faster on 6 laps, Bottas faster on 5.
- Bottas fastest lap of stint, lap 13/25, pace drops toward end of stint. Last 3 laps of stint at +0.5, +0.5 and 1 second slower than his fastest lap of stint.
- Kimi fastest lap of stint, lap 23/26, is at his quickest at the end of the stint. His last 3 laps of the stint are his fastest 3 of the stint.

I am now not sure where the Vettel better at saving the tyres than Kimi thing comes from? Is this from 2015-2016 as I am not seeing it this year. Which race did he clearly show this in this season? But looking all through the data, it does seem the Ferrari being better on the tyres in Australia for both drivers. The rest of the season is harder to read as we have had very few opportunities to find out. Kimi was the best with the tyres of anybody in Austria. Hamilton possibly made his tyres last maybe 2 laps longer than Vettel in Spain. Both Ferrari's were better on the tyres in Russia. The only track Mercedes appear to have a tyre life edge was Silverstone which was probably due to having a huge speed advantage that they didn't need to abuse the tyres, that and Ferrari trying to make up for the floor ban.

No, it clearly doesn't show it at all. For someone who is so keen on stats you have a really odd way of interpreting them. You're doing your usual thing of selecting bits which support your point while ignoring all the inconvenient bits that don't.

By lap 15 the gap was 7.101s. That's pulling away at nearly half a second a lap. By lap 22, just two laps before Bottas pitted, it was 7.179, which just meant that Bottas slowed to Kimi's level, rather than Kimi doing anything magical tyre-wise. So again we have a story of one driver punishing his tyres significantly more yet Kimi being unable to make any impact, despite taking it relatively easily. Only in the last two laps before Bottas pitted did he tail off and the only lap that had a significant drop off was the one just before pitting, where he dropped 8 tenths on his previous one. Without looking at the race again I don't recall whether that was Bottas having tyre problems, or whether it was just traffic. But even assuming the former, we're talking one lap before Kimi pitted, too, so there's zero evidence to say Kimi made his tyres last longer there. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'll bet pretty much every driver could eke life out of their tyres if they cruise around the track at well below the maximum.

So far you've shown precisely nothing that shows Kimi has made his tyres last longer than anybody else, despite the fact that he's often been significantly slower than his competition. Looking at his performances there's no way anyone could conclude that the Ferrari was kinder to its tyres than any other car. In fact, you could probably make a case for the opposite, as Kimi could only ever make his stints last as long as the others by going significantly slower.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
what you are writing just simply isn't true, I'm afraid. It's complete nonsense to say that Kimi made the tyres last longer in Austria, or that he had better pace than Vettel at the end of the stint. I've just showed you that in the last ten laps Vettel actually increased the gap. The best you can say is that Kimi was matching Vettel by the end, but this is mitigated by the fact that Vettel's tyres had taken a much bigger pounding than his over the first twenty laps, so in reality Vettel should have been much slower by then. It's sheer fantasy to say that Kimi's tyre management was in any way equal to Vettel's at any stage of that race. You are just seeing what you want to see, I'm afraid, not what the facts are telling you.

So you agree, Vettel wore his tyres out quicker. That is my point, what do you think being "good on the tyres actually means"?

The second stint shows that Vettel was faster on older tyres. I'd tend to agree that Kimi probably wasn't pushing, but you certainly can't conclude that he was close to vettel on tyre management without suspending reality for a lot of guesswork.

The second stint is irrelevant and also, the gap was increased when Kimi was on fresh tyres mainly. We are talking about tyre saving here. Which would mean looking at each drivers pace at the very end of the race not when they took on fresh tyres. At the end of the race Vettel was pushing, Kimi wasn't, except for his fastest lap attempt. Tyre wear also wasn't really an issue, it was a harder tyre, doing half the race with half the weight car. The first stint was on softer tyres, twice the weight of fuel and of course the tyres also did qualifying and everybody was pushing in the first stint

It's the same story vs Bottas. Bottas had extended his lead over Kimi to 20.279s by the time he pitted on lap 41. In the ten laps before he pitted there were only two laps - 32 and 37 - where Kimi was faster. Two. Yet from this you conclude that Kimi made them last longer? All it tells us is that Kimi was slow and that he stayed out far too long on tyres that were losing him ground to the opposition. Kimi didn't make them last longer. He just stayed out long past their sell-by date.

In Austria Bottas grew the gap from 6.5 seconds to 15.4 in 12 laps. From lap 24-40 he grew it by 2.2 seconds. Same pattern as Kimi vs Vettel. Kimi relatively much quicker on older tyres. Vettel much closer to Bottas on oler tyres too. So what you are basically saying is, because Kimi is a slower driver than Vettel its not possible for him to be better at tyre saving? And if he is quicker on older tyres it what because he was so slow before and didn't use them? Covered all the bases.

This discussion began because you stated that only one Ferrari driver was better on the tyres but I haven't seen you present any evidence of this. I am still awaiting an example from you of Vettel being better than Raikkonen the tyres this season too? You must be able to do better than Canada when you tried to use a race in which Kimi was stuck in traffic as your example. It seems to me Vettel isn't better on the tyres than Kimi, would you now agree? I welcome some evidence to suggest otherwise. As always, maybe I have missed something and happy to have my mind changed with some evidence


Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Ferrari normally has better tyre life and can run in the dirty.

This myth again. Vettel usually has better tyre life and can run in the dirty air. Looking at the other Ferrari wouldn't have you reaching that conclusion

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


Last edited by lamo on Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:44 pm, edited 12 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:

Australia > Kimi vs Bottas suggests the Ferrari better on its tyres quite clearly...

- First 14 laps, Bottas quicker in 13/14 and builds 7.1 gap
- Lap 15-25, Gap is reduced to 5.9 seconds. Bottas pits lap 25.
- Lap 15-25, Kimi faster on 6 laps, Bottas faster on 5.
- Bottas fastest lap of stint, lap 13/25, pace drops toward end of stint. Last 3 laps of stint at +0.5, +0.5 and 1 second slower than his fastest lap of stint.
- Kimi fastest lap of stint, lap 23/26, is at his quickest at the end of the stint. His last 3 laps of the stint are his fastest 3 of the stint.

I am now not sure where the Vettel better at saving the tyres than Kimi thing comes from? Is this from 2015-2016 as I am not seeing it this year. Which race did he clearly show this in this season? But looking all through the data, it does seem the Ferrari being better on the tyres in Australia for both drivers. The rest of the season is harder to read as we have had very few opportunities to find out. Kimi was the best with the tyres of anybody in Austria. Hamilton possibly made his tyres last maybe 2 laps longer than Vettel in Spain. Both Ferrari's were better on the tyres in Russia. The only track Mercedes appear to have a tyre life edge was Silverstone which was probably due to having a huge speed advantage that they didn't need to abuse the tyres, that and Ferrari trying to make up for the floor ban.


No, it clearly doesn't show it at all. For someone who is so keen on stats you have a really odd way of interpreting them. You're doing your usual thing of selecting bits which support your point while ignoring all the inconvenient bits that don't.

By lap 15 the gap was 7.101s. That's pulling away at nearly half a second a lap. By lap 22, just two laps before Bottas pitted, it was 7.179, which just meant that Bottas slowed to Kimi's level, rather than Kimi doing anything magical tyre-wise. So again we have a story of one driver punishing his tyres significantly more yet Kimi being unable to make any impact, despite taking it relatively easily. Only in the last two laps before Bottas pitted did he tail off and the only lap that had a significant drop off was the one just before pitting, where he dropped 8 tenths on his previous one. Without looking at the race again I don't recall whether that was Bottas having tyre problems, or whether it was just traffic. But even assuming the former, we're talking one lap before Kimi pitted, too, so there's zero evidence to say Kimi made his tyres last longer there. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'll bet pretty much every driver could eke life out of their tyres if they cruise around the track at well below the maximum.

So far you've shown precisely nothing that shows Kimi has made his tyres last longer than anybody else, despite the fact that he's often been significantly slower than his competition. Looking at his performances there's no way anyone could conclude that the Ferrari was kinder to its tyres than any other car. In fact, you could probably make a case for the opposite, as Kimi could only ever make his stints last as long as the others by going significantly slower.


In this example, which car is better on the tyres?

Mercedes starts the race ahead and opens up a 10 second lead in the first 8 laps.
By lap 12 they stop pulling away, at which point Ferrari begin to get closer to there times.
By lap 15 Mercedes times are now slower than they were earlier. Ferrari continues to get quicker and quicker.
Lap 18 onwards, the Ferrari is now marginally quicker and eating away at the gap a little. Mercedes is now 0.3-0.4 off its earlier pace.
By lap 21 the gap is down 9.5 seconds and Mercedes pit
Lap 21 onwards, Ferrari's continue to get quicker and quicker

Which car was better on the tyres?
To me, this is a textbook example of Ferrari being better on the tyres but Mercedes being a fundamentally quicker car. If you don't agree then we have a different definition as to what "being good on the tyres is". If not, I am curious to what you think it means?

In the above example, if the Ferrari can just go 6-7 more laps than the Mercedes, it has the potential to stop 1 less time. This was the strategy Kimi/Lotus used during 2012 and 2013 and the very reason the Lotus gained the reputation for being "good on the tyres". Australia 2013 being a textbook case of that when Kimi won by 2 stopping when everybody else had to 3 stop.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
So you agree, Vettel wore his tyres out quicker. That is my point, what do you think being "good on the tyres actually means"?
I know what it means. I'm not sure you do, though. In the above example, Kimi and Vettel were going at roughly the same pace at the end of the stint. So without looking at any other facts you might argue they had similar tyre wear. But Kimi took it easy on his tyres, wheres Vettel subjected them to more stress early in the stint. Therefore, all things being equal Vettel should have shown significantly more wear. The fact that he didn't indicates that he had far superior tyre management than Kimi, since he didn't take any more liufe out of the tyres while subjecting them to a much harder life. You do get this, don't you?


lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
It's the same story vs Bottas. Bottas had extended his lead over Kimi to 20.279s by the time he pitted on lap 41. In the ten laps before he pitted there were only two laps - 32 and 37 - where Kimi was faster. Two. Yet from this you conclude that Kimi made them last longer? All it tells us is that Kimi was slow and that he stayed out far too long on tyres that were losing him ground to the opposition. Kimi didn't make them last longer. He just stayed out long past their sell-by date.


In Austria Bottas grew the gap from 6.5 seconds to 15.4 in 12 laps. From lap 24-40 he grew it by 2.2 seconds. Same pattern as Kimi vs Vettel. Kimi relatively much quicker on older tyres. Vettel much closer to Bottas on oler tyres too. So what you are basically saying is, because Kimi is a slower driver than Vettel its not possible for him to be better at tyre saving? And if he is quicker on older tyres it what because he was so slow before and didn't use them? Covered all the bases.
Kimi was never quicker on older tyres, that's the whole point. I've explained it all above. Being quicker in two laps of an 11 lap stint is not being quicker overall. The gap remained relatively static for the final part of the stint. This suggests the cars were relatively equal at that point. But, as before, Bottas pushed much, much harder than Kimi earlier in the stint, which means he stressed the tyres more. The fact that by the end he was matching Kimi tells us that his wear proportional to his speed was significantly less. As with Vettel, Bottas should have shown much worse wear

Look, it's basic physics. If a tyre is stressed by x% extra during its life, then it should show a corresponding increase in wear. If it doesn't, then it suggests that it wears better than the tyre which led a relatively pedestrian life over the same period.

lamo wrote:

This discussion began because you stated that only one Ferrari driver was better on the tyres but I haven't seen you present any evidence of this. I am still awaiting an example from you of Vettel being better than Raikkonen the tyres this season too? You must be able to do better than Canada when you tried to use a race in which Kimi was stuck in traffic as your example. It seems to me Vettel isn't better on the tyres than Kimi, would you now agree? I welcome some evidence to suggest otherwise. As always, maybe I have missed something and happy to have my mind changed with some evidence
I've given you examples above. I've mentioned both Australia and Austria but for reasons best known to yourself you've developed sudden amnesia. It's not my fault that you ignore the facts. But the bottom line is that Ferrari's reputation for tyre management is based entirely on Vettel's performances and looking at Kimi you'd never reach the same conclusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:

Australia > Kimi vs Bottas suggests the Ferrari better on its tyres quite clearly...

- First 14 laps, Bottas quicker in 13/14 and builds 7.1 gap
- Lap 15-25, Gap is reduced to 5.9 seconds. Bottas pits lap 25.
- Lap 15-25, Kimi faster on 6 laps, Bottas faster on 5.
- Bottas fastest lap of stint, lap 13/25, pace drops toward end of stint. Last 3 laps of stint at +0.5, +0.5 and 1 second slower than his fastest lap of stint.
- Kimi fastest lap of stint, lap 23/26, is at his quickest at the end of the stint. His last 3 laps of the stint are his fastest 3 of the stint.

I am now not sure where the Vettel better at saving the tyres than Kimi thing comes from? Is this from 2015-2016 as I am not seeing it this year. Which race did he clearly show this in this season? But looking all through the data, it does seem the Ferrari being better on the tyres in Australia for both drivers. The rest of the season is harder to read as we have had very few opportunities to find out. Kimi was the best with the tyres of anybody in Austria. Hamilton possibly made his tyres last maybe 2 laps longer than Vettel in Spain. Both Ferrari's were better on the tyres in Russia. The only track Mercedes appear to have a tyre life edge was Silverstone which was probably due to having a huge speed advantage that they didn't need to abuse the tyres, that and Ferrari trying to make up for the floor ban.


No, it clearly doesn't show it at all. For someone who is so keen on stats you have a really odd way of interpreting them. You're doing your usual thing of selecting bits which support your point while ignoring all the inconvenient bits that don't.

By lap 15 the gap was 7.101s. That's pulling away at nearly half a second a lap. By lap 22, just two laps before Bottas pitted, it was 7.179, which just meant that Bottas slowed to Kimi's level, rather than Kimi doing anything magical tyre-wise. So again we have a story of one driver punishing his tyres significantly more yet Kimi being unable to make any impact, despite taking it relatively easily. Only in the last two laps before Bottas pitted did he tail off and the only lap that had a significant drop off was the one just before pitting, where he dropped 8 tenths on his previous one. Without looking at the race again I don't recall whether that was Bottas having tyre problems, or whether it was just traffic. But even assuming the former, we're talking one lap before Kimi pitted, too, so there's zero evidence to say Kimi made his tyres last longer there. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'll bet pretty much every driver could eke life out of their tyres if they cruise around the track at well below the maximum.

So far you've shown precisely nothing that shows Kimi has made his tyres last longer than anybody else, despite the fact that he's often been significantly slower than his competition. Looking at his performances there's no way anyone could conclude that the Ferrari was kinder to its tyres than any other car. In fact, you could probably make a case for the opposite, as Kimi could only ever make his stints last as long as the others by going significantly slower.


In this example, which car is better on the tyres?

Mercedes starts the race ahead and opens up a 10 second lead in the first 8 laps.
By lap 12 they stop pulling away, at which point Ferrari begin to get closer to there times.
By lap 15 Mercedes times are now slower than they were earlier. Ferrari continues to get quicker and quicker.
Lap 18 onwards, the Ferrari is now marginally quicker and eating away at the gap a little. Mercedes is now 0.3-0.4 off its earlier pace.
By lap 21 the gap is down 9.5 seconds and Mercedes pit
Lap 21 onwards, Ferrari's continue to get quicker and quicker

Which car was better on the tyres?
To me, this is a textbook example of Ferrari being better on the tyres but Mercedes being a fundamentally quicker car. If you don't agree then we have a different definition as to what "being good on the tyres is". If not, I am curious to what you think it means?

In the above example, if the Ferrari can just go 6-7 more laps than the Mercedes, it has the potential to stop 1 less time. This was the strategy Kimi/Lotus used during 2012 and 2013 and the very reason the Lotus gained the reputation for being "good on the tyres". Australia 2013 being a textbook case of that when Kimi won by 2 stopping when everybody else had to 3 stop.

I'm not sure why you are bringing out hypotheticals when you have more than enough race data to analyse. The Australian example being discussed shows without any doubt that Bottas had superior wear to Kimi. Only the very final lap showed any kind of drop off, but given that by then he'd pulled out a comfortable margin the drop off doesn't cancel out the extra punishment the tyres received. Kimi went one lap further. One. So given how much ground he lost there's no way any proper scientific analysis would conclude that Kimi's tyres lasted longer. You appear to be clutching the final lap as evidence while completely ignoring what went on in the previous 23


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
Edited to simply this.

"It's not my fault that you ignore the facts. But the bottom line is that Ferrari's reputation for tyre management is based entirely on Vettel's performances and looking at Kimi you'd never reach the same conclusion"

Just produce a simply list of the stints this is shown in and I am happy to agree. Every lap of the season here - http://en.mclarenf-1.com/

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


Last edited by lamo on Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
Deleted - not worth the time.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
Deleted - not worth the time.

Australia, stint one


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
Edited to simply this.

"It's not my fault that you ignore the facts. But the bottom line is that Ferrari's reputation for tyre management is based entirely on Vettel's performances and looking at Kimi you'd never reach the same conclusion"

Just produce a simply list of the stints this is shown in and I am happy to agree. Every lap of the season here - http://en.mclarenf-1.com/

Australia, stint one


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Deleted - not worth the time.

Australia, stint one


Impossible to know without knowing what Vettels pace would have been in clean air.

Australia, Vettel was just vastly superior to Kimi. Huge gap between them. For example he was 1.4,1.0,1.0 and 1.3 seconds quicker than Kimi between laps 9-12 and then was when they were both on relatively new tyres and Kimi had clear air whilst Vettel could potentially go even quicker with Hamilton holding him up.

Vettel was so much faster than Kimi in Australia at times over a second per lap when the tyres were relatively new. But even by the end of the stint on old worn tyres - Kimi was matching him.

Vettels last 3 laps - 28.6, 28.5, 46.9 (in lap)
Kimi's last 3 laps - 28.6, 28.7, 46.2 (in lap)

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


Last edited by lamo on Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Deleted - not worth the time.

Australia, stint one


Impossible to know without knowing what Vettels pace would have been in clean air.

It was after the Australian race that people first started writing about Ferrari's supposed tyre wear advantage. Most of the reasoning given was on the fact that Vettel managed to harass Lewis for the entire first stint and then continue hammering in fast times after Lewis went in. I strongly suspect you already know this.

So perhaps you could give examples where Kimi's driving has led to people calling the Ferrari great on its tyres? How do you think the reputation has been earned?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
So when you said its only Vettel that is good on the tyres and not Kimi you base that on Australia alone, after 11 races? In a race when Kimi was just plain slow in all aspects and his worst race of the year by a long way.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Deleted - not worth the time.

Australia, stint one


Impossible to know without knowing what Vettels pace would have been in clean air.

Australia, Vettel was just vastly superior to Kimi. Huge gap between them. For example he was 1.1,1.3,1.3 and 1.7 seconds quicker than Kimi between laps 5-9 and then was when they were both on relatively new tyres and Kimi had clear air whilst Vettel could potentially go even quicker with Hamilton holding him up

The latter paragraph is exactly my point. Ferrari's reputation has been built entirely on Vettel's performances. Nothing Kimi has done has demonstrated any kind of tyre wear superiority. It's all Vettel.

I think you may have forgotten why we are having this discussion in the first place. It's not to say whether Kimi has been as quick as Vettel, but to explore where Ferrari's reputation for tyre wear has been earned. It's my contention that all the supporting evidence has been generated by Vettel, leading me to offer that it may actually be Vettel's driving that's to blame, rather than any inherent property of the car. So far you've not provided any evidence for Kimi doing anything noteworthy as regards tyre management, which only reinforces my position.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
So when you said its only Vettel that is good on the tyres and not Kimi you base that on Australia alone, after 11 races? In a race when Kimi was just plain slow in all aspects and his worst race of the year by a long way.

Nope. I've said that was when the reputation was first earned. Please pay attention.

Since it's your position that it's the car and not the driver, it should be fairly easy for you to give examples of where Kimi has shown tyre management superiority. So far you haven't. So if you can't, why do you think that it's a property of the car?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
So when you said its only Vettel that is good on the tyres and not Kimi you base that on Australia alone, after 11 races? In a race when Kimi was just plain slow in all aspects and his worst race of the year by a long way.

Nope. I've said that was when the reputation was first earned. Please pay attention.

Since it's your position that it's the car and not the driver, it should be fairly easy for you to give examples of where Kimi has shown tyre management superiority. So far you haven't. So if you can't, why do you think that it's a property of the car?


Ok, Australia. When else?

I never said it was the car, I said, show me its Vettel. I have an open mind to if its car or driver. You claims its Vettel. I said list all the stints. You have given me Australia, 1 race in 11.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Deleted - not worth the time.

Australia, stint one


Impossible to know without knowing what Vettels pace would have been in clean air.

Australia, Vettel was just vastly superior to Kimi. Huge gap between them. For example he was 1.4,1.0,1.0 and 1.3 seconds quicker than Kimi between laps 9-12 and then was when they were both on relatively new tyres and Kimi had clear air whilst Vettel could potentially go even quicker with Hamilton holding him up.

Vettel was so much faster than Kimi in Australia at times over a second per lap when the tyres were relatively new. But even by the end of the stint on old worn tyres - Kimi was matching him.

Vettels last 3 laps - 28.6, 28.5, 46.9 (in lap)
Kimi's last 3 laps - 28.6, 28.7, 46.2 (in lap)

It's hard to reply properly when you keep editing previous posts, but here's attempt three:

I don't understand how your mind works, I'm afraid. Why are you comparing laps set at different times in the Grand Prix? They both started the stint at the same time (i.e. the opening lap), so any comparisons should be of the same laps. And you've also inexplicably omitted one of Kimi's laps and quoted 23, 25 and 26.

Vettel's last three full laps of his opening stint were:

28.224
28.578
28.501

Kimi's, by comparison:

28.836
28.987
29.485

Or, put another way, the gaps on those laps were:

0.612
0.409
0.984

So what about those laps leads you to believe that Kimi was managing his tyres well?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
So when you said its only Vettel that is good on the tyres and not Kimi you base that on Australia alone, after 11 races? In a race when Kimi was just plain slow in all aspects and his worst race of the year by a long way.

Nope. I've said that was when the reputation was first earned. Please pay attention.

Since it's your position that it's the car and not the driver, it should be fairly easy for you to give examples of where Kimi has shown tyre management superiority. So far you haven't. So if you can't, why do you think that it's a property of the car?


Ok, Australia. When else?

I never said it was the car, I said, show me its Vettel. I have an open mind to if its car or driver. You claims its Vettel. I said list all the stints. You have given me Australia, 1 race in 11.

Nice try, but I've been asking right from the start where the evidence is that it's the car. If you want to contest that, then you show me where Kimi has done anything special. So far I've debunked all your examples. In other words, you have nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 1859
Even if there is no evidence from Kimi it still doesn't mean the Ferrari doesnt hold an advantage when it comes to tyre wear. Kimi has been pretty useless for years.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Deleted - not worth the time.

Australia, stint one


Impossible to know without knowing what Vettels pace would have been in clean air.

Australia, Vettel was just vastly superior to Kimi. Huge gap between them. For example he was 1.4,1.0,1.0 and 1.3 seconds quicker than Kimi between laps 9-12 and then was when they were both on relatively new tyres and Kimi had clear air whilst Vettel could potentially go even quicker with Hamilton holding him up.

Vettel was so much faster than Kimi in Australia at times over a second per lap when the tyres were relatively new. But even by the end of the stint on old worn tyres - Kimi was matching him.

Vettels last 3 laps - 28.6, 28.5, 46.9 (in lap)
Kimi's last 3 laps - 28.6, 28.7, 46.2 (in lap)

It's hard to reply properly when you keep editing previous posts, but here's attempt three:

I don't understand how your mind works, I'm afraid. Why are you comparing laps set at different times in the Grand Prix? They both started the stint at the same time (i.e. the opening lap), so any comparisons should be of the same laps. And you've also inexplicably omitted one of Kimi's laps and quoted 23, 25 and 26.

Vettel's last three full laps of his opening stint were:

28.224
28.578
28.501

Kimi's, by comparison:

28.836
28.987
29.485

Or, put another way, the gaps on those laps were:

0.612
0.409
0.984

So what about those laps leads you to believe that Kimi was managing his tyres well?


The fact he was quickest at the end of the stint. HE actually set a green sector on his in lap.

You are correct, sorry I missed that Kimi lap. So we have.

Vettel:
Lap 21: 28.6
Lap 22: 28.5
Lap 23: 47.0

Kimi: On slightly older tyres
Lap 23: 28.6
Lap 24: 28.7
Lap 25: 28.7
Lap 26: 46.2

So by the stints end, around lap 23, we have them putting in similar times.
Earlier in the stint Vettel was 1 second per lap quicker.
In qualifying Vettel was 0.6 seconds per lap quicker.
Kimi was very very slow in Australia, his worst race of the season, yet 0.8 faster on his in lap. Vettel wore his tyres out?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
So when you said its only Vettel that is good on the tyres and not Kimi you base that on Australia alone, after 11 races? In a race when Kimi was just plain slow in all aspects and his worst race of the year by a long way.

Nope. I've said that was when the reputation was first earned. Please pay attention.

Since it's your position that it's the car and not the driver, it should be fairly easy for you to give examples of where Kimi has shown tyre management superiority. So far you haven't. So if you can't, why do you think that it's a property of the car?


Ok, Australia. When else?

I never said it was the car, I said, show me its Vettel. I have an open mind to if its car or driver. You claims its Vettel. I said list all the stints. You have given me Australia, 1 race in 11.

Nice try, but I've been asking right from the start where the evidence is that it's the car. If you want to contest that, then you show me where Kimi has done anything special. So far I've debunked all your examples. In other words, you have nothing


Sorry, Kimi is a slow driver so its difficult to prove. He is naturally behind the other 3 so its near impossible for him to be quicker than them, but what happens is - he is closer when the tyres wear down. How exactly can you prove a driver who is slower than his team mate and rivals is better on his tyres - his advantage on making the tyres last just brings him a lot closer but not ahead. Those cars are typically too much quicker for it to make him quicker. He isn't good enough.

Lets put it this way, in quite a few races. Kimi has been slow in qualifying (+0.3-0.5) slow in the opening stint (+0.3-0.5) but once the race progresses and nearer the stint end this is 0.0-0.1 behind. You may well not agree with me, but here is a list of stints this occurred in.

Australia stint 1, Kimi pace vs Bottas pace (both in clean air)
Austria stint 1, Kimi pace vs Bottas and Vettel pace (both in clean air)
Russia stint 1, Kimi pace vs Hamilton and Bottas pace (both in clean air)

In each of these races Kimi was relatively stronger against the Mercedes at stint end. He also was setting PB's right at the end of each of these stints = good tyre life in my book.

Silverstone stint 2, Kimi time drop off vs Vettel time drop off after 25 laps. Vettel completely destroyed his tyres (losing 2 seconds per lap, Kimi's were fine). Vettel got a puncture due to wearing them completely out, Kimi got a puncture unrelated to wear. Kimi managed the tyres much better this stint. So if you criteria is; for Kimi to show superior tyre management he must be quicker than Vettel, theres your race to cover that one. I think this is also the sole example of a Ferrari driver completely destroying a set of tyres this and going off the cliff, in fact any driver on the grid possibly?

I won't use Hungary, because that obviously isn't a fair scenario. Vettel was holding Kimi up, he was not in clear air like Hamilton was holding Vettel in Australia. So once the slower car pitted the following car was quicker. Likewise Monaco, Vettel was just quicker and being held up and Kimi never got the opportunity to push for in laps. But he did do a green sector on his in lap still - so plenty of life left in those tyres when Ferrari pitted him.

---------------

Opposing argument -

Australia - which in itself doesn't show Vettel to be able to manage the tyres better than Kimi. Kimi was slow all race, but Kimi was doing personal bests at the very end of his stint. Vettel wasn't. Vettel was also being held up by Hamilton in the first stint. Admitedly Vettel ran the stint in dirty air and at a faster pace so it is impressive but due to Kimi's awful pace its hard to draw a complete conclusion on if it was driver or car in that particular race.

The rest of the stints for the opposing argument?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Deleted - not worth the time.

Australia, stint one


Impossible to know without knowing what Vettels pace would have been in clean air.

Australia, Vettel was just vastly superior to Kimi. Huge gap between them. For example he was 1.4,1.0,1.0 and 1.3 seconds quicker than Kimi between laps 9-12 and then was when they were both on relatively new tyres and Kimi had clear air whilst Vettel could potentially go even quicker with Hamilton holding him up.

Vettel was so much faster than Kimi in Australia at times over a second per lap when the tyres were relatively new. But even by the end of the stint on old worn tyres - Kimi was matching him.

Vettels last 3 laps - 28.6, 28.5, 46.9 (in lap)
Kimi's last 3 laps - 28.6, 28.7, 46.2 (in lap)

It's hard to reply properly when you keep editing previous posts, but here's attempt three:

I don't understand how your mind works, I'm afraid. Why are you comparing laps set at different times in the Grand Prix? They both started the stint at the same time (i.e. the opening lap), so any comparisons should be of the same laps. And you've also inexplicably omitted one of Kimi's laps and quoted 23, 25 and 26.

Vettel's last three full laps of his opening stint were:

28.224
28.578
28.501

Kimi's, by comparison:

28.836
28.987
29.485

Or, put another way, the gaps on those laps were:

0.612
0.409
0.984

So what about those laps leads you to believe that Kimi was managing his tyres well?


The fact he was quickest at the end of the stint. HE actually set a green sector on his in lap.

You are correct, sorry I missed that Kimi lap. So we have.

Vettel:
Lap 21: 28.6
Lap 22: 28.5
Lap 23: 47.0

Kimi: On slightly older tyres
Lap 23: 28.6
Lap 24: 28.7
Lap 25: 28.7
Lap 26: 46.2

So by the stints end, around lap 23, we have them putting in similar times.
Earlier in the stint Vettel was 1 second per lap quicker.
In qualifying Vettel was 0.6 seconds per lap quicker.
Kimi was very very slow in Australia, his worst race of the season, yet 0.8 faster on his in lap. Vettel wore his tyres out?

But he wasn't quickest at the end of the stint. His last three laps before pitting were both slower than Vettel's last three laps, and those were set three laps previously. How on earth does that equate to Kimi being quicker? And, as stated previously, why are you comparing times from different laps?

I don't understand why you keep trying to prove that Kimi was quicker when all of the evidence points to the opposite. All of it. Vettel consistently grew the gap to 18.8 seconds over a 22 lap stint. Not once did Kimi post a faster lap, despite the fact that Vettel spent nearly all of that stint right up Hamilton's exhaust - his tyres must have received a battering from all the dirty air. There is no possible way that you could conclude that Kimi was doing a better job with his tyres. None. Why are you flogging this dead horse?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8018
I am not trying to prove Kimi was quicker, please show me where I stated that - he is inherently a slower driver than Vettel. We are discussing tyre life here aren't we? Kimi was very poor in Australia, so poor that Vettel was going away at over a second per lap at times.

You said Kimi doesn't show tyre saving like Vettel. I am showing you at the end of the stint he is posting PBs. How can posting PBs at the end of the stint not being looking after your tyres?

My point was Kimi was quick on old tyres. Do you agree ? If Kimi wasn't quick on old tyres, then surely Vettel wasn't because they were within 0.1 of each other by lap 23. So they are both either slow, or both either quick. They were in the same ball park by the end of the stint.

You are also completely missing my point, I am not saying Kimi did a better job than Vettel. You completely missed my point. My point is both Ferraris were easy on the tyres.

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


Last edited by lamo on Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 881
lamo wrote:
I am not trying to prove Kimi was quicker, he is inherently a slower driver than Vettel. We are discussing tyre life here aren't we? Kimi was very poor in Australia, so poor that Vettel was going away at over a second per lap at times.

You said Kimi doesn't show tyre saving like Vettel. I am showing you at the end of the stint he is posting PBs. How can posting PBs at the end of the stint not being looking after your tyres?


A quick question, was the Force India good on it's tyres, or was Perez good at managing his tyres?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19861
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
So when you said its only Vettel that is good on the tyres and not Kimi you base that on Australia alone, after 11 races? In a race when Kimi was just plain slow in all aspects and his worst race of the year by a long way.

Nope. I've said that was when the reputation was first earned. Please pay attention.

Since it's your position that it's the car and not the driver, it should be fairly easy for you to give examples of where Kimi has shown tyre management superiority. So far you haven't. So if you can't, why do you think that it's a property of the car?


Ok, Australia. When else?

I never said it was the car, I said, show me its Vettel. I have an open mind to if its car or driver. You claims its Vettel. I said list all the stints. You have given me Australia, 1 race in 11.

Nice try, but I've been asking right from the start where the evidence is that it's the car. If you want to contest that, then you show me where Kimi has done anything special. So far I've debunked all your examples. In other words, you have nothing


Sorry, Kimi is a slow driver so its difficult to prove. He is naturally behind the other 3 so its near impossible for him to be quicker than them, but what happens is - he is closer when the tyres wear down. How exactly can you prove a driver who is slower than his team mate and rivals is better on his tyres - his advantage on making the tyres last just brings him a lot closer but not ahead. Those cars are typically too much quicker for it to make him quicker. He isn't good enough.

Lets put it this way, in quite a few races. Kimi has been slow in qualifying (+0.3-0.5) slow in the opening stint (+0.3-0.5) but once the race progresses and nearer the stint end this is 0.0-0.1 behind. You may well not agree with me, but here is a list of stints this occurred in.

Australia stint 1, Kimi pace vs Bottas pace (both in clean air)
Austria stint 1, Kimi pace vs Bottas and Vettel pace (both in clean air)
Russia stint 1, Kimi pace vs Hamilton and Bottas pace (both in clean air)

In each of these races Kimi was relatively stronger against the Mercedes at stint end. He also was setting PB's right at the end of each of these stints = good tyre life in my book.

Silverstone stint 2, Kimi time drop off vs Vettel time drop off after 25 laps. Vettel completely destroyed his tyres (losing 2 seconds per lap, Kimi's were fine). Vettel got a puncture due to wearing them completely out, Kimi got a puncture unrelated to wear. Kimi managed the tyres much better this stint. So if you criteria is; for Kimi to show superior tyre management he must be quicker than Vettel, theres your race to cover that one. I think this is also the sole example of a Ferrari driver completely destroying a set of tyres this and going off the cliff, in fact any driver on the grid possibly?

I won't use Hungary, because that obviously isn't a fair scenario. Vettel was holding Kimi up, he was not in clear air like Hamilton was holding Vettel in Australia. So once the slower car pitted the following car was quicker. Likewise Monaco, Vettel was just quicker and being held up and Kimi never got the opportunity to push for in laps. But he did do a green sector on his in lap still - so plenty of life left in those tyres when Ferrari pitted him.

---------------

Opposing argument -

Australia - which in itself doesn't show Vettel to be able to manage the tyres better than Kimi. Kimi was slow all race, but Kimi was doing personal bests at the very end of his stint. Vettel wasn't. Vettel was also being held up by Hamilton in the first stint. Admitedly Vettel ran the stint in dirty air and at a faster pace so it is impressive but due to Kimi's awful pace its hard to draw a complete conclusion on if it was driver or car in that particular race.

The rest of the stints for the opposing argument?

Since I've already proven that Kimi didn't have better tyre management in Australia and Austria, it's unclear to me why you are now presenting them once again as evidence? Do you think ignoring counter arguments somehow makes yours stronger? I don't see why I should do it all again: just look up the page and you'll have your answer.

Russia is the first race where it does look as though Kimi was stronger than Bottas at the end of the first stint. Bottas appears to tail off quite heavily. Against that, though, he did push very hard at the beginning and opened up an 11s gap over 22 laps, so it's equally possible he just pushed them too hard, rather than that Kimi did anything special with the tyres. Kimi was faster than Hamilton for almost the entire stint, so again, not sure if that's a function of better tyre management or more of the fact that Hamilton was having excessive overheating problems with his engine.

Silverstone: Hamilton went longer on his first stint than Kimi did, despite being consistently quicker right until the end of the stint. How is this an example of Kimi having better tyre management?

So, in summary, you still haven't provided a single shred of evidence that the Ferrari in Kimi's hands was better with tyre management than either Merc. Which again supports my position that it's more likely to be driver than car related.


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