planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:56 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Lojik wrote:
I was very surprised at how Hamilton managed to stay within DRS of Kimi for so long here. Once Kimi made the re-pass I thought he would pull away. Of course we don't have a comparison with the sister car as Vettel had damage, but even though it seems to be the concensus that Kimi has slow(er) race pace I was still suprised at how close the Merc was.

I still think it is way too early to be calling it season over, but Vettel needs to put together a string of solid perfomances, mistake free, to really apply the pressure back on Hamilton. Right now I'd put it on 50/50 between Hamilton and Vettel for the WDC with the Ferrari having a marginal performance advantage.

Yes I agree. I thought Kimi might be able to build a small gap after the first lap but Hamilton hung on doggedly. I do think that Vettel would have been able to create a gap, but only because that appears to be a specialty of his and he generally has better race pace than Kimi anyway. Really enjoyed the fight, though, and made for a very entertaining (if stressful!) viewing.

To me the cars looked fairly equal, which surprised me as after qualifying I had thought Ferrari had the edge. But Hamilton was quicker than Kimi, which you'd expect in equal machinery anyway, and I don't think he was operating with a car disadvantage. I'm quite impressed how Mercedes appeared to have magically solved their traction issues that were so prevalent in Spa. Right from the first corner I was thinking how much traction Hamilton appeared to have.

Looks good from a championship perspective, as I genuinely haven't got a clue who will win the remaining races. They look about as equal as two different cars can possibly be.

In your opinion forgetting the apparent lucky weather affected wins for Hamilton and we go into Singapore expecting the Mercs to get a beating from both Ferrari and Red Bull, what races are we expecting Ferrari to be slower?

I've no idea what you're trying to say here referencing rain when I'm talking about Monza and how the Mercs traction issues appear to have been resolved by Mercedes since Spa. Sometimes it's very hard to understand just what your thought processes are I'm afraid.

Going forward, the expectation was that the Ferraris would be quicker at Monza, but that only appeared to be the case in qualifying. The expectation was that Mercedes would suffer with poor traction, but that issue disappeared and they were pretty competitive. So I don't think at this stage we can reliably predict the outcomes of the next few races. I have no reason to believe that Mercedes will suffer in Singapore just because they have in the past - this is a new year and things are different. I think it may be closer than you imagine. Happy to be proven wrong but that's how I see it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7522
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... m/3170615/

Apparently Mercedes are trying to understand why Ferrari's straight line speed advantage disappeared on Sunday.

Quote:
Asked if the team had an answer as to why there was nothing separating Ferrari and Mercedes in top speeds in the race, Mercedes boss Toto Wolff said: “No, I don’t understand it. The performance pattern has completely changed from yesterday to today, and I haven’t got an explanation yet.

“Maybe the clever people around Shov [Andrew Shovlin, chief race engineer] will know, but I think we just need to analyse it.”


Seems like Ferrari have Q3 modes but it evens up in the races, ironic when it's been the exact opposite over the last few years, really is impressive how Ferrari have developed their engine this year.


Last edited by Black_Flag_11 on Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1358
Location: London
Playing devil's advocate, the qualifying advantage cannot be dismissed as a triviality. Wasn't it said that a large part of Ferrari's plan for the season was to get ahead of the Mercs as early as possible and then control from there, something they specifically focused on. I am through making predictions for race pace this season, things rarely seem to pan out as exepected, but I would be more surprised to see the Merc challenging for the win in qualy and the race at Singapore than I was at Monza, but I think all would agree that being ahead in Singapore is a very significant advantage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mercedes-seeking-answers-to-ferrari-top-speed-conundrum/3170615/

Apparently Mercedes are trying to understand why Ferrari's straight line speed advantage disappeared on Sunday.

Quote:
Asked if the team had an answer as to why there was nothing separating Ferrari and Mercedes in top speeds in the race, Mercedes boss Toto Wolff said: “No, I don’t understand it. The performance pattern has completely changed from yesterday to today, and I haven’t got an explanation yet.

“Maybe the clever people around Shov [Andrew Shovlin, chief race engineer] will know, but I think we just need to analyse it.”


Seems like Ferrari have Q3 modes but it evens up in the races, ironic when it's been the exact opposite over the last few years, really is impressive how Ferrari have developed their engine this year.

I don't think it's that straightforward, tbh. You'd think that Mercedes would know straightaway if it was down to something as simple as a higher qualifying mode. Not that I have any answer myself, but it sounds like there's more to it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Lojik wrote:
Playing devil's advocate, the qualifying advantage cannot be dismissed as a triviality. Wasn't it said that a large part of Ferrari's plan for the season was to get ahead of the Mercs as early as possible and then control from there, something they specifically focused on. I am through making predictions for race pace this season, things rarely seem to pan out as exepected, but I would be more surprised to see the Merc challenging for the win in qualy and the race at Singapore than I was at Monza, but I think all would agree that being ahead in Singapore is a very significant advantage.

Qualifying advantage is definitely very important. It's always better to lead than to chase IMO, especially on a street circuit where overtaking is traditionally more limited


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5556
Zoue wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mercedes-seeking-answers-to-ferrari-top-speed-conundrum/3170615/

Apparently Mercedes are trying to understand why Ferrari's straight line speed advantage disappeared on Sunday.

Quote:
Asked if the team had an answer as to why there was nothing separating Ferrari and Mercedes in top speeds in the race, Mercedes boss Toto Wolff said: “No, I don’t understand it. The performance pattern has completely changed from yesterday to today, and I haven’t got an explanation yet.

“Maybe the clever people around Shov [Andrew Shovlin, chief race engineer] will know, but I think we just need to analyse it.”


Seems like Ferrari have Q3 modes but it evens up in the races, ironic when it's been the exact opposite over the last few years, really is impressive how Ferrari have developed their engine this year.

I don't think it's that straightforward, tbh. You'd think that Mercedes would know straightaway if it was down to something as simple as a higher qualifying mode. Not that I have any answer myself, but it sounds like there's more to it

It might have to do with the whole speculation that Ferrari have found ways to increase deployment over a single lap. Some battery trick seems to be at work here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2282
Lojik wrote:
Playing devil's advocate, the qualifying advantage cannot be dismissed as a triviality. Wasn't it said that a large part of Ferrari's plan for the season was to get ahead of the Mercs as early as possible and then control from there, something they specifically focused on. I am through making predictions for race pace this season, things rarely seem to pan out as exepected, but I would be more surprised to see the Merc challenging for the win in qualy and the race at Singapore than I was at Monza, but I think all would agree that being ahead in Singapore is a very significant advantage.

The problem with both Ferrari and Vettel this season is that they've done a horrendous job of taking advantage of track position.

Bahrain - win
China - lost the lead to Bottas because they were caught napping. Then got hit by Verstappen.
Baku - lost the lead because of strategy, then Vettel messed up on the restart.
Canada - win
Germany - It takes the pitwall way too long to make an obvious team order call. Then Vettel crashes out from the lead.
Monza - we all remember what happened.

Right now Ferrari's conversion rate from pole position is 2 out of 6. That is abysmal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1358
Location: London
Interesting article on whether or not Ferrari have the better PU

https://www.f1technical.net/news/21830

No definitive answer of course but plenty of info to keep things ticking over.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Lojik wrote:
Interesting article on whether or not Ferrari have the better PU

https://www.f1technical.net/news/21830

No definitive answer of course but plenty of info to keep things ticking over.

interesting article, thanks :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Interesting article comparing the three cars and their different design philosophies:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/138615/how-the-top-cars-wheelbase-and-rake-compares

The difference in rake caught my eye: Mercedes has the lowest at 1.25 degrees, with Red Bull being the highest at 1.9 degrees. Ferrari sits almost in the middle at 1.53 degrees. Which also makes me wonder whether this may have some influence on the cars' wet weather performances. Red Bull are clearly all at sea in the wet, while Mercedes look if anything even better than they do in the dry. Ferrari also seem to lose some pace in the wet, although not as much as Red Bull. This could be driver related but it does fit with the greater speed loss being linked to the increase in rake. Discuss :]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14223
Zoue wrote:
Interesting article comparing the three cars and their different design philosophies:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/138615/how-the-top-cars-wheelbase-and-rake-compares

The difference in rake caught my eye: Mercedes has the lowest at 1.25 degrees, with Red Bull being the highest at 1.9 degrees. Ferrari sits almost in the middle at 1.53 degrees. Which also makes me wonder whether this may have some influence on the cars' wet weather performances. Red Bull are clearly all at sea in the wet, while Mercedes look if anything even better than they do in the dry. Ferrari also seem to lose some pace in the wet, although not as much as Red Bull. This could be driver related but it does fit with the greater speed loss being linked to the increase in rake. Discuss :]


Excuse my ignorance but why would a decrease in rake be beneficial in the wet?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Interesting article comparing the three cars and their different design philosophies:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/138615/how-the-top-cars-wheelbase-and-rake-compares

The difference in rake caught my eye: Mercedes has the lowest at 1.25 degrees, with Red Bull being the highest at 1.9 degrees. Ferrari sits almost in the middle at 1.53 degrees. Which also makes me wonder whether this may have some influence on the cars' wet weather performances. Red Bull are clearly all at sea in the wet, while Mercedes look if anything even better than they do in the dry. Ferrari also seem to lose some pace in the wet, although not as much as Red Bull. This could be driver related but it does fit with the greater speed loss being linked to the increase in rake. Discuss :]


Excuse my ignorance but why would a decrease in rake be beneficial in the wet?

I see your ignorance and raise it with mine 8)

I have no idea, tbh. But I do remember reading about that in relation to Red Bull a while back


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14223
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Interesting article comparing the three cars and their different design philosophies:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/138615/how-the-top-cars-wheelbase-and-rake-compares

The difference in rake caught my eye: Mercedes has the lowest at 1.25 degrees, with Red Bull being the highest at 1.9 degrees. Ferrari sits almost in the middle at 1.53 degrees. Which also makes me wonder whether this may have some influence on the cars' wet weather performances. Red Bull are clearly all at sea in the wet, while Mercedes look if anything even better than they do in the dry. Ferrari also seem to lose some pace in the wet, although not as much as Red Bull. This could be driver related but it does fit with the greater speed loss being linked to the increase in rake. Discuss :]


Excuse my ignorance but why would a decrease in rake be beneficial in the wet?

I see your ignorance and raise it with mine 8)

I have no idea, tbh. But I do remember reading about that in relation to Red Bull a while back


Unless there is a known link then I think it's hard to suggest this in particularly would be the reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Interesting article comparing the three cars and their different design philosophies:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/138615/how-the-top-cars-wheelbase-and-rake-compares

The difference in rake caught my eye: Mercedes has the lowest at 1.25 degrees, with Red Bull being the highest at 1.9 degrees. Ferrari sits almost in the middle at 1.53 degrees. Which also makes me wonder whether this may have some influence on the cars' wet weather performances. Red Bull are clearly all at sea in the wet, while Mercedes look if anything even better than they do in the dry. Ferrari also seem to lose some pace in the wet, although not as much as Red Bull. This could be driver related but it does fit with the greater speed loss being linked to the increase in rake. Discuss :]


Excuse my ignorance but why would a decrease in rake be beneficial in the wet?

I see your ignorance and raise it with mine 8)

I have no idea, tbh. But I do remember reading about that in relation to Red Bull a while back


Unless there is a known link then I think it's hard to suggest this in particularly would be the reason.
Why? As I said, it's been put forward as an issue for Red Bull, so it's not as though it's a crackpot theory.

But happy to stand corrected if someone with more technical understanding can weigh in (not aimed at you, mikeyg123, just that you've said that like me you're ignorant of the actual science of it)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4798
Having given this all of 10 seconds of thought...
Perhaps a car designed with a high rake philosophy relies more on the floor to produce down force which works better at high speeds is compromised with the lower speeds that are run when the track is wet.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1648
RaggedMan wrote:
Having given this all of 10 seconds of thought...
Perhaps a car designed with a high rake philosophy relies more on the floor to produce down force which works better at high speeds is compromised with the lower speeds that are run when the track is wet.


You are not very far off, as car with high rake need high speed for downforce, if you look back to the exhaust blown diffuser thats how redbull were able to counter it at low speed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3458
But Redbull has always run the highest rake. And this is the first year you can say they are struggling in the wet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Interesting article comparing the three cars and their different design philosophies:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/138615/how-the-top-cars-wheelbase-and-rake-compares

The difference in rake caught my eye: Mercedes has the lowest at 1.25 degrees, with Red Bull being the highest at 1.9 degrees. Ferrari sits almost in the middle at 1.53 degrees. Which also makes me wonder whether this may have some influence on the cars' wet weather performances. Red Bull are clearly all at sea in the wet, while Mercedes look if anything even better than they do in the dry. Ferrari also seem to lose some pace in the wet, although not as much as Red Bull. This could be driver related but it does fit with the greater speed loss being linked to the increase in rake. Discuss :]


Excuse my ignorance but why would a decrease in rake be beneficial in the wet?

I see your ignorance and raise it with mine 8)

I have no idea, tbh. But I do remember reading about that in relation to Red Bull a while back


Unless there is a known link then I think it's hard to suggest this in particularly would be the reason.

Traditionally Red Bull are normally good in the wet and they've always had a high rake, they have one poor wet qualifying session then it becomes a theory.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
RaggedMan wrote:
Having given this all of 10 seconds of thought...
Perhaps a car designed with a high rake philosophy relies more on the floor to produce down force which works better at high speeds is compromised with the lower speeds that are run when the track is wet.

The Mercedes strength is high speed corners and struggles on slow speed corners so that would be the opposite of what you just said.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Interesting article comparing the three cars and their different design philosophies:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/138615/how-the-top-cars-wheelbase-and-rake-compares

The difference in rake caught my eye: Mercedes has the lowest at 1.25 degrees, with Red Bull being the highest at 1.9 degrees. Ferrari sits almost in the middle at 1.53 degrees. Which also makes me wonder whether this may have some influence on the cars' wet weather performances. Red Bull are clearly all at sea in the wet, while Mercedes look if anything even better than they do in the dry. Ferrari also seem to lose some pace in the wet, although not as much as Red Bull. This could be driver related but it does fit with the greater speed loss being linked to the increase in rake. Discuss :]


Excuse my ignorance but why would a decrease in rake be beneficial in the wet?

I see your ignorance and raise it with mine 8)

I have no idea, tbh. But I do remember reading about that in relation to Red Bull a while back


Unless there is a known link then I think it's hard to suggest this in particularly would be the reason.

Traditionally Red Bull are normally good in the wet and they've always had a high rake, they have one poor wet qualifying session then it becomes a theory.
wasn't really a theory, more a question from my side. I'm almost positive that I'd read something connecting Red Bull's rake with their struggles in the wet, but I'm happy to be wrong on it. Just something I noticed and put together with previous info


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4927
Isn't it to do with the change in ride height in the wet with the different profile tyres? I think it's just easier to mess up your set up in a high rake car which needs the high pressure created with your front end as close to the ground as possible. The higher the front end the less pressure it creates.

Different rule sets will make it easier or harder depending on what you're using like bigger tyres or wider and bigger floors or what you're allowed to do to combat it. So using Red Bull as an example with an HPC suspension and/or using the exhaust to seal the floor might have made it easier to get working in the wet in previous years than it is today with the bigger floors and tyres.

But if they get it working I don't think there's much difference. Last year at Monza Ferrari had low rake but still messed it ( the set up) up and were slower than Red Bull and also FI who had high rake concepts and obviously Mercedes with a low one so I don't think either is out and out better as a concept if you get it right.

Maybe more sensitive to the wet is the way to describe it if there is too much of a difference in ride height/profile in the wet.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Lotus49 wrote:
Isn't it to do with the change in ride height in the wet with the different profile tyres? I think it's just easier to mess up your set up in a high rake car which needs the high pressure created with your front end as close to the ground as possible. The higher the front end the less pressure it creates.

Different rule sets will make it easier or harder depending on what you're using like bigger tyres or wider and bigger floors or what you're allowed to do to combat it. So using Red Bull as an example with an HPC suspension and/or using the exhaust to seal the floor might have made it easier to get working in the wet in previous years than it is today with the bigger floors and tyres.

But if they get it working I don't think there's much difference. Last year at Monza Ferrari had low rake but still messed it ( the set up) up and were slower than Red Bull and also FI who had high rake concepts and obviously Mercedes with a low one so I don't think either is out and out better as a concept if you get it right.

Maybe more sensitive to the wet is the way to describe it if there is too much of a difference in ride height/profile in the wet.

good info, cheers :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Excuse my ignorance but why would a decrease in rake be beneficial in the wet?

I see your ignorance and raise it with mine 8)

I have no idea, tbh. But I do remember reading about that in relation to Red Bull a while back


Unless there is a known link then I think it's hard to suggest this in particularly would be the reason.

Traditionally Red Bull are normally good in the wet and they've always had a high rake, they have one poor wet qualifying session then it becomes a theory.
wasn't really a theory, more a question from my side. I'm almost positive that I'd read something connecting Red Bull's rake with their struggles in the wet, but I'm happy to be wrong on it. Just something I noticed and put together with previous info

Yes I also heard that so why wasn't it a problem for them in the past, one bad wet qualifying and then it's a design flaw.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I see your ignorance and raise it with mine 8)

I have no idea, tbh. But I do remember reading about that in relation to Red Bull a while back


Unless there is a known link then I think it's hard to suggest this in particularly would be the reason.

Traditionally Red Bull are normally good in the wet and they've always had a high rake, they have one poor wet qualifying session then it becomes a theory.
wasn't really a theory, more a question from my side. I'm almost positive that I'd read something connecting Red Bull's rake with their struggles in the wet, but I'm happy to be wrong on it. Just something I noticed and put together with previous info

Yes I also heard that so why wasn't it a problem for them in the past, one bad wet qualifying and then it's a design flaw.

well I think Lotus49 gave a pretty reasonable explanation that it's not so much a design flaw but it's just a lot trickier to get wet setup right with a higher rake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
It's a debate that we'll never resolve. I disagree with that assessment and think the cars have looked very close and performances have varied from track to track

They have varied but not too and fro in recent races in terms of actual car performance, you yourself labelled Hamilton as being lucky in recent races.
With all due respect, I've explained the lucky thing so many times but you just seem to ignore it each time.

Hamilton was lucky at one particular race - Hungary - because the Mercedes clearly looked like it was struggling in the dry - more so than at any other weekend this year, if not since the beginning of the hybrid era - and the rain coming just in Q3 handed them a lifeline because it appeared to mitigate their dry qualifying performance exactly when they needed it to. This is the luck part. It wouldn't have been lucky if it had rained in e.g. Australia because their car didn't look like it was struggling in Australia. While in Belgium Vettel and Hamilton were neck and neck in qualifying before the rain so I don't think luck played a big part there. In Hungary it just did

Ferrari have looked quicker in qualifying recently, and that certainly hands them an advantage, even if their pace looks much closer to the Mercedes in the race itself. But since it's not been the case every race, it remains to be seen whether they will continue with their qualifying advantage for the remainder of the season. Rain negated that advantage in Hungary or Belgium, two out of the last four races, while in Germany the cars looked pretty equal and we'll never know whether Lewis could have overcome the 2 tenths deficit Bottas had on Vettel. Which means that on only one occasion in the last four races have Ferrari had a measurable advantage in qualifying, so I don't think they can be said to be operating at an advantage for any period of time. So in terms of performance when it matters I think the cars have been as equal as they can be

In Spa you take Q2 times were the cars don't need be flat out and ignore Hamilton saying that the Ferrari was 3 to 4 tenths quicker in the race.

Germany, cars may have been close to equal
Hungary, Ferrari quicker hampered by wet qualifying
Spa, Ferrari quicker in the race, again qualifying was wet
Italy, cars may have been close to equal

I think i'm being reasonably generous there given a Ferrari on pole in Germany and Italy (front row lock out)

For me that is Ferrari having the edge but hampered by the rain and Vettel's mistakes/driving.

I'm not really ignoring it, as I was talking about qualifying. After Q2 the Ferrari and Mercedes were neck and neck.

As to the rest of your post, I don't disagree, except to add that the Ferrari looked quicker in qualifying at Monza. If you look at my previous post I was focusing on qualifying advantage, so you are basically agreeing that the only race they have enjoyed an advantage there in the last four races was Monza.

The trend does point to Ferrari enjoying a qualifying advantage in their car since the summer break and I'm not disputing that. But they've only ever been able to take advantage of that once, which needs to be pointed out when describing who has the best car. But the way Mercedes caught up at Monza was seriously impressive, given they only had a week to sort out their traction issues, so I wouldn't put money on things remaining the same in the coming races.

Thought I'd bring this here to avoid the wrath of the Mods!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Zoue wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
They have varied but not too and fro in recent races in terms of actual car performance, you yourself labelled Hamilton as being lucky in recent races.
With all due respect, I've explained the lucky thing so many times but you just seem to ignore it each time.

Hamilton was lucky at one particular race - Hungary - because the Mercedes clearly looked like it was struggling in the dry - more so than at any other weekend this year, if not since the beginning of the hybrid era - and the rain coming just in Q3 handed them a lifeline because it appeared to mitigate their dry qualifying performance exactly when they needed it to. This is the luck part. It wouldn't have been lucky if it had rained in e.g. Australia because their car didn't look like it was struggling in Australia. While in Belgium Vettel and Hamilton were neck and neck in qualifying before the rain so I don't think luck played a big part there. In Hungary it just did

Ferrari have looked quicker in qualifying recently, and that certainly hands them an advantage, even if their pace looks much closer to the Mercedes in the race itself. But since it's not been the case every race, it remains to be seen whether they will continue with their qualifying advantage for the remainder of the season. Rain negated that advantage in Hungary or Belgium, two out of the last four races, while in Germany the cars looked pretty equal and we'll never know whether Lewis could have overcome the 2 tenths deficit Bottas had on Vettel. Which means that on only one occasion in the last four races have Ferrari had a measurable advantage in qualifying, so I don't think they can be said to be operating at an advantage for any period of time. So in terms of performance when it matters I think the cars have been as equal as they can be

In Spa you take Q2 times were the cars don't need be flat out and ignore Hamilton saying that the Ferrari was 3 to 4 tenths quicker in the race.

Germany, cars may have been close to equal
Hungary, Ferrari quicker hampered by wet qualifying
Spa, Ferrari quicker in the race, again qualifying was wet
Italy, cars may have been close to equal

I think i'm being reasonably generous there given a Ferrari on pole in Germany and Italy (front row lock out)

For me that is Ferrari having the edge but hampered by the rain and Vettel's mistakes/driving.

I'm not really ignoring it, as I was talking about qualifying. After Q2 the Ferrari and Mercedes were neck and neck.

As to the rest of your post, I don't disagree, except to add that the Ferrari looked quicker in qualifying at Monza. If you look at my previous post I was focusing on qualifying advantage, so you are basically agreeing that the only race they have enjoyed an advantage there in the last four races was Monza.

The trend does point to Ferrari enjoying a qualifying advantage in their car since the summer break and I'm not disputing that. But they've only ever been able to take advantage of that once, which needs to be pointed out when describing who has the best car. But the way Mercedes caught up at Monza was seriously impressive, given they only had a week to sort out their traction issues, so I wouldn't put money on things remaining the same in the coming races.

Thought I'd bring this here to avoid the wrath of the Mods!

Good thinking :thumbup:

Ferrari have only taken advantage once because of the rain and Vettel errors, can we guarantee these things happening going forward?

I now see you want to factor in the Mercedes as being the better wet weather car and I don't want to really get into that kind of circular debate that we've discussed before, Kimi could have been on pole in the wet etc., the fact as I see it is that in the last 4 weekends Ferrari have had the faster car two times in the dry, the other two have been quite close.

Relative to the debate we have Hamilton's stolen victories:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrLt8SY2jMk

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1922
Well, I think it's close like last year but believe Ferrari actually have the clear edge for the year, much like I felt Mercedes had the clear edge in 2017.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm not really ignoring it, as I was talking about qualifying. After Q2 the Ferrari and Mercedes were neck and neck.

As to the rest of your post, I don't disagree, except to add that the Ferrari looked quicker in qualifying at Monza. If you look at my previous post I was focusing on qualifying advantage, so you are basically agreeing that the only race they have enjoyed an advantage there in the last four races was Monza.

The trend does point to Ferrari enjoying a qualifying advantage in their car since the summer break and I'm not disputing that. But they've only ever been able to take advantage of that once, which needs to be pointed out when describing who has the best car. But the way Mercedes caught up at Monza was seriously impressive, given they only had a week to sort out their traction issues, so I wouldn't put money on things remaining the same in the coming races.


Ferrari have only taken advantage once because of the rain and Vettel errors, can we guarantee these things happening going forward?

I now see you want to factor in the Mercedes as being the better wet weather car and I don't want to really get into that kind of circular debate that we've discussed before, Kimi could have been on pole in the wet etc., the fact as I see it is that in the last 4 weekends Ferrari have had the faster car two times in the dry, the other two have been quite close.

Relative to the debate we have Hamilton's stolen victories:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrLt8SY2jMk

That's not what I said, though. I'm saying the rain took away any advantage that Ferrari might have had, which is a different thing entirely. You've basically agreed with me with your list above, so not entirely sure what you're contesting here.

Ferrari have only had a measurable qualifying advantage once in the last four races and in the race itself it's debatable whether they've been at all quicker. Hamilton certainly wasn't running any kind of deficit to Kimi at Monza, that's for sure. Quite the contrary, on the face of the evidence.

My position is that the cars are fairly evenly matched and are so close that things could change for either in a heartbeat. Ferrari look to have the qualifying momentum but given how things appear to change so quickly - and I used Mercedes' reversal of fortunes with their traction issues between Spa and Monza in the race as an obvious example of that - I don't think anything's set in stone for either qualifying or race performance over the remaining races. Unlike in previous years, I think it's virtually impossible to say with any certainty who's going to be on pole or win in any of the next few weekends.

Agree that Hamilton has maximised his chances and done very well with that


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm not really ignoring it, as I was talking about qualifying. After Q2 the Ferrari and Mercedes were neck and neck.

As to the rest of your post, I don't disagree, except to add that the Ferrari looked quicker in qualifying at Monza. If you look at my previous post I was focusing on qualifying advantage, so you are basically agreeing that the only race they have enjoyed an advantage there in the last four races was Monza.

The trend does point to Ferrari enjoying a qualifying advantage in their car since the summer break and I'm not disputing that. But they've only ever been able to take advantage of that once, which needs to be pointed out when describing who has the best car. But the way Mercedes caught up at Monza was seriously impressive, given they only had a week to sort out their traction issues, so I wouldn't put money on things remaining the same in the coming races.


Ferrari have only taken advantage once because of the rain and Vettel errors, can we guarantee these things happening going forward?

I now see you want to factor in the Mercedes as being the better wet weather car and I don't want to really get into that kind of circular debate that we've discussed before, Kimi could have been on pole in the wet etc., the fact as I see it is that in the last 4 weekends Ferrari have had the faster car two times in the dry, the other two have been quite close.

Relative to the debate we have Hamilton's stolen victories:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrLt8SY2jMk

That's not what I said, though. I'm saying the rain took away any advantage that Ferrari might have had, which is a different thing entirely. You've basically agreed with me with your list above, so not entirely sure what you're contesting here.

Ferrari have only had a measurable qualifying advantage once in the last four races and in the race itself it's debatable whether they've been at all quicker. Hamilton certainly wasn't running any kind of deficit to Kimi at Monza, that's for sure. Quite the contrary, on the face of the evidence.

My position is that the cars are fairly evenly matched and are so close that things could change for either in a heartbeat. Ferrari look to have the qualifying momentum but given how things appear to change so quickly - and I used Mercedes' reversal of fortunes with their traction issues between Spa and Monza in the race as an obvious example of that - I don't think anything's set in stone for either qualifying or race performance over the remaining races. Unlike in previous years, I think it's virtually impossible to say with any certainty who's going to be on pole or win in any of the next few weekends.

Agree that Hamilton has maximised his chances and done very well with that

You said that the rain took away the advantage that Ferrari had not might have had and now this advantage Ferrari had seems to have disappeared in your appraisal of this advantage.

Ferrari were quicker in Spa in the race, and quicker in Hungary before the rain came, Mercedes have not been quicker anywhere in the last 4 races even the last 5 races, also to update this Ferrari after FP3 in Malaysia are looking quicker once again.

This follows a recent pattern that every other weekend Ferrari are quicker the rest Mercedes are merely close to equal.

In regards to pole positions Ferrari have won 2 of the recent dry pole positions, the other 2 were wet which Mercedes won, one of these in Hungary Ferrari were nailed on for pole the other in Spa was totally indeterminate but Ferrari were quicker in the race, so it's only been nip and tuck because of the rain otherwise it would have been close to a Ferrari whitewash and they look set for another pole in Malaysia.

So basically it's been more of a case of it being impossible to predict because of the rain, and in a season were it's been generally accepted that Ferrari has been the better qualifying car which even you have said now the cars apparently are even in qualifying?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm not really ignoring it, as I was talking about qualifying. After Q2 the Ferrari and Mercedes were neck and neck.

As to the rest of your post, I don't disagree, except to add that the Ferrari looked quicker in qualifying at Monza. If you look at my previous post I was focusing on qualifying advantage, so you are basically agreeing that the only race they have enjoyed an advantage there in the last four races was Monza.

The trend does point to Ferrari enjoying a qualifying advantage in their car since the summer break and I'm not disputing that. But they've only ever been able to take advantage of that once, which needs to be pointed out when describing who has the best car. But the way Mercedes caught up at Monza was seriously impressive, given they only had a week to sort out their traction issues, so I wouldn't put money on things remaining the same in the coming races.


Ferrari have only taken advantage once because of the rain and Vettel errors, can we guarantee these things happening going forward?

I now see you want to factor in the Mercedes as being the better wet weather car and I don't want to really get into that kind of circular debate that we've discussed before, Kimi could have been on pole in the wet etc., the fact as I see it is that in the last 4 weekends Ferrari have had the faster car two times in the dry, the other two have been quite close.

Relative to the debate we have Hamilton's stolen victories:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrLt8SY2jMk

That's not what I said, though. I'm saying the rain took away any advantage that Ferrari might have had, which is a different thing entirely. You've basically agreed with me with your list above, so not entirely sure what you're contesting here.

Ferrari have only had a measurable qualifying advantage once in the last four races and in the race itself it's debatable whether they've been at all quicker. Hamilton certainly wasn't running any kind of deficit to Kimi at Monza, that's for sure. Quite the contrary, on the face of the evidence.

My position is that the cars are fairly evenly matched and are so close that things could change for either in a heartbeat. Ferrari look to have the qualifying momentum but given how things appear to change so quickly - and I used Mercedes' reversal of fortunes with their traction issues between Spa and Monza in the race as an obvious example of that - I don't think anything's set in stone for either qualifying or race performance over the remaining races. Unlike in previous years, I think it's virtually impossible to say with any certainty who's going to be on pole or win in any of the next few weekends.

Agree that Hamilton has maximised his chances and done very well with that

You said that the rain took away the advantage that Ferrari had not might have had and now this advantage Ferrari had seems to have disappeared in your appraisal of this advantage.

Ferrari were quicker in Spa in the race, and quicker in Hungary before the rain came, Mercedes have not been quicker anywhere in the last 4 races even the last 5 races, also to update this Ferrari after FP3 in Malaysia are looking quicker once again.

This follows a recent pattern that every other weekend Ferrari are quicker the rest Mercedes are merely close to equal.

In regards to pole positions Ferrari have won 2 of the recent dry pole positions, the other 2 were wet which Mercedes won, one of these in Hungary Ferrari were nailed on for pole the other in Spa was totally indeterminate but Ferrari were quicker in the race, so it's only been nip and tuck because of the rain otherwise it would have been close to a Ferrari whitewash and they look set for another pole in Malaysia.

So basically it's been more of a case of it being impossible to predict because of the rain, and in a season were it's been generally accepted that Ferrari has been the better qualifying car which even you have said now the cars apparently are even in qualifying?

I'm not really sure what the fight is you want to pick. We pretty much agreed on the last few races but now it seems like you want to split hairs? You argued that I stated Mercedes were better in the wet, but I simply didn't. Now you appear to have moved onto "had" vs "might have had?" I don't really get your argument I'm afraid.

I agree Ferrari have looked the stronger car in qualifying in the dry these last few races, but that doesn't necessarily translate to the race, where the pace is a lot closer to each other. And while qualifying definitely confers an advantage, you can't ignore the fact that rain has eliminated that advantage. So things have been incredibly close between the front runners, which brings us right back to the beginning of the conversation.

And yes, on the face of it it looks like Ferrari have an advantage in dry qualifying today, which should benefit them greatly on a street circuit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
so I think qualifying today has made my point pretty effectively. Things are changing so much race by race this season that you can't take anything for granted. Ferrari and Mercedes have effectively swapped places


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7522
Zoue wrote:
so I think qualifying today has made my point pretty effectively. Things are changing so much race by race this season that you can't take anything for granted. Ferrari and Mercedes have effectively swapped places

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to bother trying to predict the order going forward.

I would have bet a considerable amount of money on Ferrari being quicker than Mercedes here and the opposite in Britain, the cars are so hard to predict this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
so I think qualifying today has made my point pretty effectively. Things are changing so much race by race this season that you can't take anything for granted. Ferrari and Mercedes have effectively swapped places

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to bother trying to predict the order going forward.

I would have bet a considerable amount of money on Ferrari being quicker than Mercedes here and the opposite in Britain, the cars are so hard to predict this year.

which is pretty good, to be fair. Unpredictability adds a bit of suspense to it all!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2634
Location: England
Zoue wrote:
so I think qualifying today has made my point pretty effectively. Things are changing so much race by race this season that you can't take anything for granted. Ferrari and Mercedes have effectively swapped places


...because that lap (which Hamilton was unable to reproduce the 2nd time round, nor Bottas get anywhere near, which neither of them did anything close to all weekend so far) clearly indicates Mercedes have made the jump? Could just as likely be it was a once in a lifetime lap combined with a lacklustre showing from both Ferrari drivers (and given Verstappen has jumped the pair of them, it's not exactly unlikely). Kimi was faster in Q2!

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Flash2k11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
so I think qualifying today has made my point pretty effectively. Things are changing so much race by race this season that you can't take anything for granted. Ferrari and Mercedes have effectively swapped places


...because that lap (which Hamilton was unable to reproduce the 2nd time round, nor Bottas get anywhere near, which neither of them did anything close to all weekend so far) clearly indicates Mercedes have made the jump? Could just as likely be it was a once in a lifetime lap combined with a lacklustre showing from both Ferrari drivers (and given Verstappen has jumped the pair of them, it's not exactly unlikely). Kimi was faster in Q2!

well of course it does. If you beat your rivals by more than 3 tenths you're not driving a slower car. You're certainly not driving a slower car than the Ferrari if you beat it by 6 tenths.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2634
Location: England
Zoue wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
so I think qualifying today has made my point pretty effectively. Things are changing so much race by race this season that you can't take anything for granted. Ferrari and Mercedes have effectively swapped places


...because that lap (which Hamilton was unable to reproduce the 2nd time round, nor Bottas get anywhere near, which neither of them did anything close to all weekend so far) clearly indicates Mercedes have made the jump? Could just as likely be it was a once in a lifetime lap combined with a lacklustre showing from both Ferrari drivers (and given Verstappen has jumped the pair of them, it's not exactly unlikely). Kimi was faster in Q2!

well of course it does. If you beat your rivals by more than 3 tenths you're not driving a slower car. You're certainly not driving a slower car than the Ferrari if you beat it by 6 tenths.


Because its completely impossible that both Ferrari drivers just didn't get anywhere near it through their own failings in Q3?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 731
Flash2k11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
so I think qualifying today has made my point pretty effectively. Things are changing so much race by race this season that you can't take anything for granted. Ferrari and Mercedes have effectively swapped places


...because that lap (which Hamilton was unable to reproduce the 2nd time round, nor Bottas get anywhere near, which neither of them did anything close to all weekend so far) clearly indicates Mercedes have made the jump? Could just as likely be it was a once in a lifetime lap combined with a lacklustre showing from both Ferrari drivers (and given Verstappen has jumped the pair of them, it's not exactly unlikely). Kimi was faster in Q2!


You don't put 0.60 and 0.75 on the Ferrari pair without a great car. Mercedes was the car to have. Hamilton did a great lap and maybe the advantage in his car is less than those gaps, but Mercedes was the better car, the margin is too big.

Vettel didn't manage his Singapore magic (was 0.6 and 0.7 ahead of Kimi in 2015 and 2017) but even that would not have been enough to bridge the gap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1648
Flash2k11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
so I think qualifying today has made my point pretty effectively. Things are changing so much race by race this season that you can't take anything for granted. Ferrari and Mercedes have effectively swapped places


...because that lap (which Hamilton was unable to reproduce the 2nd time round, nor Bottas get anywhere near, which neither of them did anything close to all weekend so far) clearly indicates Mercedes have made the jump? Could just as likely be it was a once in a lifetime lap combined with a lacklustre showing from both Ferrari drivers (and given Verstappen has jumped the pair of them, it's not exactly unlikely). Kimi was faster in Q2!

well of course it does. If you beat your rivals by more than 3 tenths you're not driving a slower car. You're certainly not driving a slower car than the Ferrari if you beat it by 6 tenths.


Because its completely impossible that both Ferrari drivers just didn't get anywhere near it through their own failings in Q3?


Ok maybe you have not seen the lap comparison can show where Vettel made a mistake and lost 6/10th.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 731
The form book is completely out the window and turned on its head. Mercedes taking a pole on Hypers and in Singapore, not just a pole but 0.6 on Ferrari is the biggest upset of the year. Probably the hybrid era entirely.

My guess is Ferrari have had some kind of setup meltdown like Mercedes did here in 2015 because everything points to Vettel-Ferrari being strong here. Vettel has also said they should/could have been in the fight for pole but in never came together, did conditions change?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1922
Well, it's hard to judge, but I still think RBR were third best here and Verstappen just outclassed everyone else except Hamilton.


Mercedes and Ferrari were comparable if I had to guess. Approximately equal. Vettel was average by his standards this year and Hamilton was outstanding.


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: dompclarke 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