planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:12 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6939
Lotus49 wrote:
Seems the new rear wheel design in Spa has helped Mercedes get the best out of the rear tyres and Ferrari are struggling a bit in trying to match it, they apparently ran out of tyres across the lap in Singapore and can't seem to get what Mercedes can get out of them now.

New front wing and other upgrades working well while Ferrari's didn't this weekend helped put them over the top here as well I'd imagine.

In Singapore it was more down to Ferrari not getting properly dialed in for Q3 and neither Raikkonen nor Vettel having a solid lap (combined with Hamilton putting in a blistering lap). Here, it seems to be that Mercedes have truly leaped ahead. Hamilton was on an even faster one when he messed up his second flier in Q3. I think the upgrade is substantial indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1293
If Merecedes carry on like this, this car/season will go down as more dominant than last years car and possibly another “easy” Hamilton title.

If Mercedes dominate the last 25% of the season it will be long forgotten that Hamilton lead the title when he had an overall inferior car. Which is a bit of a shame. Kudos to Mercedes though, Singapore onwards has been a revelation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3490
Lotus49 wrote:
Seems the new rear wheel design in Spa has helped Mercedes get the best out of the rear tyres and Ferrari are struggling a bit in trying to match it, they apparently ran out of tyres across the lap in Singapore and can't seem to get what Mercedes can get out of them now.

New front wing and other upgrades working well while Ferrari's didn't this weekend helped put them over the top here as well I'd imagine.


I know Mercedes brought updates but Paul Di Resta said Mercedes wasn't using them this weekend. He did also say Ferrari's updates have taken them backwards after having the best car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5244
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Seems the new rear wheel design in Spa has helped Mercedes get the best out of the rear tyres and Ferrari are struggling a bit in trying to match it, they apparently ran out of tyres across the lap in Singapore and can't seem to get what Mercedes can get out of them now.

New front wing and other upgrades working well while Ferrari's didn't this weekend helped put them over the top here as well I'd imagine.

In Singapore it was more down to Ferrari not getting properly dialed in for Q3 and neither Raikkonen nor Vettel having a solid lap (combined with Hamilton putting in a blistering lap). Here, it seems to be that Mercedes have truly leaped ahead. Hamilton was on an even faster one when he messed up his second flier in Q3. I think the upgrade is substantial indeed.


I think there's a bit of everything at play in Singapore yeah.

_________________
"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: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5244
F1_Ernie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Seems the new rear wheel design in Spa has helped Mercedes get the best out of the rear tyres and Ferrari are struggling a bit in trying to match it, they apparently ran out of tyres across the lap in Singapore and can't seem to get what Mercedes can get out of them now.

New front wing and other upgrades working well while Ferrari's didn't this weekend helped put them over the top here as well I'd imagine.


I know Mercedes brought updates but Paul Di Resta said Mercedes wasn't using them this weekend. He did also say Ferrari's updates have taken them backwards after having the best car.


I haven't seen the photos from quali to be fair so can't be certain but I don't know why they'd take them off after both drivers praised them yesterday saying they could feel the extra grip. They had front wing, rear wing pillars and an amendment to the floor, a McLaren style slit, at least.

Strange one if they didn't run them.

_________________
"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: Sun Sep 30, 2018 12:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3490
Lotus49 wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Seems the new rear wheel design in Spa has helped Mercedes get the best out of the rear tyres and Ferrari are struggling a bit in trying to match it, they apparently ran out of tyres across the lap in Singapore and can't seem to get what Mercedes can get out of them now.

New front wing and other upgrades working well while Ferrari's didn't this weekend helped put them over the top here as well I'd imagine.


I know Mercedes brought updates but Paul Di Resta said Mercedes wasn't using them this weekend. He did also say Ferrari's updates have taken them backwards after having the best car.


I haven't seen the photos from quali to be fair so can't be certain but I don't know why they'd take them off after both drivers praised them yesterday saying they could feel the extra grip. They had front wing, rear wing pillars and an amendment to the floor, a McLaren style slit, at least.

Strange one if they didn't run them.


I wasn't disagreeing with you or anything like that, just thought I would mention what Di Resta had said after quali as I did think it was strange like you.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2510
Sochi 2018 is easy.

Mercedes crushed in qualifying and though it was close in the race on pace between Mercedes, Ferrari and RBR, I'd suggest that Merc still had an edge. Doesn't take anything away from Lewis' brilliant racing though in his overtake of Vettel. That was clinical.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:02 am
Posts: 1017
Location: India
Mercedes are simply getting better. Though Vettel looked reasonably happy yesterday and today as well. Looks like he knows deep inside Mercedes are just faster

_________________
Sir Stirling Moss "Quite frankly, Kimi Raikkonen is the fastest driver in the world"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 990
I believe we can put this to an end now, it's simply Merc that's faster.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
Mercedes were playing with fastest laps at the end. Possibly the biggest advantage they've had all year


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3490
People have short memories, Vettel couldn't take advantage of having the best car when it mattered. Yes Mercedes have been the better car the last 2 weekends but that doesn't suddenly jump the Mercedes as the dominant car this season, let's not get silly. Having a driver who can perform when it matters also helps.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6939
F1_Ernie wrote:
People have short memories, Vettel couldn't take advantage of having the best car when it mattered. Yes Mercedes have been the better car the last 2 weekends but that doesn't suddenly jump the Mercedes as the dominant car this season, let's not get silly. Having a driver who can perform when it matters also helps.

They remember just fine. Some are just trying to spin the season's narrative into one where having the faster car was the difference. We'll see if Mercedes maintain their pace advantage that they've shown here at other circuits but if they do, it will remove any possible drama from the last few races. It will NOT be the reason they won the titles though. Winning 4 of 5 races from Germany through Singapore; where Ferrari were the quicker car throughout; was what won them the titles this season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16240
So after the last two races I make it Ferrari probably just about having the edge over the season so far. A very slight edge.

Edit - It will be a shame if Merc have an advantage from here. Firstly from a sporting point of view but it would also be nice to see a driver win a WDC in an inferior car for the first time since 2009 or maybe just 2012. An unusually long period of time in F1 for that not to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1424
Location: London
mikeyg123 wrote:
So after the last two races I make it Ferrari probably just about having the edge over the season so far. A very slight edge.


Sounds about right. Question now is whether or not the step Merc have made is a decisive one for the remaining races. Still think RBR will be very much in the mix for Mexico.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:08 am
Posts: 132
Location: scotland
Seeing how.close rbr were on softs I wonder if instead of merc taking a big step, ferrari have gone backwards somehow? Call me a super skeptic but isnt it interesting how all the press on them having something illegal has disappeared at the same time as merc tqake a step?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6939
mikeyg123 wrote:
So after the last two races I make it Ferrari probably just about having the edge over the season so far. A very slight edge.

Edit - It will be a shame if Merc have an advantage from here. Firstly from a sporting point of view but it would also be nice to see a driver win a WDC in an inferior car for the first time since 2009 or maybe just 2012. An unusually long period of time in F1 for that not to happen.

Odd examples you chose. Nether 2009 nor 2012 were years where a driver won the title in an inferior car. I'd say that Red Bull certainly matched Brawn from the time they implemented the EBD but Brawn had that from the first race in 2009. In 2012 the McLaren had the same level of speed as the Red Bull but FAR worse reliability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16240
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
So after the last two races I make it Ferrari probably just about having the edge over the season so far. A very slight edge.

Edit - It will be a shame if Merc have an advantage from here. Firstly from a sporting point of view but it would also be nice to see a driver win a WDC in an inferior car for the first time since 2009 or maybe just 2012. An unusually long period of time in F1 for that not to happen.

Odd examples you chose. Nether 2009 nor 2012 were years where a driver won the title in an inferior car. I'd say that Red Bull certainly matched Brawn from the time they implemented the EBD but Brawn had that from the first race in 2009. In 2012 the McLaren had the same level of speed as the Red Bull but FAR worse reliability.


Red Bull was definitely the better car over the season than the Brawn. After the first 7 races they were better than the Brawn almost everywhere. A 2011 mark Vettel would've taken that championship. 2012 both Red Bull at Mclaren had 4 mechanical DNF's. Reliability wasn't dissimilar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2644
Red Bull was not far better than Brawn in 2009. That’s nonsense

Brawn was faster: Australia, Malaysia, Bahrain, Spain, Monaco, Turkey, Europe, Belgium, Italy.

That’s 9 out of 17 races.

Brawn was also the more reliable car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16240
KingVoid wrote:
Red Bull was not far better than Brawn in 2009. That’s nonsense

Brawn was faster: Australia, Malaysia, Bahrain, Spain, Monaco, Turkey, Europe, Belgium, Italy.

That’s 9 out of 17 races.

Brawn was also the more reliable car.


I never said they were far better? Brawn also at times fell into the midfield. Something Red Bull didn't. 2009 was so close a few tenths off the pace could put 3 teams past you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6939
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
So after the last two races I make it Ferrari probably just about having the edge over the season so far. A very slight edge.

Edit - It will be a shame if Merc have an advantage from here. Firstly from a sporting point of view but it would also be nice to see a driver win a WDC in an inferior car for the first time since 2009 or maybe just 2012. An unusually long period of time in F1 for that not to happen.

Odd examples you chose. Nether 2009 nor 2012 were years where a driver won the title in an inferior car. I'd say that Red Bull certainly matched Brawn from the time they implemented the EBD but Brawn had that from the first race in 2009. In 2012 the McLaren had the same level of speed as the Red Bull but FAR worse reliability.


Red Bull was definitely the better car over the season than the Brawn. After the first 7 races they were better than the Brawn almost everywhere. A 2011 mark Vettel would've taken that championship. 2012 both Red Bull at Mclaren had 4 mechanical DNF's. Reliability wasn't dissimilar.

In 2009 the Brawn was better in 10 of the 17 rounds. That gives them the edge IMO. In 2012 the reliabilty wasn't even at all (at least not between Hamilton and Vettel). Webber got the lion's share of reliability issues from Red Bull while Hamilton got the majority from McLaren. Not to mention that you are only talking about DNFs. McLaren had multiple gearbox penalties, races where they lost gears, wheel rim issues, etc. McLaren had an awful year with reliability. It was not even by any stretch.

The last year before this one where a driver won the title in a car that wasn't the best was probably 2008.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16240
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
So after the last two races I make it Ferrari probably just about having the edge over the season so far. A very slight edge.

Edit - It will be a shame if Merc have an advantage from here. Firstly from a sporting point of view but it would also be nice to see a driver win a WDC in an inferior car for the first time since 2009 or maybe just 2012. An unusually long period of time in F1 for that not to happen.

Odd examples you chose. Nether 2009 nor 2012 were years where a driver won the title in an inferior car. I'd say that Red Bull certainly matched Brawn from the time they implemented the EBD but Brawn had that from the first race in 2009. In 2012 the McLaren had the same level of speed as the Red Bull but FAR worse reliability.


Red Bull was definitely the better car over the season than the Brawn. After the first 7 races they were better than the Brawn almost everywhere. A 2011 mark Vettel would've taken that championship. 2012 both Red Bull at Mclaren had 4 mechanical DNF's. Reliability wasn't dissimilar.

In 2009 the Brawn was better in 10 of the 17 rounds. That gives them the edge IMO. In 2012 the reliabilty wasn't even at all (at least not between Hamilton and Vettel). Webber got the lion's share of reliability issues from Red Bull while Hamilton got the majority from McLaren. Not to mention that you are only talking about DNFs. McLaren had multiple gearbox penalties, races where they lost gears, wheel rim issues, etc. McLaren had an awful year with reliability. It was not even by any stretch.

The last year before this one where a driver won the title in a car that wasn't the best was probably 2008.


It was 2 all in mechanical DNFS for Vettel and Hamilton in 2012. They both had 1 race effected by grid penalties which put them at the back of the grid. Hamilton's issues in 2012 were poor team strategy, slow pit stops and 3 race ending collisions. Reliability and speed between the Red Bull and Mclaren was pretty even.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1424
Location: London
Interesting comment on C4 saying that through the season the Ferrari has had small amounts of smoke puffing out of the back, vaping I think they called it, and that for the last two races this has no longer been the case. It was suggested that perhaps there may have been a tightening up of a technical directive that has had an impact on the Ferrari. Pure conhjecture of course, just thought it was an interesting observation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm
Posts: 577
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
So after the last two races I make it Ferrari probably just about having the edge over the season so far. A very slight edge.

Edit - It will be a shame if Merc have an advantage from here. Firstly from a sporting point of view but it would also be nice to see a driver win a WDC in an inferior car for the first time since 2009 or maybe just 2012. An unusually long period of time in F1 for that not to happen.

Odd examples you chose. Nether 2009 nor 2012 were years where a driver won the title in an inferior car. I'd say that Red Bull certainly matched Brawn from the time they implemented the EBD but Brawn had that from the first race in 2009. In 2012 the McLaren had the same level of speed as the Red Bull but FAR worse reliability.


Red Bull was definitely the better car over the season than the Brawn. After the first 7 races they were better than the Brawn almost everywhere. A 2011 mark Vettel would've taken that championship. 2012 both Red Bull at Mclaren had 4 mechanical DNF's. Reliability wasn't dissimilar.

In 2009 the Brawn was better in 10 of the 17 rounds. That gives them the edge IMO. In 2012 the reliabilty wasn't even at all (at least not between Hamilton and Vettel). Webber got the lion's share of reliability issues from Red Bull while Hamilton got the majority from McLaren. Not to mention that you are only talking about DNFs. McLaren had multiple gearbox penalties, races where they lost gears, wheel rim issues, etc. McLaren had an awful year with reliability. It was not even by any stretch.

The last year before this one where a driver won the title in a car that wasn't the best was probably 2008.


Brawn was streets ahead at the start of the season and Jenson took maximum advantage. It was still amongst the very quickest beyond that but it's lead driver struggled badly with tyre temps. Rubens Valencia and Monza wins showed how strong that car still was.

By the second half of that season there were too many potential winners each race to make a comeback from Red Bull likely. Hamilton won a couple, Ferrari won one and Rubens won a few as well as the Red Bull guys.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6939
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
So after the last two races I make it Ferrari probably just about having the edge over the season so far. A very slight edge.

Edit - It will be a shame if Merc have an advantage from here. Firstly from a sporting point of view but it would also be nice to see a driver win a WDC in an inferior car for the first time since 2009 or maybe just 2012. An unusually long period of time in F1 for that not to happen.

Odd examples you chose. Nether 2009 nor 2012 were years where a driver won the title in an inferior car. I'd say that Red Bull certainly matched Brawn from the time they implemented the EBD but Brawn had that from the first race in 2009. In 2012 the McLaren had the same level of speed as the Red Bull but FAR worse reliability.


Red Bull was definitely the better car over the season than the Brawn. After the first 7 races they were better than the Brawn almost everywhere. A 2011 mark Vettel would've taken that championship. 2012 both Red Bull at Mclaren had 4 mechanical DNF's. Reliability wasn't dissimilar.

In 2009 the Brawn was better in 10 of the 17 rounds. That gives them the edge IMO. In 2012 the reliabilty wasn't even at all (at least not between Hamilton and Vettel). Webber got the lion's share of reliability issues from Red Bull while Hamilton got the majority from McLaren. Not to mention that you are only talking about DNFs. McLaren had multiple gearbox penalties, races where they lost gears, wheel rim issues, etc. McLaren had an awful year with reliability. It was not even by any stretch.

The last year before this one where a driver won the title in a car that wasn't the best was probably 2008.


It was 2 all in mechanical DNFS for Vettel and Hamilton in 2012. They both had 1 race effected by grid penalties which put them at the back of the grid. Hamilton's issues in 2012 were poor team strategy, slow pit stops and 3 race ending collisions. Reliability and speed between the Red Bull and Mclaren was pretty even.

Hamilton had 2 races where the car failed from the lead and a third where he was taken out from the lead by another driver and he was also taken out by Grosjean at Spa. The point that the team's performance from McLaren was a huge factor is valid. They had 6 pit stops of 10 seconds or longer that year on Hamilton's car alone and I believe either 2 or 3 on Button's car as well.

So it's not all the car's reliability but it's clear that McLaren lost more points through reliability. Above all, the Red Bull was not slower than the McLaren it just wasn't faster. They were basically neck and neck in terms of performance for the most part. The strategy and exectution from McLaren was so poor, however that it was probably the only factor that really mattered.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16240
sandman1347 wrote:
Hamilton had 2 races where the car failed from the lead and a third where he was taken out from the lead by another driver and he was also taken out by Grosjean at Spa. The point that the team's performance from McLaren was a huge factor is valid. They had 6 pit stops of 10 seconds or longer that year on Hamilton's car alone and I believe either 2 or 3 on Button's car as well.

So it's not all the car's reliability but it's clear that McLaren lost more points through reliability. Above all, the Red Bull was not slower than the McLaren it just wasn't faster. They were basically neck and neck in terms of performance for the most part. The strategy and exectution from McLaren was so poor, however that it was probably the only factor that really mattered.


Sure, but I don't really see how any of that, aside from the sentence about speed, is relevant to a debate about which car was better. No doubt the Red Bull team performed better but a slow pitstop or being crashed into by Grosjean are not car issues to do with the performance of the car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6939
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Hamilton had 2 races where the car failed from the lead and a third where he was taken out from the lead by another driver and he was also taken out by Grosjean at Spa. The point that the team's performance from McLaren was a huge factor is valid. They had 6 pit stops of 10 seconds or longer that year on Hamilton's car alone and I believe either 2 or 3 on Button's car as well.

So it's not all the car's reliability but it's clear that McLaren lost more points through reliability. Above all, the Red Bull was not slower than the McLaren it just wasn't faster. They were basically neck and neck in terms of performance for the most part. The strategy and exectution from McLaren was so poor, however that it was probably the only factor that really mattered.


Sure, but I don't really see how any of that, aside from the sentence about speed, is relevant to a debate about which car was better. No doubt the Red Bull team performed better but a slow pitstop or being crashed into by Grosjean are not car issues to do with the performance of the car.

Well you were talking about winning the title in a car that wasn't the best. I think the Red Bull clearly was the best overall car that year so it wasn't a good year to reference. Likewise I think 2009 was not a good choice either.

Since the turn of the century, you have only 2 or 3 years where that happened at the most. Hamilton in 08'. Alonso 05' clearly did not have the fastest car overall but reliability evened things out a lot that year. I think maybe 03' was a year where Ferrari was at times not the quickest; though they were probably the strongest overall on the year. It doesn't happen very often. Certainly if you go back a bit further you can find years like 95' and 86' where the champion was clearly not in the best car but it's generally rare. I'd also say 90' and 91' were also not years where the Mclaren was necessarily the outright best car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 990
2012 was a close battle, Mclaren was probably faster but Red Bull put things better together so that year was probably not won in the "fastest" car.

Before that it was Kimi in 2007 that took advantage of the McLaren duo meltdown.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16240
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Hamilton had 2 races where the car failed from the lead and a third where he was taken out from the lead by another driver and he was also taken out by Grosjean at Spa. The point that the team's performance from McLaren was a huge factor is valid. They had 6 pit stops of 10 seconds or longer that year on Hamilton's car alone and I believe either 2 or 3 on Button's car as well.

So it's not all the car's reliability but it's clear that McLaren lost more points through reliability. Above all, the Red Bull was not slower than the McLaren it just wasn't faster. They were basically neck and neck in terms of performance for the most part. The strategy and exectution from McLaren was so poor, however that it was probably the only factor that really mattered.


Sure, but I don't really see how any of that, aside from the sentence about speed, is relevant to a debate about which car was better. No doubt the Red Bull team performed better but a slow pitstop or being crashed into by Grosjean are not car issues to do with the performance of the car.

Well you were talking about winning the title in a car that wasn't the best. I think the Red Bull clearly was the best overall car that year so it wasn't a good year to reference. Likewise I think 2009 was not a good choice either.

Since the turn of the century, you have only 2 or 3 years where that happened at the most. Hamilton in 08'. Alonso 05' clearly did not have the fastest car overall but reliability evened things out a lot that year. I think maybe 03' was a year where Ferrari was at times not the quickest; though they were probably the strongest overall on the year. It doesn't happen very often. Certainly if you go back a bit further you can find years like 95' and 86' where the champion was clearly not in the best car but it's generally rare. I'd also say 90' and 91' were also not years where the Mclaren was necessarily the outright best car.


Why was Red Bull clearly a better car? Mclaren had the same speed and same reliability. What you've made a case for is Red Bull being the better team and Hamilton being the unluckier driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1293
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Hamilton had 2 races where the car failed from the lead and a third where he was taken out from the lead by another driver and he was also taken out by Grosjean at Spa. The point that the team's performance from McLaren was a huge factor is valid. They had 6 pit stops of 10 seconds or longer that year on Hamilton's car alone and I believe either 2 or 3 on Button's car as well.

So it's not all the car's reliability but it's clear that McLaren lost more points through reliability. Above all, the Red Bull was not slower than the McLaren it just wasn't faster. They were basically neck and neck in terms of performance for the most part. The strategy and exectution from McLaren was so poor, however that it was probably the only factor that really mattered.


Sure, but I don't really see how any of that, aside from the sentence about speed, is relevant to a debate about which car was better. No doubt the Red Bull team performed better but a slow pitstop or being crashed into by Grosjean are not car issues to do with the performance of the car.

Well you were talking about winning the title in a car that wasn't the best. I think the Red Bull clearly was the best overall car that year so it wasn't a good year to reference. Likewise I think 2009 was not a good choice either.

Since the turn of the century, you have only 2 or 3 years where that happened at the most. Hamilton in 08'. Alonso 05' clearly did not have the fastest car overall but reliability evened things out a lot that year. I think maybe 03' was a year where Ferrari was at times not the quickest; though they were probably the strongest overall on the year. It doesn't happen very often. Certainly if you go back a bit further you can find years like 95' and 86' where the champion was clearly not in the best car but it's generally rare. I'd also say 90' and 91' were also not years where the Mclaren was necessarily the outright best car.


I agree with all of that. The only thing I would add is that the 1991 Mclaren was made level to the Williams through reliability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1293
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Hamilton had 2 races where the car failed from the lead and a third where he was taken out from the lead by another driver and he was also taken out by Grosjean at Spa. The point that the team's performance from McLaren was a huge factor is valid. They had 6 pit stops of 10 seconds or longer that year on Hamilton's car alone and I believe either 2 or 3 on Button's car as well.

So it's not all the car's reliability but it's clear that McLaren lost more points through reliability. Above all, the Red Bull was not slower than the McLaren it just wasn't faster. They were basically neck and neck in terms of performance for the most part. The strategy and exectution from McLaren was so poor, however that it was probably the only factor that really mattered.


Sure, but I don't really see how any of that, aside from the sentence about speed, is relevant to a debate about which car was better. No doubt the Red Bull team performed better but a slow pitstop or being crashed into by Grosjean are not car issues to do with the performance of the car.

Well you were talking about winning the title in a car that wasn't the best. I think the Red Bull clearly was the best overall car that year so it wasn't a good year to reference. Likewise I think 2009 was not a good choice either.

Since the turn of the century, you have only 2 or 3 years where that happened at the most. Hamilton in 08'. Alonso 05' clearly did not have the fastest car overall but reliability evened things out a lot that year. I think maybe 03' was a year where Ferrari was at times not the quickest; though they were probably the strongest overall on the year. It doesn't happen very often. Certainly if you go back a bit further you can find years like 95' and 86' where the champion was clearly not in the best car but it's generally rare. I'd also say 90' and 91' were also not years where the Mclaren was necessarily the outright best car.


Why was Red Bull clearly a better car? Mclaren had the same speed and same reliability. What you've made a case for is Red Bull being the better team and Hamilton being the unluckier driver.


Vettel wasn't at his best in 2012, especially the first half. Webber was ahead of him at mid way in the championship and had 2 wins to Vettels 1. Vettel had a couple of really poor races early in the year, so poor that at a couple he didn't even take part in Q3 to save tyres.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1293
2009 title was winnable for Vettel but only because of Buttons awful form for 1/3 of the season. Without Button having a meltdown he would have cruised to that title.

The Brawn won just under half the races and was bulletproof. If Vettel's Red Bull was also bulletproof, I think you could make a case for equal cars but Vettel had 2 mechanical DNFs that year. The Red Bulls also had two races they were quite off the pace - Spa and Monza


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 990
https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/10/01 ... -you-have/

The conspiracy from the beginning off the season continues, are Merc really only using exactly what they need to make it look like an even season and a close fight?

Anyway 10 ten titles in 5 years speaks it's language.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3490
One race sums up a season :?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3490
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... r-vorteil/

"Less power equal less downforce?

Nevertheless, one was in the scene noisy. Why did the advantage of accelerating between 180 and 260 km / h disappear from one race to another? Did the opponents catch up, or did Ferrari have to back off? From FIA circles, we hear that for some time now a second sensor has been installed on all Ferrari drive units that measures the energy flow. It gives you more confidence to measure what you want to measure.

Why Ferrari? Because the Italians are the only ones using an energy storage system that couples two batteries. When asked which race exactly the second sensor was installed, there is no answer from the World Association.

From Renault we learn that Ferrari's competitors have actively pushed the case. It was possible to prove that the energy flow could not be measured beyond doubt with the old method. To be legally on the safe side, the measurement process had to be refined.

Whether this has something to do with the fact that Ferrari has lost time in Singapore and Russia on the Mercedes, is pure speculation. Because Ferrari has not only lost its superiority on the straights, but was partly slower in the bends. Renault team boss Cyril Abiteboul explains it this way: "If they should have less power, they may not be able to drive the wing adjustment from before and have to return with the downforce.""

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm
Posts: 577
AnRs wrote:
https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/10/01/inside-line-toto-kimi-wants-to-know-how-much-more-you-have/

The conspiracy from the beginning off the season continues, are Merc really only using exactly what they need to make it look like an even season and a close fight?

Anyway 10 ten titles in 5 years speaks it's language.


That article is of course utter tin hat drivel. It completely disregards the efforts Ferrari made (and money spent) to bridge the gap. It also disregards Mercs efforts to respond and rebuild a gap. It relegates the role of Toto Wolff, Hamilton and Bottas to mere actors in a story Mercedes themselves are crafting. Vettel the plucky but hapless scrapper fighting for a title he will not be allowed to win.

The idea that Mercedes would gift victories to rival car manufacturer is laughable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6939
BMWSauber84 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/10/01/inside-line-toto-kimi-wants-to-know-how-much-more-you-have/

The conspiracy from the beginning off the season continues, are Merc really only using exactly what they need to make it look like an even season and a close fight?

Anyway 10 ten titles in 5 years speaks it's language.


That article is of course utter tin hat drivel. It completely disregards the efforts Ferrari made (and money spent) to bridge the gap. It also disregards Mercs efforts to respond and rebuild a gap. It relegates the role of Toto Wolff, Hamilton and Bottas to mere actors in a story Mercedes themselves are crafting. Vettel the plucky but hapless scrapper fighting for a title he will not be allowed to win.

The idea that Mercedes would gift victories to rival car manufacturer is laughable.

The source he quoted shows you the level of thinking that goes into his posts and views. It's all nonsensical conspiracy theories and unproven allegations without evidence to support them. The article describes Totto Wolf as a puppet master running a "Truman Show". That's all you really need to know lol.

Most people in here quote Autosport or Mark Hughes or the like. This guy quotes a tabloid...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6939
https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/85 ... -the-rails

This is an interesting article on the matchup. Basically this article explains that Ferrari were quicker in 9 of the first 14 races but have been behind in the last 2 rounds. The article also discusses reasons for Ferrari's failure to capitalize and picks up on the whole narrative of Ferrari having to dial back in order to comply with the FIA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 990
sandman1347 wrote:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/8534/what-the-real-reason-ferrari-has-gone-off-the-rails

This is an interesting article on the matchup. Basically this article explains that Ferrari were quicker in 9 of the first 14 races but have been behind in the last 2 rounds. The article also discusses reasons for Ferrari's failure to capitalize and picks up on the whole narrative of Ferrari having to dial back in order to comply with the FIA.


Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes were cruising at the Australian GP, if they claim Ferrari was faster then, it's utter b..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6939
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/8534/what-the-real-reason-ferrari-has-gone-off-the-rails

This is an interesting article on the matchup. Basically this article explains that Ferrari were quicker in 9 of the first 14 races but have been behind in the last 2 rounds. The article also discusses reasons for Ferrari's failure to capitalize and picks up on the whole narrative of Ferrari having to dial back in order to comply with the FIA.


Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes were cruising at the Australian GP, if they claim Ferrari was faster then, it's utter b..

Read the article. They clearly give Australia to Mercedes. They even give Mercedes the British GP. If anything they make things seem closer than they were.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 434
F1_Ernie wrote:
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/ferrari-fia-sensor-power-vorteil/

"Less power equal less downforce?

Nevertheless, one was in the scene noisy. Why did the advantage of accelerating between 180 and 260 km / h disappear from one race to another? Did the opponents catch up, or did Ferrari have to back off? From FIA circles, we hear that for some time now a second sensor has been installed on all Ferrari drive units that measures the energy flow. It gives you more confidence to measure what you want to measure.

Why Ferrari? Because the Italians are the only ones using an energy storage system that couples two batteries. When asked which race exactly the second sensor was installed, there is no answer from the World Association.

From Renault we learn that Ferrari's competitors have actively pushed the case. It was possible to prove that the energy flow could not be measured beyond doubt with the old method. To be legally on the safe side, the measurement process had to be refined.

Whether this has something to do with the fact that Ferrari has lost time in Singapore and Russia on the Mercedes, is pure speculation. Because Ferrari has not only lost its superiority on the straights, but was partly slower in the bends. Renault team boss Cyril Abiteboul explains it this way: "If they should have less power, they may not be able to drive the wing adjustment from before and have to return with the downforce.""


lets call a spade a spade here. if this is true and ferrari have lost the advantage because of extra checks/sensors, then they have been flat out cheating. no doubt with some protection from the fia. this isnt a grey area in the regs eg wing mirror ties, flexing wings, this is blatant cheating as would be the case with say running a bigger turbo then allowed. it was always fishy how they pretty suddenly had the best engine.


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