kleefton wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Ocon wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Over the season Merc will likely edge Ferrari out but this don't cover Vettels mistakes however much you would like it too.
Ferrari was the car to have before Singapore, even in Monza they got a front row and should have won the race. Again Vettel made a mistake and if they lead the first lap 1-2 then it's likely a similar race to Belgium. It's mad how posters try and give Monza to Merc because Hamilton was racing Kimi while also forgetting what Kimi done to his tyres, that was another mistake by Ferrari, don't push and Kimi wins the race. Vettel also had damage of 0.5seconds.
Just because Mercedes have had the better car for the last 3 races and likely till the end of the season doesn't excuse Vettel should have been leading the championship before Singapore and excuses his mistakes. Hamilton upped his game and has performed in all conditions.
I will never understand the logic behind giving Monza to Mercedes. At best you could only argue they were equal. I wouldn't put it past AnRs though.
The logic is simple: Hamilton was quicker than Kimi. Vettel had a damaged car so it's unclear just how much faster he may have been able to go. Most accept that he probably would have been quicker than Kimi, but the question remains as to exactly how much. Based on the available evidence the Mercedes was no slower than the Ferrari, that's for sure. I would agree that in the absence of Vettel as a barometer it's probably best to list them as equal, but if you had to pick one there's more evidence on race day that the Mercedes was better than that the Ferrari was. In a nutshell, Hamilton was quicker than Kimi; Vettel would likely have been quicker than Kimi. But would Vettel's gap over Kimi have been bigger than Hamilton's? And this is my issue with things like the Amus ratings. They use assumptions that Vettel would have been quicker to determine that the Ferrari was the quicker car, but that doesn't really give an accurate picture of what actually happened. And people point to it and make a blanket claim that the Ferrari was quicker and try to make out that Hamilton was operating at a disadvantage, when the available evidence suggests he really wasn't.
Hamilton is always faster than Kimi in a race. The performance gap between the cars rarely hides that fact.
Everyone knows that if vettel had been on pole or gotten by kimi on lap 1 he likely would have won because his race pace is always superior than kimi’s.
Both Ferraris locked out the front row despite a bad lap by vettel, which is the real reason he didn’t get pole, not the tow.
Bottas was nowhere close to the ferraris during qualifying.
With all that in mind it is not logical to say that merc was the quickest car at Monza.
all of the above are broadly true, but they don't lead to the conclusion you made.
I've answered the first couple of points already in the post you replied to.
As to qualifying, the gap was less than 2 tenths from Hamilton to Kimi, with Kimi having a perfect tow. Are we saying that without the tow Kimi may still have beaten Hamilton? With a gap that size, is it reasonable to say that it must be down to the car? And Hamilton had a much bigger gap pver Bottas in the following race, so I shouldn't use Bottas as the true barometer of the car.
Point is there were no signs in the race to say that the Ferrari was quicker. Doesn't mean that the Mercedes had to be quicker, either, but I don't know how anyone can confidently say the Ferrari was the faster race car based simply on a guess that Vettel would have outpaced Kimi by a greater margin than Hamilton did.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
