planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:37 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28396
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Giving Mercedes the British GP is a bit dubious IMO. That's a very strong Hamilton track and a weak Vettel track and Ferrari looked quicker there all weekend.

Yeah general opinion is that Hamilton stole the pole.

Mercedes even gave that race to themselves. Hamilton may have stolen pole, but remember that this was during the period of the season when Ferrari was noticeably quicker in qualifying than they were in races. Hamilton looked quicker in the race, and the only reason he didn't win is likely because of the collision with Kimi.

You're still basically using guesswork in particularly were cars look reasonably close, then there is GPS data.

_________________
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 Oct 13, 2018 2:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6074
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Giving Mercedes the British GP is a bit dubious IMO. That's a very strong Hamilton track and a weak Vettel track and Ferrari looked quicker there all weekend.

Yeah general opinion is that Hamilton stole the pole.

Mercedes even gave that race to themselves. Hamilton may have stolen pole, but remember that this was during the period of the season when Ferrari was noticeably quicker in qualifying than they were in races. Hamilton looked quicker in the race, and the only reason he didn't win is likely because of the collision with Kimi.

You're still basically using guesswork in particularly were cars look reasonably close, then there is GPS data.

True, I am using guesswork, and I don't have access to the GPS traces. But Mercedes does, and they said they had the best car after Silverstone:

“We didn’t score as many points in the triple-header as we had hoped for. A lot of that was down to our own mistakes. However, there is a silver lining to this — while we didn’t maximise on points, we did bring the quickest car to all three races."

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/24118 ... oss-points

Is Toto Wolff also wrong and trying to create a loaded narrative? Or did Mercedes actually have the best car for a little stretch in the early season? I know which one I believe...

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
He was up to Monza, I'm not surprised you think otherwise as you endless campaigned that the Ferrari was not quicker.

he wasn't though. The performance of the cars fluctuated from track to track but somehow the narrative is that Hamilton was the underdog until Monza?

Everything I read says the Ferrari was more often quicker, then there is your version of events, with the Mercedes resurgence I'm sure at seasons end you will make Mercedes the fastest car with Hamilton simply winning in the fastest car like you also concluded last season.

He may well have the faster car by the end of the season. The Merc certainly looks comfortably quicker at the moment. But he put himself in a strong position to win the title when the cars were relatively equal. For you that's somehow not enough, but for me I still think that shows a strong season by Hamilton

I think the bolded part is what people take issue with. Hamilton actually put himself in strong position to win the title during a period when Ferrari had the quicker car. That's the bit you seem hell bent on not acknowledging.

i could argue that's the bit you seem hell bent on trying to prove.

I don't agree that's the case, that's all. Most of it is supposition and there's precious little in the way of actual evidence which proves the Ferrari was the outright quicker car for any significant part of the season


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
He was up to Monza, I'm not surprised you think otherwise as you endless campaigned that the Ferrari was not quicker.

he wasn't though. The performance of the cars fluctuated from track to track but somehow the narrative is that Hamilton was the underdog until Monza?

Everything I read says the Ferrari was more often quicker, then there is your version of events, with the Mercedes resurgence I'm sure at seasons end you will make Mercedes the fastest car with Hamilton simply winning in the fastest car like you also concluded last season.

He may well have the faster car by the end of the season. The Merc certainly looks comfortably quicker at the moment. But he put himself in a strong position to win the title when the cars were relatively equal. For you that's somehow not enough, but for me I still think that shows a strong season by Hamilton

No it isn't because it goes against things that I have read using things like GPS data to determine which was the faster car at any given race.

what GPS data? Much of it is hearsay and short on actual evidence


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 983
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Giving Mercedes the British GP is a bit dubious IMO. That's a very strong Hamilton track and a weak Vettel track and Ferrari looked quicker there all weekend.

Yeah general opinion is that Hamilton stole the pole.

Mercedes even gave that race to themselves. Hamilton may have stolen pole, but remember that this was during the period of the season when Ferrari was noticeably quicker in qualifying than they were in races. Hamilton looked quicker in the race, and the only reason he didn't win is likely because of the collision with Kimi.

You're still basically using guesswork in particularly were cars look reasonably close, then there is GPS data.

True, I am using guesswork, and I don't have access to the GPS traces. But Mercedes does, and they said they had the best car after Silverstone:

“We didn’t score as many points in the triple-header as we had hoped for. A lot of that was down to our own mistakes. However, there is a silver lining to this — while we didn’t maximise on points, we did bring the quickest car to all three races."

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/24118 ... oss-points

Is Toto Wolff also wrong and trying to create a loaded narrative? Or did Mercedes actually have the best car for a little stretch in the early season? I know which one I believe...


Nice find, might even put the most stubborn Merc brigade to have a second thought about what really happened out there


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2933
Location: UK
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Giving Mercedes the British GP is a bit dubious IMO. That's a very strong Hamilton track and a weak Vettel track and Ferrari looked quicker there all weekend.

Yeah general opinion is that Hamilton stole the pole.

Mercedes even gave that race to themselves. Hamilton may have stolen pole, but remember that this was during the period of the season when Ferrari was noticeably quicker in qualifying than they were in races. Hamilton looked quicker in the race, and the only reason he didn't win is likely because of the collision with Kimi.

You're still basically using guesswork in particularly were cars look reasonably close, then there is GPS data.

True, I am using guesswork, and I don't have access to the GPS traces. But Mercedes does, and they said they had the best car after Silverstone:

“We didn’t score as many points in the triple-header as we had hoped for. A lot of that was down to our own mistakes. However, there is a silver lining to this — while we didn’t maximise on points, we did bring the quickest car to all three races."

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/24118 ... oss-points

Is Toto Wolff also wrong and trying to create a loaded narrative? Or did Mercedes actually have the best car for a little stretch in the early season? I know which one I believe...

They said they had the best car in the triple-header, which is not too controversial a claim: they certainly looked to have the upper hand in France and Austria (reliability aside) and Silverstone was pretty close. However the article says nothing about Mercedes' claims regarding the pace of the car after Silverstone. Or am I missing something?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 459
Location: Stratford
The quote says they bought the fastest car to all three races rather than just having the best car over the three races, I think.

I personally thought Ferrari had the quicker car in qualifying at Silverstone but Hamilton did an excellent job. The race was pretty close and I imagine whoever led out of turn one was going to win.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
j man wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Yeah general opinion is that Hamilton stole the pole.

Mercedes even gave that race to themselves. Hamilton may have stolen pole, but remember that this was during the period of the season when Ferrari was noticeably quicker in qualifying than they were in races. Hamilton looked quicker in the race, and the only reason he didn't win is likely because of the collision with Kimi.

You're still basically using guesswork in particularly were cars look reasonably close, then there is GPS data.

True, I am using guesswork, and I don't have access to the GPS traces. But Mercedes does, and they said they had the best car after Silverstone:

“We didn’t score as many points in the triple-header as we had hoped for. A lot of that was down to our own mistakes. However, there is a silver lining to this — while we didn’t maximise on points, we did bring the quickest car to all three races."

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/24118 ... oss-points

Is Toto Wolff also wrong and trying to create a loaded narrative? Or did Mercedes actually have the best car for a little stretch in the early season? I know which one I believe...

They said they had the best car in the triple-header, which is not too controversial a claim: they certainly looked to have the upper hand in France and Austria (reliability aside) and Silverstone was pretty close. However the article says nothing about Mercedes' claims regarding the pace of the car after Silverstone. Or am I missing something?

I think the point being made was that after the Silverstone race, Wolff said that Mercedes had had the best car for the last three races. It's to counter previous posts where the claim was that the Ferrari was quickest at Silverstone. There's no claim being made in this quote for anything that happened in the races after that.

The above pretty much illustrates the point I've been making all along that even the experts can't agree on which car was best. According to the Amus ratings which pokerman holds so dear, the Ferrari was the quickest car at Silverstone, whereas Wolff says it was the Mercedes which was quickest. So clearly it's not as set in concrete as some on here would have you believe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 730
I doubt Wolf is considering all the aspects. He generally says what he sees results wise. If Hamilton is on pole, wins, they had the best car according to him. A lot of his sound bites are also captured immediately post race before they’ve analysed it fully. I’ve seen him misread races quite a few times immediately after the race. He also always talks down the car pre race and talks it up post race.

Silverstone is Vettels worst track and he missed pole by 0.040 against Hamilton at one of his best tracks and Lewis saying after he pulled a near perfect lap. Kimi was also just 0.1 off pole with purple sectors in 2 sectors. If he had matched Vettel in the other sector he would have been on pole. Athough it is a strong Kimi track.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Johnson wrote:
I doubt Wolf is considering all the aspects. He generally says what he sees results wise. If Hamilton is on pole, wins, they had the best car according to him. A lot of his sound bites are also captured immediately post race before they’ve analysed it fully. I’ve seen him misread races quite a few times immediately after the race. He also always talks down the car pre race and talks it up post race.

Silverstone is Vettels worst track and he missed pole by 0.040 against Hamilton at one of his best tracks and Lewis saying after he pulled a near perfect lap. Kimi was also just 0.1 off pole with purple sectors in 2 sectors. If he had matched Vettel in the other sector he would have been on pole. Athough it is a strong Kimi track.

He said the following after Spa, some three races after Silverstone. Just how long does he need to consider all the aspects?

"The last one where we have been quickest in pure pace was Silverstone," he told reporters in Belgium. "Since then, Ferrari have been quicker.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11483374/italian-gp-mercedes-curious-to-see-if-ferrari-keep-pace-at-home-race


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3070
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
He was up to Monza, I'm not surprised you think otherwise as you endless campaigned that the Ferrari was not quicker.

he wasn't though. The performance of the cars fluctuated from track to track but somehow the narrative is that Hamilton was the underdog until Monza?

Everything I read says the Ferrari was more often quicker, then there is your version of events, with the Mercedes resurgence I'm sure at seasons end you will make Mercedes the fastest car with Hamilton simply winning in the fastest car like you also concluded last season.

He may well have the faster car by the end of the season. The Merc certainly looks comfortably quicker at the moment. But he put himself in a strong position to win the title when the cars were relatively equal. For you that's somehow not enough, but for me I still think that shows a strong season by Hamilton

I think the bolded part is what people take issue with. Hamilton actually put himself in strong position to win the title during a period when Ferrari had the quicker car. That's the bit you seem hell bent on not acknowledging.


Exactly, everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore, pundits was still talking about it at the last grand prix and the missed opportunities. I doubt anyone will find a single article on how the Mercedes was faster or equal before Singapore. The only discussion should be how much an advantage did Ferrari have and at how many grand prixs, I can accept some races could be seen as close like Silverstone but the cars wasn't equal overall, the only person I have seen have this opinion is Zoue and someone else who thinks Mercedes has been dominant at every grand prix.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
F1_Ernie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
he wasn't though. The performance of the cars fluctuated from track to track but somehow the narrative is that Hamilton was the underdog until Monza?

Everything I read says the Ferrari was more often quicker, then there is your version of events, with the Mercedes resurgence I'm sure at seasons end you will make Mercedes the fastest car with Hamilton simply winning in the fastest car like you also concluded last season.

He may well have the faster car by the end of the season. The Merc certainly looks comfortably quicker at the moment. But he put himself in a strong position to win the title when the cars were relatively equal. For you that's somehow not enough, but for me I still think that shows a strong season by Hamilton

I think the bolded part is what people take issue with. Hamilton actually put himself in strong position to win the title during a period when Ferrari had the quicker car. That's the bit you seem hell bent on not acknowledging.


Exactly, everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore, pundits was still talking about it at the last grand prix and the missed opportunities. I doubt anyone will find a single article on how the Mercedes was faster or equal before Singapore. The only discussion should be how much an advantage did Ferrari have and at how many grand prixs, I can accept some races could be seen as close like Silverstone but the cars wasn't equal overall, the only person I have seen have this opinion is Zoue and someone else who thinks Mercedes has been dominant at every grand prix.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Wolff would also disagree with you about Monza:

“We have understood the car better, we have understood the tyres better. We’ve added some performance and even if Saturday didn’t show it because we couldn’t qualify on pole I felt that we’ve done some good work over the last couple of days.

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did.


https://www.crash.net/f1/news/904737/1/wolff-can-t-explain-why-mercedes-was-faster-ferrari

So I think you're being a bit premature with the "everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore" thing.

As an exercise, if we accept Wolff's opinion and reverse the Silverstone rating in the Amus rankings that would leave us with both Merc and Ferrari having the quickest car 5 times apiece up to and including GB. Ferrari then have three races where they were the fastest and, if we take Wolff's word on Monza, three races where Mercedes were, to bring us up to Russia. Which looks pretty neck and neck from where I'm sitting, with Mercedes now edging ahead following Japan.

Now I'm not saying that those rankings are correct, or even that Wolff is right. But it does illustrate that there's enough room for interpretation that no-one can justifiably claim that their own assessment is the only one that counts. And I'm pretty comfortable holding the opinion that the cars have been on the whole fairly evenly matched this year, with advantages being largely track-specific. And I'm equally comfortable that I'm not the lone voice you would have everyone believe is the case


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:37 pm
Posts: 568
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Everything I read says the Ferrari was more often quicker, then there is your version of events, with the Mercedes resurgence I'm sure at seasons end you will make Mercedes the fastest car with Hamilton simply winning in the fastest car like you also concluded last season.

He may well have the faster car by the end of the season. The Merc certainly looks comfortably quicker at the moment. But he put himself in a strong position to win the title when the cars were relatively equal. For you that's somehow not enough, but for me I still think that shows a strong season by Hamilton

I think the bolded part is what people take issue with. Hamilton actually put himself in strong position to win the title during a period when Ferrari had the quicker car. That's the bit you seem hell bent on not acknowledging.


Exactly, everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore, pundits was still talking about it at the last grand prix and the missed opportunities. I doubt anyone will find a single article on how the Mercedes was faster or equal before Singapore. The only discussion should be how much an advantage did Ferrari have and at how many grand prixs, I can accept some races could be seen as close like Silverstone but the cars wasn't equal overall, the only person I have seen have this opinion is Zoue and someone else who thinks Mercedes has been dominant at every grand prix.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Wolff would also disagree with you about Monza:

“We have understood the car better, we have understood the tyres better. We’ve added some performance and even if Saturday didn’t show it because we couldn’t qualify on pole I felt that we’ve done some good work over the last couple of days.

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did.


https://www.crash.net/f1/news/904737/1/wolff-can-t-explain-why-mercedes-was-faster-ferrari

So I think you're being a bit premature with the "everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore" thing.

As an exercise, if we accept Wolff's opinion and reverse the Silverstone rating in the Amus rankings that would leave us with both Merc and Ferrari having the quickest car 5 times apiece up to and including GB. Ferrari then have three races where they were the fastest and, if we take Wolff's word on Monza, three races where Mercedes were, to bring us up to Russia. Which looks pretty neck and neck from where I'm sitting, with Mercedes now edging ahead following Japan.

Now I'm not saying that those rankings are correct, or even that Wolff is right. But it does illustrate that there's enough room for interpretation that no-one can justifiably claim that their own assessment is the only one that counts. And I'm pretty comfortable holding the opinion that the cars have been on the whole fairly evenly matched this year, with advantages being largely track-specific. And I'm equally comfortable that I'm not the lone voice you would have everyone believe is the case


But then Wolff qualifies his statement with this:

"“The performance pattern has completely changed from Saturday to Sunday and I haven’t got an explanation yet.Maybe the clever people will know it but I think we need to analyse it.....It looks like the performance they are able to deploy on one lap is maybe not something they can replicate throughout the race.. I don’t want to go any furtherbecause it could be read in a different way like I’m trying to find excuses. They certainly seemed to have a very good car in qualifying and a good car in the race. But we haven’t seen Sebastian perform in a car without any damage".

And there lies the crux of the matter. The benchmark Ferrari driver had a damaged car, and therefore, was possibly unable to extract & demonstrate the true pace of his car

"Unfortunately, our race was compromised and it was a shame, but then I tried to do my best and had a decent recovery from the back. All in all, it could have been even worse. It’s disappointing of course, because we had the pace and we definitely could have won." (Vettel)

Personally, i chalked up the race as inconclusive, but awarded the weekend to Ferrari for being faster in qualifying.

_________________
You just need to be accepted for who you are and be proud of who you are and that is what I'm trying to do.
Lewis Hamilton


Last edited by aice on Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28396
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
he wasn't though. The performance of the cars fluctuated from track to track but somehow the narrative is that Hamilton was the underdog until Monza?

Everything I read says the Ferrari was more often quicker, then there is your version of events, with the Mercedes resurgence I'm sure at seasons end you will make Mercedes the fastest car with Hamilton simply winning in the fastest car like you also concluded last season.

He may well have the faster car by the end of the season. The Merc certainly looks comfortably quicker at the moment. But he put himself in a strong position to win the title when the cars were relatively equal. For you that's somehow not enough, but for me I still think that shows a strong season by Hamilton

No it isn't because it goes against things that I have read using things like GPS data to determine which was the faster car at any given race.

what GPS data? Much of it is hearsay and short on actual evidence

AMUS have access to GPS data in order to determine the fastest cars up and down the grid.

_________________
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 Oct 13, 2018 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3070
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Everything I read says the Ferrari was more often quicker, then there is your version of events, with the Mercedes resurgence I'm sure at seasons end you will make Mercedes the fastest car with Hamilton simply winning in the fastest car like you also concluded last season.

He may well have the faster car by the end of the season. The Merc certainly looks comfortably quicker at the moment. But he put himself in a strong position to win the title when the cars were relatively equal. For you that's somehow not enough, but for me I still think that shows a strong season by Hamilton

I think the bolded part is what people take issue with. Hamilton actually put himself in strong position to win the title during a period when Ferrari had the quicker car. That's the bit you seem hell bent on not acknowledging.


Exactly, everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore, pundits was still talking about it at the last grand prix and the missed opportunities. I doubt anyone will find a single article on how the Mercedes was faster or equal before Singapore. The only discussion should be how much an advantage did Ferrari have and at how many grand prixs, I can accept some races could be seen as close like Silverstone but the cars wasn't equal overall, the only person I have seen have this opinion is Zoue and someone else who thinks Mercedes has been dominant at every grand prix.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Wolff would also disagree with you about Monza:

“We have understood the car better, we have understood the tyres better. We’ve added some performance and even if Saturday didn’t show it because we couldn’t qualify on pole I felt that we’ve done some good work over the last couple of days.

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did.


https://www.crash.net/f1/news/904737/1/wolff-can-t-explain-why-mercedes-was-faster-ferrari

So I think you're being a bit premature with the "everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore" thing.

As an exercise, if we accept Wolff's opinion and reverse the Silverstone rating in the Amus rankings that would leave us with both Merc and Ferrari having the quickest car 5 times apiece up to and including GB. Ferrari then have three races where they were the fastest and, if we take Wolff's word on Monza, three races where Mercedes were, to bring us up to Russia. Which looks pretty neck and neck from where I'm sitting, with Mercedes now edging ahead following Japan.

Now I'm not saying that those rankings are correct, or even that Wolff is right. But it does illustrate that there's enough room for interpretation that no-one can justifiably claim that their own assessment is the only one that counts. And I'm pretty comfortable holding the opinion that the cars have been on the whole fairly evenly matched this year, with advantages being largely track-specific. And I'm equally comfortable that I'm not the lone voice you would have everyone believe is the case


Ferrari was the quickest car up until Singapore, you are the only person I have seen who says otherwise. It's not my bubble but the opinion of most people in F1.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Last edited by F1_Ernie on Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3070
I have it 8 to Ferrari, 4 to Mercedes and 2 equal which was Bahrain and GB before Singapore. Most reports I read gave Bahrain to Ferrari though, since the Singapore race you are giving 3 more races to Mercedes which then about makes it equal.

The Monza race was Hamilton vs Kimi, there's only going to be one winner there.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3070
aice wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
He may well have the faster car by the end of the season. The Merc certainly looks comfortably quicker at the moment. But he put himself in a strong position to win the title when the cars were relatively equal. For you that's somehow not enough, but for me I still think that shows a strong season by Hamilton

I think the bolded part is what people take issue with. Hamilton actually put himself in strong position to win the title during a period when Ferrari had the quicker car. That's the bit you seem hell bent on not acknowledging.


Exactly, everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore, pundits was still talking about it at the last grand prix and the missed opportunities. I doubt anyone will find a single article on how the Mercedes was faster or equal before Singapore. The only discussion should be how much an advantage did Ferrari have and at how many grand prixs, I can accept some races could be seen as close like Silverstone but the cars wasn't equal overall, the only person I have seen have this opinion is Zoue and someone else who thinks Mercedes has been dominant at every grand prix.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Wolff would also disagree with you about Monza:

“We have understood the car better, we have understood the tyres better. We’ve added some performance and even if Saturday didn’t show it because we couldn’t qualify on pole I felt that we’ve done some good work over the last couple of days.

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did.


https://www.crash.net/f1/news/904737/1/wolff-can-t-explain-why-mercedes-was-faster-ferrari

So I think you're being a bit premature with the "everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore" thing.

As an exercise, if we accept Wolff's opinion and reverse the Silverstone rating in the Amus rankings that would leave us with both Merc and Ferrari having the quickest car 5 times apiece up to and including GB. Ferrari then have three races where they were the fastest and, if we take Wolff's word on Monza, three races where Mercedes were, to bring us up to Russia. Which looks pretty neck and neck from where I'm sitting, with Mercedes now edging ahead following Japan.

Now I'm not saying that those rankings are correct, or even that Wolff is right. But it does illustrate that there's enough room for interpretation that no-one can justifiably claim that their own assessment is the only one that counts. And I'm pretty comfortable holding the opinion that the cars have been on the whole fairly evenly matched this year, with advantages being largely track-specific. And I'm equally comfortable that I'm not the lone voice you would have everyone believe is the case


But then Wolff qualifies his statement with this:

"“The performance pattern has completely changed from Saturday to Sunday and I haven’t got an explanation yet.Maybe the clever people will know it but I think we need to analyse it.....It looks like the performance they are able to deploy on one lap is maybe not something they can replicate throughout the race.. I don’t want to go any furtherbecause it could be read in a different way like I’m trying to find excuses. They certainly seemed to have a very good car in qualifying and a good car in the race. But we haven’t seen Sebastian perform in a car without any damage".

And there lies the crux of the matter. The benchmark Ferrari driver had a damaged car, and therefore, was possibly unable to extract & demonstrate the true pace of his car

"Unfortunately, our race was compromised and it was a shame, but then I tried to do my best and had a decent recovery from the back. All in all, it could have been even worse. It’s disappointing of course, because we had the pace and we definitely could have won." (Vettel)

Personally, i chalked up the race as inconclusive, but awarded the weekend to Ferrari for being faster in qualifying.


Let's also give the whole quote:

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did. We had a reliable car, we had a car that was good on the tyres. There was no blistering on our tyres, unlike the Ferrari, and brilliant execution from both drivers and the team.”

So is Wolff saying the car was outright faster? Or is he saying the whole package was better, from being more reliable, blistering, how the team worked with Bottas?

Wolff seems to forget why the blistering occurred, it wasnt a car problem but more about circumstances. It seems he just looked at the race result and said Mercedes was quicker. If we look at the race result Vettel finished 7 seconds behind Kimi after making 2 pitstops, being at the back of the grid and having car damage of 0.5, so if we look at the race result that also doesn't say alot for Kimi's performance.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28396
Both Autosport and RaceFans had it 7-5 to Ferrari after Hungary, then we had Spa were Ferrari were quickest, then Monza were Ferrari locked out the front row and Vettel should have won the race, that's 9-5 to Ferrari.

Like I said previously going into Singapore Ferrari were quickest whereas Zoue himself has it level, read into that what you want.

_________________
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 Oct 13, 2018 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 730
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
I doubt Wolf is considering all the aspects. He generally says what he sees results wise. If Hamilton is on pole, wins, they had the best car according to him. A lot of his sound bites are also captured immediately post race before they’ve analysed it fully. I’ve seen him misread races quite a few times immediately after the race. He also always talks down the car pre race and talks it up post race.

Silverstone is Vettels worst track and he missed pole by 0.040 against Hamilton at one of his best tracks and Lewis saying after he pulled a near perfect lap. Kimi was also just 0.1 off pole with purple sectors in 2 sectors. If he had matched Vettel in the other sector he would have been on pole. Athough it is a strong Kimi track.

He said the following after Spa, some three races after Silverstone. Just how long does he need to consider all the aspects?

"The last one where we have been quickest in pure pace was Silverstone," he told reporters in Belgium. "Since then, Ferrari have been quicker.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11483374/italian-gp-mercedes-curious-to-see-if-ferrari-keep-pace-at-home-race


Yes, anything at least the day after. But the point still runs true, he has often been quoted immediately post race 2014-2018 and he clearly missed some fundamental dynamics of the race.

Even the quote you give, he says Ferrari were quicker in Germany and Hungary which aren't that clear since Hamilton went out in qualifying in Germany so we don't get a real gauge and Mercedes was probably the better car for Q3 in Hungary and on a track with no overtaking that is key to the weekend. So nothing is clear cut. Many of these races were decided by outside factors.

Likewise, in Monza we didn't get a gauge of Vettel in the race. He ran a lopsided strategy with a damaged car. Kimi isn't a gauge of the car, if we use Kimi vs Hamilton then Mercedes has been better in 80+% of the races.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:37 pm
Posts: 568
F1_Ernie wrote:
aice wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I think the bolded part is what people take issue with. Hamilton actually put himself in strong position to win the title during a period when Ferrari had the quicker car. That's the bit you seem hell bent on not acknowledging.


Exactly, everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore, pundits was still talking about it at the last grand prix and the missed opportunities. I doubt anyone will find a single article on how the Mercedes was faster or equal before Singapore. The only discussion should be how much an advantage did Ferrari have and at how many grand prixs, I can accept some races could be seen as close like Silverstone but the cars wasn't equal overall, the only person I have seen have this opinion is Zoue and someone else who thinks Mercedes has been dominant at every grand prix.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Wolff would also disagree with you about Monza:

“We have understood the car better, we have understood the tyres better. We’ve added some performance and even if Saturday didn’t show it because we couldn’t qualify on pole I felt that we’ve done some good work over the last couple of days.

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did.


https://www.crash.net/f1/news/904737/1/wolff-can-t-explain-why-mercedes-was-faster-ferrari

So I think you're being a bit premature with the "everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore" thing.

As an exercise, if we accept Wolff's opinion and reverse the Silverstone rating in the Amus rankings that would leave us with both Merc and Ferrari having the quickest car 5 times apiece up to and including GB. Ferrari then have three races where they were the fastest and, if we take Wolff's word on Monza, three races where Mercedes were, to bring us up to Russia. Which looks pretty neck and neck from where I'm sitting, with Mercedes now edging ahead following Japan.

Now I'm not saying that those rankings are correct, or even that Wolff is right. But it does illustrate that there's enough room for interpretation that no-one can justifiably claim that their own assessment is the only one that counts. And I'm pretty comfortable holding the opinion that the cars have been on the whole fairly evenly matched this year, with advantages being largely track-specific. And I'm equally comfortable that I'm not the lone voice you would have everyone believe is the case


But then Wolff qualifies his statement with this:

"“The performance pattern has completely changed from Saturday to Sunday and I haven’t got an explanation yet.Maybe the clever people will know it but I think we need to analyse it.....It looks like the performance they are able to deploy on one lap is maybe not something they can replicate throughout the race.. I don’t want to go any furtherbecause it could be read in a different way like I’m trying to find excuses. They certainly seemed to have a very good car in qualifying and a good car in the race. But we haven’t seen Sebastian perform in a car without any damage".

And there lies the crux of the matter. The benchmark Ferrari driver had a damaged car, and therefore, was possibly unable to extract & demonstrate the true pace of his car

"Unfortunately, our race was compromised and it was a shame, but then I tried to do my best and had a decent recovery from the back. All in all, it could have been even worse. It’s disappointing of course, because we had the pace and we definitely could have won." (Vettel)

Personally, i chalked up the race as inconclusive, but awarded the weekend to Ferrari for being faster in qualifying.


Let's also give the whole quote:

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did. We had a reliable car, we had a car that was good on the tyres. There was no blistering on our tyres, unlike the Ferrari, and brilliant execution from both drivers and the team.”

So is Wolff saying the car was outright faster? Or is he saying the whole package was better, from being more reliable, blistering, how the team worked with Bottas?

Wolff seems to forget why the blistering occurred, it wasnt a car problem but more about circumstances. It seems he just looked at the race result and said Mercedes was quicker. If we look at the race result Vettel finished 7 seconds behind Kimi after making 2 pitstops, being at the back of the grid and having car damage of 0.5, so if we look at the race result that also doesn't say alot for Kimi's performance.


Pirelli issued an explanation re Räikkönen's tyre blistering on 4th Sep. So it looks like Wolff made these tyre comments before this(3rd Sept). He was perhaps unaware that Räikkönen's tyre issues were largely self-inflicted, and not car related. And i think his remarks about reliability is in reference to their double DNF.

But yes, overall, i interpret Wolff to mean they had the better package (team work, strategy etc) as opposed to having an instrinsically quicker car.

_________________
You just need to be accepted for who you are and be proud of who you are and that is what I'm trying to do.
Lewis Hamilton


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
aice wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
He may well have the faster car by the end of the season. The Merc certainly looks comfortably quicker at the moment. But he put himself in a strong position to win the title when the cars were relatively equal. For you that's somehow not enough, but for me I still think that shows a strong season by Hamilton

I think the bolded part is what people take issue with. Hamilton actually put himself in strong position to win the title during a period when Ferrari had the quicker car. That's the bit you seem hell bent on not acknowledging.


Exactly, everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore, pundits was still talking about it at the last grand prix and the missed opportunities. I doubt anyone will find a single article on how the Mercedes was faster or equal before Singapore. The only discussion should be how much an advantage did Ferrari have and at how many grand prixs, I can accept some races could be seen as close like Silverstone but the cars wasn't equal overall, the only person I have seen have this opinion is Zoue and someone else who thinks Mercedes has been dominant at every grand prix.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Wolff would also disagree with you about Monza:

“We have understood the car better, we have understood the tyres better. We’ve added some performance and even if Saturday didn’t show it because we couldn’t qualify on pole I felt that we’ve done some good work over the last couple of days.

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did.


https://www.crash.net/f1/news/904737/1/wolff-can-t-explain-why-mercedes-was-faster-ferrari

So I think you're being a bit premature with the "everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore" thing.

As an exercise, if we accept Wolff's opinion and reverse the Silverstone rating in the Amus rankings that would leave us with both Merc and Ferrari having the quickest car 5 times apiece up to and including GB. Ferrari then have three races where they were the fastest and, if we take Wolff's word on Monza, three races where Mercedes were, to bring us up to Russia. Which looks pretty neck and neck from where I'm sitting, with Mercedes now edging ahead following Japan.

Now I'm not saying that those rankings are correct, or even that Wolff is right. But it does illustrate that there's enough room for interpretation that no-one can justifiably claim that their own assessment is the only one that counts. And I'm pretty comfortable holding the opinion that the cars have been on the whole fairly evenly matched this year, with advantages being largely track-specific. And I'm equally comfortable that I'm not the lone voice you would have everyone believe is the case


But then Wolff qualifies his statement with this:

"“The performance pattern has completely changed from Saturday to Sunday and I haven’t got an explanation yet.Maybe the clever people will know it but I think we need to analyse it.....It looks like the performance they are able to deploy on one lap is maybe not something they can replicate throughout the race.. I don’t want to go any furtherbecause it could be read in a different way like I’m trying to find excuses. They certainly seemed to have a very good car in qualifying and a good car in the race. But we haven’t seen Sebastian perform in a car without any damage".

And there lies the crux of the matter. The benchmark Ferrari driver had a damaged car, and therefore, was possibly unable to extract & demonstrate the true pace of his car

"Unfortunately, our race was compromised and it was a shame, but then I tried to do my best and had a decent recovery from the back. All in all, it could have been even worse. It’s disappointing of course, because we had the pace and we definitely could have won." (Vettel)

Personally, i chalked up the race as inconclusive, but awarded the weekend to Ferrari for being faster in qualifying.

It doesn't change anything, though. He didn't say Lewis was faster than KImi, but that the Merc was the quickest car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
F1_Ernie wrote:
aice wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I think the bolded part is what people take issue with. Hamilton actually put himself in strong position to win the title during a period when Ferrari had the quicker car. That's the bit you seem hell bent on not acknowledging.


Exactly, everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore, pundits was still talking about it at the last grand prix and the missed opportunities. I doubt anyone will find a single article on how the Mercedes was faster or equal before Singapore. The only discussion should be how much an advantage did Ferrari have and at how many grand prixs, I can accept some races could be seen as close like Silverstone but the cars wasn't equal overall, the only person I have seen have this opinion is Zoue and someone else who thinks Mercedes has been dominant at every grand prix.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Wolff would also disagree with you about Monza:

“We have understood the car better, we have understood the tyres better. We’ve added some performance and even if Saturday didn’t show it because we couldn’t qualify on pole I felt that we’ve done some good work over the last couple of days.

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did.


https://www.crash.net/f1/news/904737/1/wolff-can-t-explain-why-mercedes-was-faster-ferrari

So I think you're being a bit premature with the "everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore" thing.

As an exercise, if we accept Wolff's opinion and reverse the Silverstone rating in the Amus rankings that would leave us with both Merc and Ferrari having the quickest car 5 times apiece up to and including GB. Ferrari then have three races where they were the fastest and, if we take Wolff's word on Monza, three races where Mercedes were, to bring us up to Russia. Which looks pretty neck and neck from where I'm sitting, with Mercedes now edging ahead following Japan.

Now I'm not saying that those rankings are correct, or even that Wolff is right. But it does illustrate that there's enough room for interpretation that no-one can justifiably claim that their own assessment is the only one that counts. And I'm pretty comfortable holding the opinion that the cars have been on the whole fairly evenly matched this year, with advantages being largely track-specific. And I'm equally comfortable that I'm not the lone voice you would have everyone believe is the case


But then Wolff qualifies his statement with this:

"“The performance pattern has completely changed from Saturday to Sunday and I haven’t got an explanation yet.Maybe the clever people will know it but I think we need to analyse it.....It looks like the performance they are able to deploy on one lap is maybe not something they can replicate throughout the race.. I don’t want to go any furtherbecause it could be read in a different way like I’m trying to find excuses. They certainly seemed to have a very good car in qualifying and a good car in the race. But we haven’t seen Sebastian perform in a car without any damage".

And there lies the crux of the matter. The benchmark Ferrari driver had a damaged car, and therefore, was possibly unable to extract & demonstrate the true pace of his car

"Unfortunately, our race was compromised and it was a shame, but then I tried to do my best and had a decent recovery from the back. All in all, it could have been even worse. It’s disappointing of course, because we had the pace and we definitely could have won." (Vettel)

Personally, i chalked up the race as inconclusive, but awarded the weekend to Ferrari for being faster in qualifying.


Let's also give the whole quote:

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did. We had a reliable car, we had a car that was good on the tyres. There was no blistering on our tyres, unlike the Ferrari, and brilliant execution from both drivers and the team.”

So is Wolff saying the car was outright faster? Or is he saying the whole package was better, from being more reliable, blistering, how the team worked with Bottas?

Wolff seems to forget why the blistering occurred, it wasnt a car problem but more about circumstances. It seems he just looked at the race result and said Mercedes was quicker. If we look at the race result Vettel finished 7 seconds behind Kimi after making 2 pitstops, being at the back of the grid and having car damage of 0.5, so if we look at the race result that also doesn't say alot for Kimi's performance.

It's quite clear. He says that in the race they had the quickest car. I don't see any reason to try and second guess him when he's pretty clear about it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
I doubt Wolf is considering all the aspects. He generally says what he sees results wise. If Hamilton is on pole, wins, they had the best car according to him. A lot of his sound bites are also captured immediately post race before they’ve analysed it fully. I’ve seen him misread races quite a few times immediately after the race. He also always talks down the car pre race and talks it up post race.

Silverstone is Vettels worst track and he missed pole by 0.040 against Hamilton at one of his best tracks and Lewis saying after he pulled a near perfect lap. Kimi was also just 0.1 off pole with purple sectors in 2 sectors. If he had matched Vettel in the other sector he would have been on pole. Athough it is a strong Kimi track.

He said the following after Spa, some three races after Silverstone. Just how long does he need to consider all the aspects?

"The last one where we have been quickest in pure pace was Silverstone," he told reporters in Belgium. "Since then, Ferrari have been quicker.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11483374/italian-gp-mercedes-curious-to-see-if-ferrari-keep-pace-at-home-race


Yes, anything at least the day after. But the point still runs true, he has often been quoted immediately post race 2014-2018 and he clearly missed some fundamental dynamics of the race.

Even the quote you give, he says Ferrari were quicker in Germany and Hungary which aren't that clear since Hamilton went out in qualifying in Germany so we don't get a real gauge and Mercedes was probably the better car for Q3 in Hungary and on a track with no overtaking that is key to the weekend. So nothing is clear cut. Many of these races were decided by outside factors.

Likewise, in Monza we didn't get a gauge of Vettel in the race. He ran a lopsided strategy with a damaged car. Kimi isn't a gauge of the car, if we use Kimi vs Hamilton then Mercedes has been better in 80+% of the races.

That's not the point, though. You say it's not that clear but a TP, who at the very least should have more info than you or I, is quite adamant and quite consistent that the Mercedes was quicker at Silverstone. It's not the emotion of the moment, or a lack of information, but he clearly believes it to be the case. Now maybe he's not right, but if someone in his position makes that assertion then I don't think you can dismiss it out of hand and you can't try and make out that he somehow doesn't have all the facts. So this idea that seems to be propagated on here that all the experts agree that the Ferrari was quicker is clearly just so much hokum, since Wolff is one of most foremost experts i this area that you can get. There are obviously differences of opinion even with the experts, so as far as I can see no-one is in a position to claim they represent their point of view exclusively


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 730
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
I doubt Wolf is considering all the aspects. He generally says what he sees results wise. If Hamilton is on pole, wins, they had the best car according to him. A lot of his sound bites are also captured immediately post race before they’ve analysed it fully. I’ve seen him misread races quite a few times immediately after the race. He also always talks down the car pre race and talks it up post race.

Silverstone is Vettels worst track and he missed pole by 0.040 against Hamilton at one of his best tracks and Lewis saying after he pulled a near perfect lap. Kimi was also just 0.1 off pole with purple sectors in 2 sectors. If he had matched Vettel in the other sector he would have been on pole. Athough it is a strong Kimi track.

He said the following after Spa, some three races after Silverstone. Just how long does he need to consider all the aspects?

"The last one where we have been quickest in pure pace was Silverstone," he told reporters in Belgium. "Since then, Ferrari have been quicker.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11483374/italian-gp-mercedes-curious-to-see-if-ferrari-keep-pace-at-home-race


Yes, anything at least the day after. But the point still runs true, he has often been quoted immediately post race 2014-2018 and he clearly missed some fundamental dynamics of the race.

Even the quote you give, he says Ferrari were quicker in Germany and Hungary which aren't that clear since Hamilton went out in qualifying in Germany so we don't get a real gauge and Mercedes was probably the better car for Q3 in Hungary and on a track with no overtaking that is key to the weekend. So nothing is clear cut. Many of these races were decided by outside factors.

Likewise, in Monza we didn't get a gauge of Vettel in the race. He ran a lopsided strategy with a damaged car. Kimi isn't a gauge of the car, if we use Kimi vs Hamilton then Mercedes has been better in 80+% of the races.

That's not the point, though. You say it's not that clear but a TP, who at the very least should have more info than you or I, is quite adamant and quite consistent that the Mercedes was quicker at Silverstone.

It's not the emotion of the moment, or a lack of information, but he clearly believes it to be the case. Now maybe he's not right, but if someone in his position makes that assertion then I don't think you can dismiss it out of hand and you can't try and make out that he somehow doesn't have all the facts. So this idea that seems to be propagated on here that all the experts agree that the Ferrari was quicker is clearly just so much hokum, since Wolff is one of most foremost experts i this area that you can get. There are obviously differences of opinion even with the experts, so as far as I can see no-one is in a position to claim they represent their point of view exclusively


Wolfs comments are in regards to that specific 3 race period, we have had 17 races. His comments also align with my own analysis of that period that has 2 races to Mercedes and 1 equal/too hard too call in terms of speed. Austria and France were Mercedes two strongest races up until the recent purple patch. Silverstone is definitely open to interpretation. I doubt Wolff took into account it being Vettels weakest track for example. But I agree, TP comments carry a lot of weight.

Ironically, even over this 3 race period the Ferrari was the better car because Mercedes only finished 2 of these races even if Mercedes was quicker at all 3 races. Ferrari was still better. Vettel should have at least 3-1-2 over this period which is better than 1-1-DNF achievable in the Mercedes if it was the superior car in all three. 58 vs 50 points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6074
Location: Michigan, USA
What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...

Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3454
I’m sure if someone asked Arrivabene which car was faster in Silverstone and Monza he would say Ferrari. So taking Wolf’s take on this cannot be taken as gospel. There is a lot of pressure on these guys to produce the best car. When they win a race they are not going to say that their car was worse. They are not going to knock the people that are behind the scenes and are responsible for the performance of the car. The only way they do it is when they have been soundly beaten. Just saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3070
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
aice wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:

Exactly, everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore, pundits was still talking about it at the last grand prix and the missed opportunities. I doubt anyone will find a single article on how the Mercedes was faster or equal before Singapore. The only discussion should be how much an advantage did Ferrari have and at how many grand prixs, I can accept some races could be seen as close like Silverstone but the cars wasn't equal overall, the only person I have seen have this opinion is Zoue and someone else who thinks Mercedes has been dominant at every grand prix.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Wolff would also disagree with you about Monza:

“We have understood the car better, we have understood the tyres better. We’ve added some performance and even if Saturday didn’t show it because we couldn’t qualify on pole I felt that we’ve done some good work over the last couple of days.

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did.


https://www.crash.net/f1/news/904737/1/wolff-can-t-explain-why-mercedes-was-faster-ferrari

So I think you're being a bit premature with the "everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore" thing.

As an exercise, if we accept Wolff's opinion and reverse the Silverstone rating in the Amus rankings that would leave us with both Merc and Ferrari having the quickest car 5 times apiece up to and including GB. Ferrari then have three races where they were the fastest and, if we take Wolff's word on Monza, three races where Mercedes were, to bring us up to Russia. Which looks pretty neck and neck from where I'm sitting, with Mercedes now edging ahead following Japan.

Now I'm not saying that those rankings are correct, or even that Wolff is right. But it does illustrate that there's enough room for interpretation that no-one can justifiably claim that their own assessment is the only one that counts. And I'm pretty comfortable holding the opinion that the cars have been on the whole fairly evenly matched this year, with advantages being largely track-specific. And I'm equally comfortable that I'm not the lone voice you would have everyone believe is the case


But then Wolff qualifies his statement with this:

"“The performance pattern has completely changed from Saturday to Sunday and I haven’t got an explanation yet.Maybe the clever people will know it but I think we need to analyse it.....It looks like the performance they are able to deploy on one lap is maybe not something they can replicate throughout the race.. I don’t want to go any furtherbecause it could be read in a different way like I’m trying to find excuses. They certainly seemed to have a very good car in qualifying and a good car in the race. But we haven’t seen Sebastian perform in a car without any damage".

And there lies the crux of the matter. The benchmark Ferrari driver had a damaged car, and therefore, was possibly unable to extract & demonstrate the true pace of his car

"Unfortunately, our race was compromised and it was a shame, but then I tried to do my best and had a decent recovery from the back. All in all, it could have been even worse. It’s disappointing of course, because we had the pace and we definitely could have won." (Vettel)

Personally, i chalked up the race as inconclusive, but awarded the weekend to Ferrari for being faster in qualifying.


Let's also give the whole quote:

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did. We had a reliable car, we had a car that was good on the tyres. There was no blistering on our tyres, unlike the Ferrari, and brilliant execution from both drivers and the team.”

So is Wolff saying the car was outright faster? Or is he saying the whole package was better, from being more reliable, blistering, how the team worked with Bottas?

Wolff seems to forget why the blistering occurred, it wasnt a car problem but more about circumstances. It seems he just looked at the race result and said Mercedes was quicker. If we look at the race result Vettel finished 7 seconds behind Kimi after making 2 pitstops, being at the back of the grid and having car damage of 0.5, so if we look at the race result that also doesn't say alot for Kimi's performance.

It's quite clear. He says that in the race they had the quickest car. I don't see any reason to try and second guess him when he's pretty clear about it


I actually read the whole quote, it's not second guessing Wolff when you read all the quote and me and aice came to the same interpretation.

Plus Wolff also says we haven't seen Vettel perform in a car without damage. But you use the one quote that suits.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28396
Exediron wrote:
What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...

Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.

Giving Silverstone to Mercedes still makes it 9-5 to Ferrari going into Singapore, if you are wanting to give Monza to Mercedes like Zoue is then like Zoue that's just trying as hard as possible to not put Vettel in the best car, that's the actual game in hand although you seem to see it as being the opposite.

_________________
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 Oct 13, 2018 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2656
Exediron wrote:
What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...

Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.


Don't see what the issue is with disregarding the words of an actual team principal when those holding their words up as gospel have previously dismissed many of their other statements as biased?


Last edited by shoot999 on Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28396
shoot999 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...

Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.


Don't see what the issue is with disregarding the words of the actual team principal when those holding his words up as gospel have previously dismissed many of his other statements as biased?

Amen :thumbup:

_________________
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 Oct 13, 2018 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6074
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...

Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.

Giving Silverstone to Mercedes still makes it 9-5 to Ferrari going into Singapore, if you are wanting to give Monza to Mercedes like Zoue is then like Zoue that's just trying as hard as possible to not put Vettel in the best car, that's the actual game in hand although you seem to see it as being the opposite.

I fully believe Ferrari had the best car on balance over the early part of the season, up until after the Belgian Grand Prix when Mercedes found a fix for their tyre issues. After that, Merc's issue with tyres in race trim is completely gone, and they have the definitively faster car on race day.

What I see, personally, is the usual BS tug-of-war going on between people who want Hamilton to seem more of an underdog than he is and the people who want to cast him as winning in a dominant car. Both are wrong, and I wish people would just accept the truth: Ferrari had the better car at more tracks than not in the first half of the year, but the Mercedes was the best car for some of them. I'm happy enough with the 9-5 verdict for the early season.

As for Monza, I agree it's inconclusive. But there was nothing to suggest Ferrari had a better car on Sunday.

And for the last time, I am not a Vettel fan and I am not trying to prove that Vettel didn't choke the championship with the best car. He did. But that doesn't mean I'm just going to go along with your narrative that the Ferrari was stronger everywhere in the early season, because it wasn't.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28396
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...

Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.

Giving Silverstone to Mercedes still makes it 9-5 to Ferrari going into Singapore, if you are wanting to give Monza to Mercedes like Zoue is then like Zoue that's just trying as hard as possible to not put Vettel in the best car, that's the actual game in hand although you seem to see it as being the opposite.

I fully believe Ferrari had the best car on balance over the early part of the season, up until after the Belgian Grand Prix when Mercedes found a fix for their tyre issues. After that, Merc's issue with tyres in race trim is completely gone, and they have the definitively faster car on race day.

What I see, personally, is the usual BS tug-of-war going on between people who want Hamilton to seem more of an underdog than he is and the people who want to cast him as winning in a dominant car. Both are wrong, and I wish people would just accept the truth: Ferrari had the better car at more tracks than not in the first half of the year, but the Mercedes was the best car for some of them. I'm happy enough with the 9-5 verdict for the early season.

As for Monza, I agree it's inconclusive. But there was nothing to suggest Ferrari had a better car on Sunday.

And for the last time, I am not a Vettel fan and I am not trying to prove that Vettel didn't choke the championship with the best car. He did. But that doesn't mean I'm just going to go along with your narrative that the Ferrari was stronger everywhere in the early season, because it wasn't.

That was alright until you ended it with the claim that people are trying to claim that Ferrari was stronger everywhere in the early season, why would 9-5 even suggest that?

_________________
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 Oct 13, 2018 11:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
shoot999 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...

Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.


Don't see what the issue is with disregarding the words of an actual team principal when those holding their words up as gospel have previously dismissed many of their other statements as biased?

who's holding his words up as gospel?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
aice wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Sorry to burst your bubble but Wolff would also disagree with you about Monza:

“We have understood the car better, we have understood the tyres better. We’ve added some performance and even if Saturday didn’t show it because we couldn’t qualify on pole I felt that we’ve done some good work over the last couple of days.

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did.


https://www.crash.net/f1/news/904737/1/wolff-can-t-explain-why-mercedes-was-faster-ferrari

So I think you're being a bit premature with the "everyone in F1 acknowledged Ferrari had the quicker car until Singapore" thing.

As an exercise, if we accept Wolff's opinion and reverse the Silverstone rating in the Amus rankings that would leave us with both Merc and Ferrari having the quickest car 5 times apiece up to and including GB. Ferrari then have three races where they were the fastest and, if we take Wolff's word on Monza, three races where Mercedes were, to bring us up to Russia. Which looks pretty neck and neck from where I'm sitting, with Mercedes now edging ahead following Japan.

Now I'm not saying that those rankings are correct, or even that Wolff is right. But it does illustrate that there's enough room for interpretation that no-one can justifiably claim that their own assessment is the only one that counts. And I'm pretty comfortable holding the opinion that the cars have been on the whole fairly evenly matched this year, with advantages being largely track-specific. And I'm equally comfortable that I'm not the lone voice you would have everyone believe is the case


But then Wolff qualifies his statement with this:

"“The performance pattern has completely changed from Saturday to Sunday and I haven’t got an explanation yet.Maybe the clever people will know it but I think we need to analyse it.....It looks like the performance they are able to deploy on one lap is maybe not something they can replicate throughout the race.. I don’t want to go any furtherbecause it could be read in a different way like I’m trying to find excuses. They certainly seemed to have a very good car in qualifying and a good car in the race. But we haven’t seen Sebastian perform in a car without any damage".

And there lies the crux of the matter. The benchmark Ferrari driver had a damaged car, and therefore, was possibly unable to extract & demonstrate the true pace of his car

"Unfortunately, our race was compromised and it was a shame, but then I tried to do my best and had a decent recovery from the back. All in all, it could have been even worse. It’s disappointing of course, because we had the pace and we definitely could have won." (Vettel)

Personally, i chalked up the race as inconclusive, but awarded the weekend to Ferrari for being faster in qualifying.


Let's also give the whole quote:

“I would have also said that if we hadn’t won today. Nevertheless, we didn’t have the quickest car but in the race we did. We had a reliable car, we had a car that was good on the tyres. There was no blistering on our tyres, unlike the Ferrari, and brilliant execution from both drivers and the team.”

So is Wolff saying the car was outright faster? Or is he saying the whole package was better, from being more reliable, blistering, how the team worked with Bottas?

Wolff seems to forget why the blistering occurred, it wasnt a car problem but more about circumstances. It seems he just looked at the race result and said Mercedes was quicker. If we look at the race result Vettel finished 7 seconds behind Kimi after making 2 pitstops, being at the back of the grid and having car damage of 0.5, so if we look at the race result that also doesn't say alot for Kimi's performance.

It's quite clear. He says that in the race they had the quickest car. I don't see any reason to try and second guess him when he's pretty clear about it


I actually read the whole quote, it's not second guessing Wolff when you read all the quote and me and aice came to the same interpretation.

Plus Wolff also says we haven't seen Vettel perform in a car without damage. But you use the one quote that suits.

I'm using the quote where he says quite categorically that Mercedes was the quickest car. Anything else he says in that article doesn't change that.


Last edited by Zoue on Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...

Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.

Giving Silverstone to Mercedes still makes it 9-5 to Ferrari going into Singapore, if you are wanting to give Monza to Mercedes like Zoue is then like Zoue that's just trying as hard as possible to not put Vettel in the best car, that's the actual game in hand although you seem to see it as being the opposite.

I don't care whether Vettel was in the best car. I'm quite happy to acknowledge that Hamilton beat him fair and square, so it's not really relevant.

It's not a question of wanting to give Monza to Mercedes. I'm pointing out that what seems to be taken as a basic fact by some on here is actually up for question even among the experts.

What I see is the advantage yo-yoing between Ferrari and Mercedes depending on track. From France on, Mercedes entered a period where they were quicker, while from Germany to Spa it was Ferrari who looked to have the better car. Yet some people have taken that run to somehow paint a picture that the Ferrari was almost always quicker and it's just not true. And in any event the majority of the time most of the differences were tiny and in some cases it's not all that clear cut anyway. This idea that one car had a clear and consistent advantage across the entire season to date is just wrong


Last edited by Zoue on Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6074
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...

Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.

Giving Silverstone to Mercedes still makes it 9-5 to Ferrari going into Singapore, if you are wanting to give Monza to Mercedes like Zoue is then like Zoue that's just trying as hard as possible to not put Vettel in the best car, that's the actual game in hand although you seem to see it as being the opposite.

I fully believe Ferrari had the best car on balance over the early part of the season, up until after the Belgian Grand Prix when Mercedes found a fix for their tyre issues. After that, Merc's issue with tyres in race trim is completely gone, and they have the definitively faster car on race day.

What I see, personally, is the usual BS tug-of-war going on between people who want Hamilton to seem more of an underdog than he is and the people who want to cast him as winning in a dominant car. Both are wrong, and I wish people would just accept the truth: Ferrari had the better car at more tracks than not in the first half of the year, but the Mercedes was the best car for some of them. I'm happy enough with the 9-5 verdict for the early season.

As for Monza, I agree it's inconclusive. But there was nothing to suggest Ferrari had a better car on Sunday.

And for the last time, I am not a Vettel fan and I am not trying to prove that Vettel didn't choke the championship with the best car. He did. But that doesn't mean I'm just going to go along with your narrative that the Ferrari was stronger everywhere in the early season, because it wasn't.

That was alright until you ended it with the claim that people are trying to claim that Ferrari was stronger everywhere in the early season, why would 9-5 even suggest that?

Because we only got to 9-5 after heavy arguing?

Clearly, it was an exaggeration. But I've seen people try to say Ferrari was better at every single track except for Australia. Including Austria, which is absurd.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28396
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...

Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.

Giving Silverstone to Mercedes still makes it 9-5 to Ferrari going into Singapore, if you are wanting to give Monza to Mercedes like Zoue is then like Zoue that's just trying as hard as possible to not put Vettel in the best car, that's the actual game in hand although you seem to see it as being the opposite.

I don't care whether Vettel was in the best car. I'm quite happy to acknowledge that Hamilton beat him fair and square, so it's not really relevant.

It's not a question of wanting to give Monza to Mercedes. I'm pointing out that what seems to be taken as a basic fact by some on here is actually up for question even among the experts.

What I see is the advantage yo-yoing between Ferrari and Mercedes depending on track. From France on, Mercedes entered a period where they were quicker, while from Germany to Spa it was Ferrari who looked to have the better car. Yet some people have taken that run to somehow paint a picture that the Ferrari was almost always quicker and it's just not true. And in any event the majority of the time most of the differences were tiny and in some cases it's not all that clear cut anyway. This idea that one car had a clear and consistent advantage across the entire season to date is just wrong

The thing is that nobody has said that, saying the Ferrari was the fastest car doesn't mean it was the fastest car in every race it just means it was faster more often than not, if people had the view that it had a clear and consistent advantage then the word dominant would start to get used, I've not seen one person say that.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28396
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...

Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.

Giving Silverstone to Mercedes still makes it 9-5 to Ferrari going into Singapore, if you are wanting to give Monza to Mercedes like Zoue is then like Zoue that's just trying as hard as possible to not put Vettel in the best car, that's the actual game in hand although you seem to see it as being the opposite.

I fully believe Ferrari had the best car on balance over the early part of the season, up until after the Belgian Grand Prix when Mercedes found a fix for their tyre issues. After that, Merc's issue with tyres in race trim is completely gone, and they have the definitively faster car on race day.

What I see, personally, is the usual BS tug-of-war going on between people who want Hamilton to seem more of an underdog than he is and the people who want to cast him as winning in a dominant car. Both are wrong, and I wish people would just accept the truth: Ferrari had the better car at more tracks than not in the first half of the year, but the Mercedes was the best car for some of them. I'm happy enough with the 9-5 verdict for the early season.

As for Monza, I agree it's inconclusive. But there was nothing to suggest Ferrari had a better car on Sunday.

And for the last time, I am not a Vettel fan and I am not trying to prove that Vettel didn't choke the championship with the best car. He did. But that doesn't mean I'm just going to go along with your narrative that the Ferrari was stronger everywhere in the early season, because it wasn't.

That was alright until you ended it with the claim that people are trying to claim that Ferrari was stronger everywhere in the early season, why would 9-5 even suggest that?

Because we only got to 9-5 after heavy arguing?

Clearly, it was an exaggeration. But I've seen people try to say Ferrari was better at every single track except for Australia. Including Austria, which is absurd.

I've not seen one person say that, who are these people?

_________________
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: Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6074
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Clearly, it was an exaggeration. But I've seen people try to say Ferrari was better at every single track except for Australia. Including Austria, which is absurd.

I've not seen one person say that, who are these people?

This would be the one:

Johnson wrote:
Mercedes was very strong in France indeed but both cars DNF'd in Austria. You have to factor in the reliability if you are talking the car overall and not just the speed.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...

Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.

Giving Silverstone to Mercedes still makes it 9-5 to Ferrari going into Singapore, if you are wanting to give Monza to Mercedes like Zoue is then like Zoue that's just trying as hard as possible to not put Vettel in the best car, that's the actual game in hand although you seem to see it as being the opposite.

I don't care whether Vettel was in the best car. I'm quite happy to acknowledge that Hamilton beat him fair and square, so it's not really relevant.

It's not a question of wanting to give Monza to Mercedes. I'm pointing out that what seems to be taken as a basic fact by some on here is actually up for question even among the experts.

What I see is the advantage yo-yoing between Ferrari and Mercedes depending on track. From France on, Mercedes entered a period where they were quicker, while from Germany to Spa it was Ferrari who looked to have the better car. Yet some people have taken that run to somehow paint a picture that the Ferrari was almost always quicker and it's just not true. And in any event the majority of the time most of the differences were tiny and in some cases it's not all that clear cut anyway. This idea that one car had a clear and consistent advantage across the entire season to date is just wrong

The thing is that nobody has said that, saying the Ferrari was the fastest car doesn't mean it was the fastest car in every race it just means it was faster more often than not, if people had the view that it had a clear and consistent advantage then the word dominant would start to get used, I've not seen one person say that.

well that's not really true, though, is it, because saying it was the fastest car until Singapore gives the one-sided impression that it was fastest throughout the year, and as I have just shown things were pretty even up until Silverstone, after which Ferrari began to pull ahead. It was only really during the summer that they began to show any kind of consistent advantage, and that stopped in Italy. I wouldn't have a problem if people were talking about Ferrari being the fastest car over the summer, but otherwise it's just misleading.

I remember reading an article over the summer where James Allison was saying that the differences between the cars were pretty marginal. Ferrari appeared to have the advantage on the faster corners and the straights, whereas the Mercedes was better in the twisty bits. And even there he stressed that these differences were pretty tiny overall and it was very much track dependent as to who would come out on top. Yet listening to some people on here Hamilton's been fighting an uphill battle throughout the year and that's far removed from the truth. I don't have a problem saying Hamilton aced it when Ferrari did appear to have the upper hand in the summer, but I don't think we need to paint a distorted picture for the rest of the season


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: wire2004 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