planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:44 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28048
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Not seen this onboard of the start from Vettel's pov before, the Ferrari seems to just unleash hell at the top of Radillon

https://streamable.com/ojkaf

If I was Hamilton I would be complaining about having a F2 engine. :lol:

yes, he should insist Merc give him the one Ocon had :]

I guess this time you have no interest in what the likes of Wolff has to say on the matter, you was keen to quote him after Hungarian qualifying believing it sided with what you was saying?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 2nd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28048
froze wrote:
pokerman wrote:
froze wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
froze wrote:
I don't understand the PlanetF1 driver ratings. Kimi gets a 6, when he has pretty much performed flawlessly all weekend, with his qualifying ruined by car not being fueled and in the race he gets hit from behind. Isn't the purpose of the ratings to rate the driver performance or what is it about? If it's only the end result that is being rated then we have the official classification, so I don't see what the thing is here.


6 sounds about right to me as a baseline kind of thing. We couldn't judge him in either quali or the race so I don't really see how he could've earnt more than a 6? The 6 mins of represents a standard performance.

If he cannot be rated, then it should be marked as N/A or something similar. What kind of rating system gives you the same rating whether you spun out or whether you cannot be actually even rated. Otherwise it seems like it's just stirring the pot as was mentioned. Hopefully they combine the scores after the season, and it will be even more apparent how absurd it is, when some drivers get a weak overall rating if they've received these kinds of ratings from races where it's been in no way fault of their own.

This is something I care little about but my understanding is that there is a running average so an N/A seems the best solution, just another flaw in the system.

Another trend I've noticed is that the ratings seem to steadily drop the further down a driver finishes, regardless if he's driving a backmarker car or not. Also Alonso and Leclerc both got 5 from this race, so to me it doesn't really even seem like a driver rating even though that's what it says. :lol:

Generally speaking they have so many flaws that I pay no heed.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 2nd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14200
froze wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
froze wrote:
I don't understand the PlanetF1 driver ratings. Kimi gets a 6, when he has pretty much performed flawlessly all weekend, with his qualifying ruined by car not being fueled and in the race he gets hit from behind. Isn't the purpose of the ratings to rate the driver performance or what is it about? If it's only the end result that is being rated then we have the official classification, so I don't see what the thing is here.


6 sounds about right to me as a baseline kind of thing. We couldn't judge him in either quali or the race so I don't really see how he could've earnt more than a 6? The 6 mins of represents a standard performance.

If he cannot be rated, then it should be marked as N/A or something similar. What kind of rating system gives you the same rating whether you spun out or whether you cannot be actually even rated. Otherwise it seems like it's just stirring the pot as was mentioned. Hopefully they combine the scores after the season, and it will be even more apparent how absurd it is, when some drivers get a weak overall rating if they've received these kinds of ratings from races where it's been in no way fault of their own.


But they haven't given him a bad rating have they? They've given him an average rating. A score of 6 out of 10. If you have to give a number for continuity then I don't see how they could pick anything outside of the median range?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28048
UnlikeUday wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Not seen this onboard of the start from Vettel's pov before, the Ferrari seems to just unleash hell at the top of Radillon

https://streamable.com/ojkaf

If I was Hamilton I would be complaining about having a F2 engine. :lol:


I see Ferrari having a good advantage at Monza & Singapore as well.

If not for the rain that basically would make it 5 races on the bounce yet some will debate that the cars and engines are equal.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 2nd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7363
Location: Belgium
froze wrote:
Another trend I've noticed is that the ratings seem to steadily drop the further down a driver finishes, regardless if he's driving a backmarker car or not. Also Alonso and Leclerc both got 5 from this race, so to me it doesn't really even seem like a driver rating even though that's what it says. :lol:
I have to agree. Stoffel got a 4. His weekend was worth a full round zero, but that isn't down to him. It was clear there are two cars at McLaren; Alonso's (shared by Norris in FP1, who had no trouble doing well), and Stoffel's, who seems to have the Flintstone version.
Leclerc got a 5, with the writer explaining that wasn't down to him. Perhaps he should be reminded the title is "driver ratings".

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 2610
Location: Finland
mikeyg123 wrote:
froze wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
froze wrote:
I don't understand the PlanetF1 driver ratings. Kimi gets a 6, when he has pretty much performed flawlessly all weekend, with his qualifying ruined by car not being fueled and in the race he gets hit from behind. Isn't the purpose of the ratings to rate the driver performance or what is it about? If it's only the end result that is being rated then we have the official classification, so I don't see what the thing is here.


6 sounds about right to me as a baseline kind of thing. We couldn't judge him in either quali or the race so I don't really see how he could've earnt more than a 6? The 6 mins of represents a standard performance.

If he cannot be rated, then it should be marked as N/A or something similar. What kind of rating system gives you the same rating whether you spun out or whether you cannot be actually even rated. Otherwise it seems like it's just stirring the pot as was mentioned. Hopefully they combine the scores after the season, and it will be even more apparent how absurd it is, when some drivers get a weak overall rating if they've received these kinds of ratings from races where it's been in no way fault of their own.


But they haven't given him a bad rating have they? They've given him an average rating. A score of 6 out of 10. If you have to give a number for continuity then I don't see how they could pick anything outside of the median range?

Still I don't see any logic there, as Alonso and Leclerc both got 5 out of 10, when basically all three retired from the same reason, which was that they were all hit from behind, with the difference being that Kimi was at least able to continue a couple of laps more.

Fiki wrote:
froze wrote:
Another trend I've noticed is that the ratings seem to steadily drop the further down a driver finishes, regardless if he's driving a backmarker car or not. Also Alonso and Leclerc both got 5 from this race, so to me it doesn't really even seem like a driver rating even though that's what it says. :lol:
I have to agree. Stoffel got a 4. His weekend was worth a full round zero, but that isn't down to him. It was clear there are two cars at McLaren; Alonso's (shared by Norris in FP1, who had no trouble doing well), and Stoffel's, who seems to have the Flintstone version.
Leclerc got a 5, with the writer explaining that wasn't down to him. Perhaps he should be reminded the title is "driver ratings".

I tried to look but I don't see anywhere who the writer is. Not that it makes any difference anyway, but since the whole thing seems to be more like one writer's opinion rather than any objective rating based on driver's performance, it would be fair to at least call it what it is and by who it is.

_________________
“I'm happy, but there's nothing to jump around about.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7363
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
He doesn't. He learns the track limits, so that he can honour them in the race. If he doesn't during the race, he should get penalised. The rules are clear enough.

For what it's worth, the first lap atop the Raidillon was also a talking point last year, and the year before. And rightly so. This is supposed to be difficult, blind corner the drivers should find a challenge.

I've never seen a driver getting penalised as a first offence and rectro penalising for offences in practice sessions sounds like a nonsense to me, also Hamilton gained absolutely nothing from this Vettel passed him like he was stood still, this is like you are wanting to make a mountain out of a mole hill?
Either you've not understood my point, or you didn't read it properly. First offence doesn't come into it. They have two days to learn the limits of the track, with their cars in different weight/tyre combinations. By Sunday, if Hamilton cuts the corner atop the Raidillon, it's not a matter of being a first offence. Last year, Hamilton just kept his right wheels on the white line and it was Vettel who was the worse offender. In 2015, Hamilton was nowhere near the white line. First offence? Previous years were hardly better, and Hamilton isn't the only one to seek advantage by not staying on track, but that should not be a reason to allow this.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Last edited by Fiki on Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Not seen this onboard of the start from Vettel's pov before, the Ferrari seems to just unleash hell at the top of Radillon

https://streamable.com/ojkaf

If I was Hamilton I would be complaining about having a F2 engine. :lol:

yes, he should insist Merc give him the one Ocon had :]

I guess this time you have no interest in what the likes of Wolff has to say on the matter, you was keen to quote him after Hungarian qualifying believing it sided with what you was saying?

ah, selective quoting again. I believe I used Wolff's comments to show that even the so-called experts can disagree and even asked who we should believe and I'm fairly confident I stated in that conversation that I didn't really hold that much stock with anything any of them say on the whole. But you just pick the bits you want, yeah?

But clearly Ocon had a better run than any of the top four drivers and would have overtaken Vettel if he hadn't had to slam the brakes on early because of the corner angle. So how does that reconcile with the narrative that Vettel's overtake was all down to the engine? Did FI change suppliers along with the ownership when no-one was looking?

Fact is the engine excuse is just that in this particular instance. Ocon showed that it was the slipstream that made the difference, possible coupled with Hamilton getting not the best drive out of the previous corner. People are acting like Ocon wasn't even there but his presence directly contradicts the assumption that Hamilton lost the lead because he was at an engine disadvantage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7363
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
But clearly Ocon had a better run than any of the top four drivers and would have overtaken Vettel if he hadn't had to slam the breaks on early because of the corner angle. So how does that reconcile with the narrative that Vettel's overtake was all down to the engine? Did FI change suppliers along with the ownership when no-one was looking?

Fact is the engine excuse is just that in this particular instance. Ocon showed that it was the slipstream that made the difference, possible coupled with Hamilton getting not the best drive out of the previous corner. People are acting like Ocon wasn't even there but his presence directly contradicts the assumption that Hamilton lost the lead because he was at an engine disadvantage.
I found it fantastic that not 2, not 3, but 4 cars approached Les Combes line abreast! I was even more pleasantly surprised that all 4 showed they could make it through the corner without hitting somebody, or running others off the track.

All 4 showed great racing insight, and the compliment to Ocon is surely deserved.

I'm not sure who had the best run up to the Raidillon, I thought Vettel was somewhat slowed by Hamilton. Hamilton seemed to follow a different line through the first Eau Rouge corner for most of the race. But Vettel's line through the two corners, the climb uphill and not cutting the track may explain some of the dynamic between them. Looking at the Kemmel straight, I think Perez was by far the wisest slipstreamer. He got to the outside, while Ocon put himself into an impossible position while Vettel and Hamilton jockeyed for position during the overtake. One thing should not be forgotten; Vettel was driving the faster of these 4 cars.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:39 pm
Posts: 251
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
He doesn't. He learns the track limits, so that he can honour them in the race. If he doesn't during the race, he should get penalised. The rules are clear enough.

For what it's worth, the first lap atop the Raidillon was also a talking point last year, and the year before. And rightly so. This is supposed to be difficult, blind corner the drivers should find a challenge.

I've never seen a driver getting penalised as a first offence and rectro penalising for offences in practice sessions sounds like a nonsense to me, also Hamilton gained absolutely nothing from this Vettel passed him like he was stood still, this is like you are wanting to make a mountain out of a mole hill?
Either you've not understood my point, or you didn't read it properly. First offence doesn't come into it. They have two days to learn the limits of the track, with their cars in different weight/tyre combinations. By Sunday, if Hamilton cuts the corner atop the Raidillon, it's not a matter of being a first offence. Last year, Hamilton just kept his right wheels on the white line and it was Vettel who was the worse offender. In 2015, Hamilton was nowhere near the white line. First offence? Previous years were hardly better, and Hamilton isn't the only one to seek advantage by not staying on track, but that should not be a reason to allow this.


What about Seb going all four wheels off after turn 14 repeatedly?

I can't remember who it was (one of the Sky F1 presenters) but someone definitely said that there was going to be zero tolerance of cutting Radillon DURING QUALIFYING. There was no mention of during the race. Besides it was a lap 1 incident which usually attracts more leniency as drivers are generally trying to avoid each other rather than watching track limits.

Isn't the rule that you shouldn't make a lasting advantage anyway? Which he clearly didn't as Seb cruised past him seconds later then drove off into the sunset.

What penalty do you feel would have been appropriate?


Last edited by TedStriker on Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7475
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Not seen this onboard of the start from Vettel's pov before, the Ferrari seems to just unleash hell at the top of Radillon

https://streamable.com/ojkaf

If I was Hamilton I would be complaining about having a F2 engine. :lol:

yes, he should insist Merc give him the one Ocon had :]

I guess this time you have no interest in what the likes of Wolff has to say on the matter, you was keen to quote him after Hungarian qualifying believing it sided with what you was saying?

I think Zoue is just saying thats more to do with the tow/slipstream than engine. We know that it's powerful there and it's often said 2nd is the best place to be out of turn 1. Ocon and Perez being quicker than both Hamilton and Vettel also shows us that there was a powerful slipstream and IIRC Vettel said there was a tailwind into T1 which would make it a headwind on the Kennel straight so it makes sense as to why the slipstream would be so effective.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3415
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Not seen this onboard of the start from Vettel's pov before, the Ferrari seems to just unleash hell at the top of Radillon

https://streamable.com/ojkaf

If I was Hamilton I would be complaining about having a F2 engine. :lol:

yes, he should insist Merc give him the one Ocon had :]

I guess this time you have no interest in what the likes of Wolff has to say on the matter, you was keen to quote him after Hungarian qualifying believing it sided with what you was saying?

ah, selective quoting again. I believe I used Wolff's comments to show that even the so-called experts can disagree and even asked who we should believe and I'm fairly confident I stated in that conversation that I didn't really hold that much stock with anything any of them say on the whole. But you just pick the bits you want, yeah?

But clearly Ocon had a better run than any of the top four drivers and would have overtaken Vettel if he hadn't had to slam the brakes on early because of the corner angle. So how does that reconcile with the narrative that Vettel's overtake was all down to the engine? Did FI change suppliers along with the ownership when no-one was looking?

Fact is the engine excuse is just that in this particular instance. Ocon showed that it was the slipstream that made the difference, possible coupled with Hamilton getting not the best drive out of the previous corner. People are acting like Ocon wasn't even there but his presence directly contradicts the assumption that Hamilton lost the lead because he was at an engine disadvantage.


I disagree totally. Hamilton was being reeled in just after he exited Radillion. It was definitely the engine that caused most of his demise. I mean, he was passed miles before the braking zone. Ocon benefited from the double slipstream of course, which is a lot more powerful, but even he did not get to Hamilton before the braking zone. You are also comparing a Force India, which is normally faster in a straight line than a works Merc because it doesn't make nearly as much downforce. Moreover, Vettel had plenty of time to actually take a normal racing line through that corner even though he was on the inside when he blew past Lewis. There was an engine deficiency there for sure. To argue against that is absolutely ludicrous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
kleefton wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
yes, he should insist Merc give him the one Ocon had :]

I guess this time you have no interest in what the likes of Wolff has to say on the matter, you was keen to quote him after Hungarian qualifying believing it sided with what you was saying?

ah, selective quoting again. I believe I used Wolff's comments to show that even the so-called experts can disagree and even asked who we should believe and I'm fairly confident I stated in that conversation that I didn't really hold that much stock with anything any of them say on the whole. But you just pick the bits you want, yeah?

But clearly Ocon had a better run than any of the top four drivers and would have overtaken Vettel if he hadn't had to slam the brakes on early because of the corner angle. So how does that reconcile with the narrative that Vettel's overtake was all down to the engine? Did FI change suppliers along with the ownership when no-one was looking?

Fact is the engine excuse is just that in this particular instance. Ocon showed that it was the slipstream that made the difference, possible coupled with Hamilton getting not the best drive out of the previous corner. People are acting like Ocon wasn't even there but his presence directly contradicts the assumption that Hamilton lost the lead because he was at an engine disadvantage.


I disagree totally. Hamilton was being reeled in just after he exited Radillion. It was definitely the engine that caused most of his demise. I mean, he was passed miles before the braking zone. Ocon benefited from the double slipstream of course, which is a lot more powerful, but even he did not get to Hamilton before the braking zone. You are also comparing a Force India, which is normally faster in a straight line than a works Merc because it doesn't make nearly as much downforce. Moreover, Vettel had plenty of time to actually take a normal racing line through that corner even though he was on the inside when he blew past Lewis. There was an engine deficiency there for sure. To argue against that is absolutely ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous, it's called having a different opinion, which presumably means the same to you?

Ocon also passed Hamilton and got level with Vettel, but had to back off and braked earlier for the corner than any of them, losing everything he'd gained in the process. Vettel squeezed Ocon to the right and moved back onto the racing line only after Ocon had braked, but if Vettel hadn't been there Ocon would have been able to make exactly the same move. It's odd that you concede Ocon's performance was down to the slipstream, but refuse to accept that this could possibly be the same for Vettel's pass.

Everything you say about FI's performance and their reduced downforce could be applied to Ferrari, too. Vettel said they ran the smallest wing they could, so they clearly prioritized speed over downforce. This no doubt also contributed in the same way that it did with FI.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 438
Location: Kansas
UnlikeUday wrote:
Speed trap figures of Qualy:

Image
Source - http://www.f1i.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... ap-Spa.jpg


I can't find where the "Intermediate 1" and "Intermediate 2" locations are. F1 website shows "Speed Trap" to be around Radillion.

Does anyone know where the two intermediated sensors are????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3415
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
yes, he should insist Merc give him the one Ocon had :]

I guess this time you have no interest in what the likes of Wolff has to say on the matter, you was keen to quote him after Hungarian qualifying believing it sided with what you was saying?

ah, selective quoting again. I believe I used Wolff's comments to show that even the so-called experts can disagree and even asked who we should believe and I'm fairly confident I stated in that conversation that I didn't really hold that much stock with anything any of them say on the whole. But you just pick the bits you want, yeah?

But clearly Ocon had a better run than any of the top four drivers and would have overtaken Vettel if he hadn't had to slam the brakes on early because of the corner angle. So how does that reconcile with the narrative that Vettel's overtake was all down to the engine? Did FI change suppliers along with the ownership when no-one was looking?

Fact is the engine excuse is just that in this particular instance. Ocon showed that it was the slipstream that made the difference, possible coupled with Hamilton getting not the best drive out of the previous corner. People are acting like Ocon wasn't even there but his presence directly contradicts the assumption that Hamilton lost the lead because he was at an engine disadvantage.


I disagree totally. Hamilton was being reeled in just after he exited Radillion. It was definitely the engine that caused most of his demise. I mean, he was passed miles before the braking zone. Ocon benefited from the double slipstream of course, which is a lot more powerful, but even he did not get to Hamilton before the braking zone. You are also comparing a Force India, which is normally faster in a straight line than a works Merc because it doesn't make nearly as much downforce. Moreover, Vettel had plenty of time to actually take a normal racing line through that corner even though he was on the inside when he blew past Lewis. There was an engine deficiency there for sure. To argue against that is absolutely ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous, it's called having a different opinion, which presumably means the same to you?

Ocon also passed Hamilton and got level with Vettel, but had to back off and braked earlier for the corner than any of them, losing everything he'd gained in the process. Vettel squeezed Ocon to the right and moved back onto the racing line only after Ocon had braked, but if Vettel hadn't been there Ocon would have been able to make exactly the same move. It's odd that you concede Ocon's performance was down to the slipstream, but refuse to accept that this could possibly be the same for Vettel's pass.

Everything you say about FI's performance and their reduced downforce could be applied to Ferrari, too. Vettel said they ran the smallest wing they could, so they clearly prioritized speed over downforce. This no doubt also contributed in the same way that it did with FI.


It is ludicrous because it falls in line way too much with your usual way of thinking in which you refuse to accept that Ferrari has a better power unit than Merc this year, even though everyone and their mother is saying so.

The slipstream does not start to take effect so rapidly. If you watch Vettel's onboard you can see how quickly he starts reeling him in; basically as soon as they exited the corner. And the way Hamilton took that corner, (he cut it) he probably got an advantage too, not a disadvantage. Last year Vettel got a good slipstream, but once he got out of it the Merc came back at him and he couldn't make the pass. This year he just blows by. Come on. Ocon, once again, had the more powerful double slipstream, coupled with the fact that he is in a Force India, which is likely faster in a straight line than even a Ferrari. You cannot really compare the straight line performance of these two cars anyway. That is why people usually refer to them as being in a different category; faster in a straight line but a lot slower in the corners.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14200
Everyone that has commented that might actually know have said the Ferrari PU now has the edge. That's surely no longer a point of contention?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1339
Location: London
mikeyg123 wrote:
Everyone that has commented that might actually know have said the Ferrari PU now has the edge. That's surely no longer a point of contention?


Wanna bet :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
mikeyg123 wrote:
Everyone that has commented that might actually know have said the Ferrari PU now has the edge. That's surely no longer a point of contention?

I think the PU most likely does have the edge. The issue being discussed is that it's a red herring to credit the Ferrari PU for the way Vettel blew past Hamilton, when Ocon was arguably faster and blew past both of them. It seems the slipstream was the big reason there, not the PU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 663
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
yes, he should insist Merc give him the one Ocon had :]

I guess this time you have no interest in what the likes of Wolff has to say on the matter, you was keen to quote him after Hungarian qualifying believing it sided with what you was saying?

ah, selective quoting again. I believe I used Wolff's comments to show that even the so-called experts can disagree and even asked who we should believe and I'm fairly confident I stated in that conversation that I didn't really hold that much stock with anything any of them say on the whole. But you just pick the bits you want, yeah?

But clearly Ocon had a better run than any of the top four drivers and would have overtaken Vettel if he hadn't had to slam the brakes on early because of the corner angle. So how does that reconcile with the narrative that Vettel's overtake was all down to the engine? Did FI change suppliers along with the ownership when no-one was looking?

Fact is the engine excuse is just that in this particular instance. Ocon showed that it was the slipstream that made the difference, possible coupled with Hamilton getting not the best drive out of the previous corner. People are acting like Ocon wasn't even there but his presence directly contradicts the assumption that Hamilton lost the lead because he was at an engine disadvantage.


I disagree totally. Hamilton was being reeled in just after he exited Radillion. It was definitely the engine that caused most of his demise. I mean, he was passed miles before the braking zone. Ocon benefited from the double slipstream of course, which is a lot more powerful, but even he did not get to Hamilton before the braking zone. You are also comparing a Force India, which is normally faster in a straight line than a works Merc because it doesn't make nearly as much downforce. Moreover, Vettel had plenty of time to actually take a normal racing line through that corner even though he was on the inside when he blew past Lewis. There was an engine deficiency there for sure. To argue against that is absolutely ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous, it's called having a different opinion, which presumably means the same to you?

Ocon also passed Hamilton and got level with Vettel, but had to back off and braked earlier for the corner than any of them, losing everything he'd gained in the process. Vettel squeezed Ocon to the right and moved back onto the racing line only after Ocon had braked, but if Vettel hadn't been there Ocon would have been able to make exactly the same move. It's odd that you concede Ocon's performance was down to the slipstream, but refuse to accept that this could possibly be the same for Vettel's pass.

Everything you say about FI's performance and their reduced downforce could be applied to Ferrari, too. Vettel said they ran the smallest wing they could, so they clearly prioritized speed over downforce. This no doubt also contributed in the same way that it did with FI.


Are you comparing Ocon and Vettel? Vettel was out the slipstream before he had even exited Radillion. Ocon had a double slipstream for nearly all of the Kemmel straight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
kleefton wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I guess this time you have no interest in what the likes of Wolff has to say on the matter, you was keen to quote him after Hungarian qualifying believing it sided with what you was saying?

ah, selective quoting again. I believe I used Wolff's comments to show that even the so-called experts can disagree and even asked who we should believe and I'm fairly confident I stated in that conversation that I didn't really hold that much stock with anything any of them say on the whole. But you just pick the bits you want, yeah?

But clearly Ocon had a better run than any of the top four drivers and would have overtaken Vettel if he hadn't had to slam the brakes on early because of the corner angle. So how does that reconcile with the narrative that Vettel's overtake was all down to the engine? Did FI change suppliers along with the ownership when no-one was looking?

Fact is the engine excuse is just that in this particular instance. Ocon showed that it was the slipstream that made the difference, possible coupled with Hamilton getting not the best drive out of the previous corner. People are acting like Ocon wasn't even there but his presence directly contradicts the assumption that Hamilton lost the lead because he was at an engine disadvantage.


I disagree totally. Hamilton was being reeled in just after he exited Radillion. It was definitely the engine that caused most of his demise. I mean, he was passed miles before the braking zone. Ocon benefited from the double slipstream of course, which is a lot more powerful, but even he did not get to Hamilton before the braking zone. You are also comparing a Force India, which is normally faster in a straight line than a works Merc because it doesn't make nearly as much downforce. Moreover, Vettel had plenty of time to actually take a normal racing line through that corner even though he was on the inside when he blew past Lewis. There was an engine deficiency there for sure. To argue against that is absolutely ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous, it's called having a different opinion, which presumably means the same to you?

Ocon also passed Hamilton and got level with Vettel, but had to back off and braked earlier for the corner than any of them, losing everything he'd gained in the process. Vettel squeezed Ocon to the right and moved back onto the racing line only after Ocon had braked, but if Vettel hadn't been there Ocon would have been able to make exactly the same move. It's odd that you concede Ocon's performance was down to the slipstream, but refuse to accept that this could possibly be the same for Vettel's pass.

Everything you say about FI's performance and their reduced downforce could be applied to Ferrari, too. Vettel said they ran the smallest wing they could, so they clearly prioritized speed over downforce. This no doubt also contributed in the same way that it did with FI.


It is ludicrous because it falls in line way too much with your usual way of thinking in which you refuse to accept that Ferrari has a better power unit than Merc this year, even though everyone and their mother is saying so.

The slipstream does not start to take effect so rapidly. If you watch Vettel's onboard you can see how quickly he starts reeling him in; basically as soon as they exited the corner. And the way Hamilton took that corner, (he cut it) he probably got an advantage too, not a disadvantage. Last year Vettel got a good slipstream, but once he got out of it the Merc came back at him and he couldn't make the pass. This year he just blows by. Come on. Ocon, once again, had the more powerful double slipstream, coupled with the fact that he is in a Force India, which is likely faster in a straight line than even a Ferrari. You cannot really compare the straight line performance of these two cars anyway. That is why people usually refer to them as being in a different category; faster in a straight line but a lot slower in the corners.

No, what I'm saying is that it's wrong to credit the PU for Vettel's pass, when Ocon had an arguably even better one. If setup and slipstream was responsible for Ocon's performance, then why can it not also be responsible for the relative performances of Vettel and Hamilton?

Even before the race we were talking about the Ferrari being set up for straightline speed and the Merc having more downforce and being better in the twisty bits. Although the weird thing is that according to the official FIA timings both Bottas and Hamilton topped the S1 times and were some 4 tenths quicker than Vettel there (in fact Bottas had the fastest of all three sector times, with Lewis following in all but S3). But anyway, however you want to cut it Ocon's performance means that you can't simply point to the PU as being the culprit when it's clear that others had as much performance with no such PU excuse possible


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4798
In order to think that Vettel's pass was due mostly to PU power you'd have believe that the difference now is close to the difference Mercedes had at the start of 2014.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4862
RaggedMan wrote:
In order to think that Vettel's pass was due mostly to PU power you'd have believe that the difference now is close to the difference Mercedes had at the start of 2014.


How so?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14200
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Everyone that has commented that might actually know have said the Ferrari PU now has the edge. That's surely no longer a point of contention?

I think the PU most likely does have the edge. The issue being discussed is that it's a red herring to credit the Ferrari PU for the way Vettel blew past Hamilton, when Ocon was arguably faster and blew past both of them. It seems the slipstream was the big reason there, not the PU


I actually think neither. Vettel entered Eau Rouge closer to Ocon than Hamilton had exited right under Hamilton's gearbox. He was then easily able to pull out and move past when out of the slipstream. Ocon took much longer to get alongside. I would say it was mainly Vettel being faster through Eau Rouge that got him alongside and then his PU allowed him to out grunt Hamilton down the straight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 553
Location: illinois
even when there isn't nonstop action, it's enjoyable watching f1 machines race around spa.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 663
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Everyone that has commented that might actually know have said the Ferrari PU now has the edge. That's surely no longer a point of contention?

I think the PU most likely does have the edge. The issue being discussed is that it's a red herring to credit the Ferrari PU for the way Vettel blew past Hamilton, when Ocon was arguably faster and blew past both of them. It seems the slipstream was the big reason there, not the PU


I actually think neither. Vettel entered Eau Rouge closer to Ocon than Hamilton had exited right under Hamilton's gearbox. He was then easily able to pull out and move past when out of the slipstream. Ocon took much longer to get alongside. I would say it was mainly Vettel being faster through Eau Rouge that got him alongside and then his PU allowed him to out grunt Hamilton down the straight.


Yes I agree, given how close Vettel was out of La Source, if he was also in a Mercedes as well he would have taken the lead. If you are that close out of La source you will overtake. The fact Vettel didn’t even need any slipstream on Kemmel suggests a power advantage.

The only reason Hamilton wasn’t overtaken last year was the Mercedes PU advantage, again with equal cars last year, Vettel takes the lead. P2 is favourite to take the lead so long as he isn’t miles behind out of la source.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14200
pc27b wrote:
even when there isn't nonstop action, it's enjoyable watching f1 machines race around spa.


It use to be. I hate to be cynical but Spa just looks like any old track to me now. Ca car park with painted white lines. All the major challenges are gone with Eau Roge, Pouhon and Blanchimont now flat out with acres of tarmac run off. Anyone can drive them hard now because if you get it wrong who cares, you lose almost nothing. A driver making a mistake at Eau Rouge or Raidillion used to be hugely impactful and that's what made it such a daunting challenge. Now a mistake there is barely worth a passing mention.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3651
The issue Spa has as a circuit is not the fact that the gravel traps have gone, but more the fact that the cars have so much grip these days. This means that corners that used to be close to flat out are now easily flat out. Yes it was better with gravel, but that's not the circuit owners fault.

If only the cars could have a reduction in grip.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14200
Asphalt_World wrote:
The issue Spa has as a circuit is not the fact that the gravel traps have gone, but more the fact that the cars have so much grip these days. This means that corners that used to be close to flat out are now easily flat out. Yes it was better with gravel, but that's not the circuit owners fault.

If only the cars could have a reduction in grip.


It's still mainly the car park run off's. Hamilton went off on lap 1 at Radillion and nobody noticed. 15 years ago that would be his race run. Letting all drivers go flat out and hope for the best takes so much of the skill away. Increased grip just changes the challenge per corner. It makes some easier but some tougher so I'm ok with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 2610
Location: Finland
I don't think there is anything wrong with Spa or even the cars. Sometimes circumstances just can create an uneventful race, even if we had perfect tracks and regulations in place. It could have been a lot different if we had both red and silver cars up there challenging for the win.

I'd be more concerned about the tracks that are coming up next month, namely Sochi and Singapore. I like Singapore as a venue, but from the race I don't expect much. Sochi do I even need to mention, because that is a real parking lot if there ever was any.

_________________
“I'm happy, but there's nothing to jump around about.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4798
Lotus49 wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
In order to think that Vettel's pass was due mostly to PU power you'd have believe that the difference now is close to the difference Mercedes had at the start of 2014.


How so?

If one doesn't think that the ease that Vettel went past Hamilton had more to do with the slipstream than outright power output, then they must think that the Ferrari PU is head and shoulders above the Mercedes PU. Much like the Mercedes PU was at the start of tis PU era.

Ferrari might (probably?) does have a power advantage now on the PU side of things, but it's nothing like what Mercedes had in 2014 that would allow them to pass at will on any given straight.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4862
RaggedMan wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
In order to think that Vettel's pass was due mostly to PU power you'd have believe that the difference now is close to the difference Mercedes had at the start of 2014.


How so?

If one doesn't think that the ease that Vettel went past Hamilton had more to do with the slipstream than outright power output, then they must think that the Ferrari PU is head and shoulders above the Mercedes PU. Much like the Mercedes PU was at the start of tis PU era.

Ferrari might (probably?) does have a power advantage now on the PU side of things, but it's nothing like what Mercedes had in 2014 that would allow them to pass at will on any given straight.


Ok got you now, sorry.

Yeah I think they've got the edge in peak power, but not by that much, yeah.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7363
Location: Belgium
TedStriker wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
He doesn't. He learns the track limits, so that he can honour them in the race. If he doesn't during the race, he should get penalised. The rules are clear enough.

For what it's worth, the first lap atop the Raidillon was also a talking point last year, and the year before. And rightly so. This is supposed to be difficult, blind corner the drivers should find a challenge.

I've never seen a driver getting penalised as a first offence and rectro penalising for offences in practice sessions sounds like a nonsense to me, also Hamilton gained absolutely nothing from this Vettel passed him like he was stood still, this is like you are wanting to make a mountain out of a mole hill?
Either you've not understood my point, or you didn't read it properly. First offence doesn't come into it. They have two days to learn the limits of the track, with their cars in different weight/tyre combinations. By Sunday, if Hamilton cuts the corner atop the Raidillon, it's not a matter of being a first offence. Last year, Hamilton just kept his right wheels on the white line and it was Vettel who was the worse offender. In 2015, Hamilton was nowhere near the white line. First offence? Previous years were hardly better, and Hamilton isn't the only one to seek advantage by not staying on track, but that should not be a reason to allow this.


What about Seb going all four wheels off after turn 14 repeatedly?

I can't remember who it was (one of the Sky F1 presenters) but someone definitely said that there was going to be zero tolerance of cutting Radillon DURING QUALIFYING. There was no mention of during the race. Besides it was a lap 1 incident which usually attracts more leniency as drivers are generally trying to avoid each other rather than watching track limits.

Isn't the rule that you shouldn't make a lasting advantage anyway? Which he clearly didn't as Seb cruised past him seconds later then drove off into the sunset.

What penalty do you feel would have been appropriate?
I haven't watched the race recording yet, so I can't comment on Vettel at turn 14 (being old school, I had to look up what corner that might be, it is called Campus and used to be the first Stavelot corner.)

If Vettel went off there repeatedly, he should have been punished, and all others likewise. The rule is clear, you are not allowed to leave the track without good reason.

Going up the Raidillon, Hamilton and Vettel were not trying to avoid each other; Vettel was fully behind Hamilton. I can understand leniency with people running side by side as in La Source corner, but not nose to tail as up the Raidillon. If fans want to see better racing, they should insist on drivers racing on the black stuff.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2986
Zoue wrote:
No, what I'm saying is that it's wrong to credit the PU for Vettel's pass, when Ocon had an arguably even better one. If setup and slipstream was responsible for Ocon's performance, then why can it not also be responsible for the relative performances of Vettel and Hamilton?

Even before the race we were talking about the Ferrari being set up for straightline speed and the Merc having more downforce and being better in the twisty bits. Although the weird thing is that according to the official FIA timings both Bottas and Hamilton topped the S1 times and were some 4 tenths quicker than Vettel there (in fact Bottas had the fastest of all three sector times, with Lewis following in all but S3). But anyway, however you want to cut it Ocon's performance means that you can't simply point to the PU as being the culprit when it's clear that others had as much performance with no such PU excuse possible


Is this in the race? Well Bottas had fresher tyres, DRS, slipstream and chasing cars. Vettel was taking it easy after the pitstop. I'm guessing Hamilton does his fastest 1st sector behind Verstappen with double DRS, slipstream, new tyres chasing the undercut. Could be wrong though.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7363
Location: Belgium
Fiki wrote:
I'm not sure who had the best run up to the Raidillon, I thought Vettel was somewhat slowed by Hamilton.
I just saw the helicopter footage, and he wasn't. It looks as though good old-fashioned slipstreaming did the job.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 663
Everybody from qualifying said Mercedes has more wing due to S2. But during the race, every time they showed a Hamilton vs Vettel S1,S2,S3 comparison. Vettel was making all his time in S2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7475
Johnson wrote:
Everybody from qualifying said Mercedes has more wing due to S2. But during the race, every time they showed a Hamilton vs Vettel S1,S2,S3 comparison. Vettel was making all his time in S2

After the race Vettel said they were running less wing than Mercedes in the race, but yeah it is a bit weird that they were quicker in S2.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 553
Location: illinois
mikeyg123 wrote:
pc27b wrote:
even when there isn't nonstop action, it's enjoyable watching f1 machines race around spa.


It use to be. I hate to be cynical but Spa just looks like any old track to me now. Ca car park with painted white lines. All the major challenges are gone with Eau Roge, Pouhon and Blanchimont now flat out with acres of tarmac run off. Anyone can drive them hard now because if you get it wrong who cares, you lose almost nothing. A driver making a mistake at Eau Rouge or Raidillion used to be hugely impactful and that's what made it such a daunting challenge. Now a mistake there is barely worth a passing mention.



i understand what you are saying, but i will take this track in the woods over a concrete city course anytime...too me, just looks so much better


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 663
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No, what I'm saying is that it's wrong to credit the PU for Vettel's pass, when Ocon had an arguably even better one. If setup and slipstream was responsible for Ocon's performance, then why can it not also be responsible for the relative performances of Vettel and Hamilton?

Even before the race we were talking about the Ferrari being set up for straightline speed and the Merc having more downforce and being better in the twisty bits. Although the weird thing is that according to the official FIA timings both Bottas and Hamilton topped the S1 times and were some 4 tenths quicker than Vettel there (in fact Bottas had the fastest of all three sector times, with Lewis following in all but S3). But anyway, however you want to cut it Ocon's performance means that you can't simply point to the PU as being the culprit when it's clear that others had as much performance with no such PU excuse possible


Is this in the race? Well Bottas had fresher tyres, DRS, slipstream and chasing cars. Vettel was taking it easy after the pitstop. I'm guessing Hamilton does his fastest 1st sector behind Verstappen with double DRS, slipstream, new tyres chasing the undercut. Could be wrong though.


Bottas fastest lap was set when he had 9 laps less fuel in the car than Vettel. Both set them when on new tyres. Fuel adjusted, Vettel was significantly quicker.

The only time Hamilton was anywhere near Vettel was laps 15-21. Again showing Mercedes is easier on the tyres. Lap 15 was the first lap Hamilton managed to post a quicker time than Vettel. Of 40 racing laps, Vettel was quicker than Hamilton on 31 of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:04 pm
Posts: 428
It seems that the majority of the forumers here believe that Ferrari have a more powerful PU. Fair enough. Given that Vettel had a slipstream, head wind and less downforce contributing to passing Hamilton, what percent of the pass was due to the slipstream, downforce level and PU? Ferrari may very well have a better PU but I'd love the experts here chime in and break down those factors. I just want to know how much stronger the Ferrari PU is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3651
Fiki wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I'm not sure who had the best run up to the Raidillon, I thought Vettel was somewhat slowed by Hamilton.
I just saw the helicopter footage, and he wasn't. It looks as though good old-fashioned slipstreaming did the job.


It just shows, with the right circuit layout, passing can be achieved without the need for DRS.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BMWSauber84, Maranello1, Paolo_Lasardi 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