planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:15 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

who is faster? Merc or Ferrari?
Poll ended at Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:35 am
Ferrari 37%  37%  [ 44 ]
Mercedes 63%  63%  [ 74 ]
Total votes : 118
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21002
davidheath461 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Vettel can't choose his setup?!

Ferrari is inherently a draggy car, and the high downforce package is simply better than the low downforce package.


Then why did Vettel have a higher top speed at Barcelona compared to Hamilton?

Because top speed is not consistent, since setups aren't consistent from weekend to weekend?

Vettel has generally had less top speed than Hamilton this season, but it hasn't been consistent from circuit to circuit. How is that so hard to understand?


It's not difficult to understand, but it contradicts the idea that Ferrari is an inherently draggy car. Clearly they can take drag off the car to the point that they have a higher top speed at Mercedes (as was demonstrated in Barcelona).

I don't think it does. Maybe Mercedes piled on the drag, for want of a better term, in Barcelona. Or not. You can't assume much of anything from a single race


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1724
davidheath461 wrote:
It's not difficult to understand, but it contradicts the idea that Ferrari is an inherently draggy car. Clearly they can take drag off the car to the point that they have a higher top speed at Mercedes (as was demonstrated in Barcelona).

Ferrari have more rake, and have been slower than Mercedes in the speed trap in the majority of weekends this season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
Ennis wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Vettel can't choose his setup?!

Ferrari is inherently a draggy car, and the high downforce package is simply better than the low downforce package.


You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Its both. Mercedes have a bit more power and inherently a bit less drag courtesy of the LWB.

Set up can add a bit more but Ferrari would have to take more off to compete in straight line speed which can affect tyre performance (Monza) or electrical recovery (Baku) if they don't get it right. Before Baku they had a blown axle to reduce drag on straights and an extra oil tank to compensate but they were taken away from them.

Its just better for them now to put up with Spa like levels and put up with the lack of top end speed. If Mercedes switch concept to the SWB then they'll have the same balancing act to do and they'll match up a bit more in the top end.

Still after you've said all that it's a fact that Mercedes went with a low down force set up at Spa so that like for like comparison is pointless.


All like for like comparisons are pointless, they are two different concepts.

Ferrari's low d/f config will still be draggier than Mercedes low d/f config because of the nature of their cars design (LWB-Low rake Vs SWB-Higher Rake) so they can either strip even more off than Mercedes do to compensate and risk losing tyre performance over the whole lap which is pointless or simply put up with it being behind in top end performance.

If Mercedes get the perfect low d/f package, right on the brink of losing tyre performance, then there's literally nothing Ferrari can do to match top end speed without losing tyre performance. (Legally anyway, they had two things to combat it but they lost them in Baku).

I believe one poster was making a big thing about the Mercedes being 3.8kph quicker in a straight line than the Ferrari, so much is in the design concept so is the engine really making that big of a difference?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4552
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Ennis wrote:
You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

That's not necessarily true - downforce does not equal drag, although drag is a result of downforce, and some ways of generating downforce are less draggy than others. It could easily be true that Ferrari is generating the same downforce with more drag, which would not be an advantage at all.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 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 #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Ennis wrote:
You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

That's not necessarily true - downforce does not equal drag, although drag is a result of downforce, and some ways of generating downforce are less draggy than others. It could easily be true that Ferrari is generating the same downforce with more drag, which would not be an advantage at all.

What we do know is that high rake cars produce more drag, Red Bull's banned trick suspension was designed specifically to offset that, also it's often been said that Ferrari have more down force than Mercedes.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4552
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

That's not necessarily true - downforce does not equal drag, although drag is a result of downforce, and some ways of generating downforce are less draggy than others. It could easily be true that Ferrari is generating the same downforce with more drag, which would not be an advantage at all.

What we do know is that high rake cars produce more drag, Red Bull's banned trick suspension was designed specifically to offset that, also it's often been said that Ferrari have more down force than Mercedes.

Yes, which would imply that they have more downforce and also more drag. So it's not all advantages and no disadvantages, is it?

Red Bull seems to have found something to make their high rake car level out considerably when they don't need the downforce, but I don't see any evidence of Ferrari having whatever that is. I personally think the Ferrari is mechanically more grippy than the Mercedes, hence its superior traction at low speed, but not necessarily better on downforce at high speed.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 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 #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1724
pokerman wrote:
Ennis wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Vettel can't choose his setup?!

Ferrari is inherently a draggy car, and the high downforce package is simply better than the low downforce package.


You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

Top speed is something that directly influences wheel to wheel racing when the cars are roughly evenly matched. Belgium is the perfect example of this. This was a disadvantage Vettel had to deal with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1702
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Ennis wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Vettel can't choose his setup?!

Ferrari is inherently a draggy car, and the high downforce package is simply better than the low downforce package.


You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

Top speed is something that directly influences wheel to wheel racing when the cars are roughly evenly matched. Belgium is the perfect example of this. This was a disadvantage Vettel had to deal with.


Belgium is a horrific example of this, possibly the worst example, given Merc sacrificed optimal lap time for speed down the straights.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21002
Ennis wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Ennis wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Ferrari is inherently a draggy car, and the high downforce package is simply better than the low downforce package.


You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

Top speed is something that directly influences wheel to wheel racing when the cars are roughly evenly matched. Belgium is the perfect example of this. This was a disadvantage Vettel had to deal with.


Belgium is a horrific example of this, possibly the worst example, given Merc sacrificed optimal lap time for speed down the straights.

I don't understand how that's a bad example? Surely the point is that the top speed advantage Mercedes had was a critical influence in the outcome of the race? Doesn't that make it a good example?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3616
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Its both. Mercedes have a bit more power and inherently a bit less drag courtesy of the LWB.

Set up can add a bit more but Ferrari would have to take more off to compete in straight line speed which can affect tyre performance (Monza) or electrical recovery (Baku) if they don't get it right. Before Baku they had a blown axle to reduce drag on straights and an extra oil tank to compensate but they were taken away from them.

Its just better for them now to put up with Spa like levels and put up with the lack of top end speed. If Mercedes switch concept to the SWB then they'll have the same balancing act to do and they'll match up a bit more in the top end.

Still after you've said all that it's a fact that Mercedes went with a low down force set up at Spa so that like for like comparison is pointless.


All like for like comparisons are pointless, they are two different concepts.

Ferrari's low d/f config will still be draggier than Mercedes low d/f config because of the nature of their cars design (LWB-Low rake Vs SWB-Higher Rake) so they can either strip even more off than Mercedes do to compensate and risk losing tyre performance over the whole lap which is pointless or simply put up with it being behind in top end performance.

If Mercedes get the perfect low d/f package, right on the brink of losing tyre performance, then there's literally nothing Ferrari can do to match top end speed without losing tyre performance. (Legally anyway, they had two things to combat it but they lost them in Baku).

I believe one poster was making a big thing about the Mercedes being 3.8kph quicker in a straight line than the Ferrari, so much is in the design concept so is the engine really making that big of a difference?


I don't personally think there is much difference in the PU in Spa power wise, a little but not much. The difference for me was Mercedes got their low d/f config spot on and Ferrari couldn't go lower than them to counter it. I think Ferrari saw what happened in Spa when Seb tried to pass but couldn't so a week later in Monza they risked taking more off to counter it and their tyres fell out the range and they got hammered.

Which is what I meant by Ferrari having to accept Spa level for their low d/f config and that they'll lose out in the top range for as long as Merc get their low d/f config spot on or switch to a SWB concept like Ferrari's.

_________________
"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: Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1702
Zoue wrote:
I don't understand how that's a bad example? Surely the point is that the top speed advantage Mercedes had was a critical influence in the outcome of the race? Doesn't that make it a good example?


Not when the top speed advantage is being portrayed as both being purely engine, and having a hand in wheel to wheel racing (ignoring setup, aero, the fact that engine performance doesn't just come down to top speed...).

Merc made a strategic decision which turned out working out. Maybe it would have worked out with their optimal laptime setup anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
KingVoid wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
It's not difficult to understand, but it contradicts the idea that Ferrari is an inherently draggy car. Clearly they can take drag off the car to the point that they have a higher top speed at Mercedes (as was demonstrated in Barcelona).

Ferrari have more rake, and have been slower than Mercedes in the speed trap in the majority of weekends this season.


That doesn't necessarily indicate the car is more draggy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1724
davidheath461 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
It's not difficult to understand, but it contradicts the idea that Ferrari is an inherently draggy car. Clearly they can take drag off the car to the point that they have a higher top speed at Mercedes (as was demonstrated in Barcelona).

Ferrari have more rake, and have been slower than Mercedes in the speed trap in the majority of weekends this season.


That doesn't necessarily indicate the car is more draggy.

How about the fact that it's been slower in a straight line in the majority of weekends this season?

As we saw in Monza and Silverstone, Ferrari's low downforce package is simply nowhere near Mercedes in terms of overall competitiveness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

That's not necessarily true - downforce does not equal drag, although drag is a result of downforce, and some ways of generating downforce are less draggy than others. It could easily be true that Ferrari is generating the same downforce with more drag, which would not be an advantage at all.

What we do know is that high rake cars produce more drag, Red Bull's banned trick suspension was designed specifically to offset that, also it's often been said that Ferrari have more down force than Mercedes.

Yes, which would imply that they have more downforce and also more drag. So it's not all advantages and no disadvantages, is it?

Red Bull seems to have found something to make their high rake car level out considerably when they don't need the downforce, but I don't see any evidence of Ferrari having whatever that is. I personally think the Ferrari is mechanically more grippy than the Mercedes, hence its superior traction at low speed, but not necessarily better on downforce at high speed.

Well I'm not me saying that they actually have that, just highlighting how the strengths of the Ferrari seem to get overlooked.

Regarding Red Bull I heard some talk of flexi-components, in respect to Ferrari I heard talk of them having better mid range down force.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
Ennis wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Ennis wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Ferrari is inherently a draggy car, and the high downforce package is simply better than the low downforce package.


You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

Top speed is something that directly influences wheel to wheel racing when the cars are roughly evenly matched. Belgium is the perfect example of this. This was a disadvantage Vettel had to deal with.


Belgium is a horrific example of this, possibly the worst example, given Merc sacrificed optimal lap time for speed down the straights.

Yep and I'm wondering just how many times this has to be repeated to KingVoid?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
Zoue wrote:
Ennis wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Ennis wrote:
You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

Top speed is something that directly influences wheel to wheel racing when the cars are roughly evenly matched. Belgium is the perfect example of this. This was a disadvantage Vettel had to deal with.


Belgium is a horrific example of this, possibly the worst example, given Merc sacrificed optimal lap time for speed down the straights.

I don't understand how that's a bad example? Surely the point is that the top speed advantage Mercedes had was a critical influence in the outcome of the race? Doesn't that make it a good example?

No it's a terrible example for trying to prove that Mercedes have a better engine.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Its both. Mercedes have a bit more power and inherently a bit less drag courtesy of the LWB.

Set up can add a bit more but Ferrari would have to take more off to compete in straight line speed which can affect tyre performance (Monza) or electrical recovery (Baku) if they don't get it right. Before Baku they had a blown axle to reduce drag on straights and an extra oil tank to compensate but they were taken away from them.

Its just better for them now to put up with Spa like levels and put up with the lack of top end speed. If Mercedes switch concept to the SWB then they'll have the same balancing act to do and they'll match up a bit more in the top end.

Still after you've said all that it's a fact that Mercedes went with a low down force set up at Spa so that like for like comparison is pointless.


All like for like comparisons are pointless, they are two different concepts.

Ferrari's low d/f config will still be draggier than Mercedes low d/f config because of the nature of their cars design (LWB-Low rake Vs SWB-Higher Rake) so they can either strip even more off than Mercedes do to compensate and risk losing tyre performance over the whole lap which is pointless or simply put up with it being behind in top end performance.

If Mercedes get the perfect low d/f package, right on the brink of losing tyre performance, then there's literally nothing Ferrari can do to match top end speed without losing tyre performance. (Legally anyway, they had two things to combat it but they lost them in Baku).

I believe one poster was making a big thing about the Mercedes being 3.8kph quicker in a straight line than the Ferrari, so much is in the design concept so is the engine really making that big of a difference?


I don't personally think there is much difference in the PU in Spa power wise, a little but not much. The difference for me was Mercedes got their low d/f config spot on and Ferrari couldn't go lower than them to counter it. I think Ferrari saw what happened in Spa when Seb tried to pass but couldn't so a week later in Monza they risked taking more off to counter it and their tyres fell out the range and they got hammered.

Which is what I meant by Ferrari having to accept Spa level for their low d/f config and that they'll lose out in the top range for as long as Merc get their low d/f config spot on or switch to a SWB concept like Ferrari's.

That's very interesting and like you say we are talking specifically about the different designs of the cars rather than differences in engine power.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
KingVoid wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
It's not difficult to understand, but it contradicts the idea that Ferrari is an inherently draggy car. Clearly they can take drag off the car to the point that they have a higher top speed at Mercedes (as was demonstrated in Barcelona).

Ferrari have more rake, and have been slower than Mercedes in the speed trap in the majority of weekends this season.


That doesn't necessarily indicate the car is more draggy.

How about the fact that it's been slower in a straight line in the majority of weekends this season?

As we saw in Monza and Silverstone, Ferrari's low downforce package is simply nowhere near Mercedes in terms of overall competitiveness.


There's only one low downforce track on the calendar (Monza).

Merecedes' high downforce package was nowhere near Ferrari in terms of overall competitiveness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1724
Monza, Montreal, Baku and Silverstone are all low downforce circuits and Ferrari wasn’t near Mercedes in any of them.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that a car that takes pole in 15 out of 20 races and is more reliable than its opponent is somehow inferior or even equal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
KingVoid wrote:
Monza, Montreal, Baku and Silverstone are all low downforce circuits and Ferrari wasn’t near Mercedes in any of them.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that a car that takes pole in 15 out of 20 races and is more reliable than its opponent is somehow inferior or even equal.

I think that Vettel/Ferrari left some poles on the table, put Hamilton in the Ferrari and that might have balanced things up a bit more?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 718
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Monza, Montreal, Baku and Silverstone are all low downforce circuits and Ferrari wasn’t near Mercedes in any of them.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that a car that takes pole in 15 out of 20 races and is more reliable than its opponent is somehow inferior or even equal.

I think that Vettel/Ferrari left some poles on the table, put Hamilton in the Ferrari and that might have balanced things up a bit more?


Yes, Vettel could really need a faster more reliable car, agrees with you there


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1724
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Monza, Montreal, Baku and Silverstone are all low downforce circuits and Ferrari wasn’t near Mercedes in any of them.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that a car that takes pole in 15 out of 20 races and is more reliable than its opponent is somehow inferior or even equal.

I think that Vettel/Ferrari left some poles on the table, put Hamilton in the Ferrari and that might have balanced things up a bit more?

Apart from Spain, which pole did Vettel leave on the table? And it's not like Hamilton had a perfect lap in Spain.

In Malaysia, Vettel's car failed so it was not capable of taking pole.

In Brazil, Bottas' ultimate laptime was still quicker than Vettel. Hamilton left that pole on the table by crashing out.

In Austria, Vettel did amazing just to get so close to pole on a weekend where Mercedes was quicker, like Bottas in Monaco.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1630
Ferrari was woeful today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4279
KingVoid wrote:
Monza, Montreal, Baku and Silverstone are all low downforce circuits and Ferrari wasn’t near Mercedes in any of them.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that a car that takes pole in 15 out of 20 races and is more reliable than its opponent is somehow inferior or even equal.

The biggest difference is that Mercedes almost always capitalized on the circuits where they were stronger while Ferrari often didn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 718
Have to agree with the huge majority here that the Mercedes was simply to fast this year also.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1724
sandman1347 wrote:
The biggest difference is that Mercedes almost always capitalized on the circuits where they were stronger while Ferrari often didn't.

From the top of my head: Mercedes didn't capitalize in Baku or Brazil, those are two races they clearly should have won based on pace.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1724
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1702
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The biggest difference is that Mercedes almost always capitalized on the circuits where they were stronger while Ferrari often didn't.

From the top of my head: Mercedes didn't capitalize in Baku or Brazil, those are two races they clearly should have won based on pace.


They should have won in Baku, but they still didn't lose ground to Ferrari through the bizarre failure (2nd & 5th vs 4th & DNF). Game was already over in Brazil.

They've had nothing resembling a Singapore, a race Ferrari should have at minimum 1-3'd with Mercedes 5th but managed to have a double DNF with Hamilton winning. Merc's mess-ups have been nowhere near as devastating as Ferrari's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2268
Ennis wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The biggest difference is that Mercedes almost always capitalized on the circuits where they were stronger while Ferrari often didn't.

From the top of my head: Mercedes didn't capitalize in Baku or Brazil, those are two races they clearly should have won based on pace.


They should have won in Baku, but they still didn't lose ground to Ferrari through the bizarre failure (2nd & 5th vs 4th & DNF). Game was already over in Brazil.

They've had nothing resembling a Singapore, a race Ferrari should have at minimum 1-3'd with Mercedes 5th but managed to have a double DNF with Hamilton winning. Merc's mess-ups have been nowhere near as devastating as Ferrari's.


Also Malaysia with Vettel starting from the back of the grid and Kimi not even starting the race.

_________________
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 Nov 27, 2017 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10790
lamo wrote:
Is there a good example of rules/tyres changing and a dynamic between two drivers really changing much?


Well, Barichello beat Button in 2008.
Other than that, a rules change isn't necessarily needed. I'm sure there are enough examples to be found where a driver pairing traded blows in subsequent years, rules change or not?

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2268
A good article about the difference between the Mercedes and Ferrari engines. Needs translating.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 87468.html

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] 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