planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:18 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

who is faster? Merc or Ferrari?
Poll runs till Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:35 am
Ferrari 37%  37%  [ 39 ]
Mercedes 63%  63%  [ 66 ]
Total votes : 105
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 666
sandman1347 wrote:
TedStriker wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
Now that it has been established, (as a FACT as som like to spell it), that FIA wont be able to have Mercedes follow regulations and therefore have an advantage in qualifying and one lap speed it's quite an uninteresting question for 2017, let's hope that 2018 will be more even in how they follow regulations.

A bit sad that the Merc of 2014-2017 has been caught out as blatantly cheating and all records that being stacked up are heavily stained.

In what way are they blatantly cheating?


Try a search and you will find.


How about you post some evidence for your accusation? That would be the normal way of doing things.

Exactly. That's a pretty strong claim to make without having some type of proof to support it. I'm assuming his comment is based on the oil burning rumors...


Are you kidding? rumours? normal way? this is for gods sake a forum, I've read unsupported claims and accusations here for years : ) try google Mercedes Cheating and you will find so many answers you can spend a couple off days reading, no need to copy that in here..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1570
There are certain posters its easier to just not engage with :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 152
Ennis wrote:
Gumption wrote:
At this point of the season Mercedes have a clear advantage. Until Canada it was nip-and-tuck between the teams with Mercedes having the qualifying/track position advantage on the majority of tracks. In Spa I don't think Hamilton was driving all-out.. he had no problem holding Vettel 1.5 seconds behind at will and I believe he was hoping Ricciardo would close the gap in to Vettel which never materialized. In Monza Mercedes dominated with their engines turned down for over half the race. Ferrari is yet to dominate any qualifying or race. Hopefully Ferrari was just off-form in Monza because if not it'll be another easy Hamilton title.


I think Ferrari could have dominated more races, if they could have an improved qualifying. There have been races where they clearly look to have the pace, but their lack of track position at the start has hindered them.

Mercedes have also, mostly, came out ok on strategy this season. Spa was looking a worry for them if not for the safety car, but I don't think they had a guaranteed strategy which would have worked anyway. This also leads me to believe Hamilton was driving all out, why risk the undercut? And his tyres were clearly dying quicker.


I would agree. Merc have conceded he was as driving flat out, ultimately doing qualifying laps to keep the seemingly quicker Ferrari (certainly according to most analysts/reports)-at bay.

“it was nine or 10 laps of qualifying - heavy, fast laps as he was very quick and I had to do some very fast laps to stay ahead”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2044
Talking about this. No evidence of cheating, I only read Ferrari got caught out with 2 oil tanks.

http://m.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/358173 ... situation/

_________________
Podiums: 1st Spain 2016, 2nd Germany 2016 and 3rd Mexico 2016


Last edited by F1_Ernie on Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 666
Ennis wrote:
There are certain posters its easier to just not engage with :)


Fully agree : )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3875
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
TedStriker wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
In what way are they blatantly cheating?


Try a search and you will find.


How about you post some evidence for your accusation? That would be the normal way of doing things.

Exactly. That's a pretty strong claim to make without having some type of proof to support it. I'm assuming his comment is based on the oil burning rumors...


Are you kidding? rumours? normal way? this is for gods sake a forum, I've read unsupported claims and accusations here for years : ) try google Mercedes Cheating and you will find so many answers you can spend a couple off days reading, no need to copy that in here..

I think the difference between you and I is that I don't put stock in unsubstantiated internet rumors and I certainly don't make claims based solely on them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8273
sandman1347 wrote:
lamo wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
It's only because alot of circuits which benefit Mercedes have come after Monaco. Finishing results have looked like 2011 but the Redbull was ridicolous. How often does the Mercedes finish way up he road from Ferrari? Hardly ever. Ferrari could have won in Austria and Spa so they wasn't exactly dominant for Mercedes.
Not being able to overtake and one stop races help the leader into turn 1. One stop races are very boring.

Problem is no one will know about Monza now, both cars running different races and people will just say the Mercedes was dominant because it will most likely win. Look at Spa and most reports say the Ferrari would have won if the SC didn't come out, Far from expected.


Bang on! I dont see how anyone can compare this "dominance" to the 2011 redbull. But some people do have their agendas. Lets see what it looks like after Singapore.

That's all it is. Mostly it's people in the forum serving their own agendas (which have little to do with the teams and everything to do with the drivers). It's actually completely transparent when you look at who's pushing that agenda...


I am a Hamilton fan and I think so far the 2017 Mercedes is comparable to the 2011 Red Bull. Both are very strong in qualifying, both great in the race. The biggest difference being the Mercedes is harder to get dialled in every weekend but that seems to have improved.

At this point in the year, the Red Bull had only won 6 of the first 11 races. They ended up winning 12 out of 19 races, Mercedes are currently on 8 out of 13 - it depends how the rest of the year pans out but Mercedes could end up at a similar level to that car. Mclaren was the better car for about 5 or 6 races in 2011. The 2017 Ferrari could end up being the better car for a similar number this year. I think that Red Bull was the best package for approximately 13 out of 19 races in 2011.

At the moment, I see Mercedes being the better package this year about 8-5 up over Ferrari. It depends how these last 7 races go, it will likely be 8-6 after this weekend. Then the last 6 races, if they favour Mercedes you end up with something like 13-7 and its 2011 Red Bull territory. If Ferrari have good form then maybe it ends up more like 11-9 which is a very close season.

Throw in reliability (Mercedes already lost 1 win due to part failure) and the Ferrari can still end the season as the best overall package or at least equal.

I always respect your views but I think you are mis-remembering things a bit. In 2011 The McLaren was the second best car but there was a very clear and distinct edge to Red Bull. The margin wasn't huge but it was consistently in Red Bull's favor with only few exceptions. This year the cars are basically even to this point (with the notable exception of qualifying where Mercedes generally have an edge). In several races the Ferrari has been noticeably faster. Even in qualifying they have locked out the front row multiple times already. The 2011 Red Bull set 18 pole positions in 19 races and was generally running off into the distance half the time. Only Webber's KERS failures and start issues (the two are related) alter the perception of that year.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that similar results mean similar car matchup.


Those are all good and valid points.

But I think the Mercedes top form this year has been around the same as Red Bull's top form in 2011 in the following races (i.e. about 0.4+ a lap advantage in race and qualifying)

Baku, Silverstone, Canada and Monza. 4/13. 31%

The 2011 Red Bull was probably in the 50-60% range of having this kind of untouchable advantage. So, whilst at this stage the Red Bull was a better car than the 2017 Mercedes, there is still enough of the season left for Mercedes to achieve a similar level of this dominance.

Certainly Monaco on wards has been very 2011 Red Bull'esque - 5 wins in 7 for Mercedes, should be 6 without the head rest issue and only getting beaten on a track tailored to there rival. This run of 7 races also included all 4 of there strongest performances this year.

A long way to go to see how it ends up, who would have guessed the 2013 Red Bull would end up being the greatest with 9 races to go in 2013.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:39 pm
Posts: 153
sandman1347 wrote:
TedStriker wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
Now that it has been established, (as a FACT as som like to spell it), that FIA wont be able to have Mercedes follow regulations and therefore have an advantage in qualifying and one lap speed it's quite an uninteresting question for 2017, let's hope that 2018 will be more even in how they follow regulations.

A bit sad that the Merc of 2014-2017 has been caught out as blatantly cheating and all records that being stacked up are heavily stained.

In what way are they blatantly cheating?


Try a search and you will find.


How about you post some evidence for your accusation? That would be the normal way of doing things.

Exactly. That's a pretty strong claim to make without having some type of proof to support it. I'm assuming his comment is based on the oil burning rumors...


Wasn't it Ferrari that were the worst offenders for that?

The lengths some people will go to to discredit others is quite remarkable!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:10 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9372
Location: Ireland
rivf1 wrote:
Looking forward to seeing the battle unfold at Singapore, the media keep talking about this been a Mercedes weak track yet they have won 2 out 3 here in the current hybrid era.

Mercedes themselves keep talking about it as a weak track. And based on results at high downforce tracks this year I'd tend to agree with them

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3875
TedStriker wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
TedStriker wrote:
AnRs wrote:

Try a search and you will find.


How about you post some evidence for your accusation? That would be the normal way of doing things.

Exactly. That's a pretty strong claim to make without having some type of proof to support it. I'm assuming his comment is based on the oil burning rumors...


Wasn't it Ferrari that were the worst offenders for that?

The lengths some people will go to to discredit others is quite remarkable!

Unfortunately reality matters very little to some people these days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8273
Interesting little video on the Mercedes engine -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGDJqTDXgtg

Engine number 50 for the 2017 season!? That must include all there customers surely? Even so, that is a huge amount of development engines through the year.

I also read that the Mercedes engine has gained 109 BHP from the start of 2014 to now, I believe Mercedes have stated that figure themselves.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3193
Is it true no Mercedes customer has had to take a PU related grid penalty?. I know the main team did with Lewis last year but I heard on Sky the FI boss talking and I missed whether he meant them or the customers as a whole.

Great effort if true and you'd think they'd be well placed for next year when you have to do the whole season with 3 units.

_________________
"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: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8273
I've heard him say that FI never have one, I can't remember Williams having one or Mclaren in 2014-2016.. surely one of them did, maybe not? One thing is they get the engine unit usually a race or two after the works team so if anything shows up it can be fixed before they get it. They also don't run them so hard, gaining an extra 0.100-0.150 putting it into top mode in Q3 just isn't worth it for FI or Williams when an additional PU is £5 million I believe.

Since Rosberg blew his engine in Monza 2015 Mercedes works team have had quite a few. Rosbergs engine that day was a very old unit as his new one had failed. They predicted it could just about go the race distance before failing, it blew 2 laps from the end. Always impressed me how they pinpointed its failure so accurately.

Hamilton then had one in Singapore 2015 and then subsequent failures in Russia 2016, China 2016 and Malaysia 2016. Bottas also had his engine go in Spain this year, which again was a switch to an older unit as a precaution.

That is 5 engine failures for the works team in the last 40 races and I pretty sure no customers have had issues over that period. Mercedes are clearly pushing the envelope more with there own PU.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 666
sandman1347 wrote:
TedStriker wrote:

Wasn't it Ferrari that were the worst offenders for that?

The lengths some people will go to to discredit others is quite remarkable!

Unfortunately reality matters very little to some people these days.


Do you honestly believe that the oilburning is a Ferrari invention, talk about hiding from reality.
If true, and I have no problem believing that the qualifying and one lap advantage, and also reliability can be explained.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:39 pm
Posts: 153
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
TedStriker wrote:

Wasn't it Ferrari that were the worst offenders for that?

The lengths some people will go to to discredit others is quite remarkable!

Unfortunately reality matters very little to some people these days.


Do you honestly believe that the oilburning is a Ferrari invention, talk about hiding from reality.
If true, and I have no problem believing that the qualifying and one lap advantage, and also reliability can be explained.


Until you provide some credible evidence for your claims that Mercedes have been blatantly cheating then your words are as the buzzing of flies in my ears.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:02 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9372
Location: Ireland
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
TedStriker wrote:

Wasn't it Ferrari that were the worst offenders for that?

The lengths some people will go to to discredit others is quite remarkable!

Unfortunately reality matters very little to some people these days.


Do you honestly believe that the oilburning is a Ferrari invention, talk about hiding from reality.
If true, and I have no problem believing that the qualifying and one lap advantage, and also reliability can be explained.

They didn't invent it no. But it's like this - if both have been breaking the rules around oil burning, Ferrari have been breaking them more than Merc have (not that two wrongs make a right). Merc exploited a loophole, Ferrari took the p!ss

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Last edited by mcdo on Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20178
lamo wrote:
I've heard him say that FI never have one, I can't remember Williams having one or Mclaren in 2014-2016.. surely one of them did, maybe not? One thing is they get the engine unit usually a race or two after the works team so if anything shows up it can be fixed before they get it. They also don't run them so hard, gaining an extra 0.100-0.150 putting it into top mode in Q3 just isn't worth it for FI or Williams when an additional PU is £5 million I believe.

Since Rosberg blew his engine in Monza 2015 Mercedes works team have had quite a few. Rosbergs engine that day was a very old unit as his new one had failed. They predicted it could just about go the race distance before failing, it blew 2 laps from the end. Always impressed me how they pinpointed its failure so accurately.

Hamilton then had one in Singapore 2015 and then subsequent failures in Russia 2016, China 2016 and Malaysia 2016. Bottas also had his engine go in Spain this year, which again was a switch to an older unit as a precaution.

That is 5 engine failures for the works team in the last 40 races and I pretty sure no customers have had issues over that period. Mercedes are clearly pushing the envelope more with there own PU.

Which, if true, pretty much underlines that Works teams treat their customers differently, for those that still insist otherwise. It would be strange indeed if Mercedes' own team kept getting all these failures while their customers had none, if they were indeed being subject to the same tolerances. Clearly the customers run at much more reliability-friendly settings


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8273
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
I've heard him say that FI never have one, I can't remember Williams having one or Mclaren in 2014-2016.. surely one of them did, maybe not? One thing is they get the engine unit usually a race or two after the works team so if anything shows up it can be fixed before they get it. They also don't run them so hard, gaining an extra 0.100-0.150 putting it into top mode in Q3 just isn't worth it for FI or Williams when an additional PU is £5 million I believe.

Since Rosberg blew his engine in Monza 2015 Mercedes works team have had quite a few. Rosbergs engine that day was a very old unit as his new one had failed. They predicted it could just about go the race distance before failing, it blew 2 laps from the end. Always impressed me how they pinpointed its failure so accurately.

Hamilton then had one in Singapore 2015 and then subsequent failures in Russia 2016, China 2016 and Malaysia 2016. Bottas also had his engine go in Spain this year, which again was a switch to an older unit as a precaution.

That is 6 engine failures for the works team in the last 40 races and I pretty sure no customers have had issues over that period. Mercedes are clearly pushing the envelope more with there own PU.


Which, if true, pretty much underlines that Works teams treat their customers differently, for those that still insist otherwise. It would be strange indeed if Mercedes' own team kept getting all these failures while their customers had none, if they were indeed being subject to the same tolerances. Clearly the customers run at much more reliability-friendly settings


FI and Williams may prefer to run this way, it saves them a lot of money. An extra engine per year for maybe as little as 0.1- is terrible value for them on there budgets.

Cost dictates usage massively with these engines, I have read that Lance Stroll's Dad bought two 2014 Mercedes spec engines for Lance to use during his extensive testing program this year - $8 million for what are out of date "useless" engines that were likely spares hanging around after 2014.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20178
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
I've heard him say that FI never have one, I can't remember Williams having one or Mclaren in 2014-2016.. surely one of them did, maybe not? One thing is they get the engine unit usually a race or two after the works team so if anything shows up it can be fixed before they get it. They also don't run them so hard, gaining an extra 0.100-0.150 putting it into top mode in Q3 just isn't worth it for FI or Williams when an additional PU is £5 million I believe.

Since Rosberg blew his engine in Monza 2015 Mercedes works team have had quite a few. Rosbergs engine that day was a very old unit as his new one had failed. They predicted it could just about go the race distance before failing, it blew 2 laps from the end. Always impressed me how they pinpointed its failure so accurately.

Hamilton then had one in Singapore 2015 and then subsequent failures in Russia 2016, China 2016 and Malaysia 2016. Bottas also had his engine go in Spain this year, which again was a switch to an older unit as a precaution.

That is 6 engine failures for the works team in the last 40 races and I pretty sure no customers have had issues over that period. Mercedes are clearly pushing the envelope more with there own PU.


Which, if true, pretty much underlines that Works teams treat their customers differently, for those that still insist otherwise. It would be strange indeed if Mercedes' own team kept getting all these failures while their customers had none, if they were indeed being subject to the same tolerances. Clearly the customers run at much more reliability-friendly settings


FI and Williams may prefer to run this way, it saves them a lot of money. An extra engine per year for maybe as little as 0.1- is terrible value for them on there budgets.

Cost dictates usage massively with these engines, I have read that Lance Stroll's Dad bought two 2014 Mercedes spec engines for Lance to use during his extensive testing program this year - $8 million for what are out of date "useless" engines that were likely spares hanging around after 2014.

I should be interested to see how these contracts are set up (not that that would ever happen). It would seem to me to be ludicrously poor commercial negotiating to not have some kind of warranty built in for failing manufacturer-supplied parts. And if their terms only allow them to run at x percent of capacity to fall under warranty, then that still demonstrates how customer teams get a worse deal. I'm sure I read a while back that customers had to request permission to use certain higher engine modes, while the Works team of course could use whatever they wanted


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1227
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
I've heard him say that FI never have one, I can't remember Williams having one or Mclaren in 2014-2016.. surely one of them did, maybe not? One thing is they get the engine unit usually a race or two after the works team so if anything shows up it can be fixed before they get it. They also don't run them so hard, gaining an extra 0.100-0.150 putting it into top mode in Q3 just isn't worth it for FI or Williams when an additional PU is £5 million I believe.

Since Rosberg blew his engine in Monza 2015 Mercedes works team have had quite a few. Rosbergs engine that day was a very old unit as his new one had failed. They predicted it could just about go the race distance before failing, it blew 2 laps from the end. Always impressed me how they pinpointed its failure so accurately.

Hamilton then had one in Singapore 2015 and then subsequent failures in Russia 2016, China 2016 and Malaysia 2016. Bottas also had his engine go in Spain this year, which again was a switch to an older unit as a precaution.

That is 5 engine failures for the works team in the last 40 races and I pretty sure no customers have had issues over that period. Mercedes are clearly pushing the envelope more with there own PU.

Which, if true, pretty much underlines that Works teams treat their customers differently, for those that still insist otherwise. It would be strange indeed if Mercedes' own team kept getting all these failures while their customers had none, if they were indeed being subject to the same tolerances. Clearly the customers run at much more reliability-friendly settings


Mercedes may force their customers to run at sub-optimal settings (by keeping them proprietary). Thankfully, McLaren have a contractual commitment from Renault to have the same settings as the works team thereby eliminating one of the key objections from the peanut gallery.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3875
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
TedStriker wrote:

Wasn't it Ferrari that were the worst offenders for that?

The lengths some people will go to to discredit others is quite remarkable!

Unfortunately reality matters very little to some people these days.


Do you honestly believe that the oilburning is a Ferrari invention, talk about hiding from reality.
If true, and I have no problem believing that the qualifying and one lap advantage, and also reliability can be explained.

Your comment was that Mercedes were "blatantly cheating". First of all, exploiting a loophole is not cheating. Second of all, when clarification was provided to remove the loophole, it turned out that Ferrari were exploiting it to a greater degree. So in other words; your statement was bogus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20178
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
I've heard him say that FI never have one, I can't remember Williams having one or Mclaren in 2014-2016.. surely one of them did, maybe not? One thing is they get the engine unit usually a race or two after the works team so if anything shows up it can be fixed before they get it. They also don't run them so hard, gaining an extra 0.100-0.150 putting it into top mode in Q3 just isn't worth it for FI or Williams when an additional PU is £5 million I believe.

Since Rosberg blew his engine in Monza 2015 Mercedes works team have had quite a few. Rosbergs engine that day was a very old unit as his new one had failed. They predicted it could just about go the race distance before failing, it blew 2 laps from the end. Always impressed me how they pinpointed its failure so accurately.

Hamilton then had one in Singapore 2015 and then subsequent failures in Russia 2016, China 2016 and Malaysia 2016. Bottas also had his engine go in Spain this year, which again was a switch to an older unit as a precaution.

That is 5 engine failures for the works team in the last 40 races and I pretty sure no customers have had issues over that period. Mercedes are clearly pushing the envelope more with there own PU.

Which, if true, pretty much underlines that Works teams treat their customers differently, for those that still insist otherwise. It would be strange indeed if Mercedes' own team kept getting all these failures while their customers had none, if they were indeed being subject to the same tolerances. Clearly the customers run at much more reliability-friendly settings


Mercedes may force their customers to run at sub-optimal settings (by keeping them proprietary). Thankfully, McLaren have a contractual commitment from Renault to have the same settings as the works team thereby eliminating one of the key objections from the peanut gallery.

Not entirely clear on the peanut gallery reference, but I feel I should point out that there's no actual source for the claim that "McLaren have a contractual commitment from Renault to have the same settings as the works team." But in any event, it doesn't change the above


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1570
[quote="Zoue"][quote="Herb Tarlik"][quote="Zoue"][quote="lamo"]I've heard him say that FI never have one, I can't remember Williams having one or Mclaren in 2014-2016.. surely one of them did, maybe not? One thing is they get the engine unit usually a race or two after the works team so if anything shows up it can be fixed before they get it. They also don't run them so hard, gaining an extra 0.100-0.150 putting it into top mode in Q3 just isn't worth it for FI or Williams when an additional PU is £5 million I believe.

Since Rosberg blew his engine in Monza 2015 Mercedes works team have had quite a few. Rosbergs engine that day was a very old unit as his new one had failed. They predicted it could just about go the race distance before failing, it blew 2 laps from the end. Always impressed me how they pinpointed its failure so accurately.

Hamilton then had one in Singapore 2015 and then subsequent failures in Russia 2016, China 2016 and Malaysia 2016. Bottas also had his engine go in Spain this year, which again was a switch to an older unit as a precaution.

That is 5 engine failures for the works team in the last 40 races and I pretty sure no customers have had issues over that period. Mercedes are clearly pushing the envelope more with there own PU.[/quote]
Which, if true, pretty much underlines that Works teams treat their customers differently, for those that still insist otherwise. It would be strange indeed if Mercedes' own team kept getting all these failures while their customers had none, if they were indeed being subject to the same tolerances. Clearly the customers run at much more reliability-friendly settings[/quote]

Mercedes may force their customers to run at sub-optimal settings (by keeping them proprietary). Thankfully, McLaren have a contractual commitment from Renault to have the same settings as the works team thereby eliminating one of the key objections from the peanut gallery.[/quote]
Not entirely clear on the peanut gallery reference, but I feel I should point out that there's no actual source for the claim that "McLaren have a contractual commitment from Renault to have the same settings as the works team." But in any event, it doesn't change the above[/quote]

I think it's wishful thinking, based on the fact that the deal mentioned engine parity with the works team. That just means they get the same engine, it doesn't mean they have complete freedom and they're hardly going to leak details and subdue this good news by highlighting the cons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 666
sandman1347 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
TedStriker wrote:

Wasn't it Ferrari that were the worst offenders for that?

The lengths some people will go to to discredit others is quite remarkable!

Unfortunately reality matters very little to some people these days.


Do you honestly believe that the oilburning is a Ferrari invention, talk about hiding from reality.
If true, and I have no problem believing that the qualifying and one lap advantage, and also reliability can be explained.

Your comment was that Mercedes were "blatantly cheating". First of all, exploiting a loophole is not cheating. Second of all, when clarification was provided to remove the loophole, it turned out that Ferrari were exploiting it to a greater degree. So in other words; your statement was bogus.


So Merc dominates for 3 years and as soon as Ferrari explores the "loophole" they are right up there with Merc and you believe they are worse? Strange reasoning about fuel limits, fuel additives, able to rise turbo pressure due to oil burning?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 1995
Location: England
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
TedStriker wrote:

Wasn't it Ferrari that were the worst offenders for that?

The lengths some people will go to to discredit others is quite remarkable!

Unfortunately reality matters very little to some people these days.


Do you honestly believe that the oilburning is a Ferrari invention, talk about hiding from reality.
If true, and I have no problem believing that the qualifying and one lap advantage, and also reliability can be explained.

Your comment was that Mercedes were "blatantly cheating". First of all, exploiting a loophole is not cheating. Second of all, when clarification was provided to remove the loophole, it turned out that Ferrari were exploiting it to a greater degree. So in other words; your statement was bogus.


So Merc dominates for 3 years and as soon as Ferrari explores the "loophole" they are right up there with Merc and you believe they are worse? Strange reasoning about fuel limits, fuel additives, able to rise turbo pressure due to oil burning?


Mercedes have been misting oil that the engine was using in using the crankcase and some funky part tolerances, Ferrari just whacked a second oil tank in the car and put oil in it specifically to inject into the fuel mixture. Mercedes found the loophole, I imagine Ferrari got wind that they were burning oil somehow but either couldn't work out how or couldn't copy the behaviour with their own unit, so took the nuclear option of making it very obvious that they were doing it, probably in the hope that it would be banned completely.

_________________
http://tsatr.mooo.com
The Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.


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: Clarky, Google Adsense [Bot], Jomox, Laz_T800, mcdo, oz_karter 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