planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:31 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
F1_Ernie wrote:
Rockie wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:

"But the evidence of this weekend suggests that Ferrari is now running its spec 2 engine much more aggressively than when it was introduced. The starts, the restarts, the GPS traces of not just the works cars but also the Haas and Saubers suggest that the Ferrari has got a small but significant power advantage over Mercedes."

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

Mark Hughes said this in his report, of course this gets disregarded by a select few as biased but it is just his opinion and based on Silverstone. Others made the same reference regarding the Ferrari engine this weekend.


Yes it's based on his opinion and others have different opinions as well, when the Mercedes engine 2.1 came out and they said they could turn it up more if they wanted all were giddy about it, but now somehow without a different spec engine same one introduced, Ferrari have turned it up just at Silverstone quite laughable.


Who was giddy about it? Of course Ferrari having any advantage is always a no in your books, the constant theme of Vettel is fighting a better car is more appropriate.


Why do you need to go the other way all the time?

I responded to a post nothing about the drivers just about the engine but your insecurities as regard who you support, leads to this response.

Mercedes in their press release said they have a higher mode in qualifying they can use with the latest update.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2890
Rockie wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Rockie wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:

"But the evidence of this weekend suggests that Ferrari is now running its spec 2 engine much more aggressively than when it was introduced. The starts, the restarts, the GPS traces of not just the works cars but also the Haas and Saubers suggest that the Ferrari has got a small but significant power advantage over Mercedes."

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

Mark Hughes said this in his report, of course this gets disregarded by a select few as biased but it is just his opinion and based on Silverstone. Others made the same reference regarding the Ferrari engine this weekend.


Yes it's based on his opinion and others have different opinions as well, when the Mercedes engine 2.1 came out and they said they could turn it up more if they wanted all were giddy about it, but now somehow without a different spec engine same one introduced, Ferrari have turned it up just at Silverstone quite laughable.


Who was giddy about it? Of course Ferrari having any advantage is always a no in your books, the constant theme of Vettel is fighting a better car is more appropriate.


Why do you need to go the other way all the time?

I responded to a post nothing about the drivers just about the engine but your insecurities as regard who you support, leads to this response.

Mercedes in their press release said they have a higher mode in qualifying they can use with the latest update.


Coming from the person who puts down a certain driver at every given opportunity :lol:

_________________
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 Jul 09, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
F1_Ernie wrote:
Rockie wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Rockie wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:

"But the evidence of this weekend suggests that Ferrari is now running its spec 2 engine much more aggressively than when it was introduced. The starts, the restarts, the GPS traces of not just the works cars but also the Haas and Saubers suggest that the Ferrari has got a small but significant power advantage over Mercedes."

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

Mark Hughes said this in his report, of course this gets disregarded by a select few as biased but it is just his opinion and based on Silverstone. Others made the same reference regarding the Ferrari engine this weekend.


Yes it's based on his opinion and others have different opinions as well, when the Mercedes engine 2.1 came out and they said they could turn it up more if they wanted all were giddy about it, but now somehow without a different spec engine same one introduced, Ferrari have turned it up just at Silverstone quite laughable.


Who was giddy about it? Of course Ferrari having any advantage is always a no in your books, the constant theme of Vettel is fighting a better car is more appropriate.


Why do you need to go the other way all the time?

I responded to a post nothing about the drivers just about the engine but your insecurities as regard who you support, leads to this response.

Mercedes in their press release said they have a higher mode in qualifying they can use with the latest update.


Coming from the person who puts down a certain driver at every given opportunity :lol:


Really where?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Johnson wrote:
Edit, just checked calendar, its more Singapore on wards that will be Ferrari I feel. 3 of the next 4 should be pretty kind to Mercedes tbh.


I'm curious for Spa and Monza. Ferrari were pretty competitive last year in Spa so they could be this year as well.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4798
gregs51 wrote:
Mod Blue wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
Why did This require a new thread? There’s alrready a Merc/Ferrari/Red Bull thread where this could’ve gone.


Agreed - Merged into the appropriate thread.


RaggedMan was that guy in school that reminded the teacher they'd not set any homework this week.

How does that situation equate to my post? Sorry if your feelings were hurt by me bringing up the fact that you started a thread to state an opinion that fits perfectly within an existing thread. Having 2 threads discussing the same thing makes no sense and clutters up the main forum.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1826
https://streamable.com/hg6gd

https://streamable.com/vh89e

Nico Rosberg decisively states that Ferrari are leading in power now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
Invade wrote:
https://streamable.com/hg6gd

https://streamable.com/vh89e

Nico Rosberg decisively states that Ferrari are leading in power now.


Haa yes since he has got access to the actual Ferrari engine data, not even Mercedes does he have access to their current data.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:47 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1303
Location: London
Rockie wrote:
Invade wrote:
https://streamable.com/hg6gd

https://streamable.com/vh89e

Nico Rosberg decisively states that Ferrari are leading in power now.


Haa yes since he has got access to the actual Ferrari engine data, not even Mercedes does he have access to their current data.


So unless you see actual Ferrari and Merc dyno data, you will never condede based upon track performance or expert opinion. Makes this entire discussion pointless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23704
Wasn't sure whether to put this in the race thread but in the end decided on here as it's performance-relates between the three front running teams.

Interesting quote from Kimi where he says the Mercedes is a lot easier to follow than the Red Bulls. I know there's been a lot of talk about how the Merc struggles to follow, but may be it's as much to do with the cars they at following (ie easy for Ferrari to follow Merc, not for Merc to follow Ferrari or Merc/Ferrari to follow Red Bull) as with the following car itself, if that makes sense

Overtaking was difficult, and I fought against the Red Bulls for many laps. When I was on my own the speed was ok, but once I was behind them, their wake seemed to affect my car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of downforce and that upset the balance of the car

http://www.f1i.com/magazine/310383-team-talk-sunday-silverstone-2.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
Lojik wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Invade wrote:
https://streamable.com/hg6gd

https://streamable.com/vh89e

Nico Rosberg decisively states that Ferrari are leading in power now.


Haa yes since he has got access to the actual Ferrari engine data, not even Mercedes does he have access to their current data.


So unless you see actual Ferrari and Merc dyno data, you will never condede based upon track performance or expert opinion. Makes this entire discussion pointless.


So you thought there was a point behind this discussion asides from Mercedes fans wanting to say the Ferrari is the more powerful engine.

As all point to Ferrari engine being better and nothing else, and that video is bias confirmation.

I mean just at Austria Mercedes were talking about a more powerful qualy mode and could have gone faster if the wanted to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
Zoue wrote:
Wasn't sure whether to put this in the race thread but in the end decided on here as it's performance-relates between the three front running teams.

Interesting quote from Kimi where he says the Mercedes is a lot easier to follow than the Red Bulls. I know there's been a lot of talk about how the Merc struggles to follow, but may be it's as much to do with the cars they at following (ie easy for Ferrari to follow Merc, not for Merc to follow Ferrari or Merc/Ferrari to follow Red Bull) as with the following car itself, if that makes sense

Overtaking was difficult, and I fought against the Red Bulls for many laps. When I was on my own the speed was ok, but once I was behind them, their wake seemed to affect my car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of downforce and that upset the balance of the car

http://www.f1i.com/magazine/310383-team-talk-sunday-silverstone-2.html


Any car that is properly developed in this aero era will exhibit that kind of characteristics, think I've heard someone say this exact thing about the Ferrari as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:25 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1303
Location: London
Rockie wrote:
So you thought there was a point behind this discussion asides from Mercedes fans wanting to say the Ferrari is the more powerful engine.


Or Ferrari fans desepate to paint the Merc as the better engine? And that's the whole problem isn't it. So many see any discussion here as Ferrari/Vettel vs Merc/Hamilton, and everything they say is based on that position. There actually is an interesting conversation to be had about the improvements to both teams PUs and who is pulling ahead or falling behind at any given point. Trouble is that any discussion like that is drowned under a sea of partisan crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
Lojik wrote:
Rockie wrote:
So you thought there was a point behind this discussion asides from Mercedes fans wanting to say the Ferrari is the more powerful engine.


Or Ferrari fans desepate to paint the Merc as the better engine? And that's the whole problem isn't it. So many see any discussion here as Ferrari/Vettel vs Merc/Hamilton, and everything they say is based on that position. There actually is an interesting conversation to be had about the improvements to both teams PUs and who is pulling ahead or falling behind at any given point. Trouble is that any discussion like that is drowned under a sea of partisan crap.


I'd say more of people not paying attention to what is happening as Ferrari tries to take control of F1.

Now people focus on the engine saying Ferrari powered teams means the Ferrari engine is best neglecting the fact that asides the engine Haas basically take all help allowed within the rules from Ferrari.

As for Sauber Ferrari let Simone Resta join them as technical director without gardening leave since Alfa Romeo has invested in them, Resta designed the current Ferrari watch where the Sauber ends up this year and where it starts next year, it's equivalent to Redbull sending Dan Fallows to Toro Rosso as TD.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6314
Lojik wrote:
Rockie wrote:
So you thought there was a point behind this discussion asides from Mercedes fans wanting to say the Ferrari is the more powerful engine.


Or Ferrari fans desepate to paint the Merc as the better engine? And that's the whole problem isn't it. So many see any discussion here as Ferrari/Vettel vs Merc/Hamilton, and everything they say is based on that position. There actually is an interesting conversation to be had about the improvements to both teams PUs and who is pulling ahead or falling behind at any given point. Trouble is that any discussion like that is drowned under a sea of partisan crap.


I am not sure about the Ferrari fans part of your post. All these years the Merc was THE PU to have. This year finally we have some engine parity, so if nothing else I'd expect Ferrari fans to be happy!

Personally I believe that they are very very close. If the Merc is 5/10 HP more than Ferrari or the opposite, it doesn't matter much. These are tiny amounts, the aero/gearbox/setups play much much more importance in the final overall package. We've seen RB taking the WDC and leaving the others miles behind without having the most powerful engine. One thing is certain; Ferrari PU is much better than in recent years and the Merc advantage is gone. Finally a close WDC!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:25 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1303
Location: London
Siao7 wrote:
Personally I believe that they are very very close. If the Merc is 5/10 HP more than Ferrari or the opposite, it doesn't matter much. These are tiny amounts, the aero/gearbox/setups play much much more importance in the final overall package. We've seen RB taking the WDC and leaving the others miles behind without having the most powerful engine. One thing is certain; Ferrari PU is much better than in recent years and the Merc advantage is gone. Finally a close WDC!


Now that I agree with. I think it's too close to call between the two PUs, and at this point it's differences in the overall packages and driver performance that are making the difference and when you have 2 more or less evenly matched cars and 2 more or less evenly matched drivers you would expect to see the back and forth in results that we are actually seeing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23704
Lojik wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Personally I believe that they are very very close. If the Merc is 5/10 HP more than Ferrari or the opposite, it doesn't matter much. These are tiny amounts, the aero/gearbox/setups play much much more importance in the final overall package. We've seen RB taking the WDC and leaving the others miles behind without having the most powerful engine. One thing is certain; Ferrari PU is much better than in recent years and the Merc advantage is gone. Finally a close WDC!


Now that I agree with. I think it's too close to call between the two PUs, and at this point it's differences in the overall packages and driver performance that are making the difference and when you have 2 more or less evenly matched cars and 2 more or less evenly matched drivers you would expect to see the back and forth in results that we are actually seeing.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 592
The points raised above about aero and difficulty to follow may well tie-in with the Ferrrari having the more powerful PU. Agree that there is little between the teams now which is great. Ferrari does seem harder to follow so there is a possibility that they have a better PU and give up some of there aero performance because the car is designed to create more dirty air. This make sense because they have been playing catch-up so have needed to give more thought to how their car behaves in the pack both following and chasing. Mercedes have been leading from the front for a while so are likely to chose more efficient aero over a design which generates more dirty air to try and retain that advantage. Still think that the driver combination of Hamilton and Bottas has a tenth or two advantage over Vettel/Raikonnen by the time their strengths and favoured tracks even out over the season as well but it is more than clear where the lines are drawn on that matter for various posters so more of a side note.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6314
WHoff78 wrote:
The points raised above about aero and difficulty to follow may well tie-in with the Ferrrari having the more powerful PU. Agree that there is little between the teams now which is great. Ferrari does seem harder to follow so there is a possibility that they have a better PU and give up some of there aero performance because the car is designed to create more dirty air. This make sense because they have been playing catch-up so have needed to give more thought to how their car behaves in the pack both following and chasing. Mercedes have been leading from the front for a while so are likely to chose more efficient aero over a design which generates more dirty air to try and retain that advantage. Still think that the driver combination of Hamilton and Bottas has a tenth or two advantage over Vettel/Raikonnen by the time their strengths and favoured tracks even out over the season as well but it is more than clear where the lines are drawn on that matter for various posters so more of a side note.


This may very well be. But at this level the cars seem fairly equal and driver performances weigh perhaps a tad more. That's my opinion, but what do I know?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 185
Invade wrote:
https://streamable.com/hg6gd

https://streamable.com/vh89e

Nico Rosberg decisively states that Ferrari are leading in power now.




Horner, once again, stating likewise:


https://www.planetf1.com/news/horner-fe ... benchmark/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9257
Although they are much closer in performance compared to last year, it's funny that it seems the tables have turned in that Ferrari may have an advantage on the straights while Mercedes are stronger on the twisty parts.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Covalent wrote:
Although they are much closer in performance compared to last year, it's funny that it seems the tables have turned in that Ferrari may have an advantage on the straights while Mercedes are stronger on the twisty parts.


Isn't it so that Ferrari are better in low-speed cornering and traction out of them, and Mercedes reigns high-speed cornering?

I'm holding out to see what Spa and Monza bring. Ferrari were close in Spa last year, so they might bring a good challenge to Mercedes this year as well.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6314
Ferrari have gone long wheel this year don't forget, they have changed to the short wheel base from last year


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5325
Invade wrote:
https://streamable.com/hg6gd

https://streamable.com/vh89e

Nico Rosberg decisively states that Ferrari are leading in power now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxNisfvk35s

And you can see it from how Hamilton and Vettel approach trying to maximize their lap time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2269
Toto Wolff just said that Mercedes had the fastest car in all three races of the triple header

“However, there is a silver lining to all this: while we didn't maximise on points, we did bring the quickest car to all three races."

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/ ... ple-header

Take this how you will. Wolff is normally keen to talk up Ferrari’s competitiveness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2890
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... achstelle/

Interesting article comparing the two cars, this part has been mentioned numerous times by Mark Hughes.

"Ferrari knows the Mercedes problem and plays with it. It's about putting Mercedes behind at the start of the race. That's why Ferrari often tunes their cars so that they definitely make it to the front row and are faster in the first part of the stint. It has become a tactic for Vettel, as quickly as possible to create a five-second gap to his pursuers and only later to take care of the tire management.

He just has to prevent a Mercedes from overtaking him at the first pit stop with an undercut. If he remains in the lead, he will drive the second part of the race conservatively. That means. He tries to spare the tires at the beginning to make ends meet. The remaining distance is usually longer with him than with his opponents.

A strong indication of this theory was Ferrari's tire choice in France and Austria. Both times they swam against the trend and opted for the Ultrasoft tire in Q2. Like Mercedes and Red Bull, they could easily qualify for the Q3 on Supersoft soles. But that was not the point.

The idea was to have a tire at the start, guaranteeing an advantage of five to eight meters on the first 300 to 500 meters to the first corner, and allowing the Ferrari drivers to escape so far in the first ten laps, that Mercedes is tactically tied hands.

In Silverstone, the top three teams started with soft tires. Nevertheless, Ferrari again saw an alternative strategy. Vettel and Raikkonen got much earlier problems with the left front tire as Mercedes. This is unusual and suggests that speed was more important on one lap than distance.

To make sure the master plan works, Ferrari worked hard on the launches. "Since the GP Canada, we find that Ferrari has the better and more consistent starts than we do. And every race, "the engineers admit. Team principal Toto Wolff names four areas that are relevant for the start: "Engine power, clutch, operability, execution by the driver." At Mercedes, it is believed that Ferrari has improved the performance of the engine in the acceleration phase and the clutch."

_________________
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: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Interesting article F1_Ernie.

This season is a real clash of the titans. If it continues like this it will be a definite classic.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 525
KingVoid wrote:
Toto Wolff just said that Mercedes had the fastest car in all three races of the triple header

“However, there is a silver lining to all this: while we didn't maximise on points, we did bring the quickest car to all three races."

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/ ... ple-header

Take this how you will. Wolff is normally keen to talk up Ferrari’s competitiveness.


That isn't Wolff's modus operandi really. He always talks up opposition before a race but after it he talks up Mercedes. That is his general theme.

However, its pretty clear Mercedes were the fastest car in those 3 races. 3 poles and they only lost Austria due to double DNF (SC mess up) and Silverstone due to a bad start and collision which ultimately highlights having the quickest car doesn't mean much if its unreliable and the pit wall are making bad decisions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5761
Location: Michigan, USA
Johnson wrote:
However, its pretty clear Mercedes were the fastest car in those 3 races. 3 poles and they only lost Austria due to double DNF (SC mess up) and Silverstone due to a bad start and collision which ultimately highlights having the quickest car doesn't mean much if its unreliable and the pit wall are making bad decisions.

I think it's only really clear they had the fastest car in Austria (where they very definitely did).

In France they had a decent advantage in qualifying, but Vettel took himself out at the start and there was no proper comparison in the race. He was able to make his way through the field very quickly, and afterwards (take it for what it is) he claimed Ferrari had the car to win. Silverstone was a similar story, only in reverse: Hamilton took pole by a very slight margin - clearly either car could have had pole - and then fell behind at the start, after which a proper comparison was difficult because he got spun. He didn't seem any faster than the Ferraris in the late stage of the race, however.

Considering they had the fastest car at one race and probably the equal-fastest car at two races, I'd say Tot's statement is still probably roughly true. Certainly, nobody else had the fastest car in any of those three races.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Exediron wrote:
Silverstone was a similar story, only in reverse: Hamilton took pole by a very slight margin - clearly either car could have had pole - and then fell behind at the start, after which a proper comparison was difficult because he got spun. He didn't seem any faster than the Ferraris in the late stage of the race, however.


Both Hamilton and Bottas were quite a bit faster on the medium. I believe the SC saved Vettel, if they had remained on the mediums for the rest of the race I believe Bottas could have won it.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2890
mds wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Silverstone was a similar story, only in reverse: Hamilton took pole by a very slight margin - clearly either car could have had pole - and then fell behind at the start, after which a proper comparison was difficult because he got spun. He didn't seem any faster than the Ferraris in the late stage of the race, however.


Both Hamilton and Bottas were quite a bit faster on the medium. I believe the SC saved Vettel, if they had remained on the mediums for the rest of the race I believe Bottas could have won it.


Both amus and Mark Hughes have mentioned Vettel was saving his tyres in the second stint, Ferrari and Vettel both know position is king. Would Bottas really have had the pace advantage to overtake Vettel in the race specially in the dirty air which the Mercedes struggles in, I can't see it myself.

_________________
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: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6348
Location: Nebraska, USA
mds wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Silverstone was a similar story, only in reverse: Hamilton took pole by a very slight margin - clearly either car could have had pole - and then fell behind at the start, after which a proper comparison was difficult because he got spun. He didn't seem any faster than the Ferraris in the late stage of the race, however.


Both Hamilton and Bottas were quite a bit faster on the medium. I believe the SC saved Vettel, if they had remained on the mediums for the rest of the race I believe Bottas could have won it.


I am confused. Most sources and fellow forumites seem to think the AD saved Hamilton's race.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
F1_Ernie wrote:
mds wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Silverstone was a similar story, only in reverse: Hamilton took pole by a very slight margin - clearly either car could have had pole - and then fell behind at the start, after which a proper comparison was difficult because he got spun. He didn't seem any faster than the Ferraris in the late stage of the race, however.


Both Hamilton and Bottas were quite a bit faster on the medium. I believe the SC saved Vettel, if they had remained on the mediums for the rest of the race I believe Bottas could have won it.


Both amus and Mark Hughes have mentioned Vettel was saving his tyres in the second stint, Ferrari and Vettel both know position is king. Would Bottas really have had the pace advantage to overtake Vettel in the race specially in the dirty air which the Mercedes struggles in, I can't see it myself.


Well, it's indeed debatable whether Bottas would have been able to overtake. Maybe not. But in any case the Mercedes was clearly faster on the medium (that Vettel was only saving tyres is an assumption, not a fact) which was the main point.

The SC changed Vettel's position from a vulnerable, defensive one, to an attacking one being on the better and fresher tyre. Mercedes' gaffe of not pitting Bottas of course helped his cause.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Blake wrote:
mds wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Silverstone was a similar story, only in reverse: Hamilton took pole by a very slight margin - clearly either car could have had pole - and then fell behind at the start, after which a proper comparison was difficult because he got spun. He didn't seem any faster than the Ferraris in the late stage of the race, however.


Both Hamilton and Bottas were quite a bit faster on the medium. I believe the SC saved Vettel, if they had remained on the mediums for the rest of the race I believe Bottas could have won it.


I am confused. Most sources and fellow forumites seem to think the AD saved Hamilton's race.


Hamilton would have probably got P3 out of it if the SC hadn't been there. So it helped him a bit.
The SC benefited Vettel with regards to Bottas. As I said in response to F1_Ernie, maybe he wouldn't have been overtaken by Bottas but he would have had a much harder time to get that win.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2890
mds wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
mds wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Silverstone was a similar story, only in reverse: Hamilton took pole by a very slight margin - clearly either car could have had pole - and then fell behind at the start, after which a proper comparison was difficult because he got spun. He didn't seem any faster than the Ferraris in the late stage of the race, however.


Both Hamilton and Bottas were quite a bit faster on the medium. I believe the SC saved Vettel, if they had remained on the mediums for the rest of the race I believe Bottas could have won it.


Both amus and Mark Hughes have mentioned Vettel was saving his tyres in the second stint, Ferrari and Vettel both know position is king. Would Bottas really have had the pace advantage to overtake Vettel in the race specially in the dirty air which the Mercedes struggles in, I can't see it myself.


Well, it's indeed debatable whether Bottas would have been able to overtake. Maybe not. But in any case the Mercedes was clearly faster on the medium (that Vettel was only saving tyres is an assumption, not a fact) which was the main point.

The SC changed Vettel's position from a vulnerable, defensive one, to an attacking one being on the better and fresher tyre. Mercedes' gaffe of not pitting Bottas of course helped his cause.


Not pitting Bottas wasn't really a gaffe, he had no fresh soft tyres, so he would have been on mediums behind Vettel on softs. I wouldn't really say the Mercedes was clearly faster, yes the gap come down between Vettel and Bottas but that can easily be Vettel managing his tyres which he said himself. Once Bottas is in the dirty air for a while he would have to back off. I can't see anything to make the assumptiom Vettel was in a vulnerable position and Bottas would have overtaken him, we barely see any overtakes between the top cars.

Mark Hughes wrote an article on why he thought Ferrari was slightly faster. Personally I thought it was even.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... ilverstone

_________________
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: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
F1_Ernie wrote:
Not pitting Bottas wasn't really a gaffe, he had no fresh soft tyres, so he would have been on mediums behind Vettel on softs.


Which would still have seen him easily end up second (or third, conceding a place to Hamilton), so yes it was a gaffe. Mercedes would have at least gotten P2-P3 out of pitting Bottas.
Furthermore "having no fresh softs" isn't really telling everything. E.g. if he had a set available he only used for one lap in Q1 that could have easily made it to the end of the race and he might have been menacing Vettel especially if tyre wear was higher on the Ferrari (which isn't clear).

Quote:
I wouldn't really say the Mercedes was clearly faster, yes the gap come down between Vettel and Bottas but that can easily be Vettel managing his tyres which he said himself. Once Bottas is in the dirty air for a while he would have to back off. I can't see anything to make the assumptiom Vettel was in a vulnerable position and Bottas would have overtaken him, we barely see any overtakes between the top cars.


Hamilton was 1-1.5s faster on the mediums than Vettel. I can believe Vettel to run a conservative stint but dropping anywere between 1-1.5s (or perhaps, deg-corrected, 0.75-1.25s)? I don't see it.
Whether or not Bottas could have overtaken isn't really the point either if we are debating which car was the fastest.

So I can live with Ferrari being the faster on the soft tyre, but not on the medium, that has been Mercedes' domain for a while and I believe it was the case in Silverstone as well.

The problem I have with that article by Hughes is that he bases it all on assumptions that can easily vary quite a bit between theory and real life, with the variations possibly impacting the conclusion you can draw quite a bit.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2890
mds wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Not pitting Bottas wasn't really a gaffe, he had no fresh soft tyres, so he would have been on mediums behind Vettel on softs.


Which would still have seen him easily end up second (or third, conceding a place to Hamilton), so yes it was a gaffe. Mercedes would have at least gotten P2-P3 out of pitting Bottas.
Furthermore "having no fresh softs" isn't really telling everything. E.g. if he had a set available he only used for one lap in Q1 that could have easily made it to the end of the race and he might have been menacing Vettel especially if tyre wear was higher on the Ferrari (which isn't clear).

Quote:
I wouldn't really say the Mercedes was clearly faster, yes the gap come down between Vettel and Bottas but that can easily be Vettel managing his tyres which he said himself. Once Bottas is in the dirty air for a while he would have to back off. I can't see anything to make the assumptiom Vettel was in a vulnerable position and Bottas would have overtaken him, we barely see any overtakes between the top cars.


Hamilton was 1-1.5s faster on the mediums than Vettel. I can believe Vettel to run a conservative stint but dropping anywere between 1-1.5s (or perhaps, deg-corrected, 0.75-1.25s)? I don't see it.
Whether or not Bottas could have overtaken isn't really the point either if we are debating which car was the fastest.

So I can live with Ferrari being the faster on the soft tyre, but not on the medium, that has been Mercedes' domain for a while and I believe it was the case in Silverstone as well.

The problem I have with that article by Hughes is that he bases it all on assumptions that can easily vary quite a bit between theory and real life, with the variations possibly impacting the conclusion you can draw quite a bit.


I thought you was talking about a gaffe as in looking at the Vettel and Bottas battle and not the overall picture, my mistake. I can't see Bottas getting past on new mediums or used softs tbh. Overall it was no doubt a gaffe but Mercedes looked at the race win.

I agree with you regarding Mark Hughes article but was just adding it to the thread. At least his put numbers together to back up his opinion, his biased though so his opinion means nothing ;) . Personally I just enjoy reading anything F1 and in the comments there's lots of talk about the technical side of things which I don't know much about.

IMO I just don't think you can compare one driver conserving his tyres to another pushing as hard as he can. I only mentioned whether Bottas could overtake Vettel or not because you believed Bottas could have won but then I'm not taking into consideration if Vettel needed to pit again. Vettel is probably the best out front, conserving his tyres and knowing the Mercedes hate the dirty air, also that Ferrari looked really quick down the straights.

_________________
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: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
F1_Ernie wrote:
mds wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Not pitting Bottas wasn't really a gaffe, he had no fresh soft tyres, so he would have been on mediums behind Vettel on softs.


Which would still have seen him easily end up second (or third, conceding a place to Hamilton), so yes it was a gaffe. Mercedes would have at least gotten P2-P3 out of pitting Bottas.
Furthermore "having no fresh softs" isn't really telling everything. E.g. if he had a set available he only used for one lap in Q1 that could have easily made it to the end of the race and he might have been menacing Vettel especially if tyre wear was higher on the Ferrari (which isn't clear).

Quote:
I wouldn't really say the Mercedes was clearly faster, yes the gap come down between Vettel and Bottas but that can easily be Vettel managing his tyres which he said himself. Once Bottas is in the dirty air for a while he would have to back off. I can't see anything to make the assumptiom Vettel was in a vulnerable position and Bottas would have overtaken him, we barely see any overtakes between the top cars.


Hamilton was 1-1.5s faster on the mediums than Vettel. I can believe Vettel to run a conservative stint but dropping anywere between 1-1.5s (or perhaps, deg-corrected, 0.75-1.25s)? I don't see it.
Whether or not Bottas could have overtaken isn't really the point either if we are debating which car was the fastest.

So I can live with Ferrari being the faster on the soft tyre, but not on the medium, that has been Mercedes' domain for a while and I believe it was the case in Silverstone as well.

The problem I have with that article by Hughes is that he bases it all on assumptions that can easily vary quite a bit between theory and real life, with the variations possibly impacting the conclusion you can draw quite a bit.


I thought you was talking about a gaffe as in looking at the Vettel and Bottas battle and not the overall picture, my mistake. I can't see Bottas getting past on new mediums or used softs tbh. Overall it was no doubt a gaffe but Mercedes looked at the race win.

I agree with you regarding Mark Hughes article but was just adding it to the thread. At least his put numbers together to back up his opinion, his biased though so his opinion means nothing ;) . Personally I just enjoy reading anything F1 and in the comments there's lots of talk about the technical side of things which I don't know much about.

IMO I just don't think you can compare one driver conserving his tyres to another pushing as hard as he can. I only mentioned whether Bottas could overtake Vettel or not because you believed Bottas could have won but then I'm not taking into consideration if Vettel needed to pit again. Vettel is probably the best out front, conserving his tyres and knowing the Mercedes hate the dirty air, also that Ferrari looked really quick down the straights.


All good points, fair enough :thumbup:

Guess this is, as so often in F1, up for debate. :)

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2890
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... -leistung/

"The power syringe came in two spurts. A small one in Montreal, the big one in Spielberg. Since GP Austria Renault and Mercedes again measure suspicious performance data via GPS. After their calculation, the Italians have increased from one race to the next 28 kilowatts (38 hp). "That's how much you'll usually find in two years."

"Oddly enough, the huge power boost at Ferrari did not materialize with the introduction of the Spec2 engine at GP Canada, but only two races later in Austria . That would speak for a software change, since the new hardware was already in use for two races . At the GP Austria it was determined that Ferrari on the first three straights of the Red Bull Ring in the power limited range has made an exorbitant performance, while at the end of the round was back to normal."

"Same game in Silverstone , where the power increase was seen mainly on the Wellington straight and the full throttle passage in front of the Becketts curve. On the first day of training at Hockenheim Ferrari's enigmatic performance explosion was on display again. The red cars on all straights added up to three tenths on the Mercedes and five tenths on the cars with Renault engines. The advantage helps Ferrari not only in the qualifying rounds. At Silverstone , Mercedes worried that Ferrari was racing significantly less de-rating operation. This refers to switching to charging mode at the end of the straight line. Those who can avoid De-rating, the energy storage obviously filled in other parts of the course. Which is difficult at Silverstone because of the few braking points."

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1826
F1_Ernie wrote:
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/alarm-mercedes-renault-ferrari-mehr-leistung/

"The power syringe came in two spurts. A small one in Montreal, the big one in Spielberg. Since GP Austria Renault and Mercedes again measure suspicious performance data via GPS. After their calculation, the Italians have increased from one race to the next 28 kilowatts (38 hp). "That's how much you'll usually find in two years."

"Oddly enough, the huge power boost at Ferrari did not materialize with the introduction of the Spec2 engine at GP Canada, but only two races later in Austria . That would speak for a software change, since the new hardware was already in use for two races . At the GP Austria it was determined that Ferrari on the first three straights of the Red Bull Ring in the power limited range has made an exorbitant performance, while at the end of the round was back to normal."

"Same game in Silverstone , where the power increase was seen mainly on the Wellington straight and the full throttle passage in front of the Becketts curve. On the first day of training at Hockenheim Ferrari's enigmatic performance explosion was on display again. The red cars on all straights added up to three tenths on the Mercedes and five tenths on the cars with Renault engines. The advantage helps Ferrari not only in the qualifying rounds. At Silverstone , Mercedes worried that Ferrari was racing significantly less de-rating operation. This refers to switching to charging mode at the end of the straight line. Those who can avoid De-rating, the energy storage obviously filled in other parts of the course. Which is difficult at Silverstone because of the few braking points."


I think Ferrari are on the verge of pulling away from Mercedes for the rest of the season. It appears they have a substantial power advantage now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
F1_Ernie wrote:
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/alarm-mercedes-renault-ferrari-mehr-leistung/

"The power syringe came in two spurts. A small one in Montreal, the big one in Spielberg. Since GP Austria Renault and Mercedes again measure suspicious performance data via GPS. After their calculation, the Italians have increased from one race to the next 28 kilowatts (38 hp). "That's how much you'll usually find in two years."

"Oddly enough, the huge power boost at Ferrari did not materialize with the introduction of the Spec2 engine at GP Canada, but only two races later in Austria . That would speak for a software change, since the new hardware was already in use for two races . At the GP Austria it was determined that Ferrari on the first three straights of the Red Bull Ring in the power limited range has made an exorbitant performance, while at the end of the round was back to normal."

"Same game in Silverstone , where the power increase was seen mainly on the Wellington straight and the full throttle passage in front of the Becketts curve. On the first day of training at Hockenheim Ferrari's enigmatic performance explosion was on display again. The red cars on all straights added up to three tenths on the Mercedes and five tenths on the cars with Renault engines. The advantage helps Ferrari not only in the qualifying rounds. At Silverstone , Mercedes worried that Ferrari was racing significantly less de-rating operation. This refers to switching to charging mode at the end of the straight line. Those who can avoid De-rating, the energy storage obviously filled in other parts of the course. Which is difficult at Silverstone because of the few braking points."


All this shows is Ferrari have found an ingenious way of recharging the battery power thus able to deploy it when needed.

The rule states how much you can use per lap, but does not say how much you can store.


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: Lojik 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