planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:01 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Lojik wrote:

Are you suggesting the quote from Raikkonen is false, or incorrect? Quoting it 3 times certainly doesn't make the point stronger, but it's like you are discounting the quote entirely.

Im not, no, but quoting the same source three times doesn’t make the point any stronger than stating it once.

I’m always a bit wary of driver quotes anyway. According to th article below, Vettel thinks the Ferraris aren’t as competitive in the wet, while Wolff reckons the Mercs have the best car in full wets. So who to believe, them or Kimi?

I’m open to the idea that the Merc boys were better on the day, but I also think it’s nit as clear cut as some on here would like to portray and it’s equally possible that the Merc was the better car in the rain, too. I don’t think either position can be taken with absolute certainty, which makes all the posturing and absolutes a tad ridiculous.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferr ... 65168/?s=1

The only one posturing here is you.

Well that certainly adds to the discussion.

I’m not the one ruling out alternative points of view. Just saying

Who ruled anything out? Read through the discussion. You're just being overly defensive.

Nope. You’re the one dumping on the idea that it’s anything other than the Merc drivers being better, saying “here come the excuses,” for example


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 12:49 pm
Posts: 798
sandman1347 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Here come the excuses. Kimi Raikkonen didn't seem to think that the Ferrari was magically slow in the wet. He felt the pole was there for the taking but they just didn't execute in that final Q3 run. Vettel also said he didn't get a great lap at the end. I think Mercedes just did a better job on Saturday and this is one of a handful of tracks where it's extremely difficult to overtake.
https://www.crash.net/f1/news/902135/1/ ... -take-pole
https://www.planetf1.com/news/traffic-c ... able-pole/
https://racer.com/2018/07/28/raikkonen- ... n-hungary/


The key being. “We got a bit unlucky after I changed tires, and we felt it was a lot quicker, but I was behind the Haas and in the spray, as you know, you it’s impossible to see and improve”. It’s clear to all from the times above , new wet tyres is a big advantage and Kimi never got a lap on them. Pretty hard to ignore that.

That's exactly right. Both Hamilton and Bottas set their best times at the very end after changing tires. Up to the tire change, Raikkonen had the best time of the session.


I believe Kimi might have challenged for pole on his very last lap, but I dont think it was simply a case of having new tires. The track was slightly improving with every passing minute, and Kimi started his last flying lap right on the 10 second countdown, about a full minute after Vettel, Ham, and Bottas had done so. Basically, Kimi having a chance to get pole, had more to do with the slightly improving track conditions than Ferrari being faster in the wet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Well that certainly adds to the discussion.

I’m not the one ruling out alternative points of view. Just saying

Who ruled anything out? Read through the discussion. You're just being overly defensive.

Nope. You’re the one dumping on the idea that it’s anything other than the Merc drivers being better, saying “here come the excuses,” for example

I see, and in what way did I rule out alternative view points? I see you attempting to put words in my mouth but I didn't actually say those words so once again we're back to that same old issue aren't we Zoue?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1244
Location: London
I think the big question here is whether or not Raikkonen will ever actually nail a Q3 lap this season :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 375
Migen wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Here come the excuses. Kimi Raikkonen didn't seem to think that the Ferrari was magically slow in the wet. He felt the pole was there for the taking but they just didn't execute in that final Q3 run. Vettel also said he didn't get a great lap at the end. I think Mercedes just did a better job on Saturday and this is one of a handful of tracks where it's extremely difficult to overtake.
https://www.crash.net/f1/news/902135/1/ ... -take-pole
https://www.planetf1.com/news/traffic-c ... able-pole/
https://racer.com/2018/07/28/raikkonen- ... n-hungary/


The key being. “We got a bit unlucky after I changed tires, and we felt it was a lot quicker, but I was behind the Haas and in the spray, as you know, you it’s impossible to see and improve”. It’s clear to all from the times above , new wet tyres is a big advantage and Kimi never got a lap on them. Pretty hard to ignore that.

That's exactly right. Both Hamilton and Bottas set their best times at the very end after changing tires. Up to the tire change, Raikkonen had the best time of the session.


I believe Kimi might have challenged for pole on his very last lap, but I dont think it was simply a case of having new tires. The track was slightly improving with every passing minute, and Kimi started his last flying lap right on the 10 second countdown, about a full minute after Vettel, Ham, and Bottas had done so. Basically, Kimi having a chance to get pole, had more to do with the slightly improving track conditions than Ferrari being faster in the wet.


It wasn’t track improvement IMO. It was driver experience of the conditions. The lap time Kimi set that beat Vettel was set over 5 minutes before for example and on more used rubber.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Well that certainly adds to the discussion.

I’m not the one ruling out alternative points of view. Just saying

Who ruled anything out? Read through the discussion. You're just being overly defensive.

Nope. You’re the one dumping on the idea that it’s anything other than the Merc drivers being better, saying “here come the excuses,” for example

I see, and in what way did I rule out alternative view points? I see you attempting to put words in my mouth but I didn't actually say those words so once again we're back to that same old issue aren't we Zoue?

By dismissing alternatives as excuses


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6255
Sandman, in fairness Kimi didn't think that Ferrari was magically slow in the wet, however himself said amongst other things for Q3 that:

"I was pleasantly surprised with how nice the car was on the wets, because that has definitely not been our strong point lately"

So yes he could potentially have put the car in pole in Q3 (again not a given, but if he thought so then I am happy to accept it), but this would have been a surprise. The Merc definitely looked better in the wet in the last two races, I am not sure what the argument is. It is not about excuses for Ferrari


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2772
Siao7 wrote:
Sandman, in fairness Kimi didn't think that Ferrari was magically slow in the wet, however himself said amongst other things for Q3 that:

"I was pleasantly surprised with how nice the car was on the wets, because that has definitely not been our strong point lately"

So yes he could potentially have put the car in pole in Q3 (again not a given, but if he thought so then I am happy to accept it), but this would have been a surprise. The Merc definitely looked better in the wet in the last two races, I am not sure what the argument is. It is not about excuses for Ferrari


In Germany it wasnt full wet conditions. Hamilton was on the best tyres, not much of a comparison can be made.

_________________
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 31, 2018 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Well that certainly adds to the discussion.

I’m not the one ruling out alternative points of view. Just saying

Who ruled anything out? Read through the discussion. You're just being overly defensive.

Nope. You’re the one dumping on the idea that it’s anything other than the Merc drivers being better, saying “here come the excuses,” for example

I see, and in what way did I rule out alternative view points? I see you attempting to put words in my mouth but I didn't actually say those words so once again we're back to that same old issue aren't we Zoue?

By dismissing alternatives as excuses

You are again putting words in my mouth. I didn't dismiss anything. You and the usual group started saying that the Mercedes was better in the wet and that that's why Ferrari didn't take pole. I was simply showing that the Ferrari was perfectly capable of taking pole and that they simply failed to do so (which their own driver as well as the times indicate quite clearly). You are the ones making the assertion that the Mercedes is better in the wet - your only evidence being that they had a better Q3.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6255
F1_Ernie wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Sandman, in fairness Kimi didn't think that Ferrari was magically slow in the wet, however himself said amongst other things for Q3 that:

"I was pleasantly surprised with how nice the car was on the wets, because that has definitely not been our strong point lately"

So yes he could potentially have put the car in pole in Q3 (again not a given, but if he thought so then I am happy to accept it), but this would have been a surprise. The Merc definitely looked better in the wet in the last two races, I am not sure what the argument is. It is not about excuses for Ferrari


In Germany it wasnt full wet conditions. Hamilton was on the best tyres, not much of a comparison can be made.

Point taken.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
Siao7 wrote:
Sandman, in fairness Kimi didn't think that Ferrari was magically slow in the wet, however himself said amongst other things for Q3 that:

"I was pleasantly surprised with how nice the car was on the wets, because that has definitely not been our strong point lately"

So yes he could potentially have put the car in pole in Q3 (again not a given, but if he thought so then I am happy to accept it), but this would have been a surprise. The Merc definitely looked better in the wet in the last two races, I am not sure what the argument is. It is not about excuses for Ferrari

Based on what? There were never actual wet conditions in Germany that required an intermediate or wet tire. They were driving with slicks on a damp track so there's no real example there. In Hungary, Ferrari were quicker in qualifying until the very end when they failed to improve with the new set of tires due to traffic. Honestly to make that claim as though it's indisputable is just ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6255
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Sandman, in fairness Kimi didn't think that Ferrari was magically slow in the wet, however himself said amongst other things for Q3 that:

"I was pleasantly surprised with how nice the car was on the wets, because that has definitely not been our strong point lately"

So yes he could potentially have put the car in pole in Q3 (again not a given, but if he thought so then I am happy to accept it), but this would have been a surprise. The Merc definitely looked better in the wet in the last two races, I am not sure what the argument is. It is not about excuses for Ferrari

Based on what? There were never actual wet conditions in Germany that required an intermediate or wet tire. They were driving with slicks on a damp track so there's no real example there. In Hungary, Ferrari were quicker in qualifying until the very end when they failed to improve with the new set of tires due to traffic. Honestly to make that claim as though it's indisputable is just ridiculous.

As I said above, point taken for Germany. We had only one full wet race so far.

What is a ridiculous point? You can see that both Ferrari drivers and the Mercedes boss were saying the same thing. Kimi said it in the very article that you quoted, that they were not as strong and it was a surprise, but you seem to have missed this. Why are you so defensive about this? Yes they could have taken pole, but this doesn't mean that they were the strongest in the wet. It was a surprise, this is why Kimi was so annoyed, that in Q3 everything suddenly (and unexpectedly as it sounds) came together, but unfortunately he couldn't have that last lap.

And who are the usual group? This sounds as if you think there are people after you or something.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Sandman, in fairness Kimi didn't think that Ferrari was magically slow in the wet, however himself said amongst other things for Q3 that:

"I was pleasantly surprised with how nice the car was on the wets, because that has definitely not been our strong point lately"

So yes he could potentially have put the car in pole in Q3 (again not a given, but if he thought so then I am happy to accept it), but this would have been a surprise. The Merc definitely looked better in the wet in the last two races, I am not sure what the argument is. It is not about excuses for Ferrari

Based on what? There were never actual wet conditions in Germany that required an intermediate or wet tire. They were driving with slicks on a damp track so there's no real example there. In Hungary, Ferrari were quicker in qualifying until the very end when they failed to improve with the new set of tires due to traffic. Honestly to make that claim as though it's indisputable is just ridiculous.

As I said above, point taken for Germany. We had only one full wet race so far.

What is a ridiculous point? You can see that both Ferrari drivers and the Mercedes boss were saying the same thing. Kimi said it in the very article that you quoted, that they were not as strong and it was a surprise, but you seem to have missed this. Why are you so defensive about this? Yes they could have taken pole, but this doesn't mean that they were the strongest in the wet. It was a surprise, this is why Kimi was so annoyed, that in Q3 everything suddenly (and unexpectedly as it sounds) came together, but unfortunately he couldn't have that last lap.

And who are the usual group? This sounds as if you think there are people after you or something.

Wow, this gets annoying fast...No I'm not defensive, I'm pointing out the obvious; that Ferrari were on for the pole all weekend until it mattered most (at the end of Q3). You are the one claiming that the Ferrari somehow loses it's pace relative to the Merc in wet conditions. This despite the data traces showing the same gains on the straights even in wet conditions. It reminds me of similar claims made in 2008; that the Ferrari was worse in the wet. In actuality, it was just the drivers who performed worse in the wet and I think that's the case here as well. If you disagree, that's fine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 12:49 pm
Posts: 798
Johnson wrote:
Migen wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Here come the excuses. Kimi Raikkonen didn't seem to think that the Ferrari was magically slow in the wet. He felt the pole was there for the taking but they just didn't execute in that final Q3 run. Vettel also said he didn't get a great lap at the end. I think Mercedes just did a better job on Saturday and this is one of a handful of tracks where it's extremely difficult to overtake.
https://www.crash.net/f1/news/902135/1/ ... -take-pole
https://www.planetf1.com/news/traffic-c ... able-pole/
https://racer.com/2018/07/28/raikkonen- ... n-hungary/


The key being. “We got a bit unlucky after I changed tires, and we felt it was a lot quicker, but I was behind the Haas and in the spray, as you know, you it’s impossible to see and improve”. It’s clear to all from the times above , new wet tyres is a big advantage and Kimi never got a lap on them. Pretty hard to ignore that.

That's exactly right. Both Hamilton and Bottas set their best times at the very end after changing tires. Up to the tire change, Raikkonen had the best time of the session.


I believe Kimi might have challenged for pole on his very last lap, but I dont think it was simply a case of having new tires. The track was slightly improving with every passing minute, and Kimi started his last flying lap right on the 10 second countdown, about a full minute after Vettel, Ham, and Bottas had done so. Basically, Kimi having a chance to get pole, had more to do with the slightly improving track conditions than Ferrari being faster in the wet.


It wasn’t track improvement IMO. It was driver experience of the conditions. The lap time Kimi set that beat Vettel was set over 5 minutes before for example and on more used rubber.

For sure Vettel didnt have a good qualifying session. IMO, the telling factor that track was improving, was that most (if not all) the drivers improved by a considerable margin (6 tenths minimum according to the lap charts) on the 2nd try.
I remember thinking at the time that whoever completes his flying lap last, will have a better chance at the pole.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 12:49 pm
Posts: 798
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Sandman, in fairness Kimi didn't think that Ferrari was magically slow in the wet, however himself said amongst other things for Q3 that:

"I was pleasantly surprised with how nice the car was on the wets, because that has definitely not been our strong point lately"

So yes he could potentially have put the car in pole in Q3 (again not a given, but if he thought so then I am happy to accept it), but this would have been a surprise. The Merc definitely looked better in the wet in the last two races, I am not sure what the argument is. It is not about excuses for Ferrari

Based on what? There were never actual wet conditions in Germany that required an intermediate or wet tire. They were driving with slicks on a damp track so there's no real example there. In Hungary, Ferrari were quicker in qualifying until the very end when they failed to improve with the new set of tires due to traffic. Honestly to make that claim as though it's indisputable is just ridiculous.

As I said above, point taken for Germany. We had only one full wet race so far.

What is a ridiculous point? You can see that both Ferrari drivers and the Mercedes boss were saying the same thing. Kimi said it in the very article that you quoted, that they were not as strong and it was a surprise, but you seem to have missed this. Why are you so defensive about this? Yes they could have taken pole, but this doesn't mean that they were the strongest in the wet. It was a surprise, this is why Kimi was so annoyed, that in Q3 everything suddenly (and unexpectedly as it sounds) came together, but unfortunately he couldn't have that last lap.

And who are the usual group? This sounds as if you think there are people after you or something.

Wow, this gets annoying fast...No I'm not defensive, I'm pointing out the obvious; that Ferrari were on for the pole all weekend until it mattered most (at the end of Q3). You are the one claiming that the Ferrari somehow loses it's pace relative to the Merc in wet conditions. This despite the data traces showing the same gains on the straights even in wet conditions. It reminds me of similar claims made in 2008; that the Ferrari was worse in the wet. In actuality, it was just the drivers who performed worse in the wet and I think that's the case here as well. If you disagree, that's fine.

1. The track does contain lots of corners too, not only straits.
2. The GPS's or the speed traps would also have the 2010 - 2013 Red Bull down on Ferrari and Mercedes on the overwhelming majority of the races, but that does not mean that Red Bull was not the best race car.
3. If you dont make an allowance of the possibility that different conditions may sweet different cars or different chassis, then maybe you also dont make any allowance to much spoken claim that Mercedes of the last few years had trouble following on the dirty air, and probably it was just their drivers being useless when it comes to overtaking!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6255
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Sandman, in fairness Kimi didn't think that Ferrari was magically slow in the wet, however himself said amongst other things for Q3 that:

"I was pleasantly surprised with how nice the car was on the wets, because that has definitely not been our strong point lately"

So yes he could potentially have put the car in pole in Q3 (again not a given, but if he thought so then I am happy to accept it), but this would have been a surprise. The Merc definitely looked better in the wet in the last two races, I am not sure what the argument is. It is not about excuses for Ferrari

Based on what? There were never actual wet conditions in Germany that required an intermediate or wet tire. They were driving with slicks on a damp track so there's no real example there. In Hungary, Ferrari were quicker in qualifying until the very end when they failed to improve with the new set of tires due to traffic. Honestly to make that claim as though it's indisputable is just ridiculous.

As I said above, point taken for Germany. We had only one full wet race so far.

What is a ridiculous point? You can see that both Ferrari drivers and the Mercedes boss were saying the same thing. Kimi said it in the very article that you quoted, that they were not as strong and it was a surprise, but you seem to have missed this. Why are you so defensive about this? Yes they could have taken pole, but this doesn't mean that they were the strongest in the wet. It was a surprise, this is why Kimi was so annoyed, that in Q3 everything suddenly (and unexpectedly as it sounds) came together, but unfortunately he couldn't have that last lap.

And who are the usual group? This sounds as if you think there are people after you or something.

Wow, this gets annoying fast...No I'm not defensive, I'm pointing out the obvious; that Ferrari were on for the pole all weekend until it mattered most (at the end of Q3). You are the one claiming that the Ferrari somehow loses it's pace relative to the Merc in wet conditions. This despite the data traces showing the same gains on the straights even in wet conditions. It reminds me of similar claims made in 2008; that the Ferrari was worse in the wet. In actuality, it was just the drivers who performed worse in the wet and I think that's the case here as well. If you disagree, that's fine.


What is the source of your annoyance? This is a conversation, even if you started calling people disagreeing with you "a group".

Ferrari was on for the pole all weekend? Vettel led Q1 on a drying track (Ferrari faster on the dry, no surprise here), led Q2 by having a great call for intermediates and setting the time he did when the others were on the wrong tyre (so no much comparison there) and then Q3, well we've talked about that.

You are basically saying that the Ferrari was the better car in all conditions and their drivers messed it up, while what Zoue said was that it feels weird that both drivers did worse than the Mercs, it points to the car being worse in the wet. Just as the Merc was unstable in the dry (as claimed by Hamilton and seen spinning in FP).

So is it a driver or a car issue? For what it's worth, Toto said that the Merc had a small advantage on the wets, while Ferrari is faster in the dry and inters. Take it as you want, it is a debate after all and not worth being upset about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 375
Migen wrote:


For sure Vettel didnt have a good qualifying session. IMO, the telling factor that track was improving, was that most (if not all) the drivers improved by a considerable margin (6 tenths minimum according to the lap charts) on the 2nd try.
I remember thinking at the time that whoever completes his flying lap last, will have a better chance at the pole.


The conditions were very stable. It continued to rain throughout all of Q3.

In stable conditions the times usually tumble by up to seconds per lap as the drivers learn were they can push a little further. The same as the last qualifying we had in Monza and what happens in races when it suddenly rains too.

The situation you are describing is more a drying track.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:48 pm
Posts: 331
What's taking them so long? Why the constant moving of deadlines? Is Ricciardo even going to sign with Red Bull? It's very strange how long it's taking them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: England
Llotyhy wrote:
What's taking them so long? Why the constant moving of deadlines? Is Ricciardo even going to sign with Red Bull? It's very strange how long it's taking them.


I imagine the sudden turn in the Force India situation is causing people further down the chain to hold fire, could be a lot of domino's about to fall.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 2 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4715
I thought it was pretty close again in the wet. The Mercedes looked planted but Kimi obviously felt Lewis's time was achievable or he wouldn't have said it. Though I do think looking at Kimi's earlier run where he went 4ths up is a bit misleading as the track obviously improved between those times as Sainz went nearly 4ths up on Bottas himself just after Kimi did. I think the only time Lewis didn't set the fastest lap was when it was his own time he didn't match and Bottas was there in the ballpark throughout so the Merc was obviously hooked up too.

I just don't think you'll get two different cars being this close very often. There just doesn't seem to be much in it whatever the weather and track. Ferrari have the advantage on the straights now but Mercedes in the twisty bits.

It's a great battle but a shame Red Bull have fallen back for one reason or another.

_________________
"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: Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Who ruled anything out? Read through the discussion. You're just being overly defensive.

Nope. You’re the one dumping on the idea that it’s anything other than the Merc drivers being better, saying “here come the excuses,” for example

I see, and in what way did I rule out alternative view points? I see you attempting to put words in my mouth but I didn't actually say those words so once again we're back to that same old issue aren't we Zoue?

By dismissing alternatives as excuses

You are again putting words in my mouth. I didn't dismiss anything. You and the usual group started saying that the Mercedes was better in the wet and that that's why Ferrari didn't take pole. I was simply showing that the Ferrari was perfectly capable of taking pole and that they simply failed to do so (which their own driver as well as the times indicate quite clearly). You are the ones making the assertion that the Mercedes is better in the wet - your only evidence being that they had a better Q3.
so saying “here come the excuses” is simply your way of showing that Ferrari was perfectly capable of taking pole? Please. I’d already said in the post directly preceding that it wasn’t impossible for Ferrari to have gotten pole anyway. Dismissing alternative theories as excuses is not showing anything except an unwillingness to consider different viewpoints.

As to their own driver saying he was capable of getting pole, well Merc’s own TP claimed his car was better in the wet. So how do you determine which one is believeable evidence and which one is delusion? Quoting a driver isn’t the slam dunk you think it is.

I’ve stated I believe either scenario is a possibility and that there’s insufficient evidence to state conclusively one way or the other. . I’ve yet to see you acknowledge anything other than your own point of view


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 375
Lotus49 wrote:
I thought it was pretty close again in the wet. The Mercedes looked planted but Kimi obviously felt Lewis's time was achievable or he wouldn't have said it. Though I do think looking at Kimi's earlier run where he went 4ths up is a bit misleading as the track obviously improved between those times as Sainz went nearly 4ths up on Bottas himself just after Kimi did. I think the only time Lewis didn't set the fastest lap was when it was his own time he didn't match and Bottas was there in the ballpark throughout so the Merc was obviously hooked up too.

I just don't think you'll get two different cars being this close very often. There just doesn't seem to be much in it whatever the weather and track. Ferrari have the advantage on the straights now but Mercedes in the twisty bits.

It's a great battle but a shame Red Bull have fallen back for one reason or another.


I don't disagree with you, but Sainz's quick lap was his 4th timed lap whilst everybody else at that point had posted 3 timed lap. In those initial runs most drivers were finding 0.5 at least per lap with growing confidence and experience of the track.

Interestingly Sainz never improved on the further 2 laps he did though. Maybe he took the best out of the tyres by that point, errors or was even held up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2169
In Q3 of Hungary, Mercedes was fast on every lap they did. Ferrari struggled a lot more to get the extreme wets in the right operating window. Mercedes were fastest all throughout Q3 until Raikkonen managed a very good lap when the Mercedes drivers were already in the pits.

Maybe Ferrari did have as much ultimate pace as Mercedes in Q3 but it clearly was the harder car to drive. Toto Wolff, both Ferrari drivers and Martin Brundle all echoed the same thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 185
Zoue wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Zoue wrote:
You do understand that three articles using the exact same quote from a driver don’t make that point any more real than a single one, don’t you?


Are you suggesting the quote from Raikkonen is false, or incorrect? Quoting it 3 times certainly doesn't make the point stronger, but it's like you are discounting the quote entirely.

Im not, no, but quoting the same source three times doesn’t make the point any stronger than stating it once.

I’m always a bit wary of driver quotes anyway. According to th article below, Vettel thinks the Ferraris aren’t as competitive in the wet, while Wolff reckons the Mercs have the best car in full wets. So who to believe, them or Kimi?

I’m open to the idea that the Merc boys were better on the day, but I also think it’s nit as clear cut as some on here would like to portray and it’s equally possible that the Merc was the better car in the rain, too. I don’t think either position can be taken with absolute certainty, which makes all the posturing and absolutes a tad ridiculous.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferr ... 65168/?s=1


In that above article, Wolff doesn't specifically state Merc have the best car in the wet. Instead, he states Merc have the best team. So, perhaps he thinks his drivers make the difference?

"The difference today was made by the human factors, not the machine . We saw the storms popping up and we reacted in the right way. Then it all came down to one lap on the wet tyres, and both Lewis and Valtteri nailed it.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/formula-1/2 ... t-updates/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
You are again putting words in my mouth. I didn't dismiss anything. You and the usual group started saying that the Mercedes was better in the wet and that that's why Ferrari didn't take pole. I was simply showing that the Ferrari was perfectly capable of taking pole and that they simply failed to do so (which their own driver as well as the times indicate quite clearly). You are the ones making the assertion that the Mercedes is better in the wet - your only evidence being that they had a better Q3.
so saying “here come the excuses” is simply your way of showing that Ferrari was perfectly capable of taking pole? Please. I’d already said in the post directly preceding that it wasn’t impossible for Ferrari to have gotten pole anyway. Dismissing alternative theories as excuses is not showing anything except an unwillingness to consider different viewpoints.

As to their own driver saying he was capable of getting pole, well Merc’s own TP claimed his car was better in the wet. So how do you determine which one is believeable evidence and which one is delusion? Quoting a driver isn’t the slam dunk you think it is.

I’ve stated I believe either scenario is a possibility and that there’s insufficient evidence to state conclusively one way or the other. . I’ve yet to see you acknowledge anything other than your own point of view

When did Toto Wolf say that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Sandman, in fairness Kimi didn't think that Ferrari was magically slow in the wet, however himself said amongst other things for Q3 that:

"I was pleasantly surprised with how nice the car was on the wets, because that has definitely not been our strong point lately"

So yes he could potentially have put the car in pole in Q3 (again not a given, but if he thought so then I am happy to accept it), but this would have been a surprise. The Merc definitely looked better in the wet in the last two races, I am not sure what the argument is. It is not about excuses for Ferrari

Based on what? There were never actual wet conditions in Germany that required an intermediate or wet tire. They were driving with slicks on a damp track so there's no real example there. In Hungary, Ferrari were quicker in qualifying until the very end when they failed to improve with the new set of tires due to traffic. Honestly to make that claim as though it's indisputable is just ridiculous.

As I said above, point taken for Germany. We had only one full wet race so far.

What is a ridiculous point? You can see that both Ferrari drivers and the Mercedes boss were saying the same thing. Kimi said it in the very article that you quoted, that they were not as strong and it was a surprise, but you seem to have missed this. Why are you so defensive about this? Yes they could have taken pole, but this doesn't mean that they were the strongest in the wet. It was a surprise, this is why Kimi was so annoyed, that in Q3 everything suddenly (and unexpectedly as it sounds) came together, but unfortunately he couldn't have that last lap.

And who are the usual group? This sounds as if you think there are people after you or something.

Wow, this gets annoying fast...No I'm not defensive, I'm pointing out the obvious; that Ferrari were on for the pole all weekend until it mattered most (at the end of Q3). You are the one claiming that the Ferrari somehow loses it's pace relative to the Merc in wet conditions. This despite the data traces showing the same gains on the straights even in wet conditions. It reminds me of similar claims made in 2008; that the Ferrari was worse in the wet. In actuality, it was just the drivers who performed worse in the wet and I think that's the case here as well. If you disagree, that's fine.


What is the source of your annoyance? This is a conversation, even if you started calling people disagreeing with you "a group".

Ferrari was on for the pole all weekend? Vettel led Q1 on a drying track (Ferrari faster on the dry, no surprise here), led Q2 by having a great call for intermediates and setting the time he did when the others were on the wrong tyre (so no much comparison there) and then Q3, well we've talked about that.

You are basically saying that the Ferrari was the better car in all conditions and their drivers messed it up, while what Zoue said was that it feels weird that both drivers did worse than the Mercs, it points to the car being worse in the wet. Just as the Merc was unstable in the dry (as claimed by Hamilton and seen spinning in FP).

So is it a driver or a car issue? For what it's worth, Toto said that the Merc had a small advantage on the wets, while Ferrari is faster in the dry and inters. Take it as you want, it is a debate after all and not worth being upset about.

Who exactly is upset? Are you Dr. Phil now or something? You seem to think that when someone disagrees with you, they must be angry for some reason.

Anyway, all things being equal, the pecking order doesn't change with the weather. The fastest CAR in the dry will almost always be the fastest CAR in the wet. There are exceptions sometimes but that is generally the case. Ferrari were clearly the fastest car in the dry and, up to the last tire change, they were the fastest car in the wet. They just needed to execute that last lap on the fresh tires but they didn't. Simply observing the fact that the Ferraris qualified slower doesn't prove that they had the slower car. Not when the abundance of evidence suggests that they clearly had the faster car. Ask yourself; did the team get in a good lap at the end of Q3? If the answer is no, why are you blaming the car?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2169
Bottas vs Massa in the rain during their time together at Williams

Australia 2014 qualifying: Massa

Malaysia 2014 qualifying: Massa

Japan 2014 race day: Massa

Malaysia 2015 qualifying: Massa

Britain 2015 race day: Massa

USA 2015 qualifying: Massa

Monaco 2016 race: Massa

Britain 2016 race: Massa

Now Bottas is in a Mercedes and he’s on the front row and two tenths away from pole position. That probably shows you something.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2169
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
You are again putting words in my mouth. I didn't dismiss anything. You and the usual group started saying that the Mercedes was better in the wet and that that's why Ferrari didn't take pole. I was simply showing that the Ferrari was perfectly capable of taking pole and that they simply failed to do so (which their own driver as well as the times indicate quite clearly). You are the ones making the assertion that the Mercedes is better in the wet - your only evidence being that they had a better Q3.
so saying “here come the excuses” is simply your way of showing that Ferrari was perfectly capable of taking pole? Please. I’d already said in the post directly preceding that it wasn’t impossible for Ferrari to have gotten pole anyway. Dismissing alternative theories as excuses is not showing anything except an unwillingness to consider different viewpoints.

As to their own driver saying he was capable of getting pole, well Merc’s own TP claimed his car was better in the wet. So how do you determine which one is believeable evidence and which one is delusion? Quoting a driver isn’t the slam dunk you think it is.

I’ve stated I believe either scenario is a possibility and that there’s insufficient evidence to state conclusively one way or the other. . I’ve yet to see you acknowledge anything other than your own point of view

When did Toto Wolf say that?

In the full wet, we had a pace advantage

https://streamable.com/30jkr

Let’s be honest, it’s pretty obvious he’s talking about the car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
You are again putting words in my mouth. I didn't dismiss anything. You and the usual group started saying that the Mercedes was better in the wet and that that's why Ferrari didn't take pole. I was simply showing that the Ferrari was perfectly capable of taking pole and that they simply failed to do so (which their own driver as well as the times indicate quite clearly). You are the ones making the assertion that the Mercedes is better in the wet - your only evidence being that they had a better Q3.
so saying “here come the excuses” is simply your way of showing that Ferrari was perfectly capable of taking pole? Please. I’d already said in the post directly preceding that it wasn’t impossible for Ferrari to have gotten pole anyway. Dismissing alternative theories as excuses is not showing anything except an unwillingness to consider different viewpoints.

As to their own driver saying he was capable of getting pole, well Merc’s own TP claimed his car was better in the wet. So how do you determine which one is believeable evidence and which one is delusion? Quoting a driver isn’t the slam dunk you think it is.

I’ve stated I believe either scenario is a possibility and that there’s insufficient evidence to state conclusively one way or the other. . I’ve yet to see you acknowledge anything other than your own point of view

When did Toto Wolf say that?

In the full wet, we had a pace advantage

https://streamable.com/30jkr

Let’s be honest, it’s pretty obvious he’s talking about the car.

This is what you're talking about? This clip you linked here? He's talking about the times they were doing. He says absolutely nothing regarding car vs. driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2772
Tbh I'm amazed Bottas was 2 tenths off Hamilton in a wet quali, maybe Bottas put in the lap of his life. Now we are all just waiting for Kimi to not muck up a Q3. ;)

_________________
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 31, 2018 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2169
Sandman, in your previous posts on this page you can’t even seem to accept that Mercedes consistently looked quicker than Ferrari throughout Q3 apart from when Raikkonen and Sainz did a fourth run.

Bottas was consistently slower than Massa in the rain when they were teammates, so it’s rather unlikely that the difference was the drivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 375
F1_Ernie wrote:
Tbh I'm amazed Bottas was 2 tenths off Hamilton in a wet quali, maybe Bottas put in the lap of his life. Now we are all just waiting for Kimi to not muck up a Q3. ;)


I did think -0.250 on Bottas was a little underwhelming from Hamilton. I don't know if he made a mistake or was too cautious but I think Hamilton was 0.4 quicker in S3 and 0.2 quicker in S1 so slower in S2. Did they do a side by side qualifying lap thing with the gap indicator for this qualifying?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 375
KingVoid wrote:
Bottas vs Massa in the rain during their time together at Williams

Australia 2014 qualifying: Massa

Malaysia 2014 qualifying: Massa

Japan 2014 race day: Massa

Malaysia 2015 qualifying: Massa

Britain 2015 race day: Massa

USA 2015 qualifying: Massa

Monaco 2016 race: Massa

Britain 2016 race: Massa

Now Bottas is in a Mercedes and he’s on the front row and two tenths away from pole position. That probably shows you something.


That is a good point, Bottas is nothing special in the wet at all. There are a few missing there just at a glance, Spa 2014 qualifying (Bottas ahead) and Brazil 2016 race day (Bottas ahead). Bottas also finished ahead of Massa in Japan 2014 too (you have that wrong). 2016 Hungarian Grand prix qualifying, Bottas ahead too as well as 2016 Austrian GP qualifying.

Another one, 2014 British grand prix qualifying Bottas was ahead too. Bottas isn't great in the wet but that initial list was pretty biased, missing one or two is acceptable as error but you left out at least 6 Bottas aheads. You made it look like a landslide, when I think it is 7-6 in Massa's favour?


Last edited by Johnson on Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 375
Does anybody know when Mercedes will bring the spec 3 engine?

I called it after Silverstone, I said lets wait and see how Bottas treats Vettel the next time they go wheel to wheel. I am speculating that Toto told him, you have our blessing to make life as hard as possible for Vettel (legally) if you are battling on track.

My next prediction is, Bottas getting a 3.5 special spec engine for the last 3-4 races to allow him to rear gunner for Hamilton even more effectively. Note, Bottas has already used his 3rd engine at Spec 2 and will need to take a penalty for a higher spec.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
so saying “here come the excuses” is simply your way of showing that Ferrari was perfectly capable of taking pole? Please. I’d already said in the post directly preceding that it wasn’t impossible for Ferrari to have gotten pole anyway. Dismissing alternative theories as excuses is not showing anything except an unwillingness to consider different viewpoints.

As to their own driver saying he was capable of getting pole, well Merc’s own TP claimed his car was better in the wet. So how do you determine which one is believeable evidence and which one is delusion? Quoting a driver isn’t the slam dunk you think it is.

I’ve stated I believe either scenario is a possibility and that there’s insufficient evidence to state conclusively one way or the other. . I’ve yet to see you acknowledge anything other than your own point of view

When did Toto Wolf say that?

In the full wet, we had a pace advantage

https://streamable.com/30jkr

Let’s be honest, it’s pretty obvious he’s talking about the car.

This is what you're talking about? This clip you linked here? He's talking about the times they were doing. He says absolutely nothing regarding car vs. driver.

It was referenced in the link I posted. Here’s another

https://www.google.pt/amp/s/www.express ... kkonen/amp

Or is that somehow talking about something else, too?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 375
KingVoid wrote:
Sandman, in your previous posts on this page you can’t even seem to accept that Mercedes consistently looked quicker than Ferrari throughout Q3 apart from when Raikkonen and Sainz did a fourth run.

Bottas was consistently slower than Massa in the rain when they were teammates, so it’s rather unlikely that the difference was the drivers.


Raikkonen didn't do a 4th run. It was his 3rd run that beat both Mercedes' 3rd run. Then Mercedes pitted for new tyres as did Kimi but Kimi hit traffic whilst they both beat his time.


Last edited by Johnson on Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26841
Johnson wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Tbh I'm amazed Bottas was 2 tenths off Hamilton in a wet quali, maybe Bottas put in the lap of his life. Now we are all just waiting for Kimi to not muck up a Q3. ;)


I did think -0.250 on Bottas was a little underwhelming from Hamilton. I don't know if he made a mistake or was too cautious but I think Hamilton was 0.4 quicker in S3 and 0.2 quicker in S1 so slower in S2. Did they do a side by side qualifying lap thing with the gap indicator for this qualifying?

It showed Hamilton having a big slide in S2.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
so saying “here come the excuses” is simply your way of showing that Ferrari was perfectly capable of taking pole? Please. I’d already said in the post directly preceding that it wasn’t impossible for Ferrari to have gotten pole anyway. Dismissing alternative theories as excuses is not showing anything except an unwillingness to consider different viewpoints.

As to their own driver saying he was capable of getting pole, well Merc’s own TP claimed his car was better in the wet. So how do you determine which one is believeable evidence and which one is delusion? Quoting a driver isn’t the slam dunk you think it is.

I’ve stated I believe either scenario is a possibility and that there’s insufficient evidence to state conclusively one way or the other. . I’ve yet to see you acknowledge anything other than your own point of view

When did Toto Wolf say that?

In the full wet, we had a pace advantage

https://streamable.com/30jkr

Let’s be honest, it’s pretty obvious he’s talking about the car.

This is what you're talking about? This clip you linked here? He's talking about the times they were doing. He says absolutely nothing regarding car vs. driver.

It was referenced in the link I posted. Here’s another

https://www.google.pt/amp/s/www.express ... kkonen/amp

Or is that somehow talking about something else, too?

Is that quote taken from that same clip? I don't see Toto claiming what you are (that their CAR was better in the wet). he clearly is claiming that they performed better but never says anything about the car vs. driver. Why listen to him over the guy who was actually behind the wheel?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
KingVoid wrote:
Sandman, in your previous posts on this page you can’t even seem to accept that Mercedes consistently looked quicker than Ferrari throughout Q3 apart from when Raikkonen and Sainz did a fourth run.

Bottas was consistently slower than Massa in the rain when they were teammates, so it’s rather unlikely that the difference was the drivers.

Someone already debunked your absurd post and all of the inaccuracies and omissions. It's pretty disturbing how disingenuous you can be in here...

As for the first part of your post, Raikkonen did the fastest THIRD run in Q3. He did not do an extra run. Vettel was off his game (or perhaps just playing it safe) in Q3 but Kimi was right on it and he certainly felt that he could have set pole.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2169
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Sandman, in your previous posts on this page you can’t even seem to accept that Mercedes consistently looked quicker than Ferrari throughout Q3 apart from when Raikkonen and Sainz did a fourth run.

Bottas was consistently slower than Massa in the rain when they were teammates, so it’s rather unlikely that the difference was the drivers.

Someone already debunked your absurd post and all of the inaccuracies and omissions. It's pretty disturbing how disingenuous you can be in here...

As for the first part of your post, Raikkonen did the fastest THIRD run in Q3. He did not do an extra run. Vettel was off his game (or perhaps just playing it safe) in Q3 but Kimi was right on it and he certainly felt that he could have set pole.

I was just pointing out that Bottas lost a lot of times to Massa in the rain. If we look at the overall score, it’s 7-6 in Massa’s favour, and nobody rates Massa in the rain.

The track was in very good condition when Raikkonen set that lap time. Sainz was also going very quickly at the time and up there.


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], owenmahamilton, wj_gibson 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