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.