planetf1.com

Dude, it was raining the whole session. No one had good conditions to set a lap in Q3.

Well, Ferrari very clearly had the better dry weather package. In the wet, their advantage is probably reduced. They may still be ahead, maybe it is about equal. When it is wet, the role of the drivers become more important relative to the car. That is where the Mercedes drivers performed better in the last two races than the Ferrari drivers - and that was decisive. Hence, Ferrari had the better car (over the weekend) but Mercedes the better drivers.

Speaking about the last two races only, I cannot even see how this can be controversial.

Maybe you`re right. But I just dont remember exactly... wasnt Kimi's "pole threatening" lap, an extra flying lap in comparison with both Mercedes drivers for Q3?
If it was, and if all the drivers were improving by a minimum of 6 tenth on the subsequent flying lap due to the reason you stated above, then I`d presume that Hamilton (and Bottas too) would have easily been able to beat Kimi's pole (or pole threatening) lap if they had the same opportunity as Kimi.

Raikkonen was 40 seconds behind Hamilton, same track really. Literally 1 between them lifting spray. Kimi kept beating the Mercedes in S3, purple on both his 2nd and 3rd runs.

Kimi still ended up with purple S3 even though he didn’t do a final run.

No, Kimi’s provisional pole was his 3rd attempt. The same as the Mercedes. He was running 30-40 seconds behind Hamilton but ran the same run pattern.

Ok, that sort of settles it for me... a missed opportunity by the Ferrari drivers then.

My fault, you said it was annoying, that tends to upset people, when they are annoyed. You are very touchy over nothing.

It's funny that you defend the drivers quotes over a senior figure's of the team, yet you chose to dismiss the driver's quotes that were presented to you, Ferrari drivers mentioning that it was a surprise to get such a good feeling in the wet in the final run and that the car wasn't as good.

Anyway, I'll leave it here, you have made your mind it seems and nothing will change it, as usual.

Hilarious. Now who’s making excuses?

Hmm that's interesting. Your overall attitude seems to be that, when someone doesn't agree with you, they are being "touchy" or are "upset". That's a pretty condescending place from which to have a discussion. A person doesn't have to be irrational to disagree with you.

Let's look at the facts:
1-Ferrari were clearly the quickest in the dry through free practice
2-Ferrari had the quickest times in the previous 2 qualifying sessions
3-Ferrari had the quickest time through the first set of tires in Q3
4-Ferrari failed to get that last hot lap in clean air and didn't improve their lap time with the new tires at the end of Q3 (at which point Mercedes jumped ahead of them).

Given these facts, I think it's irrational to say that the car was worse in the wet. There is no indication of that at all and it's certainly not normal for the strongest car in the dry to not be the strongest in the wet.

The laughing smiley face huh? Are you that worked up about this? I don't need to make excuses. You're the one trying to make an argument that the fastest car was somehow not the fastest car anymore during Q3. That's the position that requires the excuses.

Yes quite possibly. I think Vettels downfall was how cautious he was given what happened in Germany.
Its also worth noting that Kimi did have nothing to lose (similar for Bottas) and pole was likely the race win if he got it. So lots of things at play but I think there wasn't much between the cars in the full wet either way.

This is hilarious. You told me recently that I seem to know you more than yourself, yet you are doing the same here. Need a mirror?

I wrote before why Ferrari was faster in Q1 and 2, but you conveniently disregard it. It is simple, the Mercs were better in the wet, more planted, more stable and that was mentioned by them. The Ferrari in contrast was the opposite, did not give them confidence that they had in the dry. Kimi was surprised to actually get a good feeling in the car in the end, but didn't get the chance to prove it. This is what was reported by the drivers. No doubt Lewis is a much better driver in the wet than the rest, which also played into his hands.

Take it as you wish, I am not going to argue this further, you do not seem to ever want to review your positions nor accept any challenge on them.

James Allison weighs in:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... AZkM&t=539

- Ferrari with slight advantage on the straights and slow corners. Ferrari better on rear limited tracks.
- Mercedes with slight advantage in medium and high speed corners. Mercedes better on front limited tracks.
- Out of the 12 races this season, only 5 have been won by the fastest car. 7 races won "against the head": 3x Merc, 2x Ferrari, 2x RBR.

I’m guessing that Red Bull won in China and Austria against the head (they certainly had the best car in Monaco). Ferrari in Australia and Silverstone. Mercedes in Baku, Germany and Hungary.

This means that Ferrari have had the best car six times this season, Mercedes five times, and Red Bull once.
____________________________________________

This article from Autosport echos the exact same opinion:

“Ferrari has had the faster car on seven occasions this year, with Mercedes quicker five times. One of Ferrari's races was Monaco, where Red Bull set the pace.”

https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/83 ... ton-battle

That strikes me as being about right, particularly the part about the best car not usually winning this year. That's something I've brought up before as a noticeable trend so far.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

So this begs the question, of the remaining tracks and using the above rule of thumb, who is favourite:

Spa - ?
Monza - Ferrari
Singapore - RBR
Russia - ?
Japan - ?
USA - ?
Mexico - RBR
Brazil - ?
Abu Dhabi - ?

Mercedes were not quicker at Silverstone. Other than that, it seems accurate to me.

I agree with Monza and Mexico but I think Ferrari/RBR will be close in Mexico.

Spa and USA I'm unsure and expect it to be close. I'd give Russia, Brazil and Abu Dhabi to Ferrari and Japan to Mercedes. This could obviously change but currently that's what I'd say.

On the assumption that the strengths are roughly this:

Ferrari: Straights and traction corners
Mercedes: Aero corners
Red Bull: Pure mechanical grip

Then I would expect the following tracks to favor the following teams:

Spa - Ferrari (too many straights)
Monza - Ferrari (obviously, although Mercede will probably gain through the Parabolica)
Singapore - Red Bull (one of only two tracks all year that should favor them)
Russia - Ferrari (pretty much a pure power track)
Japan - Mercedes (one of the most aero-dependent tracks of all)
USA - Hard to call, but probably Mercedes due to aero dependence
Mexico - Not sure; it looks like a power track, but it usually isn't really
Brazil - Ferrari (power track with a lot of traction corners)
Abu Dhabi - Ferrari (same story, different track)

So basically my prediction is that this championship is still very much Ferrari's to lose, despite Hamilton's current advantage.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

Tyres play a bigger role than circuit layout. Ferrari work the softer tyres better while Mercedes work the harder tyres better. I don’t think that Red Bull will play a significant role in the second half of the season apart from Singapore. They will shift their focus onto 2019 very soon enough for they haven’t done so already.

https://news.pirelli.com/global/en-ww/n ... -compounds

Ferrari will be very difficult to beat on circuits with ultrasoft tyres available. People say that Ferrari are favourites for Spa and Monza, but I’m not buying it. Mercedes’ low downforce setup is still the best IMO, and there’s no guarantee that Ferrari will still have a power advantage once spec3 engines are introduced.

Their advantage appears to be in the battery, and by all accounts nobody else knows how it works. I don't see why the new engines will take that advantage away, or why Ferrari isn't just as likely to pull even further ahead. The trend since 2017 is that Ferrari has been catching Mercedes on PU development, and has now surpassed them.

Agree with you on the tyres, though. That's a very important factor, and it counts double since Hamilton is better on hards than softs as well (we saw this often against Rosberg).

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

Actually, Mercedes do know how Ferrari’s trick works. Now it’s just a matter of implementation.

You are making excuses, though. There’s a quote where Toto says the Mercs were faster in the wet, but not the intermediates. You’re trying to twist that to say he’s only referring to the drivers? I repeat: hilarious.

And now we are descending into the realms of the ridiculous. “Somehow” not the fastest? Ludicrous. Rain is a significant enough factor to show up that statement for what that is. Is eg Verstappen that rubbish in the wet that he would be out qualified by cars that are significantly slower than him in the dry, and by a gap so much bigger than the difference between Ferrari and Mercedes in the dry? You’re coming up with any excuse you can think of to try and portray Ferrari as faster but they just don’t stand up to any scrutiny at all.

To me I see Spa as 50/50 but Monza is definitely Ferrari territory. Low traction zones + lots of straights = This year's Ferrari's dream track imho. Spa has a lot of high speed corners which the Mercedes should thrive on, even though they may be losing a significant amount in the straights.

Interesting. Source?

That's a bold statement, would be nice to provide a bit of backup for it.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13794 ... ower-gripe

Just to put the engine power topic to bed; it's clear that there is no debate in F1 over which power unit is the best at the moment.

I suspect a bit of reading comprehension might help here.

Steiner being sarcastic should be used as a reference to put the topic to bed.

What I find more amusing is say lets assume for argument sake the Mercedes engine is 2/10th slower than the Ferrari engine, what cannot be explained is Mercedes customer teams engine deficit to Ferrari customer teams.

Once Ferrari improves the customer teams improve, but with Mercedes it does not happen, or maybe I missed it when they released the v2.1.

I thought it was official for a few races now Ferrari have the better engine apart from a select few who will always refuse Ferrari have any sort of advantage and are the underdogs.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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

That works both ways, I think. There are always a select few who insist that e.g. Hamilton is swimming against the tide and operating with a car disadvantage, despite the fact that he's often the fastest man on track.

I'd say things are pretty close and neither has a distinct advantage. It certainly looked as though Ferrari were quicker than Mercedes in the dry in Hungary, but one race is a bit of a limited sample to call out which car is definitely better. We've seen some pretty impressive performance swings on a number of occasions this season. Mercedes looked worse than the Red Bulls in qualifying in Hungary too, for example, which points to a possible setup issue, rather than a fundamental car disadvantage.

Originally it was regarding the engines and it's been pretty clear for a number of races Ferrari has had the better engine.

My opinion about the cars is it has been very close, Ferrari have had the slight advantage over the first part of the season. Moving forward I have seen most people's opinion in F1 say the Ferrari is the favourite going forward because it has the better engine, better all round car for all circuits and it's the better quali car which could make the difference. When im talking about an advantage I'm not meaning distinct but slight, I still feel Vettels mistakes have played a big part in this championship but then so has the reliability of the Mercedes, which with the dnf in Austria Vettel is kind of lucky his mistakes didn't get punished even more.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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

The way the season has gone so far I don't think that I can call a favourite.

Strategy calls, 'off' weekends and individual mistakes have all contributed to the underdog beating the favourite on a few occasions.Take those away and I still think that it would be very tight at the top. We have two drivers and two constructors at the top of their game, demonstrating that they are not always at the top of their game!

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

Well I'd agree the last two races Vettel has underperformed. I still think his mistake was relatively minor in Germany, but it had big consequences. Still, the fact is he did make one and that may come back to bite him as without it he'd be looking a lot healthier going into the summer break. And I don't think he did himself any favours by shrugging it off and making out it wasn't important. Not his finest hour.

not sure Hungary was a mistake as such, but he was poor in wet qualifying. Didn't have confidence in the car but he still should have done better than he did. I think on the luck side though the balance has been in Merc's favour overall. When it goes wrong for them, things still manage to work out, while for Ferrari they tend to suffer bigger consequences. And the planets must have been aligned for Mercedes when they struggled so much for the car in the dry only for the rain to come down exactly when they needed it the most. Those two races should have been damage limitation but they came out of it with the best possible outcome. Interesting - although too short - article below that compares the two cars (can't see the interview itself in my region, just the summary) and I'd agree differences are tiny and largely circuit-specific.

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11455545/f1-2018-mercedes-and-ferrari-car-strengths-compared-in-title-battle

I agree with this. The only sure thing is that Ferrari has gained performance compared to the Mercedes rocket-ships from a few years ago. Maybe this skews the way people see the cars performance at the moment. The cars seem pretty much on par so far, 10 points separate the WCC (if this can provide any kind of comparison).

Honestly, this thread is a bit of a joke.

Why do you say this? I just read the first post again and I think that lamo's intentions were to have a race by race comparison, if not heated debate! It kind of (vaguely) followed that. I guess lamo can't follow up his analysis on a race by race basis since he has decided to leave, so the thread may have gone a bit on a tangent!!

When the discussion becomes so disingenuous and dishonest, there isn't really much point. The thread was not intended to really be a debate but rather an ongoing discussion about the cars and how they stack up. Instead we have the same handful of people trying to always portray Ferrari as fighting at a disadvantage. It makes the thread basically the same as 90% of the other threads. And I completely reject the notion that there is the same thing happening on the Mercedes side. I don't see that at all. When Mercedes have been strongest, people have acknowledged it.

I can't be bothered to read every page to see why this thread is apparently a joke, but Ferrari are not fighting at an overall disadvantage other than in the Championship standings.

Ok, I personally do not see it like that. I wouldn't call a different opinion dishonest. I agree that Ferrari are definitely not fighting at a disadvantage, maybe that was the case on the one full wet race, but let's not get into that again. For the last few pages we have seen a lot of people, if not all, admitting that in most likelihood the cars are almost on par. We do not know exactly the power outputs of the engines, but for some comments from Rosberg, Horner, etc., who I guess do not know the actual engine performances, but still may have a bit more insight into this than us.

I have written before in this thread that the performance of the cars seems so close that it is difficult to say if one engine has 5-10hp more than the other, if it is the aero, setup or drivers that make the difference. The packages seem fairly equal. All that matters is that Ferrari have caught up with Mercedes. I think that it sounds like petty bickering if Ferrari or Mercedes are slightly faster, we should enjoy what looks like an awesome season after 4 years of Merc domination.

That's just clearly not the case though. Ferrari have the upper hand and have had it for most of the season. Yes, it is certainly close and yes, Mercedes certainly have had a highly competitive package for most of the year but Ferrari clearly have the upper hand in terms of just the car's level of performance. The people in and around the sport are not in disagreement about that. So what we have in this thread is just an inability on the part of our forum to engage in the thread's stated purpose (to discuss the performance level of the cars as the season progresses) because people are using the thread for a different purpose.

I don't think that's the case. I think people have been discussing it. It's just that you seem to get frustrated whenever people put forward an opinion you disagree with. This is a thread discussing the relative performance of the cars, but you seem to want it to be a thread discussing how much better Ferrari is than everyone else. And not everybody agrees with that position.

Opinions differ. That's what forums are largely for. You don't have to agree but you can't dismiss an entire thread as a joke simply because others don't share your views