planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:46 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
I'd be happy to.

I'd be even happier to agree that it averages out as roughly equal, with Mercedes and Ferrari having each had brief periods of holding a clear advantage, and that the trend now looks set for Mercedes to be the best car for the rest of the season.


Pretty much my opinion right now.

Keep this up and we will the UN on the blower asking us to show them how world peace is done!


Yes the Mercedes looks kind of unstoppable but then so did the Ferrari for a short stage. Heading into Monza Ferrari looked unstoppable, it was only the freak rain showers in Q3 at Spa and Hungary and during the race in Germany that had kept Mercedes in it over the previous races.

I thought Mercedes had little chance at the title at that stage as there car was also a lot more unreliable and slower and they couldn't keep relying on rain and Singapore was approaching in which Mercedes I expected to be fighting for 4th/5th. Amazing how unpredictable this season has been. It would not surprise me if Vettel dominated USA though.

That was exactly my outlook as well which I posted in this thread and Hamilton's points lead looked tenuous given that the Ferrari looked faster in the previous 4 races going into Singapore.


How on earth can you judge those races 4-0 Ferrari?
Isn't the weather part off it or should we twist the conditions to better suit Ferrari?

That would be the weather were Vettel has consistently come unstuck but we will write that off to Ferrari?

Mercedes needing to be rescued by the weather doesn't change the fact that the Ferrari was intrinsically the faster car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
AnRs wrote:
Lojik wrote:
AnRs wrote:
How on earth can you judge those races 4-0 Ferrari?
Isn't the weather part off it or should we twist the conditions to better suit Ferrari?


https://www.racefans.net/2018/10/15/ferrari-not-showing-their-real-pace-ricciardo/

Gary Anderson (Autosport)

Yes, Mercedes has made its car better: it has reduced the blistering problems we saw in Belgium and it's stronger off the slow corners. But in the past three races - in Singapore, Russia and Japan - Mercedes has been way ahead on pace. Ferrari is now 0.6% behind, having dominated the preceding three races (Hungary, Belgium and Italy) on pace and been about 0.1% ahead. So that's a 0.7% swing.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/8556/has-ferrari-faltered-or-mercedes-thrived


Dominated with a 0.1 % I've seen Gary Andersson slaughetered in here for a lot less than that.

Who said the word dominate it's a mere measure of which car was quicker and so many articles point that to be Ferrari.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
AnRs wrote:
Lojik wrote:
AnRs wrote:
Dominated with a 0.1 % I've seen Gary Andersson slaughetered in here for a lot less than that.


You are free to take issue with the wording, but that doesn't disprove or contradict the conclusion.


IMO it does, it makes his claim a bit laughable. What is challengable is how anyone can firmly suppose they can judge the performance from those races that soundly.

Because they have the tools to do that which we don't have, so your basic argument is who can judge accurately which is the faster car whilst you yourself feel fully equipped to judge which is the faster car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
Zoue wrote:
Lojik wrote:
AnRs wrote:
Dominated with a 0.1 % I've seen Gary Andersson slaughetered in here for a lot less than that.


You are free to take issue with the wording, but that doesn't disprove or contradict the conclusion.

yeah, except for the fact that the Ferrari's didn't dominate in Monza. It's like these guys just look at qualifying and make their write-ups from that. During the race there was nothing to suggest that the Ferraris were at all quicker than the Mercs, let alone that they dominated

Why the need to use the word dominate which nobody said?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
AnRs wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Lojik wrote:
AnRs wrote:
Dominated with a 0.1 % I've seen Gary Andersson slaughetered in here for a lot less than that.


You are free to take issue with the wording, but that doesn't disprove or contradict the conclusion.

yeah, except for the fact that the Ferrari's didn't dominate in Monza. It's like these guys just look at qualifying and make their write-ups from that. During the race there was nothing to suggest that the Ferraris were at all quicker than the Mercs, let alone that they dominated


You know what I am done with this thread. All reason is lost and it's now just a battle of the agenda monkeys. We have Zoue clinging to a single quote from Wolff like a late night drunk clinging to a kebab, and we have AnRs who basically says "NU UH" to any data or quotes provided that don't correlate with his own fantasy world where Merc are "dominant". There is no discussion left to be had, the lines are drawn and no amount of reasonable debate will change a single thing. This thread is dead!


That's one way to leave a discussion, single out those who disagrees and try to come out as unbiased : )
But you got it right at the end, Merc is dominant right now, the question is will they stay that way now that the season is won?

The premise though is which car has been more often better, there is the evidence provided and then there is people who think they know better.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Who's been establishing that?

Wolff, for one

Wolff at other times you might consider him to be biased and not to be believed and now you put him forward as a technical expert, your words I believe?

you're questioning him now?

You're right, I do question Wolff's motivation in saying some of things he says, like when he campaigned against changing the rules and tried to claim that it was in the best interests of F1 and the smaller teams in particular for things to stay as they were, which coincidentally meant that Mercedes' position at the front would likely have remained unassailable but which he claimed hadn't influenced his position on the matter. I am usually rather skeptical of many of the public statements made by drivers or team principals, since they usually do have some element of bias to them. However in this instance I'm struggling to see what he would have to gain by saying that the Mercedes was faster in Silverstone.

However, whether I believe him or not is not really the point, which is clearly that he would be someone who has a significantly higher level of knowledge of the situation than anyone on this forum, so yes, he would probably qualify as expert opinion relative to everyone on here. That doesn't make him right, as I stressed when initially discussing his position on the matter, but it does illustrate that even among the experts the view is not unanimous. So you using Amus to try to shut down discussion on the matter isn't the show-stopper you think it is.

During this period how often did we hear Hamilton say the Ferrari was faster and Mercedes need to improve, this covers the time period when I said that Ferrari were quicker.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... n-mercedes

It's a typical tactic to find one race that can be questioned to then roll over all the other races were Ferrari were faster, I'm guessing you would'nt be agreeing with Hamilton because unlike Wolff he's not a technical expert?

You presented the Amus figures in a way that suggested they couldn't be questioned. However, Wolff's comments illustrate that even the experts don't necessarily disagree. That's the only point I'm making by using him as a reference. It's not about him being right and them wrong, it's about illustrating that Amus' opinion isn't necessarily the be- and end-all. Silverstone just happened to be a clear cut case demonstrating the difference between them.

But I'm not using the rankings or Wolff as a barometer for my opinion. I prefer to look at the races and form my conclusions from what actually happened. And I'm afraid I don't always agree with the experts, not least because the experts don't always agree with each other anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Lojik wrote:
AnRs wrote:
Dominated with a 0.1 % I've seen Gary Andersson slaughetered in here for a lot less than that.


You are free to take issue with the wording, but that doesn't disprove or contradict the conclusion.

yeah, except for the fact that the Ferrari's didn't dominate in Monza. It's like these guys just look at qualifying and make their write-ups from that. During the race there was nothing to suggest that the Ferraris were at all quicker than the Mercs, let alone that they dominated

Why the need to use the word dominate which nobody said?

Gary Anderson did according to the quote provided


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Wolff, for one

Wolff at other times you might consider him to be biased and not to be believed and now you put him forward as a technical expert, your words I believe?

you're questioning him now?

You're right, I do question Wolff's motivation in saying some of things he says, like when he campaigned against changing the rules and tried to claim that it was in the best interests of F1 and the smaller teams in particular for things to stay as they were, which coincidentally meant that Mercedes' position at the front would likely have remained unassailable but which he claimed hadn't influenced his position on the matter. I am usually rather skeptical of many of the public statements made by drivers or team principals, since they usually do have some element of bias to them. However in this instance I'm struggling to see what he would have to gain by saying that the Mercedes was faster in Silverstone.

However, whether I believe him or not is not really the point, which is clearly that he would be someone who has a significantly higher level of knowledge of the situation than anyone on this forum, so yes, he would probably qualify as expert opinion relative to everyone on here. That doesn't make him right, as I stressed when initially discussing his position on the matter, but it does illustrate that even among the experts the view is not unanimous. So you using Amus to try to shut down discussion on the matter isn't the show-stopper you think it is.

During this period how often did we hear Hamilton say the Ferrari was faster and Mercedes need to improve, this covers the time period when I said that Ferrari were quicker.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... n-mercedes

It's a typical tactic to find one race that can be questioned to then roll over all the other races were Ferrari were faster, I'm guessing you would'nt be agreeing with Hamilton because unlike Wolff he's not a technical expert?

You presented the Amus figures in a way that suggested they couldn't be questioned. However, Wolff's comments illustrate that even the experts don't necessarily disagree. That's the only point I'm making by using him as a reference. It's not about him being right and them wrong, it's about illustrating that Amus' opinion isn't necessarily the be- and end-all. Silverstone just happened to be a clear cut case demonstrating the difference between them.

But I'm not using the rankings or Wolff as a barometer for my opinion. I prefer to look at the races and form my conclusions from what actually happened. And I'm afraid I don't always agree with the experts, not least because the experts don't always agree with each other anyway.

Which experts don't agree with one another, all of a sudden Wolff is an expert until he says something you don't agree with I would be guessing?

So one thing Wolff says about one particular race is all you need to basically rubbish various articles that disagree with your opinion?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Lojik wrote:
AnRs wrote:
Dominated with a 0.1 % I've seen Gary Andersson slaughetered in here for a lot less than that.


You are free to take issue with the wording, but that doesn't disprove or contradict the conclusion.

yeah, except for the fact that the Ferrari's didn't dominate in Monza. It's like these guys just look at qualifying and make their write-ups from that. During the race there was nothing to suggest that the Ferraris were at all quicker than the Mercs, let alone that they dominated

Why the need to use the word dominate which nobody said?

Gary Anderson did according to the quote provided

Fair enough, I think it's wrong terminology as it suggests a sizeable gap.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Lojik wrote:

You are free to take issue with the wording, but that doesn't disprove or contradict the conclusion.

yeah, except for the fact that the Ferrari's didn't dominate in Monza. It's like these guys just look at qualifying and make their write-ups from that. During the race there was nothing to suggest that the Ferraris were at all quicker than the Mercs, let alone that they dominated

Why the need to use the word dominate which nobody said?

Gary Anderson did according to the quote provided

Fair enough, I think it's wrong terminology as it suggests a sizeable gap.

we agree on one thing at least :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Wolff at other times you might consider him to be biased and not to be believed and now you put him forward as a technical expert, your words I believe?

you're questioning him now?

You're right, I do question Wolff's motivation in saying some of things he says, like when he campaigned against changing the rules and tried to claim that it was in the best interests of F1 and the smaller teams in particular for things to stay as they were, which coincidentally meant that Mercedes' position at the front would likely have remained unassailable but which he claimed hadn't influenced his position on the matter. I am usually rather skeptical of many of the public statements made by drivers or team principals, since they usually do have some element of bias to them. However in this instance I'm struggling to see what he would have to gain by saying that the Mercedes was faster in Silverstone.

However, whether I believe him or not is not really the point, which is clearly that he would be someone who has a significantly higher level of knowledge of the situation than anyone on this forum, so yes, he would probably qualify as expert opinion relative to everyone on here. That doesn't make him right, as I stressed when initially discussing his position on the matter, but it does illustrate that even among the experts the view is not unanimous. So you using Amus to try to shut down discussion on the matter isn't the show-stopper you think it is.

During this period how often did we hear Hamilton say the Ferrari was faster and Mercedes need to improve, this covers the time period when I said that Ferrari were quicker.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... n-mercedes

It's a typical tactic to find one race that can be questioned to then roll over all the other races were Ferrari were faster, I'm guessing you would'nt be agreeing with Hamilton because unlike Wolff he's not a technical expert?

You presented the Amus figures in a way that suggested they couldn't be questioned. However, Wolff's comments illustrate that even the experts don't necessarily disagree. That's the only point I'm making by using him as a reference. It's not about him being right and them wrong, it's about illustrating that Amus' opinion isn't necessarily the be- and end-all. Silverstone just happened to be a clear cut case demonstrating the difference between them.

But I'm not using the rankings or Wolff as a barometer for my opinion. I prefer to look at the races and form my conclusions from what actually happened. And I'm afraid I don't always agree with the experts, not least because the experts don't always agree with each other anyway.

Which experts don't agree with one another, all of a sudden Wolff is an expert until he says something you don't agree with I would be guessing?

So one thing Wolff says about one particular race is all you need to basically rubbish various articles that disagree with your opinion?

I'm not rubbishing anything, just pointing out that just because it's in Amus doesn't make it incontestable. The fact that you would say your first sentence shows that you haven't really understood anything I've been saying. I don't really know how else to put it, sorry


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
you're questioning him now?

You're right, I do question Wolff's motivation in saying some of things he says, like when he campaigned against changing the rules and tried to claim that it was in the best interests of F1 and the smaller teams in particular for things to stay as they were, which coincidentally meant that Mercedes' position at the front would likely have remained unassailable but which he claimed hadn't influenced his position on the matter. I am usually rather skeptical of many of the public statements made by drivers or team principals, since they usually do have some element of bias to them. However in this instance I'm struggling to see what he would have to gain by saying that the Mercedes was faster in Silverstone.

However, whether I believe him or not is not really the point, which is clearly that he would be someone who has a significantly higher level of knowledge of the situation than anyone on this forum, so yes, he would probably qualify as expert opinion relative to everyone on here. That doesn't make him right, as I stressed when initially discussing his position on the matter, but it does illustrate that even among the experts the view is not unanimous. So you using Amus to try to shut down discussion on the matter isn't the show-stopper you think it is.

During this period how often did we hear Hamilton say the Ferrari was faster and Mercedes need to improve, this covers the time period when I said that Ferrari were quicker.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... n-mercedes

It's a typical tactic to find one race that can be questioned to then roll over all the other races were Ferrari were faster, I'm guessing you would'nt be agreeing with Hamilton because unlike Wolff he's not a technical expert?

You presented the Amus figures in a way that suggested they couldn't be questioned. However, Wolff's comments illustrate that even the experts don't necessarily disagree. That's the only point I'm making by using him as a reference. It's not about him being right and them wrong, it's about illustrating that Amus' opinion isn't necessarily the be- and end-all. Silverstone just happened to be a clear cut case demonstrating the difference between them.

But I'm not using the rankings or Wolff as a barometer for my opinion. I prefer to look at the races and form my conclusions from what actually happened. And I'm afraid I don't always agree with the experts, not least because the experts don't always agree with each other anyway.

Which experts don't agree with one another, all of a sudden Wolff is an expert until he says something you don't agree with I would be guessing?

So one thing Wolff says about one particular race is all you need to basically rubbish various articles that disagree with your opinion?

I'm not rubbishing anything, just pointing out that just because it's in Amus doesn't make it incontestable. The fact that you would say your first sentence shows that you haven't really understood anything I've been saying. I don't really know how else to put it, sorry

It's not just AMUS though it's numerous sources, there are people that still believe the world is flat, I'm sure they think it's contestable as well, so apart from Wolff and Silverstone, that being one race, what sources do you bring to the table that encompasses the season?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6077
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Which experts don't agree with one another, all of a sudden Wolff is an expert until he says something you don't agree with I would be guessing?

It's pretty absurd to suggest that the team principle of one of the teams being talked about is not an expert. That doesn't mean I (or you, clearly) am going to agree with him all the time, but he knows more about Mercedes and their car than this entire forum put together. He's the definition of an expert, far more so than Anderson - who in my opinion is a pretty solid has-been who writes dubious articles like calling for qualifying to be scrapped and replaced with a sprint race.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Which experts don't agree with one another, all of a sudden Wolff is an expert until he says something you don't agree with I would be guessing?

It's pretty absurd to suggest that the team principle of one of the teams being talked about is not an expert. That doesn't mean I (or you, clearly) am going to agree with him all the time, but he knows more about Mercedes and their car than this entire forum put together. He's the definition of an expert, far more so than Anderson - who in my opinion is a pretty solid has-been who writes dubious articles like calling for qualifying to be scrapped and replaced with a sprint race.

It's still only one race being used to discredit a season plus Anderson is not the only source, also what has his personal opinion about the way forward for F1 got anything to do with this?

Why is what Hamilton has said which encompasses more than one race being ignored, you have one source that mentions one race, that's all.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 984
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Which experts don't agree with one another, all of a sudden Wolff is an expert until he says something you don't agree with I would be guessing?

It's pretty absurd to suggest that the team principle of one of the teams being talked about is not an expert. That doesn't mean I (or you, clearly) am going to agree with him all the time, but he knows more about Mercedes and their car than this entire forum put together. He's the definition of an expert, far more so than Anderson - who in my opinion is a pretty solid has-been who writes dubious articles like calling for qualifying to be scrapped and replaced with a sprint race.

It's still only one race being used to discredit a season plus Anderson is not the only source, also what has his personal opinion about the way forward for F1 got anything to do with this?

Why is what Hamilton has said which encompasses more than one race being ignored, you have one source that mentions one race, that's all.


It still exposes the AMUS numbers as the guesswork it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6077
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Which experts don't agree with one another, all of a sudden Wolff is an expert until he says something you don't agree with I would be guessing?

It's pretty absurd to suggest that the team principle of one of the teams being talked about is not an expert. That doesn't mean I (or you, clearly) am going to agree with him all the time, but he knows more about Mercedes and their car than this entire forum put together. He's the definition of an expert, far more so than Anderson - who in my opinion is a pretty solid has-been who writes dubious articles like calling for qualifying to be scrapped and replaced with a sprint race.

It's still only one race being used to discredit a season plus Anderson is not the only source, also what has his personal opinion about the way forward for F1 got anything to do with this?

Why is what Hamilton has said which encompasses more than one race being ignored, you have one source that mentions one race, that's all.

I'm not ignoring what Hamilton said, and I don't think anybody else is, either. The point being made is that multiple expert sources do not agree, and as such the supposed consensus among experts that you're pointing to doesn't exist.

BTW, Toto wasn't talking about one race. He explicitly mentioned the entire triple header.

RaceFans.net had a chart up recently that compared the fastest lap (in any session) set by the three leading teams over the season to date:

Image

It supports the current 9-8 score on the season, and also makes clear that there has been an ebb and flow over the year to date. Ferrari generally had the faster car up to Singapore, but not by a large margin except for two or three races. The Mercedes advantage in Australia, France and Austria is as great as the Ferrari advantage in China, Monaco or Germany - and amusingly enough, neither team won a majority of the named races in their favor.

Ignoring the arbitrary distinction of 'up until Singapore', it's clear on that chart that - while the score has evened out at 9-8 - the advantage is heavily with Merc at the moment. By the end of the season, there's a very good chance that the Mercedes will have been the better car over the whole year.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:37 pm
Posts: 568
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Which experts don't agree with one another, all of a sudden Wolff is an expert until he says something you don't agree with I would be guessing?

It's pretty absurd to suggest that the team principle of one of the teams being talked about is not an expert. That doesn't mean I (or you, clearly) am going to agree with him all the time, but he knows more about Mercedes and their car than this entire forum put together. He's the definition of an expert, far more so than Anderson - who in my opinion is a pretty solid has-been who writes dubious articles like calling for qualifying to be scrapped and replaced with a sprint race.

It's still only one race being used to discredit a season plus Anderson is not the only source, also what has his personal opinion about the way forward for F1 got anything to do with this?

Why is what Hamilton has said which encompasses more than one race being ignored, you have one source that mentions one race, that's all.

I'm not ignoring what Hamilton said, and I don't think anybody else is, either. The point being made is that multiple expert sources do not agree, and as such the supposed consensus among experts that you're pointing to doesn't exist.

BTW, Toto wasn't talking about one race. He explicitly mentioned the entire triple header.

RaceFans.net had a chart up recently that compared the fastest lap (in any session) set by the three leading teams over the season to date:

Image

It supports the current 9-8 score on the season, and also makes clear that there has been an ebb and flow over the year to date. Ferrari generally had the faster car up to Singapore, but not by a large margin except for two or three races. The Mercedes advantage in Australia, France and Austria is as great as the Ferrari advantage in China, Monaco or Germany - and amusingly enough, neither team won a majority of the named races in their favor.

Ignoring the arbitrary distinction of 'up until Singapore', it's clear on that chart that - while the score has evened out at 9-8 - the advantage is heavily with Merc at the moment. By the end of the season, there's a very good chance that the Mercedes will have been the better car over the whole year.


I think this data further reinforces Sandman/Pokerman's major point - that Hamilton had put himself in a strong position during a period when Ferrari had the stronger car more often. By Italy, Hamilton had already established a comfortable points lead, despite a DNF and multiple reliability issues(while Vettel remained bullet-proof). According to this graph, upto and including Italy, Hamilton only had the quicker car 5 times, Vettel 9.

NB// Up to & including Italy:
Autosport 5-9 Ferrari
AMuS 4-10 Ferrari

_________________
You just need to be accepted for who you are and be proud of who you are and that is what I'm trying to do.
Lewis Hamilton


Last edited by aice on Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6077
Location: Michigan, USA
aice wrote:
I think this data further reinforces Sandman/Pokerman's major point- that Hamilton had put himself in a strong position during a period when Ferrari had the stronger car more often. By Italy, Hamilton had already established a comfortable points lead, despite a DNF and multiple reliability issues(while Vettel remained bullet-proof). According to this graph, upto and including Italy, Hamilton only had the quicker car 5 times, Vettel 9.

NB// Upto & uncluding Italy:
Autosport 5-9 Ferrari
AMuS 4-10 Ferrari

But nobody's denying that major point. Everyone agrees Hamilton has out-driven Vettel, and that Ferrari was generally the stronger car early. That broad point is not in contention, it's the minutiae of where and how often Mercedes had the better car in the early season that is in question.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Which experts don't agree with one another, all of a sudden Wolff is an expert until he says something you don't agree with I would be guessing?

It's pretty absurd to suggest that the team principle of one of the teams being talked about is not an expert. That doesn't mean I (or you, clearly) am going to agree with him all the time, but he knows more about Mercedes and their car than this entire forum put together. He's the definition of an expert, far more so than Anderson - who in my opinion is a pretty solid has-been who writes dubious articles like calling for qualifying to be scrapped and replaced with a sprint race.

It's still only one race being used to discredit a season plus Anderson is not the only source, also what has his personal opinion about the way forward for F1 got anything to do with this?

Why is what Hamilton has said which encompasses more than one race being ignored, you have one source that mentions one race, that's all.


It still exposes the AMUS numbers as the guesswork it is.

Using GPS data is guesswork, really?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Which experts don't agree with one another, all of a sudden Wolff is an expert until he says something you don't agree with I would be guessing?

It's pretty absurd to suggest that the team principle of one of the teams being talked about is not an expert. That doesn't mean I (or you, clearly) am going to agree with him all the time, but he knows more about Mercedes and their car than this entire forum put together. He's the definition of an expert, far more so than Anderson - who in my opinion is a pretty solid has-been who writes dubious articles like calling for qualifying to be scrapped and replaced with a sprint race.

It's still only one race being used to discredit a season plus Anderson is not the only source, also what has his personal opinion about the way forward for F1 got anything to do with this?

Why is what Hamilton has said which encompasses more than one race being ignored, you have one source that mentions one race, that's all.

I'm not ignoring what Hamilton said, and I don't think anybody else is, either. The point being made is that multiple expert sources do not agree, and as such the supposed consensus among experts that you're pointing to doesn't exist.

BTW, Toto wasn't talking about one race. He explicitly mentioned the entire triple header.

RaceFans.net had a chart up recently that compared the fastest lap (in any session) set by the three leading teams over the season to date:

Image

It supports the current 9-8 score on the season, and also makes clear that there has been an ebb and flow over the year to date. Ferrari generally had the faster car up to Singapore, but not by a large margin except for two or three races. The Mercedes advantage in Australia, France and Austria is as great as the Ferrari advantage in China, Monaco or Germany - and amusingly enough, neither team won a majority of the named races in their favor.

Ignoring the arbitrary distinction of 'up until Singapore', it's clear on that chart that - while the score has evened out at 9-8 - the advantage is heavily with Merc at the moment. By the end of the season, there's a very good chance that the Mercedes will have been the better car over the whole year.

The previous 2 races to Silverstone are excepted as Mercedes being quicker, also the last 3 races are excepted as Mercedes being quicker, so we are back to 9-5 going into Singapore with what you've brought forward from Racefans so that doesn't really change anything in respect to what I said, however I do appreciate the effort you put into your post. :thumbup:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
aice wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Which experts don't agree with one another, all of a sudden Wolff is an expert until he says something you don't agree with I would be guessing?

It's pretty absurd to suggest that the team principle of one of the teams being talked about is not an expert. That doesn't mean I (or you, clearly) am going to agree with him all the time, but he knows more about Mercedes and their car than this entire forum put together. He's the definition of an expert, far more so than Anderson - who in my opinion is a pretty solid has-been who writes dubious articles like calling for qualifying to be scrapped and replaced with a sprint race.

It's still only one race being used to discredit a season plus Anderson is not the only source, also what has his personal opinion about the way forward for F1 got anything to do with this?

Why is what Hamilton has said which encompasses more than one race being ignored, you have one source that mentions one race, that's all.

I'm not ignoring what Hamilton said, and I don't think anybody else is, either. The point being made is that multiple expert sources do not agree, and as such the supposed consensus among experts that you're pointing to doesn't exist.

BTW, Toto wasn't talking about one race. He explicitly mentioned the entire triple header.

RaceFans.net had a chart up recently that compared the fastest lap (in any session) set by the three leading teams over the season to date:

Image

It supports the current 9-8 score on the season, and also makes clear that there has been an ebb and flow over the year to date. Ferrari generally had the faster car up to Singapore, but not by a large margin except for two or three races. The Mercedes advantage in Australia, France and Austria is as great as the Ferrari advantage in China, Monaco or Germany - and amusingly enough, neither team won a majority of the named races in their favor.

Ignoring the arbitrary distinction of 'up until Singapore', it's clear on that chart that - while the score has evened out at 9-8 - the advantage is heavily with Merc at the moment. By the end of the season, there's a very good chance that the Mercedes will have been the better car over the whole year.


I think this data further reinforces Sandman/Pokerman's major point- that Hamilton had put himself in a strong position during a period when Ferrari had the stronger car more often. By Italy, Hamilton had already established a comfortable points lead, despite a DNF and multiple reliability issues(while Vettel remained bullet-proof). According to this graph, upto and including Italy, Hamilton only had the quicker car 5 times, Vettel 9.

NB// Upto & uncluding Italy:
Autosport 5-9 Ferrari
AMuS 4-10 Ferrari

Racefans 5-9 Ferrari.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
Exediron wrote:
aice wrote:
I think this data further reinforces Sandman/Pokerman's major point- that Hamilton had put himself in a strong position during a period when Ferrari had the stronger car more often. By Italy, Hamilton had already established a comfortable points lead, despite a DNF and multiple reliability issues(while Vettel remained bullet-proof). According to this graph, upto and including Italy, Hamilton only had the quicker car 5 times, Vettel 9.

NB// Upto & uncluding Italy:
Autosport 5-9 Ferrari
AMuS 4-10 Ferrari

But nobody's denying that major point. Everyone agrees Hamilton has out-driven Vettel, and that Ferrari was generally the stronger car early. That broad point is not in contention, it's the minutiae of where and how often Mercedes had the better car in the early season that is in question.

Is that still in question with you given what Autosport, Amus and Racefans have said?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6077
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
aice wrote:
I think this data further reinforces Sandman/Pokerman's major point- that Hamilton had put himself in a strong position during a period when Ferrari had the stronger car more often. By Italy, Hamilton had already established a comfortable points lead, despite a DNF and multiple reliability issues(while Vettel remained bullet-proof). According to this graph, upto and including Italy, Hamilton only had the quicker car 5 times, Vettel 9.

NB// Upto & uncluding Italy:
Autosport 5-9 Ferrari
AMuS 4-10 Ferrari

But nobody's denying that major point. Everyone agrees Hamilton has out-driven Vettel, and that Ferrari was generally the stronger car early. That broad point is not in contention, it's the minutiae of where and how often Mercedes had the better car in the early season that is in question.

Is that still in question with you given what Autosport, Amus and Racefans have said?

Not if everyone accepts that Mercedes was quicker in Silverstone, no. We started off with people claiming they didn't even have the best car at the triple header, which is what all this stuff about quoting Toto Wolff, etc. came from.

_________________
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 Oct 17, 2018 12:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
aice wrote:
I think this data further reinforces Sandman/Pokerman's major point- that Hamilton had put himself in a strong position during a period when Ferrari had the stronger car more often. By Italy, Hamilton had already established a comfortable points lead, despite a DNF and multiple reliability issues(while Vettel remained bullet-proof). According to this graph, upto and including Italy, Hamilton only had the quicker car 5 times, Vettel 9.

NB// Upto & uncluding Italy:
Autosport 5-9 Ferrari
AMuS 4-10 Ferrari

But nobody's denying that major point. Everyone agrees Hamilton has out-driven Vettel, and that Ferrari was generally the stronger car early. That broad point is not in contention, it's the minutiae of where and how often Mercedes had the better car in the early season that is in question.

Is that still in question with you given what Autosport, Amus and Racefans have said?

Not if everyone accepts that Mercedes was quicker in Silverstone, no. We started off with people claiming they didn't even have the best car at the triple header, which is what all this stuff about quoting Toto Wolff, etc. came from.

The argument was with one poster adamant that going into Singapore the cars had been equal, Silverstone makes it either 10-4 or 9-5 to Ferrari, in the grand scheme of things how does that change Ferrari being quicker than Mercedes more often than not, Wolff is basically being used as a diversionary tactic.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5549
Ferrari back on top here? Thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:56 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1913
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari back on top here? Thoughts?


I gave qualifying to Ferrari, yeah. Haven't been able to really follow the weekend but I'm guessing there has been no particularly useful long running, but that doesn't necessarily translate to the race anyway.

Looks to me like Ferrari got Hammed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari back on top here? Thoughts?

It looks that way which makes the rest of the season interesting as it began to look like Mercedes had gotten on top of Ferrari.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5549
Invade wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari back on top here? Thoughts?


I gave qualifying to Ferrari, yeah. Haven't been able to really follow the weekend but I'm guessing there has been no particularly useful long running, but that doesn't necessarily translate to the race anyway.

Looks to me like Ferrari got Hammed.

My take as well. This is a track Hamilton has dominated and Bottas was nearly four tenths behind. Ferrari look like they are back on form. In the race I expect something similar to Italy after lap 1; with Vettel dealing with traffic while Hamilton and Raikkonen battle at the front. As such, race pace will be impossible to discern.

It begs the question of what exactly explains Ferrari's abysmal qualifying performances in Russia and Japan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari back on top here? Thoughts?


I gave qualifying to Ferrari, yeah. Haven't been able to really follow the weekend but I'm guessing there has been no particularly useful long running, but that doesn't necessarily translate to the race anyway.

Looks to me like Ferrari got Hammed.

My take as well. This is a track Hamilton has dominated and Bottas was nearly four tenths behind. Ferrari look like they are back on form. In the race I expect something similar to Italy after lap 1; with Vettel dealing with traffic while Hamilton and Raikkonen battle at the front. As such, race pace will be impossible to discern.

It begs the question of what exactly explains Ferrari's abysmal qualifying performances in Russia and Japan.

It was said to be tyre related but Ferrari's extra speed on the straights seems to be back.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5549
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari back on top here? Thoughts?


I gave qualifying to Ferrari, yeah. Haven't been able to really follow the weekend but I'm guessing there has been no particularly useful long running, but that doesn't necessarily translate to the race anyway.

Looks to me like Ferrari got Hammed.

My take as well. This is a track Hamilton has dominated and Bottas was nearly four tenths behind. Ferrari look like they are back on form. In the race I expect something similar to Italy after lap 1; with Vettel dealing with traffic while Hamilton and Raikkonen battle at the front. As such, race pace will be impossible to discern.

It begs the question of what exactly explains Ferrari's abysmal qualifying performances in Russia and Japan.

It was said to be tyre related but Ferrari's extra speed on the straights seems to be back.

Did the FIA remove that sensor?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6077
Location: Michigan, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari back on top here? Thoughts?


I gave qualifying to Ferrari, yeah. Haven't been able to really follow the weekend but I'm guessing there has been no particularly useful long running, but that doesn't necessarily translate to the race anyway.

Looks to me like Ferrari got Hammed.

My take as well. This is a track Hamilton has dominated and Bottas was nearly four tenths behind. Ferrari look like they are back on form. In the race I expect something similar to Italy after lap 1; with Vettel dealing with traffic while Hamilton and Raikkonen battle at the front. As such, race pace will be impossible to discern.

It begs the question of what exactly explains Ferrari's abysmal qualifying performances in Russia and Japan.

:thumbup:

One possibility is that Mercedes had opened a gap, and Ferrari's upgrades actually worked for a change. Either way - while the championship may be over - this should be good for the rest of the season. And if Lewis has his usual post-clinch slump, the season might end up looking artificially close.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5549
Exediron wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari back on top here? Thoughts?


I gave qualifying to Ferrari, yeah. Haven't been able to really follow the weekend but I'm guessing there has been no particularly useful long running, but that doesn't necessarily translate to the race anyway.

Looks to me like Ferrari got Hammed.

My take as well. This is a track Hamilton has dominated and Bottas was nearly four tenths behind. Ferrari look like they are back on form. In the race I expect something similar to Italy after lap 1; with Vettel dealing with traffic while Hamilton and Raikkonen battle at the front. As such, race pace will be impossible to discern.

It begs the question of what exactly explains Ferrari's abysmal qualifying performances in Russia and Japan.

:thumbup:

One possibility is that Mercedes had opened a gap, and Ferrari's upgrades actually worked for a change. Either way - while the championship may be over - this should be good for the rest of the season. And if Lewis has his usual post-clinch slump, the season might end up looking artificially close.

Did they run their upgrades though?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 984
Merc already focusing on 2019?
There's gonna be a long walk to next season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3072
sandman1347 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari back on top here? Thoughts?


I gave qualifying to Ferrari, yeah. Haven't been able to really follow the weekend but I'm guessing there has been no particularly useful long running, but that doesn't necessarily translate to the race anyway.

Looks to me like Ferrari got Hammed.

My take as well. This is a track Hamilton has dominated and Bottas was nearly four tenths behind. Ferrari look like they are back on form. In the race I expect something similar to Italy after lap 1; with Vettel dealing with traffic while Hamilton and Raikkonen battle at the front. As such, race pace will be impossible to discern.

It begs the question of what exactly explains Ferrari's abysmal qualifying performances in Russia and Japan.

:thumbup:

One possibility is that Mercedes had opened a gap, and Ferrari's upgrades actually worked for a change. Either way - while the championship may be over - this should be good for the rest of the season. And if Lewis has his usual post-clinch slump, the season might end up looking artificially close.

Did they run their upgrades though?


I read Ferrari took the upgrades off and both drivers felt the car was good. The power boost is back, interested to know how much time advantage Ferrari are making on 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: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari back on top here? Thoughts?


I gave qualifying to Ferrari, yeah. Haven't been able to really follow the weekend but I'm guessing there has been no particularly useful long running, but that doesn't necessarily translate to the race anyway.

Looks to me like Ferrari got Hammed.

My take as well. This is a track Hamilton has dominated and Bottas was nearly four tenths behind. Ferrari look like they are back on form. In the race I expect something similar to Italy after lap 1; with Vettel dealing with traffic while Hamilton and Raikkonen battle at the front. As such, race pace will be impossible to discern.

It begs the question of what exactly explains Ferrari's abysmal qualifying performances in Russia and Japan.

It was said to be tyre related but Ferrari's extra speed on the straights seems to be back.

Did the FIA remove that sensor?

I wouldn't know and I don't know if the two things are related to one another?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28403
AnRs wrote:
Merc already focusing on 2019?
There's gonna be a long walk to next season.

No just a case of Ferrari's extra speed on the straights came back.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3072
Has anyone seen the comparison video of Hamilton and Vettel? The speed of the Ferrari on the straights is just wow, but Mercedes in the corners ie quality.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 542
Location: Kansas
F1_Ernie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
:thumbup:

One possibility is that Mercedes had opened a gap, and Ferrari's upgrades actually worked for a change. Either way - while the championship may be over - this should be good for the rest of the season. And if Lewis has his usual post-clinch slump, the season might end up looking artificially close.

Did they run their upgrades though?


I read Ferrari took the upgrades off and both drivers felt the car was good. The power boost is back, interested to know how much time advantage Ferrari are making on the straights.


Check the speed trap numbers. Finish line and the two intermediates are not on high speed sections of the track.

Image
Source - http://www.imgur.com

Raikkonen has 4 km/h on Hamilton and Seb has 2.3 km/h on Lewis.

Edit: Look at all of the Renault engined cars all the way at the bottom of the speed trap numbers! 8O Hulkenberg is the fastest of the lot. Hartley and Gasly in Hondas are both right around 320Km/h and the fastest Renault is 316.9.
:nod:

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2936
Location: UK
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari back on top here? Thoughts?


I gave qualifying to Ferrari, yeah. Haven't been able to really follow the weekend but I'm guessing there has been no particularly useful long running, but that doesn't necessarily translate to the race anyway.

Looks to me like Ferrari got Hammed.

My take as well. This is a track Hamilton has dominated and Bottas was nearly four tenths behind. Ferrari look like they are back on form. In the race I expect something similar to Italy after lap 1; with Vettel dealing with traffic while Hamilton and Raikkonen battle at the front. As such, race pace will be impossible to discern.

It begs the question of what exactly explains Ferrari's abysmal qualifying performances in Russia and Japan.

It was said to be tyre related but Ferrari's extra speed on the straights seems to be back.

Did the FIA remove that sensor?

There's something weird going on behind the scenes. It's as if the FIA banned something on the Ferrari and then allowed it back again now that the championship is pretty much over to prevent Mercedes from walking the last few races. I can't think of any other explanation, the change in Ferrari's competitiveness is much too big for it to just be circuit related.

The only other time I can recall seeing such a dramatic and sudden performance swing back and forth was the sudden banning and un-banning of exhaust blown diffusers during 2011.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 984
j man wrote:
There's something weird going on behind the scenes. It's as if the FIA banned something on the Ferrari and then allowed it back again now that the championship is pretty much over to prevent Mercedes from walking the last few races. I can't think of any other explanation, the change in Ferrari's competitiveness is much too big for it to just be circuit related.

The only other time I can recall seeing such a dramatic and sudden performance swing back and forth was the sudden banning and un-banning of exhaust blown diffusers during 2011.


Perhaps you are looking in the wrong garage for explanations? It's a rumour that Merc had to change the rims they introduced in Singapore.


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: Invade, Laz_T800, Lotus49, owenmahamilton, UnlikeUday, wire2004 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