planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:23 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
I am not trying to prove Kimi was quicker, please show me where I stated that - he is inherently a slower driver than Vettel. We are discussing tyre life here aren't we? Kimi was very poor in Australia, so poor that Vettel was going away at over a second per lap at times.

You said Kimi doesn't show tyre saving like Vettel. I am showing you at the end of the stint he is posting PBs. How can posting PBs at the end of the stint not being looking after your tyres?

My point was Kimi was quick on old tyres. Do you agree ? If Kimi wasn't quick on old tyres, then surely Vettel wasn't because they were within 0.1 of each other by lap 23. So they are both either slow, or both either quick. They were in the same ball park by the end of the stint.

You are also completely missing my point, I am not saying Kimi did a better job than Vettel. You completely missed my point. My point is both Ferraris were easy on the tyres.

As I've already mentioned (more than once, I believe), there's no great skill being quick at the end of a stint if you've been very slow up to that point. In pretty much every example Kimi has gone the majority of the stint at a much lesser pace than his rivals, so it's not altogether too surprising that he may have some life left in his tyres at the end of the stint. But that's not proof of being gentle on the tyres. I've little doubt that if either Hamilton or Bottas had been as pedestrian as Kimi was they'd probably have much more life in their tyres, too.

I don't agree that Kimi was quick on old tyres, no. In most cases he's at best running at a similar speed to the others, but as has been pointed out the fact that he's not been stressing his equipment as much as the others makes it unsurprising that he has some pace left. Again, it's not proof that he's gentle on the tyres, especially since he's not actually any better than those who have been.

Again, the narrative that has sprung up is that the Ferrari has been much better on its tyres than the Mercedes. So far, you've not been able to provide any examples where Kimi has demonstrated this. So where has this reputation come from?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
Rockie wrote:
lamo wrote:
I am not trying to prove Kimi was quicker, he is inherently a slower driver than Vettel. We are discussing tyre life here aren't we? Kimi was very poor in Australia, so poor that Vettel was going away at over a second per lap at times.

You said Kimi doesn't show tyre saving like Vettel. I am showing you at the end of the stint he is posting PBs. How can posting PBs at the end of the stint not being looking after your tyres?


A quick question, was the Force India good on it's tyres, or was Perez good at managing his tyres?


Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. If I was to guess I would say both.

But one thing I do know is that he was better than his team mate that season at managing his tyres due to the 5-6 races were he clearly demonstrated it in, especially in Malaysia and Monza where he could have won either.

This is why I am not convinced by Vettel usaully better on the tyres than Kimi as I'm not seeing it in the data.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 937
lamo wrote:
Rockie wrote:
lamo wrote:
I am not trying to prove Kimi was quicker, he is inherently a slower driver than Vettel. We are discussing tyre life here aren't we? Kimi was very poor in Australia, so poor that Vettel was going away at over a second per lap at times.

You said Kimi doesn't show tyre saving like Vettel. I am showing you at the end of the stint he is posting PBs. How can posting PBs at the end of the stint not being looking after your tyres?


A quick question, was the Force India good on it's tyres, or was Perez good at managing his tyres?


Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. If I was to guess I would say both.

But one thing I do know is that he was better than his team mate that season at managing his tyres due to the 5-6 races were he clearly demonstrated it in, especially in Malaysia and Monza where he could have won either.

This is why I am not convinced by Vettel usaully better on the tyres than Kimi as I'm not seeing it in the data.


So in the case where the driver is not named Vettel you cant tell, it might be both car and driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
I am not trying to prove Kimi was quicker, please show me where I stated that - he is inherently a slower driver than Vettel. We are discussing tyre life here aren't we? Kimi was very poor in Australia, so poor that Vettel was going away at over a second per lap at times.

You said Kimi doesn't show tyre saving like Vettel. I am showing you at the end of the stint he is posting PBs. How can posting PBs at the end of the stint not being looking after your tyres?

My point was Kimi was quick on old tyres. Do you agree ? If Kimi wasn't quick on old tyres, then surely Vettel wasn't because they were within 0.1 of each other by lap 23. So they are both either slow, or both either quick. They were in the same ball park by the end of the stint.

You are also completely missing my point, I am not saying Kimi did a better job than Vettel. You completely missed my point. My point is both Ferraris were easy on the tyres.

As I've already mentioned (more than once, I believe), there's no great skill being quick at the end of a stint if you've been very slow up to that point. In pretty much every example Kimi has gone the majority of the stint at a much lesser pace than his rivals, so it's not altogether too surprising that he may have some life left in his tyres at the end of the stint. But that's not proof of being gentle on the tyres. I've little doubt that if either Hamilton or Bottas had been as pedestrian as Kimi was they'd probably have much more life in their tyres, too.

I don't agree that Kimi was quick on old tyres, no. In most cases he's at best running at a similar speed to the others, but as has been pointed out the fact that he's not been stressing his equipment as much as the others makes it unsurprising that he has some pace left. Again, it's not proof that he's gentle on the tyres, especially since he's not actually any better than those who have been.

Again, the narrative that has sprung up is that the Ferrari has been much better on its tyres than the Mercedes. So far, you've not been able to provide any examples where Kimi has demonstrated this. So where has this reputation come from?


Re: Between teams. The data clearly shows, Mercedes is fundamentally a slightly quicker car and relatively quicker at the beginning of the stint. Ferrari are relatively stronger nearer the end. There is plenty of data to show that. However this wasn't what the discussion was about.

Re: Inter teams. Our discussion is with regards to Kimi adn Vettel and Vettel being usually better on the tyres
. Ok, I'll give you Australia in Vettels favour. So Kimi Silverstone, 1-1. Your turn to put Vettel 2-1 up... what you got?

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
Rockie wrote:
lamo wrote:
Rockie wrote:
lamo wrote:
I am not trying to prove Kimi was quicker, he is inherently a slower driver than Vettel. We are discussing tyre life here aren't we? Kimi was very poor in Australia, so poor that Vettel was going away at over a second per lap at times.

You said Kimi doesn't show tyre saving like Vettel. I am showing you at the end of the stint he is posting PBs. How can posting PBs at the end of the stint not being looking after your tyres?


A quick question, was the Force India good on it's tyres, or was Perez good at managing his tyres?


Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. If I was to guess I would say both.

But one thing I do know is that he was better than his team mate that season at managing his tyres due to the 5-6 races were he clearly demonstrated it in, especially in Malaysia and Monza where he could have won either.

This is why I am not convinced by Vettel usaully better on the tyres than Kimi as I'm not seeing it in the data.


So in the case where the driver is not named Vettel you cant tell, it might be both car and driver.


Actually, you are with me.

I am saying I am not sure if it is Vettel or the car. Lets look at the evidence.
Zoue is saying its Vettel. I am asking him for evidence, he isn't bringing much.

In the case of Perez, there is plenty of evidence he was much better on the tyres than KK. In some races lapping significantly quicker than KK on much OLDER tyres. I await the evidence of Vettel holding the same advantage over Kimi, then I am convinced this is the case.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
Rockie wrote:
lamo wrote:
Rockie wrote:
lamo wrote:
I am not trying to prove Kimi was quicker, he is inherently a slower driver than Vettel. We are discussing tyre life here aren't we? Kimi was very poor in Australia, so poor that Vettel was going away at over a second per lap at times.

You said Kimi doesn't show tyre saving like Vettel. I am showing you at the end of the stint he is posting PBs. How can posting PBs at the end of the stint not being looking after your tyres?


A quick question, was the Force India good on it's tyres, or was Perez good at managing his tyres?


Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. If I was to guess I would say both.

But one thing I do know is that he was better than his team mate that season at managing his tyres due to the 5-6 races were he clearly demonstrated it in, especially in Malaysia and Monza where he could have won either.

This is why I am not convinced by Vettel usaully better on the tyres than Kimi as I'm not seeing it in the data.


So in the case where the driver is not named Vettel you cant tell, it might be both car and driver.


Actually, you are with me.

I am saying I am not sure if it is Vettel or the car. Lets look at the evidence.
Zoue is saying its Vettel. I am asking him for evidence, he isn't bringing much.

In the case of Perez, there is plenty of evidence he was much better on the tyres than KK. In some races lapping significantly quicker than KK on much OLDER tyres. I await the evidence of Vettel holding the same advantage over Kimi, then I am convinced this is the case.

Actually, you appear to have this pickle backwards, like most of the claims you post. It was me who initially asked for evidence that it was the car rather than the driver and said I couldn't find any races where Kimi had done anything special tyre-wise. If you truly believe otherwise it shouldn't be that hard to come up with something. Your attempts to twist it the other way around are as laughable as the "evidence" of Kimi's tyre management, which took me seconds to debunk. You haven't provided a single race where Kimi's tyre management was notable. Not one. I asked you where you think the reputation was earned, then, which you failed to answer.

For all the fact that you appear to love posting stats, it's equally clear that you have little understanding of how to interpret them. You have a habit of plucking seemingly arbitrary figures out of nowhere and using them to support a position which even the most cursory inspection will reveal is built on a house of cards. A glaring example is that you appear to feel that good tyre management is measured solely by how many laps a driver manages to complete on a set of tyres, regardless of how fast he was actually going relative to his peers. You don't appear to understand the concept that tyre longevity is directly proportional to how hard a life it has led, which is frankly rather bizarre.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
I am not trying to prove Kimi was quicker, please show me where I stated that - he is inherently a slower driver than Vettel. We are discussing tyre life here aren't we? Kimi was very poor in Australia, so poor that Vettel was going away at over a second per lap at times.

You said Kimi doesn't show tyre saving like Vettel. I am showing you at the end of the stint he is posting PBs. How can posting PBs at the end of the stint not being looking after your tyres?

My point was Kimi was quick on old tyres. Do you agree ? If Kimi wasn't quick on old tyres, then surely Vettel wasn't because they were within 0.1 of each other by lap 23. So they are both either slow, or both either quick. They were in the same ball park by the end of the stint.

You are also completely missing my point, I am not saying Kimi did a better job than Vettel. You completely missed my point. My point is both Ferraris were easy on the tyres.

As I've already mentioned (more than once, I believe), there's no great skill being quick at the end of a stint if you've been very slow up to that point. In pretty much every example Kimi has gone the majority of the stint at a much lesser pace than his rivals, so it's not altogether too surprising that he may have some life left in his tyres at the end of the stint. But that's not proof of being gentle on the tyres. I've little doubt that if either Hamilton or Bottas had been as pedestrian as Kimi was they'd probably have much more life in their tyres, too.

I don't agree that Kimi was quick on old tyres, no. In most cases he's at best running at a similar speed to the others, but as has been pointed out the fact that he's not been stressing his equipment as much as the others makes it unsurprising that he has some pace left. Again, it's not proof that he's gentle on the tyres, especially since he's not actually any better than those who have been.

Again, the narrative that has sprung up is that the Ferrari has been much better on its tyres than the Mercedes. So far, you've not been able to provide any examples where Kimi has demonstrated this. So where has this reputation come from?


Re: Between teams. The data clearly shows, Mercedes is fundamentally a slightly quicker car and relatively quicker at the beginning of the stint. Ferrari are relatively stronger nearer the end. There is plenty of data to show that. However this wasn't what the discussion was about.

Re: Inter teams. Our discussion is with regards to Kimi adn Vettel and Vettel being usually better on the tyres
. Ok, I'll give you Australia in Vettels favour. So Kimi Silverstone, 1-1. Your turn to put Vettel 2-1 up... what you got?

Only the data doesn't show it. Your interpretation shows it, but we've already established that you don't understand the data you're using.

The thing you appear to be focusing on is that Kimi doesn't appear to tail off too much at the end of his stints. But you also appear to completely ignore the fact that he's invariably slow at the beginning of the stint and therefore isn't putting much stress on his tyres at all. And even with that, he still at best only matches other drivers at the end of his stint, when in reality he should be out-performing them, given the relative punishment the tyres undergo. Do you really not understand that the fire that burns twice as bright also burns half as long? I feel your seeming inability to grasp this concept is at the root of our disagreement


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 166
James Allen's view, quote:

"“ (Mercedes) Spa, Suzuka also with the long wheelbase, maybe Austin too.
Ferrari will be particularly strong at Singapore, Brazil, Abu Dhabi”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
Indeed, I agree if you are faster it is more likely you will wear them out faster. But you can also drive slower and use the tyres more with a poor driving style, its just as much about how you drive as to how fast.

So if Kimi is slower then we can not use his data to judge the car according to you. Which is interesting because how do you arrive at the conclusion that Vettel is good on the tyres if Kimi isn't an accurate barometer on the car? If you are discounting Kimi, what measuring stick are you using to judge Vettel and arrive at your conclusion its Vettel and not the car? You need a comparison to Vettel to arrive at that conclusion, the only available comparison is Kimi who you discount because of his speed. How does Kimi show you its not the car is the key question?

So if we are dismissing Kimi; At best we can say we do not know if its the car or Vettel because to you, you can not use Kimi's tyre usage to gauge Vettel.

I assume there isn't any data to show Vettel's superior tyre usage over Kimi either, I won't ask for a sixth time. Please remind me how you "shot down" Silverstone in "seconds". I may have missed that part. Vettel destroyed his tyres in 25 laps whilst Kimis were fine and he wasn't slow for once, so meets your criteria. Interestingly this is the one race where Kimi had the upper hand pace wise and the one race Vettel was terrible with his tyres.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Last edited by lamo on Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:24 am
Posts: 625
SR1 wrote:
James Allen's view, quote:

"“ (Mercedes) Spa, Suzuka also with the long wheelbase, maybe Austin too.
Ferrari will be particularly strong at Singapore, Brazil, Abu Dhabi”

On the whole, the Merc is a faster car (not by much though) but the shorter wheel based Ferrari comes into its own at the twisty tracks. So far this season Ferrari also appears to have a much wider operating window for the tyres whilst the Merc is a lot more sensitive to the temperature / conditions.
Assuming Singapore is the usual sweat-fest, I expect we'll see the Ferraris disappear into the distance. Brazil and AD both have twisty sections but also have quite long straights. I expect these tracks to be very close between the two teams and it could potentially be the air track temperatures which decides it. The rest should be Mercs but there are so many other variables (namely weather and in-season development), I really wouldnt put money on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 5183
Location: Mumbai, India
angrypirate wrote:
SR1 wrote:
James Allen's view, quote:

"“ (Mercedes) Spa, Suzuka also with the long wheelbase, maybe Austin too.
Ferrari will be particularly strong at Singapore, Brazil, Abu Dhabi”

On the whole, the Merc is a faster car (not by much though) but the shorter wheel based Ferrari comes into its own at the twisty tracks. So far this season Ferrari also appears to have a much wider operating window for the tyres whilst the Merc is a lot more sensitive to the temperature / conditions.
Assuming Singapore is the usual sweat-fest, I expect we'll see the Ferraris disappear into the distance. Brazil and AD both have twisty sections but also have quite long straights. I expect these tracks to be very close between the two teams and it could potentially be the air track temperatures which decides it. The rest should be Mercs but there are so many other variables (namely weather and in-season development), I really wouldnt put money on it.


Yeah. For the tracks that Mercedes would have a clear advantage, Vettel would hope to finish 2nd best to Hamilton. Bottas also finishing ahead of Vettel would put his title chances into thin water.

There are some variables that can't be taken into account till that variable comes into picture (gearbox issues, turbo issues, slow punctures, changeable weather, Red Bull resurgence etc.)

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
Indeed, I agree if you are faster it is more likely you will wear them out faster. But you can also drive slower and use the tyres more with a poor driving style, its just as much about how you drive as to how fast.

So if Kimi is slower then we can not use his data to judge the car according to you. Which is interesting because how do you arrive at the conclusion that Vettel is good on the tyres if Kimi isn't an accurate barometer on the car? If you are discounting Kimi, what measuring stick are you using to judge Vettel and arrive at your conclusion its Vettel and not the car? You need a comparison to Vettel to arrive at that conclusion, the only available comparison is Kimi who you discount because of his speed. How does Kimi show you its not the car is the key question?

So if we are dismissing Kimi; At best we can say we do not know if its the car or Vettel because to you, you can not use Kimi's tyre usage to gauge Vettel.

I assume there isn't any data to show Vettel's superior tyre usage over Kimi either, I won't ask for a sixth time. Please remind me how you "shot down" Silverstone in "seconds". I may have missed that part. Vettel destroyed his tyres in 25 laps whilst Kimis were fine and he wasn't slow for once, so meets your criteria. Interestingly this is the one race where Kimi had the upper hand pace wise and the one race Vettel was terrible with his tyres.

I'm not discounting Kimi as a measuring stick; I'm saying nothing he's done has shown any particularly impressive tyre management. If you had two Kimi's driving the Ferraris nobody would be making the claim that they were better on the tyres. That's. The. Whole. Point.

Re: Silverstone - Kimi was slower than Hamilton for the entire first stint and pitted before him. How does this show that he's making his tyres last longer? And you are right, this was the one race where Kimi looked better on his tyres than Vettel, so perhaps you'd care to explain why this one race should be the exception that proves the rule?

So, back to the original question: where does this reputation Ferrari has for being better on its tyres come from, if we can conclusively prove that Kimi hasn't done anything special with the tyres himself?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Indeed, I agree if you are faster it is more likely you will wear them out faster. But you can also drive slower and use the tyres more with a poor driving style, its just as much about how you drive as to how fast.

So if Kimi is slower then we can not use his data to judge the car according to you. Which is interesting because how do you arrive at the conclusion that Vettel is good on the tyres if Kimi isn't an accurate barometer on the car? If you are discounting Kimi, what measuring stick are you using to judge Vettel and arrive at your conclusion its Vettel and not the car? You need a comparison to Vettel to arrive at that conclusion, the only available comparison is Kimi who you discount because of his speed. How does Kimi show you its not the car is the key question?

So if we are dismissing Kimi; At best we can say we do not know if its the car or Vettel because to you, you can not use Kimi's tyre usage to gauge Vettel.

I assume there isn't any data to show Vettel's superior tyre usage over Kimi either, I won't ask for a sixth time. Please remind me how you "shot down" Silverstone in "seconds". I may have missed that part. Vettel destroyed his tyres in 25 laps whilst Kimis were fine and he wasn't slow for once, so meets your criteria. Interestingly this is the one race where Kimi had the upper hand pace wise and the one race Vettel was terrible with his tyres.


I'm not discounting Kimi as a measuring stick; I'm saying nothing he's done has shown any particularly impressive tyre management. If you had two Kimi's driving the Ferraris nobody would be making the claim that they were better on the tyres. That's. The. Whole. Point.

Re: Silverstone - Kimi was slower than Hamilton for the entire first stint and pitted before him. How does this show that he's making his tyres last longer? And you are right, this was the one race where Kimi looked better on his tyres than Vettel, so perhaps you'd care to explain why this one race should be the exception that proves the rule?

So, back to the original question: where does this reputation Ferrari has for being better on its tyres come from, if we can conclusively prove that Kimi hasn't done anything special with the tyres himself?


To the rule? Its a rule now is it? So far you stated Vettel was better in Australia. That is one race. The same as Silverstone is one race. You need a bit more to establish a norm or "rule".

The reputation comes entirely from the first race doesn't it? Between us we haven't been able to find any race Vettel showed such properties with the tyres. The thing is, we now have 11 races worth of data and neither of us can find any other incidences to back up the theory that Vettel is kind to his tyres rather than it be the car and also raises the question is either are actually kind to the tyres relative to Mercedes.

A big part of the notion Vettel-Ferrari or just Ferrrari was so good on the tyres was Hamiltons radio message being played that his tyres were finished and he needed to pit then Vettel going on 5-6 laps on after that and posting times faster than when he was stuck behind Hamilton all whilst stuck in dirty air especially for the first 3-4 laps.

In hindsight and with the benefit of seeing the cars in 10 more races, the Ferrari-Vettel package was just faster that day and he was being held up by Hamilton in the first stint and when he pitted he was released to post good times. The Ferrari was also probably a bit better on its tyres too but it was over played due to the way it unfolded and also to explain how Mercedes were quicker in qualifying but not the race. Pre 2017, Mercedes generally carried its qualifying advantage over to the race in full and if they didn't it was hard to judge because they built a gap and then just turned everything down and cruised. This was the first race we saw Mercedes be quick in qualifying but give up most of or more than its advantage come race day. Nobody knew this until we saw a few more races and it is clear now that Mercedes does generally have a 1 lap advantage.

It has also since been confirmed by Pirelli that Hamilton was incorrect - his tyres still had 30% life left and he was still PBing on the the last lap and in lap of his stint, Hamilton made an error with that and he and the pit wall panicked and pitted. A move that would have won them the race if Verstappen had also pitted within 2-3 laps of him.

So the biggest myth is probably the one put in motion in Australia that since hasn't really been shown in other races...

Spain is interesting and the only other Hamilton - Vettel head to head except for Baku when Mercedes were just plain quicker. It gives us a direct head to head of Hamilton Vettel and they ran the entire first stint around 2.5 seconds apart - same pace and both in clean air and Hamilton made them last about 2-3 laps longer than Vettel. Vettel setting his fastest lap on lap 9 and then slowly dropping off to 0.3 slower by lap 14 when he pitted. Hamilton set his fastest lap on lap 15 and then they dropped off, going that bit longer put him on an alternative strategy that allowed him to win the race (along with some luck).

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Indeed, I agree if you are faster it is more likely you will wear them out faster. But you can also drive slower and use the tyres more with a poor driving style, its just as much about how you drive as to how fast.

So if Kimi is slower then we can not use his data to judge the car according to you. Which is interesting because how do you arrive at the conclusion that Vettel is good on the tyres if Kimi isn't an accurate barometer on the car? If you are discounting Kimi, what measuring stick are you using to judge Vettel and arrive at your conclusion its Vettel and not the car? You need a comparison to Vettel to arrive at that conclusion, the only available comparison is Kimi who you discount because of his speed. How does Kimi show you its not the car is the key question?

So if we are dismissing Kimi; At best we can say we do not know if its the car or Vettel because to you, you can not use Kimi's tyre usage to gauge Vettel.

I assume there isn't any data to show Vettel's superior tyre usage over Kimi either, I won't ask for a sixth time. Please remind me how you "shot down" Silverstone in "seconds". I may have missed that part. Vettel destroyed his tyres in 25 laps whilst Kimis were fine and he wasn't slow for once, so meets your criteria. Interestingly this is the one race where Kimi had the upper hand pace wise and the one race Vettel was terrible with his tyres.


I'm not discounting Kimi as a measuring stick; I'm saying nothing he's done has shown any particularly impressive tyre management. If you had two Kimi's driving the Ferraris nobody would be making the claim that they were better on the tyres. That's. The. Whole. Point.

Re: Silverstone - Kimi was slower than Hamilton for the entire first stint and pitted before him. How does this show that he's making his tyres last longer? And you are right, this was the one race where Kimi looked better on his tyres than Vettel, so perhaps you'd care to explain why this one race should be the exception that proves the rule?

So, back to the original question: where does this reputation Ferrari has for being better on its tyres come from, if we can conclusively prove that Kimi hasn't done anything special with the tyres himself?


To the rule? Its a rule now is it? So far you stated Vettel was better in Australia. That is one race. The same as Silverstone is one race. You need a bit more to establish a norm or "rule".

The reputation comes entirely from the first race doesn't it? Between us we haven't been able to find any race Vettel showed such properties with the tyres. The thing is, we now have 11 races worth of data and neither of us can find any other incidences to back up the theory that Vettel is kind to his tyres rather than it be the car and also raises the question is either are actually kind to the tyres relative to Mercedes.

A big part of the notion Vettel-Ferrari or just Ferrrari was so good on the tyres was Hamiltons radio message being played that his tyres were finished and he needed to pit then Vettel going on 5-6 laps on after that and posting times faster than when he was stuck behind Hamilton all whilst stuck in dirty air especially for the first 3-4 laps.

In hindsight and with the benefit of seeing the cars in 10 more races, the Ferrari-Vettel package was just faster that day and he was being held up by Hamilton in the first stint and when he pitted he was released to post good times. The Ferrari was also probably a bit better on its tyres too but it was over played due to the way it unfolded and also to explain how Mercedes were quicker in qualifying but not the race. Pre 2017, Mercedes generally carried its qualifying advantage over to the race in full and if they didn't it was hard to judge because they built a gap and then just turned everything down and cruised. This was the first race we saw Mercedes be quick in qualifying but give up most of or more than its advantage come race day. Nobody knew this until we saw a few more races and it is clear now that Mercedes does generally have a 1 lap advantage.

It has also since been confirmed by Pirelli that Hamilton was incorrect - his tyres still had 30% life left and he was still PBing on the the last lap and in lap of his stint, Hamilton made an error with that and he and the pit wall panicked and pitted. A move that would have won them the race if Verstappen had also pitted within 2-3 laps of him.

So the biggest myth is probably the one put in motion in Australia that since hasn't really been shown in other races...

Spain is interesting and the only other Hamilton - Vettel head to head except for Baku when Mercedes were just plain quicker. It gives us a direct head to head of Hamilton Vettel and they ran the entire first stint around 2.5 seconds apart - same pace and both in clean air and Hamilton made them last about 2-3 laps longer than Vettel. Vettel setting his fastest lap on lap 9 and then slowly dropping off to 0.3 slower by lap 14 when he pitted. Hamilton set his fastest lap on lap 15 and then they dropped off, going that bit longer put him on an alternative strategy that allowed him to win the race (along with some luck).

You're being disingenuous yet again. I've never said I've looked for examples for Vettel, as my original question was about the car and highlighting how Kimi had never done anything to suggest extraordinary tyre management. There's no need to look for Vettel examples in that scenario.

Nevertheless, I'm glad we can agree that the narrative that the Ferrari is better on its tyres is a myth, so if the Mercedes is beaten in a race it's not because of a tyre disadvantage. Glad we've cleared that up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Indeed, I agree if you are faster it is more likely you will wear them out faster. But you can also drive slower and use the tyres more with a poor driving style, its just as much about how you drive as to how fast.

So if Kimi is slower then we can not use his data to judge the car according to you. Which is interesting because how do you arrive at the conclusion that Vettel is good on the tyres if Kimi isn't an accurate barometer on the car? If you are discounting Kimi, what measuring stick are you using to judge Vettel and arrive at your conclusion its Vettel and not the car? You need a comparison to Vettel to arrive at that conclusion, the only available comparison is Kimi who you discount because of his speed. How does Kimi show you its not the car is the key question?

So if we are dismissing Kimi; At best we can say we do not know if its the car or Vettel because to you, you can not use Kimi's tyre usage to gauge Vettel.

I assume there isn't any data to show Vettel's superior tyre usage over Kimi either, I won't ask for a sixth time. Please remind me how you "shot down" Silverstone in "seconds". I may have missed that part. Vettel destroyed his tyres in 25 laps whilst Kimis were fine and he wasn't slow for once, so meets your criteria. Interestingly this is the one race where Kimi had the upper hand pace wise and the one race Vettel was terrible with his tyres.


I'm not discounting Kimi as a measuring stick; I'm saying nothing he's done has shown any particularly impressive tyre management. If you had two Kimi's driving the Ferraris nobody would be making the claim that they were better on the tyres. That's. The. Whole. Point.

Re: Silverstone - Kimi was slower than Hamilton for the entire first stint and pitted before him. How does this show that he's making his tyres last longer? And you are right, this was the one race where Kimi looked better on his tyres than Vettel, so perhaps you'd care to explain why this one race should be the exception that proves the rule?

So, back to the original question: where does this reputation Ferrari has for being better on its tyres come from, if we can conclusively prove that Kimi hasn't done anything special with the tyres himself?


To the rule? Its a rule now is it? So far you stated Vettel was better in Australia. That is one race. The same as Silverstone is one race. You need a bit more to establish a norm or "rule".

The reputation comes entirely from the first race doesn't it? Between us we haven't been able to find any race Vettel showed such properties with the tyres. The thing is, we now have 11 races worth of data and neither of us can find any other incidences to back up the theory that Vettel is kind to his tyres rather than it be the car and also raises the question is either are actually kind to the tyres relative to Mercedes.

A big part of the notion Vettel-Ferrari or just Ferrrari was so good on the tyres was Hamiltons radio message being played that his tyres were finished and he needed to pit then Vettel going on 5-6 laps on after that and posting times faster than when he was stuck behind Hamilton all whilst stuck in dirty air especially for the first 3-4 laps.

In hindsight and with the benefit of seeing the cars in 10 more races, the Ferrari-Vettel package was just faster that day and he was being held up by Hamilton in the first stint and when he pitted he was released to post good times. The Ferrari was also probably a bit better on its tyres too but it was over played due to the way it unfolded and also to explain how Mercedes were quicker in qualifying but not the race. Pre 2017, Mercedes generally carried its qualifying advantage over to the race in full and if they didn't it was hard to judge because they built a gap and then just turned everything down and cruised. This was the first race we saw Mercedes be quick in qualifying but give up most of or more than its advantage come race day. Nobody knew this until we saw a few more races and it is clear now that Mercedes does generally have a 1 lap advantage.

It has also since been confirmed by Pirelli that Hamilton was incorrect - his tyres still had 30% life left and he was still PBing on the the last lap and in lap of his stint, Hamilton made an error with that and he and the pit wall panicked and pitted. A move that would have won them the race if Verstappen had also pitted within 2-3 laps of him.

So the biggest myth is probably the one put in motion in Australia that since hasn't really been shown in other races...

Spain is interesting and the only other Hamilton - Vettel head to head except for Baku when Mercedes were just plain quicker. It gives us a direct head to head of Hamilton Vettel and they ran the entire first stint around 2.5 seconds apart - same pace and both in clean air and Hamilton made them last about 2-3 laps longer than Vettel. Vettel setting his fastest lap on lap 9 and then slowly dropping off to 0.3 slower by lap 14 when he pitted. Hamilton set his fastest lap on lap 15 and then they dropped off, going that bit longer put him on an alternative strategy that allowed him to win the race (along with some luck).

You're being disingenuous yet again. I've never said I've looked for examples for Vettel, as my original question was about the car and highlighting how Kimi had never done anything to suggest extraordinary tyre management. There's no need to look for Vettel examples in that scenario.

Nevertheless, I'm glad we can agree that the narrative that the Ferrari is better on its tyres is a myth, so if the Mercedes is beaten in a race it's not because of a tyre disadvantage. Glad we've cleared that up



As you well know it's entirely possible for the Ferrari to go to a race and be kinder on it's tyres without it being a general trend. Ferrari could be way kinder on it's tyres in Spa but not manage to get that perfect balance again anywhere else..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Indeed, I agree if you are faster it is more likely you will wear them out faster. But you can also drive slower and use the tyres more with a poor driving style, its just as much about how you drive as to how fast.

So if Kimi is slower then we can not use his data to judge the car according to you. Which is interesting because how do you arrive at the conclusion that Vettel is good on the tyres if Kimi isn't an accurate barometer on the car? If you are discounting Kimi, what measuring stick are you using to judge Vettel and arrive at your conclusion its Vettel and not the car? You need a comparison to Vettel to arrive at that conclusion, the only available comparison is Kimi who you discount because of his speed. How does Kimi show you its not the car is the key question?

So if we are dismissing Kimi; At best we can say we do not know if its the car or Vettel because to you, you can not use Kimi's tyre usage to gauge Vettel.

I assume there isn't any data to show Vettel's superior tyre usage over Kimi either, I won't ask for a sixth time. Please remind me how you "shot down" Silverstone in "seconds". I may have missed that part. Vettel destroyed his tyres in 25 laps whilst Kimis were fine and he wasn't slow for once, so meets your criteria. Interestingly this is the one race where Kimi had the upper hand pace wise and the one race Vettel was terrible with his tyres.


I'm not discounting Kimi as a measuring stick; I'm saying nothing he's done has shown any particularly impressive tyre management. If you had two Kimi's driving the Ferraris nobody would be making the claim that they were better on the tyres. That's. The. Whole. Point.

Re: Silverstone - Kimi was slower than Hamilton for the entire first stint and pitted before him. How does this show that he's making his tyres last longer? And you are right, this was the one race where Kimi looked better on his tyres than Vettel, so perhaps you'd care to explain why this one race should be the exception that proves the rule?

So, back to the original question: where does this reputation Ferrari has for being better on its tyres come from, if we can conclusively prove that Kimi hasn't done anything special with the tyres himself?


To the rule? Its a rule now is it? So far you stated Vettel was better in Australia. That is one race. The same as Silverstone is one race. You need a bit more to establish a norm or "rule".

The reputation comes entirely from the first race doesn't it? Between us we haven't been able to find any race Vettel showed such properties with the tyres. The thing is, we now have 11 races worth of data and neither of us can find any other incidences to back up the theory that Vettel is kind to his tyres rather than it be the car and also raises the question is either are actually kind to the tyres relative to Mercedes.

A big part of the notion Vettel-Ferrari or just Ferrrari was so good on the tyres was Hamiltons radio message being played that his tyres were finished and he needed to pit then Vettel going on 5-6 laps on after that and posting times faster than when he was stuck behind Hamilton all whilst stuck in dirty air especially for the first 3-4 laps.

In hindsight and with the benefit of seeing the cars in 10 more races, the Ferrari-Vettel package was just faster that day and he was being held up by Hamilton in the first stint and when he pitted he was released to post good times. The Ferrari was also probably a bit better on its tyres too but it was over played due to the way it unfolded and also to explain how Mercedes were quicker in qualifying but not the race. Pre 2017, Mercedes generally carried its qualifying advantage over to the race in full and if they didn't it was hard to judge because they built a gap and then just turned everything down and cruised. This was the first race we saw Mercedes be quick in qualifying but give up most of or more than its advantage come race day. Nobody knew this until we saw a few more races and it is clear now that Mercedes does generally have a 1 lap advantage.

It has also since been confirmed by Pirelli that Hamilton was incorrect - his tyres still had 30% life left and he was still PBing on the the last lap and in lap of his stint, Hamilton made an error with that and he and the pit wall panicked and pitted. A move that would have won them the race if Verstappen had also pitted within 2-3 laps of him.

So the biggest myth is probably the one put in motion in Australia that since hasn't really been shown in other races...

Spain is interesting and the only other Hamilton - Vettel head to head except for Baku when Mercedes were just plain quicker. It gives us a direct head to head of Hamilton Vettel and they ran the entire first stint around 2.5 seconds apart - same pace and both in clean air and Hamilton made them last about 2-3 laps longer than Vettel. Vettel setting his fastest lap on lap 9 and then slowly dropping off to 0.3 slower by lap 14 when he pitted. Hamilton set his fastest lap on lap 15 and then they dropped off, going that bit longer put him on an alternative strategy that allowed him to win the race (along with some luck).

You're being disingenuous yet again. I've never said I've looked for examples for Vettel, as my original question was about the car and highlighting how Kimi had never done anything to suggest extraordinary tyre management. There's no need to look for Vettel examples in that scenario.

Nevertheless, I'm glad we can agree that the narrative that the Ferrari is better on its tyres is a myth, so if the Mercedes is beaten in a race it's not because of a tyre disadvantage. Glad we've cleared that up


So you didn't look for evidence to prove your statement? How did you arrive at your conclusion?

I did look by the way and I can tell you there is no evidence of Vettel being better on the tyres than Kimi and essentially no real evidence the Ferrari is better than the Mercedes. Take it from somebody who has looked at all the numbers as you haven't.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
mikeyg123 wrote:
As you well know it's entirely possible for the Ferrari to go to a race and be kinder on it's tyres without it being a general trend. Ferrari could be way kinder on it's tyres in Spa but not manage to get that perfect balance again anywhere else..


This is the poster who rather than admit he can't find any evidence to back up his statement (other than 1 race) just ignores the request for more 6 times and takes the discussion in circles. What do you expect?

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Indeed, I agree if you are faster it is more likely you will wear them out faster. But you can also drive slower and use the tyres more with a poor driving style, its just as much about how you drive as to how fast.

So if Kimi is slower then we can not use his data to judge the car according to you. Which is interesting because how do you arrive at the conclusion that Vettel is good on the tyres if Kimi isn't an accurate barometer on the car? If you are discounting Kimi, what measuring stick are you using to judge Vettel and arrive at your conclusion its Vettel and not the car? You need a comparison to Vettel to arrive at that conclusion, the only available comparison is Kimi who you discount because of his speed. How does Kimi show you its not the car is the key question?

So if we are dismissing Kimi; At best we can say we do not know if its the car or Vettel because to you, you can not use Kimi's tyre usage to gauge Vettel.

I assume there isn't any data to show Vettel's superior tyre usage over Kimi either, I won't ask for a sixth time. Please remind me how you "shot down" Silverstone in "seconds". I may have missed that part. Vettel destroyed his tyres in 25 laps whilst Kimis were fine and he wasn't slow for once, so meets your criteria. Interestingly this is the one race where Kimi had the upper hand pace wise and the one race Vettel was terrible with his tyres.


I'm not discounting Kimi as a measuring stick; I'm saying nothing he's done has shown any particularly impressive tyre management. If you had two Kimi's driving the Ferraris nobody would be making the claim that they were better on the tyres. That's. The. Whole. Point.

Re: Silverstone - Kimi was slower than Hamilton for the entire first stint and pitted before him. How does this show that he's making his tyres last longer? And you are right, this was the one race where Kimi looked better on his tyres than Vettel, so perhaps you'd care to explain why this one race should be the exception that proves the rule?

So, back to the original question: where does this reputation Ferrari has for being better on its tyres come from, if we can conclusively prove that Kimi hasn't done anything special with the tyres himself?


To the rule? Its a rule now is it? So far you stated Vettel was better in Australia. That is one race. The same as Silverstone is one race. You need a bit more to establish a norm or "rule".

The reputation comes entirely from the first race doesn't it? Between us we haven't been able to find any race Vettel showed such properties with the tyres. The thing is, we now have 11 races worth of data and neither of us can find any other incidences to back up the theory that Vettel is kind to his tyres rather than it be the car and also raises the question is either are actually kind to the tyres relative to Mercedes.

A big part of the notion Vettel-Ferrari or just Ferrrari was so good on the tyres was Hamiltons radio message being played that his tyres were finished and he needed to pit then Vettel going on 5-6 laps on after that and posting times faster than when he was stuck behind Hamilton all whilst stuck in dirty air especially for the first 3-4 laps.

In hindsight and with the benefit of seeing the cars in 10 more races, the Ferrari-Vettel package was just faster that day and he was being held up by Hamilton in the first stint and when he pitted he was released to post good times. The Ferrari was also probably a bit better on its tyres too but it was over played due to the way it unfolded and also to explain how Mercedes were quicker in qualifying but not the race. Pre 2017, Mercedes generally carried its qualifying advantage over to the race in full and if they didn't it was hard to judge because they built a gap and then just turned everything down and cruised. This was the first race we saw Mercedes be quick in qualifying but give up most of or more than its advantage come race day. Nobody knew this until we saw a few more races and it is clear now that Mercedes does generally have a 1 lap advantage.

It has also since been confirmed by Pirelli that Hamilton was incorrect - his tyres still had 30% life left and he was still PBing on the the last lap and in lap of his stint, Hamilton made an error with that and he and the pit wall panicked and pitted. A move that would have won them the race if Verstappen had also pitted within 2-3 laps of him.

So the biggest myth is probably the one put in motion in Australia that since hasn't really been shown in other races...

Spain is interesting and the only other Hamilton - Vettel head to head except for Baku when Mercedes were just plain quicker. It gives us a direct head to head of Hamilton Vettel and they ran the entire first stint around 2.5 seconds apart - same pace and both in clean air and Hamilton made them last about 2-3 laps longer than Vettel. Vettel setting his fastest lap on lap 9 and then slowly dropping off to 0.3 slower by lap 14 when he pitted. Hamilton set his fastest lap on lap 15 and then they dropped off, going that bit longer put him on an alternative strategy that allowed him to win the race (along with some luck).

You're being disingenuous yet again. I've never said I've looked for examples for Vettel, as my original question was about the car and highlighting how Kimi had never done anything to suggest extraordinary tyre management. There's no need to look for Vettel examples in that scenario.

Nevertheless, I'm glad we can agree that the narrative that the Ferrari is better on its tyres is a myth, so if the Mercedes is beaten in a race it's not because of a tyre disadvantage. Glad we've cleared that up



As you well know it's entirely possible for the Ferrari to go to a race and be kinder on it's tyres without it being a general trend. Ferrari could be way kinder on it's tyres in Spa but not manage to get that perfect balance again anywhere else..

Same is true for Mercedes, of course. I'm not suggesting that it's impossible, but I've been challenging the seemingly widely held view that the Ferrari is better on its tyres than the Mercedes this year. I've seen this on this forum and in various publications and from what I can see it's come about when Vettel managed to stick to Lewis' tail in Australia. It's something that appears to be accepted as fact, but I can't really see it in the numbers. And it's often been given as a (main) reason whenever Ferrari - which usually means Vettel - does well. I've just been asking for evidence to back this up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
As you well know it's entirely possible for the Ferrari to go to a race and be kinder on it's tyres without it being a general trend. Ferrari could be way kinder on it's tyres in Spa but not manage to get that perfect balance again anywhere else..


This is the poster who rather than admit he can't find any evidence to back up his statement (other than 1 race) just ignores the request for more 6 times and takes the discussion in circles. What do you expect?

Disingenuous again. Seems you prefer misinformation to the truth. I shouldn't be surprised as this is a general trend whenever you present your stats.

I've consistently stated my position has been that Kimi hasn't done anything impressive as regards tyre management, therefore the narrative that the Ferrari must be good with his tyres is suspect. I haven't fallen for your attempts to derail the conversation to focus on Vettel, since it's irrelevant to the point I've been making. Whether we found something for him or not would make no difference to the question of whether the Ferrari was any good. But you keep making false allegations. As is your wont


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1904
When one compares Vettel and Ricciardo in 2014 it was pretty obvious that tyre wear was a bigger problem for Vettel than it was for Ricciardo and the latter has proved finicky with tyres and setup in subsequent seasons so neither strikes me as a general tyre whisperer. This kind of implies the Ferrari this year is mainly responsible for any tyre saving attributes and that Vettel has just proved more able to coax it out of the car although Kimi has improved in that respect in later races.

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4415
Location: Michigan, USA
mas wrote:
When one compares Vettel and Ricciardo in 2014 it was pretty obvious that tyre wear was a bigger problem for Vettel than it was for Ricciardo and the latter has proved finicky with tyres and setup in subsequent seasons so neither strikes me as a general tyre whisperer. This kind of implies the Ferrari this year is mainly responsible for any tyre saving attributes and that Vettel has just proved more able to coax it out of the car although Kimi has improved in that respect in later races.

Or it implies that tyre saving usually simply scales with driving ability, and Vettel was driving badly that year.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
As you well know it's entirely possible for the Ferrari to go to a race and be kinder on it's tyres without it being a general trend. Ferrari could be way kinder on it's tyres in Spa but not manage to get that perfect balance again anywhere else..


This is the poster who rather than admit he can't find any evidence to back up his statement (other than 1 race) just ignores the request for more 6 times and takes the discussion in circles. What do you expect?


Disingenuous again. Seems you prefer misinformation to the truth. I shouldn't be surprised as this is a general trend whenever you present your stats.

I've consistently stated my position has been that Kimi hasn't done anything impressive as regards tyre management, therefore the narrative that the Ferrari must be good with his tyres is suspect. I haven't fallen for your attempts to derail the conversation to focus on Vettel, since it's irrelevant to the point I've been making. Whether we found something for him or not would make no difference to the question of whether the Ferrari was any good. But you keep making false allegations. As is your wont


No sorry. Discussion is in regards to this quote from you which is about Vettel. That's not derailing.


This myth again. Vettel usually has better tyre life and can run in the dirty air. Looking at the other Ferrari wouldn't have you reaching that conclusion

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
Zoue wrote:
Same is true for Mercedes, of course. I'm not suggesting that it's impossible, but I've been challenging the seemingly widely held view that the Ferrari is better on its tyres than the Mercedes this year. I've seen this on this forum and in various publications and from what I can see it's come about when Vettel managed to stick to Lewis' tail in Australia. It's something that appears to be accepted as fact, but I can't really see it in the numbers. And it's often been given as a (main) reason whenever Ferrari - which usually means Vettel - does well. I've just been asking for evidence to back this up


We agree, neither the Ferrari-Vettel or Ferrari Raikkonen packages have shown anything special with the tyres. This is the conclusion I have drawn looking through all the data.

The Ferrari-Raikkonen package has on numerous occasions but it can be argued that the reason he is able to match faster drivers/cars at the end of stints (or at least be much much closer in speed than at the start) is because he doesn't wear them out so much earlier in the stint because he is slower. Which is a fair point, but Kimi can't go quicker at the start because he doesn't have the talent so its a catch 22.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Last edited by lamo on Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
mas wrote:
When one compares Vettel and Ricciardo in 2014 it was pretty obvious that tyre wear was a bigger problem for Vettel than it was for Ricciardo and the latter has proved finicky with tyres and setup in subsequent seasons so neither strikes me as a general tyre whisperer. This kind of implies the Ferrari this year is mainly responsible for any tyre saving attributes and that Vettel has just proved more able to coax it out of the car although Kimi has improved in that respect in later races.


Vettel was generally better on wear than Webber on the super cheese Pirelli's but then considerably worse than Ricciardo whilst also being slower than him back in 2014. Both of those examples you had a guy faster and causing less wear - that's when you know they are doing something special hence why I don't think Vettel has done anything special this year, he is just a quicker driver than Kimi. So if he is 0.6 quicker on fresh tyres and only 0.1 quicker at the end of the stint its not impressive for me. When Vettel was amazing on those Pirelli's, he would be 0.5 quicker than Webber at the start and then and the end he would be 1 second per lap quicker and Webber would be needed new tyres laps before Vettel. Going faster and still using less tyre. Ricciardo did the same to Vettel generally in 2014, but not with those large kind of gaps.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 1300
This is a difficult one. I get the feeling that the Mercedes is now the slightly faster car but is more sensitive to different tracks, mostly because of the wheelbase?
The Ferrari started the season as the faster car but might have lost that position, but it still seems like the better overall package.

Mercedes:
Overall slightly faster after 5-6 races.
At suited tracks alot faster.

Ferrari:
Not as heavy at the start of the season.
Easier to set up.
Better with the tyres.
Not as sensitive to different tracks.
At suited tracks faster.
Better reliability.

_________________
Winner of the [Charging Hamilton Trophy] !
Winner of the [Dominant Hamilton Trophy] !

Lewis Hamilton 4 x WDC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
mas wrote:
When one compares Vettel and Ricciardo in 2014 it was pretty obvious that tyre wear was a bigger problem for Vettel than it was for Ricciardo and the latter has proved finicky with tyres and setup in subsequent seasons so neither strikes me as a general tyre whisperer. This kind of implies the Ferrari this year is mainly responsible for any tyre saving attributes and that Vettel has just proved more able to coax it out of the car although Kimi has improved in that respect in later races.

and yet before in his title years he was widely regarded as being very good with his tyres. It seems that once again 2014 is being taken as the barometer and all the other years where he has built his reputation count for nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Same is true for Mercedes, of course. I'm not suggesting that it's impossible, but I've been challenging the seemingly widely held view that the Ferrari is better on its tyres than the Mercedes this year. I've seen this on this forum and in various publications and from what I can see it's come about when Vettel managed to stick to Lewis' tail in Australia. It's something that appears to be accepted as fact, but I can't really see it in the numbers. And it's often been given as a (main) reason whenever Ferrari - which usually means Vettel - does well. I've just been asking for evidence to back this up


We agree, neither the Ferrari-Vettel or Ferrari Raikkonen packages have shown anything special with the tyres. This is the conclusion I have drawn looking through all the data.

The Ferrari-Raikkonen package has on numerous occasions but it can be argued that the reason he is able to match faster drivers/cars at the end of stints (or at least be much much closer in speed than at the start) is because he doesn't wear them out so much earlier in the stint because he is slower. Which is a fair point, but Kimi can't go quicker at the start because he doesn't have the talent so its a catch 22.

I didn't see how it's a catch-22. We've conclusively demonstrated that Kimi hasn't done anything special with the tyres this year, despite your strange insistence to the contrary. Not once has he shown any hint of being a tyre whisperer. It seems that you are basing this on him having lower peaks and higher troughs, but ultimately there's nothing to suggest anything in reserve.

Repeating it ad infinitum doesn't make it true


Last edited by Zoue on Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
As you well know it's entirely possible for the Ferrari to go to a race and be kinder on it's tyres without it being a general trend. Ferrari could be way kinder on it's tyres in Spa but not manage to get that perfect balance again anywhere else..


This is the poster who rather than admit he can't find any evidence to back up his statement (other than 1 race) just ignores the request for more 6 times and takes the discussion in circles. What do you expect?


Disingenuous again. Seems you prefer misinformation to the truth. I shouldn't be surprised as this is a general trend whenever you present your stats.

I've consistently stated my position has been that Kimi hasn't done anything impressive as regards tyre management, therefore the narrative that the Ferrari must be good with his tyres is suspect. I haven't fallen for your attempts to derail the conversation to focus on Vettel, since it's irrelevant to the point I've been making. Whether we found something for him or not would make no difference to the question of whether the Ferrari was any good. But you keep making false allegations. As is your wont


No sorry. Discussion is in regards to this quote from you which is about Vettel. That's not derailing.


This myth again. Vettel usually has better tyre life and can run in the dirty air. Looking at the other Ferrari wouldn't have you reaching that conclusion

it is derailing, because the subsequent discussion was all about Kimi. When all your attempts at selecting stats to show how good Kimi was failed, you tried to turn the focus onto
Vettel. Which was never the point. It was about how the 2017 Ferrari's reputation was built up and the fact that nothing Kimi did contributed to that.

But in any event, Vettel did quite well on the tyres in Russia, too. He was able to go a lot longer than either Merc driver without losing any pace. Kimi, not so much. So that's at least three races, including Monaco. Against none for Kimi. Not the car, then

edit: and to pre-empt the inevitable, here are examples of articles talking about Ferrari's tyre edge and referencing Vettel's performances:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/does-mystery-new-dial-offer-clue-to-ferraris-f1-tyre-edge-901013/

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10845020/f1-2017-what-are-strengths-and-weaknesses-in-ferrari-v-mercedes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 1300
Warheart01 wrote:
This is a difficult one. I get the feeling that the Mercedes is now the slightly faster car but is more sensitive to different tracks, mostly because of the wheelbase?
The Ferrari started the season as the faster car but might have lost that position, but it still seems like the better overall package.

Mercedes:
Overall slightly faster after 5-6 races.
At suited tracks alot faster.

Ferrari:
Not as heavy at the start of the season.
Easier to set up.
Better with the tyres.
Not as sensitive to different tracks.
At suited tracks faster.
Better reliability.


I put this in the wrong thread...

_________________
Winner of the [Charging Hamilton Trophy] !
Winner of the [Dominant Hamilton Trophy] !

Lewis Hamilton 4 x WDC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
As you well know it's entirely possible for the Ferrari to go to a race and be kinder on it's tyres without it being a general trend. Ferrari could be way kinder on it's tyres in Spa but not manage to get that perfect balance again anywhere else..


This is the poster who rather than admit he can't find any evidence to back up his statement (other than 1 race) just ignores the request for more 6 times and takes the discussion in circles. What do you expect?


Disingenuous again. Seems you prefer misinformation to the truth. I shouldn't be surprised as this is a general trend whenever you present your stats.

I've consistently stated my position has been that Kimi hasn't done anything impressive as regards tyre management, therefore the narrative that the Ferrari must be good with his tyres is suspect. I haven't fallen for your attempts to derail the conversation to focus on Vettel, since it's irrelevant to the point I've been making. Whether we found something for him or not would make no difference to the question of whether the Ferrari was any good. But you keep making false allegations. As is your wont


No sorry. Discussion is in regards to this quote from you which is about Vettel. That's not derailing.


This myth again. Vettel usually has better tyre life and can run in the dirty air. Looking at the other Ferrari wouldn't have you reaching that conclusion

it is derailing, because the subsequent discussion was all about Kimi. When all your attempts at selecting stats to show how good Kimi was failed, you tried to turn the focus onto
Vettel. Which was never the point. It was about how the 2017 Ferrari's reputation was built up and the fact that nothing Kimi did contributed to that.

But in any event, Vettel did quite well on the tyres in Russia, too. He was able to go a lot longer than either Merc driver without losing any pace. Kimi, not so much. So that's at least three races, including Monaco. Against none for Kimi. Not the car, then

edit: and to pre-empt the inevitable, here are examples of articles talking about Ferrari's tyre edge and referencing Vettel's performances:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/does-mystery-new-dial-offer-clue-to-ferraris-f1-tyre-edge-901013/

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10845020/f1-2017-what-are-strengths-and-weaknesses-in-ferrari-v-mercedes


The subsequent discussion was about Kimi because you, after about 6 attempts from me to bring evidence of Vettel being generally better did not bring any evidence forward. I looked for some evidence for either, but there simply isn't any in the case of Vettel. The first example you brought was Canada, when Kimi was stuck directly behind a Force India for 41 laps. Good to see that's not on your current list anymore.

Monaco - Vettel was held up and in traffic so we have no idea how quick he would have been on new tyres vs old ones. What was his clean air new tyre pace in the first stint? Who knows, he was stuck behind Kimi. You can't you judge how strong he was on old tyres when you have no idea what his pace was on new tyres. This race provides zero evidence. This is the same as Australia, you saw he was very strong on old tyres but have no idea what his pace was on newer tyres as he spent both races directly behind another car. Again, no evidence.

Russia - Thank you. At least this example has him in clean air and reliable data. BOTH Ferrari's were able to go longer and not lose any time, in fact Kimi got relatively quicker. This was indeed a race that Ferrari appear to be better on the tyres than Mercedes though. Going long was slightly sub optiumum strategy by Vettel, but his only chance to overtake Bottas later on by gaining an tyre offset advantage in the final stint. Bottas also possibly only pitted because he lost a lot of time in traffic (multiple seconds) and wanted to avoid being undercut. Raikkonen's time were also fine and he was matching Vettel when he pitted - Raikkonen only pitted because he caught the bunch of cars that Bottas and Vettel lost a lot of time lapping so we have no idea how worn or how much longer he could have gone on.

Furthermore, how do you know its Vettel and not the car in these races? Like you have repeated many times, you can't use Kimi as evidence because he is slower. So what are you judging Vettel against?

Those articles are 4 months old. Written at race 3 and 4 time. We are at race 11 now. They also say Ferrari has a tyre advantage, they didn't say Vettel has a tyre advantage.

You also said above that you are I agree Ferrari do not have a tyre advantage but now you're posting articles that they did or do? Which is it? or have you changed your mind?

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:

This is the poster who rather than admit he can't find any evidence to back up his statement (other than 1 race) just ignores the request for more 6 times and takes the discussion in circles. What do you expect?


Disingenuous again. Seems you prefer misinformation to the truth. I shouldn't be surprised as this is a general trend whenever you present your stats.

I've consistently stated my position has been that Kimi hasn't done anything impressive as regards tyre management, therefore the narrative that the Ferrari must be good with his tyres is suspect. I haven't fallen for your attempts to derail the conversation to focus on Vettel, since it's irrelevant to the point I've been making. Whether we found something for him or not would make no difference to the question of whether the Ferrari was any good. But you keep making false allegations. As is your wont


No sorry. Discussion is in regards to this quote from you which is about Vettel. That's not derailing.


This myth again. Vettel usually has better tyre life and can run in the dirty air. Looking at the other Ferrari wouldn't have you reaching that conclusion

it is derailing, because the subsequent discussion was all about Kimi. When all your attempts at selecting stats to show how good Kimi was failed, you tried to turn the focus onto
Vettel. Which was never the point. It was about how the 2017 Ferrari's reputation was built up and the fact that nothing Kimi did contributed to that.

But in any event, Vettel did quite well on the tyres in Russia, too. He was able to go a lot longer than either Merc driver without losing any pace. Kimi, not so much. So that's at least three races, including Monaco. Against none for Kimi. Not the car, then

edit: and to pre-empt the inevitable, here are examples of articles talking about Ferrari's tyre edge and referencing Vettel's performances:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/does-mystery-new-dial-offer-clue-to-ferraris-f1-tyre-edge-901013/

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10845020/f1-2017-what-are-strengths-and-weaknesses-in-ferrari-v-mercedes


The subsequent discussion was about Kimi because you, after about 6 attempts from me to bring evidence of Vettel being generally better did not bring any evidence forward. I looked for some evidence for either, but there simply isn't any in the case of Vettel. The first example you brought was Canada, when Kimi was stuck directly behind a Force India for 41 laps. Good to see that's not on your current list anymore.

Monaco - Vettel was held up and in traffic so we have no idea how quick he would have been on new tyres vs old ones. What was his clean air new tyre pace in the first stint? Who knows, he was stuck behind Kimi. You can't you judge how strong he was on old tyres when you have no idea what his pace was on new tyres. This race provides zero evidence. This is the same as Australia, you saw he was very strong on old tyres but have no idea what his pace was on newer tyres as he spent both races directly behind another car. Again, no evidence.

Russia - Thank you. At least this example has him in clean air and reliable data. BOTH Ferrari's were able to go longer and not lose any time, in fact Kimi got relatively quicker. This was indeed a race that Ferrari appear to be better on the tyres than Mercedes though. Going long was slightly sub optiumum strategy by Vettel, but his only chance to overtake Bottas later on by gaining an tyre offset advantage in the final stint. Bottas also possibly only pitted because he lost a lot of time in traffic (multiple seconds) and wanted to avoid being undercut. Raikkonen's time were also fine and he was matching Vettel when he pitted - Raikkonen only pitted because he caught the bunch of cars that Bottas and Vettel lost a lot of time lapping so we have no idea how worn or how much longer he could have gone on.

Furthermore, how do you know its Vettel and not the car in these races? Like you have repeated many times, you can't use Kimi as evidence because he is slower. So what are you judging Vettel against?

Those articles are 4 months old. Written at race 3 and 4 time. We are at race 11 now. They also say Ferrari has a tyre advantage, they didn't say Vettel has a tyre advantage.

You also said above that you are I agree Ferrari do not have a tyre advantage but now you're posting articles that they did or do? Which is it? or have you changed your mind?

No, you have it backwards, as usual. You started asking about Vettel after getting nowhere with Kimi.

You've got Russia wrong again. Kimi was faster than Bottas at the end of the first stint, but that's also because Bottas was considerably faster than him at the beginning of the stint. So you can't say that Kimi was doing anything special with his tyres as it's tortoise vs hare again. He was going faster than Hamilton, but there again he pitted before him, so again I don't see how you might conclude that he was working his tyres longer. Vettel, OTOH, went significantly longer than anyone on his first set, including Kimi. And apart from a couple of errant laps, just before getting clear air, was pumping in quick mid-1:38s all the way. You can say with reasonable confidence that he was doing a great job with the tyres. Kimi was losing ground to him and generally going slower. And he lasted 5 laps less. Driver, then. Not car

I haven't changed my mind on anything. You appear to have, since before you were accusing me of never changing my mind, as if that were somehow a bad thing, yet now you're asking whether I have. You seem somewhat confused.

The evidence shows that Vettel is generally very quick and manages to make sure his tyres don't suffer with it. The evidence shows that Kimi is slow and yet rarely, if ever, manages to go as long as Vettel. The Mercedes drivers tend to be quicker than Kimi, on a par speed-wise with Vettel, but not as adept at eking out tyre life as Vettel is. Altogether the evidence points to Vettel getting the best out of the tyres. If the secret lies with the car, then Kimi hasn't managed to unlock it. Which tends to suggest the driver has a big part to play. I can't really see any conclusion other than that it's Vettel who is great with the tyres this year, not that it's a Ferrari trait. So the reports stating that the Ferrari is kind to its tyres appear to have been generated from watching Vettel in action. Assumptions are being made, it seems


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
I notice you only mentionned Russia in your reply. So you agree there is no way of knowing how good Vettel was on the tyres in Monaco and Australia due to Vettel being in traffic and not knowing how quick he would have been in clear air on new tyres?

That leaves us Russia. Vettel was good on the tyres but its hard to tell how Bottas and Kimi were because both pitted to avoid traffic. Like I said, Kimi was pitted in Russia to avoid having to go through a mass of lapped traffic. In fact he had just caught the back of it, then he pitted hence him losing 1 second the lap before he pitted. The same traffic that slowed Bottas down, the difference being by the time Kimi caught it - he was into a pit stop window.

Vettel also suffered with the traffic, but he had no options to beat Bottas other than going longer (since Bottas pitted quite early to avoid being undercut himself) and having a tyre advantage at the end, hence he weathered the traffic. But Vettels laps 26,27,28 and 29 he is making his way through the traffic that Bottas lost all the time in a few laps before. Vettel was doing 38.3's and 38.4's on laps 22-24 and the same on laps 30-34. But as he went through the traffic he did-

lap 26-39.3 (+1 second)
lap 27- 39.3 (+1 second)
lap 28- 39.2 (+0.9 seconds)
lap 29- 38.8 (+0.5 seconds)

He lost at least 3.5 seconds to traffic over those lap, this is the only reason he caught Bottas because Bottas lost the same a few laps before. So in Russia its hard to even say Vettel was better on the tyres than Bottas or Kimi. To put into perspective, how much time Vettel lost, he was 10 seconds ahead of Kimi before Kimi pitted, he came out 2.9 seconds ahead of Kimi. Lost 7.1 seconds to "slow Kimi" by just going 5 laps longer, that's how bad the traffic was and that is why Kimi was pitted earlier. Vettel once he cleared the traffic was only 0.5 slower than Kimi per lap on his new tyres, tyre degredation was very low. Vettel was only 0.7 per lap quicker than his in laps when on new tyres.

The lap before Bottas pitted he was 1.6 seconds slower than he was doing just a few laps before due to traffic and vettel was getting in range to attempt to undercut him. When Bottas pulled into the pits Vettel was 1.2 seconds behind him. That is why Mercedes pitted him when they did, not because his tyres were worn out. Mercedes pitted that lap because if Ferrari had pitted that lap, Vettel could have undercut him as there was more traffic ahead if Bottas stayed out. Mercedes had no choice but to pit that lap. Whichever car pitted on that lap would likely win the race, because the car that carried on had traffic ahead and the car that pitted had fresh tyres and clean air to slot into.

This is the danger of looking at just the times, it only tells half the story.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Last edited by lamo on Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:32 am, edited 6 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
"The evidence shows that Kimi is slow and yet rarely, if ever, manages to go as long as Vettel"

That is not true, there isn't any data to make such a claim. Kimi pitted earlier in Russia to avoid traffic.. Vettel pitted earlier in Silverstone to undercut Verstappen... every race has its own story that makes it impossible to see if that statement was true or not.

Australia - Kimi went 3 laps longer.
China - no comparison, pit stops on lap 2-3 under SC
Bahrain - no comparison, early pit stops for everybody under VSC/SC
Spain - no comparison, Kimi out lap 1
Russia - no comparison, Vettel goes longer but Kimi pits to avoid traffic
Monaco - Kimi pits first rather questionably to cover Bottas undercut (who was 5 seconds behind him and there was no need too) / more likely that Ferrari give Vettel a chance to win the race.
Canada - no comparison, Vettel damage on lap 1 and early pit
Azerbajan - no comparison, first pit stop under early SC
Austria - Kimi goes longer but in part due to being left out to hold up Bottas
Britain - no comparison, Vettel pitted early to undercut Verstappen
Hungary - no comparison, Vettel damaged steering

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
"The evidence shows that Kimi is slow and yet rarely, if ever, manages to go as long as Vettel"

That is not true, there isn't any data to make such a claim. Kimi pitted earlier in Russia to avoid traffic.. Vettel pitted earlier in Silverstone to undercut Verstappen... every race has its own story that makes it impossible to see if that statement was true or not.

Australia - Kimi went 3 laps longer.
China - no comparison, pit stops on lap 2-3 under SC
Bahrain - no comparison, early pit stops for everybody under VSC/SC
Spain - no comparison, Kimi out lap 1
Russia - no comparison, Vettel goes longer but Kimi pits to avoid traffic
Monaco - Kimi pits first rather questionably to cover Bottas undercut (who was 5 seconds behind him and there was no need too) / more likely that Ferrari give Vettel a chance to win the race.
Canada - no comparison, Vettel damage on lap 1 and early pit
Azerbajan - no comparison, first pit stop under early SC
Austria - Kimi goes longer but in part due to being left out to hold up Bottas
Britain - no comparison, Vettel pitted early to undercut Verstappen
Hungary - no comparison, Vettel damaged steering

There is data, but for some reason you keep choosing to ignore it. Or interpreting it with a very selective viewpoint

Take Australia. He may have pitted two laps later than Vettel, but he went slower every single lap, to the tune of losing 18 seconds over 22 laps, despite Vettel spending much of that time in dirty air, while Kimi was in clean air for the majority. This shows tyre management to you?

This pattern tends to be repeated over much of the season. I don't know why you'd try to claim otherwise. There's no point being the tortoise to someone's hare if you don't make it give you at least some stamina advantage. Vettel often goes long and is among the pace setters. But Kimi never pushes his tyres as much as the opposition and indeed often loses large chunks of time relative to others, therefore there's no basis to claim that he's doing anything special with the tyres. Which has been my point all along.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
"The evidence shows that Kimi is slow and yet rarely, if ever, manages to go as long as Vettel"

That is not true, there isn't any data to make such a claim. Kimi pitted earlier in Russia to avoid traffic.. Vettel pitted earlier in Silverstone to undercut Verstappen... every race has its own story that makes it impossible to see if that statement was true or not.

Australia - Kimi went 3 laps longer.
China - no comparison, pit stops on lap 2-3 under SC
Bahrain - no comparison, early pit stops for everybody under VSC/SC
Spain - no comparison, Kimi out lap 1
Russia - no comparison, Vettel goes longer but Kimi pits to avoid traffic
Monaco - Kimi pits first rather questionably to cover Bottas undercut (who was 5 seconds behind him and there was no need too) / more likely that Ferrari give Vettel a chance to win the race.
Canada - no comparison, Vettel damage on lap 1 and early pit
Azerbajan - no comparison, first pit stop under early SC
Austria - Kimi goes longer but in part due to being left out to hold up Bottas
Britain - no comparison, Vettel pitted early to undercut Verstappen
Hungary - no comparison, Vettel damaged steering

There is data, but for some reason you keep choosing to ignore it. Or interpreting it with a very selective viewpoint

Take Australia. He may have pitted two laps later than Vettel, but he went slower every single lap, to the tune of losing 18 seconds over 22 laps, despite Vettel spending much of that time in dirty air, while Kimi was in clean air for the majority. This shows tyre management to you?

This pattern tends to be repeated over much of the season. I don't know why you'd try to claim otherwise. There's no point being the tortoise to someone's hare if you don't make it give you at least some stamina advantage. Vettel often goes long and is among the pace setters. But Kimi never pushes his tyres as much as the opposition and indeed often loses large chunks of time relative to others, therefore there's no basis to claim that he's doing anything special with the tyres. Which has been my point all along.



But you already mentioned him being slow and still not going as long.

"The evidence shows that Kimi is slow and yet rarely, if ever, manages to go as long as Vettel"

If you had said he rarely goes as long as Vettel when driving at a same speed as him then you would be right. But you already mentioned him being slow and still not going as far, which is incorrect.

As for it rarely happening, its happened the last 3 races and the majority of the season

Kimi went longer in Hungary, Britain, Austria, Canada, Australia, China and Bahrain
Vettel went longer in Russia and Monaco

Spain, Kimi DNF'd at the first corner and Baku they pitted on the same lap. Most of those examples are meaningless as mentioned in my previous post but to suggest Kimi can't go as long whilst still being slower is ignoring what has happened in the races and basing it on what 1 race again? Although I am not sure which 1 race you could even back that up with as the two times Kimi pitted first were strategic. 1) Monaco, to give Vettel a chance to over cut him / cover Bottas from undercutting him - which was never going to happen. 2) Russia to avoid lapping a bunch of cars.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Last edited by lamo on Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
"The evidence shows that Kimi is slow and yet rarely, if ever, manages to go as long as Vettel"

That is not true, there isn't any data to make such a claim. Kimi pitted earlier in Russia to avoid traffic.. Vettel pitted earlier in Silverstone to undercut Verstappen... every race has its own story that makes it impossible to see if that statement was true or not.

Australia - Kimi went 3 laps longer.
China - no comparison, pit stops on lap 2-3 under SC
Bahrain - no comparison, early pit stops for everybody under VSC/SC
Spain - no comparison, Kimi out lap 1
Russia - no comparison, Vettel goes longer but Kimi pits to avoid traffic
Monaco - Kimi pits first rather questionably to cover Bottas undercut (who was 5 seconds behind him and there was no need too) / more likely that Ferrari give Vettel a chance to win the race.
Canada - no comparison, Vettel damage on lap 1 and early pit
Azerbajan - no comparison, first pit stop under early SC
Austria - Kimi goes longer but in part due to being left out to hold up Bottas
Britain - no comparison, Vettel pitted early to undercut Verstappen
Hungary - no comparison, Vettel damaged steering

There is data, but for some reason you keep choosing to ignore it. Or interpreting it with a very selective viewpoint

Take Australia. He may have pitted two laps later than Vettel, but he went slower every single lap, to the tune of losing 18 seconds over 22 laps, despite Vettel spending much of that time in dirty air, while Kimi was in clean air for the majority. This shows tyre management to you?

This pattern tends to be repeated over much of the season. I don't know why you'd try to claim otherwise. There's no point being the tortoise to someone's hare if you don't make it give you at least some stamina advantage. Vettel often goes long and is among the pace setters. But Kimi never pushes his tyres as much as the opposition and indeed often loses large chunks of time relative to others, therefore there's no basis to claim that he's doing anything special with the tyres. Which has been my point all along.



But you already mentioned him being slow and still not going as long.

"The evidence shows that Kimi is slow and yet rarely, if ever, manages to go as long as Vettel"

If you had said he rarely goes as long as Vettel when driving at a same speed as him then you would be right. But you already mentioned him being slow and still not going as far, which is incorrect.

As for it rarely happening, its happened the last 3 races and the majority of the season

Kimi went longer in Hungary, Britain, Austria, Canada, Australia, China and Bahrain
Vettel went longer in Russia and Monaco

Spain, Kimi DNF'd at the first corner and Baku they pitted on the same lap. Most of those examples are meaningless as mentioned in my previous post but to suggest Kimi can't go as long whilst still being slower is ignoring what has happened in the races and basing it on what 1 race again? Although I am not sure which 1 race you could even back that up with.

Really? You're going to give Canada to Kimi when Vettel had contact damage from Verstappen right at the beginning and had to pit early? And then subsequently did 42 laps on those tyres while closing Kimi down, despite Kimi doing a mere 22 laps on his fresh set? This in your world is Kimi doing better and going longer on his tyres? Or Bahrain, where Vettel took a tactical pit stop because Bottas was driving so slowly and holding everybody up? This is what I mean about your interpretation of the stats with no consideration for circumstance or the broader picture.

It's clear that I've been consistently talking about the combination of speed and longevity, highlighted by me talking about the tortoise vs the hare and stars burning twice as bright and half as long, but I accept that I should have spelled it out more clearly. Given that we've been debating this back and forth over the last few pages, however, I'm disappointed that you appear to be resorting to pedantry to make your point. China illustrates this perfectly. Vettel not only overtook Kimi after hounding him in his slipstream for a dozen laps, but he then subsequently pulled away at nearly a second a lap for the next dozen. Yet because Kimi doggedly stayed out he should be applauded for his tyre longevity? I know you love stats, but they are utterly meaningless unless applied to a broader context.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
No, read the rest my post. I said they are meaningless and its nearly impossible to tell who could have gone longer at nearly every race. Most of those examples are meaningless as mentioned in my previous

But since you mentionned Canada. Kimi didn't do "a mere 22 laps" - he pitted strategically after 22 laps to switch to a 2 stopper at that point as he couldn't pass the FI's on equal aged tyres and that gave him the best chance. You need to remember the races, not just look at the time data. Every post, something is catching you out like your Russia example and forgetting the traffic involved.

Regarding your China point - yes Vettel was a lot quicker so any meaningful comparison is impossible at a few of those early races. I made the list in the previous post as clearly stated they are meaningless and no meaningful comparison can be made. The first list I posted that has most races as "no comparison" is clearly my belief. Why would I post something immediately after that in contradiction to it. You honestly think I am using China as a meaningful example of stint length when Vettel pitted on lap 2 and Kimi on lap 4? I mean come on :lol:

You also ignored the following- I asked for evidence of Vettel being good on the tyres and you came back with Australia, Russia and Monaco. But I showed that-

Australia and Monaco we had no idea of his pace when not in traffic so how can we judge his pace on old tyres? He was held up in both of those stints quite clearly.

Russia, both Bottas and Raikkonen pitted strategically/ due to traffic so again we have no idea how long they could have gone and Vettel only went long to do something different to Bottas as he couldn't pass him when on equal aged tyres.

What are your thoughts on those counter points to the races you choose as evidence?

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
No, read the rest my post. I said they are meaningless and its nearly impossible to tell who could have gone longer at nearly every race. Most of those examples are meaningless as mentioned in my previous

But since you mentionned Canada. Kimi didn't do "a mere 22 laps" - he pitted strategically after 22 laps to switch to a 2 stopper at that point as he couldn't pass the FI's on equal aged tyres and that gave him the best chance. You need to remember the races, not just look at the time data. Every post, something is catching you out like your Russia example and forgetting the traffic involved.

Regarding your China point - yes Vettel was a lot quicker so any meaningful comparison is impossible at a few of those early races. I made the list in the previous post as clearly stated they are meaningless and no meaningful comparison can be made. The first list I posted that has most races as "no comparison" is clearly my belief. Why would I post something immediately after that in contradiction to it. You honestly think I am using China as a meaningful example of stint length when Vettel pitted on lap 2 and Kimi on lap 4? I mean come on :lol:

You also ignored the following- I asked for evidence of Vettel being good on the tyres and you came back with Australia, Russia and Monaco. But I showed that-

Australia and Monaco we had no idea of his pace when not in traffic so how can we judge his pace on old tyres? He was held up in both of those stints quite clearly.

Russia, both Bottas and Raikkonen pitted strategically/ due to traffic so again we have no idea how long they could have gone and Vettel only went long to do something different to Bottas as he couldn't pass him when on equal aged tyres.

What are your thoughts on those counter points to the races you choose as evidence?

They're not meaningless. The only valid reason to go slower from a strategic viewpoint is to extend the tyre life. But you also have to ensure that you don't go so slow that you negate any advantage you gain by staying out. If you go really slow, then you're not doing anything special with the tyres, as you're not putting them under stress. None of Kimi's races show him matching the race leaders for speed while eking out tyre life. We know his car can go faster, as it does with his team mate, so it's relatively easy to conclude that he's just not getting the best from it. It's also absolutely clear that the Ferrari's reputation for tyre management couldn't have come from watching Kimi drive, as he hasn't shown any propensity for it.

Vettel has. I've given you examples, but you appear to want to keep rehashing old ground. Australia is a valid example, because Vettel was pushing Lewis fairly constantly, which as we all know puts much greater stress on the tyres, and yet he managed to go faster still when Lewis pitted. He also went much quicker than Bottas in 3rd place, who was also in clean air, and quicker still than Kimi, who was also in clear air in 4th place. So Vettel was the fastest man on the track, despite being the only one compromised by being in dirty air, yet pitted significantly later than Hamilton, only two laps earlier than a slower Bottas, and three laps earlier than Kimi, who was going painfully slowly. All in all this points to a great pace performance, while losing nothing from the tyres. In fact, he only came in because he knew he had Hamilton beat for 1st place and there was no need to stay out longer and put that at risk. This is the race that first coined the idea that the Ferrari was good on its tyres, but as we've seen you wouldn't have concluded that from looking at Kimi.

In Monaco, we again see Vettel upping the pace after the car in front - Kimi this time - goes into the pits. Again, he had been following less than 2s behind for a good while, so the fact that he could up his performance like he did shows impressive tyre management. Hamilton was slower all the way (although to be fair he was stuck in traffic), while Bottas was making no impact (and, in fact, going backwards) before he pitted. So again, the evidence points to Vettel doing the best job of all as regards pace and tyre management, while nobody else stood out in particular.

In Russia, Kimi was falling away from Vettel and until the last three laps had been going much slower than Bottas. Again, there's no point being the tortoise if it doesn't confer some advantage over distance. He never stayed out long enough to justify his earlier pace, so how can we conclude that he was doing anything special with his tyres? Vettel at least stayed out longer with better pace (although it wasn't enough to challenge Bottas) and his last laps were stronger even than Bottas on fresh tyres. So again, he's the only one who could lay a claim to above average tyre management. Kimi certainly couldn't. So we're back to the "Ferrari" reputation actually being a Vettel one.

Canada: Kimi did do a "mere" 22 laps when compared with Vettel. He switched to fresh tyres to try and use the extra pace they were supposed to give him, but nothing he did that race showed great tyre management. The fact that Vettel managed almost double the laps on one set does, however.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8718
We will have to agree to disagree.

For me to conclude a car was very strong at the end of its stint on old tyres I need to know what it was capable of at the start of the stint on new tyres. Otherwise how am I drawing a conclusion? A car in traffic can not show its potential.

The same rules for everybody, Kimi ran the first stint in Hungary in dirty air and as soon as Vettel pitted he immediately started putting in purple sectors... why? Because he was being held up by a car with a steering issue. Same reason Vettel was immediately quicker in Australia and Monaco once the car in front pitted, because he was being held up by a slower car-driver package.

I think I prefer a lot more evidence before I draw my conclusions. Each to there own.

My conclusion is its hard to tell if the Ferrari or Mercedes are easier on there tyres and initially in the first 2-3 races, Ferrari may have had a slight edge and the press jumped on it and kind of built a myth out of it almost entirely made out of what happened in Australia when the fact is, Vettel was simply quicker than Hamilton. Evident by the first 4 laps when he completely hounded him (within 0.6 for 4 straight laps) and Hamiltons post race comments in which he said he tried to push to build a gap but he couldn't as the Ferrari was quicker.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20912
lamo wrote:
We will have to agree to disagree.

For me to conclude a car was very strong at the end of its stint on old tyres I need to know what it was capable of at the start of the stint on new tyres. Otherwise how am I drawing a conclusion? A car in traffic can not show its potential.

The same rules for everybody, Kimi ran the first stint in Hungary in dirty air and as soon as Vettel pitted he immediately started putting in purple sectors... why? Because he was being held up by a car with a steering issue. Same reason Vettel was immediately quicker in Australia and Monaco once the car in front pitted, because he was being held up by a slower car-driver package.

I think I prefer a lot more evidence before I draw my conclusions. Each to there own.

My conclusion is its hard to tell if the Ferrari or Mercedes are easier on there tyres and initially in the first 2-3 races, Ferrari may have had a slight edge and the press jumped on it and kind of built a myth out of it almost entirely made out of what happened in Australia when the fact is, Vettel was simply quicker than Hamilton. Evident by the first 4 laps when he completely hounded him (within 0.6 for 4 straight laps) and Hamiltons post race comments in which he said he tried to push to build a gap but he couldn't as the Ferrari was quicker.

I don't get that logic. One of the things which caught everyone's attention in Australia was how Vettel was able to stick to Lewis' tail for a good while and yet still manage to pump in fast laps once Lewis went in. It was responsible for launching the Ferrari's tyre reputation. In this case the traffic he was in contributed to the tyre preservation story. If he'd hung well back it wouldn't have been the same.

As for the start vs end comment, that's precisely why Kimi's performances don't really qualify for great tyre preservation. He's often much slower than others in the beginning of the stint (while we know the car can go faster), but usually close to them by the end. That doesn't show great tyre preservation.

re: Kimi's purple sectors in Hungary - His laps when Vettel went in were:

1:22.701
1:23.778

Vettel's last two laps before he pitted were:

1:22.592
1:23.665

I didn't see this race, unfortunately, so only going off stats for this particular one, but if Kimi was putting in purple sectors it doesn't show in the lap times. They were pretty average laps for someone with a car advantage. Anyway, it's not really relevant to the points we were making.

I don't think you can claim lack of evidence after the discussions we've had. Seems more denial, really. I'd agree the reputation was built up over the first few races, but it's abundantly clear that it was based on the performances of one driver only. And the fact that Vetel was able to hound Lewis without damaging his tyres is precisely why that's a good example. How many times have we heard that following closely ruins a driver's tyres? Dismissing it as "oh, he was simply quicker" is illogical.

Anyway, I think we've conclusively proven that Kimi hasn't contributed in any way to Ferrari's tyre reputation. Anything earned seems entirely generated by Vettel's performances, which goes to what I've been saying that it's as likely to be driver as it is car, if not more so


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: owenmahamilton 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