planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:16 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5447
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Well let's examine that statement of yours. You seem to be trying to draw an equivalence between my activity in the forum and yours. Let's explore that. One point where it definitely seemed that Mercedes had the upper hand was after the first race. Hamilton had set pole in Australia and he had been the fastest during the race as well. Let's take a look at what I had to say after the race to push my biased agenda:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14879&start=280
"One thing is clear though. Ferrari are no match for Mercedes. The gap between them is substantial."

........Hmmm.....That's kind of an odd thing to say considering the way you seem to want to portray me, isn't it? The fact is that I am actually discussing the performance level of the cars while YOU are in here trying to make it seem like the Ferrari isn't what it is (the best car currently). You are completely disengenuous and you are not willing to be objective. Please stop trying to conflate my behavior with yours.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Well let's examine that statement of yours. You seem to be trying to draw an equivalence between my activity in the forum and yours. Let's explore that. One point where it definitely seemed that Mercedes had the upper hand was after the first race. Hamilton had set pole in Australia and he had been the fastest during the race as well. Let's take a look at what I had to say after the race to push my biased agenda:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14879&start=280
"One thing is clear though. Ferrari are no match for Mercedes. The gap between them is substantial."

........Hmmm.....That's kind of an odd thing to say considering the way you seem to want to portray me, isn't it? The fact is that I am actually discussing the performance level of the cars while YOU are in here trying to make it seem like the Ferrari isn't what it is (the best car currently). You are completely disengenuous and you are not willing to be objective. Please stop trying to conflate my behavior with yours.

Except the point being made was about you getting frustrated because people dare to have a different opinion. I'm not the one calling the thread a joke, so not sure where you are coming from with your talk of drawing an equivalence.

We don't agree on the cars' relative performance, that's fine. But only one of us is dismissing the entire thread as a joke because of it. Just accept that others have different opinions. The fact that there are several people on both sides of the fence shows that it's not quite as clear cut as you would have it. And the discussion that ensues is the whole point of a forum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5447
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Well let's examine that statement of yours. You seem to be trying to draw an equivalence between my activity in the forum and yours. Let's explore that. One point where it definitely seemed that Mercedes had the upper hand was after the first race. Hamilton had set pole in Australia and he had been the fastest during the race as well. Let's take a look at what I had to say after the race to push my biased agenda:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14879&start=280
"One thing is clear though. Ferrari are no match for Mercedes. The gap between them is substantial."

........Hmmm.....That's kind of an odd thing to say considering the way you seem to want to portray me, isn't it? The fact is that I am actually discussing the performance level of the cars while YOU are in here trying to make it seem like the Ferrari isn't what it is (the best car currently). You are completely disengenuous and you are not willing to be objective. Please stop trying to conflate my behavior with yours.

Except the point being made was about you getting frustrated because people dare to have a different opinion. I'm not the one calling the thread a joke, so not sure where you are coming from with your talk of drawing an equivalence.

We don't agree on the cars' relative performance, that's fine. But only one of us is dismissing the entire thread as a joke because of it. Just accept that others have different opinions. The fact that there are several people on both sides of the fence shows that it's not quite as clear cut as you would have it. And the discussion that ensues is the whole point of a forum

I think you've missed my point. I have no problem with people having an honest opinion that is different than my own. In fact I welcome that. I have a problem with people disingenuously arguing against things that are empirically evident because they are seemingly incapable of being objective on any F1-related topic. A thread like this shouldn't be about "My driver is better than yours" but that's basically what every thread is about for the majority of PF1 forumers unfortunately. We cannot have an honest discussion about the cars because too many of our forumers are not willing to be honest about them. That is why I feel the thread is a bit of a joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
That's just clearly not the case though. Ferrari have the upper hand and have had it for most of the season. Yes, it is certainly close and yes, Mercedes certainly have had a highly competitive package for most of the year but Ferrari clearly have the upper hand in terms of just the car's level of performance. The people in and around the sport are not in disagreement about that. So what we have in this thread is just an inability on the part of our forum to engage in the thread's stated purpose (to discuss the performance level of the cars as the season progresses) because people are using the thread for a different purpose.

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

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

Well let's examine that statement of yours. You seem to be trying to draw an equivalence between my activity in the forum and yours. Let's explore that. One point where it definitely seemed that Mercedes had the upper hand was after the first race. Hamilton had set pole in Australia and he had been the fastest during the race as well. Let's take a look at what I had to say after the race to push my biased agenda:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14879&start=280
"One thing is clear though. Ferrari are no match for Mercedes. The gap between them is substantial."

........Hmmm.....That's kind of an odd thing to say considering the way you seem to want to portray me, isn't it? The fact is that I am actually discussing the performance level of the cars while YOU are in here trying to make it seem like the Ferrari isn't what it is (the best car currently). You are completely disengenuous and you are not willing to be objective. Please stop trying to conflate my behavior with yours.

Except the point being made was about you getting frustrated because people dare to have a different opinion. I'm not the one calling the thread a joke, so not sure where you are coming from with your talk of drawing an equivalence.

We don't agree on the cars' relative performance, that's fine. But only one of us is dismissing the entire thread as a joke because of it. Just accept that others have different opinions. The fact that there are several people on both sides of the fence shows that it's not quite as clear cut as you would have it. And the discussion that ensues is the whole point of a forum

I think you've missed my point. I have no problem with people having an honest opinion that is different than my own. In fact I welcome that. I have a problem with people disingenuously arguing against things that are empirically evident because they are seemingly incapable of being objective on any F1-related topic. A thread like this shouldn't be about "My driver is better than yours" but that's basically what every thread is about for the majority of PF1 forumers unfortunately. We cannot have an honest discussion about the cars because too many of our forumers are not willing to be honest about them. That is why I feel the thread is a bit of a joke.

But nobody was saying that just before your "joke" comment, so what prompted that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
One race where I completely disagree with the general consensus is Bahrain. I'm not sure why everyone thinks Ferrari had the best car that weekend. Mercedes had better race pace on one of the best circuits for overtaking.

1. Bottas was faster than Vettel on supersoft tyres and forced Ferrari to pit early him early to avoid being undercut.
2. Bottas put in a 33.7 on medium tyres right after his pitstop with 35 laps of fuel still onboard, which remained the fastest lap until the end of the race.
3. Ferrari were struggling with fuel consumption in Bahrain and were doing a lot of lifting and coasting.

Mercedes have had the best race car in Australia, Bahrain, Spain, France, Austria and Silverstone IMO. That's 6 weekends out of 12.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1883
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Honestly, this thread is a bit of a joke.

Why do you say this? I just read the first post again and I think that lamo's intentions were to have a race by race comparison, if not heated debate! It kind of (vaguely) followed that. I guess lamo can't follow up his analysis on a race by race basis since he has decided to leave, so the thread may have gone a bit on a tangent!!
When the discussion becomes so disingenuous and dishonest, there isn't really much point. The thread was not intended to really be a debate but rather an ongoing discussion about the cars and how they stack up. Instead we have the same handful of people trying to always portray Ferrari as fighting at a disadvantage. It makes the thread basically the same as 90% of the other threads. And I completely reject the notion that there is the same thing happening on the Mercedes side. I don't see that at all. When Mercedes have been strongest, people have acknowledged it.


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

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



If you haven't already, take a listen to James Allison's appraisal on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Mercedes vs the Ferrari.

2018 Hungarian Grand Prix F1 Debrief
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9NbkUnAZkM

9 minutes in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5447
KingVoid wrote:
One race where I completely disagree with the general consensus is Bahrain. I'm not sure why everyone thinks Ferrari had the best car that weekend. Mercedes had better race pace on one of the best circuits for overtaking.

1. Bottas was faster than Vettel on supersoft tyres and forced Ferrari to pit early him early to avoid being undercut.
2. Bottas put in a 33.7 on medium tyres right after his pitstop with 35 laps of fuel still onboard, which remained the fastest lap until the end of the race.
3. Ferrari were struggling with fuel consumption in Bahrain and were doing a lot of lifting and coasting.

Mercedes have had the best race car in Australia, Bahrain, Spain, France, Austria and Silverstone IMO. That's 6 weekends out of 12.

Thank you for illustrating my point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
One race where I completely disagree with the general consensus is Bahrain. I'm not sure why everyone thinks Ferrari had the best car that weekend. Mercedes had better race pace on one of the best circuits for overtaking.

1. Bottas was faster than Vettel on supersoft tyres and forced Ferrari to pit early him early to avoid being undercut.
2. Bottas put in a 33.7 on medium tyres right after his pitstop with 35 laps of fuel still onboard, which remained the fastest lap until the end of the race.
3. Ferrari were struggling with fuel consumption in Bahrain and were doing a lot of lifting and coasting.

Mercedes have had the best race car in Australia, Bahrain, Spain, France, Austria and Silverstone IMO. That's 6 weekends out of 12.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

that Mercedes have had the best car for 50% of the races? That was your point? Or was it that you believe otherwise, therefore this thread is a joke?

Whether you agree with KingVoid or not, he's put forward a legitimate, logical case for Mercedes being quicker in Bahrain. Maybe you can disprove it by putting your own forward, but dismissing it as evidence of this thread being a joke (assuming that's the point you're making - a bit confused otherwise) just demonstrates a lack of tolerance of differing views and is contrary to your earlier post that you have no problem with or welcome people having an honest opinion that is different to your own


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1338
Location: London
Zoue wrote:
Whether you agree with KingVoid or not, he's put forward a legitimate, logical case for Mercedes being quicker in Bahrain....


Which in the context of the thread, which is the ongoing performance between Merc, Ferrari and RBR (or I thought it was) is irelavent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6442
Lojik wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Whether you agree with KingVoid or not, he's put forward a legitimate, logical case for Mercedes being quicker in Bahrain....


Which in the context of the thread, which is the ongoing performance between Merc, Ferrari and RBR (or I thought it was) is irelavent.

In a thread that examines the relative performance of the teams, considering we are in the summer break, discussing the relative performance of the teams so far is definitely not irrelevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Lojik wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Whether you agree with KingVoid or not, he's put forward a legitimate, logical case for Mercedes being quicker in Bahrain....


Which in the context of the thread, which is the ongoing performance between Merc, Ferrari and RBR (or I thought it was) is irelavent.

Of course it's relevant. We're talking about the relative performance of the cars and whether one has improved against the other. Assessing the trend so far over the year is completely relevant


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5447
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
One race where I completely disagree with the general consensus is Bahrain. I'm not sure why everyone thinks Ferrari had the best car that weekend. Mercedes had better race pace on one of the best circuits for overtaking.

1. Bottas was faster than Vettel on supersoft tyres and forced Ferrari to pit early him early to avoid being undercut.
2. Bottas put in a 33.7 on medium tyres right after his pitstop with 35 laps of fuel still onboard, which remained the fastest lap until the end of the race.
3. Ferrari were struggling with fuel consumption in Bahrain and were doing a lot of lifting and coasting.

Mercedes have had the best race car in Australia, Bahrain, Spain, France, Austria and Silverstone IMO. That's 6 weekends out of 12.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

that Mercedes have had the best car for 50% of the races? That was your point? Or was it that you believe otherwise, therefore this thread is a joke?

Whether you agree with KingVoid or not, he's put forward a legitimate, logical case for Mercedes being quicker in Bahrain. Maybe you can disprove it by putting your own forward, but dismissing it as evidence of this thread being a joke (assuming that's the point you're making - a bit confused otherwise) just demonstrates a lack of tolerance of differing views and is contrary to your earlier post that you have no problem with or welcome people having an honest opinion that is different to your own

This is what I mean by the disingenuous nature of the contributions in here. That's also what I was talking about with Kingvoid's post. Bahrain was a race where Ferrari set pole by 2 tenths of a second and where Vettel easily gapped Bottas during the first stint. The fact that Ferrari had some tire issues during the race does not somehow negate the fact that they were obviously faster.

As for Silverstone; I don't even have to make that argument. Let's look at what Kingvoid said himself:
"Today in Silverstone, I reckon Ferrari may have had the faster car in qualifying (by maybe a tenth). Hamilton just put together an amazing lap while Seb and Kimi made some small mistakes."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14886&start=1080

Now this is someone with an undeniably biased track record in the forum and yet it was so clear that Ferrari were quicker, he couldn't justify misrepresenting the events of the day. Now that some time has passed, however, and maybe memory has faded a bit, he wants to say that the Mercedes were faster at Silverstone (which they clearly were not).

Anyway, it's probably pointless to have this type of discussion in here because it relies on people being honest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
One race where I completely disagree with the general consensus is Bahrain. I'm not sure why everyone thinks Ferrari had the best car that weekend. Mercedes had better race pace on one of the best circuits for overtaking.

1. Bottas was faster than Vettel on supersoft tyres and forced Ferrari to pit early him early to avoid being undercut.
2. Bottas put in a 33.7 on medium tyres right after his pitstop with 35 laps of fuel still onboard, which remained the fastest lap until the end of the race.
3. Ferrari were struggling with fuel consumption in Bahrain and were doing a lot of lifting and coasting.

Mercedes have had the best race car in Australia, Bahrain, Spain, France, Austria and Silverstone IMO. That's 6 weekends out of 12.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

that Mercedes have had the best car for 50% of the races? That was your point? Or was it that you believe otherwise, therefore this thread is a joke?

Whether you agree with KingVoid or not, he's put forward a legitimate, logical case for Mercedes being quicker in Bahrain. Maybe you can disprove it by putting your own forward, but dismissing it as evidence of this thread being a joke (assuming that's the point you're making - a bit confused otherwise) just demonstrates a lack of tolerance of differing views and is contrary to your earlier post that you have no problem with or welcome people having an honest opinion that is different to your own

This is what I mean by the disingenuous nature of the contributions in here. That's also what I was talking about with Kingvoid's post. Bahrain was a race where Ferrari set pole by 2 tenths of a second and where Vettel easily gapped Bottas during the first stint. The fact that Ferrari had some tire issues during the race does not somehow negate the fact that they were obviously faster.

As for Silverstone; I don't even have to make that argument. Let's look at what Kingvoid said himself:
"Today in Silverstone, I reckon Ferrari may have had the faster car in qualifying (by maybe a tenth). Hamilton just put together an amazing lap while Seb and Kimi made some small mistakes."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14886&start=1080

Now this is someone with an undeniably biased track record in the forum and yet it was so clear that Ferrari were quicker, he couldn't justify misrepresenting the events of the day. Now that some time has passed, however, and maybe memory has faded a bit, he wants to say that the Mercedes were faster at Silverstone (which they clearly were not).

Anyway, it's probably pointless to have this type of discussion in here because it relies on people being honest.

It’s ridiculous, not to mention conceited, to write off contrary opinion as dishonesty. In Bahrain Ferrari did set pole by two tenths but Hamilton was also uncharacteristically slower than Bottas. In fact, he was a tenth slower than Bottas and Kimi, except you can’t blame the former on the car. There are grounds to say he didn’t get the most out of it, just as there are whenever Kimi beats Vettel.

As regards the race, while Vettel pulled out a gap at the beginning it wasn’t long before Bottas began to reel him in again. Tyre management was key to that race. There are a number of reports available online where Mercedes rued the fact that they didn’t give Bottas the order to push sooner than they did at the end. Which in turn implies that he was managing things. And sure enough when he turned it on he was significantly quicker than Vettel, albeit on different tyres. Point is the cars looked pretty evenly matched overall and strategy made the difference. It’s not dishonest to take a race as close as that and look beyond the opening laps to see how the cars compared.

Personally I think the cars were too close to call with any certainty, although I’d probably lean to the Ferrari having the upper hand in qualifying. Don’t think it’s a dead cert, though

As for Silverstone, people can change their opinions, big deal. That doesn’t make them dishonest. You’re making far too much of it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5447
Now we're going in circles so it's best to drop it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1883
So anyway, here's how my list looks to date for the race weekend:

Australia - Mercedes
Bahrain - Mercedes/Ferrari
China - Ferrari
Azerbaijan - Ferrari
Spain - Mercedes
Monaco - Red Bull
Canada - Mercedes/Ferrari
France - Mercedes
Austria - Mercedes
Great Britain - Mercedes/Ferrari
Germany - Ferrari
Hungary - Ferrari

Also, I was revisiting the 2017 season a bit ago and came up with the following:

Overall races where Mercedes might have been best in qualifying - 16
Mercedes outright the best in qualifying - 10
Mercedes arguably the best in qualifying - 6
Mercedes second best in qualifying - 2
Mercedes third best in qualifying - 2

Overall races where Ferrari might have been best in qualifying - 10
Ferrari outright the best in qualifying - 3
Ferrari arguably the best in qualifying - 7
Ferrari second best in qualifying - 9
Ferrari third best in qualifying - 1

Overall races where Mercedes might have been best in the race - 15
Mercedes outright the best in the race - 4
Mercedes arguably the best in the race - 11
Mercedes second best in the race - 2
Mercedes third best in the race - 3

Overall races where Ferrari might have been best in the race - 15
Ferrari outright the best in the race - 2
Ferrari arguably the best in the race - 13
Ferrari second best in the race - 3
Ferrari third best in the race - 2

Mercedes qualifying edge is enough to give the car a clear edge for the season in my view. It was a close season and Ferrari should have been much closer than they were to winning at least one Championship.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2958
Ferrari - 6 China, Baku, Monaco, Canada, Germany and Hungary.
Mercedes - 4 Australia, Spain, France and Austria.
Equal - Bahrain and Silverstone.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1883
F1_Ernie wrote:
Ferrari - 6 China, Baku, Monaco, Canada, Germany and Hungary.
Mercedes - 4 Australia, Spain, France and Austria.
Equal - Bahrain and Silverstone.



If we ignore Red Bull then, yeah, Ferrari likely had a clear edge in Monaco, albeit the race was somewhat of a farce.

The one I was least sure about was Canada. Originally I just had it down for Ferrari but then decided to call it close enough for a tie. Seems Lewis couldn't perform to his usual level in qualifying and was scuppered by further cooling problems during the race. Vettel + Ferrari were slightly faster than Bottas + Mercedes, as I typically expect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2958
Invade wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Ferrari - 6 China, Baku, Monaco, Canada, Germany and Hungary.
Mercedes - 4 Australia, Spain, France and Austria.
Equal - Bahrain and Silverstone.



If we ignore Red Bull then, yeah, Ferrari likely had a clear edge in Monaco, albeit the race was somewhat of a farce.

The one I was least sure about was Canada. Originally I just had it down for Ferrari but then decided to call it close enough for a tie. Seems Lewis couldn't perform to his usual level in qualifying and was scuppered by further cooling problems during the race. Vettel + Ferrari were slightly faster than Bottas + Mercedes, as I typically expect.


I was only looking at the top 2 teams, in Monaco the Ferrari was the car to have.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:37 pm
Posts: 557
KingVoid wrote:
One race where I completely disagree with the general consensus is Bahrain. I'm not sure why everyone thinks Ferrari had the best car that weekend. Mercedes had better race pace on one of the best circuits for overtaking.

1. Bottas was faster than Vettel on supersoft tyres and forced Ferrari to pit early him early to avoid being undercut.
2. Bottas put in a 33.7 on medium tyres right after his pitstop with 35 laps of fuel still onboard, which remained the fastest lap until the end of the race.
3. Ferrari were struggling with fuel consumption in Bahrain and were doing a lot of lifting and coasting.

Mercedes have had the best race car in Australia, Bahrain, Spain, France, Austria and Silverstone IMO. That's 6 weekends out of 12.


Factoring in reliability, Ferrari had the better race car in Austria. Having the fastest car means little if the driver is unable to cross the finish line due to a mechanical failure.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1883
aice wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
One race where I completely disagree with the general consensus is Bahrain. I'm not sure why everyone thinks Ferrari had the best car that weekend. Mercedes had better race pace on one of the best circuits for overtaking.

1. Bottas was faster than Vettel on supersoft tyres and forced Ferrari to pit early him early to avoid being undercut.
2. Bottas put in a 33.7 on medium tyres right after his pitstop with 35 laps of fuel still onboard, which remained the fastest lap until the end of the race.
3. Ferrari were struggling with fuel consumption in Bahrain and were doing a lot of lifting and coasting.

Mercedes have had the best race car in Australia, Bahrain, Spain, France, Austria and Silverstone IMO. That's 6 weekends out of 12.


Factoring in reliability, Ferrari had the better race car in Austria. Having the fastest car means little if the driver is unable to cross the finish line due to a mechanical failure.



I can see this point of view but do not apply it. If there is a chronic problem such as having constant PU reliability problems then I might factor it in, but for what appear to be one-off instances it's hard to know if a team just dropped the ball or if it's a part of the inevitable rare "bad luck" which can strike any team. The way I look at it is, which car would I rather be in heading into the race? For Austria it's absolutely the Mercedes. In the end, with hindsight, we can see that we'd rather be in the Ferrari.

In 2017, Ferrari had an extremely competitive car after the summer break but a litany of incidents ended any real Championship battle. A bunch of different errors from the drivers and the team led to their downfall but it would be odd to just offer unconditional mitigating circumstances in the appraisal of the respective cars because one team were under par.

Of course, it's difficult to truly pinpoint the cause for many of these incidents. Did Ferrari simply mess up with a great package last year, or were they pushing hyper aggressively to try and keep up with Mercedes and paid the price :?:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
sandman1347 wrote:
This is what I mean by the disingenuous nature of the contributions in here. That's also what I was talking about with Kingvoid's post. Bahrain was a race where Ferrari set pole by 2 tenths of a second and where Vettel easily gapped Bottas during the first stint. The fact that Ferrari had some tire issues during the race does not somehow negate the fact that they were obviously faster.

As for Silverstone; I don't even have to make that argument. Let's look at what Kingvoid said himself:
"Today in Silverstone, I reckon Ferrari may have had the faster car in qualifying (by maybe a tenth). Hamilton just put together an amazing lap while Seb and Kimi made some small mistakes."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14886&start=1080

Do you know that there’s a difference between qualifying pace and race pace?

This applies to both Bahrain and Silverstone btw.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1883
Thoughts from others on who has had the edge so far this season? From what I've gathered it's quite even, but I like Ferrari going forward due their huge leap in power.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1338
Location: London
Invade wrote:
Thoughts from others on who has had the edge so far this season? From what I've gathered it's quite even, but I like Ferrari going forward due their huge leap in power.


It's close but I think Ferrari have a slight edge now, but I still think it will come down to driver/team performance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14181
Invade wrote:
Thoughts from others on who has had the edge so far this season? From what I've gathered it's quite even, but I like Ferrari going forward due their huge leap in power.


I'd say Ferrari have had a slight edge on average thus far.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6442
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
One race where I completely disagree with the general consensus is Bahrain. I'm not sure why everyone thinks Ferrari had the best car that weekend. Mercedes had better race pace on one of the best circuits for overtaking.

1. Bottas was faster than Vettel on supersoft tyres and forced Ferrari to pit early him early to avoid being undercut.
2. Bottas put in a 33.7 on medium tyres right after his pitstop with 35 laps of fuel still onboard, which remained the fastest lap until the end of the race.
3. Ferrari were struggling with fuel consumption in Bahrain and were doing a lot of lifting and coasting.

Mercedes have had the best race car in Australia, Bahrain, Spain, France, Austria and Silverstone IMO. That's 6 weekends out of 12.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

that Mercedes have had the best car for 50% of the races? That was your point? Or was it that you believe otherwise, therefore this thread is a joke?

Whether you agree with KingVoid or not, he's put forward a legitimate, logical case for Mercedes being quicker in Bahrain. Maybe you can disprove it by putting your own forward, but dismissing it as evidence of this thread being a joke (assuming that's the point you're making - a bit confused otherwise) just demonstrates a lack of tolerance of differing views and is contrary to your earlier post that you have no problem with or welcome people having an honest opinion that is different to your own

This is what I mean by the disingenuous nature of the contributions in here. That's also what I was talking about with Kingvoid's post. Bahrain was a race where Ferrari set pole by 2 tenths of a second and where Vettel easily gapped Bottas during the first stint. The fact that Ferrari had some tire issues during the race does not somehow negate the fact that they were obviously faster.

As for Silverstone; I don't even have to make that argument. Let's look at what Kingvoid said himself:
"Today in Silverstone, I reckon Ferrari may have had the faster car in qualifying (by maybe a tenth). Hamilton just put together an amazing lap while Seb and Kimi made some small mistakes."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14886&start=1080

Now this is someone with an undeniably biased track record in the forum and yet it was so clear that Ferrari were quicker, he couldn't justify misrepresenting the events of the day. Now that some time has passed, however, and maybe memory has faded a bit, he wants to say that the Mercedes were faster at Silverstone (which they clearly were not).

Anyway, it's probably pointless to have this type of discussion in here because it relies on people being honest.

It’s ridiculous, not to mention conceited, to write off contrary opinion as dishonesty. In Bahrain Ferrari did set pole by two tenths but Hamilton was also uncharacteristically slower than Bottas. In fact, he was a tenth slower than Bottas and Kimi, except you can’t blame the former on the car. There are grounds to say he didn’t get the most out of it, just as there are whenever Kimi beats Vettel.

As regards the race, while Vettel pulled out a gap at the beginning it wasn’t long before Bottas began to reel him in again. Tyre management was key to that race. There are a number of reports available online where Mercedes rued the fact that they didn’t give Bottas the order to push sooner than they did at the end. Which in turn implies that he was managing things. And sure enough when he turned it on he was significantly quicker than Vettel, albeit on different tyres. Point is the cars looked pretty evenly matched overall and strategy made the difference. It’s not dishonest to take a race as close as that and look beyond the opening laps to see how the cars compared.

Personally I think the cars were too close to call with any certainty, although I’d probably lean to the Ferrari having the upper hand in qualifying. Don’t think it’s a dead cert, though

As for Silverstone, people can change their opinions, big deal. That doesn’t make them dishonest. You’re making far too much of it


I could add to that, talking about dishonesty, but I'm happy to let this go. We'll not going to gain anything more than more accusations of being biased against Hamilton.

What I want to add is that the rain is a leveller, it can wipe out advantages or make slower cars look faster and there are many many examples for this. Unless people think that Senna could have been 2nd in Monaco in '84 (or was it '85?, my memory fails me in this one) being in a backmarker car or Schumacher would have won Spain in that bathtub in 1996. And many many more examples.

It was talked about the Ferrari being faster in the slicks in Hungary, putting the heat in them much better than the Merc. The rain took that advantage from them. Now call it fortunate for Mercedes, unfortunate for Ferrari, karma or whatever you want, it took one of the relative strengths of that car away. And that's what happened. Hamilton and Bottas had some great quali laps and drove really well in the race. And that's about it. No one said that it was handed to them, no one said that Ferrari was suddenly a slow car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4851
mikeyg123 wrote:
Invade wrote:
Thoughts from others on who has had the edge so far this season? From what I've gathered it's quite even, but I like Ferrari going forward due their huge leap in power.


I'd say Ferrari have had a slight edge on average thus far.


This is how I see it too.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Strictly focusing on PUs alone, Abiteboul has put some numbers down of what he believes the difference is:

"We believe that in the race we are still five to ten kilowatts behind Ferrari and Mercedes and between 20 and 30 kilowatts ahead of Honda." 

https://www.sport24.co.za/Motorsport/abiteboul-renault-engine-good-enough-for-title-push-20180813

link shamelessly pinched from Jezza13


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2958
Zoue wrote:
Strictly focusing on PUs alone, Abiteboul has put some numbers down of what he believes the difference is:

"We believe that in the race we are still five to ten kilowatts behind Ferrari and Mercedes and between 20 and 30 kilowatts ahead of Honda." 

https://www.sport24.co.za/Motorsport/abiteboul-renault-engine-good-enough-for-title-push-20180813

link shamelessly pinched from Jezza13


Is he just talking about the race? Would explain why Red bull are closer come race day.

"It's a bit harder to quantify in qualifying. The chassis plays too big a role, and with Red Bull the comparison is unfair, because they lag behind in fuel development compared to us."

That Renault engine is not good enough to fight for pole positions or race wins, only at the odd race like Monaco or Singapore and thats more to do with the car than engine or if circumstances play in Redbulls favour like China and Austria.

"But Abiteboul believes Red Bull could have been firmly in the hunt for the title this campaign because their engine, supplied by Renault, is capable of doing so.

It's very clear, it's the car," Abiteboul said when asked by Auto Motor und Sport whether the car or engine needs to improve the most.

"The engine is good enough to put a car in pole position, win races and fight for the title. Red Bull proves it. Without their problems, they would now be fully in the title fight. And only two of their problems had to do with the engine. "

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Strictly focusing on PUs alone, Abiteboul has put some numbers down of what he believes the difference is:

"We believe that in the race we are still five to ten kilowatts behind Ferrari and Mercedes and between 20 and 30 kilowatts ahead of Honda." 

https://www.sport24.co.za/Motorsport/abiteboul-renault-engine-good-enough-for-title-push-20180813

link shamelessly pinched from Jezza13


Is he just talking about the race? Would explain why Red bull are closer come race day.

"It's a bit harder to quantify in qualifying. The chassis plays too big a role, and with Red Bull the comparison is unfair, because they lag behind in fuel development compared to us."

That Renault engine is not good enough to fight for pole positions or race wins, only at the odd race like Monaco or Singapore and thats more to do with the car than engine or if circumstances play in Redbulls favour like China and Austria.

"But Abiteboul believes Red Bull could have been firmly in the hunt for the title this campaign because their engine, supplied by Renault, is capable of doing so.

It's very clear, it's the car," Abiteboul said when asked by Auto Motor und Sport whether the car or engine needs to improve the most.

"The engine is good enough to put a car in pole position, win races and fight for the title. Red Bull proves it. Without their problems, they would now be fully in the title fight. And only two of their problems had to do with the engine. "


I would like to have some of what Abiteboul is smoking really, Renault is almost a second behind Redbull, in normal race conditions without safety car Redbull is in a race of their own not troubling the top two but they have an engine to qualify on pole?

At Monaco where chassis makes the difference Redbull was on pole.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3409
I think what Cyril is saying is that without redbull’s own reliability problems they would be in the title fight. He is suggesting that most of their reliability issues were not engine related. He does know that redbull is superior to them aerodynamically. He also says that redbull would be better off if they ran the same fuel as the works team.

The part I don’t believe is the power deficit to Merc and Ferrari and the gap to Honda. I think he did quite an embellishment job with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 634
aice wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
One race where I completely disagree with the general consensus is Bahrain. I'm not sure why everyone thinks Ferrari had the best car that weekend. Mercedes had better race pace on one of the best circuits for overtaking.

1. Bottas was faster than Vettel on supersoft tyres and forced Ferrari to pit early him early to avoid being undercut.
2. Bottas put in a 33.7 on medium tyres right after his pitstop with 35 laps of fuel still onboard, which remained the fastest lap until the end of the race.
3. Ferrari were struggling with fuel consumption in Bahrain and were doing a lot of lifting and coasting.

Mercedes have had the best race car in Australia, Bahrain, Spain, France, Austria and Silverstone IMO. That's 6 weekends out of 12.


Factoring in reliability, Ferrari had the better race car in Austria. Having the fastest car means little if the driver is unable to cross the finish line due to a mechanical failure.


Yes reliability has to be factored. Mclaren-Mercedes had the quickest car in 14 out of 18 races in 2005 but won nothing.

Similarly, if you switched Hamiltons and Vettels reliability from last year then it would have given the pair about an equal chance to win the title (if not Vettel favourite), where as how it actually played out gave Hamilton by far the better chance with a quicker and more reliable car and winning it with 2 races to spare.

Just giving Hamilton the Japan DNF instead of Vettel makes Vettel champion such is the importance of reliability. Likewise, although not as pivotal if Hamilton had made it home in 4th in Austria he would now have a 36 point lead instead of 24.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4851
kleefton wrote:
I think what Cyril is saying is that without redbull’s own reliability problems they would be in the title fight. He is suggesting that most of their reliability issues were not engine related. He does know that redbull is superior to them aerodynamically. He also says that redbull would be better off if they ran the same fuel as the works team.

The part I don’t believe is the power deficit to Merc and Ferrari and the gap to Honda. I think he did quite an embellishment job with that.


It's probably roughly accurate but deliberately misleading when it comes to Honda. I'd wager that was exactly the type of deficit on average Honda had in Baku for example as they are still struggling with energy recovery/deployment so they're struggling more on tracks with large straights and lots of time on full throttle. Hartley and Honda themselves spoke of it, Silverstone was another they struggled at so it could be ballpark true for there as well.

But there's probably nothing in it on tracks like Hungary,Spain,Monaco however where they've got enough deployment which is why it sounds iffy.

Overall it's the one area they're not quite on Renault's level yet so Cyril's probably deliberately using figures from their worse showing when talking about Honda but Renault's best showing when talking about Merc/Ferrari.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5899
Location: Michigan, USA
Rockie wrote:
I would like to have some of what Abiteboul is smoking really, Renault is almost a second behind Redbull, in normal race conditions without safety car Redbull is in a race of their own not troubling the top two but they have an engine to qualify on pole?

At Monaco where chassis makes the difference Redbull was on pole.

Sure, and McLaren was only behind the leading pack because of the engine. After all, at tracks like Monaco and Hungary they were best of the rest!

Do you agree with that statement? If not, you should consider the possibility that the Red Bull chassis is good at Monaco but not necessarily the best chassis everywhere. In particular their recent nightmare in the wet at Hungary shows that there are serious flaws with that car that have nothing to do with the engine.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:48 pm
Posts: 358
And looking at the weather predictions for next weekend, Red Bull might as well not show up... It looks positively atrocious. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
Exediron wrote:
Rockie wrote:
I would like to have some of what Abiteboul is smoking really, Renault is almost a second behind Redbull, in normal race conditions without safety car Redbull is in a race of their own not troubling the top two but they have an engine to qualify on pole?

At Monaco where chassis makes the difference Redbull was on pole.

Sure, and McLaren was only behind the leading pack because of the engine. After all, at tracks like Monaco and Hungary they were best of the rest!

Do you agree with that statement? If not, you should consider the possibility that the Red Bull chassis is good at Monaco but not necessarily the best chassis everywhere. In particular their recent nightmare in the wet at Hungary shows that there are serious flaws with that car that have nothing to do with the engine.


I really don't understand your argument here, are you saying the Renault engine is on par with Mercedes and Ferrari and it's only Redbull chassis holding it back?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5899
Location: Michigan, USA
Rockie wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Rockie wrote:
I would like to have some of what Abiteboul is smoking really, Renault is almost a second behind Redbull, in normal race conditions without safety car Redbull is in a race of their own not troubling the top two but they have an engine to qualify on pole?

At Monaco where chassis makes the difference Redbull was on pole.

Sure, and McLaren was only behind the leading pack because of the engine. After all, at tracks like Monaco and Hungary they were best of the rest!

Do you agree with that statement? If not, you should consider the possibility that the Red Bull chassis is good at Monaco but not necessarily the best chassis everywhere. In particular their recent nightmare in the wet at Hungary shows that there are serious flaws with that car that have nothing to do with the engine.


I really don't understand your argument here, are you saying the Renault engine is on par with Mercedes and Ferrari and it's only Redbull chassis holding it back?

Not any more than the Honda engine was on par with the rest. I'm saying that Red Bull have problems on top of the Renault engine, and they wouldn't be winning this championship no matter what you put in the back of that car.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3409
Exediron wrote:
Rockie wrote:
I would like to have some of what Abiteboul is smoking really, Renault is almost a second behind Redbull, in normal race conditions without safety car Redbull is in a race of their own not troubling the top two but they have an engine to qualify on pole?

At Monaco where chassis makes the difference Redbull was on pole.

Sure, and McLaren was only behind the leading pack because of the engine. After all, at tracks like Monaco and Hungary they were best of the rest!

Do you agree with that statement? If not, you should consider the possibility that the Red Bull chassis is good at Monaco but not necessarily the best chassis everywhere. In particular their recent nightmare in the wet at Hungary shows that there are serious flaws with that car that have nothing to do with the engine.


Well it definitely makes more downforce than all the other cars. Otherwise they wouldn't be the only ones to be able to take turn 1 at Silverstone with DRS open, and also turn 1 in Hockenheim flat out. They are not running thicker wings or anything. So the downforce comes from the rest of the car. The fact they don't seem to work in the wet suggests they don't warm up their tires properly in the wet, or maybe the engine lacks driveability. I could be wrong there, but I wouldn't be calling the redbull anything less than an excellent chassis. It has proven itself enough.


Last edited by kleefton on Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3409
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
I think what Cyril is saying is that without redbull’s own reliability problems they would be in the title fight. He is suggesting that most of their reliability issues were not engine related. He does know that redbull is superior to them aerodynamically. He also says that redbull would be better off if they ran the same fuel as the works team.

The part I don’t believe is the power deficit to Merc and Ferrari and the gap to Honda. I think he did quite an embellishment job with that.


It's probably roughly accurate but deliberately misleading when it comes to Honda. I'd wager that was exactly the type of deficit on average Honda had in Baku for example as they are still struggling with energy recovery/deployment so they're struggling more on tracks with large straights and lots of time on full throttle. Hartley and Honda themselves spoke of it, Silverstone was another they struggled at so it could be ballpark true for there as well.

But there's probably nothing in it on tracks like Hungary,Spain,Monaco however where they've got enough deployment which is why it sounds iffy.

Overall it's the one area they're not quite on Renault's level yet so Cyril's probably deliberately using figures from their worse showing when talking about Honda but Renault's best showing when talking about Merc/Ferrari.


IMO Renault has lost quite a bit of ground to Merc and Ferrari since those teams last upgraded their power units. If the gap to Honda is mostly in deployment, then Cyril shouldn't be putting those numbers on it. Because when you are missing deployment, it's likely 120kw or 160hp you are missing. Not anything like the 30kw that he is suggesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4851
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
I think what Cyril is saying is that without redbull’s own reliability problems they would be in the title fight. He is suggesting that most of their reliability issues were not engine related. He does know that redbull is superior to them aerodynamically. He also says that redbull would be better off if they ran the same fuel as the works team.

The part I don’t believe is the power deficit to Merc and Ferrari and the gap to Honda. I think he did quite an embellishment job with that.


It's probably roughly accurate but deliberately misleading when it comes to Honda. I'd wager that was exactly the type of deficit on average Honda had in Baku for example as they are still struggling with energy recovery/deployment so they're struggling more on tracks with large straights and lots of time on full throttle. Hartley and Honda themselves spoke of it, Silverstone was another they struggled at so it could be ballpark true for there as well.

But there's probably nothing in it on tracks like Hungary,Spain,Monaco however where they've got enough deployment which is why it sounds iffy.

Overall it's the one area they're not quite on Renault's level yet so Cyril's probably deliberately using figures from their worse showing when talking about Honda but Renault's best showing when talking about Merc/Ferrari.


IMO Renault has lost quite a bit of ground to Merc and Ferrari since those teams last upgraded their power units. If the gap to Honda is mostly in deployment, then Cyril shouldn't be putting those numbers on it. Because when you are missing deployment, it's likely 120kw or 160hp you are missing. Not anything like the 30kw that he is suggesting.


He's talking about race or sustain mode rather than peak power. It's not a set power limit, you can have less than 120kw for longer for example. How they work it to be the most efficient per lap will decide how much they can use and it was there that Honda are said to be missing out.

It'll be completely different at Hungary than it is to Baku though because the demands on the ers is different so they'll have more energy available to increase sustain mode.

It's why their performance is so up and down track to track.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3409
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
I think what Cyril is saying is that without redbull’s own reliability problems they would be in the title fight. He is suggesting that most of their reliability issues were not engine related. He does know that redbull is superior to them aerodynamically. He also says that redbull would be better off if they ran the same fuel as the works team.

The part I don’t believe is the power deficit to Merc and Ferrari and the gap to Honda. I think he did quite an embellishment job with that.


It's probably roughly accurate but deliberately misleading when it comes to Honda. I'd wager that was exactly the type of deficit on average Honda had in Baku for example as they are still struggling with energy recovery/deployment so they're struggling more on tracks with large straights and lots of time on full throttle. Hartley and Honda themselves spoke of it, Silverstone was another they struggled at so it could be ballpark true for there as well.

But there's probably nothing in it on tracks like Hungary,Spain,Monaco however where they've got enough deployment which is why it sounds iffy.

Overall it's the one area they're not quite on Renault's level yet so Cyril's probably deliberately using figures from their worse showing when talking about Honda but Renault's best showing when talking about Merc/Ferrari.


IMO Renault has lost quite a bit of ground to Merc and Ferrari since those teams last upgraded their power units. If the gap to Honda is mostly in deployment, then Cyril shouldn't be putting those numbers on it. Because when you are missing deployment, it's likely 120kw or 160hp you are missing. Not anything like the 30kw that he is suggesting.


He's talking about race or sustain mode rather than peak power. It's not a set power limit, you can have less than 120kw for longer for example. How they work it to be the most efficient per lap will decide how much they can use and it was there that Honda are said to be missing out.

It'll be completely different at Hungary than it is to Baku though because the demands on the ers is different so they'll have more energy available to increase sustain mode.

It's why their performance is so up and down track to track.



I am aware of that possibility, but none of the manufacturer ever talk about it in those terms. Just us armchair experts speculating that some teams may run say 60kw for 66 sec. But I've never heard any of the manufacturers claim that they actually do that. They only refer to 120kw whenever they talk about power from the ers. Are they lying to us and trying to conceal specifics about their deployment? Possible I guess.

I personally miss the days when we used to have the KERS graphics on the onboards and we knew exactly when they were deploying. I wonder why they got rid of that.


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: Blake 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