planetf1.com

Mercedes-Benz wrote:Engine performance is exaggerated. Supposedly Ferrari making half a second on Mercedes ? But still Mercedes are dominating. Mercedes not only have engine and party modes. They have the best car as well since 2014. If it rains they still have an advantage. Max performance last year was pretty average and same goes for Vettel and they are suppose to be top drivers in wets.

IMO if Ferrari do have considerable advantage in terms of power in qualifying. They simply have to get 1st row locked out in Canada and then they can try to control the race. In Monaco I think they will fighting RBR unless someone else does a great lap in qualifying. Mercedes should be 1-2

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:No mate quite the opposite, the engine in the merc is the best in the field.

Says who exactly it's not been the best since last year.

Yeah, the 'Mercedes engine advantage' talk just won't die, but in reality that hasn't been the source of their dominance/victory since 2016 IMO. Ferrari were already on par in 2017, and probably ahead in 2018.

A good way to chart the engine dominance is to look at the customers. From 2014 to present, it's quite noticeable that the Mercedes customer teams followed a downward trajectory while the Ferrari customers went up. With rules in place to severely limit the ability of manufacturers to supply a differing spec of engine, that's as good a barometer of engine strength as you'll find.

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: That's true, people do get stuck, you can see it in here, so imagine the casual viewers!

But equally, a stronger engine never guaranteed wins in the modern era, nor being faster in the straight. It's the twisty parts that always made up for the best laps and there's no better example than RB or Mercedes currently, or even Benetton in the mid 90's, Ferrari in the late 90's, etc. So I find it equally misleading people tooting Ferrari being the best engined car because they get a few more ponies. It does not guarantee anything if they get the aero and balance wrong, let alone the reliability. The other Ferrari teams do not fair much better either in the F1.5 category, they are mid-pack.

Overall Merc is winning because they have an ace driver, his team mate that so far has upped his game from the last few years, they have an engine that's not far off from the top in BHP and very reliable, one of the most aero-balanced cars and a team that runs like a well oiled Swiss watch. I do not buy into excuses from the Ferrari team, apart from getting their aero-wrong, that is well recorded now. As Vettel said, their car is good, they just can't extract everything from it; no excuses really.

It may be too late to change the aero philosophy of the car now, but I'm praying that maybe they can work with what they have a bit better. For the good of the show!

I agree with you for the most part but I have to take exception with your characterization of the customer team battle. Ferrari's customers have surged to the fore since the beginning of 2018. When you look at Mercedes period of dominance (2014-2016), their customers were always the strongest. In those days, Williams and FI were the fastest customer teams (besides RBR). Lately Haas has been MUCH faster than them and Fiat/Sauber have also made a massive surge forward up the grid. Simultaneously Williams and FI/RP have fallen off.

Well I'm talking about this year, and this year so far FI/RP are ahead of the Ferrari-engined duo in the points despite having Stroll (who's no Ocon), as well as the Macca Renault powered car, although it is very tight points-wise compared to last year. Both Haas and Alfa Romeo have less points compared to last year (comparing Alfa with Sauber obviously). So I'm not sure if they have made a leap forward this year. On the track they seem ok, but not as good as Haas looked last year.

As for Williams, well they are a disaster, they are dead last because they have the worst car, driver combo and pretty much everything else. They are shambles this year, they have one of the best/most reliable engines on the grid and it is tied on a donkey of a car, we can't seriously compare them to anything really.

Points don't necessarily tell you the whole story though; do they. I'd say the Haas has clearly been the faster car and the Alfa has been fairly competitive too. If you see it as:

Ferrari: A-Ferrari, B-Haas, C-Alfa
Mercedes: A-Mercedes, B-RP, C-Williams

It's pretty clear that the Ferrari-powered teams have the straight line performance edge at every level.

stevey wrote:having the best engine isn't simply the most powerful engine, you got reliability to take into account, you also have to look at how the engine delivers its power.

Any factory team could produce an engine that is more powerful than the merc engine but doesnt have the reliability or any of the other stuff.

To discount that engine from their success is naive, as previously mentioned putting the renault/honda engine in this chassis - they wouldn't be at the front. With Ferrari's maybe but they'd be suffering from some of the same problems also.

its very easy for the marketing teams to simply say Ferrari puts out more Horse power and show the top speed of each team on the straight and the fact that merc isn't at the top makes people think the engine is actually behind the others or equal to them but those stats dont show the whole picture. It would be a marketing nightmare for F1 if they came out saying merc have the best chassis and engine. All the general fans would be whats the point in watching - which is happening now.

pokerman wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:Engine performance is exaggerated. Supposedly Ferrari making half a second on Mercedes ? But still Mercedes are dominating. Mercedes not only have engine and party modes. They have the best car as well since 2014. If it rains they still have an advantage. Max performance last year was pretty average and same goes for Vettel and they are suppose to be top drivers in wets.

IMO if Ferrari do have considerable advantage in terms of power in qualifying. They simply have to get 1st row locked out in Canada and then they can try to control the race. In Monaco I think they will fighting RBR unless someone else does a great lap in qualifying. Mercedes should be 1-2

Ferrari have had better qualifying modes since last year, in 2017 Mercedes being quicker on the straights was proof of having a better engine who cared if the Ferrari looked quicker in the corners or had better tyre management, now that's flipped around still talk is of have Mercedes having the better engine.

In terms of wet weather driving when in recent years as Vettel looked anything special in such conditions, in recent years Kimi has looked to be the quicker wet weather driver.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:Engine performance is exaggerated. Supposedly Ferrari making half a second on Mercedes ? But still Mercedes are dominating. Mercedes not only have engine and party modes. They have the best car as well since 2014. If it rains they still have an advantage. Max performance last year was pretty average and same goes for Vettel and they are suppose to be top drivers in wets.

IMO if Ferrari do have considerable advantage in terms of power in qualifying. They simply have to get 1st row locked out in Canada and then they can try to control the race. In Monaco I think they will fighting RBR unless someone else does a great lap in qualifying. Mercedes should be 1-2

Ferrari have had better qualifying modes since last year, in 2017 Mercedes being quicker on the straights was proof of having a better engine who cared if the Ferrari looked quicker in the corners or had better tyre management, now that's flipped around still talk is of have Mercedes having the better engine.

In terms of wet weather driving when in recent years as Vettel looked anything special in such conditions, in recent years Kimi has looked to be the quicker wet weather driver.

I think the poster explained himself what he meant by best engine, including reliability, power, etc., so why getting upset as if someone blamed Mercedes again?

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:Engine performance is exaggerated. Supposedly Ferrari making half a second on Mercedes ? But still Mercedes are dominating. Mercedes not only have engine and party modes. They have the best car as well since 2014. If it rains they still have an advantage. Max performance last year was pretty average and same goes for Vettel and they are suppose to be top drivers in wets.

IMO if Ferrari do have considerable advantage in terms of power in qualifying. They simply have to get 1st row locked out in Canada and then they can try to control the race. In Monaco I think they will fighting RBR unless someone else does a great lap in qualifying. Mercedes should be 1-2

Ferrari have had better qualifying modes since last year, in 2017 Mercedes being quicker on the straights was proof of having a better engine who cared if the Ferrari looked quicker in the corners or had better tyre management, now that's flipped around still talk is of have Mercedes having the better engine.

In terms of wet weather driving when in recent years as Vettel looked anything special in such conditions, in recent years Kimi has looked to be the quicker wet weather driver.

I think the poster explained himself what he meant by best engine, including reliability, power, etc., so why getting upset as if someone blamed Mercedes again?

He was correct in what he said?

What did he blame Mercedes for?

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:Engine performance is exaggerated. Supposedly Ferrari making half a second on Mercedes ? But still Mercedes are dominating. Mercedes not only have engine and party modes. They have the best car as well since 2014. If it rains they still have an advantage. Max performance last year was pretty average and same goes for Vettel and they are suppose to be top drivers in wets.

IMO if Ferrari do have considerable advantage in terms of power in qualifying. They simply have to get 1st row locked out in Canada and then they can try to control the race. In Monaco I think they will fighting RBR unless someone else does a great lap in qualifying. Mercedes should be 1-2

Ferrari have had better qualifying modes since last year, in 2017 Mercedes being quicker on the straights was proof of having a better engine who cared if the Ferrari looked quicker in the corners or had better tyre management, now that's flipped around still talk is of have Mercedes having the better engine.

In terms of wet weather driving when in recent years as Vettel looked anything special in such conditions, in recent years Kimi has looked to be the quicker wet weather driver.

I think the poster explained himself what he meant by best engine, including reliability, power, etc., so why getting upset as if someone blamed Mercedes again?

He was correct in what he said?

What did he blame Mercedes for?

As if, as if...

Also, it is someone's opinion that the Mercedes engine is overall a better engine, it is not "still talk is that Mercedes have the better engine". Is he so incorrect that the best engine is not only the most powerful, but also has to be reliable?

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Ferrari have had better qualifying modes since last year, in 2017 Mercedes being quicker on the straights was proof of having a better engine who cared if the Ferrari looked quicker in the corners or had better tyre management, now that's flipped around still talk is of have Mercedes having the better engine.

In terms of wet weather driving when in recent years as Vettel looked anything special in such conditions, in recent years Kimi has looked to be the quicker wet weather driver.

I think the poster explained himself what he meant by best engine, including reliability, power, etc., so why getting upset as if someone blamed Mercedes again?

He was correct in what he said?

What did he blame Mercedes for?

As if, as if...

Also, it is someone's opinion that the Mercedes engine is overall a better engine, it is not "still talk is that Mercedes have the better engine". Is he so incorrect that the best engine is not only the most powerful, but also has to be reliable?

It's incorrect when it's not true in terms of reliability which is actually factual that in 2018 Ferrari had a more reliable engine then Mercedes.

Option or Prime wrote:Does that article have merit?

I genuinely don't know about this but wouldn't you expect the circuit to get faster, the track has been rubbered in from the Grand Prix an supporting races, the car is noe set up in its fastest mode and there is clear air for these testing laps. Am I wrong or is it and issue of "how much faster".

The Merc is quick but how quickly could a 'novice' driver in a Ferrari go? Wouldn't you expect the gap to stay about the same so is it? Those times are not included in the article.

Zoue wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:Does that article have merit?

I genuinely don't know about this but wouldn't you expect the circuit to get faster, the track has been rubbered in from the Grand Prix an supporting races, the car is noe set up in its fastest mode and there is clear air for these testing laps. Am I wrong or is it and issue of "how much faster".

The Merc is quick but how quickly could a 'novice' driver in a Ferrari go? Wouldn't you expect the gap to stay about the same so is it? Those times are not included in the article.

I think the point he was making was that a complete novice was still clearly faster than anyone else, not necessarily that he was almost as quick as Bottas. He was just highlighting how good a car the Merc is

Option or Prime wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:Does that article have merit?

I genuinely don't know about this but wouldn't you expect the circuit to get faster, the track has been rubbered in from the Grand Prix an supporting races, the car is noe set up in its fastest mode and there is clear air for these testing laps. Am I wrong or is it and issue of "how much faster".

The Merc is quick but how quickly could a 'novice' driver in a Ferrari go? Wouldn't you expect the gap to stay about the same so is it? Those times are not included in the article.

I think the point he was making was that a complete novice was still clearly faster than anyone else, not necessarily that he was almost as quick as Bottas. He was just highlighting how good a car the Merc is

OK, I understand that however, is Mercedes soooo much better than say the Ferrari? To make a comparison you need a similar novice to jump into a Ferrari and compare times.

If "Andy novice" gets trashed on the same day then fair enough but if the gap is similar to say Bottas v Vettel then we have learned nothing.

It implies that anyone can win in a Merc because it is so superior, its better currently for sure, but I don't think its a sure fire ticket to F1 glory.

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: That's true, people do get stuck, you can see it in here, so imagine the casual viewers!

But equally, a stronger engine never guaranteed wins in the modern era, nor being faster in the straight. It's the twisty parts that always made up for the best laps and there's no better example than RB or Mercedes currently, or even Benetton in the mid 90's, Ferrari in the late 90's, etc. So I find it equally misleading people tooting Ferrari being the best engined car because they get a few more ponies. It does not guarantee anything if they get the aero and balance wrong, let alone the reliability. The other Ferrari teams do not fair much better either in the F1.5 category, they are mid-pack.

Overall Merc is winning because they have an ace driver, his team mate that so far has upped his game from the last few years, they have an engine that's not far off from the top in BHP and very reliable, one of the most aero-balanced cars and a team that runs like a well oiled Swiss watch. I do not buy into excuses from the Ferrari team, apart from getting their aero-wrong, that is well recorded now. As Vettel said, their car is good, they just can't extract everything from it; no excuses really.

It may be too late to change the aero philosophy of the car now, but I'm praying that maybe they can work with what they have a bit better. For the good of the show!

I agree with you for the most part but I have to take exception with your characterization of the customer team battle. Ferrari's customers have surged to the fore since the beginning of 2018. When you look at Mercedes period of dominance (2014-2016), their customers were always the strongest. In those days, Williams and FI were the fastest customer teams (besides RBR). Lately Haas has been MUCH faster than them and Fiat/Sauber have also made a massive surge forward up the grid. Simultaneously Williams and FI/RP have fallen off.

Well I'm talking about this year, and this year so far FI/RP are ahead of the Ferrari-engined duo in the points despite having Stroll (who's no Ocon), as well as the Macca Renault powered car, although it is very tight points-wise compared to last year. Both Haas and Alfa Romeo have less points compared to last year (comparing Alfa with Sauber obviously). So I'm not sure if they have made a leap forward this year. On the track they seem ok, but not as good as Haas looked last year.

As for Williams, well they are a disaster, they are dead last because they have the worst car, driver combo and pretty much everything else. They are shambles this year, they have one of the best/most reliable engines on the grid and it is tied on a donkey of a car, we can't seriously compare them to anything really.

Points don't necessarily tell you the whole story though; do they. I'd say the Haas has clearly been the faster car and the Alfa has been fairly competitive too. If you see it as:

Ferrari: A-Ferrari, B-Haas, C-Alfa
Mercedes: A-Mercedes, B-RP, C-Williams

It's pretty clear that the Ferrari-powered teams have the straight line performance edge at every level.

I said that above, that apart from the points, they look ok on the track, but not as good as they were last year up to this point. And again, straight line performance is not always what wins the races.

I'd classify them as FI/RP, Haas, Alfa and Williams. Not by a big difference, very tight bunch (apart from Williams obviously).

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: I think the poster explained himself what he meant by best engine, including reliability, power, etc., so why getting upset as if someone blamed Mercedes again?

He was correct in what he said?

What did he blame Mercedes for?

As if, as if...

Also, it is someone's opinion that the Mercedes engine is overall a better engine, it is not "still talk is that Mercedes have the better engine". Is he so incorrect that the best engine is not only the most powerful, but also has to be reliable?

It's incorrect when it's not true in terms of reliability which is actually factual that in 2018 Ferrari had a more reliable engine then Mercedes.

And so far this year it is the opposite, Ferrari has had an engine issue while Mercedes didn't

Zoue wrote:Marko wades in:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2019/05/17 ... rcedes-is/

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Marko wades in:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2019/05/17 ... rcedes-is/

It's a strange thing for him to highlight we all know the Mercedes is the best car, is he trying to say that it's not fair?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Marko wades in:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2019/05/17 ... rcedes-is/

It's a strange thing for him to highlight we all know the Mercedes is the best car, is he trying to say that it's not fair?

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Marko wades in:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2019/05/17 ... rcedes-is/

It's a strange thing for him to highlight we all know the Mercedes is the best car, is he trying to say that it's not fair?

What's even more strange is that he neglected to mention that the time was set on the C5 tire (2 compounds softer than what was used in qualifying). This is a non-story...

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Marko wades in:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2019/05/17 ... rcedes-is/

It's a strange thing for him to highlight we all know the Mercedes is the best car, is he trying to say that it's not fair?

I don't see how it's strange. He's saying how if even a complete novice can set such times then clearly the Merc has a pretty significant advantage. He's commenting on performance. After the test. When asked by a reporter. How is this strange?

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Marko wades in:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2019/05/17 ... rcedes-is/

It's a strange thing for him to highlight we all know the Mercedes is the best car, is he trying to say that it's not fair?

What's even more strange is that he neglected to mention that the time was set on the C5 tire (2 compounds softer than what was used in qualifying). This is a non-story...

It's not that strange. He was also 1.6s faster than Kimi in his Alfa and Kimi was also on the C5s. Mazepin was 1.3s ahead of a TR on the C4s and I strongly doubt the C5 has that much pace advantage over the C4.

The noteworthy point that Marko was making was that a complete novice who AFAIAA had never even sat in an F1 car before managed to post some pretty impressive times (which, incidentally, is something that Brundle referred to in his points on change in F1 that the cars are way too easy to drive for novices and should offer more of a driver challenge). So either Mazepin is some kind of superstar in waiting - which judging by the talent scout Marko's comments is not likely - or the Merc is a seriously dominant car. And there's absolutely nothing strange about a senior member of a rival team making that point.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Marko wades in:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2019/05/17 ... rcedes-is/

It's a strange thing for him to highlight we all know the Mercedes is the best car, is he trying to say that it's not fair?

What's even more strange is that he neglected to mention that the time was set on the C5 tire (2 compounds softer than what was used in qualifying). This is a non-story...

It's not that strange. He was also 1.6s faster than Kimi in his Alfa and Kimi was also on the C5s. Mazepin was 1.3s ahead of a TR on the C4s and I strongly doubt the C5 has that much pace advantage over the C4.

The noteworthy point that Marko was making was that a complete novice who AFAIAA had never even sat in an F1 car before managed to post some pretty impressive times (which, incidentally, is something that Brundle referred to in his points on change in F1 that the cars are way too easy to drive for novices and should offer more of a driver challenge). So either Mazepin is some kind of superstar in waiting - which judging by the talent scout Marko's comments is not likely - or the Merc is a seriously dominant car. And there's absolutely nothing strange about a senior member of a rival team making that point.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Marko wades in:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2019/05/17 ... rcedes-is/

It's a strange thing for him to highlight we all know the Mercedes is the best car, is he trying to say that it's not fair?

I don't see how it's strange. He's saying how if even a complete novice can set such times then clearly the Merc has a pretty significant advantage. He's commenting on performance. After the test. When asked by a reporter. How is this strange?

What is strange is the point he's trying to make, what's his motive?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Marko wades in:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2019/05/17 ... rcedes-is/

It's a strange thing for him to highlight we all know the Mercedes is the best car, is he trying to say that it's not fair?

What's even more strange is that he neglected to mention that the time was set on the C5 tire (2 compounds softer than what was used in qualifying). This is a non-story...

It's not that strange. He was also 1.6s faster than Kimi in his Alfa and Kimi was also on the C5s. Mazepin was 1.3s ahead of a TR on the C4s and I strongly doubt the C5 has that much pace advantage over the C4.

The noteworthy point that Marko was making was that a complete novice who AFAIAA had never even sat in an F1 car before managed to post some pretty impressive times (which, incidentally, is something that Brundle referred to in his points on change in F1 that the cars are way too easy to drive for novices and should offer more of a driver challenge). So either Mazepin is some kind of superstar in waiting - which judging by the talent scout Marko's comments is not likely - or the Merc is a seriously dominant car. And there's absolutely nothing strange about a senior member of a rival team making that point.

In Barcelona qualifying the Mercedes was 2.3s quicker than the Alfa and 1.8s quicker than the STR, like it or not there has to be about a 0.5s tyre delta between the C4 and C5, so basically Mazepin when compared to the Alfa was 0.7s slower than pole and compared to the STR was 1s slower than the pole so on average was 0.85s slower than the pole, I'm missing any kind of point that's trying to be made here apart from the obvious that the Mercedes is the quickest car which we all knew anyway.

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Marko wades in:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2019/05/17 ... rcedes-is/

It's a strange thing for him to highlight we all know the Mercedes is the best car, is he trying to say that it's not fair?

What's even more strange is that he neglected to mention that the time was set on the C5 tire (2 compounds softer than what was used in qualifying). This is a non-story...

It's not that strange. He was also 1.6s faster than Kimi in his Alfa and Kimi was also on the C5s. Mazepin was 1.3s ahead of a TR on the C4s and I strongly doubt the C5 has that much pace advantage over the C4.

The noteworthy point that Marko was making was that a complete novice who AFAIAA had never even sat in an F1 car before managed to post some pretty impressive times (which, incidentally, is something that Brundle referred to in his points on change in F1 that the cars are way too easy to drive for novices and should offer more of a driver challenge). So either Mazepin is some kind of superstar in waiting - which judging by the talent scout Marko's comments is not likely - or the Merc is a seriously dominant car. And there's absolutely nothing strange about a senior member of a rival team making that point.

I'm not sure how you've come to these conclusions. Mazepin was not able to match Bottas's time despite having 128 laps in the car and despite running a tire that was more than a second faster than the C3s that Bottas used in qualifying. And for you that means he must be a potential superstar? Can you explain?

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: What's even more strange is that he neglected to mention that the time was set on the C5 tire (2 compounds softer than what was used in qualifying). This is a non-story...

It's not that strange. He was also 1.6s faster than Kimi in his Alfa and Kimi was also on the C5s. Mazepin was 1.3s ahead of a TR on the C4s and I strongly doubt the C5 has that much pace advantage over the C4.

The noteworthy point that Marko was making was that a complete novice who AFAIAA had never even sat in an F1 car before managed to post some pretty impressive times (which, incidentally, is something that Brundle referred to in his points on change in F1 that the cars are way too easy to drive for novices and should offer more of a driver challenge). So either Mazepin is some kind of superstar in waiting - which judging by the talent scout Marko's comments is not likely - or the Merc is a seriously dominant car. And there's absolutely nothing strange about a senior member of a rival team making that point.

I'm not sure how you've come to these conclusions. Mazepin was not able to match Bottas's time despite having 128 laps in the car and despite running a tire that was more than a second faster than the C3s that Bottas used in qualifying. And for you that means he must be a potential superstar? Can you explain?

I think how I came to those conclusions is already explained in the post you replied to so in turn I don't see why you're having such difficulties with it.

I didn't say Mazepin was a superstar - you might want to double check. In turn I'm also a little baffled why this is causing so much angst

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote: It's a strange thing for him to highlight we all know the Mercedes is the best car, is he trying to say that it's not fair?

What's even more strange is that he neglected to mention that the time was set on the C5 tire (2 compounds softer than what was used in qualifying). This is a non-story...

It's not that strange. He was also 1.6s faster than Kimi in his Alfa and Kimi was also on the C5s. Mazepin was 1.3s ahead of a TR on the C4s and I strongly doubt the C5 has that much pace advantage over the C4.

The noteworthy point that Marko was making was that a complete novice who AFAIAA had never even sat in an F1 car before managed to post some pretty impressive times (which, incidentally, is something that Brundle referred to in his points on change in F1 that the cars are way too easy to drive for novices and should offer more of a driver challenge). So either Mazepin is some kind of superstar in waiting - which judging by the talent scout Marko's comments is not likely - or the Merc is a seriously dominant car. And there's absolutely nothing strange about a senior member of a rival team making that point.

I'm not sure how you've come to these conclusions. Mazepin was not able to match Bottas's time despite having 128 laps in the car and despite running a tire that was more than a second faster than the C3s that Bottas used in qualifying. And for you that means he must be a potential superstar? Can you explain?

I think how I came to those conclusions is already explained in the post you replied to so in turn I don't see why you're having such difficulties with it.

I didn't say Mazepin was a superstar - you might want to double check. In turn I'm also a little baffled why this is causing so much angst

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:What's even more strange is that he neglected to mention that the time was set on the C5 tire (2 compounds softer than what was used in qualifying). This is a non-story...

It's not that strange. He was also 1.6s faster than Kimi in his Alfa and Kimi was also on the C5s. Mazepin was 1.3s ahead of a TR on the C4s and I strongly doubt the C5 has that much pace advantage over the C4.

The noteworthy point that Marko was making was that a complete novice who AFAIAA had never even sat in an F1 car before managed to post some pretty impressive times (which, incidentally, is something that Brundle referred to in his points on change in F1 that the cars are way too easy to drive for novices and should offer more of a driver challenge). So either Mazepin is some kind of superstar in waiting - which judging by the talent scout Marko's comments is not likely - or the Merc is a seriously dominant car. And there's absolutely nothing strange about a senior member of a rival team making that point.

I'm not sure how you've come to these conclusions. Mazepin was not able to match Bottas's time despite having 128 laps in the car and despite running a tire that was more than a second faster than the C3s that Bottas used in qualifying. And for you that means he must be a potential superstar? Can you explain?

I think how I came to those conclusions is already explained in the post you replied to so in turn I don't see why you're having such difficulties with it.

I didn't say Mazepin was a superstar - you might want to double check. In turn I'm also a little baffled why this is causing so much angst

You said he set impressive times but when I and sandman look more closely at these times he was about 1 second off the pace, then we want to be saying that this shows how easy the car(s) are to drive or at least that was Marko but we want to be highlighting the statement and for what purpose?

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: What's even more strange is that he neglected to mention that the time was set on the C5 tire (2 compounds softer than what was used in qualifying). This is a non-story...

It's not that strange. He was also 1.6s faster than Kimi in his Alfa and Kimi was also on the C5s. Mazepin was 1.3s ahead of a TR on the C4s and I strongly doubt the C5 has that much pace advantage over the C4.

The noteworthy point that Marko was making was that a complete novice who AFAIAA had never even sat in an F1 car before managed to post some pretty impressive times (which, incidentally, is something that Brundle referred to in his points on change in F1 that the cars are way too easy to drive for novices and should offer more of a driver challenge). So either Mazepin is some kind of superstar in waiting - which judging by the talent scout Marko's comments is not likely - or the Merc is a seriously dominant car. And there's absolutely nothing strange about a senior member of a rival team making that point.

I'm not sure how you've come to these conclusions. Mazepin was not able to match Bottas's time despite having 128 laps in the car and despite running a tire that was more than a second faster than the C3s that Bottas used in qualifying. And for you that means he must be a potential superstar? Can you explain?

I think how I came to those conclusions is already explained in the post you replied to so in turn I don't see why you're having such difficulties with it.

I didn't say Mazepin was a superstar - you might want to double check. In turn I'm also a little baffled why this is causing so much angst

The reason I'm having difficulty is that it doesn't make sense. The gaps that you pointed out to those midfield teams are smaller gaps than were present in qualifying. You claimed that either the Mercedes must be "seriously dominant" or that Mazepin is a potential superstar. That simply doesn't make sense considering the fact that Mazepin's times were not even remotely close to what Hamilton and Bottas were doing (if you factor in the tire compound) and the Mercedes did not compare any differently to the rest of the field in the test than it did in the race. What aspect of this test changes anything about how you see the cars?

And what angst? I'm just asking what you're talking about.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: I'm not sure how you've come to these conclusions. Mazepin was not able to match Bottas's time despite having 128 laps in the car and despite running a tire that was more than a second faster than the C3s that Bottas used in qualifying. And for you that means he must be a potential superstar? Can you explain?

I think how I came to those conclusions is already explained in the post you replied to so in turn I don't see why you're having such difficulties with it.

I didn't say Mazepin was a superstar - you might want to double check. In turn I'm also a little baffled why this is causing so much angst

The reason I'm having difficulty is that it doesn't make sense. The gaps that you pointed out to those midfield teams are smaller gaps than were present in qualifying. You claimed that either the Mercedes must be "seriously dominant" or that Mazepin is a potential superstar. That simply doesn't make sense considering the fact that Mazepin's times were not even remotely close to what Hamilton and Bottas were doing (if you factor in the tire compound) and the Mercedes did not compare any differently to the rest of the field in the test than it did in the race. What aspect of this test changes anything about how you see the cars?

And what angst? I'm just asking what you're talking about.

Course it makes sense. You have a complete rookie posting a time more than two tenths quicker than the reigning WDC did in Qualifying which isn't a bad day at the office, espeically when we see an established driver like Kubica trailing his team mate by over a second Plus I find it somewhat unlikely that the Mercedes would have everything turned up to the absolute max like they did in Qualifying so it's noteworthy and just underlines how dominant the Mercedes is which is the point Marko was making

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: I'm not sure how you've come to these conclusions. Mazepin was not able to match Bottas's time despite having 128 laps in the car and despite running a tire that was more than a second faster than the C3s that Bottas used in qualifying. And for you that means he must be a potential superstar? Can you explain?

I think how I came to those conclusions is already explained in the post you replied to so in turn I don't see why you're having such difficulties with it.

I didn't say Mazepin was a superstar - you might want to double check. In turn I'm also a little baffled why this is causing so much angst

The reason I'm having difficulty is that it doesn't make sense. The gaps that you pointed out to those midfield teams are smaller gaps than were present in qualifying. You claimed that either the Mercedes must be "seriously dominant" or that Mazepin is a potential superstar. That simply doesn't make sense considering the fact that Mazepin's times were not even remotely close to what Hamilton and Bottas were doing (if you factor in the tire compound) and the Mercedes did not compare any differently to the rest of the field in the test than it did in the race. What aspect of this test changes anything about how you see the cars?

And what angst? I'm just asking what you're talking about.

Course it makes sense. You have a complete rookie posting a time more than two tenths quicker than the reigning WDC did in Qualifying which isn't a bad day at the office, espeically when we see an established driver like Kubica trailing his team mate by over a second Plus I find it somewhat unlikely that the Mercedes would have everything turned up to the absolute max like they did in Qualifying so it's noteworthy and just underlines how dominant the Mercedes is which is the point Marko was making

So now we're going to be intentionally obtuse and pretend that we don't understand the difference between Hypersofts and Softs? Really?

Marko wasn't making much of a point at all. He was just whinging. The fact that Mercedes have the top car this year has already been established but nothing about that test alters the perception of the cars' relative levels of performance.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: The reason I'm having difficulty is that it doesn't make sense. The gaps that you pointed out to those midfield teams are smaller gaps than were present in qualifying. You claimed that either the Mercedes must be "seriously dominant" or that Mazepin is a potential superstar. That simply doesn't make sense considering the fact that Mazepin's times were not even remotely close to what Hamilton and Bottas were doing (if you factor in the tire compound) and the Mercedes did not compare any differently to the rest of the field in the test than it did in the race. What aspect of this test changes anything about how you see the cars?

And what angst? I'm just asking what you're talking about.

Course it makes sense. You have a complete rookie posting a time more than two tenths quicker than the reigning WDC did in Qualifying which isn't a bad day at the office, espeically when we see an established driver like Kubica trailing his team mate by over a second Plus I find it somewhat unlikely that the Mercedes would have everything turned up to the absolute max like they did in Qualifying so it's noteworthy and just underlines how dominant the Mercedes is which is the point Marko was making

So now we're going to be intentionally obtuse and pretend that we don't understand the difference between Hypersofts and Softs? Really?

Marko wasn't making much of a point at all. He was just whinging. The fact that Mercedes have the top car this year has already been established but nothing about that test alters the perception of the cars' relative levels of performance.

Charming as ever, I see. And still missing the point. The tyres were different, but we don't know how much difference that would make. And I see you've chosed to ignore the point about the state of the car's tune. Never mind. None of it makes a difference to the fact that the car was still well ahead of anyone else despite being in the hands of a complete rookie.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote: It's not that strange. He was also 1.6s faster than Kimi in his Alfa and Kimi was also on the C5s. Mazepin was 1.3s ahead of a TR on the C4s and I strongly doubt the C5 has that much pace advantage over the C4.

The noteworthy point that Marko was making was that a complete novice who AFAIAA had never even sat in an F1 car before managed to post some pretty impressive times (which, incidentally, is something that Brundle referred to in his points on change in F1 that the cars are way too easy to drive for novices and should offer more of a driver challenge). So either Mazepin is some kind of superstar in waiting - which judging by the talent scout Marko's comments is not likely - or the Merc is a seriously dominant car. And there's absolutely nothing strange about a senior member of a rival team making that point.

I'm not sure how you've come to these conclusions. Mazepin was not able to match Bottas's time despite having 128 laps in the car and despite running a tire that was more than a second faster than the C3s that Bottas used in qualifying. And for you that means he must be a potential superstar? Can you explain?

I think how I came to those conclusions is already explained in the post you replied to so in turn I don't see why you're having such difficulties with it.

I didn't say Mazepin was a superstar - you might want to double check. In turn I'm also a little baffled why this is causing so much angst

You said he set impressive times but when I and sandman look more closely at these times he was about 1 second off the pace, then we want to be saying that this shows how easy the car(s) are to drive or at least that was Marko but we want to be highlighting the statement and for what purpose?

Because this is a thread comparing Mercedes vs Ferrari vs Red Bull and the quote was from a senior figure at Red Bull talking about the Mercedes. I don't lnow how much more relevant it could be to this thread but seemingly your hackles are rising because it's about Mercedes?

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: The reason I'm having difficulty is that it doesn't make sense. The gaps that you pointed out to those midfield teams are smaller gaps than were present in qualifying. You claimed that either the Mercedes must be "seriously dominant" or that Mazepin is a potential superstar. That simply doesn't make sense considering the fact that Mazepin's times were not even remotely close to what Hamilton and Bottas were doing (if you factor in the tire compound) and the Mercedes did not compare any differently to the rest of the field in the test than it did in the race. What aspect of this test changes anything about how you see the cars?

And what angst? I'm just asking what you're talking about.

Course it makes sense. You have a complete rookie posting a time more than two tenths quicker than the reigning WDC did in Qualifying which isn't a bad day at the office, espeically when we see an established driver like Kubica trailing his team mate by over a second Plus I find it somewhat unlikely that the Mercedes would have everything turned up to the absolute max like they did in Qualifying so it's noteworthy and just underlines how dominant the Mercedes is which is the point Marko was making

So now we're going to be intentionally obtuse and pretend that we don't understand the difference between Hypersofts and Softs? Really?

Marko wasn't making much of a point at all. He was just whinging. The fact that Mercedes have the top car this year has already been established but nothing about that test alters the perception of the cars' relative levels of performance.

Charming as ever, I see. And still missing the point. The tyres were different, but we don't know how much difference that would make. And I see you've chosed to ignore the point about the state of the car's tune. Never mind. None of it makes a difference to the fact that the car was still well ahead of anyone else despite being in the hands of a complete rookie.

We know that he was on the C5. We know that he was doing a qualifying sim at the time. You propose that, despite doing a qualifying sim and despite not using an engine that was a part of Lewis or Valteri's allocation, he wasn't running the engine in qualifying mode. I don't know why that makes sense to you but at the very least you must acknowledge that there is no evidence to support that theory.

By the way, we also actually do know that there is roughly 1.2 seconds between the C3 and C5 https://maxf1.net/en/pirelli-reveals-20 ... ifference/. We do not know how quick Mazepin is but he woudln't have to be anything special to do what he did.

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: The reason I'm having difficulty is that it doesn't make sense. The gaps that you pointed out to those midfield teams are smaller gaps than were present in qualifying. You claimed that either the Mercedes must be "seriously dominant" or that Mazepin is a potential superstar. That simply doesn't make sense considering the fact that Mazepin's times were not even remotely close to what Hamilton and Bottas were doing (if you factor in the tire compound) and the Mercedes did not compare any differently to the rest of the field in the test than it did in the race. What aspect of this test changes anything about how you see the cars?

And what angst? I'm just asking what you're talking about.

Course it makes sense. You have a complete rookie posting a time more than two tenths quicker than the reigning WDC did in Qualifying which isn't a bad day at the office, espeically when we see an established driver like Kubica trailing his team mate by over a second Plus I find it somewhat unlikely that the Mercedes would have everything turned up to the absolute max like they did in Qualifying so it's noteworthy and just underlines how dominant the Mercedes is which is the point Marko was making

So now we're going to be intentionally obtuse and pretend that we don't understand the difference between Hypersofts and Softs? Really?

Marko wasn't making much of a point at all. He was just whinging. The fact that Mercedes have the top car this year has already been established but nothing about that test alters the perception of the cars' relative levels of performance.

Charming as ever, I see. And still missing the point. The tyres were different, but we don't know how much difference that would make. And I see you've chosed to ignore the point about the state of the car's tune. Never mind. None of it makes a difference to the fact that the car was still well ahead of anyone else despite being in the hands of a complete rookie.

We know that he was on the C5. We know that he was doing a qualifying sim at the time. You propose that, despite doing a qualifying sim and despite not using an engine that was a part of Lewis or Valteri's allocation, he wasn't running the engine in qualifying mode. I don't know why that makes sense to you but at the very least you must acknowledge that there is no evidence to support that theory.

By the way, we also actually do know that there is roughly 1.2 seconds between the C3 and C5 https://maxf1.net/en/pirelli-reveals-20 ... ifference/. We do not know how quick Mazepin is but he woudln't have to be anything special to do what he did.

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:We know that he was on the C5. We know that he was doing a qualifying sim at the time. You propose that, despite doing a qualifying sim and despite not using an engine that was a part of Lewis or Valteri's allocation, he wasn't running the engine in qualifying mode. I don't know why that makes sense to you but at the very least you must acknowledge that there is no evidence to support that theory.

By the way, we also actually do know that there is roughly 1.2 seconds between the C3 and C5 https://maxf1.net/en/pirelli-reveals-20 ... ifference/. We do not know how quick Mazepin is but he woudln't have to be anything special to do what he did.

I think Zoue has decided there is no performance difference between the C3 and C5 tyres?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I'm not sure how you've come to these conclusions. Mazepin was not able to match Bottas's time despite having 128 laps in the car and despite running a tire that was more than a second faster than the C3s that Bottas used in qualifying. And for you that means he must be a potential superstar? Can you explain?

I think how I came to those conclusions is already explained in the post you replied to so in turn I don't see why you're having such difficulties with it.

I didn't say Mazepin was a superstar - you might want to double check. In turn I'm also a little baffled why this is causing so much angst

You said he set impressive times but when I and sandman look more closely at these times he was about 1 second off the pace, then we want to be saying that this shows how easy the car(s) are to drive or at least that was Marko but we want to be highlighting the statement and for what purpose?

Because this is a thread comparing Mercedes vs Ferrari vs Red Bull and the quote was from a senior figure at Red Bull talking about the Mercedes. I don't lnow how much more relevant it could be to this thread but seemingly your hackles are rising because it's about Mercedes?

In that respect who is disputing that Mercedes has the quicker car, but we seemingly want to bring forward this idea that Mazepin was able to drive the Mercedes close to the speed of the race drivers.