2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by mds »

Laz_T800 wrote:
mds wrote:
infi24r wrote:I see little evidence of the Merc being clearly the fastest car.
Pole despite dropping two tenths on his teammate in S3 is "little evidence"?

Give me one argument in favor of the Ferrari being equal other than personal opinion that Bottas is as fast as Vettel?
Everything i've seen says that Bottas was less than a tenth faster than Hamilton in S3?
Can you provide a link to the 2 tenths info please.

When you look at the total lap time it would be easy to presume that maybe Bottas has a slightly different setup to Hamilton which allows him to be at maximum pace in the final sector and Hamilton makes his time in S1 and S2?

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... 978&s=7644

Looking at this, both Merc drivers optimised their qualification lap.(ie, they set their 3 fastest sector times in that lap)
Both Ferrari drivers left time on the table.
Right, it was about a tenth. I'm still applying the same logic though.
If you're going to talk about set-up, well, I can apply that to Vettel's car in his first run in Q3 vs his second - who says it was set up 100% the same, that it had not been given just a bit more or less wing, e.g., leading to one sector slightly compromised?
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by mds »

Ocon wrote:
mds wrote:
infi24r wrote:I see little evidence of the Merc being clearly the fastest car.
Pole despite dropping two tenths on his teammate in S3 is "little evidence"?

Give me one argument in favor of the Ferrari being equal other than personal opinion that Bottas is as fast as Vettel?
There is no evidence for either side, we have to wait and see how they stack up. All this discussion in here about Lewis and Vettels laps is beyond ridiculous. The order of the front four could have been completely different had they been given a few more tries at a fast lap.
Of course there is, Merc having pole and a virtual tie for P2.

Lewis admitted his lap didn't start off great but it got better and better, literally means that he also think he left time out there. Unless one somehow is going to argue that a lap that "doesn't start off great" somehow means "getting everything out of the car".
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by mds »

sandman1347 wrote:
robins13 wrote:S3 times on final run in Q3
1 L Hamilton 40.563
2 S Vettel 40.620
3 V Bottas 40.469
4 K Raikkonen 40.741
Thanks, do you have their sector 1 times?
Hamilton 24.036
Vettel 24.053
Bottas 24.152
Raikkonen 24.249

Basically Vettel dropped 0.055 in S1 as compared to his best S1, and by his own admission "maybe" 0.05 in S3 (but still personal best). Put that together, you get slightly over a tenth, still not enough to put in on pole compared to Hamilton driving a lap that "didn't start off great".

Seriously, there are enough arguments to think the Merc still is ahead, or was at least here, on single lap pace. There are no arguments at all that would lead us to believe the contrary.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

sandman1347
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by sandman1347 »

This comparison between the pole lap from last year and this year is staggering. There's your 4 seconds. The difference in the corners is immense and it seems the 2017 engine is enough of a step forward to equalize the performance in a straight line. Without question this is the biggest leap forward in performance from one season to another that I have ever seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtwkn8PNWqs

sandman1347
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by sandman1347 »

mds wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
robins13 wrote:S3 times on final run in Q3
1 L Hamilton 40.563
2 S Vettel 40.620
3 V Bottas 40.469
4 K Raikkonen 40.741
Thanks, do you have their sector 1 times?
Hamilton 24.036
Vettel 24.053
Bottas 24.152
Raikkonen 24.249

Basically Vettel dropped 0.055 in S1 as compared to his best S1, and by his own admission "maybe" 0.05 in S3 (but still personal best). Put that together, you get slightly over a tenth, still not enough to put in on pole compared to Hamilton driving a lap that "didn't start off great".

Seriously, there are enough arguments to think the Merc still is ahead, or was at least here, on single lap pace. There are no arguments at all that would lead us to believe the contrary.
Your argument actually only makes sense if it's a given that Hamilton and Vettel are of identical speed (which it certainly is not). Bottas is actually a strong qualifier and Kimi is a notoriously weak qualifier. There is certainly no concrete way to conclude that one car is any quicker than the other at this point. The gap between Hamilton and Vettel is small enough that it might not be about the car at all. Raikkonen becomes useless as a data-point when it's clear that he can't hook up his lap in Q3. Let's see how things go in the race...

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by mds »

sandman1347 wrote:
mds wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
robins13 wrote:S3 times on final run in Q3
1 L Hamilton 40.563
2 S Vettel 40.620
3 V Bottas 40.469
4 K Raikkonen 40.741
Thanks, do you have their sector 1 times?
Hamilton 24.036
Vettel 24.053
Bottas 24.152
Raikkonen 24.249

Basically Vettel dropped 0.055 in S1 as compared to his best S1, and by his own admission "maybe" 0.05 in S3 (but still personal best). Put that together, you get slightly over a tenth, still not enough to put in on pole compared to Hamilton driving a lap that "didn't start off great".

Seriously, there are enough arguments to think the Merc still is ahead, or was at least here, on single lap pace. There are no arguments at all that would lead us to believe the contrary.
Your argument actually only makes sense if it's a given that Hamilton and Vettel are of identical speed (which it certainly is not). Bottas is actually a strong qualifier and Kimi is a notoriously weak qualifier. There is certainly no concrete way to conclude that one car is any quicker than the other at this point. The gap between Hamilton and Vettel is small enough that it might not be about the car at all. Raikkonen becomes useless as a data-point when it's clear that he can't hook up his lap in Q3. Let's see how things go in the race...
No, YOUR argument only makes sense if it's a given that Bottas and Vettel are of identical speed.

If there is "no concrete way to conclude" then in F1 there is never a way to concretely conclude anything when talking about different cars. Please disprove me that the 2013 Mercedes was not as good a car as the RBR and that Vettel made the difference by being a lot better than Hamilton that year. Please do.

Yes, we'll see how things go in the race, at which point we'll know about their respective race pace. Well, not really of course, as we can't ever concretely conclude anything in F1. Should Vettel win tomorrow because of better race pace, here's my line already for you to disprove: Vettel is much better on the tyres and makes the difference.

...

Or you can ignore my previous two paragraphs as they're clearly nonsense and understand what I'm getting at. When we see Hamilton and Vettel doing two good laps today but they're separated by two tenths, when the difference between Vettel and the second Merc is as good as non-existant, when Hamilton puts it on pole with a lap that, of his own saying, didn't start off that great, when we see all of that, of course that's good reason to believe the Merc was the faster car today. How on earth can anyone state that those aren't good arguments?
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

User avatar
Pole2Win
Posts: 926
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Brazil

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by Pole2Win »

sandman1347 wrote:Your argument actually only makes sense if it's a given that Hamilton and Vettel are of identical speed (which it certainly is not). Bottas is actually a strong qualifier and Kimi is a notoriously weak qualifier. There is certainly no concrete way to conclude that one car is any quicker than the other at this point. The gap between Hamilton and Vettel is small enough that it might not be about the car at all. Raikkonen becomes useless as a data-point when it's clear that he can't hook up his lap in Q3. Let's see how things go in the race...
Sadly it's been around a decade since he was strong at the discipline... :( Grosjean being competitive against him at Lotus-Renault didn't help his case either.

Now, I disagree with your belief that Hamilton is superior to Vettel in qualifying (which is what you seemingly imply). Vettel was the class of the field in his title years and his qualifying prowess greatly helped his strategy on race day. Webber was also known as a fast qualifier ever since his Jaguar and Williams days, though his age and team antics could've slowed him down during Vettel's dominance, so he may not be as reliable a gauge as previously thought. Hamilton could still be faster for all we know but the difference is probably much less than you think, which would mean the car is the bigger factor in the current difference between them.

I believe this assessment that Hamilton is a superior qualifier comes mainly from Vettel's dismal 2014 season against Ricciardo, but the Australian seemed to have his hands full with Verstappen last season, who is by no means ready to fight for titles yet, despite his promising skills.
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")

User avatar
infi24r
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:41 am

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by infi24r »

mds wrote: No, YOUR argument only makes sense if it's a given that Bottas and Vettel are of identical speed.

If there is "no concrete way to conclude" then in F1 there is never a way to concretely conclude anything when talking about different cars. Please disprove me that the 2013 Mercedes was not as good a car as the RBR and that Vettel made the difference by being a lot better than Hamilton that year. Please do.

Yes, we'll see how things go in the race, at which point we'll know about their respective race pace. Well, not really of course, as we can't ever concretely conclude anything in F1. Should Vettel win tomorrow because of better race pace, here's my line already for you to disprove: Vettel is much better on the tyres and makes the difference.

...

Or you can ignore my previous two paragraphs as they're clearly nonsense and understand what I'm getting at. When we see Hamilton and Vettel doing two good laps today but they're separated by two tenths, when the difference between Vettel and the second Merc is as good as non-existant, when Hamilton puts it on pole with a lap that, of his own saying, didn't start off that great, when we see all of that, of course that's good reason to believe the Merc was the faster car today. How on earth can anyone state that those aren't good arguments?

I mean, Bottas has always been a very strong qualifier, relative to Massa. While last year Vettel got out qualified by Raikkonen...

I don't think its unreasonable to assume the cars are similarly paced and Hamilton is the strongest of the pair. Of course being F1, you can never really know anything for sure and its all up to interpretation.

User avatar
Pole2Win
Posts: 926
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Brazil

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by Pole2Win »

infi24r wrote:I mean, Bottas has always been a very strong qualifier, relative to Massa. While last year Vettel got out qualified by Raikkonen...

I don't think its unreasonable to assume the cars are similarly paced and Hamilton is the strongest of the pair. Of course being F1, you can never really know anything for sure and its all up to interpretation.
Massa outqualified Raikkonen at Ferrari in 2008 and 2009. I wouldn't believe that among Bottas, Massa, Vettel and Raikkonen, the German is the worst of the bunch.
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")

sandman1347
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by sandman1347 »

mds wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mds wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
robins13 wrote:S3 times on final run in Q3
1 L Hamilton 40.563
2 S Vettel 40.620
3 V Bottas 40.469
4 K Raikkonen 40.741
Thanks, do you have their sector 1 times?
Hamilton 24.036
Vettel 24.053
Bottas 24.152
Raikkonen 24.249

Basically Vettel dropped 0.055 in S1 as compared to his best S1, and by his own admission "maybe" 0.05 in S3 (but still personal best). Put that together, you get slightly over a tenth, still not enough to put in on pole compared to Hamilton driving a lap that "didn't start off great".

Seriously, there are enough arguments to think the Merc still is ahead, or was at least here, on single lap pace. There are no arguments at all that would lead us to believe the contrary.
Your argument actually only makes sense if it's a given that Hamilton and Vettel are of identical speed (which it certainly is not). Bottas is actually a strong qualifier and Kimi is a notoriously weak qualifier. There is certainly no concrete way to conclude that one car is any quicker than the other at this point. The gap between Hamilton and Vettel is small enough that it might not be about the car at all. Raikkonen becomes useless as a data-point when it's clear that he can't hook up his lap in Q3. Let's see how things go in the race...
No, YOUR argument only makes sense if it's a given that Bottas and Vettel are of identical speed.

If there is "no concrete way to conclude" then in F1 there is never a way to concretely conclude anything when talking about different cars. Please disprove me that the 2013 Mercedes was not as good a car as the RBR and that Vettel made the difference by being a lot better than Hamilton that year. Please do.

Yes, we'll see how things go in the race, at which point we'll know about their respective race pace. Well, not really of course, as we can't ever concretely conclude anything in F1. Should Vettel win tomorrow because of better race pace, here's my line already for you to disprove: Vettel is much better on the tyres and makes the difference.

...

Or you can ignore my previous two paragraphs as they're clearly nonsense and understand what I'm getting at. When we see Hamilton and Vettel doing two good laps today but they're separated by two tenths, when the difference between Vettel and the second Merc is as good as non-existant, when Hamilton puts it on pole with a lap that, of his own saying, didn't start off that great, when we see all of that, of course that's good reason to believe the Merc was the faster car today. How on earth can anyone state that those aren't good arguments?
You seem to take anecdotal evidence a bit too far. His time in sector 1 of his final lap was a personal best. In fact he did PBs in all three sectors on that lap while Vettel did not. You've cherry-picked a statement and made an interpretation of it that may or may not even be what he meant.

The point I'm making is that you can't conclude that one car is faster based on this session. It's a 100% sound point. You seem to want to conclude that the Mercedes is faster and that is a point that simply isn't yet properly supported. You wouldn't have to conclude that Vettel and Bottas are the same pace to come to the conclusion that it's too early to say which car is quicker so I'm not sure your argument there makes sense. You very much can make conclusions about which car is better but it often takes time and perspective. For example, at the time, most people believed the McLaren and Ferrari from 2007 were basically equal but hindsight tells us that's probably not true.

You're jumping to conclusions basically.

User avatar
infi24r
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:41 am

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by infi24r »

Pole2Win wrote:
infi24r wrote:I mean, Bottas has always been a very strong qualifier, relative to Massa. While last year Vettel got out qualified by Raikkonen...

I don't think its unreasonable to assume the cars are similarly paced and Hamilton is the strongest of the pair. Of course being F1, you can never really know anything for sure and its all up to interpretation.
Massa outqualified Raikkonen at Ferrari in 2008 and 2009. I wouldn't believe that among Bottas, Massa, Vettel and Raikkonen, the German is the worst of the bunch.
Thats a rather odd straw man you're making. I never claimed Vettel is the worst of the bunch (if you read my argument, you'd see quite the opposite). Rather that Kimi is the worst of the bunch. Which should be obvious looking at the results.

User avatar
Pole2Win
Posts: 926
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Brazil

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by Pole2Win »

sandman1347 wrote:The point I'm making is that you can't conclude that one car is faster based on this session. It's a 100% sound point. You seem to want to conclude that the Mercedes is faster and that is a point that simply isn't yet properly supported. You wouldn't have to conclude that Vettel and Bottas are the same pace to come to the conclusion that it's too early to say which car is quicker so I'm not sure your argument there makes sense. You very much can make conclusions about which car is better but it often takes time and perspective. For example, at the time, most people believed the McLaren and Ferrari from 2007 were basically equal but hindsight tells us that's probably not true.
This might be a little off-topic but it's relevant to the discussion so why not write.

None of the Ferrari and McLaren drivers were at the top of their game in 2007. Looking at the individual results, Hamilton was the most consistent driver in the first half of the season and Raikkonen was in the second half.

I maintain that the Ferrari and the McLaren were more or less evenly matched that year. If there was a clear speed advantage, Ferrari would've handily won the title, because McLaren was under constant threat of implosion the moment Hamilton mounted a challenge to Alonso.

Gauging driver performance by their results in the seasons after the one being analyzed is not necessarily accurate. What if Massa in 2007 drove as well as he did in the later parts of 2008? What if Raikkonen had carried his good early form all the way to the end of the season in 2008? What if Alonso had been partnered by Gary Paffett in 2007 as was speculated? Even in 2008 the McLaren was the class of the field in the rain. Raikkonen and especially Massa have never been exceptionally good in the rain, but they were greatly hindered by the Ferrari's behavior in such difficult conditions. When a car with the same Ferrari engine as the main works team embarrassed the red cars at a wet Monza of all places (a race Hamilton would've easily won if not for the strategic blunder), you begin to wonder how much of McLaren's performance in the rain was Hamilton's doing and how much was the car simply being better suited for the job. Raikkonen was having trouble heating the tires in his Ferrari and, guess what, in the rain such problem is exacerbated. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that there was a flaw in the car's design that allowed for it.

This is also part of the reason why Max Verstappen was able to act tough in last year's Brazilian GP. He might become a multi-champion in the future but I find it hard to believe a teenager would be able to embarrass the field in heavy rain due to skill alone.

I think it's a good shot to assume Mercedes has a slight edge ATM. Hamilton is not invincible, he lost to Button on points and was kept very honest by Rosberg on multiple occasions (which made Rosberg's title deserved in my view), both drivers he was expected to dominate. Now Bottas is just tenths away from him.
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")

KingVoid
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by KingVoid »

Invade wrote:http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... s=7644&p=3

Code: Select all


The table shows the best of times, by sector and total ideal lap time, which could be provided that the racer has collected all the best with one sector of lap. Not to be confused with the best lap.

1	L Hamilton	   24.036 [2]	27.079 [1]	40.563 [2]	1:31.678		
2	S Vettel	     23.998 [1]	27.191 [3]	40.620 [3]	1:31.809	
3	V Bottas	     24.152 [4]	27.244 [4]	40.469 [1]	1:31.865	
4	K Raikkonen     24.121 [3]	27.150 [2]	40.741 [4]	1:32.012
So Ferrari's ultimate laptime was a 1:31.768 and Mercedes' was a 1:31.584

That's a difference of 0.184 seconds. The gap between Vettel and Hamilton today was 0.186 seconds.

I'm just happy that the gaps aren't as absurdly large as they were in 2015.

sandman1347
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by sandman1347 »

Pole2Win wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:The point I'm making is that you can't conclude that one car is faster based on this session. It's a 100% sound point. You seem to want to conclude that the Mercedes is faster and that is a point that simply isn't yet properly supported. You wouldn't have to conclude that Vettel and Bottas are the same pace to come to the conclusion that it's too early to say which car is quicker so I'm not sure your argument there makes sense. You very much can make conclusions about which car is better but it often takes time and perspective. For example, at the time, most people believed the McLaren and Ferrari from 2007 were basically equal but hindsight tells us that's probably not true.
This might be a little off-topic but it's relevant to the discussion so why not write.

None of the Ferrari and McLaren drivers were at the top of their game in 2007. Looking at the individual results, Hamilton was the most consistent driver in the first half of the season and Raikkonen was in the second half.

I maintain that the Ferrari and the McLaren were more or less evenly matched that year. If there was a clear speed advantage, Ferrari would've handily won the title, because McLaren was under constant threat of implosion the moment Hamilton mounted a challenge to Alonso.

Gauging driver performance by their results in the seasons after the one being analyzed is not necessarily accurate. What if Massa in 2007 drove as well as he did in the later parts of 2008? What if Raikkonen had carried his good early form all the way to the end of the season in 2008? What if Alonso had been partnered by Gary Paffett in 2007 as was speculated? Even in 2008 the McLaren was the class of the field in the rain. Raikkonen and especially Massa have never been exceptionally good in the rain, but they were greatly hindered by the Ferrari's behavior in such difficult conditions. When a car with the same Ferrari engine as the main works team embarrassed the red cars at a wet Monza of all places (a race Hamilton would've easily won if not for the strategic blunder), you begin to wonder how much of McLaren's performance in the rain was Hamilton's doing and how much was the car simply being better suited for the job. Raikkonen was having trouble heating the tires in his Ferrari and, guess what, in the rain such problem is exacerbated. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that there was a flaw in the car's design that allowed for it.

This is also part of the reason why Max Verstappen was able to act tough in last year's Brazilian GP. He might become a multi-champion in the future but I find it hard to believe a teenager would be able to embarrass the field in heavy rain due to skill alone.

I think it's a good shot to assume Mercedes has a slight edge ATM. Hamilton is not invincible, he lost to Button on points and was kept very honest by Rosberg on multiple occasions (which made Rosberg's title deserved in my view), both drivers he was expected to dominate. Now Bottas is just tenths away from him.
Totally disagree with almost everything you've said here. Sure, driver performance can fluctuate but pace is relatively steady (unless you're Kimi). Most drivers see a slight improvement in pace over their first 2-3 years in F1 but then they are relatively steady until they reach the point of decline.

There is absolutely no reason to conclude that the drivers at Ferrari or Mclaren performed poorly in 2007. That is completely false. In fact, they performed quite well and with extreme consistency. There were simply 4 of them all taking wins so no one had a dominant season but that doesn't mean they didn't perform to the best of their abilities at the time. Alonso, Hamilton and Raikkonen all had 12 podium finishes in a 17 race season and Massa had 10. That's consistency and there were very few significant errors on the part of the drivers that year.

The reason Max came through the field in Brazil was because everyone else was on extremely old and worn tires while Max came in for a fresh set during the safety car period. He had at least 2 seconds a lap in those tires over most of the cars he was passing.

As for Hamilton being "expected to dominate" Button and Rosberg; not sure where that expectation comes from. Both are WDCs and both are very strong. Button has outperformed several strong drivers in identical machinery. In fact, short of Hamilton and Alonso, he has been better than just about all of his teammates and that includes some really good ones. Rosberg has been among the fastest drivers in F1 for years and dominated an aging Michael Schumacher while they were teammates.

Aside from 2011, Hamilton has had the measure of both of them and he has had it without needing even a hint of preferential treatment. Even in 2011, Hamilton was clearly faster than Button. He just fell off the map in the second half of the season (when Vettel was already miles ahead in the championship).

Vettel has a similarly strong track record albeit with a slightly darker blemish in the form of his un-avenged defeat to Ricciardo in 2014. Aside from that though, Vettel has always been stronger than his teammates and he has delivered in the seasons when his car was the best.

The reality though, is that we do not know definitively how Hamilton and Vettel compare to one another and therefore we don't really know how fast these cars are relative to each other (other than the fact that they are close).

User avatar
Invade
Posts: 3656
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by Invade »

LOL Bottas????

WOW.

He justs spun behind the safety car and has dropped to 12th place!

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by dizlexik »

Why Max is complaining?
eeee

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by dizlexik »

I think fun race :> Well done Hamilton and Mercedes :) Also Verstapen gsuperb race, Vettel also driven well but Ferrari screwed his race :<

Ediot wrong thread :<
eeee

lamo

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by lamo »

infi24r wrote:
Pole2Win wrote:
infi24r wrote:I mean, Bottas has always been a very strong qualifier, relative to Massa. While last year Vettel got out qualified by Raikkonen...

I don't think its unreasonable to assume the cars are similarly paced and Hamilton is the strongest of the pair. Of course being F1, you can never really know anything for sure and its all up to interpretation.
Massa outqualified Raikkonen at Ferrari in 2008 and 2009. I wouldn't believe that among Bottas, Massa, Vettel and Raikkonen, the German is the worst of the bunch.
Thats a rather odd straw man you're making. I never claimed Vettel is the worst of the bunch (if you read my argument, you'd see quite the opposite). Rather that Kimi is the worst of the bunch. Which should be obvious looking at the results.
Massa out qualified Raikkonen in 2007 too.

lamo

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by lamo »

Pole2Win wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:The point I'm making is that you can't conclude that one car is faster based on this session. It's a 100% sound point. You seem to want to conclude that the Mercedes is faster and that is a point that simply isn't yet properly supported. You wouldn't have to conclude that Vettel and Bottas are the same pace to come to the conclusion that it's too early to say which car is quicker so I'm not sure your argument there makes sense. You very much can make conclusions about which car is better but it often takes time and perspective. For example, at the time, most people believed the McLaren and Ferrari from 2007 were basically equal but hindsight tells us that's probably not true.
This might be a little off-topic but it's relevant to the discussion so why not write.

None of the Ferrari and McLaren drivers were at the top of their game in 2007. Looking at the individual results, Hamilton was the most consistent driver in the first half of the season and Raikkonen was in the second half.

I maintain that the Ferrari and the McLaren were more or less evenly matched that year. If there was a clear speed advantage, Ferrari would've handily won the title, because McLaren was under constant threat of implosion the moment Hamilton mounted a challenge to Alonso.

Gauging driver performance by their results in the seasons after the one being analyzed is not necessarily accurate. What if Massa in 2007 drove as well as he did in the later parts of 2008? What if Raikkonen had carried his good early form all the way to the end of the season in 2008? What if Alonso had been partnered by Gary Paffett in 2007 as was speculated? Even in 2008 the McLaren was the class of the field in the rain. Raikkonen and especially Massa have never been exceptionally good in the rain, but they were greatly hindered by the Ferrari's behavior in such difficult conditions. When a car with the same Ferrari engine as the main works team embarrassed the red cars at a wet Monza of all places (a race Hamilton would've easily won if not for the strategic blunder), you begin to wonder how much of McLaren's performance in the rain was Hamilton's doing and how much was the car simply being better suited for the job. Raikkonen was having trouble heating the tires in his Ferrari and, guess what, in the rain such problem is exacerbated. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that there was a flaw in the car's design that allowed for it.

This is also part of the reason why Max Verstappen was able to act tough in last year's Brazilian GP. He might become a multi-champion in the future but I find it hard to believe a teenager would be able to embarrass the field in heavy rain due to skill alone.

I think it's a good shot to assume Mercedes has a slight edge ATM. Hamilton is not invincible, he lost to Button on points and was kept very honest by Rosberg on multiple occasions (which made Rosberg's title deserved in my view), both drivers he was expected to dominate. Now Bottas is just tenths away from him.
Just a few points -

The Hamilton-Mclaren package was the class of the field in the wet in 2008. The next best package was both Ferraris with an average Kimi and awful Massa in the wet. Raikkonen matched and was even catching Hamilton the opening stint at Silverstone before a Ferrari blunder with the tyres (only changed the fronts). Massa also dominated Monaco in the opening wet stint before Hamilton hit the wall and got a puncture and switched strategy. It was during the drying track phase that Hamilton had the speed to win it, heavy rain the Ferrari was quick. Heikki was lapped by Hamilton in both of his wet weather wins in Monaco and Silverstone.

Vettel winning in Monza was due to him being amazing in the wet, he was also running 3rd in Japan 2007 before rear ending Webber. Webber was also 3rd on the grid in Monza 2008 too. Both good drivers in the wet. Hamilton didn't lose that GP due to a strategic blunder either. He was one stopping and it started to rain again, so he had to two stop. The rain fell perfectly for Vettel right before his 2nd stop.

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by mds »

sandman1347 wrote: You seem to take anecdotal evidence a bit too far. His time in sector 1 of his final lap was a personal best. In fact he did PBs in all three sectors on that lap while Vettel did not. You've cherry-picked a statement and made an interpretation of it that may or may not even be what he meant.
See, I've done exactly what most are doing with Vettel's comment about that he "might have chickened on the brakes a bit". "Might". And that it "might" have cost him 0.05s. But then that's OK to use, while Hamilton saying the lap didn't start off great, that is taking anecdotal evidence a bit too far?
The point I'm making is that you can't conclude that one car is faster based on this session. It's a 100% sound point.[ You seem to want to conclude that the Mercedes is faster and that is a point that simply isn't yet properly supported. You wouldn't have to conclude that Vettel and Bottas are the same pace to come to the conclusion that it's too early to say which car is quicker so I'm not sure your argument there makes sense. You very much can make conclusions about which car is better but it often takes time and perspective. For example, at the time, most people believed the McLaren and Ferrari from 2007 were basically equal but hindsight tells us that's probably not true.

You're jumping to conclusions basically.
I'm not jumping to conclusions. I haven't even concluded anything. IIRC I've only stated that I think the Mercedes is still ahead on single-lap pace. What I am refuting is the idea or the statements by you and others that there are no arguments that support my idea that Merc is still ahead - there are arguments to support this idea and I've laid them out here. I've not said they were conclusive, but they are there.
Last edited by mds on Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Practice & Qualifying Thread

Post by mds »

infi24r wrote: I mean, Bottas has always been a very strong qualifier, relative to Massa. While last year Vettel got out qualified by Raikkonen...
I'll be the first to admit that Vettel doesn't always turn up when he hasn't got the right feel in the car, but when he does he's as good as anyone. I do think he has a much better feel in this one than in the 2016 Ferrari.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

Post Reply