planetf1.com

Gumption wrote:Hamilton put in the fastest lap of the race on old Supersofts compared to Vettel on the new ultrasofts in which he had to go all-out to catch the Force Indias. Mercedes definitely had the car to beat in Canada; however, I think that Vettel could have split them had Max not taken off part of his front wing.

Yes, it certainly looks as though Mercedes had quite a lot in hand this race. Didn't see any evidence of tyre issues, either. Tables completely turned from Monaco

Zoue wrote:

Gumption wrote:Hamilton put in the fastest lap of the race on old Supersofts compared to Vettel on the new ultrasofts in which he had to go all-out to catch the Force Indias. Mercedes definitely had the car to beat in Canada; however, I think that Vettel could have split them had Max not taken off part of his front wing.

Yes, it certainly looks as though Mercedes had quite a lot in hand this race. Didn't see any evidence of tyre issues, either. Tables completely turned from Monaco

Monaco was all pace, Canada had incidents which meant Vettel was far behind and pace was hard to judge. Hamilton could save his tyres in Canada as the race was over pretty soon.

If Vettel was 2nd at the first corner I reckon there would have been nothing in it.

Mercedes faster here for sure. Kind if resets the season average to pre Monaco territory. I just have Ferrari the edge then so I will now.

I do think Merc probably have more max pace though.

Cars are still pretty close. I'd say the Merc still has the better power unit by some margin while the Ferrari definitely has the better chassis. The next couple of races are going to be hard for Ferrari to win imo. The huge straights of Baku and the high speed nature of Austria. Silverstone is a toss up, Ferrari should be favored in Hungary.

I wouldn't be suprised if the Merc edged it in Canada full stop but this is with the advantage of Hamilton at one of his best tracks.
I read Vettel also had floor damage and Hamilton never really had to push on the SS tyres.
I think Merc will edge it in Baku but it's intriguing because Vettel could quite easily be on pole.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Gumption wrote:Hamilton put in the fastest lap of the race on old Supersofts compared to Vettel on the new ultrasofts in which he had to go all-out to catch the Force Indias. Mercedes definitely had the car to beat in Canada; however, I think that Vettel could have split them had Max not taken off part of his front wing.

Yes, it certainly looks as though Mercedes had quite a lot in hand this race. Didn't see any evidence of tyre issues, either. Tables completely turned from Monaco

Monaco was all pace, Canada had incidents which meant Vettel was far behind and pace was hard to judge. Hamilton could save his tyres in Canada as the race was over pretty soon.

If Vettel was 2nd at the first corner I reckon there would have been nothing in it.

You could have made the same reasoning about Monaco, just on the opposite way: Monaco too had "that" incident which meant Hamilton would start outside the top 10 in a track where is almost impossible overtake.
Without that and the fluffed setup, maybe Hamilton (being the faster Mercedes driver in general) could have taken the pole (Bottas got pretty close to it) and the picture about which is the faster car in between Ferrari and Mercedes would still be pretty blurred.

Migen wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Gumption wrote:Hamilton put in the fastest lap of the race on old Supersofts compared to Vettel on the new ultrasofts in which he had to go all-out to catch the Force Indias. Mercedes definitely had the car to beat in Canada; however, I think that Vettel could have split them had Max not taken off part of his front wing.

Yes, it certainly looks as though Mercedes had quite a lot in hand this race. Didn't see any evidence of tyre issues, either. Tables completely turned from Monaco

Monaco was all pace, Canada had incidents which meant Vettel was far behind and pace was hard to judge. Hamilton could save his tyres in Canada as the race was over pretty soon.

If Vettel was 2nd at the first corner I reckon there would have been nothing in it.

You could have made the same reasoning about Monaco, just on the opposite way: Monaco too had "that" incident which meant Hamilton would start outside the top 10 in a track where is almost impossible overtake.
Without that and the fluffed setup, maybe Hamilton (being the faster Mercedes driver in general) could have taken the pole (Bottas got pretty close to it) and the picture about which is the faster car in between Ferrari and Mercedes would still be pretty blurred.

I guess the yellow flag can be counted as an incident but any setup issues was of Hamiltons own making in my eyes, it's happened twice now.

I think Ferrari are edging it in races and it was mentioned a few times before today that people believe Ferrari had the faster race car. All the pundits I have heard and read also believe Ferrari is the faster race car. It's not like it's a clear difference but it's most likely regarding all round performance like following other cars and getting the tyres to work quickly.

Australia: Mercedes in qualifying. Ferrari in the race.

China: Mercedes in qualifying, no comparison in the race.

Bahrain: Mercedes in qualifying. Ferrari in the race.

Russia: Ferrari in qualifying, equal in the race.

Spain: Too close to call. The most evenly matched weekend of the season.

Monaco: Ferrari over the whole weekend

Canada: Mercedes over the whole weekend

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Gumption wrote:Hamilton put in the fastest lap of the race on old Supersofts compared to Vettel on the new ultrasofts in which he had to go all-out to catch the Force Indias. Mercedes definitely had the car to beat in Canada; however, I think that Vettel could have split them had Max not taken off part of his front wing.

Yes, it certainly looks as though Mercedes had quite a lot in hand this race. Didn't see any evidence of tyre issues, either. Tables completely turned from Monaco

Monaco was all pace, Canada had incidents which meant Vettel was far behind and pace was hard to judge. Hamilton could save his tyres in Canada as the race was over pretty soon.

If Vettel was 2nd at the first corner I reckon there would have been nothing in it.

I don't know if that's true. Lewis was able to put in the fastest lap for fun on old SS tyres, while Vettel was driving as fast as he could trying to catch other drivers while on fresh US (I think) and was slower. I think the Merc was definitely faster this weekend

Vettel apparently had floor damage. I agree that Mercedes was definitely the best car this weekend though.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Migen wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote: Yes, it certainly looks as though Mercedes had quite a lot in hand this race. Didn't see any evidence of tyre issues, either. Tables completely turned from Monaco

Monaco was all pace, Canada had incidents which meant Vettel was far behind and pace was hard to judge. Hamilton could save his tyres in Canada as the race was over pretty soon.

If Vettel was 2nd at the first corner I reckon there would have been nothing in it.

You could have made the same reasoning about Monaco, just on the opposite way: Monaco too had "that" incident which meant Hamilton would start outside the top 10 in a track where is almost impossible overtake.
Without that and the fluffed setup, maybe Hamilton (being the faster Mercedes driver in general) could have taken the pole (Bottas got pretty close to it) and the picture about which is the faster car in between Ferrari and Mercedes would still be pretty blurred.

I guess the yellow flag can be counted as an incident but any setup issues was of Hamiltons own making in my eyes, it's happened twice now.

I think Ferrari are edging it in races and it was mentioned a few times before today that people believe Ferrari had the faster race car. All the pundits I have heard and read also believe Ferrari is the faster race car. It's not like it's a clear difference but it's most likely regarding all round performance like following other cars and getting the tyres to work quickly.

All the British pundits you mean? Have you accounted their nationalistic bias? Maybe you should read the opinions of some German pundits too. And they too have their nationalistic bias, just on the opposite direction I`d imagine (its their interest to loud the "german" Mercedes team, which also puts Vettel`s efforts in better light too) as its evident from this article in a german site arguing that Mercedes had the best car in Spain.

Or maybe one of those pundits you're forming your opinion of, is the same SkyF1 journalist who was misleading the fans by making a direct comparison between Kimi's outlap and Vettel's "normal" to draw the WRONG conclusion that Kimi lost 3 seconds to Vettel in Monaco due to traffic and cold tires on his outlap alone (disregarding the fact that the outlap will always be much slower due to the different starting line and pit line speed limiter).

Probably, if you adjusted the nationality bias in both cases, you`ll find out that the cars have been pretty even so far.

Maybe Vettels floor damage played a part but his pace in clean air on the new US wasn't that good for me. His car couldn't have been that damaged as he was still lapping 0.3-0.4 a lap quicker than Kimi at that phase.

Hamilton set the fastest lap of the race, 14.4 on 31 lap old super softs. Vettels best was 14.7 on 20 lap old ultras.

Mercedes I feel was the better race car today, although Vettel likely would have beat Bottas in an equal fight.

The Ferrari still had the pace, they was just unlucky, but no one was beating Hamilton today, he would of won in that Ferrari.

On a track were Hamilton has won 6 times it could been seen as Hamilton made the difference in the race, he would of won in either car. Mercedes and both drivers getting all excited saying they have got over the issues is abit premature, give it a few races yet.

Migen wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Migen wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote: Yes, it certainly looks as though Mercedes had quite a lot in hand this race. Didn't see any evidence of tyre issues, either. Tables completely turned from Monaco

Monaco was all pace, Canada had incidents which meant Vettel was far behind and pace was hard to judge. Hamilton could save his tyres in Canada as the race was over pretty soon.

If Vettel was 2nd at the first corner I reckon there would have been nothing in it.

You could have made the same reasoning about Monaco, just on the opposite way: Monaco too had "that" incident which meant Hamilton would start outside the top 10 in a track where is almost impossible overtake.
Without that and the fluffed setup, maybe Hamilton (being the faster Mercedes driver in general) could have taken the pole (Bottas got pretty close to it) and the picture about which is the faster car in between Ferrari and Mercedes would still be pretty blurred.

I guess the yellow flag can be counted as an incident but any setup issues was of Hamiltons own making in my eyes, it's happened twice now.

I think Ferrari are edging it in races and it was mentioned a few times before today that people believe Ferrari had the faster race car. All the pundits I have heard and read also believe Ferrari is the faster race car. It's not like it's a clear difference but it's most likely regarding all round performance like following other cars and getting the tyres to work quickly.

All the British pundits you mean? Have you accounted their nationalistic bias? Maybe you should read the opinions of some German pundits too. And they too have their nationalistic bias, just on the opposite direction I`d imagine (its their interest to loud the "german" Mercedes team, which also puts Vettel`s efforts in better light too) as its evident from this article in a german site arguing that Mercedes had the best car in Spain.

Or maybe one of those pundits you're forming your opinion of, is the same SkyF1 journalist who was misleading the fans by making a direct comparison between Kimi's outlap and Vettel's "normal" to draw the WRONG conclusion that Kimi lost 3 seconds to Vettel in Monaco due to traffic and cold tires on his outlap alone (disregarding the fact that the outlap will always be much slower due to the different starting line and pit line speed limiter).

Probably, if you adjusted the nationality bias in both cases, you`ll find out that the cars have been pretty even so far.

Reading an Amus article which im sure is German it mentions Ferrari has surpassed Mercedes based on simulations on peak engine power. Montreal is a Ferrari track and Lauda said he would just be happy with a front row.

F1_Ernie wrote:On a track were Hamilton has won 6 times it could been seen as Hamilton made the difference in the race, he would of won in either car. Mercedes and both drivers getting all excited saying they have got over the issues is abit premature, give it a few races yet.

I don't know what you could possibly base that on. It's of course possible but in no way a sure thing

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:On a track were Hamilton has won 6 times it could been seen as Hamilton made the difference in the race, he would of won in either car. Mercedes and both drivers getting all excited saying they have got over the issues is abit premature, give it a few races yet.

I don't know what you could possibly base that on. It's of course possible but in no way a sure thing

No one knows if Vettel didn't get clipped he wouldn't of won, team has better strategy, car is better on its tyres, car can follow cars pretty well and arguably the joint best driver in F1. Nothing's ever a sure thing.
I'm basing Hamilton could make the difference because when you win 6 times at one track you are generally seen as a beast around that particular track.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:On a track were Hamilton has won 6 times it could been seen as Hamilton made the difference in the race, he would of won in either car. Mercedes and both drivers getting all excited saying they have got over the issues is abit premature, give it a few races yet.

I don't know what you could possibly base that on. It's of course possible but in no way a sure thing

No one knows if Vettel didn't get clipped he wouldn't of won, team has better strategy, car is better on its tyres, car can follow cars pretty well and arguably the joint best driver in F1. Nothing's ever a sure thing.
I'm basing Hamilton could make the difference because when you win 6 times at one track you are generally seen as a beast around that particular track.

I think Lewis putting in the fastest lap on 30+ lap old tyres would suggest that the Mercedes wasn't suffering from any tyre degradation disadvantage today, so I don't think the claim that Ferrari is better on its tyres holds up in this race. Kimi also couldn't follow Perez very well, so I believe stating it as a fact is a little premature.

It certainly looked as though the Mercedes was the better car today, so I'd dispute the initial point above quite heavily. Lewis is undoubtedly good at this track and I'm not saying he definitely wouldn't have won, but his competitors helped him look good today, too

KingVoid wrote:Australia: Mercedes in qualifying. Ferrari in the race.

China: Mercedes in qualifying, no comparison in the race.

Bahrain: Mercedes in qualifying. Ferrari in the race.

Russia: Ferrari in qualifying, equal in the race.

Spain: Too close to call. The most evenly matched weekend of the season.

Monaco: Ferrari over the whole weekend

Canada: Mercedes over the whole weekend

Although I some what agree, this weekend was a different story. Vettel was able to go from the back of the grid to almost hitting podium. If we had another safety car or two (not virtual) he may have challenged the top 2.

let's see how the next race goes when it comes to Mercs improvements.

Next race is Baku. Place your bets on who will be the fastest.

I'd say Mercedes will have the edge. This is another power track.

nixxxon wrote:Next race is Baku. Place your bets on who will be the fastest.

I'd say Mercedes will have the edge. This is another power track.

Seems this year how the tyres behave affect the performance as much if not more than the engine. Whilst Baku may on paper seem to be right up Merc's alley, their engine won't do them any good if they can't switch on their tyres.

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:On a track were Hamilton has won 6 times it could been seen as Hamilton made the difference in the race, he would of won in either car. Mercedes and both drivers getting all excited saying they have got over the issues is abit premature, give it a few races yet.

I don't know what you could possibly base that on. It's of course possible but in no way a sure thing

No one knows if Vettel didn't get clipped he wouldn't of won, team has better strategy, car is better on its tyres, car can follow cars pretty well and arguably the joint best driver in F1. Nothing's ever a sure thing.
I'm basing Hamilton could make the difference because when you win 6 times at one track you are generally seen as a beast around that particular track.

I think Lewis putting in the fastest lap on 30+ lap old tyres would suggest that the Mercedes wasn't suffering from any tyre degradation disadvantage today, so I don't think the claim that Ferrari is better on its tyres holds up in this race. Kimi also couldn't follow Perez very well, so I believe stating it as a fact is a little premature.

It certainly looked as though the Mercedes was the better car today, so I'd dispute the initial point above quite heavily. Lewis is undoubtedly good at this track and I'm not saying he definitely wouldn't have won, but his competitors helped him look good today, too

Vettel's car had a broken floor, turning vanes and a missing bargeboard. I really don't know how much pace he was losing due to this though.

F1_Ernie wrote:
Reading an Amus article which im sure is German it mentions Ferrari has surpassed Mercedes based on simulations on peak engine power. Montreal is a Ferrari track and Lauda said he would just be happy with a front row.

I guess i wont trust Amus anymore. If we learned anything this past weekend it is that Merc definitely still have the best power units. All the mercedes customer teams looked good at montreal, even lance stroll for crying out loud...

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:On a track were Hamilton has won 6 times it could been seen as Hamilton made the difference in the race, he would of won in either car. Mercedes and both drivers getting all excited saying they have got over the issues is abit premature, give it a few races yet.

I don't know what you could possibly base that on. It's of course possible but in no way a sure thing

No one knows if Vettel didn't get clipped he wouldn't of won, team has better strategy, car is better on its tyres, car can follow cars pretty well and arguably the joint best driver in F1. Nothing's ever a sure thing.
I'm basing Hamilton could make the difference because when you win 6 times at one track you are generally seen as a beast around that particular track.

I think Lewis putting in the fastest lap on 30+ lap old tyres would suggest that the Mercedes wasn't suffering from any tyre degradation disadvantage today, so I don't think the claim that Ferrari is better on its tyres holds up in this race. Kimi also couldn't follow Perez very well, so I believe stating it as a fact is a little premature.

It certainly looked as though the Mercedes was the better car today, so I'd dispute the initial point above quite heavily. Lewis is undoubtedly good at this track and I'm not saying he definitely wouldn't have won, but his competitors helped him look good today, too

Vettel's car had a broken floor, turning vanes and a missing bargeboard. I really don't know how much pace he was losing due to this though.

Not that much, as he was clearly still whipping Kimi

Covalent wrote:

nixxxon wrote:Next race is Baku. Place your bets on who will be the fastest.

I'd say Mercedes will have the edge. This is another power track.

Seems this year how the tyres behave affect the performance as much if not more than the engine. Whilst Baku may on paper seem to be right up Merc's alley, their engine won't do them any good if they can't switch on their tyres.

True, the tyres still have too much of an effect on performance. They are infinitely better than recent years IMO but they could do with being less sensitive, that's for sure

Your basing Vettel's car issues with Kimi, basing anything on Kimi doesn't represent much, plus newer tyres and Kimi did have his own issues. Kimi's pace in the first stint wasn't great and hasn't been the majority of the season.

kleefton wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Reading an Amus article which im sure is German it mentions Ferrari has surpassed Mercedes based on simulations on peak engine power. Montreal is a Ferrari track and Lauda said he would just be happy with a front row.

I guess i wont trust Amus anymore. If we learned anything this past weekend it is that Merc definitely still have the best power units. All the mercedes customer teams looked good at montreal, even lance stroll for crying out loud...

I wouldn't be suprised if they are around equal, most reports I read and hear say Ferrari have caught up. I personally think people still go on about the power advantage because of 14-16 when it was obvious.

Renault engine is not great, Honda is a laugh and do Sauber have last year's Ferrari engine? Looking at that competition i would expect anyone with a Merc engine to do well. Mercedes themselves probably turned down the engines early which could be important.

Zoue wrote:

Covalent wrote:

nixxxon wrote:Next race is Baku. Place your bets on who will be the fastest.

I'd say Mercedes will have the edge. This is another power track.

Seems this year how the tyres behave affect the performance as much if not more than the engine. Whilst Baku may on paper seem to be right up Merc's alley, their engine won't do them any good if they can't switch on their tyres.

True, the tyres still have too much of an effect on performance. They are infinitely better than recent years IMO but they could do with being less sensitive, that's for sure

They need to stop making races 1 stoppers, this doesn't help.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Covalent wrote:

nixxxon wrote:Next race is Baku. Place your bets on who will be the fastest.

I'd say Mercedes will have the edge. This is another power track.

Seems this year how the tyres behave affect the performance as much if not more than the engine. Whilst Baku may on paper seem to be right up Merc's alley, their engine won't do them any good if they can't switch on their tyres.

True, the tyres still have too much of an effect on performance. They are infinitely better than recent years IMO but they could do with being less sensitive, that's for sure

They need to stop making races 1 stoppers, this doesn't help.

I'm not so sure that's an issue. We've still had some decent races

F1_Ernie wrote:Your basing Vettel's car issues with Kimi, basing anything on Kimi doesn't represent much, plus newer tyres and Kimi did have his own issues. Kimi's pace in the first stint wasn't great and hasn't been the majority of the season.

A driver can only really be effectively measured against his team mate. I agree that Kimi was rubbish in Canada, but the fact is that Vettel comfortably beat him, which does tend to indicate that any problems he may have had weren't massively significant

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Covalent wrote:

nixxxon wrote:Next race is Baku. Place your bets on who will be the fastest.

I'd say Mercedes will have the edge. This is another power track.

Seems this year how the tyres behave affect the performance as much if not more than the engine. Whilst Baku may on paper seem to be right up Merc's alley, their engine won't do them any good if they can't switch on their tyres.

True, the tyres still have too much of an effect on performance. They are infinitely better than recent years IMO but they could do with being less sensitive, that's for sure

They need to stop making races 1 stoppers, this doesn't help.

I'm not so sure that's an issue. We've still had some decent races

Was it Spain were there was a big difference between compounds?, that's what I like and with a little more wear. I really enjoy strategies within the races so it's not great hearing you can run a whole race on the softest tyre.

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:Your basing Vettel's car issues with Kimi, basing anything on Kimi doesn't represent much, plus newer tyres and Kimi did have his own issues. Kimi's pace in the first stint wasn't great and hasn't been the majority of the season.

A driver can only really be effectively measured against his team mate. I agree that Kimi was rubbish in Canada, but the fact is that Vettel comfortably beat him, which does tend to indicate that any problems he may have had weren't massively significant

Kimi being rubbish doesn't really suprise me anymore. I was a massive fan early in his career but the last few years he hasn't really been a joy to watch, I see him more of a waste of a seat these days.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Covalent wrote:

nixxxon wrote:Next race is Baku. Place your bets on who will be the fastest.

I'd say Mercedes will have the edge. This is another power track.

Seems this year how the tyres behave affect the performance as much if not more than the engine. Whilst Baku may on paper seem to be right up Merc's alley, their engine won't do them any good if they can't switch on their tyres.

True, the tyres still have too much of an effect on performance. They are infinitely better than recent years IMO but they could do with being less sensitive, that's for sure

They need to stop making races 1 stoppers, this doesn't help.

Personally I believe the mandatory pitstop rule is rubbish and I'd like to see a tyre that could go the whole race distance with different grades of faster tyre that wear away quicker

mcdo wrote: Personally I believe the mandatory pitstop rule is rubbish and I'd like to see a tyre that could go the whole race distance with different grades of faster tyre that wear away quicker

That would be good - if there was an option to run the whole race with one set of tyres. BUT the problem of not being able to overtake is still a major block on improving F1.

Needing to have a much faster car to be able to overtake, means that both tyres or cars need big differences to overtake (Unless DRS works and you get an artificial pass.).

So which car is faster is not a static thing, as it depends on when, and what the circuit is, which tyres are specified for the race, and maybe what the weather is.

Teddy007 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Australia: Mercedes in qualifying. Ferrari in the race.

China: Mercedes in qualifying, no comparison in the race.

Bahrain: Mercedes in qualifying. Ferrari in the race.

Russia: Ferrari in qualifying, equal in the race.

Spain: Too close to call. The most evenly matched weekend of the season.

Monaco: Ferrari over the whole weekend

Canada: Mercedes over the whole weekend

Although I some what agree, this weekend was a different story. Vettel was able to go from the back of the grid to almost hitting podium. If we had another safety car or two (not virtual) he may have challenged the top 2.

let's see how the next race goes when it comes to Mercs improvements.

Vettel was never a "net at the back of the grid", he had made his first stop very early and was pitted into clean air and then when he caught cars they had spread out so he could pick them off easily. Similar to Rosberg in Russia in 2014, he was never a net last place, he made his only pit stop on lap 1 and moved his way up the field as everybody pitted.

lamo wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Australia: Mercedes in qualifying. Ferrari in the race.

China: Mercedes in qualifying, no comparison in the race.

Bahrain: Mercedes in qualifying. Ferrari in the race.

Russia: Ferrari in qualifying, equal in the race.

Spain: Too close to call. The most evenly matched weekend of the season.

Monaco: Ferrari over the whole weekend

Canada: Mercedes over the whole weekend

Although I some what agree, this weekend was a different story. Vettel was able to go from the back of the grid to almost hitting podium. If we had another safety car or two (not virtual) he may have challenged the top 2.

let's see how the next race goes when it comes to Mercs improvements.

Vettel was never a "net at the back of the grid", he had made his first stop very early and was pitted into clean air and then when he caught cars they had spread out so he could pick them off easily. Similar to Rosberg in Russia in 2014, he was never a net last place, he made his only pit stop on lap 1 and moved his way up the field as everybody pitted.

I think you'll find that Seb stopped twice, once to change his wing & put on SS & then to go back on US with about 20 laps to go.

I think his first stop was on lap 3 when the safety car had gone in so he missed a free stop.

lamo wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Australia: Mercedes in qualifying. Ferrari in the race.

China: Mercedes in qualifying, no comparison in the race.

Bahrain: Mercedes in qualifying. Ferrari in the race.

Russia: Ferrari in qualifying, equal in the race.

Spain: Too close to call. The most evenly matched weekend of the season.

Monaco: Ferrari over the whole weekend

Canada: Mercedes over the whole weekend

Although I some what agree, this weekend was a different story. Vettel was able to go from the back of the grid to almost hitting podium. If we had another safety car or two (not virtual) he may have challenged the top 2.

let's see how the next race goes when it comes to Mercs improvements.

Vettel was never a "net at the back of the grid", he had made his first stop very early and was pitted into clean air and then when he caught cars they had spread out so he could pick them off easily. Similar to Rosberg in Russia in 2014, he was never a net last place, he made his only pit stop on lap 1 and moved his way up the field as everybody pitted.

Not sure how you figure that. For a couple of laps after his forced pit stop he was last. He also pitted twice, so you can't even say he got his stop out of the way early, because he ended up having to make up for an extra pit stop over the front runners. Your analysis doesn't add up

I just meant it wasn't the same as if he had spun on lap 1 and ended up 18th. He ended up 18th but had new tyres.

He got his first set of tyres out of the way and got some new SS which enabled him to go to the end or pit again for Ultras. It was a decent strategy, I feel if his car wasn't damaged he would have finished 3rd with either the 1 stop or the 2 stop.

He only lost 22 second but I feel the damage to his car cost him heavily, he must've been losing 0.5+ per lap with that damage.

lamo wrote:I just meant it wasn't the same as if he had spun on lap 1 and ended up 18th. He ended up 18th but had new tyres.

He got his first set of tyres out of the way and got some new SS which enabled him to go to the end or pit again for Ultras. It was a decent strategy, I feel if his car wasn't damaged he would have finished 3rd with either the 1 stop or the 2 stop.

He only lost 22 second but I feel the damage to his car cost him heavily, he must've been losing 0.5+ per lap with that damage.

Yes, but he had new tyres only after pitting. By that logic it should be standard practice for a front team to pit one of their cars immediately after the start to guarantee a podium. It cost him. Big.

If he was losing 0.5+ per lap - where do you get these figures from, btw - then he would have been lapping up to a second per lap faster than Kimi. Now, I don't think Kimi had a good race by any stretch of the imagination but neither did he complain of any issues - aside from the brake problem at the very end - so I don't see how we can say with any confidence that Vettel would have been beating him by such a massive margin.

I'm not doubting it didn't cost him hugely, he might have won without it. I am just saying it wasn't really from the back like Rosbergs drive in Russia 2014 wasn't really from the back. They both pitted early from positions 2 and 4 in those races and were never a net last position. The same as if the leader pits and is momentarily in 6th position because nobody else has pitted, he didn't win the race coming back from 6th as he was never really a net 6th place.

Visually looking at the car and its lap times I guessed at 0.5 per lap. Hamiltons damage in China 2016 looked similar and Mercedes said it lost him 0.7 per lap.

The final stint however is the real comparison between Kimi and Vettel. Both on US, both pushing all out to catch Force Indias.

Looking at this stint before Kimi's failure - Vettel had 8 laps fresher tyres and reduced the gap from 6.7 seconds to 3.4 seconds in 9 laps. He gained just 3.3 seconds or 0.366 per lap. I think having 8 laps fresher tyres would be worth more than that on its own. Therefore Vettel at this phase was probably running slower than Kimi "fuel adjusted".

That is why I guessed at 0.5 per lap lost to damage because I put Vettel at being 0.3-0.4 per lap quicker than Kimi this race. Kimi had his worst race pace all season.