planetf1.com

davidheath461 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:Vettel can't choose his setup?!

Ferrari is inherently a draggy car, and the high downforce package is simply better than the low downforce package.

Then why did Vettel have a higher top speed at Barcelona compared to Hamilton?

Because top speed is not consistent, since setups aren't consistent from weekend to weekend?

Vettel has generally had less top speed than Hamilton this season, but it hasn't been consistent from circuit to circuit. How is that so hard to understand?

It's not difficult to understand, but it contradicts the idea that Ferrari is an inherently draggy car. Clearly they can take drag off the car to the point that they have a higher top speed at Mercedes (as was demonstrated in Barcelona).

davidheath461 wrote:It's not difficult to understand, but it contradicts the idea that Ferrari is an inherently draggy car. Clearly they can take drag off the car to the point that they have a higher top speed at Mercedes (as was demonstrated in Barcelona).

Ennis wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:Vettel can't choose his setup?!

Ferrari is inherently a draggy car, and the high downforce package is simply better than the low downforce package.

You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:Its both. Mercedes have a bit more power and inherently a bit less drag courtesy of the LWB.

Set up can add a bit more but Ferrari would have to take more off to compete in straight line speed which can affect tyre performance (Monza) or electrical recovery (Baku) if they don't get it right. Before Baku they had a blown axle to reduce drag on straights and an extra oil tank to compensate but they were taken away from them.

Its just better for them now to put up with Spa like levels and put up with the lack of top end speed. If Mercedes switch concept to the SWB then they'll have the same balancing act to do and they'll match up a bit more in the top end.

Still after you've said all that it's a fact that Mercedes went with a low down force set up at Spa so that like for like comparison is pointless.

All like for like comparisons are pointless, they are two different concepts.

Ferrari's low d/f config will still be draggier than Mercedes low d/f config because of the nature of their cars design (LWB-Low rake Vs SWB-Higher Rake) so they can either strip even more off than Mercedes do to compensate and risk losing tyre performance over the whole lap which is pointless or simply put up with it being behind in top end performance.

If Mercedes get the perfect low d/f package, right on the brink of losing tyre performance, then there's literally nothing Ferrari can do to match top end speed without losing tyre performance. (Legally anyway, they had two things to combat it but they lost them in Baku).

pokerman wrote:

Ennis wrote:You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Ennis wrote:You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

That's not necessarily true - downforce does not equal drag, although drag is a result of downforce, and some ways of generating downforce are less draggy than others. It could easily be true that Ferrari is generating the same downforce with more drag, which would not be an advantage at all.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

That's not necessarily true - downforce does not equal drag, although drag is a result of downforce, and some ways of generating downforce are less draggy than others. It could easily be true that Ferrari is generating the same downforce with more drag, which would not be an advantage at all.

What we do know is that high rake cars produce more drag, Red Bull's banned trick suspension was designed specifically to offset that, also it's often been said that Ferrari have more down force than Mercedes.

pokerman wrote:

Ennis wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:Vettel can't choose his setup?!

Ferrari is inherently a draggy car, and the high downforce package is simply better than the low downforce package.

You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Ennis wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:Vettel can't choose his setup?!

Ferrari is inherently a draggy car, and the high downforce package is simply better than the low downforce package.

You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

Top speed is something that directly influences wheel to wheel racing when the cars are roughly evenly matched. Belgium is the perfect example of this. This was a disadvantage Vettel had to deal with.

Ennis wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Ennis wrote:

KingVoid wrote: Ferrari is inherently a draggy car, and the high downforce package is simply better than the low downforce package.

You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

Top speed is something that directly influences wheel to wheel racing when the cars are roughly evenly matched. Belgium is the perfect example of this. This was a disadvantage Vettel had to deal with.

Belgium is a horrific example of this, possibly the worst example, given Merc sacrificed optimal lap time for speed down the straights.

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:Its both. Mercedes have a bit more power and inherently a bit less drag courtesy of the LWB.

Set up can add a bit more but Ferrari would have to take more off to compete in straight line speed which can affect tyre performance (Monza) or electrical recovery (Baku) if they don't get it right. Before Baku they had a blown axle to reduce drag on straights and an extra oil tank to compensate but they were taken away from them.

Its just better for them now to put up with Spa like levels and put up with the lack of top end speed. If Mercedes switch concept to the SWB then they'll have the same balancing act to do and they'll match up a bit more in the top end.

Still after you've said all that it's a fact that Mercedes went with a low down force set up at Spa so that like for like comparison is pointless.

All like for like comparisons are pointless, they are two different concepts.

Ferrari's low d/f config will still be draggier than Mercedes low d/f config because of the nature of their cars design (LWB-Low rake Vs SWB-Higher Rake) so they can either strip even more off than Mercedes do to compensate and risk losing tyre performance over the whole lap which is pointless or simply put up with it being behind in top end performance.

If Mercedes get the perfect low d/f package, right on the brink of losing tyre performance, then there's literally nothing Ferrari can do to match top end speed without losing tyre performance. (Legally anyway, they had two things to combat it but they lost them in Baku).

I believe one poster was making a big thing about the Mercedes being 3.8kph quicker in a straight line than the Ferrari, so much is in the design concept so is the engine really making that big of a difference?

Zoue wrote: I don't understand how that's a bad example? Surely the point is that the top speed advantage Mercedes had was a critical influence in the outcome of the race? Doesn't that make it a good example?

KingVoid wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:It's not difficult to understand, but it contradicts the idea that Ferrari is an inherently draggy car. Clearly they can take drag off the car to the point that they have a higher top speed at Mercedes (as was demonstrated in Barcelona).

Ferrari have more rake, and have been slower than Mercedes in the speed trap in the majority of weekends this season.

davidheath461 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:It's not difficult to understand, but it contradicts the idea that Ferrari is an inherently draggy car. Clearly they can take drag off the car to the point that they have a higher top speed at Mercedes (as was demonstrated in Barcelona).

Ferrari have more rake, and have been slower than Mercedes in the speed trap in the majority of weekends this season.

That doesn't necessarily indicate the car is more draggy.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

That's not necessarily true - downforce does not equal drag, although drag is a result of downforce, and some ways of generating downforce are less draggy than others. It could easily be true that Ferrari is generating the same downforce with more drag, which would not be an advantage at all.

What we do know is that high rake cars produce more drag, Red Bull's banned trick suspension was designed specifically to offset that, also it's often been said that Ferrari have more down force than Mercedes.

Yes, which would imply that they have more downforce and also more drag. So it's not all advantages and no disadvantages, is it?

Red Bull seems to have found something to make their high rake car level out considerably when they don't need the downforce, but I don't see any evidence of Ferrari having whatever that is. I personally think the Ferrari is mechanically more grippy than the Mercedes, hence its superior traction at low speed, but not necessarily better on downforce at high speed.

Ennis wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Ennis wrote:

KingVoid wrote: Ferrari is inherently a draggy car, and the high downforce package is simply better than the low downforce package.

You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

Top speed is something that directly influences wheel to wheel racing when the cars are roughly evenly matched. Belgium is the perfect example of this. This was a disadvantage Vettel had to deal with.

Belgium is a horrific example of this, possibly the worst example, given Merc sacrificed optimal lap time for speed down the straights.

Zoue wrote:

Ennis wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Ennis wrote: You can't have it both ways though. If it is a disadvantage for his top speed, its his advantage through corners, following cars, and I assume to overall lap time (otherwise Ferrari would go with a lower downforce setup). It's like saying that the Merc was at an inherent disadvantage to the Manor, because the Manor always topped the speed charts.

It's like I said Ferrari should have all the advantages but no disadvantages it seems?

Top speed is something that directly influences wheel to wheel racing when the cars are roughly evenly matched. Belgium is the perfect example of this. This was a disadvantage Vettel had to deal with.

Belgium is a horrific example of this, possibly the worst example, given Merc sacrificed optimal lap time for speed down the straights.

I don't understand how that's a bad example? Surely the point is that the top speed advantage Mercedes had was a critical influence in the outcome of the race? Doesn't that make it a good example?

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:Its both. Mercedes have a bit more power and inherently a bit less drag courtesy of the LWB.

Set up can add a bit more but Ferrari would have to take more off to compete in straight line speed which can affect tyre performance (Monza) or electrical recovery (Baku) if they don't get it right. Before Baku they had a blown axle to reduce drag on straights and an extra oil tank to compensate but they were taken away from them.

Its just better for them now to put up with Spa like levels and put up with the lack of top end speed. If Mercedes switch concept to the SWB then they'll have the same balancing act to do and they'll match up a bit more in the top end.

Still after you've said all that it's a fact that Mercedes went with a low down force set up at Spa so that like for like comparison is pointless.

All like for like comparisons are pointless, they are two different concepts.

Ferrari's low d/f config will still be draggier than Mercedes low d/f config because of the nature of their cars design (LWB-Low rake Vs SWB-Higher Rake) so they can either strip even more off than Mercedes do to compensate and risk losing tyre performance over the whole lap which is pointless or simply put up with it being behind in top end performance.

If Mercedes get the perfect low d/f package, right on the brink of losing tyre performance, then there's literally nothing Ferrari can do to match top end speed without losing tyre performance. (Legally anyway, they had two things to combat it but they lost them in Baku).

I believe one poster was making a big thing about the Mercedes being 3.8kph quicker in a straight line than the Ferrari, so much is in the design concept so is the engine really making that big of a difference?

I don't personally think there is much difference in the PU in Spa power wise, a little but not much. The difference for me was Mercedes got their low d/f config spot on and Ferrari couldn't go lower than them to counter it. I think Ferrari saw what happened in Spa when Seb tried to pass but couldn't so a week later in Monza they risked taking more off to counter it and their tyres fell out the range and they got hammered.

Which is what I meant by Ferrari having to accept Spa level for their low d/f config and that they'll lose out in the top range for as long as Merc get their low d/f config spot on or switch to a SWB concept like Ferrari's.

KingVoid wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:It's not difficult to understand, but it contradicts the idea that Ferrari is an inherently draggy car. Clearly they can take drag off the car to the point that they have a higher top speed at Mercedes (as was demonstrated in Barcelona).

Ferrari have more rake, and have been slower than Mercedes in the speed trap in the majority of weekends this season.

That doesn't necessarily indicate the car is more draggy.

How about the fact that it's been slower in a straight line in the majority of weekends this season?

As we saw in Monza and Silverstone, Ferrari's low downforce package is simply nowhere near Mercedes in terms of overall competitiveness.

KingVoid wrote:Monza, Montreal, Baku and Silverstone are all low downforce circuits and Ferrari wasn’t near Mercedes in any of them.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that a car that takes pole in 15 out of 20 races and is more reliable than its opponent is somehow inferior or even equal.

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Monza, Montreal, Baku and Silverstone are all low downforce circuits and Ferrari wasn’t near Mercedes in any of them.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that a car that takes pole in 15 out of 20 races and is more reliable than its opponent is somehow inferior or even equal.

I think that Vettel/Ferrari left some poles on the table, put Hamilton in the Ferrari and that might have balanced things up a bit more?

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Monza, Montreal, Baku and Silverstone are all low downforce circuits and Ferrari wasn’t near Mercedes in any of them.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that a car that takes pole in 15 out of 20 races and is more reliable than its opponent is somehow inferior or even equal.

I think that Vettel/Ferrari left some poles on the table, put Hamilton in the Ferrari and that might have balanced things up a bit more?

KingVoid wrote:Monza, Montreal, Baku and Silverstone are all low downforce circuits and Ferrari wasn’t near Mercedes in any of them.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that a car that takes pole in 15 out of 20 races and is more reliable than its opponent is somehow inferior or even equal.

sandman1347 wrote:The biggest difference is that Mercedes almost always capitalized on the circuits where they were stronger while Ferrari often didn't.

KingVoid wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The biggest difference is that Mercedes almost always capitalized on the circuits where they were stronger while Ferrari often didn't.

From the top of my head: Mercedes didn't capitalize in Baku or Brazil, those are two races they clearly should have won based on pace.

Ennis wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The biggest difference is that Mercedes almost always capitalized on the circuits where they were stronger while Ferrari often didn't.

From the top of my head: Mercedes didn't capitalize in Baku or Brazil, those are two races they clearly should have won based on pace.

They should have won in Baku, but they still didn't lose ground to Ferrari through the bizarre failure (2nd & 5th vs 4th & DNF). Game was already over in Brazil.

They've had nothing resembling a Singapore, a race Ferrari should have at minimum 1-3'd with Mercedes 5th but managed to have a double DNF with Hamilton winning. Merc's mess-ups have been nowhere near as devastating as Ferrari's.

lamo wrote: Is there a good example of rules/tyres changing and a dynamic between two drivers really changing much?