planetf1.com

Merc still have it in Quali, in the race it looked pretty even between Hamilton and Vettel, slightly less even in Raikonnen and Bottas' hands but still not much in it. Dirty air played a huge part in Hamilton keeping the win after that last SC, seems that particular problem really is back with a vengeance.

Flash2k11 wrote: Dirty air played a huge part in Hamilton keeping the win after that last SC, seems that particular problem really is back with a vengeance.

It'd be a violation of the rules of physics for it to not be back.

There was an interview with Ross Brawn where he talked about how him, and two other top engineers (I think one was Newey, IIRC) worked on reducing the amount of dirt air back in early 2000's along with the FiA. They did a lot of research and went with a similar set of assumptions, but when they ran models, the results were exactly the opposite.

Long story short, they found out that tall, narrow rear wings are better than short wide ones. That is why we ended up switching to those in the late 2000's.

It is no surprise that we have more dirty air now that we're back to short and wide wings. It's simple physics backed by data, according to the research done by Ross Brawn and others.

I think the Merc still has an edge.

I also think Hamilton's engine was turned up to something like Quali spec yesterday to keep Vettel at bay.

Ferrari seem to still have the best overall package. Vettel seemed faster than Lewis at times and should have won the race after the SC, he said it himself that he messed up the tow. Hamilton also said that the engine mode things ''helped to keep the faster Vettel behind''. People were saying and are still saying that it's mostly Mercedes tracks left of the season but I think Ferrari were alot stronger than expected at Spa. The Mercedes is reported as being difficult to set up, where the Ferrari isn't. Atleast I haven't heard reports of that.

So, the Ferrari is still a bit better but not always faster.

Why do people keep repeating the Mercedes is difficult to setup, it's just not right we are way past half the season and it's obvious that it simply lacks the downforce which both Redbull and Ferrari have, and it relies on engine grunt, hence high downforce tracks without long straights it suffers simple.

Warheart01 wrote:Ferrari seem to still have the best overall package. Vettel seemed faster than Lewis at times and should have won the race after the SC, he said it himself that he messed up the tow.

Vettel didn't mess up the tow. He said he got too close, but he got that close because Hamilton had lifted. Suppose Vettel isn't that close, Hamilton doesn't lift, and Vettel doesn't pass either.
The Mercedes was the fastest car on Saturday and fast enough to keep Vettel out of DRS on Sunday. It was the car to have this past weekend.

I think Ferrari were alot stronger than expected at Spa.

This is true though.

Rockie wrote:Why do people keep repeating the Mercedes is difficult to setup, it's just not right we are way past half the season and it's obvious that it simply lacks the downforce which both Redbull and Ferrari have, and it relies on engine grunt, hence high downforce tracks without long straights it suffers simple.

One person.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Rockie wrote:Why do people keep repeating the Mercedes is difficult to setup, it's just not right we are way past half the season and it's obvious that it simply lacks the downforce which both Redbull and Ferrari have, and it relies on engine grunt, hence high downforce tracks without long straights it suffers simple.

One person.

Not an individual, the commentators do as well, hence wheen we get to a track with long straights they say the Mercedes found the sweet spot which is just BS.

Rockie wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Rockie wrote:Why do people keep repeating the Mercedes is difficult to setup, it's just not right we are way past half the season and it's obvious that it simply lacks the downforce which both Redbull and Ferrari have, and it relies on engine grunt, hence high downforce tracks without long straights it suffers simple.

One person.

Not an individual, the commentators do as well, hence wheen we get to a track with long straights they say the Mercedes found the sweet spot which is just BS.

How do you know it's BS? There's more chance people will believe an ex driver than someone on a forum.

Warheart01 wrote:Ferrari seem to still have the best overall package. Vettel seemed faster than Lewis at times and should have won the race after the SC, he said it himself that he messed up the tow. Hamilton also said that the engine mode things ''helped to keep the faster Vettel behind''. People were saying and are still saying that it's mostly Mercedes tracks left of the season but I think Ferrari were alot stronger than expected at Spa. The Mercedes is reported as being difficult to set up, where the Ferrari isn't. Atleast I haven't heard reports of that.

So, the Ferrari is still a bit better but not always faster.

Arguably, vettel was only so close behind because Hamilton engaged the wrong engine mode. If he hadn't then it's just as probable that Vettel wouldn't have been so close in the first place. And the extra grunt of the Mercedes in the prime overtaking spot on the circuit showed when Vettel couldn't do anything even with the tow.

The most you can say is that the cars looked pretty evenly matched on Sunday. But the Merc is clearly faster on Saturday, which means it's not exactly an equal fight. The Merc has a built in advantage which puts them in the prime slot at the race start.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Rockie wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Rockie wrote:Why do people keep repeating the Mercedes is difficult to setup, it's just not right we are way past half the season and it's obvious that it simply lacks the downforce which both Redbull and Ferrari have, and it relies on engine grunt, hence high downforce tracks without long straights it suffers simple.

One person.

Not an individual, the commentators do as well, hence wheen we get to a track with long straights they say the Mercedes found the sweet spot which is just BS.

How do you know it's BS? There's more chance people will believe an ex driver than someone on a forum.

This is fallacy an ex driver has no more knowledge of the current Mercedes setup than someone on a forum its basic logic, all he his doing is purely guess work based on previous experience nothing more.

But due to people being lazy it's easy to take the opinion of an ex-driver who has not driven or has no experience of the car he is talking about.

Rockie wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Rockie wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Rockie wrote:Why do people keep repeating the Mercedes is difficult to setup, it's just not right we are way past half the season and it's obvious that it simply lacks the downforce which both Redbull and Ferrari have, and it relies on engine grunt, hence high downforce tracks without long straights it suffers simple.

One person.

Not an individual, the commentators do as well, hence wheen we get to a track with long straights they say the Mercedes found the sweet spot which is just BS.

How do you know it's BS? There's more chance people will believe an ex driver than someone on a forum.

This is fallacy an ex driver has no more knowledge of the current Mercedes setup than someone on a forum its basic logic, all he his doing is purely guess work based on previous experience nothing more.

But due to people being lazy it's easy to take the opinion of an ex-driver who has not driven or has no experience of the car he is talking about.

Yep well I respect the opinions of ex drivers who know a lot more than you.

Ferrari were much closer in Spa than I ever expected. And for that I'm grateful. 2017 is classic season. I keep getting feelings of 1998

A wet race or two would do very nicely in the second half

F1_Ernie wrote:
Yep well I respect the opinions of ex drivers who know a lot more than you.

To put this in perspective, in football people respected Gary Neville's opinion on Managers as a pundit, until he himself became a manager and was peaky till he was sacked.

Rockie wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Yep well I respect the opinions of ex drivers who know a lot more than you.

To put this in perspective, in football people respected Gary Neville's opinion on Managers as a pundit, until he himself became a manager and was peaky till he was sacked.

Zola was one of the greatest prem players ever, rubbish manager. Some players are not cut out to be a manager.
Someone who has been in the sport all there life, knows everything about how the teams are run, the pressure, the downs and ups, data, the list goes on and on.
It's not like DC and Webber have been out the car for that long.

Still Mercedes engine and Ferrari car IMO, Mercedes makes it look easy on saturday, and track position is the key in 2017, so for me easily Mercedes

F1_Ernie wrote:

Rockie wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Yep well I respect the opinions of ex drivers who know a lot more than you.

To put this in perspective, in football people respected Gary Neville's opinion on Managers as a pundit, until he himself became a manager and was peaky till he was sacked.

Zola was one of the greatest prem players ever, rubbish manager. Some players are not cut out to be a manager.
Someone who has been in the sport all there life, knows everything about how the teams are run, the pressure, the downs and ups, data, the list goes on and on.
It's not like DC and Webber have been out the car for that long.

He's all sorts of confused there. Neville remains a great pundit, as he is good at analysing the details of the game on the pitch. He should still be respected for that, but leading a team of millionaires and managing them day in, day out is different than being able to sit there and accurately point out where managers and players have went wrong on the pitch.

In F1 terms.. drivers recognise things more than mere mortals. Some of them just talk rubbish of course, and some will be better at analysing than others. But really key to this, the drivers we're talking about are sitting around the paddock. They're speaking to people actively involved in the teams, so if they're saying a car is difficult to set up its probably because someone in Merc has told them its difficult to set up.

Mark Hughes went in to detail on this btw. One of the key problems was the weight of the car meant simple ballast adjustments to help with balance simply wasn't an option.

More detail on his opinions, includingvsuspension/tyre pressures here - http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/32420/ ... n-f1-title
A little more here touches on how the banning of Merc's heave spring damaged them, basically the banning of this has tended to leave them with either a good front or a good rear & big balance changes at different speeds - http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/32420/ ... nd-ferrari

http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2017/08 ... i-una.html

By switching to Ferrari, first of all it should be stressed that it is not so obvious that Ferrari Grand Prix home ports on the track a new unit, the last, the Power Unit which obviously must comply with the most stringent parameters on the oil issue. The Spec 4 Ferrari, introduced at Spa on Haas and which does not present the much acclaimed steel pistons, it is giving some reliability problem on the test stand and this is why the official Team wanted to take a few more days to decide whether to risk updating already in Monza or even move the debut in Malaysia, focusing on the research of the highest reliability of a power unit that could also decide the fate of this intense world championship of 2017. Considering that the benefits of having a higher oil consumption which are going to affect even in the stages of the race and not only in those qualification , it realized are lower than that to get on the track a more "reliable update", which will not affect the global dream of Sebastian Vettel, as well as more powerful.

Ferraris new engine update might be delayed till Malaysia now.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 52864.html

Ferrari are bringing a completely new rear wing to Monza and maybe a new engine.

Ferrari over the season. More consistent and imo an easier car to drive

F1_Ernie wrote:http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 52864.html

Ferrari are bringing a completely new rear wing to Monza and maybe a new engine.

No new engine, just the wing. I think they will have the 0.9l oil burn limit on the old unit. Or would it be 1.2l?

ReservoirDog wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 52864.html

Ferrari are bringing a completely new rear wing to Monza and maybe a new engine.

No new engine, just the wing. I think they will have the 0.9l oil burn limit on the old unit. Or would it be 1.2l?

If it's an old engine it would be 1.2 right? It's only got to be 0.9 for new engines introduced from this weekend if I understand the rule change correctly.

infi24r wrote:Ferrari over the season. More consistent and imo an easier car to drive

7/12 weekends the Mercedes was the car to have imo. Russia, Spain, Canada, Azerbaijan, Austria, Great-Britain and Belgium. On some of those weekends the Ferrari might have rivaled for race pace, but with these cars the one who wins the drag to T1 has a sizeable advantage towards the race win.

3/12 weekends it was the Ferrari (Bahrain, Monaco, Hungary). One added advantage for Ferrari though, was that in the Monaco weekend the RBR wedged itself between the Ferrari and Mercedes. In all other 11 races, Mercedes and Ferrari were the two best teams.

The other 2 weekends (Australia, China) it could have gone either way depending on who got the strategy right.

mds wrote:

infi24r wrote:Ferrari over the season. More consistent and imo an easier car to drive

7/12 weekends the Mercedes was the car to have imo. Russia, Spain, Canada, Azerbaijan, Austria, Great-Britain and Belgium. On some of those weekends the Ferrari might have rivaled for race pace, but with these cars the one who wins the drag to T1 has a sizeable advantage towards the race win.

3/12 weekends it was the Ferrari (Bahrain, Monaco, Hungary). One added advantage for Ferrari though, was that in the Monaco weekend the RBR wedged itself between the Ferrari and Mercedes. In all other 11 races, Mercedes and Ferrari were the two best teams.

The other 2 weekends (Australia, China) it could have gone either way depending on who got the strategy right.

I do think there's something to be said for how much trust Vettel has in that Ferrari. Again I'll say my memory is horrific, so I might get some details wrong - but when he threw it on to the grass to overtake Bottas, it showed complete trust in how that car would react.

mds wrote:

infi24r wrote:Ferrari over the season. More consistent and imo an easier car to drive

7/12 weekends the Mercedes was the car to have imo. Russia, Spain, Canada, Azerbaijan, Austria, Great-Britain and Belgium. On some of those weekends the Ferrari might have rivaled for race pace, but with these cars the one who wins the drag to T1 has a sizeable advantage towards the race win.

3/12 weekends it was the Ferrari (Bahrain, Monaco, Hungary). One added advantage for Ferrari though, was that in the Monaco weekend the RBR wedged itself between the Ferrari and Mercedes. In all other 11 races, Mercedes and Ferrari were the two best teams.

The other 2 weekends (Australia, China) it could have gone either way depending on who got the strategy right.

A reasonable analysis, but Spain was probably a slight Ferrari track. Hamilton won that through strategy and a bit of luck and got pole because Vettel made an error in the last corner. Bahrain was also won more through strategy too and Hamiltons penalty, they were equal that race in my book.

Its more like;
Mercedes advantage - 5 - Russia, Canada, Azerbaijan, Austria, Great-Britain
Ferrari advantage - 3 - Spain, Hungary, Monaco
Relatively equal - 4 - Australia, China, Bahrain, Spa

I think Spa quite clearly could have gone either way on strategy too. It was very similar to Australia (Mercedes about -0.3 quicker in qualifying and relatively equal in the race), but this time Hamilton came out into clean air after his stop rather than get stuck in traffic. Vettel followed Hamilton within 1.8 seconds the entire race in Spa.

I re-watched the race with sound yesterday (watched it in a bar with no sound first time). I now know why Ferrari didn't attempt to undercut Hamilton in stint 1. Hamilton pitted first and came out 1 second ahead of Ricciardo, the pit stop window literally just opened up for him to pit and not be held up by Ricciardo. That window never opened up for Vettel so he had no options to undercut as his undercut lap would involve needing to pass Ricciardo which means it wouldn't have worked.

If Vettel had a window to undercut he could have easily won the race. He also would have had a very good chance to win it if it was a 2 stopper without the SC as he would have DRS straight away once his US went on and not have to wait 2 laps for it to be activated like under the SC restart. He could have also won the race if he had played the restart differently.

1) On normal laps, Hamilton and Vettel had both used 30% ERS by the end of the Kemmel straight. On the restart lap, Hamilton had used 50% and Vettel his usual 30%. Hamilton had the engine full on. If Vettel had done the same he likely would have had the lead.
2) He had a big tyre advantage for only a few laps but no DRS, he could/should have not pushed the tyres so hard so early. Dropped back a bit and waited for DRS to be activated and then had a big push for 2 laps (1 to close the gap, 1 to attempt the pass). He seemed to be able to get within 1.2 of Hamilton when on equal tyres, he should have been able to get into DRS with that tyre advantage.

No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Yeah Russia was a Ferrari track, front row lockout and only lost because Bottas jumped them off the line and held on.

Lotus49 wrote:Yeah Russia was a Ferrari track, front row lockout and only lost because Bottas jumped them off the line and held on.

Its the hardest race of the season to judge, I don't think it was a Ferrari track though. It was probably more another even one overall, its really hard to judge Mercedes there as Hamilton did not show up but then again its historically Bottas' strongest track so if Lewis did turn up would he only have been on Bottas' pace or very narrowly quicker, half a tenth type region?

Ferrari did lock out the front row but it was very close between the top 3 drivers that day, curiously both Mercedes were slower slightly slower in Q3 than Q2. Vettel would have won the race if he was ahead at turn 1 though and Bottas wasn't the quickest driver in qualifying or the race.

Revised list;

Mercedes advantage - 4 - Canada, Azerbaijan, Austria, Great-Britain
Ferrari advantage - 3 - Spain, Hungary, Monaco
Relatively equal - 5 - Russia, Australia, China, Bahrain, Spa

Makes sense lamo.

So, Merc has an edge about 60:40.

F1_Ernie wrote:No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Edit, added: In SPA, Mercedes had an advantage in qualifyings, and crucially, was also faster on the 1st sector during the race which was the only realistic part of the track where an overtaking between Ferrari and Mercedes could take place.

If as you say, Ferrari had to rely on outsmarting Mercedes on strategy in order to win, then clearly Mercedes had the right kind of "advantage" that really counts for the SPA race, regardless of whether Ferrari might have had a marginally better race-pace or not.

Migen wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Mercedes had an advantage in qualifyings, and crucially, was also faster on the 1st sector during the race which was the only realistic part of the track where an overtaking between Ferrari and Mercedes could take place.

If as you say, Ferrari had to rely on outsmarting Mercedes on strategy in order to win, then clearly Mercedes had the right kind of "advantage" that really counts for the SPA race, regardless of whether Ferrari might have had a marginally better race-pace or not.

Yes, think people are missing this point and underestimating, or else simply ignoring, the value of the Mercedes qualifying advantage at most tracks. Defending the lead is much easier than trying to figure out how to make a successful pass

Zoue wrote:

Migen wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Mercedes had an advantage in qualifyings, and crucially, was also faster on the 1st sector during the race which was the only realistic part of the track where an overtaking between Ferrari and Mercedes could take place.

If as you say, Ferrari had to rely on outsmarting Mercedes on strategy in order to win, then clearly Mercedes had the right kind of "advantage" that really counts for the SPA race, regardless of whether Ferrari might have had a marginally better race-pace or not.

Yes, think people are missing this point and underestimating, or else simply ignoring, the value of the Mercedes qualifying advantage at most tracks. Defending the lead is much easier than trying to figure out how to make a successful pass

Qualy is important


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... onado.html

Migen wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Mercedes had an advantage in qualifyings, and crucially, was also faster on the 1st sector during the race which was the only realistic part of the track where an overtaking between Ferrari and Mercedes could take place.

If as you say, Ferrari had to rely on outsmarting Mercedes on strategy in order to win, then clearly Mercedes had the right kind of "advantage" that really counts for the SPA race, regardless of whether Ferrari might have had a marginally better race-pace or not.

Ferrari were faster in the speed trap and in S1 in Spain. Seb lost 4ths in the penultimate corner. They were faster in Canada too in the power sector(S3), it's what made Mercedes go to the FIA wondering about the extra oil burning Ferrari were doing.

Lotus49 wrote:

Migen wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Mercedes had an advantage in qualifyings, and crucially, was also faster on the 1st sector during the race which was the only realistic part of the track where an overtaking between Ferrari and Mercedes could take place.

If as you say, Ferrari had to rely on outsmarting Mercedes on strategy in order to win, then clearly Mercedes had the right kind of "advantage" that really counts for the SPA race, regardless of whether Ferrari might have had a marginally better race-pace or not.

Ferrari were faster in the speed trap and in S1 in Spain. Seb lost 4ths in the penultimate corner. They were faster in Canada too in the power sector(S3), it's what made Mercedes go to the FIA wondering about the extra oil burning Ferrari were doing.

Sorry, my bad... I should have specified that my reply was referring to the SPA race only.

Migen wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Mercedes had an advantage in qualifyings, and crucially, was also faster on the 1st sector during the race which was the only realistic part of the track where an overtaking between Ferrari and Mercedes could take place.

If as you say, Ferrari had to rely on outsmarting Mercedes on strategy in order to win, then clearly Mercedes had the right kind of "advantage" that really counts for the SPA race, regardless of whether Ferrari might have had a marginally better race-pace or not.

How do you know Hamilton was faster than Vettel in the 1st sector?, Vettel was stuck in the dirty air and most people suspect if the Ferrari was in front it would have pulled away. That's because it was the faster car.

Overtaking between a Ferrari and Mercedes will barely happen all season as they are so close on pace.

The Ferrari can follow the Mercedes close while not wearing it's tyres down too much. Apparently Hamilton would have needed to pit again whatever in Spa, the SC helped them out.

Redbull was the fastest car in Baku because it won the race.

Migen wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

Migen wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Mercedes had an advantage in qualifyings, and crucially, was also faster on the 1st sector during the race which was the only realistic part of the track where an overtaking between Ferrari and Mercedes could take place.

If as you say, Ferrari had to rely on outsmarting Mercedes on strategy in order to win, then clearly Mercedes had the right kind of "advantage" that really counts for the SPA race, regardless of whether Ferrari might have had a marginally better race-pace or not.

Ferrari were faster in the speed trap and in S1 in Spain. Seb lost 4ths in the penultimate corner. They were faster in Canada too in the power sector(S3), it's what made Mercedes go to the FIA wondering about the extra oil burning Ferrari were doing.

Sorry, my bad... I should have specified that my reply was referring to the SPA race only.

Ah, no worries.

mcdo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Migen wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Mercedes had an advantage in qualifyings, and crucially, was also faster on the 1st sector during the race which was the only realistic part of the track where an overtaking between Ferrari and Mercedes could take place.

If as you say, Ferrari had to rely on outsmarting Mercedes on strategy in order to win, then clearly Mercedes had the right kind of "advantage" that really counts for the SPA race, regardless of whether Ferrari might have had a marginally better race-pace or not.

Yes, think people are missing this point and underestimating, or else simply ignoring, the value of the Mercedes qualifying advantage at most tracks. Defending the lead is much easier than trying to figure out how to make a successful pass

Qualy is important


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... onado.html

Not sure if you are joking but Maldonado actually lost the lead in that race and undercut Alonso to retake it .

F1_Ernie wrote:

Migen wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Mercedes had an advantage in qualifyings, and crucially, was also faster on the 1st sector during the race which was the only realistic part of the track where an overtaking between Ferrari and Mercedes could take place.

If as you say, Ferrari had to rely on outsmarting Mercedes on strategy in order to win, then clearly Mercedes had the right kind of "advantage" that really counts for the SPA race, regardless of whether Ferrari might have had a marginally better race-pace or not.

How do you know Hamilton was faster than Vettel in the 1st sector?, Vettel was stuck in the dirty air and most people suspect if the Ferrari was in front it would have pulled away. That's because it was the faster car.

Overtaking between a Ferrari and Mercedes will barely happen all season as they are so close on pace.

Based on this video comparison of the qually laps between Hamilton and Vettel, where the Mercedes is seen having and creating a 0.150 seconds advantage over Ferrari, not over the whole S1, but just on the 2nd half of it at the only place where you could realistically overtake a car... and I'd suspect that part of that advantage carried out throughout the race too.
Which is why even with the help of a toe, Vettel's Ferrari couldnt yet gain enough momentum for an overtake.

Lotus49 wrote:Yeah Russia was a Ferrari track, front row lockout and only lost because Bottas jumped them off the line and held on.

If memory serves the Ferrari's pulled away fine but the Mercedes grunt kicked in on the long run to T1 and they had no answer. And I'm not sure whether Vettel would've come so close to Bottas at the end if Bottas hadn't flatspotted a tyre.

I also think there was something to the qualifying laps, IIRC the Merc should have had pole when combining the best sectors from the Q3 runs but the drivers didn't put a good complete lap together while the Ferrari's pretty much put their best sector times together. Although I would have to check this.

I also have this idea about "relatively equal" => even with the Ferrari good on race pace, if the Merc is still the pole car and tactical options are limited, then "relatively equal" buys Ferrari nothing and the Mercedes is still the car to have. That's why I can't agree with 4/3/5.