planetf1.com

Honestly at this stage, Mercedes should be concerned about securing the championship. They have been way behind Ferrari these last 2 races and Malaysia is actually a race you would have expected them to be quicker. Not only have they been behind Ferrari but, of late, they've been behind Red Bull too. It's no longer just a 2-team battle.

I really do wonder what some people are watching with regards to some of the comments in here but luck and car performance are two different things. Mercedes have really been struggling on performance lately and Ferrari have been desperately unlucky. These last 2 races should have been easy wins for Seb and today was a 1-2. Japan should be another strong one for them...

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:If you are just judging by qualifying then what's the need of this thread?

Qualifying is the tiebreaker when race pace is too close to call (eg. Bahrain and Belgium). It's not that difficult to comprehend.

In weekends where both qualy and race pace are equal, I label the cars as equal (eg. Spain).

Why? Then surely Australia goes to Mercedes? Bahrain and China was clearly equal.

Vettel at Bahrain:

“At the beginning of the stints I didn’t really push at all,” claimed Vettel, “and just responded to what those [Mercedes] guys were doing, which obviously helped me in the end because I had a lot of tyre left… Things have started to click here and hopefully the success we’ve had in these early races helps us build up some sort of momentum that maybe these guys had in the past. It’s a long season but I’m looking forward to tonight.”

China:

Vettel again lost time because of the SC, he pitted under the VSC but went down to 6th instead of 1st/2nd because he couldn't go down the pit straight but all cars had to go down the pit lane.

If anyone went back and watched those grand prixs I am sure they would say both those races was equal. I remember most people thinking around Spain time there was nothing to pick between the cars.

I suppose it's been like the last 3 years for you then.

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:If you are just judging by qualifying then what's the need of this thread?

Qualifying is the tiebreaker when race pace is too close to call (eg. Bahrain and Belgium). It's not that difficult to comprehend.

In weekends where both qualy and race pace are equal, I label the cars as equal (eg. Spain).

Mercedes have 11 of the 15 poles so your default basically always goes to Mercedes, also they have won 9 of the 15 races, so under all those criteria the thread is pointless.

However what I believe we are trying to do here is actually ascertain which car is the quickest in the race itself, when it's too close to call then you could say they are equal but we don't want to be saying that for some reason?

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:If you are just judging by qualifying then what's the need of this thread?

Qualifying is the tiebreaker when race pace is too close to call (eg. Bahrain and Belgium). It's not that difficult to comprehend.

In weekends where both qualy and race pace are equal, I label the cars as equal (eg. Spain).

Mercedes have 11 of the 15 poles so your default basically always goes to Mercedes, also they have won 9 of the 15 races, so under all those criteria the thread is pointless.

However what I believe we are trying to do here is actually ascertain which car is the quickest in the race itself, when it's too close to call then you could say they are equal but we don't want to be saying that for some reason?

Then it won't look like a Red Bull/Mercedes domination season then

F1_Ernie wrote:Why? Then surely Australia goes to Mercedes? Bahrain and China was clearly equal.

Vettel at Bahrain:

“At the beginning of the stints I didn’t really push at all,” claimed Vettel, “and just responded to what those [Mercedes] guys were doing, which obviously helped me in the end because I had a lot of tyre left… Things have started to click here and hopefully the success we’ve had in these early races helps us build up some sort of momentum that maybe these guys had in the past. It’s a long season but I’m looking forward to tonight.”

The lap times suggest that Hamilton had more than enough pace to win the race. Why did Hamilton not win in Bahrain?

1. He pressed the DRS button too early in qualifying which cost him pole to Bottas
2. He held up Ricciardo in the pits and got himself a 5 second penalty

Mercedes was dominant in qualifying and had enough pace to win the race. How does that not equal to the best car over the weekend?

China: Vettel again lost time because of the SC, he pitted under the VSC but went down to 6th instead of 1st/2nd because he couldn't go down the pit straight but all cars had to go down the pit lane. If anyone went back and watched those grand prixs I am sure they would say both those races was equal. I remember most people thinking around Spain time there was nothing to pick between the cars.

I know, but it's not like he was beating Hamilton before that. China was a close one and you could argue that it was equal, but if you had to pick one car it would probably be Mercedes. After Vettel cleared Verstappen, Hamilton picked up the pace a lot. I think that Lewis had pace in reserve, but I'm not against the cars being called equal.

pokerman wrote:Mercedes have 11 of the 15 poles so your default basically always goes to Mercedes, also they have won 9 of the 15 races, so under all those criteria the thread is pointless.

However what I believe we are trying to do here is actually ascertain which car is the quickest in the race itself, when it's too close to call then you could say they are equal but we don't want to be saying that for some reason?

Australia until Spain - nothing to split the cars

Canada, Baku, Austria, Silverstone, Belgium, Monza = Mercedes
Monaco, Singapore, Hungary, Malaysia = Ferrari

Also, to ignore qualifying as an advantage is complete dishonesty.

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:Mercedes have 11 of the 15 poles so your default basically always goes to Mercedes, also they have won 9 of the 15 races, so under all those criteria the thread is pointless.

However what I believe we are trying to do here is actually ascertain which car is the quickest in the race itself, when it's too close to call then you could say they are equal but we don't want to be saying that for some reason?

Australia until Spain - nothing to split the cars

Canada, Baku, Austria, Silverstone, Belgium, Monza = Mercedes
Monaco, Singapore, Hungary, Malaysia = Ferrari

Also, to ignore qualifying as an advantage is complete dishonesty.

No what people want to work out is which is the fastest car in the race itself, what you seemingly want to do when it's too close to call is then default the races to Mercedes for some reason, a quick look at your list in Baku and Spa Vettel was close to Hamilton's gearbox throughout the race.

pokerman wrote:No what people want to work out is which is the fastest car in the race itself, what you seemingly want to do when it's too close to call is then default the races to Mercedes for some reason, a quick look at your list in Baku and Spa Vettel was close to Hamilton's gearbox throughout the race.

When the two cars are evenly matched on race pace, but one car has a clear advantage in qualifying, then a qualifying advantage carries over into a race advantage.

Of course you can conveniently decide to ignore qualifying altogether and pretend that it doesn't influence the race.

Also, last time I checked, the thread title is: Ferrari/Mercedes has the faster car? (post barcelona & on)

The topic title itself doesn't specify races, which means that qualifying has to be taken into consideration.

Also, at Vettel sticking close to Hamilton's gearbox in Baku. Did you even watch that race? Hamilton pulled out a 4 second lead to Vettel at will and then just controlled the pace in the first stint.

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:No what people want to work out is which is the fastest car in the race itself, what you seemingly want to do when it's too close to call is then default the races to Mercedes for some reason, a quick look at your list in Baku and Spa Vettel was close to Hamilton's gearbox throughout the race.

When the two cars are evenly matched on race pace, but one car has a clear advantage in qualifying, then a qualifying advantage carries over into a race advantage.

Of course you can conveniently decide to ignore qualifying altogether and pretend that it doesn't influence the race.

Also, last time I checked, the thread title is: Ferrari/Mercedes has the faster car? (post barcelona & on)

The topic title itself doesn't specify races, which means that qualifying has to be taken into consideration.

Also, at Vettel sticking close to Hamilton's gearbox in Baku. Did you even watch that race? Hamilton pulled out a 4 second lead to Vettel at will and then just controlled the pace in the first stint.

The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

sandman1347 wrote: The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

Always amazed by guessing presented as "fact"

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

Always amazed by guessing presented as "fact"

It's not a guess. These races have already happened...

Did anyone else catch Lewis' comments post-race on Sky?

I cant remember the exact wording, but he alluded to things on the car that Mercedes knew about and would need to resolve in the off-season to contend for the championship next year? He said he wasnt allowed to say what it was?

Is he alluding to the narrow set-up window, sporadic competitiveness or do Mercedes know there are fundemental issues with the package that are too engrained to eradicate in-season?

Can anyone shed any more light on whether there was more to it than just set-up issues?

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

Always amazed by guessing presented as "fact"

It's not a guess. These races have already happened...

It's not a fact that Ferrari have been faster in more races, though...

The Mercedes optimist / Ferrari pessimist - Ferrari have had the strongest car by a distance 2 races in a row, and much of the season on race pace, but Mercedes still managed to lead and can't get any worse

The Ferrari optimist / Mercedes pessimist - Ferrari are clearly on top right now, and look like they could clean up at the remaining tracks.

sandman1347 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:No what people want to work out is which is the fastest car in the race itself, what you seemingly want to do when it's too close to call is then default the races to Mercedes for some reason, a quick look at your list in Baku and Spa Vettel was close to Hamilton's gearbox throughout the race.

When the two cars are evenly matched on race pace, but one car has a clear advantage in qualifying, then a qualifying advantage carries over into a race advantage.

Of course you can conveniently decide to ignore qualifying altogether and pretend that it doesn't influence the race.

Also, last time I checked, the thread title is: Ferrari/Mercedes has the faster car? (post barcelona & on)

The topic title itself doesn't specify races, which means that qualifying has to be taken into consideration.

Also, at Vettel sticking close to Hamilton's gearbox in Baku. Did you even watch that race? Hamilton pulled out a 4 second lead to Vettel at will and then just controlled the pace in the first stint.

The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

Does it becomes a "fact" automatically just because its the endorsed opinion of a Hamilton fan?

How things change. There was some outcry after the very 1st race, mainly from Hamilton fans due to Hamilton's failure to overtake Verstappen which ultimately cost him the win in Australia that, its impossible to overtake, track position is king ect... but now you guys are trying hard to strip away the importance of qualifying (track position) out of it when it comes to who has the faster car? Isnt that a little too convenient?

Migen wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:No what people want to work out is which is the fastest car in the race itself, what you seemingly want to do when it's too close to call is then default the races to Mercedes for some reason, a quick look at your list in Baku and Spa Vettel was close to Hamilton's gearbox throughout the race.

When the two cars are evenly matched on race pace, but one car has a clear advantage in qualifying, then a qualifying advantage carries over into a race advantage.

Of course you can conveniently decide to ignore qualifying altogether and pretend that it doesn't influence the race.

Also, last time I checked, the thread title is: Ferrari/Mercedes has the faster car? (post barcelona & on)

The topic title itself doesn't specify races, which means that qualifying has to be taken into consideration.

Also, at Vettel sticking close to Hamilton's gearbox in Baku. Did you even watch that race? Hamilton pulled out a 4 second lead to Vettel at will and then just controlled the pace in the first stint.

The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

Does it becomes a "fact" automatically just because its the endorsed opinion of a Hamilton fan?

How things change. There was some outcry after the very 1st race, mainly from Hamilton fans due to Hamilton's failure to overtake Verstappen which ultimately cost him the win in Australia that, its impossible to overtake, track position is king ect... but now you guys are trying hard to strip away the importance of qualifying (track position) out of it when it comes to who has the faster car? Isnt that a little too convenient?

This isn't about groups of fans vs. groups of fans. If you disagree, then explain which of those circuits you think my conclusion was incorrect on. And for god's sake consider context! There are SOME circuits where track position is king. There are SOME circuits where overtaking is nearly impossible. That doesn't apply to EVERY circuit on the calendar.

For tracks like that, you would probably take a small deficit in race pace in order to have the edge in qualifying but at a track like Malaysia, for example, you want to have the fastest RACE car.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

Always amazed by guessing presented as "fact"

It's not a guess. These races have already happened...

It's not a fact that Ferrari have been faster in more races, though...

We're not talking about Saturdays here. Only Sundays. If you dispute that conclusion then the evidence simply isn't there to support your claim.

sandman1347 wrote:

Migen wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:No what people want to work out is which is the fastest car in the race itself, what you seemingly want to do when it's too close to call is then default the races to Mercedes for some reason, a quick look at your list in Baku and Spa Vettel was close to Hamilton's gearbox throughout the race.

When the two cars are evenly matched on race pace, but one car has a clear advantage in qualifying, then a qualifying advantage carries over into a race advantage.

Of course you can conveniently decide to ignore qualifying altogether and pretend that it doesn't influence the race.

Also, last time I checked, the thread title is: Ferrari/Mercedes has the faster car? (post barcelona & on)

The topic title itself doesn't specify races, which means that qualifying has to be taken into consideration.

Also, at Vettel sticking close to Hamilton's gearbox in Baku. Did you even watch that race? Hamilton pulled out a 4 second lead to Vettel at will and then just controlled the pace in the first stint.

The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

Does it becomes a "fact" automatically just because its the endorsed opinion of a Hamilton fan?

How things change. There was some outcry after the very 1st race, mainly from Hamilton fans due to Hamilton's failure to overtake Verstappen which ultimately cost him the win in Australia that, its impossible to overtake, track position is king ect... but now you guys are trying hard to strip away the importance of qualifying (track position) out of it when it comes to who has the faster car? Isnt that a little too convenient?

This isn't about groups of fans vs. groups of fans. If you disagree, then explain which of those circuits you think my conclusion was incorrect on. And for god's sake consider context! There are SOME circuits where track position is king. There are SOME circuits where overtaking is nearly impossible. That doesn't apply to EVERY circuit on the calendar.

For tracks like that, you would probably take a small deficit in race pace in order to have the edge in qualifying but at a track like Malaysia, for example, you want to have the fastest RACE car.

The only races where the Ferrari was clearly faster were Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia. And all of those were pretty much anticipated at the start of the season, with the sole exception of Malaysia. Clearly, Mercedes performed below expectations here, but it's a little early to say it's a trend.

For the rest of the races, Mercedes were either quicker, or it was close. But even when they weren't noticeably quicker, they still often had the qualifying advantage that gave them an additional edge, such as at Spa.

All in all the advantage has lain with Mercedes for the bulk of the season

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Today's Ferrari was the most dominant a 2017 car has been, it was at Mercedes 2016 levels. They just started from the back.

And Mercedees was the third fastest, but I think that is down to the narrow operating window their 2017 car.

If it's true that Mercedes turned down their engines around lap 20 in Monza then surely that is the most dominant we've seen?

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Migen wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

Does it becomes a "fact" automatically just because its the endorsed opinion of a Hamilton fan?

How things change. There was some outcry after the very 1st race, mainly from Hamilton fans due to Hamilton's failure to overtake Verstappen which ultimately cost him the win in Australia that, its impossible to overtake, track position is king ect... but now you guys are trying hard to strip away the importance of qualifying (track position) out of it when it comes to who has the faster car? Isnt that a little too convenient?

This isn't about groups of fans vs. groups of fans. If you disagree, then explain which of those circuits you think my conclusion was incorrect on. And for god's sake consider context! There are SOME circuits where track position is king. There are SOME circuits where overtaking is nearly impossible. That doesn't apply to EVERY circuit on the calendar.

For tracks like that, you would probably take a small deficit in race pace in order to have the edge in qualifying but at a track like Malaysia, for example, you want to have the fastest RACE car.

The only races where the Ferrari was clearly faster were Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia. And all of those were pretty much anticipated at the start of the season, with the sole exception of Malaysia. Clearly, Mercedes performed below expectations here, but it's a little early to say it's a trend.

For the rest of the races, Mercedes were either quicker, or it was close. But even when they weren't noticeably quicker, they still often had the qualifying advantage that gave them an additional edge, such as at Spa.

All in all the advantage has lain with Mercedes for the bulk of the season

You're forgetting Spain, Russia, Bahrain, China, Australia; all races where Ferrari were faster on race day.

I guess it's down to the perception that, when your strength happens to be your power unit, that is somehow a different level of advantage. I think the Ferrari chassis is fundamentally superior but the Mercedes PU is better (especially in Q3 mode). Only the real engine circuits give Mercedes an edge. We've now reached a stage where, on aero circuits, they are behind not just Ferrari but Red Bull as well. Ferrari, by comparison, are fast everywhere. Monza was the only circuit where they seemed lost.

Anyway, I am still not claiming that Ferrari have the better car on the season. I'm simply pointing out how absurd it is to say that Mercedes have. The cars are closely matched, end of story really.

I'm not claiming Ferrari have the faster car either. Beginning of the season was very even and there was not much to pick between the teams then after Monaco come tracks which suited the Mercedes. After that and I include Belgium have been tracks which have suited the Ferrari.
For me it's still very even and nothing in it, it just gets annoying when some people try to make out the Mercedes is completely dominating or the PU is everything to a car.

Also sometimes looking at the bigger picture can be helpful like Belgium where a SC helped Mercedes. If Hamilton needed to pit again and Vettel won while one stopping I bet at most people would be saying the cars are equal.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Today's Ferrari was the most dominant a 2017 car has been, it was at Mercedes 2016 levels. They just started from the back.

And Mercedees was the third fastest, but I think that is down to the narrow operating window their 2017 car.

If it's true that Mercedes turned down their engines around lap 20 in Monza then surely that is the most dominant we've seen?

James Allen is adamant that Mercedes were balls to the wall in Monza, and backs it up with figures too. I dont have the link to hand but its on his website on the Monza analysis, he goes even further in the comments too.

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Migen wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

Does it becomes a "fact" automatically just because its the endorsed opinion of a Hamilton fan?

How things change. There was some outcry after the very 1st race, mainly from Hamilton fans due to Hamilton's failure to overtake Verstappen which ultimately cost him the win in Australia that, its impossible to overtake, track position is king ect... but now you guys are trying hard to strip away the importance of qualifying (track position) out of it when it comes to who has the faster car? Isnt that a little too convenient?

This isn't about groups of fans vs. groups of fans. If you disagree, then explain which of those circuits you think my conclusion was incorrect on. And for god's sake consider context! There are SOME circuits where track position is king. There are SOME circuits where overtaking is nearly impossible. That doesn't apply to EVERY circuit on the calendar.

For tracks like that, you would probably take a small deficit in race pace in order to have the edge in qualifying but at a track like Malaysia, for example, you want to have the fastest RACE car.

The only races where the Ferrari was clearly faster were Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia. And all of those were pretty much anticipated at the start of the season, with the sole exception of Malaysia. Clearly, Mercedes performed below expectations here, but it's a little early to say it's a trend.

For the rest of the races, Mercedes were either quicker, or it was close. But even when they weren't noticeably quicker, they still often had the qualifying advantage that gave them an additional edge, such as at Spa.

All in all the advantage has lain with Mercedes for the bulk of the season

You're forgetting Spain, Russia, Bahrain, China, Australia; all races where Ferrari were faster on race day.

I guess it's down to the perception that, when your strength happens to be your power unit, that is somehow a different level of advantage. I think the Ferrari chassis is fundamentally superior but the Mercedes PU is better (especially in Q3 mode). Only the real engine circuits give Mercedes an edge. We've now reached a stage where, on aero circuits, they are behind not just Ferrari but Red Bull as well. Ferrari, by comparison, are fast everywhere. Monza was the only circuit where they seemed lost.

Anyway, I am still not claiming that Ferrari have the better car on the season. I'm simply pointing out how absurd it is to say that Mercedes have. The cars are closely matched, end of story really.

I'm not, really. I just take a different view.

E.g. in Australia Vettel said he was pushing as hard as he could just to keep up: he couldn't have gone any quicker. When Lewis went in Vettel didn't up his pace, but remained fairly constant. The cars looked pretty even to me. Spain was difficult to tell because they had wildly differing strategies, but in the opening stint, when on the same tyres, the gap was pretty constant. They looked reasonably equal to me. if anything, I thought the Merc had the edge - Hamilton overtook Vettel, after all - but it was too close to say with any certainty.

In Russia, Hamilton had a poor race, so our benchmark was Bottas. And he chose to be the hare, sprinting off at the beginning of the stint in order to open a gap before the stops. Vettel was quicker at the end, but there again Bottas had changed his tyres earlier, so was running at a disadvantage towards the end. Nothing there tells me that the Ferrari was the faster car. We know from almost all the other races that Hamilton is normally quicker than Bottas, so who knows what may have happened if Hamilton had been on song?

In Bahrain the Mercs were substantially faster than the Ferraris in qualifying. Again, they used different tyre strategies, so comparisons are difficult, but Hamilton finished 6.7s behind Vettel, while having to take a 5s time penalty. Vettel was quicker in the first half of the race, but Hamilton was quicker in the second half. His fastest lap was over a second faster than Vettel's.

Finally, China. I don't know why that would be considered a Ferrari race. Hamilton was significantly faster in the first half of the race (although to be fair Vettel had Verstappen in front), while Vettel clawed back ground towards the end. But again, Hamilton's fastest lap was quicker than Vettel's, and towards the end of the race he was most likely just bringing it home. So I don't see where Ferrari had an advantage

For what it's worth, I agree that the cars are reasonably closely matched for the most part. But I also think the qualifying advantage lies with Mercedes and more often than not it gives a big advantage in the race itself. It's much harder to overtake than to keep the lead.

It seems like Mercedes domination is over, they have been caught now. Monza is the only race in the last 5 they have looked very strong in. Ferrari could easily end up with the best overall car for the year at this rate.

Hamilton -
"There are some real big problems that I cannot really explain, but we need to rectify for next year's car if we are going to have any chance of fighting both these teams next year when they step up their game.

"This year I think we can just stay there or thereabouts. I don't know which races are going to be good for us and which are not but we are going to do everything we can to try and stay ahead."


Maurizio Arrivabene:
"We would have won in a normal race. We had the fastest cars in the field. But we will not be discouraged. The team is now even more determined to fight back. "Vettel confirmed militarily:" With this car we can win everywhere and also beat the Mercedes everywhere. "

Zoue wrote:I'm not, really. I just take a different view.

E.g. in Australia Vettel said he was pushing as hard as he could just to keep up: he couldn't have gone any quicker. When Lewis went in Vettel didn't up his pace, but remained fairly constant. The cars looked pretty even to me. Spain was difficult to tell because they had wildly differing strategies, but in the opening stint, when on the same tyres, the gap was pretty constant. They looked reasonably equal to me. if anything, I thought the Merc had the edge - Hamilton overtook Vettel, after all - but it was too close to say with any certainty.

In Russia, Hamilton had a poor race, so our benchmark was Bottas. And he chose to be the hare, sprinting off at the beginning of the stint in order to open a gap before the stops. Vettel was quicker at the end, but there again Bottas had changed his tyres earlier, so was running at a disadvantage towards the end. Nothing there tells me that the Ferrari was the faster car. We know from almost all the other races that Hamilton is normally quicker than Bottas, so who knows what may have happened if Hamilton had been on song?

In Bahrain the Mercs were substantially faster than the Ferraris in qualifying. Again, they used different tyre strategies, so comparisons are difficult, but Hamilton finished 6.7s behind Vettel, while having to take a 5s time penalty. Vettel was quicker in the first half of the race, but Hamilton was quicker in the second half. His fastest lap was over a second faster than Vettel's.

Finally, China. I don't know why that would be considered a Ferrari race. Hamilton was significantly faster in the first half of the race (although to be fair Vettel had Verstappen in front), while Vettel clawed back ground towards the end. But again, Hamilton's fastest lap was quicker than Vettel's, and towards the end of the race he was most likely just bringing it home. So I don't see where Ferrari had an advantage

For what it's worth, I agree that the cars are reasonably closely matched for the most part. But I also think the qualifying advantage lies with Mercedes and more often than not it gives a big advantage in the race itself. It's much harder to overtake than to keep the lead.

sandman1347's standards of what makes Ferrari the best car are pretty simple: they have to be somewhat in the same ballpark as Mercedes and that automatically makes them the best car.

However, Mercedes is never the best car unless they enjoy 2016 levels of dominance (like Canada, Baku, Silverstone, Monza).

The fact that he wants to make it seem like Hamilton heroically won in China and Belgium with an inferior car is both dishonest and laughable.

Ferrari are definitely looking more solid last few races but I feel the Mercedes could still be very quick if they can get round their tyre window problem. The fact that Red Bull are now also in the performance mix means not all is lost for Ferrari in their wdc quest.

Flash2k11 wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Today's Ferrari was the most dominant a 2017 car has been, it was at Mercedes 2016 levels. They just started from the back.

And Mercedees was the third fastest, but I think that is down to the narrow operating window their 2017 car.

If it's true that Mercedes turned down their engines around lap 20 in Monza then surely that is the most dominant we've seen?

James Allen is adamant that Mercedes were balls to the wall in Monza, and backs it up with figures too. I dont have the link to hand but its on his website on the Monza analysis, he goes even further in the comments too.

Indeed that's why I said if it's true. I'm not sure what to think about it to be honest, on the one hand I get the logic in wanting to embarrass Ferrari on home turf but on the other hand stressing the engines more than necessary at the beginning of a tight title run in seems stupid to me. If it were me I wouldn't have gone all out and pretended I hadn't to embarrass Ferrari, maybe Mercedes were cocky/naive enough though.

In any case even if you assume Mercedes did go all out in Monza I think it's close between Maylaysia and Italy for biggest car gap. Vettel/Ferrari must have been going all out to get the podium and I'd say it's likely Hamilton did what pace he needed to keep Ricciardo behind and no more. Verstappen probably had more in the tank too.

For reference look at the fastest laps. In this race Vettel's was a 34.0 on lap 41 while Hamilton's was a 34.4 on lap 48, Hamilton had less fuel but a slower tyre, Vettel was pushing for a podium and Hamilton was consolidating with no real threat behind and no chance in front.

Then in Italy Hamilton's fastest lap was a 23.4 on lap 50 while Vettel's was a 23.8 on lap 51. Same 4 tenths gap but in theory both drivers were pushing hard, Hamilton to embarrass Ferrari on Mercedes orders and Vettel to try and keep the podium place from a fast catching Ricciardo.

Slightly long winded I know but in short if you assume that both drivers were pushing hard in both situations then the gaps between cars in Italy and Malaysia when the chips were down was very similar (just in opposite directions obviously) at 4 tenths per lap. There's also more reason to assume that Hamilton was taking it easy in both situations than Vettel who was pushing to get a podium/keep a podium while Hamilton didn't really have any need to push hard in here or Italy (but I'm happy to assume he did to try for a fastest lap if nothing else).

KingVoid wrote:

Zoue wrote:I'm not, really. I just take a different view.

E.g. in Australia Vettel said he was pushing as hard as he could just to keep up: he couldn't have gone any quicker. When Lewis went in Vettel didn't up his pace, but remained fairly constant. The cars looked pretty even to me. Spain was difficult to tell because they had wildly differing strategies, but in the opening stint, when on the same tyres, the gap was pretty constant. They looked reasonably equal to me. if anything, I thought the Merc had the edge - Hamilton overtook Vettel, after all - but it was too close to say with any certainty.

In Russia, Hamilton had a poor race, so our benchmark was Bottas. And he chose to be the hare, sprinting off at the beginning of the stint in order to open a gap before the stops. Vettel was quicker at the end, but there again Bottas had changed his tyres earlier, so was running at a disadvantage towards the end. Nothing there tells me that the Ferrari was the faster car. We know from almost all the other races that Hamilton is normally quicker than Bottas, so who knows what may have happened if Hamilton had been on song?

In Bahrain the Mercs were substantially faster than the Ferraris in qualifying. Again, they used different tyre strategies, so comparisons are difficult, but Hamilton finished 6.7s behind Vettel, while having to take a 5s time penalty. Vettel was quicker in the first half of the race, but Hamilton was quicker in the second half. His fastest lap was over a second faster than Vettel's.

Finally, China. I don't know why that would be considered a Ferrari race. Hamilton was significantly faster in the first half of the race (although to be fair Vettel had Verstappen in front), while Vettel clawed back ground towards the end. But again, Hamilton's fastest lap was quicker than Vettel's, and towards the end of the race he was most likely just bringing it home. So I don't see where Ferrari had an advantage

For what it's worth, I agree that the cars are reasonably closely matched for the most part. But I also think the qualifying advantage lies with Mercedes and more often than not it gives a big advantage in the race itself. It's much harder to overtake than to keep the lead.

sandman1347's standards of what makes Ferrari the best car are pretty simple: they have to be somewhat in the same ballpark as Mercedes and that automatically makes them the best car.

However, Mercedes is never the best car unless they enjoy 2016 levels of dominance (like Canada, Baku, Silverstone, Monza).

The fact that he wants to make it seem like Hamilton heroically won in China and Belgium with an inferior car is both dishonest and laughable.

Sigh, really? Making things up and putting words in other people's mouths does nothing to further the discussion. To address the races in question:

China-Vettel ended up stuck in traffic for much of this race while Hamilton was out in front. From the time Vettel got past Raikkonen and Ricciardo, he was clearly the fastest man on track. Hamilton's comments were that he was pushing flat out through the end of the race to maintain his lead (though the lead was still diminishing).

Spain- Vettel admittedly dropped pole here due to a minor mistake in qualifying. The qualifying margin was still less than a tenth of a second and Mercedes are stronger relative to Ferrari on Saturday than they are on Sunday. Hamilton won the race primarily due to strategy. Mercedes used the faster tire for their final stint while Ferrari were on the slower tire. That combined with the VSC eliminating some of Vettel's gap (again down to strategy as Ferrari could have pitted Vettel during the VSC too if they wanted to) gave Lewis the chance to win the race. On raw pace, Ferrari had the edge there (as you would expect considering the characteristics of the cirucuit).

Russia-This one is really debatable but I think evidence suggests that, during the race, Ferrari were at least as fast as Mercedes if not quicker. The race certainly ended with Vettel breathing down Bottas's neck and complaining about traffic getting in the way while Raikkonen gapped Hamilton in third. We're talking about race pace guys. Not who can squeeze out the fastest single lap.

Belgium-This one is pretty obvious actually. Ferrari had quicker long run pace all through practice and Vettel was visibly held up by Hamilton during the race; unable to make the pass the couple of times he had a go. Because he was unable to get into the lead and into clean air, we don't have concrete proof that he would have turned quicker lap times but the fact that Hamilton was never able to pull any kind of gap indicates that he couldn't do so. It is certainly not safe to have the car behind within striking distance to undercut you in the pits. Much the same can be said for Australia where Hamilton was unable to pull any kind of gap to Vettel; who was breathing down his neck from the moment the lights went out.

Anyway, let's say we call these races debatable. We're left with several races where it was very close and only a handful where either team was in a position of substantial supremacy. Canada, Austria, England, Baku and Monza for Mercedes. Spain, Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia for Ferrari. These are the ones that are pretty much no-doubters. There are the same number for both teams. For the other races, in general you would loosely say that Mercedes perhaps has a slight edge on Saturday and that Ferrari perhaps has a slight edge on Sunday.

The main point is that it is unreasonable to claim a car advantage on the year for EITHER team as there clearly has not been a consistent car advantage for either of them. The fact that Mercedes are behind both Ferrari and Red Bull of late would suggest that a much stronger case could be made for Ferrari being the stronger car overall (if you had to pick one).

KingVoid wrote:Australia: Ferrari
China: Mercedes
Bahrain: Mercedes
Russia: equal
Spain: equal
Monaco: Ferrari
Canada: Mercedes
Baku: Mercedes
Austria: Mercedes
Britain: Mercedes
Hungary: Ferrari
Belgium: Mercedes
Monza: Mercedes
Singapore: Ferrari

Mercedes wins out in Bahrain and Belgium because qualifying pace is the tiebreaker if race pace is too close to call.

The only people who believe that Mercedes is inferior are Hamilton fans. It's intellectually dishonest to claim that Ferrari have been faster.

Surely races are "equal" if they are too close to call?
If you had to equal races that would make sense, but you have two equal races and one of them Ferrari locked out the front row.

sandman1347 wrote:

Migen wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:No what people want to work out is which is the fastest car in the race itself, what you seemingly want to do when it's too close to call is then default the races to Mercedes for some reason, a quick look at your list in Baku and Spa Vettel was close to Hamilton's gearbox throughout the race.

When the two cars are evenly matched on race pace, but one car has a clear advantage in qualifying, then a qualifying advantage carries over into a race advantage.

Of course you can conveniently decide to ignore qualifying altogether and pretend that it doesn't influence the race.

Also, last time I checked, the thread title is: Ferrari/Mercedes has the faster car? (post barcelona & on)

The topic title itself doesn't specify races, which means that qualifying has to be taken into consideration.

Also, at Vettel sticking close to Hamilton's gearbox in Baku. Did you even watch that race? Hamilton pulled out a 4 second lead to Vettel at will and then just controlled the pace in the first stint.

The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

Does it becomes a "fact" automatically just because its the endorsed opinion of a Hamilton fan?

How things change. There was some outcry after the very 1st race, mainly from Hamilton fans due to Hamilton's failure to overtake Verstappen which ultimately cost him the win in Australia that, its impossible to overtake, track position is king ect... but now you guys are trying hard to strip away the importance of qualifying (track position) out of it when it comes to who has the faster car? Isnt that a little too convenient?

This isn't about groups of fans vs. groups of fans. If you disagree, then explain which of those circuits you think my conclusion was incorrect on.

For instance, you gave both Australia and Spain to Ferrari.
But whilst Vettel could keep in touch with Hamilton in the 1st part of the race in Australia and probably won only due to Hamilton being delayed by Verstappen, in Spain Hamilton too could keep in touch with Vettel and probably won only due to Vettel being delayed by Bottas.

Now without having to go into tiny details like who had the edge in qualies, or the strength of the cars in the later stints of these 2 races which would get us nowhere really... I`d argue that they are mirror copies in the way they panned out, but with the cars (Mercedes & Ferrari) in reversed roles and therefore these 2 races can not possibly go both in favor of the same team (be it Ferrari, or Mercedes)!

sandman1347 wrote:And for god's sake consider context! There are SOME circuits where track position is king. There are SOME circuits where overtaking is nearly impossible. That doesn't apply to EVERY circuit on the calendar.

Ok, good point, but...

sandman1347 wrote:I think the Ferrari chassis is fundamentally superior but the Mercedes PU is better (especially in Q3 mode). Only the real engine circuits give Mercedes an edge.

You`d have to consider the context too... that the better chassis is of little use when you dont have the PU power to get the pole in qualies (or a Q3 mode, not as good as Mercedes'), and even more useless in the race days where overtaking on twisty bits is pretty much impossible and where the weaker PU + DRS still does not give you the edge at the end of the strait (as we`'ve seen a few times already this season with a Ferrari trying to overtake Mercedes).

sandman1347 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Zoue wrote:I'm not, really. I just take a different view.

E.g. in Australia Vettel said he was pushing as hard as he could just to keep up: he couldn't have gone any quicker. When Lewis went in Vettel didn't up his pace, but remained fairly constant. The cars looked pretty even to me. Spain was difficult to tell because they had wildly differing strategies, but in the opening stint, when on the same tyres, the gap was pretty constant. They looked reasonably equal to me. if anything, I thought the Merc had the edge - Hamilton overtook Vettel, after all - but it was too close to say with any certainty.

In Russia, Hamilton had a poor race, so our benchmark was Bottas. And he chose to be the hare, sprinting off at the beginning of the stint in order to open a gap before the stops. Vettel was quicker at the end, but there again Bottas had changed his tyres earlier, so was running at a disadvantage towards the end. Nothing there tells me that the Ferrari was the faster car. We know from almost all the other races that Hamilton is normally quicker than Bottas, so who knows what may have happened if Hamilton had been on song?

In Bahrain the Mercs were substantially faster than the Ferraris in qualifying. Again, they used different tyre strategies, so comparisons are difficult, but Hamilton finished 6.7s behind Vettel, while having to take a 5s time penalty. Vettel was quicker in the first half of the race, but Hamilton was quicker in the second half. His fastest lap was over a second faster than Vettel's.

Finally, China. I don't know why that would be considered a Ferrari race. Hamilton was significantly faster in the first half of the race (although to be fair Vettel had Verstappen in front), while Vettel clawed back ground towards the end. But again, Hamilton's fastest lap was quicker than Vettel's, and towards the end of the race he was most likely just bringing it home. So I don't see where Ferrari had an advantage

For what it's worth, I agree that the cars are reasonably closely matched for the most part. But I also think the qualifying advantage lies with Mercedes and more often than not it gives a big advantage in the race itself. It's much harder to overtake than to keep the lead.

sandman1347's standards of what makes Ferrari the best car are pretty simple: they have to be somewhat in the same ballpark as Mercedes and that automatically makes them the best car.

However, Mercedes is never the best car unless they enjoy 2016 levels of dominance (like Canada, Baku, Silverstone, Monza).

The fact that he wants to make it seem like Hamilton heroically won in China and Belgium with an inferior car is both dishonest and laughable.

Sigh, really? Making things up and putting words in other people's mouths does nothing to further the discussion. To address the races in question:

China-Vettel ended up stuck in traffic for much of this race while Hamilton was out in front. From the time Vettel got past Raikkonen and Ricciardo, he was clearly the fastest man on track. Hamilton's comments were that he was pushing flat out through the end of the race to maintain his lead (though the lead was still diminishing).

Spain- Vettel admittedly dropped pole here due to a minor mistake in qualifying. The qualifying margin was still less than a tenth of a second and Mercedes are stronger relative to Ferrari on Saturday than they are on Sunday. Hamilton won the race primarily due to strategy. Mercedes used the faster tire for their final stint while Ferrari were on the slower tire. That combined with the VSC eliminating some of Vettel's gap (again down to strategy as Ferrari could have pitted Vettel during the VSC too if they wanted to) gave Lewis the chance to win the race. On raw pace, Ferrari had the edge there (as you would expect considering the characteristics of the cirucuit).

Russia-This one is really debatable but I think evidence suggests that, during the race, Ferrari were at least as fast as Mercedes if not quicker. The race certainly ended with Vettel breathing down Bottas's neck and complaining about traffic getting in the way while Raikkonen gapped Hamilton in third. We're talking about race pace guys. Not who can squeeze out the fastest single lap.

Belgium-This one is pretty obvious actually. Ferrari had quicker long run pace all through practice and Vettel was visibly held up by Hamilton during the race; unable to make the pass the couple of times he had a go. Because he was unable to get into the lead and into clean air, we don't have concrete proof that he would have turned quicker lap times but the fact that Hamilton was never able to pull any kind of gap indicates that he couldn't do so. It is certainly not safe to have the car behind within striking distance to undercut you in the pits. Much the same can be said for Australia where Hamilton was unable to pull any kind of gap to Vettel; who was breathing down his neck from the moment the lights went out.

Anyway, let's say we call these races debatable. We're left with several races where it was very close and only a handful where either team was in a position of substantial supremacy. Canada, Austria, England, Baku and Monza for Mercedes. Spain, Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia for Ferrari. These are the ones that are pretty much no-doubters. There are the same number for both teams. For the other races, in general you would loosely say that Mercedes perhaps has a slight edge on Saturday and that Ferrari perhaps has a slight edge on Sunday.

The main point is that it is unreasonable to claim a car advantage on the year for EITHER team as there clearly has not been a consistent car advantage for either of them. The fact that Mercedes are behind both Ferrari and Red Bull of late would suggest that a much stronger case could be made for Ferrari being the stronger car overall (if you had to pick one).

Sorry, I just can't agree on Spain, for reasons given above. Other than that, I can agree on the rest as regards clear advantage. But it still leaves those (e.g. Spa) where qualifying tips the balance again. Vettel referenced this at the British Grand Prix, where he called it a "game changer." When looking at car advantages I feel this cannot be overlooked, in which case for me the advantage over the year has clearly rested with Mercedes.

As regards the latest races, the only one going against conventional wisdom was Malaysia. The others were all predicted beforehand. I suppose you could add Spa, in that it was supposed to be an outright Mercedes track, but it ended up being more equal (apart from qualifying, obviously), but otherwise Malaysia has been the only surprise. So I think it's premature to speak of Mercedes being behind of late, as it could easily be an anomaly. Maybe the heat had something to do with it, as that tends to favour the Ferraris anyway?

Regarding Malaysia race pace -

Mercedes had quite a bit in reserve today. It wasn't as quick as Ferrari but as soon as it seemed Vettel could catch Hamilton, he really upped it.

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... 20Hamilton

Laps 35-45, Hamilton was in the 35.3-35.7's

As soon as Vettel caught Ricciardo (lap 45) Hamilton went into the 34.4-34.9's for five laps by which point the gap was up to 12 seconds to Vettel and he slowed back down again.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Zoue wrote:I'm not, really. I just take a different view.

E.g. in Australia Vettel said he was pushing as hard as he could just to keep up: he couldn't have gone any quicker. When Lewis went in Vettel didn't up his pace, but remained fairly constant. The cars looked pretty even to me. Spain was difficult to tell because they had wildly differing strategies, but in the opening stint, when on the same tyres, the gap was pretty constant. They looked reasonably equal to me. if anything, I thought the Merc had the edge - Hamilton overtook Vettel, after all - but it was too close to say with any certainty.

In Russia, Hamilton had a poor race, so our benchmark was Bottas. And he chose to be the hare, sprinting off at the beginning of the stint in order to open a gap before the stops. Vettel was quicker at the end, but there again Bottas had changed his tyres earlier, so was running at a disadvantage towards the end. Nothing there tells me that the Ferrari was the faster car. We know from almost all the other races that Hamilton is normally quicker than Bottas, so who knows what may have happened if Hamilton had been on song?

In Bahrain the Mercs were substantially faster than the Ferraris in qualifying. Again, they used different tyre strategies, so comparisons are difficult, but Hamilton finished 6.7s behind Vettel, while having to take a 5s time penalty. Vettel was quicker in the first half of the race, but Hamilton was quicker in the second half. His fastest lap was over a second faster than Vettel's.

Finally, China. I don't know why that would be considered a Ferrari race. Hamilton was significantly faster in the first half of the race (although to be fair Vettel had Verstappen in front), while Vettel clawed back ground towards the end. But again, Hamilton's fastest lap was quicker than Vettel's, and towards the end of the race he was most likely just bringing it home. So I don't see where Ferrari had an advantage

For what it's worth, I agree that the cars are reasonably closely matched for the most part. But I also think the qualifying advantage lies with Mercedes and more often than not it gives a big advantage in the race itself. It's much harder to overtake than to keep the lead.

sandman1347's standards of what makes Ferrari the best car are pretty simple: they have to be somewhat in the same ballpark as Mercedes and that automatically makes them the best car.

However, Mercedes is never the best car unless they enjoy 2016 levels of dominance (like Canada, Baku, Silverstone, Monza).

The fact that he wants to make it seem like Hamilton heroically won in China and Belgium with an inferior car is both dishonest and laughable.

Sigh, really? Making things up and putting words in other people's mouths does nothing to further the discussion. To address the races in question:

China-Vettel ended up stuck in traffic for much of this race while Hamilton was out in front. From the time Vettel got past Raikkonen and Ricciardo, he was clearly the fastest man on track. Hamilton's comments were that he was pushing flat out through the end of the race to maintain his lead (though the lead was still diminishing).

Spain- Vettel admittedly dropped pole here due to a minor mistake in qualifying. The qualifying margin was still less than a tenth of a second and Mercedes are stronger relative to Ferrari on Saturday than they are on Sunday. Hamilton won the race primarily due to strategy. Mercedes used the faster tire for their final stint while Ferrari were on the slower tire. That combined with the VSC eliminating some of Vettel's gap (again down to strategy as Ferrari could have pitted Vettel during the VSC too if they wanted to) gave Lewis the chance to win the race. On raw pace, Ferrari had the edge there (as you would expect considering the characteristics of the cirucuit).

Russia-This one is really debatable but I think evidence suggests that, during the race, Ferrari were at least as fast as Mercedes if not quicker. The race certainly ended with Vettel breathing down Bottas's neck and complaining about traffic getting in the way while Raikkonen gapped Hamilton in third. We're talking about race pace guys. Not who can squeeze out the fastest single lap.

Belgium-This one is pretty obvious actually. Ferrari had quicker long run pace all through practice and Vettel was visibly held up by Hamilton during the race; unable to make the pass the couple of times he had a go. Because he was unable to get into the lead and into clean air, we don't have concrete proof that he would have turned quicker lap times but the fact that Hamilton was never able to pull any kind of gap indicates that he couldn't do so. It is certainly not safe to have the car behind within striking distance to undercut you in the pits. Much the same can be said for Australia where Hamilton was unable to pull any kind of gap to Vettel; who was breathing down his neck from the moment the lights went out.

Anyway, let's say we call these races debatable. We're left with several races where it was very close and only a handful where either team was in a position of substantial supremacy. Canada, Austria, England, Baku and Monza for Mercedes. Spain, Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia for Ferrari. These are the ones that are pretty much no-doubters. There are the same number for both teams. For the other races, in general you would loosely say that Mercedes perhaps has a slight edge on Saturday and that Ferrari perhaps has a slight edge on Sunday.

The main point is that it is unreasonable to claim a car advantage on the year for EITHER team as there clearly has not been a consistent car advantage for either of them. The fact that Mercedes are behind both Ferrari and Red Bull of late would suggest that a much stronger case could be made for Ferrari being the stronger car overall (if you had to pick one).

Sorry, I just can't agree on Spain, for reasons given above. Other than that, I can agree on the rest as regards clear advantage. But it still leaves those (e.g. Spa) where qualifying tips the balance again. Vettel referenced this at the British Grand Prix, where he called it a "game changer." When looking at car advantages I feel this cannot be overlooked, in which case for me the advantage over the year has clearly rested with Mercedes.

As regards the latest races, the only one going against conventional wisdom was Malaysia. The others were all predicted beforehand. I suppose you could add Spa, in that it was supposed to be an outright Mercedes track, but it ended up being more equal (apart from qualifying, obviously), but otherwise Malaysia has been the only surprise. So I think it's premature to speak of Mercedes being behind of late, as it could easily be an anomaly. Maybe the heat had something to do with it, as that tends to favour the Ferraris anyway?

I think the qualifying advantage is blown out of proportion to be honest. At least as it pertains to these two teams. Ferrari have a Q3 mode as well. A lot of the perception of Mercedes' qualifying advantage comes from Hamilton's laps in qualifying. In this last race, for example, there is no way that car should have been on pole (Q3 mode or not). Hamilton has been putting in some insane laps in qualifying this year; beating Bottas at times by nearly a second. I think the perception of this qualifying advantage would basically not even be there if there were two Bottas-level drivers at Mercedes. You've also ignored the race pace advantage for Ferrari. You cannot claim Mercedes' qualifying edge while ignoring Ferrari's race pace edge. That's an imbalanced way of looking at things.

lamo wrote:Regarding Malaysia race pace -

Mercedes had quite a bit in reserve today. It wasn't as quick as Ferrari but as soon as it seemed Vettel could catch Hamilton, he really upped it.

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... 20Hamilton

Laps 35-45, Hamilton was in the 35.3-35.7's

As soon as Vettel caught Ricciardo (lap 45) Hamilton went into the 34.4-34.9's for five laps by which point the gap was up to 12 seconds to Vettel and he slowed back down again.

Yes, I never really felt Vettel was going to do anything to Hamilton had he made it through Ricciardo in quick time.

Really great discussion BTW guys.

I didn't tab precisely my rankings for the season so to speak, but just noticed that over the past 5 races Ferrari probably have an edge and have also overperformed on expectations at two circuits in that stretch and that could be more indicative of a trend than simply using the events of the Malaysia GP.

I tend to read "faster car" as "best car to have over the weekend".

The discussion does become nuanced because at some tracks a race pace advantage can adequately overcome track position advantage and at other tracks it's a far harder proposition.

Then there's all the assumptions and guesswork that has to be made regarding the relative raw qualifying and race pace of Lewis and Seb in particular.

An argument can easily be made that Lewis has figured out the car better as the season has progressed leaving his team-mate in the dust, implying that he was not as on it as Vettel at the beginning of the season which may skew some early season rankings - but is that Lewis' fault or the fault of the car if true?

A key point seems to me that when Merc hook is up, they are more clearly the best than any other team leading to Grand Chelems for Lewis and whatnot. However, it appears to be a somewhat fickle beast. Does that mean that the Mercedes the best car based on it typically having more potential but that the margin for error is so tight that it's common for them to lose out to Ferrari or can we assume that the teams have done equally well to extract what they can out of their packages, have even enough driver lineups, and yet it's lead to Merc having roughly a 100 point lead in the WCC. That's a big lead.

PS, a 118 point lead now: 503-385.

How does one reconcile such a huge WCC advantage and the cars being too close to call thus far?

Invade wrote:An argument can easily be made that Lewis has figured out the car better as the season has progressed leaving his team-mate in the dust, implying that he was not as on it as Vettel at the beginning of the season which may skew some early season rankings - but is that Lewis' fault or the fault of the car if true?

A key point seems to me that when Merc hook is up, they are more clearly the best than any other team leading to Grand Chelems for Lewis and whatnot. However, it appears to be a somewhat fickle beast. Does that mean that the Mercedes the best car based on it typically having more potential but that the margin for error is so tight that it's common for them to lose out to Ferrari or can we assume that the teams have done equally well to extract what they can out of their packages, have even enough driver lineups, and yet it's lead to Merc having roughly a 100 point lead in the WCC. That's a big lead.

PS, a 118 point lead now: 503-385.

How does one reconcile such a huge WCC advantage and the cars being too close to call thus far?

Some valid points here but again, quite one-sided. Certainly Ferrari seemed unable to extract the potential from their car in Italy for example. All leading to my position that any claim of superiority for either Mercedes or Ferrari on the season as a whole is not valid.

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:No what people want to work out is which is the fastest car in the race itself, what you seemingly want to do when it's too close to call is then default the races to Mercedes for some reason, a quick look at your list in Baku and Spa Vettel was close to Hamilton's gearbox throughout the race.

When the two cars are evenly matched on race pace, but one car has a clear advantage in qualifying, then a qualifying advantage carries over into a race advantage.

Of course you can conveniently decide to ignore qualifying altogether and pretend that it doesn't influence the race.

Also, last time I checked, the thread title is: Ferrari/Mercedes has the faster car? (post barcelona & on)

The topic title itself doesn't specify races, which means that qualifying has to be taken into consideration.

Also, at Vettel sticking close to Hamilton's gearbox in Baku. Did you even watch that race? Hamilton pulled out a 4 second lead to Vettel at will and then just controlled the pace in the first stint.

Fair enough I just remember Vettel being somewhere thereabouts however you can't say the same about Spa, like I say howver people are only interested in the actual pace of the cars in the race.

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: The fact remains that Ferrari have been faster in more races than Mercedes have. They are not even on race day most of the time. Most of the time Ferrari is quicker. The only races in which Mercedes were quicker during the actual race itself were Canada, Silverstone, Baku and Monza. In all other races Ferrari were quicker or evenly matched.

Always amazed by guessing presented as "fact"

No it's actually called watching the races.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Singapore and Malaysia have been Mercedes's two worst circuits over the last four years, and they coincidentally are in the same region of the world. Malaysia has the highest temperatures, and this season's Mercedes in particular has a particularly narrow operating window when it comes to tyres. If they continue to have the problems when they return to more typical climate then we can suggest they are in crisis, but at the moment I think it is a blip.

The Red Bull was clearly a superior race car to them today, and the Ferrari appeared to be in a different league - but as it was pointed out earlier Mercedes were fairly amazing at Silverstone... at the exact opposite end of the track temperature scale. Japan will probably be closer to typical European temperatures, but after that it will prove to be a lottery.

Japan also is a very similar track to Silverstone in terms of setup. Probably Ferrari's worse track of the last 5. If they are right behind Merc there then I would confidently say that they have the better car for the run in.