planetf1.com

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: Don't tell me to ease up when you are the person who took things in this direction with your BS accusation. Pointing your finger at me and accusing me of what you actually do is behavior that reflects poorly on you. But we can leave that alone for now.

In terms of the cars themselves, the Ferrari has been stronger so far. There's not really a reasonable argument to the contrary. Australia is a wildcard circuit and as the first race, it is often not representative of the actual pecking order. Ferrari also made significant adjustments to their car after Australia which have clearly worked.

The reason I say they have more power is because the evidence suggests that they do. They have been faster than Mercedes in a straight line all year and, in China, they were also clearly quicker through the corners. They were much more planted through the fast corners like 7 and 13.

Again, Vettel was comfortably in control of the gap to Bottas when in front and breathing down his neck when behind. Even Raikkonen is able to comfortably outqualify the Mercs and would beat them in the races too if he could make a decent start and run a decent strategy. Considering his level of performance in the last 5 years, this is clear indication of Ferrari's strength.

Above all else though, it's the logical inconsistency from some posters that I have to call out. Last year Mercedes were sometimes only quicker in qualy and lost out to Ferrari during the race and yet people were saying that's enough to make Mercedes the better package. At races like spa they said getting pole was so important that it superseded being quicker during the race. Now we have a team that is faster both on Saturday's and Sundays but they're not convinced?

Do you really beleive that saying you have an agenda is "a bs agenda", really?

Again, Bottas had no problem undercutting Vettel and control the gap.
Ferrari was not quicker in the corners, go back and watch laps, no evidence for engine yet.

No, your agenda seems to be to say that the Mercedes is faster regardless of what actually takes place during qualifying sessions or races.

You say "Bottas had no problem undercutting Vettel and control the gap"? Really? Let's leave make-believe-land for a moment and discuss what happened here in the real world. Bottas was easily gapped during the first stint and Ferrari mismanaged the gap needed during the pit stops. What happened to Vettel in China was similar to what happened to Lewis in Australia. Through a miscalculation, he lost the lead in the pits but he was clearly quicker than his opponent; breathing down Bottas's neck after the stops.

If you are going to be so disingenuous in your analysis, you will become someone who can't really contribute to the conversation.

AnRs wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

AnRs wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

AnRs wrote:Wonder if we've had this discussion if Merc had won all 3 races so far, and that wouldn't have taken that much for them to do.

To claim that they are down on power, slower in corners is obviously wrong, they overheat the softer tyres, but they switch on the tyres faster.

It's still a fact that Vettel couldn't produce the lap times that Bottas did, you can laugh or claim whatever you want to throw smokescreens over it.

How can you put in the same times when your in the dirty air compared to someone in clear air Not rocket science.

He never produced a lap time like Bottas even when in clean air.

With a damaged car and completely ruined tyres

Did you even watch it? He never had clean air before that? Honestly...

While behind Bottas, after the pitstops Vettel never had clean air apart from when his car was damaged. I'm pretty sure you never watched the race.

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: Don't tell me to ease up when you are the person who took things in this direction with your BS accusation. Pointing your finger at me and accusing me of what you actually do is behavior that reflects poorly on you. But we can leave that alone for now.

In terms of the cars themselves, the Ferrari has been stronger so far. There's not really a reasonable argument to the contrary. Australia is a wildcard circuit and as the first race, it is often not representative of the actual pecking order. Ferrari also made significant adjustments to their car after Australia which have clearly worked.

The reason I say they have more power is because the evidence suggests that they do. They have been faster than Mercedes in a straight line all year and, in China, they were also clearly quicker through the corners. They were much more planted through the fast corners like 7 and 13.

Again, Vettel was comfortably in control of the gap to Bottas when in front and breathing down his neck when behind. Even Raikkonen is able to comfortably outqualify the Mercs and would beat them in the races too if he could make a decent start and run a decent strategy. Considering his level of performance in the last 5 years, this is clear indication of Ferrari's strength.

Above all else though, it's the logical inconsistency from some posters that I have to call out. Last year Mercedes were sometimes only quicker in qualy and lost out to Ferrari during the race and yet people were saying that's enough to make Mercedes the better package. At races like spa they said getting pole was so important that it superseded being quicker during the race. Now we have a team that is faster both on Saturday's and Sundays but they're not convinced?

Do you really beleive that saying you have an agenda is "a bs agenda", really?

Again, Bottas had no problem undercutting Vettel and control the gap.
Ferrari was not quicker in the corners, go back and watch laps, no evidence for engine yet.

No, your agenda seems to be to say that the Mercedes is faster regardless of what actually takes place during qualifying sessions or races.

You say "Bottas had no problem undercutting Vettel and control the gap"? Really? Let's leave make-believe-land for a moment and discuss what happened here in the real world. Bottas was easily gapped during the first stint and Ferrari mismanaged the gap needed during the pit stops. What happened to Vettel in China was similar to what happened to Lewis in Australia. Through a miscalculation, he lost the lead in the pits but he was clearly quicker than his opponent; breathing down Bottas's neck after the stops.

If you are going to be so disingenuous in your analysis, you will become someone who can't really contribute to the conversation.

Your whole point fails because I never said Merc was faster, I only claimed it was hard to judge so far.
It's you who tries to hammer in your opinion.

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: One thing I agree with you on is that Lewis has not performed to his usual standard at all this year. He certainly performed well in Australia but he has been nowhere since then and really seems to be struggling in this car. A big part of that is a weakness that Mercedes have had since last year (and arguably before that) with regards to having a very narrow window of performance for their cars. That's not the whole thing though. I think Hamilton has struggled but not enough to create a half second deficit in qualy. That deficit is real and it's not based on oil burning or anything flukey. Ferrari are quicker at the moment. Only the most speculative of arguments can claim otherwise.

Both of the number 1's are considerably slower this year. Vettel had about 0.35 over Kimi last year, he has lost about 0.30 of that this year. But its still putting him marginally ahead.

Hamilton had about 0.25 over Bottas last year, he has lost the same amount as Vettel but that is putting him fractionally behind Bottas.

So if anyone is here is saying "Well Bottas out qualified Lewis by 0.050 surely the Mercedes has more in it?" then equally they should be saying "Vettel only out qualified Kimi by 0.050, surely the Ferrari has more in it" as well??

Why? On race pace Kimi is clearly inferior to Vettel, so business as usual. Not so with Merc.

It's possible Bottas has upped his game, but Hamilton is clearly struggling, so Occam's Razor suggests the main variable is Hamilton. At Ferrari, Kimi can't translate his qualifying competitiveness to the race, which is consistent with previous years. So it looks as though Vettel is showing the true pace of the car.

Business as usual?

Race pace has had the same swing. Yes it sitll puts Vettel ahead but at a much reduced rate.

Vettel was 0.5 a lap quicker than Kimi in Australia last year. This year, marginally slower.

Bahrain, Kimi was 6 seconds behind Vettel when switched to a 2 stopper. Last year Vettel thrashed him there.

China, harder to compare due to traffic in both year. But Kimi was pretty hopeless there last year and this year closer again and had great pace when in clean air.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote: I don't agree with that argument at all. You can't claim you have the only reasonable view.

The Ferrari does look the better car at the moment, but the noticeable variations between each race means it's by no means a sure thing. Vettel wasn't exactly dropping Bottas in China, so their relative performances aren't that easy to judge, particularly since both were dropping Kimi. All in all the two cars look fairly comparable on race day.

In qualifying, Ferrari did have the edge in China, no contest. And I'd agree that an edge in qualifying translates to a significant advantage on race day, which puts Ferrari firmly in the hot seat (Bottas' excellent work notwithstanding, Vettel/Ferrari should never have allowed him to take the lead). In Bahrain, however, I think it was too close to call for sure. I still think the issues Hamilton is having at the moment are masking the Merc's true pace, while Bottas was a hair's breadth from pipping Kimi in Qualifying. I'd be happy to say advantage Ferrari but not that it's clear cut.

The problem Zoue is that this is inconsistent with your previous thinking. Last year, with far less convincing evidence, you decisively claimed that Mercedes was the car to beat. This year, Ferrari are ahead in a much more comprehensive way and yet you are still on the fence.

All Bottas did during the race was undercut Vettel due to Ferrari's miscalculation and then hold him up before the safety car shook up the order. Vettel was clearly faster.

One thing I agree with you on is that Lewis has not performed to his usual standard at all this year. He certainly performed well in Australia but he has been nowhere since then and really seems to be struggling in this car. A big part of that is a weakness that Mercedes have had since last year (and arguably before that) with regards to having a very narrow window of performance for their cars. That's not the whole thing though. I think Hamilton has struggled but not enough to create a half second deficit in qualy. That deficit is real and it's not based on oil burning or anything flukey. Ferrari are quicker at the moment. Only the most speculative of arguments can claim otherwise.

Going by last season if Mercedes got pole like Ferrari did at China it would have been Mercedes is the better race car, this season it seems to have changed

Also moving away from Kimi, he was stuck behind Max.

Except Bahrain last year which was generally given to Ferrari from what I remember. Despite a similar gap in qualifying for Mercedes,Mercedes screwing up Bottas's tyre's in the race and Lewis generally being a bit off that weekend (Error with drs in Q and outqualified, jumped at the start,needed Bottas moved over in the race and a self inflicted penalty).

Yet it still was said the Ferrari was the better car that weekend by the majority on here so it's not like inconsistencies are anything new to be fair.

China was clearly Ferrari for me though fwiw.

Your earlier comment regarding the races so far I agree with

What's your take on Mercedes swing in performance since Oz? Or is just Ferrari fixing that floor issue sandman mentioned?

I'm seeing it half being a tyre issue for Mercedes on the softest compounds and half Ferrari taking a good step. (Roughly obviously)

That question's open to everyone else too, I'm interested in case I've missed some gossip,lol.

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote: 3.5 of those seconds was in Bottas' poor stop, like Vettel's poor one in China. It's not a reflection of relative pace of the cars

No, 1.6 seconds off it was the stop in Bahrain. 0.9 of it was Vettels stop in China.

No its not a reflection of the cars, its a reflection of an old tyre vs a new one. In both circumstances the new tyre was worth about 2 seconds per lap.

No, 3.5s were in the stop, by which I'm including the whole stop. Bottas lost nearly 2s on his outlap. That's all part of the stop. If he purposely put on the slower tyre, knowing it would mean he lost time in the exit, then he clearly wasn't going for any kind of undercut but was making a strategic call so he could put pressure on Vettel later in the race. So a totally different situation to China, then

That is not correct.
Bottas total pit lane time in Bahrain was 26.1 seconds. That is pit entry to Exit. Vettels was 24.5. He lost 1.6 seconds in the stop.

But lets make the new tyre thing a whole lot simpler;

Vettels 3 laps before pitting;

36.5
36.4
36.6

Vettels 3 laps after putting on new tyres;
34.7
34.5
34.6

New tyres were worth 2 seconds. Isn't that clear?

It is correct. Vettel's outlap, which you inexplicably fail to mention in the above stats, was a 1:54.708, while that from Bottas was a 1:56.583. That's nearly a 2s difference right there. You're doing your usual trick of ignoring things which don't support your view. So the whole pit stop cost Bottas (or gained Vettel) some 3.5s overall, which is not really down to the car itself

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: One thing I agree with you on is that Lewis has not performed to his usual standard at all this year. He certainly performed well in Australia but he has been nowhere since then and really seems to be struggling in this car. A big part of that is a weakness that Mercedes have had since last year (and arguably before that) with regards to having a very narrow window of performance for their cars. That's not the whole thing though. I think Hamilton has struggled but not enough to create a half second deficit in qualy. That deficit is real and it's not based on oil burning or anything flukey. Ferrari are quicker at the moment. Only the most speculative of arguments can claim otherwise.

Both of the number 1's are considerably slower this year. Vettel had about 0.35 over Kimi last year, he has lost about 0.30 of that this year. But its still putting him marginally ahead.

Hamilton had about 0.25 over Bottas last year, he has lost the same amount as Vettel but that is putting him fractionally behind Bottas.

So if anyone is here is saying "Well Bottas out qualified Lewis by 0.050 surely the Mercedes has more in it?" then equally they should be saying "Vettel only out qualified Kimi by 0.050, surely the Ferrari has more in it" as well??

Why? On race pace Kimi is clearly inferior to Vettel, so business as usual. Not so with Merc.

It's possible Bottas has upped his game, but Hamilton is clearly struggling, so Occam's Razor suggests the main variable is Hamilton. At Ferrari, Kimi can't translate his qualifying competitiveness to the race, which is consistent with previous years. So it looks as though Vettel is showing the true pace of the car.

Business as usual?

Race pace has had the same swing. Yes it sitll puts Vettel ahead but at a much reduced rate.

Vettel was 0.5 a lap quicker than Kimi in Australia last year. This year, marginally slower.

Bahrain, Kimi was 6 seconds behind Vettel when switched to a 2 stopper. Last year Vettel thrashed him there.

China, harder to compare due to traffic in both year. But Kimi was pretty hopeless there last year and this year closer again and had great pace when in clean air.

But Kimi is still clearly inferior to Vettel, so business as usual. Whereas, apart from Australia, you wouldn't say that Hamilton has been better than Bottas at all. Since I do feel Hamilton is better than Bottas, I'm inclined to think there's more to unlock from the car once Hamilton overcomes whatever issues he has. There is currently no reason to believe that Vettel has anything in reserve.

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote: 3.5 of those seconds was in Bottas' poor stop, like Vettel's poor one in China. It's not a reflection of relative pace of the cars

No, 1.6 seconds off it was the stop in Bahrain. 0.9 of it was Vettels stop in China.

No its not a reflection of the cars, its a reflection of an old tyre vs a new one. In both circumstances the new tyre was worth about 2 seconds per lap.

No, 3.5s were in the stop, by which I'm including the whole stop. Bottas lost nearly 2s on his outlap. That's all part of the stop. If he purposely put on the slower tyre, knowing it would mean he lost time in the exit, then he clearly wasn't going for any kind of undercut but was making a strategic call so he could put pressure on Vettel later in the race. So a totally different situation to China, then

That is not correct.
Bottas total pit lane time in Bahrain was 26.1 seconds. That is pit entry to Exit. Vettels was 24.5. He lost 1.6 seconds in the stop.

But lets make the new tyre thing a whole lot simpler;

Vettels 3 laps before pitting;

36.5
36.4
36.6

Vettels 3 laps after putting on new tyres;
34.7
34.5
34.6

New tyres were worth 2 seconds. Isn't that clear?

It is correct. Vettel's outlap, which you inexplicably fail to mention in the above stats, was a 1:54.708, while that from Bottas was a 1:56.583. That's nearly a 2s difference right there. You're doing your usual trick of ignoring things which don't support your view. So the whole pit stop cost Bottas (or gained Vettel) some 3.5s overall, which is not really down to the car itself

You are doing your usual thing of completely taking my point and getting the wrong end of the stick.

AnR suggested Mercedes was a great car because it was able to undercut in China.

Bottas was able to undercut in China because new tyres are worth approx about 2 seconds per lap. Couple that with Vettel making a minor error on his in lap and a slow stop and Bottas was able to overcome the 3.1 seconds deficit he was behind at pit entry.

To emphasis the point of the gain via new tyres, I introduced the case of Vettel in Bahrain. My entire point was to show the value of new tyres and nothing to do with the whole "Ferrari is better blah blah drama" you guys love in here. I was merely educating him on undercutting.

What I should have done was just use Vettels own times like I did in the second post to avoid any sort of confusion.

So, new tyres can be worth anywhere between 2.0-2.5 seconds per lap so don't be surprised AnR to see cars undercutting from 3.0 seconds back, particularly if they have a very quick pit stop.

Lotus49 wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The problem Zoue is that this is inconsistent with your previous thinking. Last year, with far less convincing evidence, you decisively claimed that Mercedes was the car to beat. This year, Ferrari are ahead in a much more comprehensive way and yet you are still on the fence.

All Bottas did during the race was undercut Vettel due to Ferrari's miscalculation and then hold him up before the safety car shook up the order. Vettel was clearly faster.

One thing I agree with you on is that Lewis has not performed to his usual standard at all this year. He certainly performed well in Australia but he has been nowhere since then and really seems to be struggling in this car. A big part of that is a weakness that Mercedes have had since last year (and arguably before that) with regards to having a very narrow window of performance for their cars. That's not the whole thing though. I think Hamilton has struggled but not enough to create a half second deficit in qualy. That deficit is real and it's not based on oil burning or anything flukey. Ferrari are quicker at the moment. Only the most speculative of arguments can claim otherwise.

Going by last season if Mercedes got pole like Ferrari did at China it would have been Mercedes is the better race car, this season it seems to have changed

Also moving away from Kimi, he was stuck behind Max.

Except Bahrain last year which was generally given to Ferrari from what I remember. Despite a similar gap in qualifying for Mercedes,Mercedes screwing up Bottas's tyre's in the race and Lewis generally being a bit off that weekend (Error with drs in Q and outqualified, jumped at the start,needed Bottas moved over in the race and a self inflicted penalty).

Yet it still was said the Ferrari was the better car that weekend by the majority on here so it's not like inconsistencies are anything new to be fair.

China was clearly Ferrari for me though fwiw.

Your earlier comment regarding the races so far I agree with

What's your take on Mercedes swing in performance since Oz? Or is just Ferrari fixing that floor issue sandman mentioned?

I'm seeing it half being a tyre issue for Mercedes on the softest compounds and half Ferrari taking a good step. (Roughly obviously)

That question's open to everyone else too, I'm interested in case I've missed some gossip,lol.

I'd add another half (you can see that Maths is my strong point ) that Hamilton is pretty far off his game at the moment and once he gets back into the swing of things it will look very different (I think the true barometers of the cars are Hamilton and Vettel, overall). Of course, if Ferrari maintain their China qualifying gap it won't make much difference, but given how utterly different every race has been so far I'm not convinced that they will.

lamo wrote:
AnR suggested Mercedes was a great car because it was able to undercut in China.

I only have said that I don't see at as a clear cut so far, the other is your interpretation.

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: One thing I agree with you on is that Lewis has not performed to his usual standard at all this year. He certainly performed well in Australia but he has been nowhere since then and really seems to be struggling in this car. A big part of that is a weakness that Mercedes have had since last year (and arguably before that) with regards to having a very narrow window of performance for their cars. That's not the whole thing though. I think Hamilton has struggled but not enough to create a half second deficit in qualy. That deficit is real and it's not based on oil burning or anything flukey. Ferrari are quicker at the moment. Only the most speculative of arguments can claim otherwise.

Both of the number 1's are considerably slower this year. Vettel had about 0.35 over Kimi last year, he has lost about 0.30 of that this year. But its still putting him marginally ahead.

Hamilton had about 0.25 over Bottas last year, he has lost the same amount as Vettel but that is putting him fractionally behind Bottas.

So if anyone is here is saying "Well Bottas out qualified Lewis by 0.050 surely the Mercedes has more in it?" then equally they should be saying "Vettel only out qualified Kimi by 0.050, surely the Ferrari has more in it" as well??

Why? On race pace Kimi is clearly inferior to Vettel, so business as usual. Not so with Merc.

It's possible Bottas has upped his game, but Hamilton is clearly struggling, so Occam's Razor suggests the main variable is Hamilton. At Ferrari, Kimi can't translate his qualifying competitiveness to the race, which is consistent with previous years. So it looks as though Vettel is showing the true pace of the car.

Business as usual?

Race pace has had the same swing. Yes it sitll puts Vettel ahead but at a much reduced rate.

Vettel was 0.5 a lap quicker than Kimi in Australia last year. This year, marginally slower.

Bahrain, Kimi was 6 seconds behind Vettel when switched to a 2 stopper. Last year Vettel thrashed him there.

China, harder to compare due to traffic in both year. But Kimi was pretty hopeless there last year and this year closer again and had great pace when in clean air.

But Kimi is still clearly inferior to Vettel, so business as usual. Whereas, apart from Australia, you wouldn't say that Hamilton has been better than Bottas at all. Since I do feel Hamilton is better than Bottas, I'm inclined to think there's more to unlock from the car once Hamilton overcomes whatever issues he has. There is currently no reason to believe that Vettel has anything in reserve.

That isn't how I analyse things. That is far too simplistic. If Hamilton was 0.6 ahead of Bottas all last year and suddenly was 0.1 ahead this year, that is not business as usual to me.

Also, I wouldn't say Hamilton was superior to Bottas in Australia in terms of pace either because I don't compare the pace of a driver in clean air to one in traffic like you do. Hamilton was only superior to Bottas in Australia in avoiding crashing out in qualifying. In terms of race pace, we have no idea.

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote: No, 1.6 seconds off it was the stop in Bahrain. 0.9 of it was Vettels stop in China.

No its not a reflection of the cars, its a reflection of an old tyre vs a new one. In both circumstances the new tyre was worth about 2 seconds per lap.

No, 3.5s were in the stop, by which I'm including the whole stop. Bottas lost nearly 2s on his outlap. That's all part of the stop. If he purposely put on the slower tyre, knowing it would mean he lost time in the exit, then he clearly wasn't going for any kind of undercut but was making a strategic call so he could put pressure on Vettel later in the race. So a totally different situation to China, then

That is not correct.
Bottas total pit lane time in Bahrain was 26.1 seconds. That is pit entry to Exit. Vettels was 24.5. He lost 1.6 seconds in the stop.

But lets make the new tyre thing a whole lot simpler;

Vettels 3 laps before pitting;

36.5
36.4
36.6

Vettels 3 laps after putting on new tyres;
34.7
34.5
34.6

New tyres were worth 2 seconds. Isn't that clear?

It is correct. Vettel's outlap, which you inexplicably fail to mention in the above stats, was a 1:54.708, while that from Bottas was a 1:56.583. That's nearly a 2s difference right there. You're doing your usual trick of ignoring things which don't support your view. So the whole pit stop cost Bottas (or gained Vettel) some 3.5s overall, which is not really down to the car itself

You are doing your usual thing of completely taking my point and getting the wrong end of the stick.

AnR suggested Mercedes was a great car because it was able to undercut in China.

Bottas was able to undercut in China because new tyres are worth approx about 2 seconds per lap. Couple that with Vettel making a minor error on his in lap and a slow stop and Bottas was able to overcome the 3.1 seconds deficit he was behind at pit entry.

To emphasis the point of the gain via new tyres, I introduced the case of Vettel in Bahrain. My entire point was to show the value of new tyres and nothing to do with the whole "Ferrari is better blah blah drama" you guys love in here. I was merely educating him on undercutting.

What I should have done was just use Vettels own times like I did in the second post to avoid any sort of confusion.

So, new tyres can be worth anywhere between 2.0-2.5 seconds per lap so don't be surprised AnR to see cars undercutting from 3.0 seconds back, particularly if they have a very quick pit stop.

But the undercut wouldn't have worked if Vettel/Ferrari hadn't messed up. And out laps are an integral part of the pit stop process, so it's not credible to ignore them.

Zoue wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Going by last season if Mercedes got pole like Ferrari did at China it would have been Mercedes is the better race car, this season it seems to have changed

Also moving away from Kimi, he was stuck behind Max.

Except Bahrain last year which was generally given to Ferrari from what I remember. Despite a similar gap in qualifying for Mercedes,Mercedes screwing up Bottas's tyre's in the race and Lewis generally being a bit off that weekend (Error with drs in Q and outqualified, jumped at the start,needed Bottas moved over in the race and a self inflicted penalty).

Yet it still was said the Ferrari was the better car that weekend by the majority on here so it's not like inconsistencies are anything new to be fair.

China was clearly Ferrari for me though fwiw.

Your earlier comment regarding the races so far I agree with

What's your take on Mercedes swing in performance since Oz? Or is just Ferrari fixing that floor issue sandman mentioned?

I'm seeing it half being a tyre issue for Mercedes on the softest compounds and half Ferrari taking a good step. (Roughly obviously)

That question's open to everyone else too, I'm interested in case I've missed some gossip,lol.

I'd add another half (you can see that Maths is my strong point ) that Hamilton is pretty far off his game at the moment and once he gets back into the swing of things it will look very different (I think the true barometers of the cars are Hamilton and Vettel, overall). Of course, if Ferrari maintain their China qualifying gap it won't make much difference, but given how utterly different every race has been so far I'm not convinced that they will.

For China I could see that he was missing his usual step yeah but I dunno about Bahrain. What was the race pace like between Bottas and Lewis and wasn't Lewis used as a bit of blocker for Bottas at one point?

Full disclosure, I was paying more attention to Macca's awful and STR's great performance there so the finer details pased me by and I'm going by descriptions.

AnRs wrote:

lamo wrote:
AnR suggested Mercedes was a great car because it was able to undercut in China.

I only have said that I don't see at as a clear cut so far, the other is your interpretation.

Ok fair enough. I was referring to this statement. It seemeed like you didn't appreciate the effect of new tyres.

AnRs wrote: Again, Bottas had no problem undercutting Vettel and control the gap.

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:
Both of the number 1's are considerably slower this year. Vettel had about 0.35 over Kimi last year, he has lost about 0.30 of that this year. But its still putting him marginally ahead.

Hamilton had about 0.25 over Bottas last year, he has lost the same amount as Vettel but that is putting him fractionally behind Bottas.

So if anyone is here is saying "Well Bottas out qualified Lewis by 0.050 surely the Mercedes has more in it?" then equally they should be saying "Vettel only out qualified Kimi by 0.050, surely the Ferrari has more in it" as well??

Why? On race pace Kimi is clearly inferior to Vettel, so business as usual. Not so with Merc.

It's possible Bottas has upped his game, but Hamilton is clearly struggling, so Occam's Razor suggests the main variable is Hamilton. At Ferrari, Kimi can't translate his qualifying competitiveness to the race, which is consistent with previous years. So it looks as though Vettel is showing the true pace of the car.

Business as usual?

Race pace has had the same swing. Yes it sitll puts Vettel ahead but at a much reduced rate.

Vettel was 0.5 a lap quicker than Kimi in Australia last year. This year, marginally slower.

Bahrain, Kimi was 6 seconds behind Vettel when switched to a 2 stopper. Last year Vettel thrashed him there.

China, harder to compare due to traffic in both year. But Kimi was pretty hopeless there last year and this year closer again and had great pace when in clean air.

But Kimi is still clearly inferior to Vettel, so business as usual. Whereas, apart from Australia, you wouldn't say that Hamilton has been better than Bottas at all. Since I do feel Hamilton is better than Bottas, I'm inclined to think there's more to unlock from the car once Hamilton overcomes whatever issues he has. There is currently no reason to believe that Vettel has anything in reserve.

That isn't how I analyse things. That is far too simplistic. If Hamilton was 0.6 ahead of Bottas all last year and suddenly was 0.1 ahead this year, that is not business as usual to me.

Also, I wouldn't say Hamilton was superior to Bottas in Australia in terms of pace either because I don't compare the pace of a driver in clean air to one in traffic like you do. Hamilton was only superior to Bottas in Australia in avoiding crashing out in qualifying. In terms of race pace, we have no idea.

I would counter that your arguments are too clinical. The drivers are not robots and their performances can and do fluctuate from race to race, let alone year to year. Getting hung up on whether a driver has the usual x tenths gap is far too rigid in my view.

Overall, the better driver will come out on top. If they are fairly evenly matched, it can fluctuate, but I think it would be quite unusual to see the kind of dominance we have from Vettel and Hamilton over their team mates be reversed from season to season. But Hamilton has not looked particularly strong recently, which suggests that he has more in hand, if only he could find out how to unlock it.

Lotus49 wrote:
For China I could see that he was missing his usual step yeah but I dunno about Bahrain. What was the race pace like between Bottas and Lewis and wasn't Lewis used as a bit of blocker for Bottas at one point?

Full disclosure, I was paying more attention to Macca's awful and STR's great performance there so the finer details pased me by and I'm going by descriptions.

Bahrain is hard to tell. Hamilton and Bottas were both told to run deltas and they both did. Hamilton was 14 seconds behind the leaders once he got clean air and into 4th.

China, Bottas appeared to be about 0.1 a lap quicker than Hamilton on race pace to me although its hard to tell.

Hamilton did a monster in lap at the end of stint 1. 0.4 quicker than Bottas. But Bottas' out lap was also insane, 1 second quicker than Hamiltons.

Laps 21-30 when Hamilton and Bottas both had new mediums and clean air. Hamilton closed him by 1 second but Bottas seemed to have better pace by about 0.1. Hamilton only closed him due to Bottas passing Kimi and losing time.

Lotus49 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: Except Bahrain last year which was generally given to Ferrari from what I remember. Despite a similar gap in qualifying for Mercedes,Mercedes screwing up Bottas's tyre's in the race and Lewis generally being a bit off that weekend (Error with drs in Q and outqualified, jumped at the start,needed Bottas moved over in the race and a self inflicted penalty).

Yet it still was said the Ferrari was the better car that weekend by the majority on here so it's not like inconsistencies are anything new to be fair.

China was clearly Ferrari for me though fwiw.

Your earlier comment regarding the races so far I agree with

What's your take on Mercedes swing in performance since Oz? Or is just Ferrari fixing that floor issue sandman mentioned?

I'm seeing it half being a tyre issue for Mercedes on the softest compounds and half Ferrari taking a good step. (Roughly obviously)

That question's open to everyone else too, I'm interested in case I've missed some gossip,lol.

I'd add another half (you can see that Maths is my strong point ) that Hamilton is pretty far off his game at the moment and once he gets back into the swing of things it will look very different (I think the true barometers of the cars are Hamilton and Vettel, overall). Of course, if Ferrari maintain their China qualifying gap it won't make much difference, but given how utterly different every race has been so far I'm not convinced that they will.

For China I could see that he was missing his usual step yeah but I dunno about Bahrain. What was the race pace like between Bottas and Lewis and wasn't Lewis used as a bit of blocker for Bottas at one point?

Full disclosure, I was paying more attention to Macca's awful and STR's great performance there so the finer details pased me by and I'm going by descriptions.

His pace wasn't too bad on the Mediums, but there again Bottas was held up behind Vettel, so difficult to say with any accuracy. But he certainly didn't look clearly better and his qualifying was not to his usual standard

[quote="Zoue"]

We completely disagree on this then.

To me, Kimi beat Vettel on race pace once last year, Silverstone. This year he beat him on race pace in the very first race. If the pattern continues, Kimi will out perform Vettel for race pace many more times this year.

Last year was 19-1. So far this year is 2-1.
Last years qualifying was 18-2 (?). This years is 2-1 with Kimi being closer in 3/3 of the races compared to last year.

You use Bottas performance in 2017 compared to 2018 to ascertain that Hamilton has not looked strong this year, that is correct?
So using, Kimi's performance in 2017 and 2018 I struggle to see how anyone could not assess Vettel as below par this year?

Also using your method, Hamilton has lost about 0.3 this year. So if he had a slower team mate and was still 0.1 ahead of (like Vettel) he would still be performing ok?

lamo wrote:
We completely disagree on this then.

To me, Kimi beat Vettel on race pace once last year, Silverstone. This year he beat him on race pace in the very first race. If the pattern continues, Kimi will out perform Vettel for race pace many more times this year.

Last year was 19-1. So far this year is 2-1.
Last years qualifying was 18-2 (?). This years is 2-1 with Kimi being closer in 3/3 of the races compared to last year.

You use Bottas performance in 2017 compared to 2018 to ascertain that Hamilton has not looked strong this year, that is correct?
So using, Kimi's performance in 2017 and 2018 I struggle to see how anyone could not assess Vettel as below par this year?

Also using your method, Hamilton has lost about 0.3 this year. So if he had a slower team mate and was still 0.1 ahead of (like Vettel) he would still be performing ok?

Yes, I'd agree that Kimi beat Vettel on race pace initially in Australia, but I wasn't really impressed with him after the stops, tbh. Vettel was uncomfortable with the car, in the same way that Hamilton is now uncomfortable with the Mercedes. Which tells me that Hamilton could have a return to form in the same way that Vettel did.

I don't see the relevance of last year's qualifying battles to this one. This falls under the clinical heading I mentioned earlier. You're too hung up on stats without looking at what is actually behind them.

Kimi is practically famous for being extremely sensitive to car setup. I've always maintained that he can show decent one lap pace, but he tends to be much worse over a race distance. And he is prone to errors, particularly in qualifying. I don't recall specific errors this year so far, which suggests to me that he's a lot more comfortable in the car than previously. Which translates into better lap times. And this isn't just me, either - they were talking about it on SKY the other day (Herbert, I think). I've said for years that I think he can match almost anyone in qualifying, as long as he feels at one in the car (for which a list of conditions as long as your arm have to be met, but that's another story). But he invariably drops the ball during the race these days. So I don't see him matching Vettel (in qualifying) as meaning Vettel is having a bad day. If he beat him in the race then I would.

Bottas has never shown that kind of car sensitivity, as far as I can recall. And Hamilton is normally as reliable, pace-wise, as you can get. But the fact that he has publicly admitted that he is struggling means that there is no leap of faith needed for me. It's all out there in the open.

I couldn't disagree more about my "method" losing Hamilton 0.3s this year. I don't think you need to crunch numbers to see that Hamilton is off his game - how much is anybody's guess, but I'd suggest an on-form Hamilton would at the very least have split the Ferraris in Bahrain, and maybe even had taken pole. In which case we'd be having a very different conversation

So Vettel was only under performing / struggling only in Australia? Since then he is back to best?

In a nutshell this is what I am getting from your comments.

Hamilton has lost about 0.3 in qualifying and race pace - he is having a bad year
Vettel has lost about about 0.3 in qualifying and race pace - Kimi is fickle in performance, its hard to tell. A point I agree with but, the the bar is set - if you are a top driver, you thrash a 38 year out and out old number 2 Kimi. No excuses. Kimi has been hopeless over 1 lap since 2007.

Also, will you ever acknowledge Kimi was on 8 lap older tyres than Vettel when mentionning Australia? You always neglect to mention that bit. Every single time. I think we all saw China to see how tyre age affects things?

lamo wrote:So Vettel was only under performing / struggling only in Australia? Since then he is back to best?

In a nutshell this is what I am getting from your comments.

Hamilton has lost about 0.3 in qualifying and race pace - he is having a bad year
Vettel has lost about about 0.3 in qualifying and race pace - Kimi is fickle in performance, its hard to tell. A point I agree with but, the the bar is set - if you are a top driver, you thrash a 38 year out and out old number 2 Kimi. No excuses. Kimi has been hopeless over 1 lap since 2007.

Also, will you ever acknowledge Kimi was on 8 lap older tyres than Vettel when mentionning Australia? You always neglect to mention that bit. Every single time. I think we all saw China to see how tyre age affects things?

He was on older tyres, yes. But he still underperformed IMO. I don't see why not mentioning his tyres is an omission, since I don't think it makes a difference to the fact that he just wasn't very good.

I don't agree with the numbers you have put. But I agree that Hamilton is having a bad year so far (with the exception of Australia, of course). Vettel, as already mentioned, appears to have had the reverse fortunes of Hamilton, since he started poorly but appears to have improved (by his own admission). Who knows whether he is at his best or not, but I currently don't see much reason to say he's under-performing.

Out of interest, why do you judge Kimi's stint 2 to be poor in Australia?

Considering Vettel "still beat" Kimi in both 2015 and 2016. How do you rate Vettel in each of those seasons?

2015;
Vettel 278 - 150 Raikkonen
Qualifying SV 15-2 Raikkonen (I think that is right?)

2016;
Vettel 212 - 186 Raikkonen
Qualifying SV 10-10 Raikkonen (I think that is right?)

By my count, Hamilton and Vettel have both had 1 conclusively below par race day each. Bahrain is hard to judge with regards to Hamilton due to the penalty and his race being basically over by the time he made it up 4th (14 seconds off the leaders).

Right now Ferrari seems the clearly better car. Fast in Quali (rare for Ferrari) and at least equal to the Merc in race pace.

On top of that Hamilton is hopeless this season and his usual paranoia will take over. Vettel's championship to lose at this point, but then he also managed to lose last year when he should've won.

ReservoirDog wrote:Right now Ferrari seems the clearly better car. Fast in Quali (rare for Ferrari) and at least equal to the Merc in race pace.

On top of that Hamilton is hopeless this season and his usual paranoia will take over. Vettel's championship to lose at this point, but then he also managed to lose last year when he should've won.

We're just three races into a 21 race calendar with a 9 point gap at the top of the table. It's certainly not Vettel's championship to lose yet. If Ferrari maintain supremacy through the Barcelona round then I think your statement will ring true but right now it's just too early to talk like that.

sandman1347 wrote:

ReservoirDog wrote:Right now Ferrari seems the clearly better car. Fast in Quali (rare for Ferrari) and at least equal to the Merc in race pace.

On top of that Hamilton is hopeless this season and his usual paranoia will take over. Vettel's championship to lose at this point, but then he also managed to lose last year when he should've won.

We're just three races into a 21 race calendar with a 9 point gap at the top of the table. It's certainly not Vettel's championship to lose yet. If Ferrari maintain supremacy through the Barcelona round then I think your statement will ring true but right now it's just too early to talk like that.

Hence ReservoirDog's bold points above...

lamo wrote:Out of interest, why do you judge Kimi's stint 2 to be poor in Australia?

Considering Vettel "still beat" Kimi in both 2015 and 2016. How do you rate Vettel in each of those seasons?

2015;
Vettel 278 - 150 Raikkonen
Qualifying SV 15-2 Raikkonen (I think that is right?)

2016;
Vettel 212 - 186 Raikkonen
Qualifying SV 10-10 Raikkonen (I think that is right?)

By my count, Hamilton and Vettel have both had 1 conclusively below par race day each. Bahrain is hard to judge with regards to Hamilton due to the penalty and his race being basically over by the time he made it up 4th (14 seconds off the leaders).

Because he still finished the race well behind. If he'd been harrying Hamilton in the same way that Hamilton had been harrying Vettel, then he may have been able to pick up some pieces when Hamilton had his off. But he clearly settled for 3rd.

I'm not sure past years have any relevance to what we are discussing now?

Agreed that Hamilton and Vettel have had one below par race, although I don't think Hamilton was completely on top of his game in Bahrain, either (just not to the same extent).

mikeyg123 wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:So far, all the evidence points at Ferrari > Mercedes > Red Bull >>>>> rest of the field, IMO.
Sauber, Williams and STR seem to be marginally behind the midfield.

I think the Williams car is in that midfield.

Yes, I actually agree. Its the drivers that make it look worse.

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:Out of interest, why do you judge Kimi's stint 2 to be poor in Australia?

Considering Vettel "still beat" Kimi in both 2015 and 2016. How do you rate Vettel in each of those seasons?

2015;
Vettel 278 - 150 Raikkonen
Qualifying SV 15-2 Raikkonen (I think that is right?)

2016;
Vettel 212 - 186 Raikkonen
Qualifying SV 10-10 Raikkonen (I think that is right?)

By my count, Hamilton and Vettel have both had 1 conclusively below par race day each. Bahrain is hard to judge with regards to Hamilton due to the penalty and his race being basically over by the time he made it up 4th (14 seconds off the leaders).

Because he still finished the race well behind. If he'd been harrying Hamilton in the same way that Hamilton had been harrying Vettel, then he may have been able to pick up some pieces when Hamilton had his off. But he clearly settled for 3rd.

I'm not sure past years have any relevance to what we are discussing now?

Agreed that Hamilton and Vettel have had one below par race, although I don't think Hamilton was completely on top of his game in Bahrain, either (just not to the same extent).

Harrying Hamilton? The Mercedes was dominant that day. Something you yourself have stated. So he was supposed to keep up with a dominant car?

In order to keep up with Hamilton, he would have had to match Vettel's pace with 8 lap older tyres than Vettel. Hamilton could match Vettel with 8 lap older tyres because he had a much better car that day. Kimi had the same car as Vettel - Kimi was good that day, but expecting him to match Vettel with 8 lap older tyres is a very high bar indeed.

Regarding him settling for third. He had a faster car with the same life tyres and the same car with much fresher tyres in front of him. He also had to run a disjointed 1 stopper taking the tyres longer than recommended due to his team pitting him so early to help his team mate out. Settling for third seems very wise to me. He also only dropped by the expected amount given his tyre deficit to Vettel.

Ironically, in China, Kimi exited the pits with 8 lap fresher tyres than Vettel and guess what. Kimi was 0.9 second a lap quicker. Was Vettel slow then or are we taking into account try age in that instance?

Regarding 2015-2016, you won't answer the question? One year Vettel was 0.5 ahead, the other 0.1 ahead. I wondered if you rated those years equally or not since a similar thing has happened between 2017 and 2018. Although he is still ahead in all cases.

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:Out of interest, why do you judge Kimi's stint 2 to be poor in Australia?

Considering Vettel "still beat" Kimi in both 2015 and 2016. How do you rate Vettel in each of those seasons?

2015;
Vettel 278 - 150 Raikkonen
Qualifying SV 15-2 Raikkonen (I think that is right?)

2016;
Vettel 212 - 186 Raikkonen
Qualifying SV 10-10 Raikkonen (I think that is right?)

By my count, Hamilton and Vettel have both had 1 conclusively below par race day each. Bahrain is hard to judge with regards to Hamilton due to the penalty and his race being basically over by the time he made it up 4th (14 seconds off the leaders).

Because he still finished the race well behind. If he'd been harrying Hamilton in the same way that Hamilton had been harrying Vettel, then he may have been able to pick up some pieces when Hamilton had his off. But he clearly settled for 3rd.

I'm not sure past years have any relevance to what we are discussing now?

Agreed that Hamilton and Vettel have had one below par race, although I don't think Hamilton was completely on top of his game in Bahrain, either (just not to the same extent).

Harrying Hamilton? The Mercedes was dominant that day. Something you yourself have stated. So he was supposed to keep up with a dominant car?

In order to keep up with Hamilton, he would have had to match Vettel's pace with 8 lap older tyres than Vettel. Hamilton could match Vettel with 8 lap older tyres because he had a much better car that day. Kimi had the same car as Vettel - Kimi was good that day, but expecting him to match Vettel with 8 lap older tyres is a very high bar indeed.

Regarding him settling for third. He had a faster car with the same life tyres and the same car with much fresher tyres in front of him. He also had to run a disjointed 1 stopper taking the tyres longer than recommended due to his team pitting him so early to help his team mate out. Settling for third seems very wise to me. He also only dropped by the expected amount given his tyre deficit to Vettel.

Ironically, in China, Kimi exited the pits with 8 lap fresher tyres than Vettel and guess what. Kimi was 0.9 second a lap quicker. Was Vettel slow then or are we taking into account try age in that instance?

Regarding 2015-2016, you won't answer the question? One year Vettel was 0.5 ahead, the other 0.1 ahead. I wondered if you rated those years equally or not since a similar thing has happened between 2017 and 2018. Although he is still ahead in all cases.

pretty sure I haven't used the word dominant. It was better, sure, but it was being held up by Vettel.

Hamilton stated after the race that he couldn't go any faster in the first stint, yet Kimi managed to keep up reasonably well. Yet in the second stint, Kimi dropped away a lot more. I think he should have been quicker there and, if he had, he may have been able to take advantage of Hamilton's off. Kimi did improve later in the stint, but at the beginning he let the front two get away too much. You can see from lap 40 he suddenly improved quite a lot and I don't think that was all tyres

Regarding 2015-2016, I need to refresh my memory on it, that's all. Point is I don't see any relevance to what we are discussing now. I don't rate Vettel solely by how well Kimi is doing. He was very good in 2015, if I recall. After all, he was the only non-Mercedes driver to win a race that year, and he won three. He didn't look quite as strong in 2016, but don't think the car was as competitive, either. Again, don't quite see the relevance with what we are discussing here, though.

You can't say the Mercedes was the better race car and then expect Kimi to keep up with it surely? So its either, the cars were equal or the Mercedes was better.

You have however said the Mercedes was better. So by your own admission, naturally Kimi should fall back? But what you actually said was he should have been harrying Hamilton. That seems quite the contradiction to me. Do you agree?

The largest the gap grew to Vettel was from 2.0 to 9.6. He was 2.0 behind Vettel as he crossed the line the lap the SC went in. So he lost 7.6 seconds over 23 laps or 0.330 per lap to a car with 8 lap fresher tyres. I read post race, in an article that you linked actually that the tyres lost 0.050 per lap. So that would put Kimi at a 0.400 disadvantage on every lap. -0.070, that was pretty much the advantage Kimi had over Vettel in stint 1 and he is praised for that. Funny.

That is also cherry picking the numbers to make Kimi look as bad as possible too because Kimi began to post very quick times and catch the leaders with a pace quicker than they ever ran in that stint.

Kimi was always going to lose time to these two cars, so it becomes a question of how much was acceptable for you to not criticise his drive or does Kimi have to match Hamilton in a slower car to get praise? Or match Vettel with 8 lap older tyres to get praise?

lamo wrote:You can't say the Mercedes was the better race car and then expect Kimi to keep up with it surely? So its either, the cars were equal or the Mercedes was better.

You have however said the Mercedes was better. So by your own admission, naturally Kimi should fall back? But what you actually said was he should have been harrying Hamilton. That seems quite the contradiction to me. Do you agree?

The largest the gap grew to Vettel was from 2.0 to 9.6. He was 2.0 behind Vettel as he crossed the line the lap the SC went in. So he lost 7.6 seconds over 23 laps or 0.330 per lap to a car with 8 lap fresher tyres. I read post race, in an article that you linked actually that the tyres lost 0.050 per lap. So that would put Kimi at a 0.400 disadvantage on every lap. -0.070, that was pretty much the advantage Kimi had over Vettel in stint 1 and he is praised for that. Funny.

That is also cherry picking the numbers to make Kimi look as bad as possible too because Kimi began to post very quick times and catch the leaders with a pace quicker than they ever ran in that stint.

Kimi was always going to lose time to these two cars, so it becomes a question of how much was acceptable for you to not criticise his drive or does Kimi have to match Hamilton in a slower car to get praise? Or match Vettel with 8 lap older tyres to get praise?

I didn't say he should have kept up with it. Please read my post properly. I said he dropped away a lot more in the second stint, and this was when Hamilton was being held up by Vettel. In the first stint, Kimi lost comparatively less time, but then Hamilton didn't have anyone holding him up, whereas in the second stint he did. So relatively speaking Kimi's second stint was slower.

You're back to your numbers without context. I already pointed out that he sped up considerably after lap 40, but for some reason you've chosen to ignore that. The fact is there was pace in the car that Kimi didn't use.

According to Bottas, Ferrari had no pace advantage on Merc in China race trim, but hey, what does he knows?

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

AnRs wrote:According to Bottas, Ferrari had no pace advantage on Merc in China race trim, but hey, what does he knows?

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

Did you actually read that? It doesn't say what you seem to think. Give it a read.

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:According to Bottas, Ferrari had no pace advantage on Merc in China race trim, but hey, what does he knows?

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

Did you actually read that? It doesn't say what you seem to think. Give it a read.

didn't he say this:

Bottas: “Sebastian was on the same tyre, there was no big pace difference between the cars, so in theory it would have been manageable until the end.”

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:You can't say the Mercedes was the better race car and then expect Kimi to keep up with it surely? So its either, the cars were equal or the Mercedes was better.

You have however said the Mercedes was better. So by your own admission, naturally Kimi should fall back? But what you actually said was he should have been harrying Hamilton. That seems quite the contradiction to me. Do you agree?

The largest the gap grew to Vettel was from 2.0 to 9.6. He was 2.0 behind Vettel as he crossed the line the lap the SC went in. So he lost 7.6 seconds over 23 laps or 0.330 per lap to a car with 8 lap fresher tyres. I read post race, in an article that you linked actually that the tyres lost 0.050 per lap. So that would put Kimi at a 0.400 disadvantage on every lap. -0.070, that was pretty much the advantage Kimi had over Vettel in stint 1 and he is praised for that. Funny.

That is also cherry picking the numbers to make Kimi look as bad as possible too because Kimi began to post very quick times and catch the leaders with a pace quicker than they ever ran in that stint.

Kimi was always going to lose time to these two cars, so it becomes a question of how much was acceptable for you to not criticise his drive or does Kimi have to match Hamilton in a slower car to get praise? Or match Vettel with 8 lap older tyres to get praise?

I didn't say he should have kept up with it. Please read my post properly. I said he dropped away a lot more in the second stint, and this was when Hamilton was being held up by Vettel. In the first stint, Kimi lost comparatively less time, but then Hamilton didn't have anyone holding him up, whereas in the second stint he did. So relatively speaking Kimi's second stint was slower.

You're back to your numbers without context. I already pointed out that he sped up considerably after lap 40, but for some reason you've chosen to ignore that. The fact is there was pace in the car that Kimi didn't use.

Actually you said if he had been harrying Hamilton he could have got him when he made a mistake. Pretty hard to harry someone in a better car than you and you are expected to fall behind.

The first stint was cut way short and we never got to see how it played out. It was supposed to go until lap 25-28 but Ferrari threw a curve ball with the early pit. But just look at the in laps of Hamilton and Raikkonen to see how much speed Hamilton had in hand. I'll do it for you. 0.8 quicker with Hamilton going purple in S1 and S2. The Mercedes was clearly superior car in Australia.

Kimi's times were quicker than Vettel in the second stint once allowing for tyre life. That is a fact and that is cherry picking the times to make Kimi look as bad as possible (i.e. before he sped up).

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:According to Bottas, Ferrari had no pace advantage on Merc in China race trim, but hey, what does he knows?

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

Did you actually read that? It doesn't say what you seem to think. Give it a read.

didn't he say this:

Bottas: “Sebastian was on the same tyre, there was no big pace difference between the cars, so in theory it would have been manageable until the end.”

"no big pace difference" does not equal "no pace pace advantage"

AnRs wrote:According to Bottas, Ferrari had no pace advantage on Merc in China race trim, but hey, what does he knows?

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

Interesting recap.

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:According to Bottas, Ferrari had no pace advantage on Merc in China race trim, but hey, what does he knows?

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

Did you actually read that? It doesn't say what you seem to think. Give it a read.

didn't he say this:

Bottas: “Sebastian was on the same tyre, there was no big pace difference between the cars, so in theory it would have been manageable until the end.”

"no big pace difference" does not equal "no pace pace advantage"

Splitting hairs, really. Basically meant that there wasn't a lot in it

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:According to Bottas, Ferrari had no pace advantage on Merc in China race trim, but hey, what does he knows?

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

Did you actually read that? It doesn't say what you seem to think. Give it a read.

didn't he say this:

Bottas: “Sebastian was on the same tyre, there was no big pace difference between the cars, so in theory it would have been manageable until the end.”

"no big pace difference" does not equal "no pace pace advantage"

Splitting hairs, really. Basically meant that there wasn't a lot in it

That is not splitting hairs at all. They are completely different statements and trying to pass one off as the other is twisty things, AnR.

One means, Ferrari was definitely no quicker "no pace advantage" than Mercedes.

One means, Ferrari was possibly quicker or slower but not by a significant enough amount to threaten his win. The overtake delta in China was 1.0-1.2 seconds so he is definitely right.

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

lamo wrote:You can't say the Mercedes was the better race car and then expect Kimi to keep up with it surely? So its either, the cars were equal or the Mercedes was better.

You have however said the Mercedes was better. So by your own admission, naturally Kimi should fall back? But what you actually said was he should have been harrying Hamilton. That seems quite the contradiction to me. Do you agree?

The largest the gap grew to Vettel was from 2.0 to 9.6. He was 2.0 behind Vettel as he crossed the line the lap the SC went in. So he lost 7.6 seconds over 23 laps or 0.330 per lap to a car with 8 lap fresher tyres. I read post race, in an article that you linked actually that the tyres lost 0.050 per lap. So that would put Kimi at a 0.400 disadvantage on every lap. -0.070, that was pretty much the advantage Kimi had over Vettel in stint 1 and he is praised for that. Funny.

That is also cherry picking the numbers to make Kimi look as bad as possible too because Kimi began to post very quick times and catch the leaders with a pace quicker than they ever ran in that stint.

Kimi was always going to lose time to these two cars, so it becomes a question of how much was acceptable for you to not criticise his drive or does Kimi have to match Hamilton in a slower car to get praise? Or match Vettel with 8 lap older tyres to get praise?

I didn't say he should have kept up with it. Please read my post properly. I said he dropped away a lot more in the second stint, and this was when Hamilton was being held up by Vettel. In the first stint, Kimi lost comparatively less time, but then Hamilton didn't have anyone holding him up, whereas in the second stint he did. So relatively speaking Kimi's second stint was slower.

You're back to your numbers without context. I already pointed out that he sped up considerably after lap 40, but for some reason you've chosen to ignore that. The fact is there was pace in the car that Kimi didn't use.

Actually you said if he had been harrying Hamilton he could have got him when he made a mistake. Pretty hard to harry someone in a better car than you and you are expected to fall behind.

The first stint was cut way short and we never got to see how it played out. It was supposed to go until lap 25-28 but Ferrari threw a curve ball with the early pit. But just look at the in laps of Hamilton and Raikkonen to see how much speed Hamilton had in hand. I'll do it for you. 0.8 quicker with Hamilton going purple in S1 and S2. The Mercedes was clearly superior car in Australia.

Kimi's times were quicker than Vettel in the second stint once allowing for tyre life. That is a fact and that is cherry picking the times to make Kimi look as bad as possible (i.e. before he sped up).

First off, I said he may have been able to take advantage. These conversations would be a lot shorter if you didn't keep misrepresenting what I write. And the point, which you appear to be missing, is that Kimi didn't lose too much time behind Hamilton when Hamilton was in clear air and trying, by his own admission, to drop him. When Hamilton was behind Vettel, who would have been running at a lower pace than Hamilton could have managed on his own, Kimi fell further back. Which tends to suggest that Kimi's pace dropped off in the second stint.

The Mercedes was clearly the superior car in Australia. Quite why you bring that up I don't know, since I've never suggested otherwise.

I'm not cherry picking anything. It's you that appears to be getting all upset simply because I don't think Kimi's second stint was that impressive.