planetf1.com

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... r-vorteil/

"Less power equal less downforce?

Nevertheless, one was in the scene noisy. Why did the advantage of accelerating between 180 and 260 km / h disappear from one race to another? Did the opponents catch up, or did Ferrari have to back off? From FIA circles, we hear that for some time now a second sensor has been installed on all Ferrari drive units that measures the energy flow. It gives you more confidence to measure what you want to measure.

Why Ferrari? Because the Italians are the only ones using an energy storage system that couples two batteries. When asked which race exactly the second sensor was installed, there is no answer from the World Association.

From Renault we learn that Ferrari's competitors have actively pushed the case. It was possible to prove that the energy flow could not be measured beyond doubt with the old method. To be legally on the safe side, the measurement process had to be refined.

Whether this has something to do with the fact that Ferrari has lost time in Singapore and Russia on the Mercedes, is pure speculation. Because Ferrari has not only lost its superiority on the straights, but was partly slower in the bends. Renault team boss Cyril Abiteboul explains it this way: "If they should have less power, they may not be able to drive the wing adjustment from before and have to return with the downforce.""

lets call a spade a spade here. if this is true and ferrari have lost the advantage because of extra checks/sensors, then they have been flat out cheating. no doubt with some protection from the fia. this isnt a grey area in the regs eg wing mirror ties, flexing wings, this is blatant cheating as would be the case with say running a bigger turbo then allowed. it was always fishy how they pretty suddenly had the best engine.

They didn't suddenly have the best engine. They had the best engine after four years of very slowly closing the gap.

I make it that Ferrari have had the better car 10 times, Mercedes 6 times. Two that I found hard to call were Italy and Canada which I gave to Ferrari, so I think you could make the argument that it's 8-6 with two 'draws'. If you were being very generous to Mercedes you could possibly get to 8-8.

It's very clear where Ferrari lost this title though, from Britain to Italy they had the best car and completely failed to capitalise for one reason or another.

Edit: should be 9-7, not 10-6.

Black_Flag_11 wrote: It's very clear where Ferrari lost this title though, from Britain to Italy they had the best car and completely failed to capitalise for one reason or another.

This really. Even if Vettel comes 2nd in Germany the gap is down to 32, add a few more if Ferrari dont totally botch quali in Monza and Vettel would only be a Hamilton DNF away from being neck and neck.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... r-vorteil/

"Less power equal less downforce?

Nevertheless, one was in the scene noisy. Why did the advantage of accelerating between 180 and 260 km / h disappear from one race to another? Did the opponents catch up, or did Ferrari have to back off? From FIA circles, we hear that for some time now a second sensor has been installed on all Ferrari drive units that measures the energy flow. It gives you more confidence to measure what you want to measure.

Why Ferrari? Because the Italians are the only ones using an energy storage system that couples two batteries. When asked which race exactly the second sensor was installed, there is no answer from the World Association.

From Renault we learn that Ferrari's competitors have actively pushed the case. It was possible to prove that the energy flow could not be measured beyond doubt with the old method. To be legally on the safe side, the measurement process had to be refined.

Whether this has something to do with the fact that Ferrari has lost time in Singapore and Russia on the Mercedes, is pure speculation. Because Ferrari has not only lost its superiority on the straights, but was partly slower in the bends. Renault team boss Cyril Abiteboul explains it this way: "If they should have less power, they may not be able to drive the wing adjustment from before and have to return with the downforce.""

lets call a spade a spade here. if this is true and ferrari have lost the advantage because of extra checks/sensors, then they have been flat out cheating. no doubt with some protection from the fia. this isnt a grey area in the regs eg wing mirror ties, flexing wings, this is blatant cheating as would be the case with say running a bigger turbo then allowed. it was always fishy how they pretty suddenly had the best engine.

They didn't suddenly have the best engine. They had the best engine after four years of very slowly closing the gap.

yes very slowly closing the gap then all of a sudden they have an engine advantage, a relatively big leap. merc were losing a few tenths on the straights in some races. these engines are in the 5th year and merc have spent hundreds of millions. i would be confident in saying they are very close to getting everything possible out of this configuration. but ferrari who have messed up these hybrids until 2017 suddenly have found something legal for that advantage. give over.

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... r-vorteil/

"Less power equal less downforce?

Nevertheless, one was in the scene noisy. Why did the advantage of accelerating between 180 and 260 km / h disappear from one race to another? Did the opponents catch up, or did Ferrari have to back off? From FIA circles, we hear that for some time now a second sensor has been installed on all Ferrari drive units that measures the energy flow. It gives you more confidence to measure what you want to measure.

Why Ferrari? Because the Italians are the only ones using an energy storage system that couples two batteries. When asked which race exactly the second sensor was installed, there is no answer from the World Association.

From Renault we learn that Ferrari's competitors have actively pushed the case. It was possible to prove that the energy flow could not be measured beyond doubt with the old method. To be legally on the safe side, the measurement process had to be refined.

Whether this has something to do with the fact that Ferrari has lost time in Singapore and Russia on the Mercedes, is pure speculation. Because Ferrari has not only lost its superiority on the straights, but was partly slower in the bends. Renault team boss Cyril Abiteboul explains it this way: "If they should have less power, they may not be able to drive the wing adjustment from before and have to return with the downforce.""

lets call a spade a spade here. if this is true and ferrari have lost the advantage because of extra checks/sensors, then they have been flat out cheating. no doubt with some protection from the fia. this isnt a grey area in the regs eg wing mirror ties, flexing wings, this is blatant cheating as would be the case with say running a bigger turbo then allowed. it was always fishy how they pretty suddenly had the best engine.

They didn't suddenly have the best engine. They had the best engine after four years of very slowly closing the gap.

yes very slowly closing the gap then all of a sudden they have an engine advantage, a relatively big leap. merc were losing a few tenths on the straights in some races. these engines are in the 5th year and merc have spent hundreds of millions. i would be confident in saying they are very close to getting everything possible out of this configuration. but ferrari who have messed up these hybrids until 2017 suddenly have found something legal for that advantage. give over.

They've been slowly closing the gap, slowly pulled level and slowly eased ahead. Their upward trajectory has been pretty consistent. I'd be amazed if Merc had gotten all that was possible out of these particular engine regulations in just 5 years. Cars ran normally aspirated engines for years and until the freeze they still improved year on year.

Good read over at Autosport on the Ferrari v Merc performance battle this year. They are currently putting it at around 9-7 to Ferrari in outright performance per race for the season.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/85 ... -the-rails

They are also asking the question I have heard a few times recently as to whether Ferrari has had its wings quietly clipped by the FIA for perhaps pushing boundaries a little too far (to be clear it's just a theory and not an accusation of any kind).

We haven't heard so much from Toto Wolff or anyone else lately about how Mercedes was slightly confused by how Ferrari was so competitive in the middle of the season.

Is that because Mercedes was able to introduce engine developments that overcame this deficit, or was Ferrari, as some suspected, pushing the boundaries just that little bit too far - and has now been quietly pulled back by the FIA?

The Ferrari has also appeared to have stopped puffing smoke out the back in the last race or two, while Hamilton's Mercedes was seen to be emitting a little oil out the back in the last race.

AnRs wrote:I believe we can put this to an end now, it's simply Merc that's faster.

Using your last 2 race sample?

Black_Flag_11 wrote:I make it that Ferrari have had the better car 10 times, Mercedes 6 times. Two that I found hard to call were Italy and Canada which I gave to Ferrari, so I think you could make the argument that it's 8-6 with two 'draws'. If you were being very generous to Mercedes you could possibly get to 8-8.

It's very clear where Ferrari lost this title though, from Britain to Italy they had the best car and completely failed to capitalise for one reason or another.

Edit: should be 9-7, not 10-6.

While I agree that Ferrari failed to capitalize on their position on more than one occasion, I think Britain to Italy is too broad.

In GB Hamilton got pole and only lost the race because he had such a(n uncharacteristically) poor start. I think there's an argument to say that Hamilton threw that one away, really, and to me the cars looked relatively equal. Germany is a little difficult to draw any conclusions from in qualifying as Hamilton was out of it and Vettel only beat Bottas by 2 tenths. I don't think that's a big enough margin to rule out driver performance and the race conditions made it almost impossible to say. Hamilton didn't look like he was suffering a car disadvantage, that's for sure, and neither did Bottas.

Then we move onto Hungary, where Mercedes enjoyed a front-row lockout helped, admittedly, by the changeable conditions. But Hamilton also outpaced Vettel pretty much the whole race, although it was quite difficult to make a proper comparison due to Hamilton enjoying clear air while Vettel didn't for much of the race. But there wasn't anything in the way of evidence to point to the Ferrari being superior. Spa is one race where Ferrari did look like they had a decent advantage in qualifying at least, but that was again negated by the weather. And Hamilton's defeat from pole owes as much to him making a mistake in the beginning and allowing Vettel past as it did any advantage Ferrari had. We saw last year just how difficult overtaking was there with these cars and if Hamilton had managed to stay ahead at the start he may have held on for the win. But Ferrari did look the better car, especially in regards to traction.

And at Monza Mercedes appeared to completely overcome their traction issues and Hamilton certainly didn't look any slower than Kimi there. While on paper Ferrari looked quicker in qualifying their margin was very, very small and you can't rule out driver performance. I'd probably give them qualifying on the basis of Hamilton's gap to Bottas, but the race was a different story.

So on the whole I'd say that the cars have been a lot more equal than Mercedes have been making out. There have been a couple of times where Ferrari looked to have a better qualifying package, but in race pace that's not been the case and I really don't see that Ferrari have held any kind of consistent advantage for 5 races. In this I think I'd agree with Vettel:

Vettel said he was not surprised that Mercedes has currently edged ahead, as he believes the advantage Ferrari enjoyed at earlier points in the season had been overstated.

“I think we said many times that we have a strong car but I don’t think, maybe against people’s opinions, that we had a dominant car at any point this year.

“It has been very close all year, but there were too many races from our side where we weren’t close enough.

“A race like last weekend [in Russia], the way they could play with us in a race, usually means they have more pace, and there are other races in the season where we didn’t have the pace they had.”

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/vett ... a/3188380/

The rain affected qualifying sessions like say Belgium are difficult to call, I've pretty much just taken them as draws and focused on the race, hopefully we get to see a bit more wet weather, if the Mercedes proves to simply be better in wet conditions I might go back and split each race down between qualifying and the race to give a more accurate picture.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:The rain affected qualifying sessions like say Belgium are difficult to call, I've pretty much just taken them as draws and focused on the race, hopefully we get to see a bit more wet weather, if the Mercedes proves to simply be better in wet conditions I might go back and split each race down between qualifying and the race to give a more accurate picture.

But would you say that e.g. Germany, Hungary and Monza showed a Ferrari pace advantage in the race?

Zoue wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:The rain affected qualifying sessions like say Belgium are difficult to call, I've pretty much just taken them as draws and focused on the race, hopefully we get to see a bit more wet weather, if the Mercedes proves to simply be better in wet conditions I might go back and split each race down between qualifying and the race to give a more accurate picture.

But would you say that e.g. Germany, Hungary and Monza showed a Ferrari pace advantage in the race?

Germany difficult to compare with differe t strategies etc. but yes I think Hamilton was quicker just before Vettel's stop and quicker for a few laps before Vettel went off but overall I feel Ferrari had the pace, Vettel was lapping quicker and being unchallenged at the front I imagine he was holding some back.

Hungary was again difficult with Vettel starting out of position and spending a lot of the race behind Bottas. Maybe I need to re watch that race but my feeling from the time was that Ferrari was fastest but getting stuck behind Bottas gave Hamilton the ability to control his pace/tyres and pull away.

Italy yes, for the same reason I give Canada to Mercedes I give Italy to Ferrari. Kimi is normally considerably slower in the race than Vettel but was competative enough with Hamilton that I feel Vettel was capable of winning that on pace. I'm not against the idea of Kimi/Bottas putting in a Hamilton/Vettel level of performance and it's entirely possible that is what happened but I think it's unlikely. Overall it would make no difference to my 9-7 rating if I were to call it the other way, as I'd have to adjust Canada too, to be consistent.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:The rain affected qualifying sessions like say Belgium are difficult to call, I've pretty much just taken them as draws and focused on the race, hopefully we get to see a bit more wet weather, if the Mercedes proves to simply be better in wet conditions I might go back and split each race down between qualifying and the race to give a more accurate picture.

But would you say that e.g. Germany, Hungary and Monza showed a Ferrari pace advantage in the race?

Germany difficult to compare with differe t strategies etc. but yes I think Hamilton was quicker just before Vettel's stop and quicker for a few laps before Vettel went off but overall I feel Ferrari had the pace, Vettel was lapping quicker and being unchallenged at the front I imagine he was holding some back.

Hungary was again difficult with Vettel starting out of position and spending a lot of the race behind Bottas. Maybe I need to re watch that race but my feeling from the time was that Ferrari was fastest but getting stuck behind Bottas gave Hamilton the ability to control his pace/tyres and pull away.

Italy yes, for the same reason I give Canada to Mercedes I give Italy to Ferrari. Kimi is normally considerably slower in the race than Vettel but was competative enough with Hamilton that I feel Vettel was capable of winning that on pace. I'm not against the idea of Kimi/Bottas putting in a Hamilton/Vettel level of performance and it's entirely possible that is what happened but I think it's unlikely. Overall it would make no difference to my 9-7 rating if I were to call it the other way, as I'd have to adjust Canada too, to be consistent.

Fair enough. I agree it's often difficult to know whether the leader is really pushing, but I'd say that's as equally applicable to Hungary as to Germany. And while I'd agree that you'd normally expect Hamilton to be quicker than Kimi in race pace, the level of pressure Hamilton put on him doesn't suggest he was at any kind of disadvantage. And Mercedes had clearly resolved their traction issues in Monza, which was the root of much of their deficit in Spa.

So while I respect your reasoning, you can see I don't wholly agree

Short explanation from about 7:00

well difficult to draw any precise conclusions from FP of course but I hope that the times so far are unrepresentative as otherwise Mercedes have not so much inched as catapulted ahead. 8 tenths from Hamilton to Vettel, the closest they've been in both FP1 and FP2. As dominant as anything so far this season

shoot999 wrote:

Short explanation from about 7:00

This is full of speculation, as fascinating as it sounds.

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:I believe we can put this to an end now, it's simply Merc that's faster.

Using your last 2 race sample?

Don't tell me that you're still arguing that Ferrari is faster?

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:I believe we can put this to an end now, it's simply Merc that's faster.

Using your last 2 race sample?

Don't tell me that you're still arguing that Ferrari is faster?

Presently no but the discussion is about 16 races not just the last couple.

Zoue wrote:well difficult to draw any precise conclusions from FP of course but I hope that the times so far are unrepresentative as otherwise Mercedes have not so much inched as catapulted ahead. 8 tenths from Hamilton to Vettel, the closest they've been in both FP1 and FP2. As dominant as anything so far this season

Ignoring the fact that Ferrari had the engines greatly turned down?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:well difficult to draw any precise conclusions from FP of course but I hope that the times so far are unrepresentative as otherwise Mercedes have not so much inched as catapulted ahead. 8 tenths from Hamilton to Vettel, the closest they've been in both FP1 and FP2. As dominant as anything so far this season

Ignoring the fact that Ferrari had the engines greatly turned down?

this is a fact? I thought it was guess?

I did write the caveat that it was difficult to draw any precise conclusions in FP. But have you seen anything in qualifying to suggest that the Ferraris were sandbagging?

Mercedes certainly seem to have edged ahead now, though FP3 was a lot closer than the first 2 sessions. Can't really draw too many solid conclusions from Quali due to the way it span out with the weather in the end, but the general body language and the talk coming out of the Red camp doesnt shout at me that they are confident of turning this around for the titles.

Once again an easy enough weekend to judge. The Mercedes is currently the best car going.

I'm not sensing much unpredictability right now. I can see Mercedes dominating the rest of the season, though with closer battles at Mexico and Brazil.

Lojik wrote:Good read over at Autosport on the Ferrari v Merc performance battle this year. They are currently putting it at around 9-7 to Ferrari in outright performance per race for the season.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/85 ... -the-rails

They are also asking the question I have heard a few times recently as to whether Ferrari has had its wings quietly clipped by the FIA for perhaps pushing boundaries a little too far (to be clear it's just a theory and not an accusation of any kind).

We haven't heard so much from Toto Wolff or anyone else lately about how Mercedes was slightly confused by how Ferrari was so competitive in the middle of the season.

Is that because Mercedes was able to introduce engine developments that overcame this deficit, or was Ferrari, as some suspected, pushing the boundaries just that little bit too far - and has now been quietly pulled back by the FIA?

The Ferrari has also appeared to have stopped puffing smoke out the back in the last race or two, while Hamilton's Mercedes was seen to be emitting a little oil out the back in the last race.

There is a lot of speculation in that regard but it’s does seem very much possible as a new Fia sensor is fitted and performance has dropped off since then. We will never know what has really happened behind closed doors. Someone will have a tell all book later down the road.

This year was a lot closer but it truly has been a tale of two halves. In the end it came down to consistency and Ferrari dropped the ball on multiple occasions

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:well difficult to draw any precise conclusions from FP of course but I hope that the times so far are unrepresentative as otherwise Mercedes have not so much inched as catapulted ahead. 8 tenths from Hamilton to Vettel, the closest they've been in both FP1 and FP2. As dominant as anything so far this season

Ignoring the fact that Ferrari had the engines greatly turned down?

this is a fact? I thought it was guess?

I did write the caveat that it was difficult to draw any precise conclusions in FP. But have you seen anything in qualifying to suggest that the Ferraris were sandbagging?

It's nothing to do with sandbagging it was generally known the engines were turned down in order to prelong their lives.

Mayhem wrote:

Lojik wrote:Good read over at Autosport on the Ferrari v Merc performance battle this year. They are currently putting it at around 9-7 to Ferrari in outright performance per race for the season.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/85 ... -the-rails

They are also asking the question I have heard a few times recently as to whether Ferrari has had its wings quietly clipped by the FIA for perhaps pushing boundaries a little too far (to be clear it's just a theory and not an accusation of any kind).

We haven't heard so much from Toto Wolff or anyone else lately about how Mercedes was slightly confused by how Ferrari was so competitive in the middle of the season.

Is that because Mercedes was able to introduce engine developments that overcame this deficit, or was Ferrari, as some suspected, pushing the boundaries just that little bit too far - and has now been quietly pulled back by the FIA?

The Ferrari has also appeared to have stopped puffing smoke out the back in the last race or two, while Hamilton's Mercedes was seen to be emitting a little oil out the back in the last race.

There is a lot of speculation in that regard but it’s does seem very much possible as a new Fia sensor is fitted and performance has dropped off since then. We will never know what has really happened behind closed doors. Someone will have a tell all book later down the road.

This year was a lot closer but it truly has been a tale of two halves. In the end it came down to consistency and Ferrari dropped the ball on multiple occasions

Ferrari's version is that they have had to turn the engines down in order to preserve longevity, maybe diplomacy in play?

Amus have a power ranking system

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

Japan must got to Mercedes so that makes it 10-7 to Ferrari thus far.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:well difficult to draw any precise conclusions from FP of course but I hope that the times so far are unrepresentative as otherwise Mercedes have not so much inched as catapulted ahead. 8 tenths from Hamilton to Vettel, the closest they've been in both FP1 and FP2. As dominant as anything so far this season

Ignoring the fact that Ferrari had the engines greatly turned down?

this is a fact? I thought it was guess?

I did write the caveat that it was difficult to draw any precise conclusions in FP. But have you seen anything in qualifying to suggest that the Ferraris were sandbagging?

It's nothing to do with sandbagging it was generally known the engines were turned down in order to prelong their lives.

Generally known? I don't think that's true. And Ferrari didn't suddenly turn up the heat in qualifying, which would indicate that this was their true level of performance

pokerman wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

Lojik wrote:Good read over at Autosport on the Ferrari v Merc performance battle this year. They are currently putting it at around 9-7 to Ferrari in outright performance per race for the season.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/85 ... -the-rails

They are also asking the question I have heard a few times recently as to whether Ferrari has had its wings quietly clipped by the FIA for perhaps pushing boundaries a little too far (to be clear it's just a theory and not an accusation of any kind).

We haven't heard so much from Toto Wolff or anyone else lately about how Mercedes was slightly confused by how Ferrari was so competitive in the middle of the season.

Is that because Mercedes was able to introduce engine developments that overcame this deficit, or was Ferrari, as some suspected, pushing the boundaries just that little bit too far - and has now been quietly pulled back by the FIA?

The Ferrari has also appeared to have stopped puffing smoke out the back in the last race or two, while Hamilton's Mercedes was seen to be emitting a little oil out the back in the last race.

There is a lot of speculation in that regard but it’s does seem very much possible as a new Fia sensor is fitted and performance has dropped off since then. We will never know what has really happened behind closed doors. Someone will have a tell all book later down the road.

This year was a lot closer but it truly has been a tale of two halves. In the end it came down to consistency and Ferrari dropped the ball on multiple occasions

Ferrari's version is that they have had to turn the engines down in order to preserve longevity, maybe diplomacy in play?

Amus have a power ranking system

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

Japan must got to Mercedes so that makes it 10-7 to Ferrari thus far.

Maybe I'm missing something but I'm a bit confused by their ranking for Australia? I'm not completely convinced by their list

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:well difficult to draw any precise conclusions from FP of course but I hope that the times so far are unrepresentative as otherwise Mercedes have not so much inched as catapulted ahead. 8 tenths from Hamilton to Vettel, the closest they've been in both FP1 and FP2. As dominant as anything so far this season

Ignoring the fact that Ferrari had the engines greatly turned down?

this is a fact? I thought it was guess?

I did write the caveat that it was difficult to draw any precise conclusions in FP. But have you seen anything in qualifying to suggest that the Ferraris were sandbagging?

It's nothing to do with sandbagging it was generally known the engines were turned down in order to prelong their lives.

Generally known? I don't think that's true. And Ferrari didn't suddenly turn up the heat in qualifying, which would indicate that this was their true level of performance

It was reported they had the engines turned down for Friday practice.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

Lojik wrote:Good read over at Autosport on the Ferrari v Merc performance battle this year. They are currently putting it at around 9-7 to Ferrari in outright performance per race for the season.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/85 ... -the-rails

They are also asking the question I have heard a few times recently as to whether Ferrari has had its wings quietly clipped by the FIA for perhaps pushing boundaries a little too far (to be clear it's just a theory and not an accusation of any kind).

We haven't heard so much from Toto Wolff or anyone else lately about how Mercedes was slightly confused by how Ferrari was so competitive in the middle of the season.

Is that because Mercedes was able to introduce engine developments that overcame this deficit, or was Ferrari, as some suspected, pushing the boundaries just that little bit too far - and has now been quietly pulled back by the FIA?

The Ferrari has also appeared to have stopped puffing smoke out the back in the last race or two, while Hamilton's Mercedes was seen to be emitting a little oil out the back in the last race.

There is a lot of speculation in that regard but it’s does seem very much possible as a new Fia sensor is fitted and performance has dropped off since then. We will never know what has really happened behind closed doors. Someone will have a tell all book later down the road.

This year was a lot closer but it truly has been a tale of two halves. In the end it came down to consistency and Ferrari dropped the ball on multiple occasions

Ferrari's version is that they have had to turn the engines down in order to preserve longevity, maybe diplomacy in play?

Amus have a power ranking system

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

Japan must got to Mercedes so that makes it 10-7 to Ferrari thus far.

Maybe I'm missing something but I'm a bit confused by their ranking for Australia? I'm not completely convinced by their list

They viewed that Red Bull were faster than Ferrari in the race, let's not forget that Verstappen nearly out qualified both Ferrari's and are always faster in the races because they don't have a qualifying mode.

The low rating of Ferrari in Australia actually helps your argument, as for you not being convinced by the list because it disagrees with your assessment of course doesn't surprise me, at least it's independent of what I would consider of any bias.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

Lojik wrote:Good read over at Autosport on the Ferrari v Merc performance battle this year. They are currently putting it at around 9-7 to Ferrari in outright performance per race for the season.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/85 ... -the-rails

They are also asking the question I have heard a few times recently as to whether Ferrari has had its wings quietly clipped by the FIA for perhaps pushing boundaries a little too far (to be clear it's just a theory and not an accusation of any kind).

We haven't heard so much from Toto Wolff or anyone else lately about how Mercedes was slightly confused by how Ferrari was so competitive in the middle of the season.

Is that because Mercedes was able to introduce engine developments that overcame this deficit, or was Ferrari, as some suspected, pushing the boundaries just that little bit too far - and has now been quietly pulled back by the FIA?

The Ferrari has also appeared to have stopped puffing smoke out the back in the last race or two, while Hamilton's Mercedes was seen to be emitting a little oil out the back in the last race.

There is a lot of speculation in that regard but it’s does seem very much possible as a new Fia sensor is fitted and performance has dropped off since then. We will never know what has really happened behind closed doors. Someone will have a tell all book later down the road.

This year was a lot closer but it truly has been a tale of two halves. In the end it came down to consistency and Ferrari dropped the ball on multiple occasions

Ferrari's version is that they have had to turn the engines down in order to preserve longevity, maybe diplomacy in play?

Amus have a power ranking system

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

Japan must got to Mercedes so that makes it 10-7 to Ferrari thus far.

Maybe I'm missing something but I'm a bit confused by their ranking for Australia? I'm not completely convinced by their list

They viewed that Red Bull were faster than Ferrari in the race, let's not forget that Verstappen nearly out qualified both Ferrari's and are always faster in the races because they don't have a qualifying mode.

The low rating of Ferrari in Australia actually helps your argument, as for you not being convinced by the list because it disagrees with your assessment of course doesn't surprise me, at least it's independent of what I would consider of any bias.

I'm not looking to grab anything that helps my argument, I'm looking to understand why they rate the cars the way they do. And I don't know enough about them to know what bias they may or may not have, but the way they rank the cars doesn't allow for equality anywhere and it's not something I can agree with. There are a number of races that I would place too close to call yet they have given a clear ranking and I think that's questionable at best. I don't agree that in every race this year one driver was operating at a disadvantage (when talking about Vettel and Hamilton) and I think for much of the season the cars were pretty equal and the drivers made the difference. When you look at huge qualifying gaps you can probably say the car had a lot to do with it, but when one driver clinches it by a tenth or two I'm amazed that people can confidently point at the car without seemingly making any allowances whatsoever for driver performance, particularly when the team mate battle is often less close. I think distilling it down to "Car X was better than Car Y" every time does the drivers a disservice and is not reflective of the season we have had.

The Amus power ranking table has been collectively taken from the season, they write a power ranking article after each race explaining their reasons using data etc.

Vettel is very clear on that there is a lot going on behind that bystanders can not judge, engines turned down, team orders and very small differences.
What happened to the short burst of Ferrari power we will probably never know.

What's clear so far IMO is that Merc is the car to have and Ferrari have made more mistakes.

FIA denying that the second sensor has contributed to Ferrari's drop in form:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... s/3192117/

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Mayhem wrote: There is a lot of speculation in that regard but it’s does seem very much possible as a new Fia sensor is fitted and performance has dropped off since then. We will never know what has really happened behind closed doors. Someone will have a tell all book later down the road.

This year was a lot closer but it truly has been a tale of two halves. In the end it came down to consistency and Ferrari dropped the ball on multiple occasions

Ferrari's version is that they have had to turn the engines down in order to preserve longevity, maybe diplomacy in play?

Amus have a power ranking system

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

Japan must got to Mercedes so that makes it 10-7 to Ferrari thus far.

Maybe I'm missing something but I'm a bit confused by their ranking for Australia? I'm not completely convinced by their list

They viewed that Red Bull were faster than Ferrari in the race, let's not forget that Verstappen nearly out qualified both Ferrari's and are always faster in the races because they don't have a qualifying mode.

The low rating of Ferrari in Australia actually helps your argument, as for you not being convinced by the list because it disagrees with your assessment of course doesn't surprise me, at least it's independent of what I would consider of any bias.

I'm not looking to grab anything that helps my argument, I'm looking to understand why they rate the cars the way they do. And I don't know enough about them to know what bias they may or may not have, but the way they rank the cars doesn't allow for equality anywhere and it's not something I can agree with. There are a number of races that I would place too close to call yet they have given a clear ranking and I think that's questionable at best. I don't agree that in every race this year one driver was operating at a disadvantage (when talking about Vettel and Hamilton) and I think for much of the season the cars were pretty equal and the drivers made the difference. When you look at huge qualifying gaps you can probably say the car had a lot to do with it, but when one driver clinches it by a tenth or two I'm amazed that people can confidently point at the car without seemingly making any allowances whatsoever for driver performance, particularly when the team mate battle is often less close. I think distilling it down to "Car X was better than Car Y" every time does the drivers a disservice and is not reflective of the season we have had.

Yet you yourself think that you are capable of doing the same thing?

All the publications I have seen have Ferrari ahead over the season.

F1_Ernie wrote:The Amus power ranking table has been collectively taken from the season, they write a power ranking article after each race explaining their reasons using data etc.

Did they also do this last year?

AnRs wrote:Vettel is very clear on that there is a lot going on behind that bystanders can not judge, engines turned down, team orders and very small differences.
What happened to the short burst of Ferrari power we will probably never know.

What's clear so far IMO is that Merc is the car to have and Ferrari have made more mistakes.

Some think it surrounds the sensors, Ferrari themselves seem to be saying they have detuned the engines for longevity.

The Merc is presently the car to have but that wasn't the case for the majority of the season.

Both Ferrari and Vettel have made more mistakes, Vettel also made more mistakes last year.

pokerman wrote:
All the publications I have seen have Ferrari ahead over the season.

If anyone shows you one you just dismiss it so that's not so difficult : )

To me it seems that:

Ferrari have found some pace, but at the expense of tyre wear.

Merc have found more pace, but have also started to fix the inherent issues they have had with tyre wear.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
All the publications I have seen have Ferrari ahead over the season.

If anyone shows you one you just dismiss it so that's not so difficult : )

Like the one you brought forward that when you actually read it had Ferrari ahead plus it was 2 races out of date?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Ferrari's version is that they have had to turn the engines down in order to preserve longevity, maybe diplomacy in play?

Amus have a power ranking system

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

Japan must got to Mercedes so that makes it 10-7 to Ferrari thus far.

Maybe I'm missing something but I'm a bit confused by their ranking for Australia? I'm not completely convinced by their list

They viewed that Red Bull were faster than Ferrari in the race, let's not forget that Verstappen nearly out qualified both Ferrari's and are always faster in the races because they don't have a qualifying mode.

The low rating of Ferrari in Australia actually helps your argument, as for you not being convinced by the list because it disagrees with your assessment of course doesn't surprise me, at least it's independent of what I would consider of any bias.

I'm not looking to grab anything that helps my argument, I'm looking to understand why they rate the cars the way they do. And I don't know enough about them to know what bias they may or may not have, but the way they rank the cars doesn't allow for equality anywhere and it's not something I can agree with. There are a number of races that I would place too close to call yet they have given a clear ranking and I think that's questionable at best. I don't agree that in every race this year one driver was operating at a disadvantage (when talking about Vettel and Hamilton) and I think for much of the season the cars were pretty equal and the drivers made the difference. When you look at huge qualifying gaps you can probably say the car had a lot to do with it, but when one driver clinches it by a tenth or two I'm amazed that people can confidently point at the car without seemingly making any allowances whatsoever for driver performance, particularly when the team mate battle is often less close. I think distilling it down to "Car X was better than Car Y" every time does the drivers a disservice and is not reflective of the season we have had.

Yet you yourself think that you are capable of doing the same thing?

All the publications I have seen have Ferrari ahead over the season.

BIB: explain to me how I'm doing that when I'm saying that if the times are close then it's too hard to call?