planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:

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Like the one you brought forward that when you actually read it had Ferrari ahead plus it was 2 races out of date?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

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:

pokerman wrote:

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Like the one you brought forward that when you actually read it had Ferrari ahead plus it was 2 races out of date?

See, you are doing it again? And that publication was before Merc took over..

F1_Ernie wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

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Like the one you brought forward that when you actually read it had Ferrari ahead plus it was 2 races out of date?

See, you are doing it again? And that publication was before Merc took over..

The season is longer than 3 races. Before Singapore the Ferrari was the car to have, it's just Ferrari and mainly Vettel ruined any chances of a title win when they had the upper hand also going up the best Hamilton has driven.

However much you try to downplay it Vettel has been poor this year, alot of other drivers would be closer to Hamilton at this current point in the title race. If only Alonso got this kind of car while he was driving for Ferrari.

AnRs wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

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Like the one you brought forward that when you actually read it had Ferrari ahead plus it was 2 races out of date?

See, you are doing it again? And that publication was before Merc took over..

The season is longer than 3 races. Before Singapore the Ferrari was the car to have, it's just Ferrari and mainly Vettel ruined any chances of a title win when they had the upper hand also going up the best Hamilton has driven.

However much you try to downplay it Vettel has been poor this year, alot of other drivers would be closer to Hamilton at this current point in the title race. If only Alonso got this kind of car while he was driving for Ferrari.

You do realize that "Before Singapore " means that Merc will be the car to have in the last 8 races, include Italy to and you have the last 9, include Australia and a couple more and you have Merc as the better car, now that wasn't so hard to imagine was it?

F1_Ernie wrote: Over the season Merc will likely edge Ferrari out but this don't cover Vettels mistakes however much you would like it too.

Ferrari was the car to have before Singapore, even in Monza they got a front row and should have won the race. Again Vettel made a mistake and if they lead the first lap 1-2 then it's likely a similar race to Belgium. It's mad how posters try and give Monza to Merc because Hamilton was racing Kimi while also forgetting what Kimi done to his tyres, that was another mistake by Ferrari, don't push and Kimi wins the race. Vettel also had damage of 0.5seconds.

Just because Mercedes have had the better car for the last 3 races and likely till the end of the season doesn't excuse Vettel should have been leading the championship before Singapore and excuses his mistakes. Hamilton upped his game and has performed in all conditions.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: 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?

To be honest it's hard to know how you define things, last year qualifying was the thing, this year when Ferrari started strong in qualifying it was not so important, now Mercedes are ahead in qualifying again it gets mentioned, it defined who you saw as the best car in Spa last year, now things are apparently allowed to be equal.

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

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

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

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?

See, you are doing it again? And that publication was before Merc took over..

F1_Ernie wrote:

pokerman wrote:

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?

I'm pretty sure they did.

AnRs wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote: 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?

See, you are doing it again? And that publication was before Merc took over..

The season is longer than 3 races. Before Singapore the Ferrari was the car to have, it's just Ferrari and mainly Vettel ruined any chances of a title win when they had the upper hand also going up the best Hamilton has driven.

However much you try to downplay it Vettel has been poor this year, alot of other drivers would be closer to Hamilton at this current point in the title race. If only Alonso got this kind of car while he was driving for Ferrari.

You do realize that "Before Singapore " means that Merc will be the car to have in the last 8 races, include Italy to and you have the last 9, include Australia and a couple more and you have Merc as the better car, now that wasn't so hard to imagine was it?

pokerman wrote: Ferrari is seen as being the faster car in Italy, as of date Ferrari still has the edge 10-7.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: Ferrari is seen as being the faster car in Italy, as of date Ferrari still has the edge 10-7.

Well I guess your guess is as good as anyone else.
I would flip it around, probably 10-7 Merc by now.

Mayhem wrote:Interesting article on how Ferraris mistakes have gifted Mercedes the championship lead thus far

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/45812129

“Which means, had Ferrari had a perfect season, he could still be leading the championship by 13 points.”

Exediron wrote:

Mayhem wrote:Interesting article on how Ferraris mistakes have gifted Mercedes the championship lead thus far

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/45812129

“Which means, had Ferrari had a perfect season, he could still be leading the championship by 13 points.”

Interesting indeed... but also, at the current point of development, that's looking like even with a perfect season Ferrari isn't going to win. At this point - unless Ferrari can take a dramatic turn in their form - the Mercedes looks like the clearly quicker car, and it has in race trim since Monza. I don't see Hamilton not extending his advantage by at least 13 points, meaning that he would have won anyway according to that calculation.

Of course, there is the X factor: would Ferrari have fallen off this badly if they were leading the title? There's precedent to think they might have. In 2012 they had the best car, but lost in the development race. In fact, one might argue that Ferrari has gone backwards compared to Mercedes or Red Bull every year for some time.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: Ferrari is seen as being the faster car in Italy, as of date Ferrari still has the edge 10-7.

Well I guess your guess is as good as anyone else.
I would flip it around, probably 10-7 Merc by now.

Flash2k11 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: Ferrari is seen as being the faster car in Italy, as of date Ferrari still has the edge 10-7.

Well I guess your guess is as good as anyone else.
I would flip it around, probably 10-7 Merc by now.

Breakdown please?

Flash2k11 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: Ferrari is seen as being the faster car in Italy, as of date Ferrari still has the edge 10-7.

Well I guess your guess is as good as anyone else.
I would flip it around, probably 10-7 Merc by now.

Breakdown please?

AnRs wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: Ferrari is seen as being the faster car in Italy, as of date Ferrari still has the edge 10-7.

Well I guess your guess is as good as anyone else.
I would flip it around, probably 10-7 Merc by now.

Breakdown please?

Look I understand that every F1 pundit wants this "Merc wins all titles" to be about something else than that PU again, but in the end in F1 you don't bring in the results without a car to back it up and in this case they started the season with a PU advantage and will end with it.

The anti Vettel brigade in here have already spent pages deniying that Merc over the season is the fastest but IMO it is.
I will not spend pages defending numbers that are only a guess, but that's what all the so called expterts outside the teams are doing to, guessing.

AnRs wrote:Look I understand that every F1 pundit wants this "Merc wins all titles" to be about something else than that PU again, but in the end in F1 you don't bring in the results without a car to back it up and in this case they started the season with a PU advantage and will end with it.

Exediron wrote:

AnRs wrote:Look I understand that every F1 pundit wants this "Merc wins all titles" to be about something else than that PU again, but in the end in F1 you don't bring in the results without a car to back it up and in this case they started the season with a PU advantage and will end with it.

There's more to the car than just the PU, you know. It's pretty obvious Mercedes doesn't have a PU advantage anymore. Look at the customer teams; there's been a very obvious slope in terms of most customers from 2014 to present, where in 2014 just having a Merc engine was a ticket to being competitive, and now the Ferrari teams are stronger.

Mayhem wrote:
Agreed, Not saying Ferrari would have won the title but vettel would be leading at this point and Hamilton would be gaining fast coming towards the final races of the season. What a championship that would have been to watch. Could have been one of the greatest battles.

As you stated would have Ferrari have dropped off at the rate they have no way of knowing but this has become a character trait of theirs in recent years, where they just fall flat on there faces. This has been the worst of it by far in the turbo hybrid era.

It has also raised questions as to what exactly has happened since the passing of Sergio Marchionne. Everything seemed to start going south ever since then.

F1_Ernie wrote:
Over the season Merc will likely edge Ferrari out but this don't cover Vettels mistakes however much you would like it too.

Ferrari was the car to have before Singapore, even in Monza they got a front row and should have won the race. Again Vettel made a mistake and if they lead the first lap 1-2 then it's likely a similar race to Belgium. It's mad how posters try and give Monza to Merc because Hamilton was racing Kimi while also forgetting what Kimi done to his tyres, that was another mistake by Ferrari, don't push and Kimi wins the race. Vettel also had damage of 0.5seconds.

Just because Mercedes have had the better car for the last 3 races and likely till the end of the season doesn't excuse Vettel should have been leading the championship before Singapore and excuses his mistakes. Hamilton upped his game and has performed in all conditions.

Ocon wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Over the season Merc will likely edge Ferrari out but this don't cover Vettels mistakes however much you would like it too.

Ferrari was the car to have before Singapore, even in Monza they got a front row and should have won the race. Again Vettel made a mistake and if they lead the first lap 1-2 then it's likely a similar race to Belgium. It's mad how posters try and give Monza to Merc because Hamilton was racing Kimi while also forgetting what Kimi done to his tyres, that was another mistake by Ferrari, don't push and Kimi wins the race. Vettel also had damage of 0.5seconds.

Just because Mercedes have had the better car for the last 3 races and likely till the end of the season doesn't excuse Vettel should have been leading the championship before Singapore and excuses his mistakes. Hamilton upped his game and has performed in all conditions.

I will never understand the logic behind giving Monza to Mercedes. At best you could only argue they were equal. I wouldn't put it past AnRs though.

Ocon wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Over the season Merc will likely edge Ferrari out but this don't cover Vettels mistakes however much you would like it too.

Ferrari was the car to have before Singapore, even in Monza they got a front row and should have won the race. Again Vettel made a mistake and if they lead the first lap 1-2 then it's likely a similar race to Belgium. It's mad how posters try and give Monza to Merc because Hamilton was racing Kimi while also forgetting what Kimi done to his tyres, that was another mistake by Ferrari, don't push and Kimi wins the race. Vettel also had damage of 0.5seconds.

Just because Mercedes have had the better car for the last 3 races and likely till the end of the season doesn't excuse Vettel should have been leading the championship before Singapore and excuses his mistakes. Hamilton upped his game and has performed in all conditions.

I will never understand the logic behind giving Monza to Mercedes. At best you could only argue they were equal. I wouldn't put it past AnRs though.

Zoue wrote:

Ocon wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Over the season Merc will likely edge Ferrari out but this don't cover Vettels mistakes however much you would like it too.

Ferrari was the car to have before Singapore, even in Monza they got a front row and should have won the race. Again Vettel made a mistake and if they lead the first lap 1-2 then it's likely a similar race to Belgium. It's mad how posters try and give Monza to Merc because Hamilton was racing Kimi while also forgetting what Kimi done to his tyres, that was another mistake by Ferrari, don't push and Kimi wins the race. Vettel also had damage of 0.5seconds.

Just because Mercedes have had the better car for the last 3 races and likely till the end of the season doesn't excuse Vettel should have been leading the championship before Singapore and excuses his mistakes. Hamilton upped his game and has performed in all conditions.

I will never understand the logic behind giving Monza to Mercedes. At best you could only argue they were equal. I wouldn't put it past AnRs though.

The logic is simple: Hamilton was quicker than Kimi. Vettel had a damaged car so it's unclear just how much faster he may have been able to go. Most accept that he probably would have been quicker than Kimi, but the question remains as to exactly how much. Based on the available evidence the Mercedes was no slower than the Ferrari, that's for sure. I would agree that in the absence of Vettel as a barometer it's probably best to list them as equal, but if you had to pick one there's more evidence on race day that the Mercedes was better than that the Ferrari was. In a nutshell, Hamilton was quicker than Kimi; Vettel would likely have been quicker than Kimi. But would Vettel's gap over Kimi have been bigger than Hamilton's? And this is my issue with things like the Amus ratings. They use assumptions that Vettel would have been quicker to determine that the Ferrari was the quicker car, but that doesn't really give an accurate picture of what actually happened. And people point to it and make a blanket claim that the Ferrari was quicker and try to make out that Hamilton was operating at a disadvantage, when the available evidence suggests he really wasn't.

Mayhem wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Mayhem wrote:Interesting article on how Ferraris mistakes have gifted Mercedes the championship lead thus far

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/45812129

“Which means, had Ferrari had a perfect season, he could still be leading the championship by 13 points.”

Interesting indeed... but also, at the current point of development, that's looking like even with a perfect season Ferrari isn't going to win. At this point - unless Ferrari can take a dramatic turn in their form - the Mercedes looks like the clearly quicker car, and it has in race trim since Monza. I don't see Hamilton not extending his advantage by at least 13 points, meaning that he would have won anyway according to that calculation.

Of course, there is the X factor: would Ferrari have fallen off this badly if they were leading the title? There's precedent to think they might have. In 2012 they had the best car, but lost in the development race. In fact, one might argue that Ferrari has gone backwards compared to Mercedes or Red Bull every year for some time.

Agreed, Not saying Ferrari would have won the title but vettel would be leading at this point and Hamilton would be gaining fast coming towards the final races of the season. What a championship that would have been to watch. Could have been one of the greatest battles.

As you stated would have Ferrari have dropped off at the rate they have no way of knowing but this has become a character trait of theirs in recent years, where they just fall flat on there faces. This has been the worst of it by far in the turbo hybrid era.

It has also raised questions as to what exactly has happened since the passing of Sergio Marchionne. Everything seemed to start going south ever since then.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Ocon wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Over the season Merc will likely edge Ferrari out but this don't cover Vettels mistakes however much you would like it too.

Ferrari was the car to have before Singapore, even in Monza they got a front row and should have won the race. Again Vettel made a mistake and if they lead the first lap 1-2 then it's likely a similar race to Belgium. It's mad how posters try and give Monza to Merc because Hamilton was racing Kimi while also forgetting what Kimi done to his tyres, that was another mistake by Ferrari, don't push and Kimi wins the race. Vettel also had damage of 0.5seconds.

Just because Mercedes have had the better car for the last 3 races and likely till the end of the season doesn't excuse Vettel should have been leading the championship before Singapore and excuses his mistakes. Hamilton upped his game and has performed in all conditions.

I will never understand the logic behind giving Monza to Mercedes. At best you could only argue they were equal. I wouldn't put it past AnRs though.

The logic is simple: Hamilton was quicker than Kimi. Vettel had a damaged car so it's unclear just how much faster he may have been able to go. Most accept that he probably would have been quicker than Kimi, but the question remains as to exactly how much. Based on the available evidence the Mercedes was no slower than the Ferrari, that's for sure. I would agree that in the absence of Vettel as a barometer it's probably best to list them as equal, but if you had to pick one there's more evidence on race day that the Mercedes was better than that the Ferrari was. In a nutshell, Hamilton was quicker than Kimi; Vettel would likely have been quicker than Kimi. But would Vettel's gap over Kimi have been bigger than Hamilton's? And this is my issue with things like the Amus ratings. They use assumptions that Vettel would have been quicker to determine that the Ferrari was the quicker car, but that doesn't really give an accurate picture of what actually happened. And people point to it and make a blanket claim that the Ferrari was quicker and try to make out that Hamilton was operating at a disadvantage, when the available evidence suggests he really wasn't.

Well if you are going to use an accurate picture of what actually happened then Ferrari lost the race. Kimi should have won the race but Ferrari asked him to push too hard for too long on brand new tyres to cover for a SC but it caused them to blister, this damage was made worse by being held up by Bottas. Kimi should have won the race and Hamilton wouldnt have had a big enough car advantage to overtake Kimi without other circumstances being involved. Also Vettel had damage worth 0.5 and Kimi is also awful on a Sunday.

If Vettel doesn't go for a gap which was never there then Ferrari lead the first lap 1-2 and Hamilton isn't beating both Ferraris. Hamilton was quick but he needed Vettel/Ferrari mistakes to win the race. Hamilton has driven great this season but as plenty are saying Vettel and Ferrari have made this championship easier than it should have been.

AnRs wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: Ferrari is seen as being the faster car in Italy, as of date Ferrari still has the edge 10-7.

Well I guess your guess is as good as anyone else.
I would flip it around, probably 10-7 Merc by now.

Breakdown please?

Look I understand that every F1 pundit wants this "Merc wins all titles" to be about something else than that PU again, but in the end in F1 you don't bring in the results without a car to back it up and in this case they started the season with a PU advantage and will end with it.

The anti Vettel brigade in here have already spent pages deniying that Merc over the season is the fastest but IMO it is.
I will not spend pages defending numbers that are only a guess, but that's what all the so called expterts outside the teams are doing to, guessing.

Ocon wrote:

Mayhem wrote:
Agreed, Not saying Ferrari would have won the title but vettel would be leading at this point and Hamilton would be gaining fast coming towards the final races of the season. What a championship that would have been to watch. Could have been one of the greatest battles.

As you stated would have Ferrari have dropped off at the rate they have no way of knowing but this has become a character trait of theirs in recent years, where they just fall flat on there faces. This has been the worst of it by far in the turbo hybrid era.

It has also raised questions as to what exactly has happened since the passing of Sergio Marchionne. Everything seemed to start going south ever since then.

I agree, it would have been an amazing battle. Unfortunately, Vettel wasn't capable of it, and he probably never will be unless he's in the best car for the majority of the season.

Siao7 wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Mayhem wrote:Interesting article on how Ferraris mistakes have gifted Mercedes the championship lead thus far

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/45812129

“Which means, had Ferrari had a perfect season, he could still be leading the championship by 13 points.”

Interesting indeed... but also, at the current point of development, that's looking like even with a perfect season Ferrari isn't going to win. At this point - unless Ferrari can take a dramatic turn in their form - the Mercedes looks like the clearly quicker car, and it has in race trim since Monza. I don't see Hamilton not extending his advantage by at least 13 points, meaning that he would have won anyway according to that calculation.

Of course, there is the X factor: would Ferrari have fallen off this badly if they were leading the title? There's precedent to think they might have. In 2012 they had the best car, but lost in the development race. In fact, one might argue that Ferrari has gone backwards compared to Mercedes or Red Bull every year for some time.

Agreed, Not saying Ferrari would have won the title but vettel would be leading at this point and Hamilton would be gaining fast coming towards the final races of the season. What a championship that would have been to watch. Could have been one of the greatest battles.

As you stated would have Ferrari have dropped off at the rate they have no way of knowing but this has become a character trait of theirs in recent years, where they just fall flat on there faces. This has been the worst of it by far in the turbo hybrid era.

It has also raised questions as to what exactly has happened since the passing of Sergio Marchionne. Everything seemed to start going south ever since then.

I agree with the general gist, but if we have to go down the road of "if Ferrari had the perfect season", then the same shall be equally applied to the Merc. They also dropped some points along the way, Poker won't stop reminding us how the blasted VSC stole a race from Hamilton early this year, or mechanical faults or Lewis having a slow start of the year. How would that make the table look?

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Mayhem wrote:Interesting article on how Ferraris mistakes have gifted Mercedes the championship lead thus far

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/45812129

“Which means, had Ferrari had a perfect season, he could still be leading the championship by 13 points.”

Interesting indeed... but also, at the current point of development, that's looking like even with a perfect season Ferrari isn't going to win. At this point - unless Ferrari can take a dramatic turn in their form - the Mercedes looks like the clearly quicker car, and it has in race trim since Monza. I don't see Hamilton not extending his advantage by at least 13 points, meaning that he would have won anyway according to that calculation.

Of course, there is the X factor: would Ferrari have fallen off this badly if they were leading the title? There's precedent to think they might have. In 2012 they had the best car, but lost in the development race. In fact, one might argue that Ferrari has gone backwards compared to Mercedes or Red Bull every year for some time.

Agreed, Not saying Ferrari would have won the title but vettel would be leading at this point and Hamilton would be gaining fast coming towards the final races of the season. What a championship that would have been to watch. Could have been one of the greatest battles.

As you stated would have Ferrari have dropped off at the rate they have no way of knowing but this has become a character trait of theirs in recent years, where they just fall flat on there faces. This has been the worst of it by far in the turbo hybrid era.

It has also raised questions as to what exactly has happened since the passing of Sergio Marchionne. Everything seemed to start going south ever since then.

I agree with the general gist, but if we have to go down the road of "if Ferrari had the perfect season", then the same shall be equally applied to the Merc. They also dropped some points along the way, Poker won't stop reminding us how the blasted VSC stole a race from Hamilton early this year, or mechanical faults or Lewis having a slow start of the year. How would that make the table look?

Again what is this about me continually harping on about things, I mentioned it at the time only.

Zoue wrote:

Ocon wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Over the season Merc will likely edge Ferrari out but this don't cover Vettels mistakes however much you would like it too.

Ferrari was the car to have before Singapore, even in Monza they got a front row and should have won the race. Again Vettel made a mistake and if they lead the first lap 1-2 then it's likely a similar race to Belgium. It's mad how posters try and give Monza to Merc because Hamilton was racing Kimi while also forgetting what Kimi done to his tyres, that was another mistake by Ferrari, don't push and Kimi wins the race. Vettel also had damage of 0.5seconds.

Just because Mercedes have had the better car for the last 3 races and likely till the end of the season doesn't excuse Vettel should have been leading the championship before Singapore and excuses his mistakes. Hamilton upped his game and has performed in all conditions.

I will never understand the logic behind giving Monza to Mercedes. At best you could only argue they were equal. I wouldn't put it past AnRs though.

The logic is simple: Hamilton was quicker than Kimi. Vettel had a damaged car so it's unclear just how much faster he may have been able to go. Most accept that he probably would have been quicker than Kimi, but the question remains as to exactly how much. Based on the available evidence the Mercedes was no slower than the Ferrari, that's for sure. I would agree that in the absence of Vettel as a barometer it's probably best to list them as equal, but if you had to pick one there's more evidence on race day that the Mercedes was better than that the Ferrari was. In a nutshell, Hamilton was quicker than Kimi; Vettel would likely have been quicker than Kimi. But would Vettel's gap over Kimi have been bigger than Hamilton's? And this is my issue with things like the Amus ratings. They use assumptions that Vettel would have been quicker to determine that the Ferrari was the quicker car, but that doesn't really give an accurate picture of what actually happened. And people point to it and make a blanket claim that the Ferrari was quicker and try to make out that Hamilton was operating at a disadvantage, when the available evidence suggests he really wasn't.

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Ocon wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Over the season Merc will likely edge Ferrari out but this don't cover Vettels mistakes however much you would like it too.

Ferrari was the car to have before Singapore, even in Monza they got a front row and should have won the race. Again Vettel made a mistake and if they lead the first lap 1-2 then it's likely a similar race to Belgium. It's mad how posters try and give Monza to Merc because Hamilton was racing Kimi while also forgetting what Kimi done to his tyres, that was another mistake by Ferrari, don't push and Kimi wins the race. Vettel also had damage of 0.5seconds.

Just because Mercedes have had the better car for the last 3 races and likely till the end of the season doesn't excuse Vettel should have been leading the championship before Singapore and excuses his mistakes. Hamilton upped his game and has performed in all conditions.

I will never understand the logic behind giving Monza to Mercedes. At best you could only argue they were equal. I wouldn't put it past AnRs though.

The logic is simple: Hamilton was quicker than Kimi. Vettel had a damaged car so it's unclear just how much faster he may have been able to go. Most accept that he probably would have been quicker than Kimi, but the question remains as to exactly how much. Based on the available evidence the Mercedes was no slower than the Ferrari, that's for sure. I would agree that in the absence of Vettel as a barometer it's probably best to list them as equal, but if you had to pick one there's more evidence on race day that the Mercedes was better than that the Ferrari was. In a nutshell, Hamilton was quicker than Kimi; Vettel would likely have been quicker than Kimi. But would Vettel's gap over Kimi have been bigger than Hamilton's? And this is my issue with things like the Amus ratings. They use assumptions that Vettel would have been quicker to determine that the Ferrari was the quicker car, but that doesn't really give an accurate picture of what actually happened. And people point to it and make a blanket claim that the Ferrari was quicker and try to make out that Hamilton was operating at a disadvantage, when the available evidence suggests he really wasn't.

Hamilton is always faster than Kimi in a race. The performance gap between the cars rarely hides that fact.
Everyone knows that if vettel had been on pole or gotten by kimi on lap 1 he likely would have won because his race pace is always superior than kimi’s.
Both Ferraris locked out the front row despite a bad lap by vettel, which is the real reason he didn’t get pole, not the tow.
Bottas was nowhere close to the ferraris during qualifying.
With all that in mind it is not logical to say that merc was the quickest car at Monza.

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Ocon wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Over the season Merc will likely edge Ferrari out but this don't cover Vettels mistakes however much you would like it too.

Ferrari was the car to have before Singapore, even in Monza they got a front row and should have won the race. Again Vettel made a mistake and if they lead the first lap 1-2 then it's likely a similar race to Belgium. It's mad how posters try and give Monza to Merc because Hamilton was racing Kimi while also forgetting what Kimi done to his tyres, that was another mistake by Ferrari, don't push and Kimi wins the race. Vettel also had damage of 0.5seconds.

Just because Mercedes have had the better car for the last 3 races and likely till the end of the season doesn't excuse Vettel should have been leading the championship before Singapore and excuses his mistakes. Hamilton upped his game and has performed in all conditions.

I will never understand the logic behind giving Monza to Mercedes. At best you could only argue they were equal. I wouldn't put it past AnRs though.

The logic is simple: Hamilton was quicker than Kimi. Vettel had a damaged car so it's unclear just how much faster he may have been able to go. Most accept that he probably would have been quicker than Kimi, but the question remains as to exactly how much. Based on the available evidence the Mercedes was no slower than the Ferrari, that's for sure. I would agree that in the absence of Vettel as a barometer it's probably best to list them as equal, but if you had to pick one there's more evidence on race day that the Mercedes was better than that the Ferrari was. In a nutshell, Hamilton was quicker than Kimi; Vettel would likely have been quicker than Kimi. But would Vettel's gap over Kimi have been bigger than Hamilton's? And this is my issue with things like the Amus ratings. They use assumptions that Vettel would have been quicker to determine that the Ferrari was the quicker car, but that doesn't really give an accurate picture of what actually happened. And people point to it and make a blanket claim that the Ferrari was quicker and try to make out that Hamilton was operating at a disadvantage, when the available evidence suggests he really wasn't.

Hamilton is always faster than Kimi in a race. The performance gap between the cars rarely hides that fact.
Everyone knows that if vettel had been on pole or gotten by kimi on lap 1 he likely would have won because his race pace is always superior than kimi’s.
Both Ferraris locked out the front row despite a bad lap by vettel, which is the real reason he didn’t get pole, not the tow.
Bottas was nowhere close to the ferraris during qualifying.
With all that in mind it is not logical to say that merc was the quickest car at Monza.

all of the above are broadly true, but they don't lead to the conclusion you made.

I've answered the first couple of points already in the post you replied to.

As to qualifying, the gap was less than 2 tenths from Hamilton to Kimi, with Kimi having a perfect tow. Are we saying that without the tow Kimi may still have beaten Hamilton? With a gap that size, is it reasonable to say that it must be down to the car? And Hamilton had a much bigger gap pver Bottas in the following race, so I shouldn't use Bottas as the true barometer of the car.

Point is there were no signs in the race to say that the Ferrari was quicker. Doesn't mean that the Mercedes had to be quicker, either, but I don't know how anyone can confidently say the Ferrari was the faster race car based simply on a guess that Vettel would have outpaced Kimi by a greater margin than Hamilton did.

Invade wrote:I have Ferrari and Mercedes as equal for Monza (race) but gave the race weekend to Ferrari for qualifying given their front row lockout despite a fine Hamilton effort, which suggests they had a real edge in qualifying.. an edge they should have converted one way or another into a race win.

Invade wrote:I have Ferrari and Mercedes as equal for Monza (race) but gave the race weekend to Ferrari for qualifying given their front row lockout despite a fine Hamilton effort, which suggests they had a real edge in qualifying.. an edge they should have converted one way or another into a race win.