Exediron wrote:What we're seeing here is that some people are entirely happy to completely disregard the words of the actual Mercedes team principle about the competitive strength of his car...
Why are you so invested in the idea that the Ferrari was the dominant car in the first half? Hamilton obviously out-drove Vettel whether or not that's true.
Giving Silverstone to Mercedes still makes it 9-5 to Ferrari going into Singapore, if you are wanting to give Monza to Mercedes like Zoue is then like Zoue that's just trying as hard as possible to not put Vettel in the best car, that's the actual game in hand although you seem to see it as being the opposite.
I fully believe Ferrari had the best car on balance over the early part of the season, up until after the Belgian Grand Prix when Mercedes found a fix for their tyre issues. After that, Merc's issue with tyres in race trim is completely gone, and they have the definitively faster car on race day.
What I see, personally, is the usual BS tug-of-war going on between people who want Hamilton to seem more of an underdog than he is and the people who want to cast him as winning in a dominant car. Both are wrong, and I wish people would just accept the truth: Ferrari had the better car at more tracks than not in the first half of the year, but the Mercedes was the best car for some of them. I'm happy enough with the 9-5 verdict for the early season.
As for Monza, I agree it's inconclusive. But there was nothing to suggest Ferrari had a better car on Sunday.
And for the last time, I am not a Vettel fan and I am not trying to prove that Vettel didn't choke the championship with the best car. He did. But that doesn't mean I'm just going to go along with your narrative that the Ferrari was stronger everywhere in the early season, because it wasn't.