planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:

Herb wrote:

JN23 wrote:I can't find the article now but saw it on twitter earlier, that the stewards have apparently given Mercs wheel rims the all clear.

Here you go:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... n/3202292/

I guess the potential Ferrari protest after Austin was basically always going to be Ferrari's last roll of the dice, Mercedes being cautious was in part to prevent their titles being blemished.

How do you know that?

For all we know, it could be that they knew that this was banned before and they stopped using this solution before getting punished, once other teams noticed. Now they are trying to seek clearance to use it.

.

I posted this on the Austin thread as well

This is an extract from a BBC article - I've not seen it on this site (I'm probably wrong) ;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/45984212

".... Austin problems explained

Hamilton revealed that his struggles in the race last weekend in Austin, Texas, were partly caused by the team making an error in the set-up of both Mercedes cars when they put them back together after changing their water pumps before the race.

"They took the car apart and when they put it back together, it was imbalanced, with a massive cross-weight, in the order of 50kg," he said. "So the right front and left rear take all the weight and the car would not turn through the left-hand corners.

"It felt very strange out there. I thought I had a massive tail wind or something when I was going through places like Turn 19.

"But the right-handers it was better, but there are not a lot of right-handers at that track. If we had not had that problem, it would have been a much different race." ......"

.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Herb wrote:

JN23 wrote:I can't find the article now but saw it on twitter earlier, that the stewards have apparently given Mercs wheel rims the all clear.

Here you go:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... n/3202292/

I guess the potential Ferrari protest after Austin was basically always going to be Ferrari's last roll of the dice, Mercedes being cautious was in part to prevent their titles being blemished.

How do you know that?

For all we know, it could be that they knew that this was banned before and they stopped using this solution before getting punished, once other teams noticed. Now they are trying to seek clearance to use it.

Because that's how it was reported, the FIA were happy with the rims but they informed Mercedes that Ferrari may lodge a protest after the race so Mercedes chose not to take an unnecessary risk, now apparently the rims have been totally cleared.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Herb wrote:

JN23 wrote:I can't find the article now but saw it on twitter earlier, that the stewards have apparently given Mercs wheel rims the all clear.

Here you go:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... n/3202292/

I guess the potential Ferrari protest after Austin was basically always going to be Ferrari's last roll of the dice, Mercedes being cautious was in part to prevent their titles being blemished.

How do you know that?

For all we know, it could be that they knew that this was banned before and they stopped using this solution before getting punished, once other teams noticed. Now they are trying to seek clearance to use it.

Because that's how it was reported, the FIA were happy with the rims but they informed Mercedes that Ferrari may lodge a protest after the race so Mercedes chose not to take an unnecessary risk, now apparently the rims have been totally cleared.

Why do you think that they wanted to save face? By removing the system it rings more of an alarm, otherwise if it was legal why remove it?

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Herb wrote: Here you go:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... n/3202292/

I guess the potential Ferrari protest after Austin was basically always going to be Ferrari's last roll of the dice, Mercedes being cautious was in part to prevent their titles being blemished.

How do you know that?

For all we know, it could be that they knew that this was banned before and they stopped using this solution before getting punished, once other teams noticed. Now they are trying to seek clearance to use it.

Because that's how it was reported, the FIA were happy with the rims but they informed Mercedes that Ferrari may lodge a protest after the race so Mercedes chose not to take an unnecessary risk, now apparently the rims have been totally cleared.

Why do you think that they wanted to save face? By removing the system it rings more of an alarm, otherwise if it was legal why remove it?

Why take the risk if you don't need to and on the cusp of winning titles do you think it's good publicity for the world's press to be reporting that Mercedes have been protested by Ferrari for an illegality, the casual observer might view that as Mercedes have been cheating to win their titles?

The Mercedes 'weight balance' seems really odd, it reminds me of Mclaren in 2012, doing a similar thing in a couple of races.

What I don't understand is, how it occurred on both cars?

Did they also have it set up wrong for qualifying? This would explain Ferrari's very quick pace in qualifying that was against the form of the last 2-3 races.

If it occurred between qualifying and the race they it appears to be pretty easy for teams to change the setup of there cars under parc-ferme conditions (even if on this occasion it was accidental) which shouldn't be possible really.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: I guess the potential Ferrari protest after Austin was basically always going to be Ferrari's last roll of the dice, Mercedes being cautious was in part to prevent their titles being blemished.

How do you know that?

For all we know, it could be that they knew that this was banned before and they stopped using this solution before getting punished, once other teams noticed. Now they are trying to seek clearance to use it.

Because that's how it was reported, the FIA were happy with the rims but they informed Mercedes that Ferrari may lodge a protest after the race so Mercedes chose not to take an unnecessary risk, now apparently the rims have been totally cleared.

Why do you think that they wanted to save face? By removing the system it rings more of an alarm, otherwise if it was legal why remove it?

Why take the risk if you don't need to and on the cusp of winning titles do you think it's good publicity for the world's press to be reporting that Mercedes have been protested by Ferrari for an illegality, the casual observer might view that as Mercedes have been cheating to win their titles?

Mercedes have protested other Ferrari items during the year, it is what they all do. Publicity has nothing to do, we did not know much before this came out. This news brought the publicity actually...

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:How do you know that?

For all we know, it could be that they knew that this was banned before and they stopped using this solution before getting punished, once other teams noticed. Now they are trying to seek clearance to use it.

Because that's how it was reported, the FIA were happy with the rims but they informed Mercedes that Ferrari may lodge a protest after the race so Mercedes chose not to take an unnecessary risk, now apparently the rims have been totally cleared.

Why do you think that they wanted to save face? By removing the system it rings more of an alarm, otherwise if it was legal why remove it?

Why take the risk if you don't need to and on the cusp of winning titles do you think it's good publicity for the world's press to be reporting that Mercedes have been protested by Ferrari for an illegality, the casual observer might view that as Mercedes have been cheating to win their titles?

Mercedes have protested other Ferrari items during the year, it is what they all do. Publicity has nothing to do, we did not know much before this came out. This news brought the publicity actually...

Did Mercedes ever threaten to protest Ferrari after a race result has been declared?

Johnson wrote:The Mercedes 'weight balance' seems really odd, it reminds me of Mclaren in 2012, doing a similar thing in a couple of races.

What I don't understand is, how it occurred on both cars?

Did they also have it set up wrong for qualifying? This would explain Ferrari's very quick pace in qualifying that was against the form of the last 2-3 races.

If it occurred between qualifying and the race they it appears to be pretty easy for teams to change the setup of there cars under parc-ferme conditions (even if on this occasion it was accidental) which shouldn't be possible really.

Wolff confirmed it was between qualifying and the race when they took the cars apart.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Because that's how it was reported, the FIA were happy with the rims but they informed Mercedes that Ferrari may lodge a protest after the race so Mercedes chose not to take an unnecessary risk, now apparently the rims have been totally cleared.

Why do you think that they wanted to save face? By removing the system it rings more of an alarm, otherwise if it was legal why remove it?

Why take the risk if you don't need to and on the cusp of winning titles do you think it's good publicity for the world's press to be reporting that Mercedes have been protested by Ferrari for an illegality, the casual observer might view that as Mercedes have been cheating to win their titles?

Mercedes have protested other Ferrari items during the year, it is what they all do. Publicity has nothing to do, we did not know much before this came out. This news brought the publicity actually...

Did Mercedes ever threaten to protest Ferrari after a race result has been declared?

Did Ferrari? Mercedes opted to do this themselves remember

Johnson wrote:The Mercedes 'weight balance' seems really odd, it reminds me of Mclaren in 2012, doing a similar thing in a couple of races.

What I don't understand is, how it occurred on both cars?

Did they also have it set up wrong for qualifying? This would explain Ferrari's very quick pace in qualifying that was against the form of the last 2-3 races.

If it occurred between qualifying and the race they it appears to be pretty easy for teams to change the setup of there cars under parc-ferme conditions (even if on this occasion it was accidental) which shouldn't be possible really.

Apparently it had something to do with not refitting the lead blocks correctly, they had to change the water pumps so I would be guessing the floor had to be removed, such work would probably been done under the watchful eye of a steward?

Regarding the cars don't they end up back in the garages anyway so there has to be some system in place anyway to stop set ups being changed?

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Why do you think that they wanted to save face? By removing the system it rings more of an alarm, otherwise if it was legal why remove it?

Why take the risk if you don't need to and on the cusp of winning titles do you think it's good publicity for the world's press to be reporting that Mercedes have been protested by Ferrari for an illegality, the casual observer might view that as Mercedes have been cheating to win their titles?

Mercedes have protested other Ferrari items during the year, it is what they all do. Publicity has nothing to do, we did not know much before this came out. This news brought the publicity actually...

Did Mercedes ever threaten to protest Ferrari after a race result has been declared?

Did Ferrari? Mercedes opted to do this themselves remember

The FIA informed Mercedes that Ferrari might file a post race protest.

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

AnRs wrote:To me it looks quite obvious how they rank Austin?

Mercedes (1)
Ferrari (2)
Red Bull (3)

That's in race, in qualifying they rank them equal

I guess you just read what you want to read, it suggested that were Bottas qualified was the true speed of the Mercedes and they credited Hamilton himself for pole position.

That's your interpretation off something in the text, now that I have used your source you are even trying to twist what they write.

They clearly state that "In qualifying Ferrari and Mercedes were practically equal in terms of speed."

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

AnRs wrote:To me it looks quite obvious how they rank Austin?

Mercedes (1)
Ferrari (2)
Red Bull (3)

That's in race, in qualifying they rank them equal

I guess you just read what you want to read, it suggested that were Bottas qualified was the true speed of the Mercedes and they credited Hamilton himself for pole position.

That's your interpretation off something in the text, now that I have used your source you are even trying to twist what they write.

They clearly state that "In qualifying Ferrari and Mercedes were practically equal in terms of speed."

Again just referring to one part of the text and ignoring the part of the text I brought forward and you ignored and didn't reply to and now saying it's just my interpretation, what does the text mean when it says this?

Hamilton beat Vettel by just 0.061 seconds. That was the Hamilton factor. Bottas lost three tenths to the Ferrari. That was more like reality.

You realise you are both doing what you're accusing the other of, right?

It's a contradictory paragraph, you can both select the bits you like till you're blue in the face but it's not getting any less contradictory. And it's also a rubbish paragraph that makes little sense unless the author seriously thinks Lewis managed to extract 3ths more than the car was ever capable of and Bottas had in fact maxed out the true capability of the Mercedes as had Seb and Kimi in the Ferrari.

Which is clearly ridiculous.

Lotus49 wrote:You realise you are both doing what you're accusing the other of, right?

It's a contradictory paragraph, you can both select the bits you like till you're blue in the face but it's not getting any less contradictory. And it's also a rubbish paragraph that makes little sense unless the author seriously thinks Lewis managed to extract 3ths more than the car was ever capable of and Bottas had in fact maxed out the true capability of the Mercedes as had Seb and Kimi in the Ferrari.

Which is clearly ridiculous.

Lotus49 wrote:You realise you are both doing what you're accusing the other of, right?

It's a contradictory paragraph, you can both select the bits you like till you're blue in the face but it's not getting any less contradictory. And it's also a rubbish paragraph that makes little sense unless the author seriously thinks Lewis managed to extract 3ths more than the car was ever capable of and Bottas had in fact maxed out the true capability of the Mercedes as had Seb and Kimi in the Ferrari.

Which is clearly ridiculous.

That's what happens to people in this place. People lose their minds arguing back and forth. And what are we arguing about exactly? Racing cars? Sometimes it's best to just take a step back from this place.

Lotus49 wrote:You realise you are both doing what you're accusing the other of, right?

It's a contradictory paragraph, you can both select the bits you like till you're blue in the face but it's not getting any less contradictory. And it's also a rubbish paragraph that makes little sense unless the author seriously thinks Lewis managed to extract 3ths more than the car was ever capable of and Bottas had in fact maxed out the true capability of the Mercedes as had Seb and Kimi in the Ferrari.

Which is clearly ridiculous.

You don't think that maybe that's what I was trying to point out?

As for the last sentence so all the drivers are equal in ability and none of them made any mistakes, they supposedly analyse such things.

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

AnRs wrote:To me it looks quite obvious how they rank Austin?

Mercedes (1)
Ferrari (2)
Red Bull (3)

That's in race, in qualifying they rank them equal

I guess you just read what you want to read, it suggested that were Bottas qualified was the true speed of the Mercedes and they credited Hamilton himself for pole position.

That's your interpretation off something in the text, now that I have used your source you are even trying to twist what they write.

They clearly state that "In qualifying Ferrari and Mercedes were practically equal in terms of speed."

Again just referring to one part of the text and ignoring the part of the text I brought forward and you ignored and didn't reply to and now saying it's just my interpretation, what does the text mean when it says this?

Hamilton beat Vettel by just 0.061 seconds. That was the Hamilton factor. Bottas lost three tenths to the Ferrari. That was more like reality.

Can you explain to me then what the last sentence means? That Bottas in qualiý i 3 ths slower than Hamilton, that Hamilton pulled 3 ths out off the car that doesn't exists or what?

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote: That's in race, in qualifying they rank them equal

I guess you just read what you want to read, it suggested that were Bottas qualified was the true speed of the Mercedes and they credited Hamilton himself for pole position.

That's your interpretation off something in the text, now that I have used your source you are even trying to twist what they write.

They clearly state that "In qualifying Ferrari and Mercedes were practically equal in terms of speed."

Again just referring to one part of the text and ignoring the part of the text I brought forward and you ignored and didn't reply to and now saying it's just my interpretation, what does the text mean when it says this?

Hamilton beat Vettel by just 0.061 seconds. That was the Hamilton factor. Bottas lost three tenths to the Ferrari. That was more like reality.

Can you explain to me then what the last sentence means? That Bottas in qualiý i 3 ths slower than Hamilton, that Hamilton pulled 3 ths out off the car that doesn't exists or what?

One driver can be 3 tenths quicker than another driver because he's basically just quicker, likewise a faster car may be out qualified by a slower car if it's perceived the driver in the slower car was just quicker or the driver in the faster car made mistakes.

So the article saying that Mercedes was on pole because of the Hamilton factor alludes to the Mercedes not being quicker in itself, this also backed up by it saying that Bottas being 3 tenths behind the Ferrari's was a truer reflection of the speed of the Mercedes.

However the article contradicts itself by starting out with the sentence that the Ferrari and Mercedes were equal in qualifying, the part that you highlighted but ignoring the contradiction later in the article.

Kimi is 0.070 off of Hamilton (who hasn’t struggled) and 0.3 clear of Bottas. General trend is, Ferrari is at least slightly quicker.

Vettel is only 0.020 ahead of Kimi. General trend is, Vettel has underperformed.

These three things all occurred, makes me think Ferrari were quicker but Vettel didn’t hit his potential.

Similarly, if Hamilton is only 0.020 ahead of Bottas and just misses pole - he probably underperformed and Mercedes was better. If Bottas is beating Vettel over 1 lap, general trend is Mercedes is ahead.

Johnson wrote:Kimi is 0.070 off of Hamilton (who hasn’t struggled) and 0.3 clear of Bottas. General trend is, Ferrari is at least slightly quicker.

Vettel is only 0.020 ahead of Kimi. General trend is, Vettel has underperformed.

These three things all occurred, makes me think Ferrari were quicker but Vettel didn’t hit his potential.

Similarly, if Hamilton is only 0.020 ahead of Bottas and just misses pole - he probably underperformed and Mercedes was better. If Bottas is beating Vettel over 1 lap, general trend is Mercedes is ahead.

Yeah I'd go along with that if Bottas out qualifies Vettel then Mercedes are quicker, likewise if Kimi out qualifies Bottas then I'd say that Ferrari are quicker.

pokerman wrote: One driver can be 3 tenths quicker than another driver because he's basically just quicker, likewise a faster car may be out qualified by a slower car if it's perceived the driver in the slower car was just quicker or the driver in the faster car made mistakes.

So the article saying that Mercedes was on pole because of the Hamilton factor alludes to the Mercedes not being quicker in itself, this also backed up by it saying that Bottas being 3 tenths behind the Ferrari's was a truer reflection of the speed of the Mercedes.

However the article contradicts itself by starting out with the sentence that the Ferrari and Mercedes were equal in qualifying, the part that you highlighted but ignoring the contradiction later in the article.

The only comparison between Merc and Ferrari they do is that they were equal.
The rest is your interpretation because Bottas was 3 th behind, they never state that Ferrari was faster than Merc.

I'm not ignoring anything, they never compare the cars after that.

They also claims that Kimi beats Lewis in a slower car.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: One driver can be 3 tenths quicker than another driver because he's basically just quicker, likewise a faster car may be out qualified by a slower car if it's perceived the driver in the slower car was just quicker or the driver in the faster car made mistakes.

So the article saying that Mercedes was on pole because of the Hamilton factor alludes to the Mercedes not being quicker in itself, this also backed up by it saying that Bottas being 3 tenths behind the Ferrari's was a truer reflection of the speed of the Mercedes.

However the article contradicts itself by starting out with the sentence that the Ferrari and Mercedes were equal in qualifying, the part that you highlighted but ignoring the contradiction later in the article.

The only comparison between Merc and Ferrari they do is that they were equal.
The rest is your interpretation because Bottas was 3 th behind, they never state that Ferrari was faster than Merc.

I'm not ignoring anything, they never compare the cars after that.

They also claims that Kimi beats Lewis in a slower car.

I think I've taken this as far as I can with you, I'm not sure if you don't understand or simply don't want to understand?

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: One driver can be 3 tenths quicker than another driver because he's basically just quicker, likewise a faster car may be out qualified by a slower car if it's perceived the driver in the slower car was just quicker or the driver in the faster car made mistakes.

So the article saying that Mercedes was on pole because of the Hamilton factor alludes to the Mercedes not being quicker in itself, this also backed up by it saying that Bottas being 3 tenths behind the Ferrari's was a truer reflection of the speed of the Mercedes.

However the article contradicts itself by starting out with the sentence that the Ferrari and Mercedes were equal in qualifying, the part that you highlighted but ignoring the contradiction later in the article.

The only comparison between Merc and Ferrari they do is that they were equal.
The rest is your interpretation because Bottas was 3 th behind, they never state that Ferrari was faster than Merc.

I'm not ignoring anything, they never compare the cars after that.

They also claims that Kimi beats Lewis in a slower car.

I think I've taken this as far as I can with you, I'm not sure if you don't understand or simply don't want to understand?

There is nothing more to understand, I claimed they compared the cars and say that they we're equal in qualy, do you claim something else?

"In qualifying Ferrari and Mercedes were practically equal in terms of speed ."

I wouldn't be surprised if this actually means the times in qualifying was practically equal as then the article explains why Ferrari has the upper hand in the race. Just my opinion of course.

The gallery then adds more detail.

Mark Hughes also wrote this "The Ferrari took around half-a-second out the merc down the straights. Hamilton's Merc took about half a second out the Ferraris through the turns." Backing up amus.

pokerman wrote:

Johnson wrote:Kimi is 0.070 off of Hamilton (who hasn’t struggled) and 0.3 clear of Bottas. General trend is, Ferrari is at least slightly quicker.

Vettel is only 0.020 ahead of Kimi. General trend is, Vettel has underperformed.

These three things all occurred, makes me think Ferrari were quicker but Vettel didn’t hit his potential.

Similarly, if Hamilton is only 0.020 ahead of Bottas and just misses pole - he probably underperformed and Mercedes was better. If Bottas is beating Vettel over 1 lap, general trend is Mercedes is ahead.

Yeah I'd go along with that if Bottas out qualifies Vettel then Mercedes are quicker, likewise if Kimi out qualifies Bottas then I'd say that Ferrari are quicker.

I would certainly use the Kimi-Bottas times as supporting evidence toward Vettel-Hamilton but if Bottas is miles off Lewis and Kimi beats him then maybe not. Both Bottas and Kimi can be inconsistent so its harder to read them two. So you need to take it all race by race and see how everybody did. But if Kimi has a solid margin on Bottas (and Bottas isn't miles off Lewis) then that is usually telling - that's only happened two or three times all season.

Today Mercedes looked a tiny bit faster than Ferrari, but only by a tenth at most.

Vettel is normally very good in qualifying around Mexico. His lap in 2015 was fantastic, so was his pole lap in 2017. Today his banker lap was also really good IMO, he edged Hamilton in a car that didn't look quite as good this weekend.

Red Bull obviously fastest overall, by about 0.2 seconds.

Have to disagree. I just think Kimi was worse than Bottas and didn't ever hook up a lap, and Vettel wasn't particularly happy with his either. I think Lewis put in a good lap, but Ricciardo an even better lap but he wasn't 0.2 ahead of Lewis.

Perhaps RBR were about 1 tenth faster than Mercedes who were about equal (I'm being generous) with Ferrari. If anything I'd guess Ferrari should be P3.

PS, Bottas was aided by a spec 3 PU.


Anyway, despite the very close margins between the three, I do still think it was clear, and so have notched qualifying down for RBR.

Invade wrote:Perhaps RBR were about 1 tenth faster than Mercedes who were about equal (I'm being generous) with Ferrari. If anything I'd guess Ferrari should be P3.

I disagree. Ferrari was always losing 2-3 tenths to Mercedes in both sector 2 and sector 3, this was constant throughout the qualifying session.

Hamilton was faster than Vettel in Q2 too by a very similar margin to Q3.

Cant really split Mercedes or Ferrari here. Red Bull a teeny tiny step in front in Qualy, though I think that may well be moot if they get jumped at T1 in the race.

Flash2k11 wrote:Cant really split Mercedes or Ferrari here. Red Bull a teeny tiny step in front in Qualy, though I think that may well be moot if they get jumped at T1 in the race.

Red Bull is always faster in the race than in quali. If they can qualify 1-2, I think they're going to be pretty unstoppable tomorrow.

... barring a collision between the two, of course. Considering Baku, do we suppose a) there are team orders and b) they will be obeyed?

F1_Ernie wrote:"In qualifying Ferrari and Mercedes were practically equal in terms of speed ."

I wouldn't be surprised if this actually means the times in qualifying was practically equal as then the article explains why Ferrari has the upper hand in the race. Just my opinion of course.

The gallery then adds more detail.

Mark Hughes also wrote this "The Ferrari took around half-a-second out the merc down the straights. Hamilton's Merc took about half a second out the Ferraris through the turns." Backing up amus.

Yes it sounds like bad grammar, maybe lost in translation from German to English?

Exediron wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:Cant really split Mercedes or Ferrari here. Red Bull a teeny tiny step in front in Qualy, though I think that may well be moot if they get jumped at T1 in the race.

Red Bull is always faster in the race than in quali. If they can qualify 1-2, I think they're going to be pretty unstoppable tomorrow.

... barring a collision between the two, of course. Considering Baku, do we suppose a) there are team orders and b) they will be obeyed?

They may try but I doubt any orders will be obeyed.

I think Red Bull were well ahead here, masked by Verstapens issues.

He probably had another 0.1-0.2 in the car making them likely 0.3 ahead which is a lot on a very short 74 second lap.

Might as well give up predicting who will have the advantage. I bet it will be even more confusing next year, and that's great for us.


Mercedes got utterly slaughtered in the race by a degree I'm not sure any of us could have foreseen?

Invade wrote:Might as well give up predicting who will have the advantage. I bet it will be even more confusing next year, and that's great for us.


Mercedes got utterly slaughtered in the race by a degree I'm not sure any of us could have foreseen?

Yeah another one for Ferrari in the head-to-head. Merc weren't terrible in terms of single lap pace but they were terrible on tires and their race pace was not competitive at all. Brazil will be interesting and I think Merc will be strong there but I would still put my money on the Ferrari due to their immense straight-line performance advantage.

I have Ferrari winning the season even if Mercedes take the last two races. This is even with Mercedes taking the three races between Singapore to Japan which looks like Ferrari went backwards with their upgrades and that could have been the difference between a close battle and a rather one sided fight.

Yeah, the momentum seems firmly back with Ferrari after whatever they did to the car for COTA. I now agree that Ferrari has been the better car over the balance of the whole season, regardless of the last two races (although if those are Merc races it will be very close).

11-8 to Ferrari after Mexico.