planetf1.com

http://www.f1i.com/news/304467-wolff-ex ... onaco.html

Have to say I'm a bit skeptical about this. Mercedes were massively superior in Spain and while I appreciate his point about the car's DNA I think he's playing games here. Mercedes - in the shape of Bottas - were only 2 thousandths off Vettel last year, which could be down to anything. Ferrari did look quicker in the race but pole is the key here so it only needed a small change in circumstance for Mercedes to have recorded a victory. Merc's dominance in Spain this year was far greater than last year, so I think they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... s-renault/

Nun sind 5 Rennen ins Land gegangen. Die 4 Autokonzerne kennen das Kräfteverhältnis. Ferrari hat in der Qualifikation ein leichtes Leistungsplus. Mercedes ist im Rennen eine Spur besser. Renault muss noch rund 30 PS aufholen, Honda zwischen 40 und 50 PS.

Translation:

Now 5 races have gone into the country. The four car companies know the balance of power. Ferrari has a slight performance advantage in qualifying. Mercedes is a bit better in the race. Renault still has to catch up around 30 hp, Honda between 40 and 50 hp.

Yep that seems about right to me the characteristics of the Mercedes and Ferrari have swapped places from last year apart from the ability to follow cars in dirty air perhaps?

Max mentioned a week or two ago that it was much easier to follow the Mercedes than it was the Ferrari, so may be it's not that the Mercedes finds it hard to follow other cars, but is just at a disadvantage when behind the Ferrari specifically?

Mercedes seem to struggle behind all the cars, not a good trait for Mercedes to have, they can't follow close behind whilst other can behind them.

Zoue wrote:http://www.f1i.com/news/304467-wolff-ex ... onaco.html

Have to say I'm a bit skeptical about this. Mercedes were massively superior in Spain and while I appreciate his point about the car's DNA I think he's playing games here. Mercedes - in the shape of Bottas - were only 2 thousandths off Vettel last year, which could be down to anything. Ferrari did look quicker in the race but pole is the key here so it only needed a small change in circumstance for Mercedes to have recorded a victory. Merc's dominance in Spain this year was far greater than last year, so I think they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco

Why sceptical, there has been nothing consistent about the pace of the Mercedes?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:http://www.f1i.com/news/304467-wolff-ex ... onaco.html

Have to say I'm a bit skeptical about this. Mercedes were massively superior in Spain and while I appreciate his point about the car's DNA I think he's playing games here. Mercedes - in the shape of Bottas - were only 2 thousandths off Vettel last year, which could be down to anything. Ferrari did look quicker in the race but pole is the key here so it only needed a small change in circumstance for Mercedes to have recorded a victory. Merc's dominance in Spain this year was far greater than last year, so I think they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco

Why sceptical, there has been nothing consistent about the pace of the Mercedes?

there is also nothing to suggest they will fall behind, either

Let's just wait and see. We've all been terrible at predicting car performance from track to track so far.

mikeyg123 wrote:Let's just wait and see. We've all been terrible at predicting car performance from track to track so far.

Completely agree. It’s only the extreme pessimism that I find a bit questionable

Covalent wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... s-renault/

Nun sind 5 Rennen ins Land gegangen. Die 4 Autokonzerne kennen das Kräfteverhältnis. Ferrari hat in der Qualifikation ein leichtes Leistungsplus. Mercedes ist im Rennen eine Spur besser. Renault muss noch rund 30 PS aufholen, Honda zwischen 40 und 50 PS.

Translation:

Now 5 races have gone into the country. The four car companies know the balance of power. Ferrari has a slight performance advantage in qualifying. Mercedes is a bit better in the race. Renault still has to catch up around 30 hp, Honda between 40 and 50 hp.

Yep that seems about right to me the characteristics of the Mercedes and Ferrari have swapped places from last year apart from the ability to follow cars in dirty air perhaps?

Max mentioned a week or two ago that it was much easier to follow the Mercedes than it was the Ferrari, so may be it's not that the Mercedes finds it hard to follow other cars, but is just at a disadvantage when behind the Ferrari specifically?

That would be an interesting design philosophy; make the car fast in quali and very difficult to follow in the race.

I think the importance of this is really over played. Its kind of a none issue. How many overtakes have we had for the lead in the last 25 races? Three? I think one genuine one with cars on similar age tyres and compound.

These top 3 cars can't overtake one another (unless on different tyre age, compound) so being able to follow within 0.6 or not being able to follow that well and only get to within 1.0 doesn't change anything really.

Johnson wrote:

Covalent wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... s-renault/

Nun sind 5 Rennen ins Land gegangen. Die 4 Autokonzerne kennen das Kräfteverhältnis. Ferrari hat in der Qualifikation ein leichtes Leistungsplus. Mercedes ist im Rennen eine Spur besser. Renault muss noch rund 30 PS aufholen, Honda zwischen 40 und 50 PS.

Translation:

Now 5 races have gone into the country. The four car companies know the balance of power. Ferrari has a slight performance advantage in qualifying. Mercedes is a bit better in the race. Renault still has to catch up around 30 hp, Honda between 40 and 50 hp.

Yep that seems about right to me the characteristics of the Mercedes and Ferrari have swapped places from last year apart from the ability to follow cars in dirty air perhaps?

Max mentioned a week or two ago that it was much easier to follow the Mercedes than it was the Ferrari, so may be it's not that the Mercedes finds it hard to follow other cars, but is just at a disadvantage when behind the Ferrari specifically?

That would be an interesting design philosophy; make the car fast in quali and very difficult to follow in the race.

I think the importance of this is really over played. Its kind of a none issue. How many overtakes have we had for the lead in the last 25 races? Three? I think one genuine one with cars on similar age tyres and compound.

These top 3 cars can't overtake one another (unless on different tyre age, compound) so being able to follow within 0.6 or not being able to follow that well and only get to within 1.0 doesn't change anything really.

It might be the difference between the undercut working and not.

Johnson wrote:

Covalent wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... s-renault/

Nun sind 5 Rennen ins Land gegangen. Die 4 Autokonzerne kennen das Kräfteverhältnis. Ferrari hat in der Qualifikation ein leichtes Leistungsplus. Mercedes ist im Rennen eine Spur besser. Renault muss noch rund 30 PS aufholen, Honda zwischen 40 und 50 PS.

Translation:

Now 5 races have gone into the country. The four car companies know the balance of power. Ferrari has a slight performance advantage in qualifying. Mercedes is a bit better in the race. Renault still has to catch up around 30 hp, Honda between 40 and 50 hp.

Yep that seems about right to me the characteristics of the Mercedes and Ferrari have swapped places from last year apart from the ability to follow cars in dirty air perhaps?

Max mentioned a week or two ago that it was much easier to follow the Mercedes than it was the Ferrari, so may be it's not that the Mercedes finds it hard to follow other cars, but is just at a disadvantage when behind the Ferrari specifically?

That would be an interesting design philosophy; make the car fast in quali and very difficult to follow in the race.

I think the importance of this is really over played. Its kind of a none issue. How many overtakes have we had for the lead in the last 25 races? Three? I think one genuine one with cars on similar age tyres and compound.

These top 3 cars can't overtake one another (unless on different tyre age, compound) so being able to follow within 0.6 or not being able to follow that well and only get to within 1.0 doesn't change anything really.

I think if they were able to get within 0.6 seconds of each other they would be able to overtake. I think the fact they can't is the issue.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:http://www.f1i.com/news/304467-wolff-ex ... onaco.html

Have to say I'm a bit skeptical about this. Mercedes were massively superior in Spain and while I appreciate his point about the car's DNA I think he's playing games here. Mercedes - in the shape of Bottas - were only 2 thousandths off Vettel last year, which could be down to anything. Ferrari did look quicker in the race but pole is the key here so it only needed a small change in circumstance for Mercedes to have recorded a victory. Merc's dominance in Spain this year was far greater than last year, so I think they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco

Why sceptical, there has been nothing consistent about the pace of the Mercedes?

there is also nothing to suggest they will fall behind, either

You mean like they never fell back after Australia?

Regarding Monaco, this is defiantly the hardest weekend to make my predictions, I have a good feeling for RB but I just need to back it up

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:http://www.f1i.com/news/304467-wolff-ex ... onaco.html

Have to say I'm a bit skeptical about this. Mercedes were massively superior in Spain and while I appreciate his point about the car's DNA I think he's playing games here. Mercedes - in the shape of Bottas - were only 2 thousandths off Vettel last year, which could be down to anything. Ferrari did look quicker in the race but pole is the key here so it only needed a small change in circumstance for Mercedes to have recorded a victory. Merc's dominance in Spain this year was far greater than last year, so I think they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco

Why sceptical, there has been nothing consistent about the pace of the Mercedes?

there is also nothing to suggest they will fall behind, either

You mean like they never fell back after Australia?

Mercedes didn't fall back, only Hamilton. Bottas would have won Bahrain if he had pushed earlier and without the safety cars Bottas would have won China and possibly Baku.

Gumption wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:http://www.f1i.com/news/304467-wolff-ex ... onaco.html

Have to say I'm a bit skeptical about this. Mercedes were massively superior in Spain and while I appreciate his point about the car's DNA I think he's playing games here. Mercedes - in the shape of Bottas - were only 2 thousandths off Vettel last year, which could be down to anything. Ferrari did look quicker in the race but pole is the key here so it only needed a small change in circumstance for Mercedes to have recorded a victory. Merc's dominance in Spain this year was far greater than last year, so I think they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco

Why sceptical, there has been nothing consistent about the pace of the Mercedes?

there is also nothing to suggest they will fall behind, either

You mean like they never fell back after Australia?

Mercedes didn't fall back, only Hamilton. Bottas would have won Bahrain if he had pushed earlier and without the safety cars Bottas would have won China and possibly Baku.

How can you use Bottas as a comparitor from Australia when he crashed in qualifying and then was stuck in traffic throughout the race, and the reference point here is qualifying.

pokerman wrote:

Gumption wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Why sceptical, there has been nothing consistent about the pace of the Mercedes?

there is also nothing to suggest they will fall behind, either

You mean like they never fell back after Australia?

Mercedes didn't fall back, only Hamilton. Bottas would have won Bahrain if he had pushed earlier and without the safety cars Bottas would have won China and possibly Baku.

How can you use Bottas as a comparitor from Australia when he crashed in qualifying and then was stuck in traffic throughout the race, and the reference point here is qualifying.

I never brought up Australia, you did. Also, this thread is not about qualifying. Bottas has been consistent, unlike Hamilton. If Vettel was all of a sudden outpaced by Kimi it wouldn't be that Ferrari fell back, but Vettel did.

Gumption wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Gumption wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: You mean like they never fell back after Australia?

Mercedes didn't fall back, only Hamilton. Bottas would have won Bahrain if he had pushed earlier and without the safety cars Bottas would have won China and possibly Baku.

How can you use Bottas as a comparitor from Australia when he crashed in qualifying and then was stuck in traffic throughout the race, and the reference point here is qualifying.

I never brought up Australia, you did. Also, this thread is not about qualifying. Bottas has been consistent, unlike Hamilton. If Vettel was all of a sudden outpaced by Kimi it wouldn't be that Ferrari fell back, but Vettel did.

The orginal post states that Mercedes should be confident of pole in Monaco because of their performance in Barcelona.

pokerman wrote:

Gumption wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Gumption wrote:

pokerman wrote: Mercedes didn't fall back, only Hamilton. Bottas would have won Bahrain if he had pushed earlier and without the safety cars Bottas would have won China and possibly Baku.

How can you use Bottas as a comparitor from Australia when he crashed in qualifying and then was stuck in traffic throughout the race, and the reference point here is qualifying.

I never brought up Australia, you did. Also, this thread is not about qualifying. Bottas has been consistent, unlike Hamilton. If Vettel was all of a sudden outpaced by Kimi it wouldn't be that Ferrari fell back, but Vettel did.

The orginal post states that Mercedes should be confident of pole in Monaco because of their performance in Barcelona.

Please cite that original post please. I re-read the last two pages of this thread and can't find anyone stating that Mercedes should be confident of pole in Monaco.

Gumption wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Gumption wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Gumption wrote: How can you use Bottas as a comparitor from Australia when he crashed in qualifying and then was stuck in traffic throughout the race, and the reference point here is qualifying.

I never brought up Australia, you did. Also, this thread is not about qualifying. Bottas has been consistent, unlike Hamilton. If Vettel was all of a sudden outpaced by Kimi it wouldn't be that Ferrari fell back, but Vettel did.

The orginal post states that Mercedes should be confident of pole in Monaco because of their performance in Barcelona.

Please cite that original post please. I re-read the last two pages of this thread and can't find anyone stating that Mercedes should be confident of pole in Monaco.

Zoue wrote:http://www.f1i.com/news/304467-wolff-ex ... onaco.html

Have to say I'm a bit skeptical about this. Mercedes were massively superior in Spain and while I appreciate his point about the car's DNA I think he's playing games here. Mercedes - in the shape of Bottas - were only 2 thousandths off Vettel last year, which could be down to anything. Ferrari did look quicker in the race but pole is the key here so it only needed a small change in circumstance for Mercedes to have recorded a victory. Merc's dominance in Spain this year was far greater than last year, so I think they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco

Maybe we are dealing in semantics?

pokerman wrote:

Gumption wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Gumption wrote:

pokerman wrote: I never brought up Australia, you did. Also, this thread is not about qualifying. Bottas has been consistent, unlike Hamilton. If Vettel was all of a sudden outpaced by Kimi it wouldn't be that Ferrari fell back, but Vettel did.

The orginal post states that Mercedes should be confident of pole in Monaco because of their performance in Barcelona.

Please cite that original post please. I re-read the last two pages of this thread and can't find anyone stating that Mercedes should be confident of pole in Monaco.

Zoue wrote:http://www.f1i.com/news/304467-wolff-ex ... onaco.html

Have to say I'm a bit skeptical about this. Mercedes were massively superior in Spain and while I appreciate his point about the car's DNA I think he's playing games here. Mercedes - in the shape of Bottas - were only 2 thousandths off Vettel last year, which could be down to anything. Ferrari did look quicker in the race but pole is the key here so it only needed a small change in circumstance for Mercedes to have recorded a victory. Merc's dominance in Spain this year was far greater than last year, so I think they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco

Maybe we are dealing in semantics?

Don’t see pole specified in that post. I said they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco. They looks good in Spain and there’s nothing to indicate that was a glitch. Wolff being worried strikes me a more than a little dramatic

Zoue wrote: Don’t see pole specified in that post. I said they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco. They looks good in Spain and there’s nothing to indicate that was a glitch. Wolff being worried strikes me a more than a little dramatic

Reasonably confident of finishing lower than first place then if not confident of pole position?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Don’t see pole specified in that post. I said they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco. They looks good in Spain and there’s nothing to indicate that was a glitch. Wolff being worried strikes me a more than a little dramatic

Reasonably confident of finishing lower than first place then if not confident of pole position?

Reasonably confident of a good showing. Pole was only ever guaranteed in the dominant years, but just because a car's not dominant now doesn't men they shouldn't be confident they still have a good chance

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Don’t see pole specified in that post. I said they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco. They looks good in Spain and there’s nothing to indicate that was a glitch. Wolff being worried strikes me a more than a little dramatic

Reasonably confident of finishing lower than first place then if not confident of pole position?

Reasonably confident of a good showing. Pole was only ever guaranteed in the dominant years, but just because a car's not dominant now doesn't men they shouldn't be confident they still have a good chance

Exactly. Just because Mercedes isn’t dominant anymore doesn’t mean that they still aren’t seriously quick.

Red Bull should make a deal with Honda. There is nothing for them to gain by sticking with Renault. Renault have their own works team and if things come good, they'll behave just like Mercedes and Ferrari and hoard their advantage from any customers. Honda presents the one and only option if Red Bull want to be back on top any time soon.

I'm not sure I have full confidence in Honda to continue to gain ground on the leaders but my gut tells me that they will be at least as strong as Renault moving forward. I think Renault have really struggled with these hybrid engines and, if not for Honda's struggles, they would have received a lot more grief. They are way behind on power and I think Honda have at least matched them in terms of power this year.

sandman1347 wrote:Red Bull should make a deal with Honda. There is nothing for them to gain by sticking with Renault. Renault have their own works team and if things come good, they'll behave just like Mercedes and Ferrari and hoard their advantage from any customers. Honda presents the one and only option if Red Bull want to be back on top any time soon.

I'm not sure I have full confidence in Honda to continue to gain ground on the leaders but my gut tells me that they will be at least as strong as Renault moving forward. I think Renault have really struggled with these hybrid engines and, if not for Honda's struggles, they would have received a lot more grief. They are way behind on power and I think Honda have at least matched them in terms of power this year.

I don't think there's any doubt that Red Bull will make a deal with Honda, but the timing is an issue. They're in a pretty good place now and they don't want to end up like McLaren, sitting near the back of the grid for even one year by taking the plunge too soon. Wasn't there a race not too long ago where TR actually qualified slower than they did in 2017?

KingVoid wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Don’t see pole specified in that post. I said they should be reasonably confident going into Monaco. They looks good in Spain and there’s nothing to indicate that was a glitch. Wolff being worried strikes me a more than a little dramatic

Reasonably confident of finishing lower than first place then if not confident of pole position?

Reasonably confident of a good showing. Pole was only ever guaranteed in the dominant years, but just because a car's not dominant now doesn't men they shouldn't be confident they still have a good chance

Exactly. Just because Mercedes isn’t dominant anymore doesn’t mean that they still aren’t seriously quick.

Well as it happens 3rd fastest isn't exactly serious quick, now the Red Bull was serious quick.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Red Bull should make a deal with Honda. There is nothing for them to gain by sticking with Renault. Renault have their own works team and if things come good, they'll behave just like Mercedes and Ferrari and hoard their advantage from any customers. Honda presents the one and only option if Red Bull want to be back on top any time soon.

I'm not sure I have full confidence in Honda to continue to gain ground on the leaders but my gut tells me that they will be at least as strong as Renault moving forward. I think Renault have really struggled with these hybrid engines and, if not for Honda's struggles, they would have received a lot more grief. They are way behind on power and I think Honda have at least matched them in terms of power this year.

I don't think there's any doubt that Red Bull will make a deal with Honda, but the timing is an issue. They're in a pretty good place now and they don't want to end up like McLaren, sitting near the back of the grid for even one year by taking the plunge too soon. Wasn't there a race not too long ago where TR actually qualified slower than they did in 2017?

2021 is what really matters IMO. The odds of them overthrowing Ferrari and Mercedes during these last 2 years of this technical era are kinda slim. They'll be strong at some tracks like they are this weekend at Monaco but they will be unable to challenge them consistently on Saturdays and that's too much of a disadvantage for them to overcome.

Perhaps they will make strides these next two years but I think that, in signing Max to a long term deal, they have committed to positioning themselves as best as possible for the future. I think that next technical era should have a big bulls-eye on it back at the factory. That's their chance, just like 2009 was their chance before. They'll want to be a works team in time for that and they'll want to help Honda to get squared away in the run-up to the new era. They will want as much visibility and influence as they can possibly have. We saw the friction that existed between Honda and Mclaren. RBR would be wise not to underestimate the culture gap and the time needed to really build chemistry as a team. I think next year is the right time to make the switch; especially if Daniel goes elsewhere. Give yourself a couple of years to prepare for that new era and then you'll be positioned perfectly with a much more seasoned and mature Max at the wheel.

That would be my big picture plan at least.

pokerman wrote: Well as it happens 3rd fastest isn't exactly serious quick, now the Red Bull was serious quick.

Looks really hard to support a team with such a bad car, sorry for you, they've really struggled the last years.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: Well as it happens 3rd fastest isn't exactly serious quick, now the Red Bull was serious quick.

Looks really hard to support a team with such a bad car, sorry for you, they've really struggled the last years.

Someone's got their panties bunched.

The form book in Monaco was a little funny. Certainly Red Bull were strongest here but Monaco is perhaps the most extreme one-off of the year. Ferrari also clearly quicker than Mercedes again so that's 4 rounds to 2 where Ferrari have had the upper hand. Canada will be an important litmus test. Most teams will introduce new (and potentially upgraded) power units for that race. It has been a Mercedes track for the most part these last few years and it has been a Lewis Hamilton track since 2007. If Ferrari are again quicker there then Mercedes will really be up against it this year.

sandman1347 wrote:The form book in Monaco was a little funny. Certainly Red Bull were strongest here but Monaco is perhaps the most extreme one-off of the year. Ferrari also clearly quicker than Mercedes again so that's 4 rounds to 2 where Ferrari have had the upper hand. Canada will be an important litmus test. Most teams will introduce new (and potentially upgraded) power units for that race. It has been a Mercedes track for the most part these last few years and it has been a Lewis Hamilton track since 2007. If Ferrari are again quicker there then Mercedes will really be up against it this year.

I don't know that that's true, tbh. They were going a lot slower than ultimate pace, largely due to Ricciardo's problems I guess, which meant we never really got to see what thew cars could do. I was looking at Hamilton's times at one stage and they varied by more than half a second a lap. And he clearly wasn't happy with his tyre choice, either, but Bottas fairly flying on the Supers. I think it's quite hard to say which was the better car today between the Ferrari and Mercedes

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The form book in Monaco was a little funny. Certainly Red Bull were strongest here but Monaco is perhaps the most extreme one-off of the year. Ferrari also clearly quicker than Mercedes again so that's 4 rounds to 2 where Ferrari have had the upper hand. Canada will be an important litmus test. Most teams will introduce new (and potentially upgraded) power units for that race. It has been a Mercedes track for the most part these last few years and it has been a Lewis Hamilton track since 2007. If Ferrari are again quicker there then Mercedes will really be up against it this year.

I don't know that that's true, tbh. They were going a lot slower than ultimate pace, largely due to Ricciardo's problems I guess, which meant we never really got to see what thew cars could do. I was looking at Hamilton's times at one stage and they varied by more than half a second a lap. And he clearly wasn't happy with his tyre choice, either, but Bottas fairly flying on the Supers. I think it's quite hard to say which was the better car today between the Ferrari and Mercedes

No it's not hard to say at all. Mercedes were a solid couple of tenths back both in qualifying and the race. In fact the difference in the race seemed to be larger when comparing drivers on the same tires. Yes, Daniel restricted the pace for much of the race but when they did go flat out, Hamilton said quite clearly that he couldn't keep up with them. Ricciardo clearly held Vettel up in this race.

sandman1347 wrote:Ferrari also clearly quicker than Mercedes again so that's 4 rounds to 2 where Ferrari have had the upper hand.

Mercedes’ upper hands have been much more convincing. Ferrari have never dominated a race like Mercedes did in Spain.

In Bahrain, Bottas stayed close enough to Vettel to force him into an early pit stop.
In China, Bottas was close enough to undercut Vettel.
In Baku, Hamilton was only 2.5 seconds behind Vettel before he ran off the circuit.

In Spain, Hamilton was consistently 1 second/lap faster than Vettel.

KingVoid wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Ferrari also clearly quicker than Mercedes again so that's 4 rounds to 2 where Ferrari have had the upper hand.

Mercedes’ upper hands have been much more convincing. Ferrari have never dominated a race like Mercedes did in Spain.

In Bahrain, Bottas stayed close enough to Vettel to force him into an early pit stop.
In China, Bottas was close enough to undercut Vettel.
In Baku, Hamilton was only 2.5 seconds behind Vettel before he ran off the circuit.

In Spain, Hamilton was consistently 1 second/lap faster than Vettel.

I think that's a pretty accurate point. In Barcelona Ferrari really struggled. As has been pointed out, the real issue there was Ferrari struggling with the tires. It wasn't that Mercedes really gained much. In fact, Red Bull were able to do the same pace as Mercedes when they had clean air. Also it did seem that Hamilton had a lot more pace in Australia although, like Monaco, if you lose track position it doesn't really matter there unless you have 2+ seconds.

Overall, Ferrari have had more modest advantages in the races where they have been quicker but they have also had a lot of missed opportunities and misfortune in those races. This was a good day for Vettel though here in Monaco as he pulled back some points from Hamilton's lead. Consistency will be key for Hamilton and Vettel this year. The most consistent driver will likely take the title unless one team pulls way ahead in development.

Yeah chasssis wise i think its fair to say that since Bahrain the ferrari and redbull are both better than the Merc. Barcelona was an anomaly with the tires changing...Mercs advantage on Redbull is solely due to the power unit imo. Against Ferrari they just dont have that advantage.
I think Ferrari will be favorites in Canada. Their car has proven to be more slippery and they seem to have an edge on traction as well. So imo Hamilton may be leading the championship but hes on the back foot looking forward.

On a side note, I think Red Bull actually have a car that is every bit on the same level as the other two teams on Sundays. They are NOT at all at a disadvantage on Sundays. It's just qualy and reliability where they are behind. If not for all the DNFs, they could very much be in the fight for the championships. Unfortunately, some of those DNFs are not related to mechanical reliability. Dan and Max have been fortunate to avoid the kind of scrutiny that Vettel and Hamilton face...

sandman1347 wrote:On a side note, I think Red Bull actually have a car that is every bit on the same level as the other two teams on Sundays. They are NOT at all at a disadvantage on Sundays. It's just qualy and reliability where they are behind. If not for all the DNFs, they could very much be in the fight for the championships. Unfortunately, some of those DNFs are not related to mechanical reliability. Dan and Max have been fortunate to avoid the kind of scrutiny that Vettel and Hamilton face...

Dan hasn't made any errors as far as I recall and Verstappen has been (rightly) constantly criticised. He certainly isn't escaping scrutiny.

I think out of the front runners Ricciardo has had the best season so far.

mikeyg123 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:On a side note, I think Red Bull actually have a car that is every bit on the same level as the other two teams on Sundays. They are NOT at all at a disadvantage on Sundays. It's just qualy and reliability where they are behind. If not for all the DNFs, they could very much be in the fight for the championships. Unfortunately, some of those DNFs are not related to mechanical reliability. Dan and Max have been fortunate to avoid the kind of scrutiny that Vettel and Hamilton face...

Dan hasn't made any errors as far as I recall and Verstappen has been (rightly) constantly criticised. He certainly isn't escaping scrutiny.

I think out of the front runners Ricciardo has had the best season so far.

That bit right there is the part I'm referring to. Dan isn't scrutinized the way Hamilton and Vettel are. Max is only coming under this level of scrutiny because of the egregious nature of his incidents and their frequency.

Going back to Daniel, he spun and lost a ton of time in the previous race in Barcelona but it basically went unnoticed. there was also that incident in Baku (which I personally put as 90% Max's fault) where he crashed out of the race. By comparison, the biggest mistakes that Hamilton or Vettel have made were a couple of lockups into turn 1 at Baku and yet we have people saying that they are performing below their norm while Dan should be driver of the year.

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:On a side note, I think Red Bull actually have a car that is every bit on the same level as the other two teams on Sundays. They are NOT at all at a disadvantage on Sundays. It's just qualy and reliability where they are behind. If not for all the DNFs, they could very much be in the fight for the championships. Unfortunately, some of those DNFs are not related to mechanical reliability. Dan and Max have been fortunate to avoid the kind of scrutiny that Vettel and Hamilton face...

Dan hasn't made any errors as far as I recall and Verstappen has been (rightly) constantly criticised. He certainly isn't escaping scrutiny.

I think out of the front runners Ricciardo has had the best season so far.

That bit right there is the part I'm referring to. Dan isn't scrutinized the way Hamilton and Vettel are. Max is only coming under this level of scrutiny because of the egregious nature of his incidents and their frequency.

Going back to Daniel, he spun and lost a ton of time in the previous race in Barcelona but it basically went unnoticed. there was also that incident in Baku (which I personally put as 90% Max's fault) where he crashed out of the race. By comparison, the biggest mistakes that Hamilton or Vettel have made were a couple of lockups into turn 1 at Baku and yet we have people saying that they are performing below their norm while Dan should be driver of the year.

I had forgotten Barcelona.

It's not just about who makes the least mistakes though. It's about the actual performance. Like Ricciardo overtaking loads of guys to win in China whilst Hamilton in particular seems determined to try and win a WDC without having to try and overtake anyone. You also have to remember that due to the poor qualifying he does end up further n the pack so he is far more likely to be having incidents than someone who starts on pole.

mikeyg123 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:On a side note, I think Red Bull actually have a car that is every bit on the same level as the other two teams on Sundays. They are NOT at all at a disadvantage on Sundays. It's just qualy and reliability where they are behind. If not for all the DNFs, they could very much be in the fight for the championships. Unfortunately, some of those DNFs are not related to mechanical reliability. Dan and Max have been fortunate to avoid the kind of scrutiny that Vettel and Hamilton face...

Dan hasn't made any errors as far as I recall and Verstappen has been (rightly) constantly criticised. He certainly isn't escaping scrutiny.

I think out of the front runners Ricciardo has had the best season so far.

That bit right there is the part I'm referring to. Dan isn't scrutinized the way Hamilton and Vettel are. Max is only coming under this level of scrutiny because of the egregious nature of his incidents and their frequency.

Going back to Daniel, he spun and lost a ton of time in the previous race in Barcelona but it basically went unnoticed. there was also that incident in Baku (which I personally put as 90% Max's fault) where he crashed out of the race. By comparison, the biggest mistakes that Hamilton or Vettel have made were a couple of lockups into turn 1 at Baku and yet we have people saying that they are performing below their norm while Dan should be driver of the year.

I had forgotten Barcelona.

It's not just about who makes the least mistakes though. It's about the actual performance. Like Ricciardo overtaking loads of guys to win in China whilst Hamilton in particular seems determined to try and win a WDC without having to try and overtake anyone. You also have to remember that due to the poor qualifying he does end up further n the pack so he is far more likely to be having incidents than someone who starts on pole.

The point about qualifying is valid. It is harder when you start further back but Daniel has also been out-qualified by his teammate on the season and has not started as far up as he could.

With regards to China, that is a circuit where passing is possible and the thing that made those passes happen was the strategic move by the team to pit for fresh tires under the safety car. Yes, Daniel executed there and impressively so but he did benefit there from strategy and a bit of luck. Even after the pit stops, Max should have won the race as he was ahead of Daniel on track and on the same faster tires.

For the record, I like Daniel and I think he's top shelf. I just notice how differently Hamilton and Vettel are scrutinized relative to everyone else. Their wins are basically written off as just doing what they're supposed to do or having the fastest car or whatever while their every mistake is emphasized. Daniel, on the other hand, has most of his mistakes ignored while his wins are cause for a parade (as though he didn't have the best car in this race).

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:On a side note, I think Red Bull actually have a car that is every bit on the same level as the other two teams on Sundays. They are NOT at all at a disadvantage on Sundays. It's just qualy and reliability where they are behind. If not for all the DNFs, they could very much be in the fight for the championships. Unfortunately, some of those DNFs are not related to mechanical reliability. Dan and Max have been fortunate to avoid the kind of scrutiny that Vettel and Hamilton face...

Dan hasn't made any errors as far as I recall and Verstappen has been (rightly) constantly criticised. He certainly isn't escaping scrutiny.

I think out of the front runners Ricciardo has had the best season so far.

That bit right there is the part I'm referring to. Dan isn't scrutinized the way Hamilton and Vettel are. Max is only coming under this level of scrutiny because of the egregious nature of his incidents and their frequency.

Going back to Daniel, he spun and lost a ton of time in the previous race in Barcelona but it basically went unnoticed. there was also that incident in Baku (which I personally put as 90% Max's fault) where he crashed out of the race. By comparison, the biggest mistakes that Hamilton or Vettel have made were a couple of lockups into turn 1 at Baku and yet we have people saying that they are performing below their norm while Dan should be driver of the year.

I had forgotten Barcelona.

It's not just about who makes the least mistakes though. It's about the actual performance. Like Ricciardo overtaking loads of guys to win in China whilst Hamilton in particular seems determined to try and win a WDC without having to try and overtake anyone. You also have to remember that due to the poor qualifying he does end up further n the pack so he is far more likely to be having incidents than someone who starts on pole.

The point about qualifying is valid. It is harder when you start further back but Daniel has also been out-qualified by his teammate on the season and has not started as far up as he could.

With regards to China, that is a circuit where passing is possible and the thing that made those passes happen was the strategic move by the team to pit for fresh tires under the safety car. Yes, Daniel executed there and impressively so but he did benefit there from strategy and a bit of luck. Even after the pit stops, Max should have won the race as he was ahead of Daniel on track and on the same faster tires.

For the record, I like Daniel and I think he's top shelf. I just notice how differently Hamilton and Vettel are scrutinized relative to everyone else. Their wins are basically written off as just doing what they're supposed to do or having the fastest car or whatever while their every mistake is emphasized. Daniel, on the other hand, has most of his mistakes ignored while his wins are cause for a parade (as though he didn't have the best car in this race).

I agree with you to a point. I do think if Vettel or Hamilton put in a drive like Ricciardo's in China or even managed the situation like he did today they would get rightly praised for it. It's been a weird season in some ways. Hamilton has one twice. Once was pure luck and the other was with a car far quicker than anyone else. Vettel has won twice and both of those wins have come about due to good fortune. Ricciardo has two wins, one where he didn't have the fastest car and had to pass a lot of cars to get it (I except fortune fell in his favour as well) and a win where he lost 100HP. There just better wins IMO.

And he really doesn't make a lot of mistakes.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The form book in Monaco was a little funny. Certainly Red Bull were strongest here but Monaco is perhaps the most extreme one-off of the year. Ferrari also clearly quicker than Mercedes again so that's 4 rounds to 2 where Ferrari have had the upper hand. Canada will be an important litmus test. Most teams will introduce new (and potentially upgraded) power units for that race. It has been a Mercedes track for the most part these last few years and it has been a Lewis Hamilton track since 2007. If Ferrari are again quicker there then Mercedes will really be up against it this year.

I don't know that that's true, tbh. They were going a lot slower than ultimate pace, largely due to Ricciardo's problems I guess, which meant we never really got to see what thew cars could do. I was looking at Hamilton's times at one stage and they varied by more than half a second a lap. And he clearly wasn't happy with his tyre choice, either, but Bottas fairly flying on the Supers. I think it's quite hard to say which was the better car today between the Ferrari and Mercedes

Really doesn't surprise me Quite obvious the Ferrari was the better car at Monaco, by how much I'm not sure and whether it was tyres, pace or a mixture of both it doesn't matter, it was the better car to have over the weekend.