planetf1.com

mds wrote:]

Race pace:
Australia: Mercedes
Bahrain: Tie (given how close it was at the end, given how Hamilton at his best is faster than Bottas)
China: inclined to say Tie, given Bottas kept close first stint, then undercut, then Vettel kept close second stint?
Azerbaijan: Ferrari
Spain: Mercedes
Monaco: Ferrari
Canada: Ferrari

Qualifying: speaks for itself, Ferrari

Concluding, yes, Ferrari overall have been better.

How was Ferrari faster in Monaco?

F1_Ernie wrote:

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: I guess you must be sleeping on the season thus far, the Vettel/Ferrari combo are the fastest masked by bad luck otherwise Vettel would be well clear by now, Vettel for me is the clear favourite for the title.

It's fluctuated race by race

As an overview, do we say the Red Bull is the fastest car because it was the quickest at Monaco, the Ferrari has been the quickest more often.

Race pace:
Australia: Mercedes
Bahrain: Tie (given how close it was at the end, given how Hamilton at his best is faster than Bottas)
China: inclined to say Tie, given Bottas kept close first stint, then undercut, then Vettel kept close second stint?
Azerbaijan: Ferrari
Spain: Mercedes
Monaco: Ferrari
Canada: Ferrari

Qualifying: speaks for itself, Ferrari

Concluding, yes, Ferrari overall have been better.

I would have Ferrari on 4, Vettel had Bottas in check in China until a big offset in tyres no one expected and Vettel mistake cost him the lead plus a second in the pitbox, then Vettel managed numerous laps in the DRS zone which Bottas couldn't manage.
Mercedes on 2 but have dominated 2 races in which Ferrari haven't really got close to doing and Bahrain a tie.

Yeah that would be my overall impression Ferrari 4, Mercedes 2.

Zoue wrote:

mds wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote: As an overview, do we say the Red Bull is the fastest car because it was the quickest at Monaco, the Ferrari has been the quickest more often.

Race pace:
Australia: Mercedes
Bahrain: Tie (given how close it was at the end, given how Hamilton at his best is faster than Bottas)
China: inclined to say Tie, given Bottas kept close first stint, then undercut, then Vettel kept close second stint?
Azerbaijan: Ferrari
Spain: Mercedes
Monaco: Ferrari
Canada: Ferrari

Qualifying: speaks for itself, Ferrari

Concluding, yes, Ferrari overall have been better.

I'd say Canada is also a tie. There was nothing in it in qualifying and the race was difficult to tell given it was a procession

I think Vettel demonstrated just enough that he had pace in hand - first stint even after flatspotting he built the advantage back to where he wanted it with a few fastest laps, then second stint he seemed to be in control as well. I think he had more in hand.

Question is whether Hamilton on form would have been able to live with Vettel. But from what was seen one has to assume Ferrari had the faster race pace (well, one of them).

But that's his trademark though, really, isn't it? Build up a gap within a short space of time and then maintain it?

I agree it's possible that the Ferrari was faster. But especially the qualifying gap was tiny enough that driver ability could have made the difference. And in the race it was very difficult to follow anyway.

A driver ability can make a difference but that tends not to be taken into account judging by last year.

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:]

Race pace:
Australia: Mercedes
Bahrain: Tie (given how close it was at the end, given how Hamilton at his best is faster than Bottas)
China: inclined to say Tie, given Bottas kept close first stint, then undercut, then Vettel kept close second stint?
Azerbaijan: Ferrari
Spain: Mercedes
Monaco: Ferrari
Canada: Ferrari

Qualifying: speaks for itself, Ferrari

Concluding, yes, Ferrari overall have been better.

How was Ferrari faster in Monaco?

Faster than Mercedes

Lojik wrote:

Zoue wrote: The engine issue was resolved in the pit stops . They gave him more cooling and afterwards confirmed that they had fixed the issue.

Hamilton says:
"Straight from the start, we got out of Turn 2, the power started dropping out,"

"There were lots of hesitations, engine dropping in power, so I thought the engine was going to blow.

"We don't have a problem with cooling, we just had something fail that sent temperatures up.

"It was an unforeseen issue and that was losing us power. We were operating far below our power target.

"I was conflicted at the end because I wanted to push to get that next position but if the engine goes in the last couple of laps... the second to last lap I had some big dips in power.

And Wolff says:

"Then it didn't come together as expected. It was a mechanical failure, so the car ran hot from the first lap."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13667 ... ng-to-blow

It sounds like they got the cooling issue under control at the pit stop, but Hamilton was still having power issues. End of life PU I suppose.

Mark Hughes mentions it in his race report.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

"Hamilton had nothing in his armoury with which to take advantage of Verstappen’s issue. He’d radioed that his engine was occasionally ‘dropping out’ of its power band. This was from an automatically-triggered safety programme as the engine’s temperature reached a critical point. A failed part on the chassis had caused the overheating (the team quite coy about what it was). They instructed Hamilton to select an engine mode that enrichened the mixture to control the temperatures (at the expense of power), but this wasn’t sustainable on such a heavily fuel-demanding circuit."

F1_Ernie wrote:

Lojik wrote:

Zoue wrote: The engine issue was resolved in the pit stops . They gave him more cooling and afterwards confirmed that they had fixed the issue.

Hamilton says:
"Straight from the start, we got out of Turn 2, the power started dropping out,"

"There were lots of hesitations, engine dropping in power, so I thought the engine was going to blow.

"We don't have a problem with cooling, we just had something fail that sent temperatures up.

"It was an unforeseen issue and that was losing us power. We were operating far below our power target.

"I was conflicted at the end because I wanted to push to get that next position but if the engine goes in the last couple of laps... the second to last lap I had some big dips in power.

And Wolff says:

"Then it didn't come together as expected. It was a mechanical failure, so the car ran hot from the first lap."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13667 ... ng-to-blow

It sounds like they got the cooling issue under control at the pit stop, but Hamilton was still having power issues. End of life PU I suppose.

Mark Hughes mentions it in his race report.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

"Hamilton had nothing in his armoury with which to take advantage of Verstappen’s issue. He’d radioed that his engine was occasionally ‘dropping out’ of its power band. This was from an automatically-triggered safety programme as the engine’s temperature reached a critical point. A failed part on the chassis had caused the overheating (the team quite coy about what it was). They instructed Hamilton to select an engine mode that enrichened the mixture to control the temperatures (at the expense of power), but this wasn’t sustainable on such a heavily fuel-demanding circuit."

Interesting what he also says there about qualifying:

"An odd barbeque smell was apparent in the pitlane each time he pitted – and later the remains of a bird was discovered in a brake duct"

Lojik wrote:

Zoue wrote: The engine issue was resolved in the pit stops . They gave him more cooling and afterwards confirmed that they had fixed the issue.

Hamilton says:
"Straight from the start, we got out of Turn 2, the power started dropping out,"

"There were lots of hesitations, engine dropping in power, so I thought the engine was going to blow.

"We don't have a problem with cooling, we just had something fail that sent temperatures up.

"It was an unforeseen issue and that was losing us power. We were operating far below our power target.

"I was conflicted at the end because I wanted to push to get that next position but if the engine goes in the last couple of laps... the second to last lap I had some big dips in power.

And Wolff says:

"Then it didn't come together as expected. It was a mechanical failure, so the car ran hot from the first lap."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13667 ... ng-to-blow

It sounds like they got the cooling issue under control at the pit stop, but Hamilton was still having power issues. End of life PU I suppose.

Don't bring facts in to back up Lewis, you'll melt the forum servers

It was predicted it would deliver a great race.

The first 7 stayed where they were at the start - apart from Ricciardo overtaking Raikkonen from the start and passing Hamilton by quick lapping to make use of the pit stop.

The cars are crap race cars. They may be the pinnacles of something but they are crap for racing. I liked Hamilton's honesty.

Did Max drive as he always drives? He didn't run Bottas off the outside of turn 1. I've seen drivers do that in the past and get away with it. Maybe the interviewers did have an effect on him?

I still think that Mercedes is a faster car. They were at disadvantage with the old engines, others had upgrades. I discount Monaco, as it was decided in quali.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Lojik wrote:

Zoue wrote: The engine issue was resolved in the pit stops . They gave him more cooling and afterwards confirmed that they had fixed the issue.

Hamilton says:
"Straight from the start, we got out of Turn 2, the power started dropping out,"

"There were lots of hesitations, engine dropping in power, so I thought the engine was going to blow.

"We don't have a problem with cooling, we just had something fail that sent temperatures up.

"It was an unforeseen issue and that was losing us power. We were operating far below our power target.

"I was conflicted at the end because I wanted to push to get that next position but if the engine goes in the last couple of laps... the second to last lap I had some big dips in power.

And Wolff says:

"Then it didn't come together as expected. It was a mechanical failure, so the car ran hot from the first lap."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13667 ... ng-to-blow

It sounds like they got the cooling issue under control at the pit stop, but Hamilton was still having power issues. End of life PU I suppose.

Mark Hughes mentions it in his race report.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

"Hamilton had nothing in his armoury with which to take advantage of Verstappen’s issue. He’d radioed that his engine was occasionally ‘dropping out’ of its power band. This was from an automatically-triggered safety programme as the engine’s temperature reached a critical point. A failed part on the chassis had caused the overheating (the team quite coy about what it was). They instructed Hamilton to select an engine mode that enrichened the mixture to control the temperatures (at the expense of power), but this wasn’t sustainable on such a heavily fuel-demanding circuit."

I wonder if Mercedes have found some clever way of adjusting their cooling inlets automatically (without breaking the regulation for movable aerodynamic parts).
Full Wolff comment:

"The cooling level was set correctly, optimised for the start," said Wolff.

"Then it didn't come together as expected. It was a mechanical failure, so the car ran hot from the first lap."

Interesting comment from Mark Hughes in his race report:

Vandoorne couldn’t avoid the debris and the McLaren picked up a right-front puncture. After stopping for replacements, he didn’t really have enough suitable tyres left to go the distance, his race effectively done.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

So maybe Vandoorne's pace relative to Alonso this weekend wasn't entirely his fault

Zoue wrote:Interesting comment from Mark Hughes in his race report:

Vandoorne couldn’t avoid the debris and the McLaren picked up a right-front puncture. After stopping for replacements, he didn’t really have enough suitable tyres left to go the distance, his race effectively done.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

So maybe Vandoorne's pace relative to Alonso this weekend wasn't entirely his fault

Well, up until he had to pit he had been competitive with Alonso - a few thousandths off in qualifying and in front of Alonso at the point the SC came out. But he did take too long to pass Ericsson.

Lt. Drebin wrote:I still think that Mercedes is a faster car. They were at disadvantage with the old engines, others had upgrades. I discount Monaco, as it was decided in quali.

What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

sandman1347 wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:I still think that Mercedes is a faster car. They were at disadvantage with the old engines, others had upgrades. I discount Monaco, as it was decided in quali.

What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:I still think that Mercedes is a faster car. They were at disadvantage with the old engines, others had upgrades. I discount Monaco, as it was decided in quali.

What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

Did Hamilton say that? Ferrari had a good opportunity to lock out the front row aswell if they had a better number 2. Vettels best sectors over Bottas was 0.120 quicker so shows more the full potential of the car, Vettel himself said he made a mistake which I presume he means sector 1 because you can see in the times.

From Australia onwards Ferrari have had the better overall car, Hamilton has also said this himself on many occasions.

Mercedes has dominated two whole weekends on a level Ferrari havent managed but Ferrari has been the better quali and overall car to have so far this season. Hoping your team can unlock more pace through the tyres means nothing if you can't do it.

Monaco does count because Ferrari beat Mercedes in quali then both Mercedes fell away in the first stints due to tyre issues. Hamilton only caught Vettel due to Ricciardo.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:I still think that Mercedes is a faster car. They were at disadvantage with the old engines, others had upgrades. I discount Monaco, as it was decided in quali.

What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

Did Hamilton say that? Ferrari had a good opportunity to lock out the front row aswell if they had a better number 2. Vettels best sectors over Bottas was 0.120 quicker so shows more the full potential of the car, Vettel himself said he made a mistake which I presume he means sector 1 because you can see in the times.

From Australia onwards Ferrari have had the better overall car, Hamilton has also said this himself on many occasions.

Mercedes has dominated two whole weekends on a level Ferrari havent managed but Ferrari has been the better quali and overall car to have so far this season. Hoping your team can unlock more pace through the tyres means nothing if you can't do it.

Monaco does count because Ferrari beat Mercedes in quali then both Mercedes fell away in the first stints due to tyre issues. Hamilton only caught Vettel due to Ricciardo.

What makes you think I meant Hamilton?

"In qualifying we knew it was going to be very close as it was, but in my heart I truly feel we had the pace to lock out the front row, or at least I had the pace to be on the front row.

Agree Ferrari had the opportunity too, which is kinda my point. The cars are close enough in performance that it's the drivers who make the difference, not the car making it too easy/hard for one or the other

Interesting article here with quotes from Mercedes themselves which appear to contradict Hamilton's assertion that the PU was giving him problems later in the race:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/cana ... s-1045975/

He's quite clear in there that all the issues were completely resolved with the early pit stop and neither driver had to use any more engine management than normal. Strange

So what was it they did at the stop to solve it? Did anyone see it?

Lotus49 wrote:So what was it they did at the stop to solve it? Did anyone see it?

according to the article:

Vowles says that the change made in the pits – which saw two mechanics adjust the cooling inlet louvres on either side of the cockpit – worked perfectly.

Zoue wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:So what was it they did at the stop to solve it? Did anyone see it?

according to the article:

Vowles says that the change made in the pits – which saw two mechanics adjust the cooling inlet louvres on either side of the cockpit – worked perfectly.

Zoue wrote:Interesting article here with quotes from Mercedes themselves which appear to contradict Hamilton's assertion that the PU was giving him problems later in the race:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/cana ... s-1045975/

He's quite clear in there that all the issues were completely resolved with the early pit stop and neither driver had to use any more engine management than normal. Strange

Unfortunately though it was the first stint that killed his race including the unscheduled early pit stop to sort out his problem.

Zoue wrote:Interesting article here with quotes from Mercedes themselves which appear to contradict Hamilton's assertion that the PU was giving him problems later in the race:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/cana ... s-1045975/

He's quite clear in there that all the issues were completely resolved with the early pit stop and neither driver had to use any more engine management than normal. Strange

This story is not yet ended before we see a tweet from Hamilton showing telemetry.

Lojik wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Lojik wrote:

Zoue wrote: The engine issue was resolved in the pit stops . They gave him more cooling and afterwards confirmed that they had fixed the issue.

Hamilton says:
"Straight from the start, we got out of Turn 2, the power started dropping out,"

"There were lots of hesitations, engine dropping in power, so I thought the engine was going to blow.

"We don't have a problem with cooling, we just had something fail that sent temperatures up.

"It was an unforeseen issue and that was losing us power. We were operating far below our power target.

"I was conflicted at the end because I wanted to push to get that next position but if the engine goes in the last couple of laps... the second to last lap I had some big dips in power.

And Wolff says:

"Then it didn't come together as expected. It was a mechanical failure, so the car ran hot from the first lap."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13667 ... ng-to-blow

It sounds like they got the cooling issue under control at the pit stop, but Hamilton was still having power issues. End of life PU I suppose.

Mark Hughes mentions it in his race report.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/repo ... rix-report

"Hamilton had nothing in his armoury with which to take advantage of Verstappen’s issue. He’d radioed that his engine was occasionally ‘dropping out’ of its power band. This was from an automatically-triggered safety programme as the engine’s temperature reached a critical point. A failed part on the chassis had caused the overheating (the team quite coy about what it was). They instructed Hamilton to select an engine mode that enrichened the mixture to control the temperatures (at the expense of power), but this wasn’t sustainable on such a heavily fuel-demanding circuit."

Interesting what he also says there about qualifying:

"An odd barbeque smell was apparent in the pitlane each time he pitted – and later the remains of a bird was discovered in a brake duct"

This is rather odd? Looking at Mark's report, it may have played a part in him being a tenth down.....

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Interesting article here with quotes from Mercedes themselves which appear to contradict Hamilton's assertion that the PU was giving him problems later in the race:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/cana ... s-1045975/

He's quite clear in there that all the issues were completely resolved with the early pit stop and neither driver had to use any more engine management than normal. Strange

Unfortunately though it was the first stint that killed his race including the unscheduled early pit stop to sort out his problem.

Broadly agree, although I think it was qualifying that really killed it. I don't think there was an awful lot he could do in the race, really, like anybody else, and don't really think he was that poor after the stops. But I just found it odd that he apparently complained of engine issues at the end of the race, while according to the article there was nothing wrong with it

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:I still think that Mercedes is a faster car. They were at disadvantage with the old engines, others had upgrades. I discount Monaco, as it was decided in quali.

What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

In Spain, the teams used a tire compound that was a one-off for that race. It didn't seem to be a huge problem for most of the teams but Ferrari struggled with the tires there. Mercedes did NOT gain anything with respect to Red Bull or anyone else really. It was simply Ferrari struggling with the tires that weekend for whatever reason. So to pick that race to make your argument is dubious as it is totally non-representative of the normal pecking order. Aside from that race, Ferrari have clearly been superior over a single lap and have also been faster during most of the races from what we are able to observe.

You always sing the same tune. No matter what, you will always try to say that the Mercedes is faster. I don't mean to offend but I have to call you out for that. Even King Void is able to acknowledge that Ferrari have the edge at this stage.

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:I still think that Mercedes is a faster car. They were at disadvantage with the old engines, others had upgrades. I discount Monaco, as it was decided in quali.

What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

In Spain, the teams used a tire compound that was a one-off for that race. It didn't seem to be a huge problem for most of the teams but Ferrari struggled with the tires there. Mercedes did NOT gain anything with respect to Red Bull or anyone else really. It was simply Ferrari struggling with the tires that weekend for whatever reason. So to pick that race to make your argument is dubious as it is totally non-representative of the normal pecking order. Aside from that race, Ferrari have clearly been superior over a single lap and have also been faster during most of the races from what we are able to observe.

You always sing the same tune. No matter what, you will always try to say that the Mercedes is faster. I don't mean to offend but I have to call you out for that. Even King Void is able to acknowledge that Ferrari have the edge at this stage.

I really don't see how Vettel getting pole in Canada by 9 hundredths of a second as evidence that the Ferrari was clearly superior over a single lap. I just don't see it. What would mean parity to you - that they tie in a pole shootout?

In Spain the qualifying gap between the fastest Mercedes and the fastest Red Bull was 6 tenths. In Baku that was 3 tenths, while in China it was just a tenth, so I don't think it's true to say the Mercedes didn't gain anything against Red Bull. They were much superior

My position has been that the cars were reasonably even in Canada, not that Mercedes were faster. But as far as this discussion goes I was just pointing out that it's not quite true to say there is a total lack of evidence to say that Mercedes is the faster car. It's debatable, sure, but it's not like it's complete fantasy

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:I still think that Mercedes is a faster car. They were at disadvantage with the old engines, others had upgrades. I discount Monaco, as it was decided in quali.

What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

In Spain, the teams used a tire compound that was a one-off for that race. It didn't seem to be a huge problem for most of the teams but Ferrari struggled with the tires there. Mercedes did NOT gain anything with respect to Red Bull or anyone else really. It was simply Ferrari struggling with the tires that weekend for whatever reason. So to pick that race to make your argument is dubious as it is totally non-representative of the normal pecking order. Aside from that race, Ferrari have clearly been superior over a single lap and have also been faster during most of the races from what we are able to observe.

You always sing the same tune. No matter what, you will always try to say that the Mercedes is faster. I don't mean to offend but I have to call you out for that. Even King Void is able to acknowledge that Ferrari have the edge at this stage.

Since you have the NOT all in capitals you must have hard evidence for that claim? Other than that the gap increasing from 0.15 (China) and 0.25 (Baku) to 0.65 in quali from the previous two gp´s (lead Merc vs lead RB), and a similar development in the races as well?
The figures between Ferrari and RB are 0.7, 0.4 -->0.5. No significant trend at all which to me suggests it was only Merc who gained.

Covalent wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:I still think that Mercedes is a faster car. They were at disadvantage with the old engines, others had upgrades. I discount Monaco, as it was decided in quali.

What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

In Spain, the teams used a tire compound that was a one-off for that race. It didn't seem to be a huge problem for most of the teams but Ferrari struggled with the tires there. Mercedes did NOT gain anything with respect to Red Bull or anyone else really. It was simply Ferrari struggling with the tires that weekend for whatever reason. So to pick that race to make your argument is dubious as it is totally non-representative of the normal pecking order. Aside from that race, Ferrari have clearly been superior over a single lap and have also been faster during most of the races from what we are able to observe.

You always sing the same tune. No matter what, you will always try to say that the Mercedes is faster. I don't mean to offend but I have to call you out for that. Even King Void is able to acknowledge that Ferrari have the edge at this stage.

Since you have the NOT all in capitals you must have hard evidence for that claim? Other than that the gap increasing from 0.15 (China) and 0.25 (Baku) to 0.65 in quali from the previous two gp´s (lead Merc vs lead RB), and a similar development in the races as well?
The figures between Ferrari and RB are 0.7, 0.4 -->0.5. No significant trend at all which to me suggests it was only Merc who gained.

And yet the very next race they are clearly third quickest...If Mercedes had gained anything on Red Bull, they would not have had the exact same race pace; which they did when the Red Bulls were in clean air. Daniel also set FL by a big margin in that race.

Fastest laps are one the most worthless stats kept... They don't prove a thing.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Interesting article here with quotes from Mercedes themselves which appear to contradict Hamilton's assertion that the PU was giving him problems later in the race:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/cana ... s-1045975/

He's quite clear in there that all the issues were completely resolved with the early pit stop and neither driver had to use any more engine management than normal. Strange

Unfortunately though it was the first stint that killed his race including the unscheduled early pit stop to sort out his problem.

Broadly agree, although I think it was qualifying that really killed it. I don't think there was an awful lot he could do in the race, really, like anybody else, and don't really think he was that poor after the stops. But I just found it odd that he apparently complained of engine issues at the end of the race, while according to the article there was nothing wrong with it

Well killed his race in respect to he lost at least one position.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:I still think that Mercedes is a faster car. They were at disadvantage with the old engines, others had upgrades. I discount Monaco, as it was decided in quali.

What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

In Spain, the teams used a tire compound that was a one-off for that race. It didn't seem to be a huge problem for most of the teams but Ferrari struggled with the tires there. Mercedes did NOT gain anything with respect to Red Bull or anyone else really. It was simply Ferrari struggling with the tires that weekend for whatever reason. So to pick that race to make your argument is dubious as it is totally non-representative of the normal pecking order. Aside from that race, Ferrari have clearly been superior over a single lap and have also been faster during most of the races from what we are able to observe.

You always sing the same tune. No matter what, you will always try to say that the Mercedes is faster. I don't mean to offend but I have to call you out for that. Even King Void is able to acknowledge that Ferrari have the edge at this stage.

I really don't see how Vettel getting pole in Canada by 9 hundredths of a second as evidence that the Ferrari was clearly superior over a single lap. I just don't see it. What would mean parity to you - that they tie in a pole shootout?

In Spain the qualifying gap between the fastest Mercedes and the fastest Red Bull was 6 tenths. In Baku that was 3 tenths, while in China it was just a tenth, so I don't think it's true to say the Mercedes didn't gain anything against Red Bull. They were much superior

My position has been that the cars were reasonably even in Canada, not that Mercedes were faster. But as far as this discussion goes I was just pointing out that it's not quite true to say there is a total lack of evidence to say that Mercedes is the faster car. It's debatable, sure, but it's not like it's complete fantasy

Mercedes were faster in Australia and Barcelona, Ferrari were faster in Bahrain, China, Baku and Monaco.

sandman1347 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

In Spain, the teams used a tire compound that was a one-off for that race. It didn't seem to be a huge problem for most of the teams but Ferrari struggled with the tires there. Mercedes did NOT gain anything with respect to Red Bull or anyone else really. It was simply Ferrari struggling with the tires that weekend for whatever reason. So to pick that race to make your argument is dubious as it is totally non-representative of the normal pecking order. Aside from that race, Ferrari have clearly been superior over a single lap and have also been faster during most of the races from what we are able to observe.

You always sing the same tune. No matter what, you will always try to say that the Mercedes is faster. I don't mean to offend but I have to call you out for that. Even King Void is able to acknowledge that Ferrari have the edge at this stage.

Since you have the NOT all in capitals you must have hard evidence for that claim? Other than that the gap increasing from 0.15 (China) and 0.25 (Baku) to 0.65 in quali from the previous two gp´s (lead Merc vs lead RB), and a similar development in the races as well?
The figures between Ferrari and RB are 0.7, 0.4 -->0.5. No significant trend at all which to me suggests it was only Merc who gained.

And yet the very next race they are clearly third quickest...If Mercedes had gained anything on Red Bull, they would not have had the exact same race pace; which they did when the Red Bulls were in clean air. Daniel also set FL by a big margin in that race.

Monaco is such an unusual track it's pointless to draw too many conclusions from it. Anyway the pace Mercedes had in Spain may just be the tyres Pirelli tailor-made for them... Let's see how they fare in France where the same tyres will re-appear.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

In Spain, the teams used a tire compound that was a one-off for that race. It didn't seem to be a huge problem for most of the teams but Ferrari struggled with the tires there. Mercedes did NOT gain anything with respect to Red Bull or anyone else really. It was simply Ferrari struggling with the tires that weekend for whatever reason. So to pick that race to make your argument is dubious as it is totally non-representative of the normal pecking order. Aside from that race, Ferrari have clearly been superior over a single lap and have also been faster during most of the races from what we are able to observe.

You always sing the same tune. No matter what, you will always try to say that the Mercedes is faster. I don't mean to offend but I have to call you out for that. Even King Void is able to acknowledge that Ferrari have the edge at this stage.

I really don't see how Vettel getting pole in Canada by 9 hundredths of a second as evidence that the Ferrari was clearly superior over a single lap. I just don't see it. What would mean parity to you - that they tie in a pole shootout?

In Spain the qualifying gap between the fastest Mercedes and the fastest Red Bull was 6 tenths. In Baku that was 3 tenths, while in China it was just a tenth, so I don't think it's true to say the Mercedes didn't gain anything against Red Bull. They were much superior

My position has been that the cars were reasonably even in Canada, not that Mercedes were faster. But as far as this discussion goes I was just pointing out that it's not quite true to say there is a total lack of evidence to say that Mercedes is the faster car. It's debatable, sure, but it's not like it's complete fantasy

Mercedes were faster in Australia and Barcelona, Ferrari were faster in Bahrain, China, Baku and Monaco.

I think you forgot to write "IMO" there. China and Bahrain were strange ones. In qualifying I'd agree the Ferrari was definitely quicker, but in the race that wasn't the case. But I'll grant that qualifying does concede an advantage.

But I was talking about the current situation, not the year to date. In recent races Mercedes look to me to have leveled the field, being comfortably faster in Spain, reasonably equal in Monaco (although that one is hard to tell - Hamilton complained at one point the race pace was so slow so nobody was really pushing) and definitely equal in Canada. I'd call them level at the moment, but I can see a case for saying Ferrari is faster AND for saying Mercedes is, although I don't agree with either. But this conversation started with the claim that there is a total lack of evidence for Mercedes being faster and I'm disputing that. I don't think there's unequivocal evidence for either case

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Interesting article here with quotes from Mercedes themselves which appear to contradict Hamilton's assertion that the PU was giving him problems later in the race:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/cana ... s-1045975/

He's quite clear in there that all the issues were completely resolved with the early pit stop and neither driver had to use any more engine management than normal. Strange

Unfortunately though it was the first stint that killed his race including the unscheduled early pit stop to sort out his problem.

Broadly agree, although I think it was qualifying that really killed it. I don't think there was an awful lot he could do in the race, really, like anybody else, and don't really think he was that poor after the stops. But I just found it odd that he apparently complained of engine issues at the end of the race, while according to the article there was nothing wrong with it

Well killed his race in respect to he lost at least one position.

I don't know if that was the case. I haven't seen the pit stop times so happy to be wrong but I'm sure Mercedes said the adjustments made in the pits cost them no time. I think Ricciardo's fast lap, coupled with Hamilton's mistake while coming out of the pits, lost him the position.

But the point was about the article contradicting the driver

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Interesting article here with quotes from Mercedes themselves which appear to contradict Hamilton's assertion that the PU was giving him problems later in the race:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/cana ... s-1045975/

He's quite clear in there that all the issues were completely resolved with the early pit stop and neither driver had to use any more engine management than normal. Strange

Unfortunately though it was the first stint that killed his race including the unscheduled early pit stop to sort out his problem.

Broadly agree, although I think it was qualifying that really killed it. I don't think there was an awful lot he could do in the race, really, like anybody else, and don't really think he was that poor after the stops. But I just found it odd that he apparently complained of engine issues at the end of the race, while according to the article there was nothing wrong with it

Well killed his race in respect to he lost at least one position.

I don't know if that was the case. I haven't seen the pit stop times so happy to be wrong but I'm sure Mercedes said the adjustments made in the pits cost them no time. I think Ricciardo's fast lap, coupled with Hamilton's mistake while coming out of the pits, lost him the position.

But the point was about the article contradicting the driver

Ricciardo wouldn't have been under a second behind Hamilton without the issue, also Hamilton pit early and way out of sync from his strategy, Ricciardo pit 1 lap earlier than his. That's how his race was killed, if Hamilton went to plan it would have been an interesting battle with Verstappen.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:I still think that Mercedes is a faster car. They were at disadvantage with the old engines, others had upgrades. I discount Monaco, as it was decided in quali.

What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

In Spain, the teams used a tire compound that was a one-off for that race. It didn't seem to be a huge problem for most of the teams but Ferrari struggled with the tires there. Mercedes did NOT gain anything with respect to Red Bull or anyone else really. It was simply Ferrari struggling with the tires that weekend for whatever reason. So to pick that race to make your argument is dubious as it is totally non-representative of the normal pecking order. Aside from that race, Ferrari have clearly been superior over a single lap and have also been faster during most of the races from what we are able to observe.

You always sing the same tune. No matter what, you will always try to say that the Mercedes is faster. I don't mean to offend but I have to call you out for that. Even King Void is able to acknowledge that Ferrari have the edge at this stage.

I really don't see how Vettel getting pole in Canada by 9 hundredths of a second as evidence that the Ferrari was clearly superior over a single lap. I just don't see it. What would mean parity to you - that they tie in a pole shootout?

In Spain the qualifying gap between the fastest Mercedes and the fastest Red Bull was 6 tenths. In Baku that was 3 tenths, while in China it was just a tenth, so I don't think it's true to say the Mercedes didn't gain anything against Red Bull. They were much superior

My position has been that the cars were reasonably even in Canada, not that Mercedes were faster. But as far as this discussion goes I was just pointing out that it's not quite true to say there is a total lack of evidence to say that Mercedes is the faster car. It's debatable, sure, but it's not like it's complete fantasy

In Canada, Vettel pulled a sizable gap to Bottas with ease and then just managed that gap throughout the race. That comes across as "even" to you? If you diagnose the current situation as even, then you will always have Mercedes as the fastest; even when they are a bit behind (like now). Your way of thinking is to look for any possible reasoning that could suggest they are the fastest, rather than simply looking at the preponderance of evidence that suggests otherwise.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote: While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

In Spain, the teams used a tire compound that was a one-off for that race. It didn't seem to be a huge problem for most of the teams but Ferrari struggled with the tires there. Mercedes did NOT gain anything with respect to Red Bull or anyone else really. It was simply Ferrari struggling with the tires that weekend for whatever reason. So to pick that race to make your argument is dubious as it is totally non-representative of the normal pecking order. Aside from that race, Ferrari have clearly been superior over a single lap and have also been faster during most of the races from what we are able to observe.

You always sing the same tune. No matter what, you will always try to say that the Mercedes is faster. I don't mean to offend but I have to call you out for that. Even King Void is able to acknowledge that Ferrari have the edge at this stage.

I really don't see how Vettel getting pole in Canada by 9 hundredths of a second as evidence that the Ferrari was clearly superior over a single lap. I just don't see it. What would mean parity to you - that they tie in a pole shootout?

In Spain the qualifying gap between the fastest Mercedes and the fastest Red Bull was 6 tenths. In Baku that was 3 tenths, while in China it was just a tenth, so I don't think it's true to say the Mercedes didn't gain anything against Red Bull. They were much superior

My position has been that the cars were reasonably even in Canada, not that Mercedes were faster. But as far as this discussion goes I was just pointing out that it's not quite true to say there is a total lack of evidence to say that Mercedes is the faster car. It's debatable, sure, but it's not like it's complete fantasy

Mercedes were faster in Australia and Barcelona, Ferrari were faster in Bahrain, China, Baku and Monaco.

I think you forgot to write "IMO" there. China and Bahrain were strange ones. In qualifying I'd agree the Ferrari was definitely quicker, but in the race that wasn't the case. But I'll grant that qualifying does concede an advantage.

But I was talking about the current situation, not the year to date. In recent races Mercedes look to me to have leveled the field, being comfortably faster in Spain, reasonably equal in Monaco (although that one is hard to tell - Hamilton complained at one point the race pace was so slow so nobody was really pushing) and definitely equal in Canada. I'd call them level at the moment, but I can see a case for saying Ferrari is faster AND for saying Mercedes is, although I don't agree with either. But this conversation started with the claim that there is a total lack of evidence for Mercedes being faster and I'm disputing that. I don't think there's unequivocal evidence for either case

There is no evidence to say Mercedes is the overall faster car, yes they have dominated 2 grand prixs like no other team has this season. The excuse of well Mercedes have the faster car but haven't unlocked it is absolutely pointless when your rating the cars on the season so far. Over 7 races I just can't see the evidence to say Mercedes have been quicker.
Ferrari have beaten Mercedes in quali 5 times in a season you can't overtake, in 4 races they have shown to be quicker if some have been closer than others, people can come out with the usual China rubbish but that should have been another Canada, mistakes happen though and suddenly the cars are even. Canada, Monaco, Baku they had the better car in the race, Ferrari edge it overall and have the better all round car, it works well everywhere apart from when Pirelli brought their new tyres. If we going by quotes Hamilton says Ferrari is the faster car.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: What has happened since Australia to make you think that "the Mercedes is the faster car"? There is a total lack of evidence of that.

While I sort of get the point you are trying to make, that's not entirely true. In Spain Mercedes had a level of dominance unseen before or since this year. This coincided with them saying they understood the tyres better, so there is some evidence they have the potential to be quicker. And in Canada their lead driver himself said he thought they should have had a front row lockout, so clearly he felt they had under-performed.

I understand the counter-argument, but just saying that stating there's a total lack of evidence isn't quite true

In Spain, the teams used a tire compound that was a one-off for that race. It didn't seem to be a huge problem for most of the teams but Ferrari struggled with the tires there. Mercedes did NOT gain anything with respect to Red Bull or anyone else really. It was simply Ferrari struggling with the tires that weekend for whatever reason. So to pick that race to make your argument is dubious as it is totally non-representative of the normal pecking order. Aside from that race, Ferrari have clearly been superior over a single lap and have also been faster during most of the races from what we are able to observe.

You always sing the same tune. No matter what, you will always try to say that the Mercedes is faster. I don't mean to offend but I have to call you out for that. Even King Void is able to acknowledge that Ferrari have the edge at this stage.

I really don't see how Vettel getting pole in Canada by 9 hundredths of a second as evidence that the Ferrari was clearly superior over a single lap. I just don't see it. What would mean parity to you - that they tie in a pole shootout?

In Spain the qualifying gap between the fastest Mercedes and the fastest Red Bull was 6 tenths. In Baku that was 3 tenths, while in China it was just a tenth, so I don't think it's true to say the Mercedes didn't gain anything against Red Bull. They were much superior

My position has been that the cars were reasonably even in Canada, not that Mercedes were faster. But as far as this discussion goes I was just pointing out that it's not quite true to say there is a total lack of evidence to say that Mercedes is the faster car. It's debatable, sure, but it's not like it's complete fantasy

Mercedes were faster in Australia and Barcelona, Ferrari were faster in Bahrain, China, Baku and Monaco.

Ferrari won in Bahrain. It was as close as makes no difference though.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Interesting article here with quotes from Mercedes themselves which appear to contradict Hamilton's assertion that the PU was giving him problems later in the race:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/cana ... s-1045975/

He's quite clear in there that all the issues were completely resolved with the early pit stop and neither driver had to use any more engine management than normal. Strange

Unfortunately though it was the first stint that killed his race including the unscheduled early pit stop to sort out his problem.

Broadly agree, although I think it was qualifying that really killed it. I don't think there was an awful lot he could do in the race, really, like anybody else, and don't really think he was that poor after the stops. But I just found it odd that he apparently complained of engine issues at the end of the race, while according to the article there was nothing wrong with it

Well killed his race in respect to he lost at least one position.

'During the pit stop, we came in and made an adjustment to try to alleviate the situation as much as possible, As Lewis went back out, it was a bit more comfortable and you saw later in the race that he had a little bit more performance.' Vowles.

Merc debrief.