planetf1.com

sandman1347 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

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.

To be fair we do see Vettel pull a sizable gap to Bottas quite often, while Hamilton is comfortably ahead of Vettel.

You do have to take into account the usual lead driver underperforming. For example look at Silverstone last year, if Vettel was performing his usual 3-5 tenths ahead of Kimi would the gap between Ferrari and Mercedes have looked as big as it did?

I do believe Ferrari were fastest in Canada btw, in case you think im arguing against it.

Edit: should specify I mean in the race, I think Mercedes was quicker in qualifying.

sandman1347 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

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.

Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton and Ricciardo when he was in clear air and needed to. So he definitely didn't have any pace in hand. Vettel managed to pull out a gap over Bottas when he needed to, so he did have pace. So was that down to Vettel driving well, him having a car advantage, or Bottas maybe not being as quick as him? How do we know? If both Ferraris had pulled away with ease, then there might be a case to say that the Ferrari was quickest. But the fact only one managed it suggests things were a little more nuanced. We seem to be saying if one driver is quicker then it must be the car and it's not been helped in this instance by Hamilton, who is normally very good around Canada, having a lacklustre weekend.

And I come back to qualifying on Saturday and repeat the question: what would need to happen for you to consider the cars equal on Saturday, if 9 hundredths shows a clear advantage?

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 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

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.

Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton and Ricciardo when he was in clear air and needed to. So he definitely didn't have any pace in hand. Vettel managed to pull out a gap over Bottas when he needed to, so he did have pace. So was that down to Vettel driving well, him having a car advantage, or Bottas maybe not being as quick as him? How do we know? If both Ferraris had pulled away with ease, then there might be a case to say that the Ferrari was quickest. But the fact only one managed it suggests things were a little more nuanced. We seem to be saying if one driver is quicker then it must be the car and it's not been helped in this instance by Hamilton, who is normally very good around Canada, having a lacklustre weekend.

And I come back to qualifying on Saturday and repeat the question: what would need to happen for you to consider the cars equal on Saturday, if 9 hundredths shows a clear advantage?

Myself I don't find Canada a very representative race, not when one team brings in upgrades and the other doesn't. But even with the upgrades, Vettel did have an issue during the race. So it is not a straight forward comparison for me, I'm going to wait for the next race.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 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

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.

Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton and Ricciardo when he was in clear air and needed to. So he definitely didn't have any pace in hand. Vettel managed to pull out a gap over Bottas when he needed to, so he did have pace. So was that down to Vettel driving well, him having a car advantage, or Bottas maybe not being as quick as him? How do we know? If both Ferraris had pulled away with ease, then there might be a case to say that the Ferrari was quickest. But the fact only one managed it suggests things were a little more nuanced. We seem to be saying if one driver is quicker then it must be the car and it's not been helped in this instance by Hamilton, who is normally very good around Canada, having a lacklustre weekend.

And I come back to qualifying on Saturday and repeat the question: what would need to happen for you to consider the cars equal on Saturday, if 9 hundredths shows a clear advantage?

The gap extended from 13.8 to 17.9 so he did pull a gap, I thought Kimi didn't have the same update as Vettel. Also both Redbulls and Hamilton was on fresh tyres, in the Mercedes video it says new tyres was quicker.

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: 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.

Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton and Ricciardo when he was in clear air and needed to. So he definitely didn't have any pace in hand. Vettel managed to pull out a gap over Bottas when he needed to, so he did have pace. So was that down to Vettel driving well, him having a car advantage, or Bottas maybe not being as quick as him? How do we know? If both Ferraris had pulled away with ease, then there might be a case to say that the Ferrari was quickest. But the fact only one managed it suggests things were a little more nuanced. We seem to be saying if one driver is quicker then it must be the car and it's not been helped in this instance by Hamilton, who is normally very good around Canada, having a lacklustre weekend.

And I come back to qualifying on Saturday and repeat the question: what would need to happen for you to consider the cars equal on Saturday, if 9 hundredths shows a clear advantage?

Myself I don't find Canada a very representative race, not when one team brings in upgrades and the other doesn't. But even with the upgrades, Vettel did have an issue during the race. So it is not a straight forward comparison for me, I'm going to wait for the next race.

Of course you take the upgrades into consideration, Ferrari bringing a new engine and aero update is one of thr reasons they had an advantage, you can't just dismiss a race because a team brings an update so we dismiss France if Mercedes bring their engine update? We dismiss Spain because the change of tyres?

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: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.

Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton and Ricciardo when he was in clear air and needed to. So he definitely didn't have any pace in hand. Vettel managed to pull out a gap over Bottas when he needed to, so he did have pace. So was that down to Vettel driving well, him having a car advantage, or Bottas maybe not being as quick as him? How do we know? If both Ferraris had pulled away with ease, then there might be a case to say that the Ferrari was quickest. But the fact only one managed it suggests things were a little more nuanced. We seem to be saying if one driver is quicker then it must be the car and it's not been helped in this instance by Hamilton, who is normally very good around Canada, having a lacklustre weekend.

And I come back to qualifying on Saturday and repeat the question: what would need to happen for you to consider the cars equal on Saturday, if 9 hundredths shows a clear advantage?

The gap extended from 13.8 to 17.9 so he did pull a gap, I thought Kimi didn't have the same update as Vettel. Also both Redbulls and Hamilton was on fresh tyres, in the Mercedes video it says new tyres was quicker.

16.7 when Hamilton came out of the pits, rising to 17.9 over 14 laps. And this was when Hamilton was glued to Ricciardo's gearbox

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote: 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.

Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton and Ricciardo when he was in clear air and needed to. So he definitely didn't have any pace in hand. Vettel managed to pull out a gap over Bottas when he needed to, so he did have pace. So was that down to Vettel driving well, him having a car advantage, or Bottas maybe not being as quick as him? How do we know? If both Ferraris had pulled away with ease, then there might be a case to say that the Ferrari was quickest. But the fact only one managed it suggests things were a little more nuanced. We seem to be saying if one driver is quicker then it must be the car and it's not been helped in this instance by Hamilton, who is normally very good around Canada, having a lacklustre weekend.

And I come back to qualifying on Saturday and repeat the question: what would need to happen for you to consider the cars equal on Saturday, if 9 hundredths shows a clear advantage?

The gap extended from 13.8 to 17.9 so he did pull a gap, I thought Kimi didn't have the same update as Vettel. Also both Redbulls and Hamilton was on fresh tyres, in the Mercedes video it says new tyres was quicker.

16.7 when Hamilton came out of the pits, rising to 17.9 over 14 laps. And this was when Hamilton was glued to Ricciardo's gearbox

The highest it got to was 18.2, it still went up and you said Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton. Mercedes themselves said new tyres was quicker than old, they said it was the ultimate time new tyres would be better, plus Kimi didn't have the new update and he is dog slow.

The other way round you would say Mercedes was quicker.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote: 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.

Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton and Ricciardo when he was in clear air and needed to. So he definitely didn't have any pace in hand. Vettel managed to pull out a gap over Bottas when he needed to, so he did have pace. So was that down to Vettel driving well, him having a car advantage, or Bottas maybe not being as quick as him? How do we know? If both Ferraris had pulled away with ease, then there might be a case to say that the Ferrari was quickest. But the fact only one managed it suggests things were a little more nuanced. We seem to be saying if one driver is quicker then it must be the car and it's not been helped in this instance by Hamilton, who is normally very good around Canada, having a lacklustre weekend.

And I come back to qualifying on Saturday and repeat the question: what would need to happen for you to consider the cars equal on Saturday, if 9 hundredths shows a clear advantage?

Myself I don't find Canada a very representative race, not when one team brings in upgrades and the other doesn't. But even with the upgrades, Vettel did have an issue during the race. So it is not a straight forward comparison for me, I'm going to wait for the next race.

Of course you take the upgrades into consideration, Ferrari bringing a new engine and aero update is one of thr reasons they had an advantage, you can't just dismiss a race because a team brings an update so we dismiss France if Mercedes bring their engine update? We dismiss Spain because the change of tyres?

What a weird comment... Smile all you want, I prefer discussing. No, you don't dismiss France, that's when both teams have their updates, fairly easy to understand. That is when their performances will be more representative.

Ferrari brought a new engine in one car only, one that reportedly had problems. How is that representing the Ferrari-Merc pecking order overall so far?

Siao7 wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: 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.

Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton and Ricciardo when he was in clear air and needed to. So he definitely didn't have any pace in hand. Vettel managed to pull out a gap over Bottas when he needed to, so he did have pace. So was that down to Vettel driving well, him having a car advantage, or Bottas maybe not being as quick as him? How do we know? If both Ferraris had pulled away with ease, then there might be a case to say that the Ferrari was quickest. But the fact only one managed it suggests things were a little more nuanced. We seem to be saying if one driver is quicker then it must be the car and it's not been helped in this instance by Hamilton, who is normally very good around Canada, having a lacklustre weekend.

And I come back to qualifying on Saturday and repeat the question: what would need to happen for you to consider the cars equal on Saturday, if 9 hundredths shows a clear advantage?

Myself I don't find Canada a very representative race, not when one team brings in upgrades and the other doesn't. But even with the upgrades, Vettel did have an issue during the race. So it is not a straight forward comparison for me, I'm going to wait for the next race.

Of course you take the upgrades into consideration, Ferrari bringing a new engine and aero update is one of thr reasons they had an advantage, you can't just dismiss a race because a team brings an update so we dismiss France if Mercedes bring their engine update? We dismiss Spain because the change of tyres?

What a weird comment... Smile all you want, I prefer discussing. No, you don't dismiss France, that's when both teams have their updates, fairly easy to understand. That is when their performances will be more representative.

Ferrari brought a new engine in one car only, one that reportedly had problems. How is that representing the Ferrari-Merc pecking order overall so far?

Are you talking about Canada as a one off or looking forward and comparing cars? Going forward you have a point, will Mercedes engine bring the performance reported etc. As a weekend the engine update is one of the reasons Ferrari had the advantage.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: 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.

Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton and Ricciardo when he was in clear air and needed to. So he definitely didn't have any pace in hand. Vettel managed to pull out a gap over Bottas when he needed to, so he did have pace. So was that down to Vettel driving well, him having a car advantage, or Bottas maybe not being as quick as him? How do we know? If both Ferraris had pulled away with ease, then there might be a case to say that the Ferrari was quickest. But the fact only one managed it suggests things were a little more nuanced. We seem to be saying if one driver is quicker then it must be the car and it's not been helped in this instance by Hamilton, who is normally very good around Canada, having a lacklustre weekend.

And I come back to qualifying on Saturday and repeat the question: what would need to happen for you to consider the cars equal on Saturday, if 9 hundredths shows a clear advantage?

The gap extended from 13.8 to 17.9 so he did pull a gap, I thought Kimi didn't have the same update as Vettel. Also both Redbulls and Hamilton was on fresh tyres, in the Mercedes video it says new tyres was quicker.

16.7 when Hamilton came out of the pits, rising to 17.9 over 14 laps. And this was when Hamilton was glued to Ricciardo's gearbox

The highest it got to was 18.2, it still went up and you said Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton. Mercedes themselves said new tyres was quicker than old, they said it was the ultimate time new tyres would be better, plus Kimi didn't have the new update and he is dog slow.

The other way round you would say Mercedes was quicker.

we're talking an average of around a tenth a lap, when Hamilton was being held up by Ricciardo. If you think this is pulling a gap then we differ.

Once Kimi came out of the pits behind Hamilton, the gap between them grew 4s in the same number of laps, while Hamilton was still being held up by Ricciardo. Kimi was noticeably slower. We can write that off as the driver but strangely when it comes to Vettel vs Bottas then it must be the car?

Be interested to finally get an answer on the qualifying question, instead of assumptions on what I might say in different circumstances

F1_Ernie wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote: Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton and Ricciardo when he was in clear air and needed to. So he definitely didn't have any pace in hand. Vettel managed to pull out a gap over Bottas when he needed to, so he did have pace. So was that down to Vettel driving well, him having a car advantage, or Bottas maybe not being as quick as him? How do we know? If both Ferraris had pulled away with ease, then there might be a case to say that the Ferrari was quickest. But the fact only one managed it suggests things were a little more nuanced. We seem to be saying if one driver is quicker then it must be the car and it's not been helped in this instance by Hamilton, who is normally very good around Canada, having a lacklustre weekend.

And I come back to qualifying on Saturday and repeat the question: what would need to happen for you to consider the cars equal on Saturday, if 9 hundredths shows a clear advantage?

Myself I don't find Canada a very representative race, not when one team brings in upgrades and the other doesn't. But even with the upgrades, Vettel did have an issue during the race. So it is not a straight forward comparison for me, I'm going to wait for the next race.

Of course you take the upgrades into consideration, Ferrari bringing a new engine and aero update is one of thr reasons they had an advantage, you can't just dismiss a race because a team brings an update so we dismiss France if Mercedes bring their engine update? We dismiss Spain because the change of tyres?

What a weird comment... Smile all you want, I prefer discussing. No, you don't dismiss France, that's when both teams have their updates, fairly easy to understand. That is when their performances will be more representative.

Ferrari brought a new engine in one car only, one that reportedly had problems. How is that representing the Ferrari-Merc pecking order overall so far?

Are you talking about Canada as a one off or looking forward and comparing cars? Going forward you have a point, will Mercedes engine bring the performance reported etc. As a weekend the engine update is one of the reasons Ferrari had the advantage.

I'm talking in general, this discussion is examining the pecking order of the two teams. All I'm saying is that Canada is not really representative in my mind, as one car of one team had upgrades, the other hadn't, two cars had some kind of issue, so overall it is difficult to assess. I may as well be wrong, you can deduce something different than me. But I will wait to see both Ferraris and both Merc with all the updates at the next GP to get an idea.

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote: Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton and Ricciardo when he was in clear air and needed to. So he definitely didn't have any pace in hand. Vettel managed to pull out a gap over Bottas when he needed to, so he did have pace. So was that down to Vettel driving well, him having a car advantage, or Bottas maybe not being as quick as him? How do we know? If both Ferraris had pulled away with ease, then there might be a case to say that the Ferrari was quickest. But the fact only one managed it suggests things were a little more nuanced. We seem to be saying if one driver is quicker then it must be the car and it's not been helped in this instance by Hamilton, who is normally very good around Canada, having a lacklustre weekend.

And I come back to qualifying on Saturday and repeat the question: what would need to happen for you to consider the cars equal on Saturday, if 9 hundredths shows a clear advantage?

The gap extended from 13.8 to 17.9 so he did pull a gap, I thought Kimi didn't have the same update as Vettel. Also both Redbulls and Hamilton was on fresh tyres, in the Mercedes video it says new tyres was quicker.

16.7 when Hamilton came out of the pits, rising to 17.9 over 14 laps. And this was when Hamilton was glued to Ricciardo's gearbox

The highest it got to was 18.2, it still went up and you said Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton. Mercedes themselves said new tyres was quicker than old, they said it was the ultimate time new tyres would be better, plus Kimi didn't have the new update and he is dog slow.

The other way round you would say Mercedes was quicker.

we're talking an average of around a tenth a lap, when Hamilton was being held up by Ricciardo. If you think this is pulling a gap then we differ.

Once Kimi came out of the pits behind Hamilton, the gap between them grew 4s in the same number of laps, while Hamilton was still being held up by Ricciardo. Kimi was noticeably slower. We can write that off as the driver but strangely when it comes to Vettel vs Bottas then it must be the car?

Be interested to finally get an answer on the qualifying question, instead of assumptions on what I might say in different circumstances

Bottas was the better driver that weekend, Bottas has matched Hamilton this season and there has been hardly anything between them. There's a lot more evidence in using Bottas as a barometer than Kimi. Kimi has been a constant disappointment for over 3 years or more, do you also not think Kimi might have bored or lacks the appetite of being a driver and that could explain Kimi just settling for 6th place, he certainly acts like that in his interviews. We know Bottas was pushing his hardest because he said so while the Ferrari was just fuel saving.

Ferrari being quicker than the Mercedes can happen.

I've just watched a video of Kimi after the race and it said in this race the delta wasn't big enough between old and new tyres to make any difference. Kimi basically said be pushed and it's impossible to get close, you can't follow so fell back and the race was boring.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
The gap extended from 13.8 to 17.9 so he did pull a gap, I thought Kimi didn't have the same update as Vettel. Also both Redbulls and Hamilton was on fresh tyres, in the Mercedes video it says new tyres was quicker.

16.7 when Hamilton came out of the pits, rising to 17.9 over 14 laps. And this was when Hamilton was glued to Ricciardo's gearbox

The highest it got to was 18.2, it still went up and you said Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton. Mercedes themselves said new tyres was quicker than old, they said it was the ultimate time new tyres would be better, plus Kimi didn't have the new update and he is dog slow.

The other way round you would say Mercedes was quicker.

we're talking an average of around a tenth a lap, when Hamilton was being held up by Ricciardo. If you think this is pulling a gap then we differ.

Once Kimi came out of the pits behind Hamilton, the gap between them grew 4s in the same number of laps, while Hamilton was still being held up by Ricciardo. Kimi was noticeably slower. We can write that off as the driver but strangely when it comes to Vettel vs Bottas then it must be the car?

Be interested to finally get an answer on the qualifying question, instead of assumptions on what I might say in different circumstances

Bottas was the better driver that weekend, Bottas has matched Hamilton this season and there has been hardly anything between them. There's a lot more evidence in using Bottas as a barometer than Kimi. Kimi has been a constant disappointment for over 3 years or more, do you also not think Kimi might have bored or lacks the appetite of being a driver and that could explain Kimi just settling for 6th place, he certainly acts like that in his interviews. We know Bottas was pushing his hardest because he said so while the Ferrari was just fuel saving.

Ferrari being quicker than the Mercedes can happen.

I've just watched a video of Kimi after the race and it said in this race the delta wasn't big enough between old and new tyres to make any difference. Kimi basically said be pushed and it's impossible to get close, you can't follow so fell back and the race was boring.

I'm not using Kimi as a barometer. I'm asking why it is that he can be dismissed outright while saying Bottas must have been the true barometer of what Mercedes is capable of. Seems selective to me.

I don't really understand your comment on Ferrari being quicker than Mercedes can happen. Of course it can. I'm just saying there was no conclusive evidence on that in Canada.

Agree that Kimi may have just felt it prudent to drop back, which is as annoying as it is frustrating. But it still means we have no idea what the true performance comparison is.

Question on the qualifying gap still stands

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
The highest it got to was 18.2, it still went up and you said Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton. Mercedes themselves said new tyres was quicker than old, they said it was the ultimate time new tyres would be better, plus Kimi didn't have the new update and he is dog slow.

The other way round you would say Mercedes was quicker.

we're talking an average of around a tenth a lap, when Hamilton was being held up by Ricciardo. If you think this is pulling a gap then we differ.

Once Kimi came out of the pits behind Hamilton, the gap between them grew 4s in the same number of laps, while Hamilton was still being held up by Ricciardo. Kimi was noticeably slower. We can write that off as the driver but strangely when it comes to Vettel vs Bottas then it must be the car?

Be interested to finally get an answer on the qualifying question, instead of assumptions on what I might say in different circumstances

Bottas was the better driver that weekend, Bottas has matched Hamilton this season and there has been hardly anything between them. There's a lot more evidence in using Bottas as a barometer than Kimi. Kimi has been a constant disappointment for over 3 years or more, do you also not think Kimi might have bored or lacks the appetite of being a driver and that could explain Kimi just settling for 6th place, he certainly acts like that in his interviews. We know Bottas was pushing his hardest because he said so while the Ferrari was just fuel saving.

Ferrari being quicker than the Mercedes can happen.

I've just watched a video of Kimi after the race and it said in this race the delta wasn't big enough between old and new tyres to make any difference. Kimi basically said be pushed and it's impossible to get close, you can't follow so fell back and the race was boring.

I'm not using Kimi as a barometer. I'm asking why it is that he can be dismissed outright while saying Bottas must have been the true barometer of what Mercedes is capable of. Seems selective to me.

I don't really understand your comment on Ferrari being quicker than Mercedes can happen. Of course it can. I'm just saying there was no conclusive evidence on that in Canada.

Agree that Kimi may have just felt it prudent to drop back, which is as annoying as it is frustrating. But it still means we have no idea what the true performance comparison is.

Question on the qualifying gap still stands

Kimi is not racing Vettel at all. He is not allowed to even have his own race. He's out there as a wingman. I've said it before and I will say it again, there is no meaningful teammate comparison at Ferrari. They won't allow it.

Your working theory seems to be that, if Bottas is the leading Mercedes driver and not Hamilton, then we can assume that he is not getting the maximum performance from the car. That is a logical leap that could easily be completely false. What's more, why don't you make that leap with Vettel and his performance in Australia for example? Can we say that the Ferrari was quicker there because Raikkonen was the leading Ferrari?

When things were anywhere near this for Mercedes in 2017, you claimed they had the clear advantage. This year you say the opposite...

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
The highest it got to was 18.2, it still went up and you said Kimi couldn't pull out any time over Hamilton. Mercedes themselves said new tyres was quicker than old, they said it was the ultimate time new tyres would be better, plus Kimi didn't have the new update and he is dog slow.

The other way round you would say Mercedes was quicker.

we're talking an average of around a tenth a lap, when Hamilton was being held up by Ricciardo. If you think this is pulling a gap then we differ.

Once Kimi came out of the pits behind Hamilton, the gap between them grew 4s in the same number of laps, while Hamilton was still being held up by Ricciardo. Kimi was noticeably slower. We can write that off as the driver but strangely when it comes to Vettel vs Bottas then it must be the car?

Be interested to finally get an answer on the qualifying question, instead of assumptions on what I might say in different circumstances

Bottas was the better driver that weekend, Bottas has matched Hamilton this season and there has been hardly anything between them. There's a lot more evidence in using Bottas as a barometer than Kimi. Kimi has been a constant disappointment for over 3 years or more, do you also not think Kimi might have bored or lacks the appetite of being a driver and that could explain Kimi just settling for 6th place, he certainly acts like that in his interviews. We know Bottas was pushing his hardest because he said so while the Ferrari was just fuel saving.

Ferrari being quicker than the Mercedes can happen.

I've just watched a video of Kimi after the race and it said in this race the delta wasn't big enough between old and new tyres to make any difference. Kimi basically said be pushed and it's impossible to get close, you can't follow so fell back and the race was boring.

I'm not using Kimi as a barometer. I'm asking why it is that he can be dismissed outright while saying Bottas must have been the true barometer of what Mercedes is capable of. Seems selective to me.

I don't really understand your comment on Ferrari being quicker than Mercedes can happen. Of course it can. I'm just saying there was no conclusive evidence on that in Canada.

Agree that Kimi may have just felt it prudent to drop back, which is as annoying as it is frustrating. But it still means we have no idea what the true performance comparison is.

Question on the qualifying gap still stands

Kimi is not racing Vettel at all. He is not allowed to even have his own race. He's out there as a wingman. I've said it before and I will say it again, there is no meaningful teammate comparison at Ferrari. They won't allow it.

Your working theory seems to be that, if Bottas is the leading Mercedes driver and not Hamilton, then we can assume that he is not getting the maximum performance from the car. That is a logical leap that could easily be completely false. What's more, why don't you make that leap with Vettel and his performance in Australia for example? Can we say that the Ferrari was quicker there because Raikkonen was the leading Ferrari?

When things were anywhere near this for Mercedes in 2017, you claimed they had the clear advantage. This year you say the opposite...

I don't really understand why the question still hasn't been answered. I'm just trying to see why you consider the Ferrari to be the faster car in qualifying in Canada, because to me they're as close as makes no odds. It seems a reasonable question to me, considering the discussion.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Hamilton is quicker than Bottas (especially at a track like Canada, which he has made virtually his own in the past), like we can assume that Vettel is quicker than Kimi. But I agree it's not guaranteed and I'm not pretending that my opinion is the only valid one. But you said that there was a total lack of evidence to say Mercedes was faster and I don't think that's true. I've said I can see a case for both sides, so it's not me being inflexible here. It's my view that they look quite even at the moment. Neither can rest on their laurels

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote: we're talking an average of around a tenth a lap, when Hamilton was being held up by Ricciardo. If you think this is pulling a gap then we differ.

Once Kimi came out of the pits behind Hamilton, the gap between them grew 4s in the same number of laps, while Hamilton was still being held up by Ricciardo. Kimi was noticeably slower. We can write that off as the driver but strangely when it comes to Vettel vs Bottas then it must be the car?

Be interested to finally get an answer on the qualifying question, instead of assumptions on what I might say in different circumstances

Bottas was the better driver that weekend, Bottas has matched Hamilton this season and there has been hardly anything between them. There's a lot more evidence in using Bottas as a barometer than Kimi. Kimi has been a constant disappointment for over 3 years or more, do you also not think Kimi might have bored or lacks the appetite of being a driver and that could explain Kimi just settling for 6th place, he certainly acts like that in his interviews. We know Bottas was pushing his hardest because he said so while the Ferrari was just fuel saving.

Ferrari being quicker than the Mercedes can happen.

I've just watched a video of Kimi after the race and it said in this race the delta wasn't big enough between old and new tyres to make any difference. Kimi basically said be pushed and it's impossible to get close, you can't follow so fell back and the race was boring.

I'm not using Kimi as a barometer. I'm asking why it is that he can be dismissed outright while saying Bottas must have been the true barometer of what Mercedes is capable of. Seems selective to me.

I don't really understand your comment on Ferrari being quicker than Mercedes can happen. Of course it can. I'm just saying there was no conclusive evidence on that in Canada.

Agree that Kimi may have just felt it prudent to drop back, which is as annoying as it is frustrating. But it still means we have no idea what the true performance comparison is.

Question on the qualifying gap still stands

Kimi is not racing Vettel at all. He is not allowed to even have his own race. He's out there as a wingman. I've said it before and I will say it again, there is no meaningful teammate comparison at Ferrari. They won't allow it.

Your working theory seems to be that, if Bottas is the leading Mercedes driver and not Hamilton, then we can assume that he is not getting the maximum performance from the car. That is a logical leap that could easily be completely false. What's more, why don't you make that leap with Vettel and his performance in Australia for example? Can we say that the Ferrari was quicker there because Raikkonen was the leading Ferrari?

When things were anywhere near this for Mercedes in 2017, you claimed they had the clear advantage. This year you say the opposite...

I don't really understand why the question still hasn't been answered. I'm just trying to see why you consider the Ferrari to be the faster car in qualifying in Canada, because to me they're as close as makes no odds. It seems a reasonable question to me, considering the discussion.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Hamilton is quicker than Bottas (especially at a track like Canada, which he has made virtually his own in the past), like we can assume that Vettel is quicker than Kimi. But I agree it's not guaranteed and I'm not pretending that my opinion is the only valid one. But you said that there was a total lack of evidence to say Mercedes was faster and I don't think that's true. I've said I can see a case for both sides, so it's not me being inflexible here. It's my view that they look quite even at the moment. Neither can rest on their laurels

The thing you are doing is assuming that Hamilton and Vettel are evenly matched; when in actuality, they are probably not. Why do I think that the Ferrari was better in qualifying in Canada you ask? Because they qualified on pole despite Vettel making a mistake on his quick lap and despite clearly having a setup that was focused more on the race. The margin isn't big but it's there.

You are too biased on this topic man. You can never call it like it is because you are always trying to make a case for Vettel being at a car disadvantage. He has the best car this year and it's plain to see.

I you'd be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that the Ferrari hasn't been a little bit better thus far over the season.

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Bottas was the better driver that weekend, Bottas has matched Hamilton this season and there has been hardly anything between them. There's a lot more evidence in using Bottas as a barometer than Kimi. Kimi has been a constant disappointment for over 3 years or more, do you also not think Kimi might have bored or lacks the appetite of being a driver and that could explain Kimi just settling for 6th place, he certainly acts like that in his interviews. We know Bottas was pushing his hardest because he said so while the Ferrari was just fuel saving.

Ferrari being quicker than the Mercedes can happen.

I've just watched a video of Kimi after the race and it said in this race the delta wasn't big enough between old and new tyres to make any difference. Kimi basically said be pushed and it's impossible to get close, you can't follow so fell back and the race was boring.

I'm not using Kimi as a barometer. I'm asking why it is that he can be dismissed outright while saying Bottas must have been the true barometer of what Mercedes is capable of. Seems selective to me.

I don't really understand your comment on Ferrari being quicker than Mercedes can happen. Of course it can. I'm just saying there was no conclusive evidence on that in Canada.

Agree that Kimi may have just felt it prudent to drop back, which is as annoying as it is frustrating. But it still means we have no idea what the true performance comparison is.

Question on the qualifying gap still stands

Kimi is not racing Vettel at all. He is not allowed to even have his own race. He's out there as a wingman. I've said it before and I will say it again, there is no meaningful teammate comparison at Ferrari. They won't allow it.

Your working theory seems to be that, if Bottas is the leading Mercedes driver and not Hamilton, then we can assume that he is not getting the maximum performance from the car. That is a logical leap that could easily be completely false. What's more, why don't you make that leap with Vettel and his performance in Australia for example? Can we say that the Ferrari was quicker there because Raikkonen was the leading Ferrari?

When things were anywhere near this for Mercedes in 2017, you claimed they had the clear advantage. This year you say the opposite...

I don't really understand why the question still hasn't been answered. I'm just trying to see why you consider the Ferrari to be the faster car in qualifying in Canada, because to me they're as close as makes no odds. It seems a reasonable question to me, considering the discussion.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Hamilton is quicker than Bottas (especially at a track like Canada, which he has made virtually his own in the past), like we can assume that Vettel is quicker than Kimi. But I agree it's not guaranteed and I'm not pretending that my opinion is the only valid one. But you said that there was a total lack of evidence to say Mercedes was faster and I don't think that's true. I've said I can see a case for both sides, so it's not me being inflexible here. It's my view that they look quite even at the moment. Neither can rest on their laurels

The thing you are doing is assuming that Hamilton and Vettel are evenly matched; when in actuality, they are probably not. Why do I think that the Ferrari was better in qualifying in Canada you ask? Because they qualified on pole despite Vettel making a mistake on his quick lap and despite clearly having a setup that was focused more on the race. The margin isn't big but it's there.

You are too biased on this topic man. You can never call it like it is because you are always trying to make a case for Vettel being at a car disadvantage. He has the best car this year and it's plain to see.

But I'm not trying to say he has a car disadvantage. I'm saying they look reasonably equal.

If we're going by what drivers say, Hamilton also said he had the pace to get pole. Why only believe Vettel?

Constantly throwing out accusations of bias isn't really helping your argument. You're hardly impartial yourself. You got upset last year because you felt the cars were equal and I thought Mercedes had an advantage, and now you're upset because I feel they are equal and you feel Ferrari have an advantage. You take this too personally. It's just opinion.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote: I'm not using Kimi as a barometer. I'm asking why it is that he can be dismissed outright while saying Bottas must have been the true barometer of what Mercedes is capable of. Seems selective to me.

I don't really understand your comment on Ferrari being quicker than Mercedes can happen. Of course it can. I'm just saying there was no conclusive evidence on that in Canada.

Agree that Kimi may have just felt it prudent to drop back, which is as annoying as it is frustrating. But it still means we have no idea what the true performance comparison is.

Question on the qualifying gap still stands

Kimi is not racing Vettel at all. He is not allowed to even have his own race. He's out there as a wingman. I've said it before and I will say it again, there is no meaningful teammate comparison at Ferrari. They won't allow it.

Your working theory seems to be that, if Bottas is the leading Mercedes driver and not Hamilton, then we can assume that he is not getting the maximum performance from the car. That is a logical leap that could easily be completely false. What's more, why don't you make that leap with Vettel and his performance in Australia for example? Can we say that the Ferrari was quicker there because Raikkonen was the leading Ferrari?

When things were anywhere near this for Mercedes in 2017, you claimed they had the clear advantage. This year you say the opposite...

I don't really understand why the question still hasn't been answered. I'm just trying to see why you consider the Ferrari to be the faster car in qualifying in Canada, because to me they're as close as makes no odds. It seems a reasonable question to me, considering the discussion.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Hamilton is quicker than Bottas (especially at a track like Canada, which he has made virtually his own in the past), like we can assume that Vettel is quicker than Kimi. But I agree it's not guaranteed and I'm not pretending that my opinion is the only valid one. But you said that there was a total lack of evidence to say Mercedes was faster and I don't think that's true. I've said I can see a case for both sides, so it's not me being inflexible here. It's my view that they look quite even at the moment. Neither can rest on their laurels

The thing you are doing is assuming that Hamilton and Vettel are evenly matched; when in actuality, they are probably not. Why do I think that the Ferrari was better in qualifying in Canada you ask? Because they qualified on pole despite Vettel making a mistake on his quick lap and despite clearly having a setup that was focused more on the race. The margin isn't big but it's there.

You are too biased on this topic man. You can never call it like it is because you are always trying to make a case for Vettel being at a car disadvantage. He has the best car this year and it's plain to see.

But I'm not trying to say he has a car disadvantage. I'm saying they look reasonably equal.

If we're going by what drivers say, Hamilton also said he had the pace to get pole. Why only believe Vettel?

Constantly throwing out accusations of bias isn't really helping your argument. You're hardly impartial yourself. You got upset last year because you felt the cars were equal and I thought Mercedes had an advantage, and now you're upset because I feel they are equal and you feel Ferrari have an advantage. You take this too personally. It's just opinion.

That's a false equivalence. The situation last year was different as it was largely down to regarding race pace over qualifying pace or vice versa. This year, one team has the edge in both areas and at all different types of circuit.

Vettel did get pole and he did it despite making an error. Hamilton thinking he could have gotten pole without making the error he made is inconsequential.

mikeyg123 wrote:I you'd be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that the Ferrari hasn't been a little bit better thus far over the season.

I think you can do it pretty easily, as long as you assume Vettel is driving better than the Mercedes drivers. Kimi - whom we pretty much know isn't better than them at this point in his career - isn't ahead of them, which I think would be the proof needed to conclude that the Ferrari is necessarily the better car.

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I you'd be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that the Ferrari hasn't been a little bit better thus far over the season.

I think you can do it pretty easily, as long as you assume Vettel is driving better than the Mercedes drivers. Kimi - whom we pretty much know isn't better than them at this point in his career - isn't ahead of them, which I think would be the proof needed to conclude that the Ferrari is necessarily the better car.

True. You could just say Vettel is much quicker than Hamilton and Bottas. Take an, it's the driver not the car stance.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I you'd be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that the Ferrari hasn't been a little bit better thus far over the season.

I think you can do it pretty easily, as long as you assume Vettel is driving better than the Mercedes drivers. Kimi - whom we pretty much know isn't better than them at this point in his career - isn't ahead of them, which I think would be the proof needed to conclude that the Ferrari is necessarily the better car.

True. You could just say Vettel is much quicker than Hamilton and Bottas. Take an, it's the driver not the car stance.

You don't even need to say he's much quicker, just that he's driving a tenth or so a lap better at the moment. I wouldn't question Ferrari as having been the better car in Monaco or China, tracks where they seem to have had a sizable advantage. But all the close races seem to have gone Vettel's way, which I think makes a decent argument that he's making the difference and the cars are equal.

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I you'd be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that the Ferrari hasn't been a little bit better thus far over the season.

I think you can do it pretty easily, as long as you assume Vettel is driving better than the Mercedes drivers. Kimi - whom we pretty much know isn't better than them at this point in his career - isn't ahead of them, which I think would be the proof needed to conclude that the Ferrari is necessarily the better car.

True. You could just say Vettel is much quicker than Hamilton and Bottas. Take an, it's the driver not the car stance.

You don't even need to say he's much quicker, just that he's driving a tenth or so a lap better at the moment. I wouldn't question Ferrari as having been the better car in Monaco or China, tracks where they seem to have had a sizable advantage. But all the close races seem to have gone Vettel's way, which I think makes a decent argument that he's making the difference and the cars are equal.

Bahrain was only close because Ferrari ended up putting Vettel on a slower strategy. All credit to Vettel though for managing his tyres, but that would have been an easy win if he made a 2nd stop.

Canada wasn't really close (Vettel had Bottas at arms length the whole race) and Australia was a lucky win for Vettel.

davidheath461 wrote:Canada wasn't really close (Vettel had Bottas at arms length the whole race) and Australia was a lucky win for Vettel.

Canada was close, because Vettel won it on Saturday. If he had started behind Bottas I expect he would have finished there.

(And I never mentioned Australia, which was obviously a lucky win and not a close race at all)

ok then, by that reasoning Vettel lost the qualifying battle at Spain where it was equally close.

Vettel admitted he left time on the table at Baku and Canada qualifying too.

davidheath461 wrote:ok then, by that reasoning Vettel lost the qualifying battle at Spain where it was equally close.

An argument could be made there, but that would be assuming that it was equally impossible for cars to overtake in Spain. I do think that Spain was a poor weekend from Vettel (and Ferrari in general), and that made the Mercedes look much more dominant than it really was.

davidheath461 wrote: Vettel admitted he left time on the table at Baku and Canada qualifying too.

Vettel could be leaving 0.01s on the table and he'll still say it wasn't perfect.
Hamilton thinks the Mercedes had the pace for pole.

But Canada doesn't really need to be about qualifying - it was close and Vettel won it and that's that. But as a complete opposite to Bahrain, the difference was bigger in the race and I am also of the opinion that he was fully in control.

davidheath461 wrote: Bahrain was only close because Ferrari ended up putting Vettel on a slower strategy. All credit to Vettel though for managing his tyres, but that would have been an easy win if he made a 2nd stop.

If he had made a second stop he would have found himself behind two Mercedes cars. We know how hard overtaking is this year, we know the Mercedes is fast on mediums and makes them last - "easy" is not the word I would use. It's highly questionable that he would have first overtaken Hamilton (would have certainly cost him time), then closed a gap of about 15 seconds (or more) to Bottas, and then overtaken Bottas, with the knowledge he'd be on softer tires with the advantage of the tires wearing thin towards the end of the race.

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote: Bahrain was only close because Ferrari ended up putting Vettel on a slower strategy. All credit to Vettel though for managing his tyres, but that would have been an easy win if he made a 2nd stop.

If he had made a second stop he would have found himself behind two Mercedes cars. We know how hard overtaking is this year, we know the Mercedes is fast on mediums and makes them last - "easy" is not the word I would use. It's highly questionable that he would have first overtaken Hamilton (would have certainly cost him time), then closed a gap of about 15 seconds (or more) to Bottas, and then overtaken Bottas, with the knowledge he'd be on softer tires with the advantage of the tires wearing thin towards the end of the race.

On very fast tyres he would have breezed past them easily as Mercedes will not be able to coast also he would have come out behind just Bottas and not Hamilton.

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote: Bahrain was only close because Ferrari ended up putting Vettel on a slower strategy. All credit to Vettel though for managing his tyres, but that would have been an easy win if he made a 2nd stop.

If he had made a second stop he would have found himself behind two Mercedes cars. We know how hard overtaking is this year, we know the Mercedes is fast on mediums and makes them last - "easy" is not the word I would use. It's highly questionable that he would have first overtaken Hamilton (would have certainly cost him time), then closed a gap of about 15 seconds (or more) to Bottas, and then overtaken Bottas, with the knowledge he'd be on softer tires with the advantage of the tires wearing thin towards the end of the race.

On very fast tyres he would have breezed past them easily as Mercedes will not be able to coast also he would have come out behind just Bottas and not Hamilton.

Check the timing sheets. He would definitely have come out behind Hamilton, and the "very fast tyres" would lose their advantage gradually during the stint, being pushed hard to reel in Bottas, while the medium tyres on the Mercedes would not wear off in the same rate.

mds wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote: Bahrain was only close because Ferrari ended up putting Vettel on a slower strategy. All credit to Vettel though for managing his tyres, but that would have been an easy win if he made a 2nd stop.

If he had made a second stop he would have found himself behind two Mercedes cars. We know how hard overtaking is this year, we know the Mercedes is fast on mediums and makes them last - "easy" is not the word I would use. It's highly questionable that he would have first overtaken Hamilton (would have certainly cost him time), then closed a gap of about 15 seconds (or more) to Bottas, and then overtaken Bottas, with the knowledge he'd be on softer tires with the advantage of the tires wearing thin towards the end of the race.

On very fast tyres he would have breezed past them easily as Mercedes will not be able to coast also he would have come out behind just Bottas and not Hamilton.

Check the timing sheets. He would definitely have come out behind Hamilton, and the "very fast tyres" would lose their advantage gradually during the stint, being pushed hard to reel in Bottas, while the medium tyres on the Mercedes would not wear off in the same rate.

If he was going to pit it would have been after Kimi.

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote: Bahrain was only close because Ferrari ended up putting Vettel on a slower strategy. All credit to Vettel though for managing his tyres, but that would have been an easy win if he made a 2nd stop.

If he had made a second stop he would have found himself behind two Mercedes cars. We know how hard overtaking is this year, we know the Mercedes is fast on mediums and makes them last - "easy" is not the word I would use. It's highly questionable that he would have first overtaken Hamilton (would have certainly cost him time), then closed a gap of about 15 seconds (or more) to Bottas, and then overtaken Bottas, with the knowledge he'd be on softer tires with the advantage of the tires wearing thin towards the end of the race.

On very fast tyres he would have breezed past them easily as Mercedes will not be able to coast also he would have come out behind just Bottas and not Hamilton.

Check the timing sheets. He would definitely have come out behind Hamilton, and the "very fast tyres" would lose their advantage gradually during the stint, being pushed hard to reel in Bottas, while the medium tyres on the Mercedes would not wear off in the same rate.

If he was going to pit it would have been after Kimi.

Yes, correct. And he would have come out behind Hamilton.

This was in the BBC site, for what it's worth:

"Was it a bird?
Question for the BBC Radio 5 live commentators from Alice Maud on Twitter: "Can you guys clarify the story of the 'bird remains' in the brake duct in Q3 for Hamilton? Did it affect his qualifying?"

Andrew Benson, our chief F1 writer, chips in: "He did have some bird remains in his duct. I'm told it didn't make a difference in qualifying. It just left a nasty smell, like that of a cooked bird."

"Was it a plump-breasted pigeon?" asks commentator Jack Nicholls. "This is all getting a bit Blackadder," he adds.""

So it seems that the brake locking was all Lewis in the last GP quali session.

Siao7 wrote:This was in the BBC site, for what it's worth:

"Was it a bird?
Question for the BBC Radio 5 live commentators from Alice Maud on Twitter: "Can you guys clarify the story of the 'bird remains' in the brake duct in Q3 for Hamilton? Did it affect his qualifying?"

Andrew Benson, our chief F1 writer, chips in: "He did have some bird remains in his duct. I'm told it didn't make a difference in qualifying. It just left a nasty smell, like that of a cooked bird."

"Was it a plump-breasted pigeon?" asks commentator Jack Nicholls. "This is all getting a bit Blackadder," he adds.""

So it seems that the brake locking was all Lewis in the last GP quali session.

Mercedes clarified/expanded on this, shortly after the Canada race weekend. From their official FB page:

Question from Joe Public "No mention of the dead bird that ruined Hamilton's Q3?"

Answer from Merc FB "that was certainly a weird discovery, but it wasn't a factor in the performance in Q3. As Lewis said at the time, he just couldn't get a clean lap together".

Question from Joe Public " Well having a dead bird in your brake ducts, sure isn't going to help his performance. It's all very well saying Hamilton couldn't get a clean lap, but ask yourself why?"

Answer from Merc FB "the bird in qualifying (not just Q3) had absolutely no effect on performance, other than an unpleasant smell for the team in the garage; it wasn't ingested into the brake duct, there were simply remains cooking on that brake duct entry. We stripped the assemblyafter qualifying and there was nothing in there, nor did any parts need replacing, and there was nothing to suggest it affected the timed laps"

I get from this that Merc can't be 100% sure it didn't affect Hamilton's performance, but nonetheless, seem confident there were no adverse effects.

Thank you SR1, I missed that at the time.

I just saw this today in the live feed and thought I'd share it as it was discussed during the Canadian GP

SR1 wrote:Answer from Merc FB "the bird in qualifying (not just Q3) had absolutely no effect on performance, other than an unpleasant smell for the team in the garage; it wasn't ingested into the brake duct, there were simply remains cooking on that brake duct entry. We stripped the assemblyafter qualifying and there was nothing in there, nor did any parts need replacing, and there was nothing to suggest it affected the timed laps"

I get from this that Merc can't be 100% sure it didn't affect Hamilton's performance, but nonetheless, seem confident there were no adverse effects.

I get from it that they are 100% sure. They have all the data: they know if Hamilton's brakes were overheating, which would have been the only possible negative effect of a compromised brake duct. If the brakes were at normal temperature and Lewis was locking up anyway, they know the bird wasn't the cause.