2019 Pre-Season Testing Thread (Updated with Test 2 Lineup)

[WHoff78]

Looks like there is a mistake in that post for c2 to c3. Article I read says pirrelli will have a better picture at the end of test 2 but suggest the following:
C1 to C2 - 0.8-1s
C2 to C3 - 0.7
C3 to C4 - 0.6
C4 to C5 - 0.6

[Exediron]

That might make more sense. Otherwise, the tiny gap between C2 and C3 would make the existence of the C2 tyre a bit of a joke.

On the other hand, I think we all know how accurate Pirelli's adjustment numbers usually end up being, so...

[JN23]

Bottas put in a low key good time today. 18.3 on C2 tyres. There is meant to be 0.5 between each compound. Arguably the best lap of the test so far.

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of that lap tbh.

"Cough", I believe that someone did?

Haha, I know you did! was thinking from a more general point

[dizlexik]

The Mercs are finally turning up the wick a little it seems.

Yep but still everyone seems to have the opinion that Ferrari are the fastest, maybe half a second faster?

From what we have seen so far; Ferrari being fastest in Australia is looking to be the most likely scenario. You can never know for certain.

So how much faster does Vettel in the Ferrari need to be in order for it to be on a level playing field with with Hamilton in the Mercedes then given last years performance by both?

I don't understand the question, performance and reliability wise Ferrari gave Vettel a car good enough car to win last season.

Mind that I haven't followed 2018 season very closely, but wasn't the issue with Vettel more about car not suiting him rather than lack of raw speed?

[Zoue]

Yep but still everyone seems to have the opinion that Ferrari are the fastest, maybe half a second faster?

From what we have seen so far; Ferrari being fastest in Australia is looking to be the most likely scenario. You can never know for certain.

So how much faster does Vettel in the Ferrari need to be in order for it to be on a level playing field with with Hamilton in the Mercedes then given last years performance by both?

I don't understand the question, performance and reliability wise Ferrari gave Vettel a car good enough car to win last season.

Mind that I haven't followed 2018 season very closely, but wasn't the issue with Vettel more about car not suiting him rather than lack of raw speed?

No I don't think so. The most that could be said would be that Vettel may have had to overdrive the car if he felt it was missing that final bit of speed, but even so that's still down to the driver making the best of it. I don't think the car can be blamed for the mistakes that were made, even if I don't share the view that it was the best car last year

[dizlexik]

No I don't think so. The most that could be said would be that Vettel may have had to overdrive the car if he felt it was missing that final bit of speed, but even so that's still down to the driver making the best of it. I don't think the car can be blamed for the mistakes that were made, even if I don't share the view that it was the best car last year

Vettel and his team made a lot of mistakes and wrong strategy calls, there is no doubt about that. My point is that while some car can be quick, they can also be very difficult to setup and drive. I thought Ferrari was a bit like that last season and that it contributed a bit to Vettel poor form. It was said in 2014 for example that Red Bull made car that didn't suit Vettel for the first time in years and Vettel looked really terrible in that Red Bull. Some drivers are better in such a situations, but probably Vettel isn't. Also this is why such a news are good for Vettel and Ferrari: https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/47322639

Of course I'm not following F1 that closely anymore so I could be very wrong about last season.

[Invade]

Honestly I’m not buying any of this Ferrari is faster than Merc crap. Come Q3 in Melbourne I am expecting Hamilton to put in a decent gap between him self and P2.

How much better do Ferrari need to be than Mercedes for Vettel to win the WDC? Ferrari already had the best car last year and made it to Mexico.

[Siao7]

Honestly I’m not buying any of this Ferrari is faster than Merc crap. Come Q3 in Melbourne I am expecting Hamilton to put in a decent gap between him self and P2.

How much better do Ferrari need to be than Mercedes for Vettel to win the WDC? Ferrari already had the best car last year and made it to Mexico.

They had the best car maybe, but did go wrong with their development through the year. This is one of Merc's strong cards in my opinion, they are always good at developing through the year.

[Zoue]

Honestly I’m not buying any of this Ferrari is faster than Merc crap. Come Q3 in Melbourne I am expecting Hamilton to put in a decent gap between him self and P2.

How much better do Ferrari need to be than Mercedes for Vettel to win the WDC? Ferrari already had the best car last year and made it to Mexico.

depends on whether you consider all performance to be static or whether you feel that driver's don't drive identically year on year

[Invade]

Honestly I’m not buying any of this Ferrari is faster than Merc crap. Come Q3 in Melbourne I am expecting Hamilton to put in a decent gap between him self and P2.

How much better do Ferrari need to be than Mercedes for Vettel to win the WDC? Ferrari already had the best car last year and made it to Mexico.

depends on whether you consider all performance to be static or whether you feel that driver's don't drive identically year on year

Well I was clearly being facetious. The reality is that if Ferrari wind up being equally as competitive this year, they once again have great chances to win the titles. Hamilton was on a high and Vettel on a low in 2018 relatively speaking.

[Invade]

Honestly I’m not buying any of this Ferrari is faster than Merc crap. Come Q3 in Melbourne I am expecting Hamilton to put in a decent gap between him self and P2.

How much better do Ferrari need to be than Mercedes for Vettel to win the WDC? Ferrari already had the best car last year and made it to Mexico.

They had the best car maybe, but did go wrong with their development through the year. This is one of Merc's strong cards in my opinion, they are always good at developing through the year.

Yep Ferrari slipped at the most critical juncture. Mercedes then slipped later on and played it safe with the wheels but by that point the damage had been done. It's why I don't read too much into Ferrari's dominant start in preseason testing. They may well have the best package this year but Mercedes are so money that one almost expects them to AT LEAST make it extremely difficult for Ferrari. They'll fight back.

[Invade]

I'm hoping Honda blows minds and that RBR look the fastest heading into Australia. They'll probably still have worse reliability than Ferrari or Mercedes so that could set things up nicely.

RBR > Ferrari > Merc - make it happen.

[UnlikeUday]

Racing Point only ran 248 laps during the 4 days as it was intended to be:

https://www.planetf1.com/news/perez-exp ... w-mileage/

[Zoue]

Interesting breakdown below, showing driver times adjusted for tyre choice. They were largely taken on different days and we don't know fuel loads etc so with that in mind don't read too much into them. It's just a fun analysis.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pire ... g/4342194/

[Invade]

Interesting breakdown below, showing driver times adjusted for tyre choice. They were largely taken on different days and we don't know fuel loads etc so with that in mind don't read too much into them. It's just a fun analysis.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pire ... g/4342194/

I've read across two forums now that Bottas did an 18.3 on C2 tyres, with someone suggesting it was actually C3. Either way, has this lap flown under the radar in the analysis of the first week of testing? Seems to me such a lap corrected would be pretty quick.

edit: 3rd place if C3 and 1st if C2 by using that table.

[Option or Prime]

One of the things that interested me in the analysis videos that followed the release of the cars was something that cant be measured on the track but might well be significant on some circuits and that is fuel economy.

All this extra speed has to come from somewhere whatever the viscosity of the hydrocarbon being burned. It was said that the Mercedes engine was particularly fuel efficient meaning that it might well require less fuel so obviously less weight to complete the race. Thus a lighter car might well offset the speed advantage of the Ferrari and possibly Red Bull.

Can't wait for the first race!

[Invade]

What was the best time Vettel or Leclerc achieved on the C2, BTW?

[Zoue]

Interesting breakdown below, showing driver times adjusted for tyre choice. They were largely taken on different days and we don't know fuel loads etc so with that in mind don't read too much into them. It's just a fun analysis.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pire ... g/4342194/

I've read across two forums now that Bottas did an 18.3 on C2 tyres, with someone suggesting it was actually C3. Either way, has this lap flown under the radar in the analysis of the first week of testing? Seems to me such a lap corrected would be pretty quick.

edit: 3rd place if C3 and 1st if C2 by using that table.

I suspect there was some misinformation on the tyres used. Quite often both Sky and Autosport got them mixed up and had to correct after. I'd guess that if Bottas had actually done that then it would have been picked up by now

[Lotus49]

Interesting breakdown below, showing driver times adjusted for tyre choice. They were largely taken on different days and we don't know fuel loads etc so with that in mind don't read too much into them. It's just a fun analysis.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pire ... g/4342194/

I've read across two forums now that Bottas did an 18.3 on C2 tyres, with someone suggesting it was actually C3. Either way, has this lap flown under the radar in the analysis of the first week of testing? Seems to me such a lap corrected would be pretty quick.

edit: 3rd place if C3 and 1st if C2 by using that table.

I suspect there was some misinformation on the tyres used. Quite often both Sky and Autosport got them mixed up and had to correct after. I'd guess that if Bottas had actually done that then it would have been picked up by now

Its legit, just well hidden but Karun tweeted about it. A 3 lap stint on C2's with a best of 1.18.356. Tyre corrected going by Pirelli's info it translates to a 1.16.4 I think.

And that's Bottas.

[Black_Flag_11]

Interesting breakdown below, showing driver times adjusted for tyre choice. They were largely taken on different days and we don't know fuel loads etc so with that in mind don't read too much into them. It's just a fun analysis.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pire ... g/4342194/

I've read across two forums now that Bottas did an 18.3 on C2 tyres, with someone suggesting it was actually C3. Either way, has this lap flown under the radar in the analysis of the first week of testing? Seems to me such a lap corrected would be pretty quick.

edit: 3rd place if C3 and 1st if C2 by using that table.

I suspect there was some misinformation on the tyres used. Quite often both Sky and Autosport got them mixed up and had to correct after. I'd guess that if Bottas had actually done that then it would have been picked up by now

Most of the confusion has been between C1/C2 and C4/C5 because they apparently look the same when turning because the Pirelli logo creates a red/white line at speed.

The C3 are the yellow marked so really there shouldn't be any confusion between C3 and C2. It's a bit annoying we don't access to all the laptimes set like we do for practice sessions.

[sandman1347]

So how much faster does Vettel in the Ferrari need to be in order for it to be on a level playing field with with Hamilton in the Mercedes then given last years performance by both?

I don't understand the question, performance and reliability wise Ferrari gave Vettel a car good enough car to win last season.

Mind that I haven't followed 2018 season very closely, but wasn't the issue with Vettel more about car not suiting him rather than lack of raw speed?

No there was no issue with either speed or compatibility. The issue was with execution (both on the part of the driver and, to a lesser extent, the team). Vettel made several costly errors during races last year and the team also botched their strategic execution in some key moments. Blaming the car for their season is absurd IMO. It was top of the pile in performance and Vettel's car, in particular, was perfectly reliable as well.

[UnlikeUday]

The next test in the coming week will surely be more representative of the pecking order. Still the first 3 races will give the truest picture.

[pokerman]

Could we get any surprises now that they are separating driver weights from the car. Hulk could be one to keep an eye on – and not based on the one headline lap today. More the overall comparison with DR as he gets up to speed with the new team (apparently 10kg difference between the two which I'm guessing is easily the biggest between team mates on the grid).

Any other drivers likely to benefit from this? Or will this not make much difference at all?

It just affects were you can put the ballast, I would be guessing not a big difference?

Do we know for sure that all the cars are below the minimum weight with some degree of ballast? Surely if a 65kg driver is looking to lose a few pounds to keep the car under the minimum weight, than a 74kg driver like Hulk may have tipped the car over the previous limit (734kg) all together.

If all teams were hitting that minimum weight then seems reasonable that it wouldn’t make a big difference. May just present the teams with heavier drivers a little more flexibility in design relative to the competition than they had in the past.

It's my understanding that all the cars have been carrying ballast, the heavier drivers just are unable to balance the car as much with ballast, in recent years the only driver that was said to be carrying excess weight in the car was Ericsson when he was teamed up with Wehrlein.

[pokerman]

Yep but still everyone seems to have the opinion that Ferrari are the fastest, maybe half a second faster?

From what we have seen so far; Ferrari being fastest in Australia is looking to be the most likely scenario. You can never know for certain.

So how much faster does Vettel in the Ferrari need to be in order for it to be on a level playing field with with Hamilton in the Mercedes then given last years performance by both?

I don't understand the question, performance and reliability wise Ferrari gave Vettel a car good enough car to win last season.

Mind that I haven't followed 2018 season very closely, but wasn't the issue with Vettel more about car not suiting him rather than lack of raw speed?

No that never was said.

[pokerman]

No I don't think so. The most that could be said would be that Vettel may have had to overdrive the car if he felt it was missing that final bit of speed, but even so that's still down to the driver making the best of it. I don't think the car can be blamed for the mistakes that were made, even if I don't share the view that it was the best car last year

Vettel and his team made a lot of mistakes and wrong strategy calls, there is no doubt about that. My point is that while some car can be quick, they can also be very difficult to setup and drive. I thought Ferrari was a bit like that last season and that it contributed a bit to Vettel poor form. It was said in 2014 for example that Red Bull made car that didn't suit Vettel for the first time in years and Vettel looked really terrible in that Red Bull. Some drivers are better in such a situations, but probably Vettel isn't. Also this is why such a news are good for Vettel and Ferrari: https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/47322639

Of course I'm not following F1 that closely anymore so I could be very wrong about last season.

The Mercedes was said to be difficult to drive hence it being called the diva, the Ferrari never got that tag line.

[pokerman]

Honestly I’m not buying any of this Ferrari is faster than Merc crap. Come Q3 in Melbourne I am expecting Hamilton to put in a decent gap between him self and P2.

How much better do Ferrari need to be than Mercedes for Vettel to win the WDC? Ferrari already had the best car last year and made it to Mexico.

I would say a couple of tenths quicker.

[pokerman]

Honestly I’m not buying any of this Ferrari is faster than Merc crap. Come Q3 in Melbourne I am expecting Hamilton to put in a decent gap between him self and P2.

How much better do Ferrari need to be than Mercedes for Vettel to win the WDC? Ferrari already had the best car last year and made it to Mexico.

They had the best car maybe, but did go wrong with their development through the year. This is one of Merc's strong cards in my opinion, they are always good at developing through the year.

They just lost their way for 3 races.

[Siao7]

No I don't think so. The most that could be said would be that Vettel may have had to overdrive the car if he felt it was missing that final bit of speed, but even so that's still down to the driver making the best of it. I don't think the car can be blamed for the mistakes that were made, even if I don't share the view that it was the best car last year

Vettel and his team made a lot of mistakes and wrong strategy calls, there is no doubt about that. My point is that while some car can be quick, they can also be very difficult to setup and drive. I thought Ferrari was a bit like that last season and that it contributed a bit to Vettel poor form. It was said in 2014 for example that Red Bull made car that didn't suit Vettel for the first time in years and Vettel looked really terrible in that Red Bull. Some drivers are better in such a situations, but probably Vettel isn't. Also this is why such a news are good for Vettel and Ferrari: https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/47322639

Of course I'm not following F1 that closely anymore so I could be very wrong about last season.

The Mercedes was said to be difficult to drive hence it being called the diva, the Ferrari never got that tag line.

They called the 2017 car diva, not the 2018

[Siao7]

Honestly I’m not buying any of this Ferrari is faster than Merc crap. Come Q3 in Melbourne I am expecting Hamilton to put in a decent gap between him self and P2.

How much better do Ferrari need to be than Mercedes for Vettel to win the WDC? Ferrari already had the best car last year and made it to Mexico.

They had the best car maybe, but did go wrong with their development through the year. This is one of Merc's strong cards in my opinion, they are always good at developing through the year.

They just lost their way for 3 races.

And?

[sandman1347]

Honestly I’m not buying any of this Ferrari is faster than Merc crap. Come Q3 in Melbourne I am expecting Hamilton to put in a decent gap between him self and P2.

How much better do Ferrari need to be than Mercedes for Vettel to win the WDC? Ferrari already had the best car last year and made it to Mexico.

They had the best car maybe, but did go wrong with their development through the year. This is one of Merc's strong cards in my opinion, they are always good at developing through the year.

They just lost their way for 3 races.

And?

And after those races, they were back on top. The rational way to look at it would be to ask which of the two teams had the faster car more often. The answer to that is Ferrari. Even during the races where they struggled, it wasn't necessarily down to the car. It was more about their execution. For example, both Vettel and Raikkonen felt they had the car to set pole in Singapore but did not execute in Q3 to deliver. Same thing happened in Japan in Q3. Ferrari failed to get the cars on the track before the rain started to fall and that was their session ruined.

Again, blaming the car for Ferrari's shortcomings last year is intentionally overlooking the obvious issue (mistakes and sloppiness).

[Siao7]

How much better do Ferrari need to be than Mercedes for Vettel to win the WDC? Ferrari already had the best car last year and made it to Mexico.

They had the best car maybe, but did go wrong with their development through the year. This is one of Merc's strong cards in my opinion, they are always good at developing through the year.

They just lost their way for 3 races.

And?

And after those races, they were back on top. The rational way to look at it would be to ask which of the two teams had the faster car more often. The answer to that is Ferrari. Even during the races where they struggled, it wasn't necessarily down to the car. It was more about their execution. For example, both Vettel and Raikkonen felt they had the car to set pole in Singapore but did not execute in Q3 to deliver. Same thing happened in Japan in Q3. Ferrari failed to get the cars on the track before the rain started to fall and that was their session ruined.

Again, blaming the car for Ferrari's shortcomings last year is intentionally overlooking the obvious issue (mistakes and sloppiness).

I did not mean it like that Sandman. What I meant "and?" was so what? They lost it for a few races, agreed, that's it. So why is Poker up in arms again? It really gets tiring. No one said it was the only reason they lost the season. They lost their way and made a lot of mistakes. On top of Hamilton performing really well.

[Zoue]

How much better do Ferrari need to be than Mercedes for Vettel to win the WDC? Ferrari already had the best car last year and made it to Mexico.

They had the best car maybe, but did go wrong with their development through the year. This is one of Merc's strong cards in my opinion, they are always good at developing through the year.

They just lost their way for 3 races.

And?

And after those races, they were back on top. The rational way to look at it would be to ask which of the two teams had the faster car more often. The answer to that is Ferrari. Even during the races where they struggled, it wasn't necessarily down to the car. It was more about their execution. For example, both Vettel and Raikkonen felt they had the car to set pole in Singapore but did not execute in Q3 to deliver. Same thing happened in Japan in Q3. Ferrari failed to get the cars on the track before the rain started to fall and that was their session ruined.

Again, blaming the car for Ferrari's shortcomings last year is intentionally overlooking the obvious issue (mistakes and sloppiness).

Saying they think they had the car to challenge isn't the same as saying they had the faster car, although I would agree with the sentiment that their execution left a lot to be desired

[sandman1347]

And after those races, they were back on top. The rational way to look at it would be to ask which of the two teams had the faster car more often. The answer to that is Ferrari. Even during the races where they struggled, it wasn't necessarily down to the car. It was more about their execution. For example, both Vettel and Raikkonen felt they had the car to set pole in Singapore but did not execute in Q3 to deliver. Same thing happened in Japan in Q3. Ferrari failed to get the cars on the track before the rain started to fall and that was their session ruined.

Again, blaming the car for Ferrari's shortcomings last year is intentionally overlooking the obvious issue (mistakes and sloppiness).

I did not mean it like that Sandman. What I meant "and?" was so what? They lost it for a few races, agreed, that's it. So why is Poker up in arms again? It really gets tiring. No one said it was the only reason they lost the season. They lost their way and made a lot of mistakes. On top of Hamilton performing really well.

Them losing their way had almost nothing to do with it. By that point, Hamilton had already built a commanding lead in the standings through a period of time where Ferrari came to each race with the fastest package. The single most significant factor in the WDC race last season was Hamilton's performance vs. Vettel's. It's amazing that you constantly hear people in the forums complain about drivers not determining the outcome of the championship most years and when we finally have a season where the drivers do determine the outcome, it's as if people want to make it seem like that wasn't the case...

[Siao7]

And after those races, they were back on top. The rational way to look at it would be to ask which of the two teams had the faster car more often. The answer to that is Ferrari. Even during the races where they struggled, it wasn't necessarily down to the car. It was more about their execution. For example, both Vettel and Raikkonen felt they had the car to set pole in Singapore but did not execute in Q3 to deliver. Same thing happened in Japan in Q3. Ferrari failed to get the cars on the track before the rain started to fall and that was their session ruined.

Again, blaming the car for Ferrari's shortcomings last year is intentionally overlooking the obvious issue (mistakes and sloppiness).

I did not mean it like that Sandman. What I meant "and?" was so what? They lost it for a few races, agreed, that's it. So why is Poker up in arms again? It really gets tiring. No one said it was the only reason they lost the season. They lost their way and made a lot of mistakes. On top of Hamilton performing really well.

Them losing their way had almost nothing to do with it. By that point, Hamilton had already built a commanding lead in the standings through a period of time where Ferrari came to each race with the fastest package. The single most significant factor in the WDC race last season was Hamilton's performance vs. Vettel's. It's amazing that you constantly hear people in the forums complain about drivers not determining the outcome of the championship most years and when we finally have a season where the drivers do determine the outcome, it's as if people want to make it seem like that wasn't the case...

Calm down, the biggest factor was the drivers, no one said the opposite; just not the only one. It was in reply to the first post saying that they made it to Mexico. Maybe without these races that they got it wrong they would have made it further. But it doesn't mean that they would have won, is this clear?

[sandman1347]

And after those races, they were back on top. The rational way to look at it would be to ask which of the two teams had the faster car more often. The answer to that is Ferrari. Even during the races where they struggled, it wasn't necessarily down to the car. It was more about their execution. For example, both Vettel and Raikkonen felt they had the car to set pole in Singapore but did not execute in Q3 to deliver. Same thing happened in Japan in Q3. Ferrari failed to get the cars on the track before the rain started to fall and that was their session ruined.

Again, blaming the car for Ferrari's shortcomings last year is intentionally overlooking the obvious issue (mistakes and sloppiness).

I did not mean it like that Sandman. What I meant "and?" was so what? They lost it for a few races, agreed, that's it. So why is Poker up in arms again? It really gets tiring. No one said it was the only reason they lost the season. They lost their way and made a lot of mistakes. On top of Hamilton performing really well.

Them losing their way had almost nothing to do with it. By that point, Hamilton had already built a commanding lead in the standings through a period of time where Ferrari came to each race with the fastest package. The single most significant factor in the WDC race last season was Hamilton's performance vs. Vettel's. It's amazing that you constantly hear people in the forums complain about drivers not determining the outcome of the championship most years and when we finally have a season where the drivers do determine the outcome, it's as if people want to make it seem like that wasn't the case...

Calm down, the biggest factor was the drivers, no one said the opposite; just not the only one. It was in reply to the first post saying that they made it to Mexico. Maybe without these races that they got it wrong they would have made it further. But it doesn't mean that they would have won, is this clear?

It's clear what you're saying but it is not particularly accurate. You would also have to factor in Mercedes really struggling severely with tires in Austin, Mexico and Brazil. So they had their own patch of being "lost" but just coped with it better by not compounding their struggles with mistakes. Ferrari were stronger than Mercedes in at least two of those three races in terms of just the car's performance but they made mistakes. Vettel's collision on lap one in Austin and his penalty with the weight bridge in Brazil really hurt them.

Surely there is no guarantee that Ferrari would have won without all of those mistakes but it is those mistakes that cost them the title and NOT the car's level of performance.

[Exediron]

Gary Anderson - whom I always take with a grain of salt, considering his incredible record for being wrong about pre-season testing - has his own opinion on the tyre deltas:

As always, I disagree with the tyre deltas suggested by Pirelli based on what I've seen this week, so have created my own based on what I've seen going on across all cars.

These are as listed below, showing the lap time gain for each step from hardest (C1) to softest (C5).

C1 to C2 - 0.6s
C2 to C3 - 0.5s
C3 to C4 - 0.5s
C4 to C5 - 0.3s

Sourced from an Autosport Plus article: https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/88 ... r-test-one

This is much more consistent with what we've usually seen from Pirelli tyres. They always overestimate the gap between tyres, particularly the gap between whatever their softest tyre is and the next one down.

[pokerman]

No I don't think so. The most that could be said would be that Vettel may have had to overdrive the car if he felt it was missing that final bit of speed, but even so that's still down to the driver making the best of it. I don't think the car can be blamed for the mistakes that were made, even if I don't share the view that it was the best car last year

Vettel and his team made a lot of mistakes and wrong strategy calls, there is no doubt about that. My point is that while some car can be quick, they can also be very difficult to setup and drive. I thought Ferrari was a bit like that last season and that it contributed a bit to Vettel poor form. It was said in 2014 for example that Red Bull made car that didn't suit Vettel for the first time in years and Vettel looked really terrible in that Red Bull. Some drivers are better in such a situations, but probably Vettel isn't. Also this is why such a news are good for Vettel and Ferrari: https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/47322639

Of course I'm not following F1 that closely anymore so I could be very wrong about last season.

The Mercedes was said to be difficult to drive hence it being called the diva, the Ferrari never got that tag line.

They called the 2017 car diva, not the 2018

Indeed but they still won, maybe he was getting confused with the Mercedes seeing how he said he's not be following F1 that closely?

[pokerman]

Honestly I’m not buying any of this Ferrari is faster than Merc crap. Come Q3 in Melbourne I am expecting Hamilton to put in a decent gap between him self and P2.

How much better do Ferrari need to be than Mercedes for Vettel to win the WDC? Ferrari already had the best car last year and made it to Mexico.

They had the best car maybe, but did go wrong with their development through the year. This is one of Merc's strong cards in my opinion, they are always good at developing through the year.

They just lost their way for 3 races.

And?

Through the year, just leave that open to interpretation and it could be like half the races perhaps?

[pokerman]

They had the best car maybe, but did go wrong with their development through the year. This is one of Merc's strong cards in my opinion, they are always good at developing through the year.

They just lost their way for 3 races.

And?

And after those races, they were back on top. The rational way to look at it would be to ask which of the two teams had the faster car more often. The answer to that is Ferrari. Even during the races where they struggled, it wasn't necessarily down to the car. It was more about their execution. For example, both Vettel and Raikkonen felt they had the car to set pole in Singapore but did not execute in Q3 to deliver. Same thing happened in Japan in Q3. Ferrari failed to get the cars on the track before the rain started to fall and that was their session ruined.

Again, blaming the car for Ferrari's shortcomings last year is intentionally overlooking the obvious issue (mistakes and sloppiness).

I did not mean it like that Sandman. What I meant "and?" was so what? They lost it for a few races, agreed, that's it. So why is Poker up in arms again? It really gets tiring. No one said it was the only reason they lost the season. They lost their way and made a lot of mistakes. On top of Hamilton performing really well.

You clearly said with development, they lost their way with development through the season, yes it does get tiring how things have to be about me.

[UnlikeUday]

Guys check this link where more information has been deciphered from the 1st test:
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... ju5rv.html