planetf1.com

stevey wrote:Has Ferrari adopted the short wheel base and high rake similar to Red Bull? This could be one of the avenues that isn't working out for them.

Mercs car has the lowest of all rake as well as the long wheel base and that is part of their design philosophy. I remember at the last test they tried a high rake, dont think they said anything else about whether it performed well for them or not?

Why would they do that though? All these years the short wheel base never worked, when they went for the long base last year they got better (along with the better PU).

So why would they shoot themselves in the foot?


Then again; Ferrari!!!!!!

Car Wheelbase [mm] Length[mm] Rake [°]
Red Bull RB15 3619 5654 1.93
Haas VF-19 3621 5656 1.59
Williams FW42 3644 5679 1.68
McLaren MCL34 3648 5683 1.67
Ferrari SF90 3653 5688 1.64
Racing Point RP19 3664 5699 2.04
Renault R.S.19 3672 5707 2.15
Toro Rosso STR15 3693 5728 2.00
Alfa Romeo C38 3697 5732 1.52
Mercedes F1 W10 3698 5733 1.16

stevey wrote:Car Wheelbase [mm] Length[mm] Rake [°]
Red Bull RB15 3619 5654 1.93
Haas VF-19 3621 5656 1.59
Williams FW42 3644 5679 1.68
McLaren MCL34 3648 5683 1.67
Ferrari SF90 3653 5688 1.64
Racing Point RP19 3664 5699 2.04
Renault R.S.19 3672 5707 2.15
Toro Rosso STR15 3693 5728 2.00
Alfa Romeo C38 3697 5732 1.52
Mercedes F1 W10 3698 5733 1.16

Very interesting.

stevey wrote:Car Wheelbase [mm] Length[mm] Rake [°]
Red Bull RB15 3619 5654 1.93
Haas VF-19 3621 5656 1.59
Williams FW42 3644 5679 1.68
McLaren MCL34 3648 5683 1.67
Ferrari SF90 3653 5688 1.64
Racing Point RP19 3664 5699 2.04
Renault R.S.19 3672 5707 2.15
Toro Rosso STR15 3693 5728 2.00
Alfa Romeo C38 3697 5732 1.52
Mercedes F1 W10 3698 5733 1.16

So I guess the answer to your question above is "no"!

so why the hell hasnt someone else gone with low rake. without checking, havent merc run lower rake since 2014? the others have followed newey, which in fairness isnt a bad way to go, but without blown diffusers lower rake seems to have worked better.

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:so why the hell hasnt someone else gone with low rake. without checking, havent merc run lower rake since 2014? the others have followed newey, which in fairness isnt a bad way to go, but without blown diffusers lower rake seems to have worked better.

They've followed the Red Bull route because generally they've looked to have the best car but just let down by the PU, however this year Mercedes seem to have the best car.

pokerman wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:so why the hell hasnt someone else gone with low rake. without checking, havent merc run lower rake since 2014? the others have followed newey, which in fairness isnt a bad way to go, but without blown diffusers lower rake seems to have worked better.

They've followed the Red Bull route because generally they've looked to have the best car but just let down by the PU, however this year Mercedes seem to have the best car.

Since 2014 RB look like having the best car? Something does not compute.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:so why the hell hasnt someone else gone with low rake. without checking, havent merc run lower rake since 2014? the others have followed newey, which in fairness isnt a bad way to go, but without blown diffusers lower rake seems to have worked better.

They've followed the Red Bull route because generally they've looked to have the best car but just let down by the PU, however this year Mercedes seem to have the best car.

Since 2014 RB look like having the best car? Something does not compute.

The Red Bull has always been looked on as having an excellent chassis, to be fair. When powered by Renault they always left any other Renault team in their dust and it has long been believed that it's only the PU which has held them back. I do recall a number of discussions where people felt the RB chassis was the class of the field, or at least deserved to be in the same discussion as e.g. the Merc.

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:so why the hell hasnt someone else gone with low rake. without checking, havent merc run lower rake since 2014? the others have followed newey, which in fairness isnt a bad way to go, but without blown diffusers lower rake seems to have worked better.

They've followed the Red Bull route because generally they've looked to have the best car but just let down by the PU, however this year Mercedes seem to have the best car.

Since 2014 RB look like having the best car? Something does not compute.

The Red Bull has always been looked on as having an excellent chassis, to be fair. When powered by Renault they always left any other Renault team in their dust and it has long been believed that it's only the PU which has held them back. I do recall a number of discussions where people felt the RB chassis was the class of the field, or at least deserved to be in the same discussion as e.g. the Merc.

This makes sense, however Poker talked about car, not chassis. The best car is the best combo of chassis and engine in my book. There's little point to fitting a Merc engine to a brick, or having a hamster running your RB! But I see your point and I fully agree. And it is impressive still, since Newey distanced himself for a while, didn't he?

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:so why the hell hasnt someone else gone with low rake. without checking, havent merc run lower rake since 2014? the others have followed newey, which in fairness isnt a bad way to go, but without blown diffusers lower rake seems to have worked better.

They've followed the Red Bull route because generally they've looked to have the best car but just let down by the PU, however this year Mercedes seem to have the best car.

Since 2014 RB look like having the best car? Something does not compute.

The Red Bull has always been looked on as having an excellent chassis, to be fair. When powered by Renault they always left any other Renault team in their dust and it has long been believed that it's only the PU which has held them back. I do recall a number of discussions where people felt the RB chassis was the class of the field, or at least deserved to be in the same discussion as e.g. the Merc.

This makes sense, however Poker talked about car, not chassis. The best car is the best combo of chassis and engine in my book. There's little point to fitting a Merc engine to a brick, or having a hamster running your RB! But I see your point and I fully agree. And it is impressive still, since Newey distanced himself for a while, didn't he?

well I agree that technically car is the whole package but to be fair I think Poker was referring to the chassis!

edit: and yes, I think Newey did take a bit of a step back but was still involved. I heard it being said at the last GP though that he was firmly back in the driving seat again!

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:so why the hell hasnt someone else gone with low rake. without checking, havent merc run lower rake since 2014? the others have followed newey, which in fairness isnt a bad way to go, but without blown diffusers lower rake seems to have worked better.

They've followed the Red Bull route because generally they've looked to have the best car but just let down by the PU, however this year Mercedes seem to have the best car.

Since 2014 RB look like having the best car? Something does not compute.

Car as in chassis.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:so why the hell hasnt someone else gone with low rake. without checking, havent merc run lower rake since 2014? the others have followed newey, which in fairness isnt a bad way to go, but without blown diffusers lower rake seems to have worked better.

They've followed the Red Bull route because generally they've looked to have the best car but just let down by the PU, however this year Mercedes seem to have the best car.

Since 2014 RB look like having the best car? Something does not compute.

Car as in chassis.

Yes, it's clear now

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:so why the hell hasnt someone else gone with low rake. without checking, havent merc run lower rake since 2014? the others have followed newey, which in fairness isnt a bad way to go, but without blown diffusers lower rake seems to have worked better.

They've followed the Red Bull route because generally they've looked to have the best car but just let down by the PU, however this year Mercedes seem to have the best car.

Since 2014 RB look like having the best car? Something does not compute.

Car as in chassis.

Yes, it's clear now

I know and thank you to those who cleared it up but you did ask me.

I think Mercs design philosophy is based on the car running at the front and when it doesn't the engine can compensate and drag them up.

RBR used to be like that, the first 2 laps of any race they would pull so much time on the rest of the field and then the pace would even out without them turning stuff down.

stevey wrote:I think Mercs design philosophy is based on the car running at the front and when it doesn't the engine can compensate and drag them up.

RBR used to be like that, the first 2 laps of any race they would pull so much time on the rest of the field and then the pace would even out without them turning stuff down.

The engine can compensate?

They have such a great engine and chassis combo but when not out in front and sat in dirty air where the aero is less functional they can still keep the pace and pressure the car infront.

stevey wrote:They have such a great engine and chassis combo but when not out in front and sat in dirty air where the aero is less functional they can still keep the pace and pressure the car infront.

I fail to see why that's a function of the engine?

What I was originally trying to say is that their car design philosophy is for the car to be in clear air, obviously all cars are designed this way but some of the teams likely realize they will spend the majority of the races sat in dirty air so may change their design philosophy to allow for better following of a car - this may negatively impact the actual pace of the car overall as usually you may look to increase downforce to a level you wouldn't usually if you were sat in clean air.

An example of this was in the early merc seasons before the hybrid era where the merc car was designed to be super fast in quali and scored high consistently but dropped back every single race as race pace was compromised on the car for the advantage in quali (in some instances track position is king). They had great straight line speed for a one off but in races it chewed tyres and was greatly effected by being in dirty air.

When the car is out at the front in clear air a large combination of factors come into play that allow the merc package to pull away from the field (aero, engine, mechanical grip, unique fuel, custom engine modes not available to merc customers, tyre use, clutch etc.....). But when in traffic it is still a combination of all those factors but the level of aero takes a hit and having a beast of an engine along with the other things make the difference. It was a bit of over simplification on my part.

I couldn't imagine a Renault engine in a merc chassis would yield the same result, do you?? but I can imagine the merc team engine in a RBR would pump them up the field.

stevey wrote:What I was originally trying to say is that their car design philosophy is for the car to be in clear air, obviously all cars are designed this way but some of the teams likely realize they will spend the majority of the races sat in dirty air so may change their design philosophy to allow for better following of a car - this may negatively impact the actual pace of the car overall as usually you may look to increase downforce to a level you wouldn't usually if you were sat in clean air.

An example of this was in the early merc seasons before the hybrid era where the merc car was designed to be super fast in quali and scored high consistently but dropped back every single race as race pace was compromised on the car for the advantage in quali (in some instances track position is king). They had great straight line speed for a one off but in races it chewed tyres and was greatly effected by being in dirty air.

When the car is out at the front in clear air a large combination of factors come into play that allow the merc package to pull away from the field (aero, engine, mechanical grip, unique fuel, custom engine modes not available to merc customers, tyre use, clutch etc.....). But when in traffic it is still a combination of all those factors but the level of aero takes a hit and having a beast of an engine along with the other things make the difference. It was a bit of over simplification on my part.

I couldn't imagine a Renault engine in a merc chassis would yield the same result, do you?? but I can imagine the merc team engine in a RBR would pump them up the field.

Thanks for going into detail although the Mercs pre hybrid chewed up their tyres whether in clean air or not.

The early Merc hybrids were known for being weak when following other cars, I'm not so sure about the Merc today being any worse in the respect?

Back to the engine, beast of an engine is as I thought what you were implying, the engine is no better than the Ferrari engine.

I'm concluding after Barcelona that Ferrari have messed up this year and their bold aero concept is fundamentally flawed. If anyone's going to challenge Mercedes at any point this year, I feel Verstappen is more likely if Honda continue to make improvements.

j man wrote:I'm concluding after Barcelona that Ferrari have messed up this year and their bold aero concept is fundamentally flawed. If anyone's going to challenge Mercedes at any point this year, I feel Verstappen is more likely if Honda continue to make improvements.

Well yeah, they have admitted it now

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:What I was originally trying to say is that their car design philosophy is for the car to be in clear air, obviously all cars are designed this way but some of the teams likely realize they will spend the majority of the races sat in dirty air so may change their design philosophy to allow for better following of a car - this may negatively impact the actual pace of the car overall as usually you may look to increase downforce to a level you wouldn't usually if you were sat in clean air.

An example of this was in the early merc seasons before the hybrid era where the merc car was designed to be super fast in quali and scored high consistently but dropped back every single race as race pace was compromised on the car for the advantage in quali (in some instances track position is king). They had great straight line speed for a one off but in races it chewed tyres and was greatly effected by being in dirty air.

When the car is out at the front in clear air a large combination of factors come into play that allow the merc package to pull away from the field (aero, engine, mechanical grip, unique fuel, custom engine modes not available to merc customers, tyre use, clutch etc.....). But when in traffic it is still a combination of all those factors but the level of aero takes a hit and having a beast of an engine along with the other things make the difference. It was a bit of over simplification on my part.

I couldn't imagine a Renault engine in a merc chassis would yield the same result, do you?? but I can imagine the merc team engine in a RBR would pump them up the field.

Thanks for going into detail although the Mercs pre hybrid chewed up their tyres whether in clean air or not.

The early Merc hybrids were known for being weak when following other cars, I'm not so sure about the Merc today being any worse in the respect?

Back to the engine, beast of an engine is as I thought what you were implying, the engine is no better than the Ferrari engine.

No mate quite the opposite, the engine in the merc is the best in the field.

I don't think you can chalk up the current success that Mercedes seem to be having down to their engine now though. Their cornering speed is now amazing

The previous conversation was based on the whole package and also pointed out that having a great engine helps when stuck in dirty air and aero becomes less effective.

stevey wrote:The previous conversation was based on the whole package and also pointed out that having a great engine helps when stuck in dirty air and aero becomes less effective.

That'll teach me for not following all the posts!

Though I do think saying the engine is the biggest reason for the success a bit undermining to their efforts. I'd agree in 14/15 and 16 but 17/18 was less on power and more having a very good car. I think that's the same for this year too.

Just from Memory I think there are more Honda and Ferrari powered cars in the top 10 the last few races than there are Mercedes.

Just for clarity, I am not saying you're saying their success is down to their engine. Hope my posts haven't come across that way

stevey wrote:

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:What I was originally trying to say is that their car design philosophy is for the car to be in clear air, obviously all cars are designed this way but some of the teams likely realize they will spend the majority of the races sat in dirty air so may change their design philosophy to allow for better following of a car - this may negatively impact the actual pace of the car overall as usually you may look to increase downforce to a level you wouldn't usually if you were sat in clean air.

An example of this was in the early merc seasons before the hybrid era where the merc car was designed to be super fast in quali and scored high consistently but dropped back every single race as race pace was compromised on the car for the advantage in quali (in some instances track position is king). They had great straight line speed for a one off but in races it chewed tyres and was greatly effected by being in dirty air.

When the car is out at the front in clear air a large combination of factors come into play that allow the merc package to pull away from the field (aero, engine, mechanical grip, unique fuel, custom engine modes not available to merc customers, tyre use, clutch etc.....). But when in traffic it is still a combination of all those factors but the level of aero takes a hit and having a beast of an engine along with the other things make the difference. It was a bit of over simplification on my part.

I couldn't imagine a Renault engine in a merc chassis would yield the same result, do you?? but I can imagine the merc team engine in a RBR would pump them up the field.

Thanks for going into detail although the Mercs pre hybrid chewed up their tyres whether in clean air or not.

The early Merc hybrids were known for being weak when following other cars, I'm not so sure about the Merc today being any worse in the respect?

Back to the engine, beast of an engine is as I thought what you were implying, the engine is no better than the Ferrari engine.

No mate quite the opposite, the engine in the merc is the best in the field.

Says who exactly it's not been the best since last year.

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:No mate quite the opposite, the engine in the merc is the best in the field.

Says who exactly it's not been the best since last year.

Yeah, the 'Mercedes engine advantage' talk just won't die, but in reality that hasn't been the source of their dominance/victory since 2016 IMO. Ferrari were already on par in 2017, and probably ahead in 2018.

A good way to chart the engine dominance is to look at the customers. From 2014 to present, it's quite noticeable that the Mercedes customer teams followed a downward trajectory while the Ferrari customers went up. With rules in place to severely limit the ability of manufacturers to supply a differing spec of engine, that's as good a barometer of engine strength as you'll find.

Engine performance is exaggerated. Supposedly Ferrari making half a second on Mercedes ? But still Mercedes are dominating. Mercedes not only have engine and party modes. They have the best car as well since 2014. If it rains they still have an advantage. Max performance last year was pretty average and same goes for Vettel and they are suppose to be top drivers in wets.

IMO if Ferrari do have considerable advantage in terms of power in qualifying. They simply have to get 1st row locked out in Canada and then they can try to control the race. In Monaco I think they will fighting RBR unless someone else does a great lap in qualifying. Mercedes should be 1-2

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:No mate quite the opposite, the engine in the merc is the best in the field.

Says who exactly it's not been the best since last year.

Yeah, the 'Mercedes engine advantage' talk just won't die, but in reality that hasn't been the source of their dominance/victory since 2016 IMO. Ferrari were already on par in 2017, and probably ahead in 2018.

A good way to chart the engine dominance is to look at the customers. From 2014 to present, it's quite noticeable that the Mercedes customer teams followed a downward trajectory while the Ferrari customers went up. With rules in place to severely limit the ability of manufacturers to supply a differing spec of engine, that's as good a barometer of engine strength as you'll find.

As long as Mercedes keep winning people will keep singing that same tune. Even if they win because Ferrari bottle it and even if they are 5 kph slower on straights you will still hear talk of dominance stemming from the engine. Someone will have to beat them to the title for this narrative to end. That's how people's brains work.

sandman1347 wrote:

Exediron wrote:Yeah, the 'Mercedes engine advantage' talk just won't die, but in reality that hasn't been the source of their dominance/victory since 2016 IMO. Ferrari were already on par in 2017, and probably ahead in 2018.

A good way to chart the engine dominance is to look at the customers. From 2014 to present, it's quite noticeable that the Mercedes customer teams followed a downward trajectory while the Ferrari customers went up. With rules in place to severely limit the ability of manufacturers to supply a differing spec of engine, that's as good a barometer of engine strength as you'll find.

As long as Mercedes keep winning; people will keep singing that same tune. Even if they win because Ferrari bottle it and even if they are 5 kph slower on straights you will still hear talk of dominance stemming from the engine. Someone will have to beat them to the title for this narrative to end. That's how people's brains work.

I don't really get that, though. I'm far from a Mercedes fan - in fact, I want them to stop winning as soon as possible, and I'd be happy if they never win again. But that doesn't make me delusional about the strength of their performance.

I suppose it's the same as people who instantly blame the refs whenever their team loses, and can't look at it objectively enough to realize their team just didn't play well enough to win. There seems to be a global issue with people facing up to unwelcome facts in the current day.

having the best engine isn't simply the most powerful engine, you got reliability to take into account, you also have to look at how the engine delivers its power.

Any factory team could produce an engine that is more powerful than the merc engine but doesnt have the reliability or any of the other stuff.

To discount that engine from their success is naive, as previously mentioned putting the renault/honda engine in this chassis - they wouldn't be at the front. With Ferrari's maybe but they'd be suffering from some of the same problems also.

its very easy for the marketing teams to simply say Ferrari puts out more Horse power and show the top speed of each team on the straight and the fact that merc isn't at the top makes people think the engine is actually behind the others or equal to them but those stats dont show the whole picture. It would be a marketing nightmare for F1 if they came out saying merc have the best chassis and engine. All the general fans would be whats the point in watching - which is happening now.

sandman1347 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:No mate quite the opposite, the engine in the merc is the best in the field.

Says who exactly it's not been the best since last year.

Yeah, the 'Mercedes engine advantage' talk just won't die, but in reality that hasn't been the source of their dominance/victory since 2016 IMO. Ferrari were already on par in 2017, and probably ahead in 2018.

A good way to chart the engine dominance is to look at the customers. From 2014 to present, it's quite noticeable that the Mercedes customer teams followed a downward trajectory while the Ferrari customers went up. With rules in place to severely limit the ability of manufacturers to supply a differing spec of engine, that's as good a barometer of engine strength as you'll find.

As long as Mercedes keep winning people will keep singing that same tune. Even if they win because Ferrari bottle it and even if they are 5 kph slower on straights you will still hear talk of dominance stemming from the engine. Someone will have to beat them to the title for this narrative to end. That's how people's brains work.

That's true, people do get stuck, you can see it in here, so imagine the casual viewers!

But equally, a stronger engine never guaranteed wins in the modern era, nor being faster in the straight. It's the twisty parts that always made up for the best laps and there's no better example than RB or Mercedes currently, or even Benetton in the mid 90's, Ferrari in the late 90's, etc. So I find it equally misleading people tooting Ferrari being the best engined car because they get a few more ponies. It does not guarantee anything if they get the aero and balance wrong, let alone the reliability. The other Ferrari teams do not fair much better either in the F1.5 category, they are mid-pack.

Overall Merc is winning because they have an ace driver, his team mate that so far has upped his game from the last few years, they have an engine that's not far off from the top in BHP and very reliable, one of the most aero-balanced cars and a team that runs like a well oiled Swiss watch. I do not buy into excuses from the Ferrari team, apart from getting their aero-wrong, that is well recorded now. As Vettel said, their car is good, they just can't extract everything from it; no excuses really.

It may be too late to change the aero philosophy of the car now, but I'm praying that maybe they can work with what they have a bit better. For the good of the show!

Mercedes-Benz wrote:Engine performance is exaggerated. Supposedly Ferrari making half a second on Mercedes ? But still Mercedes are dominating. Mercedes not only have engine and party modes. They have the best car as well since 2014. If it rains they still have an advantage. Max performance last year was pretty average and same goes for Vettel and they are suppose to be top drivers in wets.

IMO if Ferrari do have considerable advantage in terms of power in qualifying. They simply have to get 1st row locked out in Canada and then they can try to control the race. In Monaco I think they will fighting RBR unless someone else does a great lap in qualifying. Mercedes should be 1-2

IMO, Ferrari & Mercedes were equally matched in 2018 (Ferrari probably just edging it). But i want to comment about the Mercedes having an advantage in the rain. How do we know this? How do we know it wasn't a case of the Ferrrari drivers underperforming? Perhaps the driver was the difference maker? For instance, in Hungary 2018, Räikkönen performed well, while Vettel struggled. Räikkönen was quickest on his first set of wets in Q3. But unfortunately, when on a fresher set towards the end of Q3, Ferrari sent him out behind traffic, in the spray of other cars, which impeded his lap. But, he's convinced the car was capable of challenging for pole.

"Overall this weekend the car has been really good in any conditions. In qualifying it was a bit tricky, but I enjoyed driving it a lot. The speed was there and the car was working well in wet conditions. In Q3 with used tyres we were fastest of all, but with the new set we were a bit unlucky with the traffic; we got stuck a bit behind another car and with all the spray we could not have a clear lap. There was nothing we could do, as we were limited on time. It’s a pity because there was a lot of grip on the new tyres: I’m sure we had the speed and everything else to get pole, but we have to be positively happy that now we can actually challenge for the front in wet conditions.” (Räikkönen)

If there was an inherent problem with the SF71H in the rain, then surely both Ferrari drivers would have struggled?

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:No mate quite the opposite, the engine in the merc is the best in the field.

Says who exactly it's not been the best since last year.

Yeah, the 'Mercedes engine advantage' talk just won't die, but in reality that hasn't been the source of their dominance/victory since 2016 IMO. Ferrari were already on par in 2017, and probably ahead in 2018.

A good way to chart the engine dominance is to look at the customers. From 2014 to present, it's quite noticeable that the Mercedes customer teams followed a downward trajectory while the Ferrari customers went up. With rules in place to severely limit the ability of manufacturers to supply a differing spec of engine, that's as good a barometer of engine strength as you'll find.

As long as Mercedes keep winning people will keep singing that same tune. Even if they win because Ferrari bottle it and even if they are 5 kph slower on straights you will still hear talk of dominance stemming from the engine. Someone will have to beat them to the title for this narrative to end. That's how people's brains work.

That's true, people do get stuck, you can see it in here, so imagine the casual viewers!

But equally, a stronger engine never guaranteed wins in the modern era, nor being faster in the straight. It's the twisty parts that always made up for the best laps and there's no better example than RB or Mercedes currently, or even Benetton in the mid 90's, Ferrari in the late 90's, etc. So I find it equally misleading people tooting Ferrari being the best engined car because they get a few more ponies. It does not guarantee anything if they get the aero and balance wrong, let alone the reliability. The other Ferrari teams do not fair much better either in the F1.5 category, they are mid-pack.

Overall Merc is winning because they have an ace driver, his team mate that so far has upped his game from the last few years, they have an engine that's not far off from the top in BHP and very reliable, one of the most aero-balanced cars and a team that runs like a well oiled Swiss watch. I do not buy into excuses from the Ferrari team, apart from getting their aero-wrong, that is well recorded now. As Vettel said, their car is good, they just can't extract everything from it; no excuses really.

It may be too late to change the aero philosophy of the car now, but I'm praying that maybe they can work with what they have a bit better. For the good of the show!

I agree with you for the most part but I have to take exception with your characterization of the customer team battle. Ferrari's customers have surged to the fore since the beginning of 2018. When you look at Mercedes period of dominance (2014-2016), their customers were always the strongest. In those days, Williams and FI were the fastest customer teams (besides RBR). Lately Haas has been MUCH faster than them and Fiat/Sauber have also made a massive surge forward up the grid. Simultaneously Williams and FI/RP have fallen off.

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Says who exactly it's not been the best since last year.

Yeah, the 'Mercedes engine advantage' talk just won't die, but in reality that hasn't been the source of their dominance/victory since 2016 IMO. Ferrari were already on par in 2017, and probably ahead in 2018.

A good way to chart the engine dominance is to look at the customers. From 2014 to present, it's quite noticeable that the Mercedes customer teams followed a downward trajectory while the Ferrari customers went up. With rules in place to severely limit the ability of manufacturers to supply a differing spec of engine, that's as good a barometer of engine strength as you'll find.

As long as Mercedes keep winning people will keep singing that same tune. Even if they win because Ferrari bottle it and even if they are 5 kph slower on straights you will still hear talk of dominance stemming from the engine. Someone will have to beat them to the title for this narrative to end. That's how people's brains work.

That's true, people do get stuck, you can see it in here, so imagine the casual viewers!

But equally, a stronger engine never guaranteed wins in the modern era, nor being faster in the straight. It's the twisty parts that always made up for the best laps and there's no better example than RB or Mercedes currently, or even Benetton in the mid 90's, Ferrari in the late 90's, etc. So I find it equally misleading people tooting Ferrari being the best engined car because they get a few more ponies. It does not guarantee anything if they get the aero and balance wrong, let alone the reliability. The other Ferrari teams do not fair much better either in the F1.5 category, they are mid-pack.

Overall Merc is winning because they have an ace driver, his team mate that so far has upped his game from the last few years, they have an engine that's not far off from the top in BHP and very reliable, one of the most aero-balanced cars and a team that runs like a well oiled Swiss watch. I do not buy into excuses from the Ferrari team, apart from getting their aero-wrong, that is well recorded now. As Vettel said, their car is good, they just can't extract everything from it; no excuses really.

It may be too late to change the aero philosophy of the car now, but I'm praying that maybe they can work with what they have a bit better. For the good of the show!

I agree with you for the most part but I have to take exception with your characterization of the customer team battle. Ferrari's customers have surged to the fore since the beginning of 2018. When you look at Mercedes period of dominance (2014-2016), their customers were always the strongest. In those days, Williams and FI were the fastest customer teams (besides RBR). Lately Haas has been MUCH faster than them and Fiat/Sauber have also made a massive surge forward up the grid. Simultaneously Williams and FI/RP have fallen off.

RP only fell off last race (and yet are 5th). But there again so did Alfa. In the Constructor's a Renault-powered car is beating all of them (in the midfield, I mean) and I doubt anyone would say that the Renault is a better engine than either the Merc or the Ferrari. Williams have just produced a rubbish car (again) and can't be held up as an example of anything other than how terrible they are.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: That's true, people do get stuck, you can see it in here, so imagine the casual viewers!

But equally, a stronger engine never guaranteed wins in the modern era, nor being faster in the straight. It's the twisty parts that always made up for the best laps and there's no better example than RB or Mercedes currently, or even Benetton in the mid 90's, Ferrari in the late 90's, etc. So I find it equally misleading people tooting Ferrari being the best engined car because they get a few more ponies. It does not guarantee anything if they get the aero and balance wrong, let alone the reliability. The other Ferrari teams do not fair much better either in the F1.5 category, they are mid-pack.

Overall Merc is winning because they have an ace driver, his team mate that so far has upped his game from the last few years, they have an engine that's not far off from the top in BHP and very reliable, one of the most aero-balanced cars and a team that runs like a well oiled Swiss watch. I do not buy into excuses from the Ferrari team, apart from getting their aero-wrong, that is well recorded now. As Vettel said, their car is good, they just can't extract everything from it; no excuses really.

It may be too late to change the aero philosophy of the car now, but I'm praying that maybe they can work with what they have a bit better. For the good of the show!

I agree with you for the most part but I have to take exception with your characterization of the customer team battle. Ferrari's customers have surged to the fore since the beginning of 2018. When you look at Mercedes period of dominance (2014-2016), their customers were always the strongest. In those days, Williams and FI were the fastest customer teams (besides RBR). Lately Haas has been MUCH faster than them and Fiat/Sauber have also made a massive surge forward up the grid. Simultaneously Williams and FI/RP have fallen off.

RP only fell off last race (and yet are 5th). But there again so did Alfa. In the Constructor's a Renault-powered car is beating all of them (in the midfield, I mean) and I doubt anyone would say that the Renault is a better engine than either the Merc or the Ferrari. Williams have just produced a rubbish car (again) and can't be held up as an example of anything other than how terrible they are.

That Renault-powered car is in a team that has a budget more than double that of the other teams we're discussing. Comparing McLaren to Haas or Force India is like comparing apples to oranges.

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: That's true, people do get stuck, you can see it in here, so imagine the casual viewers!

But equally, a stronger engine never guaranteed wins in the modern era, nor being faster in the straight. It's the twisty parts that always made up for the best laps and there's no better example than RB or Mercedes currently, or even Benetton in the mid 90's, Ferrari in the late 90's, etc. So I find it equally misleading people tooting Ferrari being the best engined car because they get a few more ponies. It does not guarantee anything if they get the aero and balance wrong, let alone the reliability. The other Ferrari teams do not fair much better either in the F1.5 category, they are mid-pack.

Overall Merc is winning because they have an ace driver, his team mate that so far has upped his game from the last few years, they have an engine that's not far off from the top in BHP and very reliable, one of the most aero-balanced cars and a team that runs like a well oiled Swiss watch. I do not buy into excuses from the Ferrari team, apart from getting their aero-wrong, that is well recorded now. As Vettel said, their car is good, they just can't extract everything from it; no excuses really.

It may be too late to change the aero philosophy of the car now, but I'm praying that maybe they can work with what they have a bit better. For the good of the show!

I agree with you for the most part but I have to take exception with your characterization of the customer team battle. Ferrari's customers have surged to the fore since the beginning of 2018. When you look at Mercedes period of dominance (2014-2016), their customers were always the strongest. In those days, Williams and FI were the fastest customer teams (besides RBR). Lately Haas has been MUCH faster than them and Fiat/Sauber have also made a massive surge forward up the grid. Simultaneously Williams and FI/RP have fallen off.

RP only fell off last race (and yet are 5th). But there again so did Alfa. In the Constructor's a Renault-powered car is beating all of them (in the midfield, I mean) and I doubt anyone would say that the Renault is a better engine than either the Merc or the Ferrari. Williams have just produced a rubbish car (again) and can't be held up as an example of anything other than how terrible they are.

That Renault-powered car is in a team that has a budget more than double that of the other teams we're discussing. Comparing McLaren to Haas or Force India is like comparing apples to oranges.

There again Haas gets a lot of help from Ferrari so comparing them to others could be an apple/orange scenario, too.

But if we're going down the exclusion route then RP is the top team in the Constructors for the midfield, and they have a Merc engine.


But ultimately I don't think you can glean too much from the midfield as far as engines go. Once you start having to go down the caveat route then it becomes progressively more subjective.

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote: Says who exactly it's not been the best since last year.

Yeah, the 'Mercedes engine advantage' talk just won't die, but in reality that hasn't been the source of their dominance/victory since 2016 IMO. Ferrari were already on par in 2017, and probably ahead in 2018.

A good way to chart the engine dominance is to look at the customers. From 2014 to present, it's quite noticeable that the Mercedes customer teams followed a downward trajectory while the Ferrari customers went up. With rules in place to severely limit the ability of manufacturers to supply a differing spec of engine, that's as good a barometer of engine strength as you'll find.

As long as Mercedes keep winning people will keep singing that same tune. Even if they win because Ferrari bottle it and even if they are 5 kph slower on straights you will still hear talk of dominance stemming from the engine. Someone will have to beat them to the title for this narrative to end. That's how people's brains work.

That's true, people do get stuck, you can see it in here, so imagine the casual viewers!

But equally, a stronger engine never guaranteed wins in the modern era, nor being faster in the straight. It's the twisty parts that always made up for the best laps and there's no better example than RB or Mercedes currently, or even Benetton in the mid 90's, Ferrari in the late 90's, etc. So I find it equally misleading people tooting Ferrari being the best engined car because they get a few more ponies. It does not guarantee anything if they get the aero and balance wrong, let alone the reliability. The other Ferrari teams do not fair much better either in the F1.5 category, they are mid-pack.

Overall Merc is winning because they have an ace driver, his team mate that so far has upped his game from the last few years, they have an engine that's not far off from the top in BHP and very reliable, one of the most aero-balanced cars and a team that runs like a well oiled Swiss watch. I do not buy into excuses from the Ferrari team, apart from getting their aero-wrong, that is well recorded now. As Vettel said, their car is good, they just can't extract everything from it; no excuses really.

It may be too late to change the aero philosophy of the car now, but I'm praying that maybe they can work with what they have a bit better. For the good of the show!

I agree with you for the most part but I have to take exception with your characterization of the customer team battle. Ferrari's customers have surged to the fore since the beginning of 2018. When you look at Mercedes period of dominance (2014-2016), their customers were always the strongest. In those days, Williams and FI were the fastest customer teams (besides RBR). Lately Haas has been MUCH faster than them and Fiat/Sauber have also made a massive surge forward up the grid. Simultaneously Williams and FI/RP have fallen off.

Well I'm talking about this year, and this year so far FI/RP are ahead of the Ferrari-engined duo in the points despite having Stroll (who's no Ocon), as well as the Macca Renault powered car, although it is very tight points-wise compared to last year. Both Haas and Alfa Romeo have less points compared to last year (comparing Alfa with Sauber obviously). So I'm not sure if they have made a leap forward this year. On the track they seem ok, but not as good as Haas looked last year.

As for Williams, well they are a disaster, they are dead last because they have the worst car, driver combo and pretty much everything else. They are shambles this year, they have one of the best/most reliable engines on the grid and it is tied on a donkey of a car, we can't seriously compare them to anything really.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: That's true, people do get stuck, you can see it in here, so imagine the casual viewers!

But equally, a stronger engine never guaranteed wins in the modern era, nor being faster in the straight. It's the twisty parts that always made up for the best laps and there's no better example than RB or Mercedes currently, or even Benetton in the mid 90's, Ferrari in the late 90's, etc. So I find it equally misleading people tooting Ferrari being the best engined car because they get a few more ponies. It does not guarantee anything if they get the aero and balance wrong, let alone the reliability. The other Ferrari teams do not fair much better either in the F1.5 category, they are mid-pack.

Overall Merc is winning because they have an ace driver, his team mate that so far has upped his game from the last few years, they have an engine that's not far off from the top in BHP and very reliable, one of the most aero-balanced cars and a team that runs like a well oiled Swiss watch. I do not buy into excuses from the Ferrari team, apart from getting their aero-wrong, that is well recorded now. As Vettel said, their car is good, they just can't extract everything from it; no excuses really.

It may be too late to change the aero philosophy of the car now, but I'm praying that maybe they can work with what they have a bit better. For the good of the show!

I agree with you for the most part but I have to take exception with your characterization of the customer team battle. Ferrari's customers have surged to the fore since the beginning of 2018. When you look at Mercedes period of dominance (2014-2016), their customers were always the strongest. In those days, Williams and FI were the fastest customer teams (besides RBR). Lately Haas has been MUCH faster than them and Fiat/Sauber have also made a massive surge forward up the grid. Simultaneously Williams and FI/RP have fallen off.

RP only fell off last race (and yet are 5th). But there again so did Alfa. In the Constructor's a Renault-powered car is beating all of them (in the midfield, I mean) and I doubt anyone would say that the Renault is a better engine than either the Merc or the Ferrari. Williams have just produced a rubbish car (again) and can't be held up as an example of anything other than how terrible they are.

That Renault-powered car is in a team that has a budget more than double that of the other teams we're discussing. Comparing McLaren to Haas or Force India is like comparing apples to oranges.

There again Haas gets a lot of help from Ferrari so comparing them to others could be an apple/orange scenario, too.

But if we're going down the exclusion route then RP is the top team in the Constructors for the midfield, and they have a Merc engine.


But ultimately I don't think you can glean too much from the midfield as far as engines go. Once you start having to go down the caveat route then it becomes progressively more subjective.

RP's strength relative to the rest of the midfield has always been their drivers. Since 2018, they have not had the better car than Haas despite being competitive with them in the standings. Sergio Perez is truly the premiere midfield driver in F1 these last few years when it comes to consistently scoring points and occasionally poaching an amazing result. The "help" Haas receives from Ferrari did not begin in 2018. They've had it throughout their entire existence.

Even if you only look at the main factory teams; it's obvious that the straight line performance dynamic between Mercedes and Ferrari changed dramatically last year. It went from Mercedes being consistently faster to Ferrari being consistently faster.

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: That's true, people do get stuck, you can see it in here, so imagine the casual viewers!

But equally, a stronger engine never guaranteed wins in the modern era, nor being faster in the straight. It's the twisty parts that always made up for the best laps and there's no better example than RB or Mercedes currently, or even Benetton in the mid 90's, Ferrari in the late 90's, etc. So I find it equally misleading people tooting Ferrari being the best engined car because they get a few more ponies. It does not guarantee anything if they get the aero and balance wrong, let alone the reliability. The other Ferrari teams do not fair much better either in the F1.5 category, they are mid-pack.

Overall Merc is winning because they have an ace driver, his team mate that so far has upped his game from the last few years, they have an engine that's not far off from the top in BHP and very reliable, one of the most aero-balanced cars and a team that runs like a well oiled Swiss watch. I do not buy into excuses from the Ferrari team, apart from getting their aero-wrong, that is well recorded now. As Vettel said, their car is good, they just can't extract everything from it; no excuses really.

It may be too late to change the aero philosophy of the car now, but I'm praying that maybe they can work with what they have a bit better. For the good of the show!

I agree with you for the most part but I have to take exception with your characterization of the customer team battle. Ferrari's customers have surged to the fore since the beginning of 2018. When you look at Mercedes period of dominance (2014-2016), their customers were always the strongest. In those days, Williams and FI were the fastest customer teams (besides RBR). Lately Haas has been MUCH faster than them and Fiat/Sauber have also made a massive surge forward up the grid. Simultaneously Williams and FI/RP have fallen off.

Well I'm talking about this year, and this year so far FI/RP are ahead of the Ferrari-engined duo in the points despite having Stroll (who's no Ocon), as well as the Macca Renault powered car, although it is very tight points-wise compared to last year. Both Haas and Alfa Romeo have less points compared to last year (comparing Alfa with Sauber obviously). So I'm not sure if they have made a leap forward this year. On the track they seem ok, but not as good as Haas looked last year.

As for Williams, well they are a disaster, they are dead last because they have the worst car, driver combo and pretty much everything else. They are shambles this year, they have one of the best/most reliable engines on the grid and it is tied on a donkey of a car, we can't seriously compare them to anything really.

Points don't necessarily tell you the whole story though; do they. I'd say the Haas has clearly been the faster car and the Alfa has been fairly competitive too. If you see it as:

Ferrari: A-Ferrari, B-Haas, C-Alfa
Mercedes: A-Mercedes, B-RP, C-Williams

It's pretty clear that the Ferrari-powered teams have the straight line performance edge at every level.