Official 2019 Azerbaijan Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Discussion
glazbagun said:
rdjohn said:
jm doc said:
How did the front runners lose two seconds to Bottas under the VSC?
This is interesting - basically, it seems it’s something Bottas has been working on.https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/lewis-hamilton-...
ajprice said:
Vettel, who won 4 titles in a row at Red Bull, says that Mercedes winning everything is boring 
"Boring, isn't it?" Vettel said. "So boring. It's not just four races. It has been four years, more or less."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48093928
Yes its an Andrew Benson article, and Vettel might have been making a joke of it.
If you care about objectivity, Hamilton said exactly the same thing back when RBR/Vettel were dominant "Boring, isn't it?" Vettel said. "So boring. It's not just four races. It has been four years, more or less."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48093928
Yes its an Andrew Benson article, and Vettel might have been making a joke of it.
Edited by ajprice on Monday 29th April 13:26
cuprabob said:
Deesee said:
Max caused the undercut, Ferrari were concerned about track position? Merc pulled lewis in for a second stop onto the softs.
Lewis took 4 seconds off CLC and got the gap to 6 before CLC hit trouble.
For sure they (Ferrari) have pace in patches of the race, Narrow tyre operating window/ ICE too thirsty? Just not overall Race Pace, otherwise they would not be covering off the Red Bulls.
Vettel did make reference to the narrow tyre operating window in his post race interviewBarcelonLewis took 4 seconds off CLC and got the gap to 6 before CLC hit trouble.
For sure they (Ferrari) have pace in patches of the race, Narrow tyre operating window/ ICE too thirsty? Just not overall Race Pace, otherwise they would not be covering off the Red Bulls.
That's my view, I respect others disagree. I see that Ferrari are technically apparently faster, briefly, sometimes. But in racing terms they're not 'solidly' faster until they maintain a speed advantage over Mercedes for an entire race, without excessive tyre deg or mechanical issues.
It's almost impossible for any team to be fastest at all times throughout a race. Differing tyre schedules and degredation, fuel and drivetrain saving at various points in the race mean almost any team from the midfield onwards could be fastest at any one point.
In Bahrain Ferrari had a 0.9 advantage in FP1, 0.6 in FP2, 0.7 in FP3 and 0.3 in Q3. In the race CLC had both the fastest lap and, before his untimely technical failure, around 10 seconds of lead that Hamilton was doing nothing about.
I can't think of a more clear-cut example of one car having more pace than another, than it being fastest in every session and leading the race by 10 seconds. If anyone can think of a more 'solid' definition, answers on a postcard.
In Bahrain Ferrari had a 0.9 advantage in FP1, 0.6 in FP2, 0.7 in FP3 and 0.3 in Q3. In the race CLC had both the fastest lap and, before his untimely technical failure, around 10 seconds of lead that Hamilton was doing nothing about.
I can't think of a more clear-cut example of one car having more pace than another, than it being fastest in every session and leading the race by 10 seconds. If anyone can think of a more 'solid' definition, answers on a postcard.
janesmith1950 said:
It's almost impossible for any team to be fastest at all times throughout a race. Differing tyre schedules and degredation, fuel and drivetrain saving at various points in the race mean almost any team from the midfield onwards could be fastest at any one point.
In Bahrain Ferrari had a 0.9 advantage in FP1, 0.6 in FP2, 0.7 in FP3 and 0.3 in Q3. In the race CLC had both the fastest lap and, before his untimely technical failure, around 10 seconds of lead that Hamilton was doing nothing about.
I can't think of a more clear-cut example of one car having more pace than another, than it being fastest in every session and leading the race by 10 seconds. If anyone can think of a more 'solid' definition, answers on a postcard.
That's because it's the fastest over the race distance, not FP1,FP2, Quali, or a pit stop, its grand prix distance, its the formula, its the regulations.In Bahrain Ferrari had a 0.9 advantage in FP1, 0.6 in FP2, 0.7 in FP3 and 0.3 in Q3. In the race CLC had both the fastest lap and, before his untimely technical failure, around 10 seconds of lead that Hamilton was doing nothing about.
I can't think of a more clear-cut example of one car having more pace than another, than it being fastest in every session and leading the race by 10 seconds. If anyone can think of a more 'solid' definition, answers on a postcard.
You can set a record time in the 110 meter hurdles over 90 meters, but if you hit the last and land on your face you don't win, and you're not the fastest.
Hamilton caught and passed Seb (see was on his 2nd lap on new tyres).
Hamilton reeled CLC back to 6 seconds before the Ferrari lost MGU-H/Injectors..
Ill post the gaps shortly..
Deesee said:
That's because it's the fastest over the race distance, not FP1,FP2, Quali, or a pit stop, its grand prix distance, its the formula, its the regulations.
You can set a record time in the 110 meter hurdles over 90 meters, but if you hit the last and land on your face you don't win, and you're not the fastest.
Hamilton caught and passed Seb (see was on his 2nd lap on new tyres).
Hamilton reeled CLC back to 6 seconds before the Ferrari lost MGU-H/Injectors..
Ill post the gaps shortly..
This is getting silly.You can set a record time in the 110 meter hurdles over 90 meters, but if you hit the last and land on your face you don't win, and you're not the fastest.
Hamilton caught and passed Seb (see was on his 2nd lap on new tyres).
Hamilton reeled CLC back to 6 seconds before the Ferrari lost MGU-H/Injectors..
Ill post the gaps shortly..
You can't know how early in the race the technical problem manifested itself in the times. You also can't tell how much and for how long CLC was preserving his tyres, fuel and drivetrain.
What you an tell is that he initially pulled a decent gap to Hamilton and was able to lap faster in the part of the race he had a fully functioning car than Hamilton could throughout all of it.
Trying to argue anything other that Ferrari had the fastest car in Bahrain is utterly illogical. Like it or not, thems the facts.
Deesee said:
That's because it's the fastest over the race distance, not FP1,FP2, Quali, or a pit stop, its grand prix distance, its the formula, its the regulations.
You can set a record time in the 110 meter hurdles over 90 meters, but if you hit the last and land on your face you don't win, and you're not the fastest.
Hamilton caught and passed Seb (see was on his 2nd lap on new tyres).
Hamilton reeled CLC back to 6 seconds before the Ferrari lost MGU-H/Injectors..
Ill post the gaps shortly..
Strictly speaking it's driver of the car that comes first who is on the top step You can set a record time in the 110 meter hurdles over 90 meters, but if you hit the last and land on your face you don't win, and you're not the fastest.
Hamilton caught and passed Seb (see was on his 2nd lap on new tyres).
Hamilton reeled CLC back to 6 seconds before the Ferrari lost MGU-H/Injectors..
Ill post the gaps shortly..
Hill climbs and qualifying yes but a car starting from the back of the grid and coming second could be fastest over the race distance. /pedantryjanesmith1950 said:
It's almost impossible for any team to be fastest at all times throughout a race. Differing tyre schedules and degredation, fuel and drivetrain saving at various points in the race mean almost any team from the midfield onwards could be fastest at any one point.
In Bahrain Ferrari had a 0.9 advantage in FP1, 0.6 in FP2, 0.7 in FP3 and 0.3 in Q3. In the race CLC had both the fastest lap and, before his untimely technical failure, around 10 seconds of lead that Hamilton was doing nothing about.
I can't think of a more clear-cut example of one car having more pace than another, than it being fastest in every session and leading the race by 10 seconds. If anyone can think of a more 'solid' definition, answers on a postcard.
In the same race their other car was challenged and reeled in by Hamilton.In Bahrain Ferrari had a 0.9 advantage in FP1, 0.6 in FP2, 0.7 in FP3 and 0.3 in Q3. In the race CLC had both the fastest lap and, before his untimely technical failure, around 10 seconds of lead that Hamilton was doing nothing about.
I can't think of a more clear-cut example of one car having more pace than another, than it being fastest in every session and leading the race by 10 seconds. If anyone can think of a more 'solid' definition, answers on a postcard.
CLC drove exceptionally well to get out in front, but once he was out in front he was always going to gradually extend the lead, that's what happens when you're out in front leading a race in clean air.
I would say that in speed terms the Ferrari's are more or less equal to the Mercedes. And that the end results are swung in Mercedes favour because their overall package is better.
I don't see any signs of Ferrari having a pace advantage as such. Or if they do, not significant enough to be celebrated. The pre-season notion that Ferrari had an unbeatable speed machine has ultimately come to nothing.
Deesee said:
janesmith1950 said:
It's almost impossible for any team to be fastest at all times throughout a race. Differing tyre schedules and degredation, fuel and drivetrain saving at various points in the race mean almost any team from the midfield onwards could be fastest at any one point.
In Bahrain Ferrari had a 0.9 advantage in FP1, 0.6 in FP2, 0.7 in FP3 and 0.3 in Q3. In the race CLC had both the fastest lap and, before his untimely technical failure, around 10 seconds of lead that Hamilton was doing nothing about.
I can't think of a more clear-cut example of one car having more pace than another, than it being fastest in every session and leading the race by 10 seconds. If anyone can think of a more 'solid' definition, answers on a postcard.
That's because it's the fastest over the race distance, not FP1,FP2, Quali, or a pit stop, its grand prix distance, its the formula, its the regulations.In Bahrain Ferrari had a 0.9 advantage in FP1, 0.6 in FP2, 0.7 in FP3 and 0.3 in Q3. In the race CLC had both the fastest lap and, before his untimely technical failure, around 10 seconds of lead that Hamilton was doing nothing about.
I can't think of a more clear-cut example of one car having more pace than another, than it being fastest in every session and leading the race by 10 seconds. If anyone can think of a more 'solid' definition, answers on a postcard.
You can set a record time in the 110 meter hurdles over 90 meters, but if you hit the last and land on your face you don't win, and you're not the fastest.
Hamilton caught and passed Seb (see was on his 2nd lap on new tyres).
Hamilton reeled CLC back to 6 seconds before the Ferrari lost MGU-H/Injectors..
Ill post the gaps shortly..
Lap 43. 10 seconds +
Lap 46 6+ seconds
I can view it lap by lap, mini sector by mini sector.
janesmith1950 said:
Trying to argue anything other that Ferrari had the fastest car in Bahrain is utterly illogical. Like it or not, thems the facts.
The only fact about Bahrain that matters is that Mercedes won. They therefore had the best car, overall, for that race weekend. CLC was able to show some pace at times. That is all you can factually say.Andy S15 said:
The only fact about Bahrain that matters is that Mercedes won. They therefore had the best car, overall, for that race weekend. CLC was able to show some pace at times. That is all you can factually say.
They were the best team overall that weekend, that doesn't necessarily mean they had the best car and certainly doesn't mean they had the fastest car. It's a bit of a moot point though because you don't get points for having the fastest or best car. Whether the Mercedes car is better than the Ferrari car is a bit of a moot point, Mercedes were better than Ferrari which is what matters.
Edited by kambites on Monday 29th April 15:23
I mean.. why say anything at all? Two teams have very fast cars, and Ferrari will almost certainly win races at some point this season.
But not enough to take titles, and not fast enough to say "yup, the Ferrari is definitely faster than the Mercedes". If we could somehow distill all the facts and discount outside influences, I accept it's possible that the Ferrari could be identified as 'faster'. But it would be so marginal that's it's just not relevant. It's emphatically not relevant as proven by the fact that their supposed speed advantage has provided them with a 100% loss rate in their battle with Mercedes.
I could also speculate that heat was a contributing factor to the electronic failure that robbed CLC of victory - heat is by far the biggest cause for electronic failure. That is just speculation but also there is a question mark over their cooling, and that won't go away until they can complete a high speed race in first place without a mechanical issue. The truth is any team (not you, Claire) could have the 'fastest car' if longevity was of zero concern. That's why it really doesn't count if you can't complete a race.
But not enough to take titles, and not fast enough to say "yup, the Ferrari is definitely faster than the Mercedes". If we could somehow distill all the facts and discount outside influences, I accept it's possible that the Ferrari could be identified as 'faster'. But it would be so marginal that's it's just not relevant. It's emphatically not relevant as proven by the fact that their supposed speed advantage has provided them with a 100% loss rate in their battle with Mercedes.
I could also speculate that heat was a contributing factor to the electronic failure that robbed CLC of victory - heat is by far the biggest cause for electronic failure. That is just speculation but also there is a question mark over their cooling, and that won't go away until they can complete a high speed race in first place without a mechanical issue. The truth is any team (not you, Claire) could have the 'fastest car' if longevity was of zero concern. That's why it really doesn't count if you can't complete a race.
kambites said:
They were the best team overall that weekend, that doesn't necessarily mean they had the best car and certainly doesn't mean they had the fastest car.
It's a bit of a moot point though because you don't get points for having the fastest or best car. Whether the Mercedes car is better than the Ferrari car is a bit of a moot point, Mercedes were better than Ferrari which is what matters.
Couldn't agree more. It's a team sport, and as a team Mercedes are faster than any other.It's a bit of a moot point though because you don't get points for having the fastest or best car. Whether the Mercedes car is better than the Ferrari car is a bit of a moot point, Mercedes were better than Ferrari which is what matters.
Edited by kambites on Monday 29th April 15:23
Even if some fans do believe Ferrari have a pace advantage, at best it's clearly so small as to have no major impact on the results.
TheDeuce said:
I mean.. why say anything at all? Two teams have very fast cars, and Ferrari will almost certainly win races at some point this season.
But not enough to take titles, and not fast enough to say "yup, the Ferrari is definitely faster than the Mercedes". If we could somehow distill all the facts and discount outside influences, I accept it's possible that the Ferrari could be identified as 'faster'. But it would be so marginal that's it's just not relevant. It's emphatically not relevant as proven by the fact that their supposed speed advantage has provided them with a 100% loss rate in their battle with Mercedes.
I could also speculate that heat was a contributing factor to the electronic failure that robbed CLC of victory - heat is by far the biggest cause for electronic failure. That is just speculation but also there is a question mark over their cooling, and that won't go away until they can complete a high speed race in first place without a mechanical issue. The truth is any team (not you, Claire) could have the 'fastest car' if longevity was of zero concern. That's why it really doesn't count if you can't complete a race.
Nail on the head there.But not enough to take titles, and not fast enough to say "yup, the Ferrari is definitely faster than the Mercedes". If we could somehow distill all the facts and discount outside influences, I accept it's possible that the Ferrari could be identified as 'faster'. But it would be so marginal that's it's just not relevant. It's emphatically not relevant as proven by the fact that their supposed speed advantage has provided them with a 100% loss rate in their battle with Mercedes.
I could also speculate that heat was a contributing factor to the electronic failure that robbed CLC of victory - heat is by far the biggest cause for electronic failure. That is just speculation but also there is a question mark over their cooling, and that won't go away until they can complete a high speed race in first place without a mechanical issue. The truth is any team (not you, Claire) could have the 'fastest car' if longevity was of zero concern. That's why it really doesn't count if you can't complete a race.
The true test will be next race, if Ferrari and Merc are comparable to the pace they both set in testing, we will see just how much they were both sandbagging or showing their hand.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff