Official 2019 British Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Discussion
blueg33 said:
When Ferrari have had the chances they have frequently messed up the strategy and thrown the chance away.
Not only do Merc have arguably the best car, but they also have the strategy sorted, this year more the before.
Merc also don't have Vettel. The strategy is only good if the driver doesn't crack under pressure and spin/run wide/thrust into someone roughly from behind etcNot only do Merc have arguably the best car, but they also have the strategy sorted, this year more the before.
Munter said:
blueg33 said:
When Ferrari have had the chances they have frequently messed up the strategy and thrown the chance away.
Not only do Merc have arguably the best car, but they also have the strategy sorted, this year more the before.
Merc also don't have Vettel. The strategy is only good if the driver doesn't crack under pressure and spin/run wide/thrust into someone roughly from behind etcNot only do Merc have arguably the best car, but they also have the strategy sorted, this year more the before.
vdn said:
TR... Mercedes haven’t just nailed the engine; as you say yourself... engine development was / is only one part of the puzzle. Proof is that Ferrari have matched them for a couple of years; but the team / politics / tactics and drivers let them down.
The other teams needed to do more than worry about engine dev. Wolff was also right in saying that the customer teams would have had to suddenly pay massive amounts, for this dev work and that went against the philosophy of reducing costs across the board. The likes of Horner want it one way when it suits them but will turn on a dime when it doesn’t.
Fact is that there’s always been dominant teams and cars in F1. There are spec series that some here might prefer; great racing also. I’d suggest people who find F1 a bore fest stop watching. Genuinely. And maybe come back to it when they deem things more acceptable.
For me; I’m finding the battles up and down the field to be of great entertainment. I love the perfection that Mercedes are showing; no underhand tactics or dodgy interpretations of the guidelines. Just straight up genius on every level; from the designers to the cockpit.
I can't help being overwhelmed with the quality of Mercedes' efforts in F1. I only wish they'd invested a bit of that expertise in the manufacture of my two SLKs. The other teams needed to do more than worry about engine dev. Wolff was also right in saying that the customer teams would have had to suddenly pay massive amounts, for this dev work and that went against the philosophy of reducing costs across the board. The likes of Horner want it one way when it suits them but will turn on a dime when it doesn’t.
Fact is that there’s always been dominant teams and cars in F1. There are spec series that some here might prefer; great racing also. I’d suggest people who find F1 a bore fest stop watching. Genuinely. And maybe come back to it when they deem things more acceptable.
For me; I’m finding the battles up and down the field to be of great entertainment. I love the perfection that Mercedes are showing; no underhand tactics or dodgy interpretations of the guidelines. Just straight up genius on every level; from the designers to the cockpit.
We are seeing one of the greatest F1 teams of all time. Not only that, but for the last two seasons, and this one, the car has not been totally dominant. There have been challengers, and they've been left in the run-off areas via tactics and race management. This time last year, Ferrari were the team to beat and were leading the WDC. This year we've had a Ferrari lead a race entirely on merit. This year we've had an RB win a race entirely on merit.
Not only that, the two drivers in the team have been able to compete; for the most part.
I wonder why some other posters don't find the various team battles compulsive viewing. As you rightly say, these are great entertainment. Ferrari/RB, McLaran/Renault, and others further down, are what F1 is all about.
I'm not a particular fan of the WD and C championships. They add excitement so are good in that respect, but the D bit is not necessarily a measure of the driver, and the same for the C bit. They are team events. Mind you, the 2008 WDC was a cracker. I prefer concentrating on each race.
I go to Mercedes Benz World a few times each year, mainly when visiting Brooklands Museum. I wander over as their coffee is very good. Their displays are worth wasting an hour. If it's a race weekend, they'll show it live in the cinema. What strikes me as remarkable is their restraint with regards hyping their F1 results. They put in a sort of diorama on the first floor, and occasionally show an F1 car - Rosberg's winning one, not the thing for a British audience surely - but they show as much, if not more, of their history.
Milk it they don't.
Interesting to view the Autosport drivers' ratings from last weekend in today's mag.
Vettel, Grosjean and Magnussen all rated as 3/10 which, from memory, are the lowest cluster of scores ever. I thought 5/10 for Stroll was a bit harsh - not a bad Sunday and his best race lap was 6th fastest overall and also quicker than Perez...
Vettel, Grosjean and Magnussen all rated as 3/10 which, from memory, are the lowest cluster of scores ever. I thought 5/10 for Stroll was a bit harsh - not a bad Sunday and his best race lap was 6th fastest overall and also quicker than Perez...
I'm more cynical. I think Mercedes have let Ferrari get as close as they are comfortable with, and that's all.
People want to believe that Ferrari is competitive, and there have been signs of it at times, but nothing consistent or lasting. Arguably the Merc package is weaker on some tracks than others, but I believe their strength comes from how measured they are in displaying the full potential of their car. They show enough to distract people from getting too disillusioned with their dominance, which could pressure the FIA into regulations that target them more specifically (e.g. how they dealt with the Ferrari/Bridgestone package dominance, etc).
They notoriously sandbag during testing, so people start thinking Ferrari and co are close, then at the flick of a switch they turn up the wick and Hamilton can get fastest lap on knackered tyres. That fact just gets lost in the peripheral drama though.
You can blame Vettel for mistakes for sure, but he is wringing the performance out of their car whereas the Mercs are basically cruising. Even Bottas is having no real trouble getting second place fairly consistently, and he just isn't that good. He is seriously flattered by the car, for sure. I think there is a difference between any mistake costing you any chance in a race, and minor mistakes not being too big a deal because you have a car that is so much better than everyone elses.
People want to believe that Ferrari is competitive, and there have been signs of it at times, but nothing consistent or lasting. Arguably the Merc package is weaker on some tracks than others, but I believe their strength comes from how measured they are in displaying the full potential of their car. They show enough to distract people from getting too disillusioned with their dominance, which could pressure the FIA into regulations that target them more specifically (e.g. how they dealt with the Ferrari/Bridgestone package dominance, etc).
They notoriously sandbag during testing, so people start thinking Ferrari and co are close, then at the flick of a switch they turn up the wick and Hamilton can get fastest lap on knackered tyres. That fact just gets lost in the peripheral drama though.
You can blame Vettel for mistakes for sure, but he is wringing the performance out of their car whereas the Mercs are basically cruising. Even Bottas is having no real trouble getting second place fairly consistently, and he just isn't that good. He is seriously flattered by the car, for sure. I think there is a difference between any mistake costing you any chance in a race, and minor mistakes not being too big a deal because you have a car that is so much better than everyone elses.
Durzel said:
I'm more cynical. I think Mercedes have let Ferrari get as close as they are comfortable with, and that's all.
People want to believe that Ferrari is competitive, and there have been signs of it at times, but nothing consistent or lasting. Arguably the Merc package is weaker on some tracks than others, but I believe their strength comes from how measured they are in displaying the full potential of their car. They show enough to distract people from getting too disillusioned with their dominance, which could pressure the FIA into regulations that target them more specifically (e.g. how they dealt with the Ferrari/Bridgestone package dominance, etc).
They notoriously sandbag during testing, so people start thinking Ferrari and co are close, then at the flick of a switch they turn up the wick and Hamilton can get fastest lap on knackered tyres. That fact just gets lost in the peripheral drama though.
You can blame Vettel for mistakes for sure, but he is wringing the performance out of their car whereas the Mercs are basically cruising. Even Bottas is having no real trouble getting second place fairly consistently, and he just isn't that good. He is seriously flattered by the car, for sure. I think there is a difference between any mistake costing you any chance in a race, and minor mistakes not being too big a deal because you have a car that is so much better than everyone elses.
If no one had a car that was better than the others, the cars wouldn’t really evolve or improve. People want to believe that Ferrari is competitive, and there have been signs of it at times, but nothing consistent or lasting. Arguably the Merc package is weaker on some tracks than others, but I believe their strength comes from how measured they are in displaying the full potential of their car. They show enough to distract people from getting too disillusioned with their dominance, which could pressure the FIA into regulations that target them more specifically (e.g. how they dealt with the Ferrari/Bridgestone package dominance, etc).
They notoriously sandbag during testing, so people start thinking Ferrari and co are close, then at the flick of a switch they turn up the wick and Hamilton can get fastest lap on knackered tyres. That fact just gets lost in the peripheral drama though.
You can blame Vettel for mistakes for sure, but he is wringing the performance out of their car whereas the Mercs are basically cruising. Even Bottas is having no real trouble getting second place fairly consistently, and he just isn't that good. He is seriously flattered by the car, for sure. I think there is a difference between any mistake costing you any chance in a race, and minor mistakes not being too big a deal because you have a car that is so much better than everyone elses.
Durzel said:
I'm more cynical. I think Mercedes have let Ferrari get as close as they are comfortable with, and that's all.
People want to believe that Ferrari is competitive, and there have been signs of it at times, but nothing consistent or lasting. Arguably the Merc package is weaker on some tracks than others, but I believe their strength comes from how measured they are in displaying the full potential of their car. They show enough to distract people from getting too disillusioned with their dominance, which could pressure the FIA into regulations that target them more specifically (e.g. how they dealt with the Ferrari/Bridgestone package dominance, etc).
They notoriously sandbag during testing, so people start thinking Ferrari and co are close, then at the flick of a switch they turn up the wick and Hamilton can get fastest lap on knackered tyres. That fact just gets lost in the peripheral drama though.
You can blame Vettel for mistakes for sure, but he is wringing the performance out of their car whereas the Mercs are basically cruising. Even Bottas is having no real trouble getting second place fairly consistently, and he just isn't that good. He is seriously flattered by the car, for sure. I think there is a difference between any mistake costing you any chance in a race, and minor mistakes not being too big a deal because you have a car that is so much better than everyone elses.
How do you conclude Bottas isn't that good. It's pretty ridiculous to do so objectively because Merc could literally have any driver they want. He won in F3/GP3 and, until Mercedes, consistently beat his more experienced team mates in F1 (Massa & Maldonado). I would dearly love to be not that good. People want to believe that Ferrari is competitive, and there have been signs of it at times, but nothing consistent or lasting. Arguably the Merc package is weaker on some tracks than others, but I believe their strength comes from how measured they are in displaying the full potential of their car. They show enough to distract people from getting too disillusioned with their dominance, which could pressure the FIA into regulations that target them more specifically (e.g. how they dealt with the Ferrari/Bridgestone package dominance, etc).
They notoriously sandbag during testing, so people start thinking Ferrari and co are close, then at the flick of a switch they turn up the wick and Hamilton can get fastest lap on knackered tyres. That fact just gets lost in the peripheral drama though.
You can blame Vettel for mistakes for sure, but he is wringing the performance out of their car whereas the Mercs are basically cruising. Even Bottas is having no real trouble getting second place fairly consistently, and he just isn't that good. He is seriously flattered by the car, for sure. I think there is a difference between any mistake costing you any chance in a race, and minor mistakes not being too big a deal because you have a car that is so much better than everyone elses.
Durzel said:
I'm more cynical. I think Mercedes have let Ferrari get as close as they are comfortable with, and that's all.
Merc will only go as fast as is necessary. That's sensible, not cynical. I assume you are not suggesting that Merc thought that RB should win a race for old time's sake, or that Ferrari was allowed to get 1-2 on the grid and then lead a race up until 10 or so laps from the end, knowing that LCL's car would throw a wobbly?Merc need to husband their engine. The same goes for Ferrari and going flat out each race is not an option for any team.
Graveworm said:
How do you conclude Bottas isn't that good. It's pretty ridiculous to do so objectively because Merc could literally have any driver they want. He won in F3/GP3 and, until Mercedes, consistently beat his more experienced team mates in F1 (Massa & Maldonado). I would dearly love to be not that good.
You're assuming Bottas isn't a tacit choice based on appeasing their prize driver.I'm not saying he's bad, I'm saying that others would beat him comprehensively in the same car.
Deesee said:
I still can not quite believe a pit stop was sub 2 seconds.Durzel said:
You're assuming Bottas isn't a tacit choice based on appeasing their prize driver.
I'm not saying he's bad, I'm saying that others would beat him comprehensively in the same car.
Eh? How can you know that? He's relaistically almost as impressive as Hamilton on occasion. He's not as consistent and always on it as Hamilton.. But on his day, when both drivers are on it and battling Lewis's talent advantage is only slight really. Fair enough, the final 1-2% extra ability and talent, coupled with consistency is what makes a WDC... But I can't think of any examples of anyone else demonstrating they would be so much better than Bottas that they would beat him 'comprehensively'. Maybe in an alternate reality where Max had his seat, he would do slightly better, but at the top end the difference is always slight - not comprehensive.I'm not saying he's bad, I'm saying that others would beat him comprehensively in the same car.
Mr Pointy said:
If that were the case how come Bottas is leading Hamilton 4:3 in pole positions this year?
Next you'll be saying pole position doesn't matter.
Maybe he's better than Hamilton at qualifying?Next you'll be saying pole position doesn't matter.
I simply think that Bottas is a "safe" choice alongside Hamilton. Safer than, for example, Verstappen or Riccardo with whom there might be more fireworks. And that the choice was not made in a vacuum.
Durzel said:
Maybe he's better than Hamilton at qualifying?
I simply think that Bottas is a "safe" choice alongside Hamilton. Safer than, for example, Verstappen or Riccardo with whom there might be more fireworks. And that the choice was not made in a vacuum.
He is a safe choice in many respects. That doesn't mean, as you said, that other drivers would 'comprehensively' beat him in the same car.I simply think that Bottas is a "safe" choice alongside Hamilton. Safer than, for example, Verstappen or Riccardo with whom there might be more fireworks. And that the choice was not made in a vacuum.
He's good, above average. Very good on his day. He's certainly better than any other driver I can think of that would ALSO be as compliant and respectful/supportive of Lewis. By all accounts their relationship really is generally positive, which is pretty rare. Perhaps Bottas suspects he really can't beat Lewis through a season on merit and is minded to not be to grumpy about that, after-all, he's doing very well and holding on to a not too distant second place this season.
swisstoni said:
Bottas is good enough to beat Hamilton on occasions. That’s a pretty good sign that he’s excellent in my book.
There are a few F1 hotshots who might lose a bit of share value if they had to partner Bottas over a season.
Exactly. Over a race, the likes of Max, maybe DR could if they were 'on it' punch above Bottas perhaps. But through the course of a season... Well, damage and incidents aside, I can't recall Bottas having a 'bad' race of his own making. No silly mistakes really, not 'silly' as in reckless at least. He's at best as good as anyone, and at worst good enough on merit for 2nd/3rd. That's rare - normally that sort of solidity race after race is the preserve of world champions. He's like a world champion that's missing the final couple of % somehow.There are a few F1 hotshots who might lose a bit of share value if they had to partner Bottas over a season.
the only reason I can think of for anyone not appreciating his performance is that they're shallow enough to get swayed by the fact he's typically 'the loser' compared to Lewis. But if you actually take Lewis out of the picture and compare Bottas's consistency and results to other drivers with a faster team mate, then he's about as good as it gets.
TheDeuce said:
Eh? How can you know that? He's relaistically almost as impressive as Hamilton on occasion. He's not as consistent and always on it as Hamilton.. But on his day, when both drivers are on it and battling Lewis's talent advantage is only slight really. Fair enough, the final 1-2% extra ability and talent, coupled with consistency is what makes a WDC... But I can't think of any examples of anyone else demonstrating they would be so much better than Bottas that they would beat him 'comprehensively'. Maybe in an alternate reality where Max had his seat, he would do slightly better, but at the top end the difference is always slight - not comprehensive.
He's frustrating. At Baku, his first lap was stunning. Had it been Hamilton, we'd have been saying what a great drive, no wonder he's multiple WDC. There were dramatic passes, clever blocking and great control. Lap two; a bit meh. That was bad enough, but he seemed to give up after that. I thought we might see him battling to get back, but no. As he came into the finish straight, I was texting a friend in the north of England to the effect that he needed to get out of DRS range of Hamilton. I didn't realise he'd do it by the first corner. What a disappointment. I thought we'd lost the chances of a tremendous race. Wrong again, I know.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff