How have the mercs looked on par with the Bulls when it has more often then not dropped more back then the Ferrari and Lotus ?SectorOne wrote:The only real anomaly is Silverstone.
the Merc´s looked on par with the Bulls in all areas.
Just too bad Hamilton had a puncture, and Vettel DNF:d.
If you read it you´ll see i´m talking about Silverstone.Huntresa wrote:How have the mercs looked on par with the Bulls when it has more often then not dropped more back then the Ferrari and Lotus ?SectorOne wrote:The only real anomaly is Silverstone.
the Merc´s looked on par with the Bulls in all areas.
Just too bad Hamilton had a puncture, and Vettel DNF:d.
Yeah i did read it and i also read the punctuation behind silverstone hence me thinkin you meant Silverstone was a bad anamoly and the rest was on par.SectorOne wrote:If you read it you´ll see i´m talking about Silverstone.Huntresa wrote:How have the mercs looked on par with the Bulls when it has more often then not dropped more back then the Ferrari and Lotus ?SectorOne wrote:The only real anomaly is Silverstone.
the Merc´s looked on par with the Bulls in all areas.
Just too bad Hamilton had a puncture, and Vettel DNF:d.
That´s where the Mercedes was on par with the Bull in every area unless you know one area it wasn´t.
I actually think Red Bull might have just been conservative with the setup at Hungary as in not going full out the setup they would like and have used ever since we got the new tyres, so at Hungary they prob used the setup that was used to be able to run the old tyres just to be safe.SectorOne wrote:oh ok, no the anomaly was Mercedes keeping up with red bull in all areas at Silverstone.
Hungary is debatable, the Bull was probably quicker but had trouble getting past cars coupled with Hamilton´s "determination" of getting past Webber.
Still when considering Qualiy pace we don't know if RB sacrificed some Quali pace in order to make the tyres last better in the race. At that point of the season they were still in a close fight with Ferrari/Alonso who had a much better grip on the tyres at that point of the season while RB themselves still quite struggled with tyre degradation.Ferraripilot wrote:At the peak of its development, W04 was faster than RB9. Monaco, Silverstone, Hungary, qualifying, it was faster. Qualifying is the ultimate indicator of outright speed, and W04 was indeed faster, it just had some tire growing pains which were thankfully fixed in a rather genius manner.
I think we can positively say they did.henra wrote:Still when considering Qualiy pace we don't know if RB sacrificed some Quali pace in order to make the tyres last better in the race.
LOL! nicely put.. mainly it was Benson and co.. making up crap about "too many cooks spoil the broth" etc..NewtonMeter wrote:5th to 2nd...please allow me to be jerk, because it has been pent up for the better part of 15 months.
So, where are the idiots that incessently harked on about "three chiefs/chefs/kings" and how it was supposedly a certainty that the W04 would fail misrebly?
Well, who'd have thunk it, Ross Brawn is smarter that a bunch of forumers with nothing better to do. Subtle as hell, I never saw it coming.
Bon Appétit...
http://cdn.stripersonline.com/e/e4/200x ... 0x470.jpeg