beelsebob wrote:ACJJ619 wrote:So would you not expect Red Bull to shine in sector two if their chassis is 'so much better'?
Yes, and in the rain. Incidentally, these are the two places where Merc did not have a huge advantage.
The rain is a hugely unpredictable indicator though. It does equalise out engine power to a large degree, but the tyres themselves change the aero on the cars (some more so than others) thanks to their larger diameter and tread pattern, a suspension setup that works well in the dry in conserving the tyres can cause them to lose temperature in the wet, there is slightly more lap by lap viation from the drivers so ultimate times don't always reflect true pace, and one or other engine will be more drivable in the wet. Out of those I'd say the engine power equlisation, change in aero, and laptime variation have probably played into Red Bull's hands a little and Merc have benefitted from more drivability. Tyre temps I'm not so sure about, possibly a fraction in Red Bull's favour as Merc definitely have better tyre life in the dry races but it's very hard to say. My gut feel from watching all the running in the first two races is that in the wet the Merc still has a tenth or two in hand but it is much closer.
Fact remains that Red Bull haven't beaten Mercedes in the wet and they certainly aren't streets ahead unless you think the drivers have underperformed. So it can't all be down to engine. With equal engines I can't see there being more than a tenth or two between them, possibly in Red Bull's favour.
Incidentally the gap between Hamilton's fastest lap and Massa's, the next non-works Mercedes team, was broadly similar to the gap between Vettel's fastest and Grosjean's Lotus as the next best Renault powered car. Personally I think the Williams is a better car than the Lotus, but again there's little evidence that Mercs gap over Red Bull is 100% engine.
