2015 Austrian Grand Prix - 19-21 June

[GPR-A duplicate2]

I seriously think so, yes. It was and is representative of the fastest laps the Mercedes drivers were able to put together that day - hence it quite clearly represented the ultimate pace car and driver were capable of in that set of circumstances.

Then surely Bottas 0,09 and Grosjean 0,18 behind is also representative of Ferrari's ultimate pace? They were closer to KR than he was to Rosberg on a bad lap. Hulkenberg was as close to Ferrari as Raikkonen was to Hamilton.

+1.
I am glad Ferrari doesn't think like @f316, otherwise, they are only going to chase the shadow of Mercs and would never ever come anywhere near to challenge them. It should be better for Ferrari to concentrate on their reliability problems for now. As it always happen, hurrying up metal pieces always leaves room for reliability woes as they found out in Canada.

I wouldn't be surprised if the qualifying gap remains somewhere close to a second between the fastest Merc and the fastest Ferrari. Lotus have looked quite slippery in Canada and could figure in second or third row, on a power dominated track. Grosjean clocked 340.5 in qualifying speed trap in Canada.

[evered7]

I seriously think so, yes. It was and is representative of the fastest laps the Mercedes drivers were able to put together that day - hence it quite clearly represented the ultimate pace car and driver were capable of in that set of circumstances.

Then surely Bottas 0,09 and Grosjean 0,18 behind is also representative of Ferrari's ultimate pace? They were closer to KR than he was to Rosberg on a bad lap. Hulkenberg was as close to Ferrari as Raikkonen was to Hamilton.

Surely should be Kimi underperforming in Qualifier as usual After all there has been examples for that in this season.

[f1316]

I seriously think so, yes. It was and is representative of the fastest laps the Mercedes drivers were able to put together that day - hence it quite clearly represented the ultimate pace car and driver were capable of in that set of circumstances.

Then surely Bottas 0,09 and Grosjean 0,18 behind is also representative of Ferrari's ultimate pace? They were closer to KR than he was to Rosberg on a bad lap. Hulkenberg was as close to Ferrari as Raikkonen was to Hamilton.

Surely should be Kimi underperforming in Qualifier as usual After all there has been examples for that in this season.

Yes, Williams and lotus were much closer to Kimi's Ferrari in Canada...surely that's obvious? Bottas was able to capitalise on kimi's mistake, proving how close they were. How is this relevant to my point?

It should be noted that the presence of force India so high up is indicative of how much of an advantage the upgraded Mercedes pu gave on that track though .

[f1316]

I seriously think so, yes. It was and is representative of the fastest laps the Mercedes drivers were able to put together that day - hence it quite clearly represented the ultimate pace car and driver were capable of in that set of circumstances.

Then surely Bottas 0,09 and Grosjean 0,18 behind is also representative of Ferrari's ultimate pace? They were closer to KR than he was to Rosberg on a bad lap. Hulkenberg was as close to Ferrari as Raikkonen was to Hamilton.

+1.
I am glad Ferrari doesn't think like @f316, otherwise, they are only going to chase the shadow of Mercs and would never ever come anywhere near to challenge them. It should be better for Ferrari to concentrate on their reliability problems for now. As it always happen, hurrying up metal pieces always leaves room for reliability woes as they found out in Canada..

To be honest, I don't really know what you're trying to say, so no point debating it.

It's obvious Ferrari have a gap to make up but I'm just saying they may be able to provide more pressure in the next race if the lead driver has a trouble free weekend.Read James Allen 's analysis of the race for example of the same opinion

[GPR-A duplicate2]

+1.
I am glad Ferrari doesn't think like @f316, otherwise, they are only going to chase the shadow of Mercs and would never ever come anywhere near to challenge them. It should be better for Ferrari to concentrate on their reliability problems for now. As it always happen, hurrying up metal pieces always leaves room for reliability woes as they found out in Canada..

To be honest, I don't really know what you're trying to say, so no point debating it.

The point is, you are closing your eyes and believing whatever statistics are there, that is the gap and refusing believe the reality of the situation. Mercs didn't manage to nail the final fliers, doesn't mean there wasn't any more pace left in their cars. Had they nailed, the difference could been few tenths more. JUST LIKE "if the lead driver has a trouble free weekend." And the point also is, there is no way Ferrari can beat Mercs in In-Season development, based on their history and also on the evidence of current season. It has been my argument that we never really know what's Merc's ultimate pace is. Only when Ferrari really know what they are chasing, they can have some idea to come closer.

It's obvious Ferrari have a gap to make up but I'm just saying they may be able to provide more pressure in the next race if the lead driver has a trouble free weekend.Read James Allen 's analysis of the race for example of the same opinion

That is the case since the beginning of the season and there isn't anything to suggest Ferrari can come any closer than they have been, despite their upgrades. Every race weekend, it is the same anticipation and same results.

[f1316]

Ok, so I'm closing my eyes and believing crazy, baseless things like "statistics" whereas you have facts like "there's no way Ferrari can out-develop Mercedes" (says who?)

You can't necessarily use the past five years' of development as proof; James Allison has already said that they've now changed from a philosophy of rushing parts onto the car to one of more focused development; we've seen that his influence has already helped a lot vs the fry/tombazsis era.

The race pace in Canada showed that, even on a power track where Mercedes engined cars were fairly dominant and the engine upgrade meant they could run in higher modes for longer, vettel was faster for much of the race; now, read this part before reacting please : I get that the Mercedes were nursing a bunch of issues and not pushing all out; I understand they had more pace in the car. Nevertheless, it seems evident that vettel would have been closer to the mercs than the five seconds to rosberg that raikkonen had dropped back after the first stint.

Therefore, he would have applied more pressure when they had to start nursing brakes and lift and coasting. As I say, I've read numerous f1 writers come to the same conclusion.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Ok, so I'm closing my eyes and believing crazy, baseless things like "statistics" whereas you have facts like "there's no way Ferrari can out-develop Mercedes" (says who?)

You can't necessarily use the past five years' of development as proof; James Allison has already said that they've now changed from a philosophy of rushing parts onto the car to one of more focused development; we've seen that his influence has already helped a lot vs the fry/tombazsis era.

The race pace in Canada showed that, even on a power track where Mercedes engined cars were fairly dominant and the engine upgrade meant they could run in higher modes for longer, vettel was faster for much of the race; now, read this part before reacting please : I get that the Mercedes were nursing a bunch of issues and not pushing all out; I understand they had more pace in the car. Nevertheless, it seems evident that vettel would have been closer to the mercs than the five seconds to rosberg that raikkonen had dropped back after the first stint.

Therefore, he would have applied more pressure when they had to start nursing brakes and lift and coasting. As I say, I've read numerous f1 writers come to the same conclusion.

Remember, Vettel ran a two stop strategy. He SHOULD HAVE BEEN naturally faster, compared to Mercs running on one stop, who understandably, had to manage their stints. On lap 55 Vettel took over P5 and started running in free air. But look at the times from lap 55 and to most part in that stint, both Lewis and Nico were managing their SO CALLED fuel and break issues. If anything, he was slower than the Mercs. That shows, he couldn't have challenged them on ONE STOP.

[turbof1]

Ferrari does believe they could have/should have got more out of the weekend.

I think there's some truth in that, but nevertheless I believe that the current side conditions are more favorable for Mercedes: slightly lower temperatures, softer compounds and tracks putting a bit more emphasis on traction.

Can they outdevelop Mercedes? Possible, but in my opinion not soon. We are very high into the diminishing returns. Nobody is about to find big chunks of laptime.

At GPR-A: the final laps in Canada were very tight for Mercedes. The could not up the pace since that would have meant running out of fuel with probably a kilometer to go. Fact is, fuel consumption is part of the overall performance. In this case Mercedes could not do more. Not that it diminishes their utter dominance of the weekend.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

You are right that Mercs couldn't have gone any faster due to their fuel flow limits. The point that I was proving was that, Vettel couldn't have put any pressure on the Mercs as he would have been much slower on a ONE STOPPER as, despite being on FASTER, TWO STOPPER, he was slightly slower than the Mercs.

Ferrari is already on their 3rd ICE, with which they haven't got any closer than have been despite the use of tokens. The next upgraded PU is scheduled for Monza (as per Marchionne), which would be their last upgraded PU without any penalties. If they want to close the season without any penalties, they have to use their old PUs again at some races, which guarantees Mercs that they can simply go unchallenged. A much improved current PU of Merc Vs An even less competitive older PU of Ferrari. No matter which circuit they use on the calendar, it is going to create a huge gap between the two. With that being the situation, how on earth are they going to get any closer to Mercs? Forget about aerodynamics, it's not a topic that we want to discuss related to Ferrari.

[f1316]

Vettel ran a two stop strategy. He SHOULD HAVE BEEN naturally faster, compared to Mercs running on one stop, who understandably, had to manage their stints. On lap 55 Vettel took over P5 and started running in free air. But look at the times from lap 55 and to most part in that stint, both Lewis and Nico were managing their SO CALLED fuel and break issues. If anything, he was slower than the Mercs. That shows, he couldn't have challenged them on ONE STOP.
http://s21.postimg.org/i84j1ikxj/lewis_vs_vettel.png

The chart you have posted shows vettel was faster than Lewis in 10 of 15 laps after lap 55 - so 2/3 or the time.

I'm not disputing that the Mercedes could have gone faster without their issues, but can't really see how the times prove your point.

Also worth pointing out that vettel only pitted for his final stop four laps after Lewis pitted for his final/only stop and fitted the same tyre compound; so don't think one vs two stop strategy is that much of a factor in the comparison.

[Nathanael F1]

Does anyone know where I can find a current PU component usage chart like this one? http://formula1insider78.blogspot.com/p ... ge_62.html

[Samraj_official]

But i know a piece in TJ13 about the current PU's. this will solve the current PU confusion
http://thejudge13.com/2015/06/11/f1-for ... estigated/

[matt_b]

Does anyone know where I can find a current PU component usage chart like this one? http://formula1insider78.blogspot.com/p ... ge_62.html

Here http://f1blogtech.blogspot.co.uk/2015/0 ... -f1-e.html

[Emmcee]

Who's people predictions for the race? Top3 that is, also will ricciardos pu hold out? He was significantly down on hp in Canada, nursing a tired engine perhaps?

[mikeerfol]

I remember reading that Marko said both Red Bulls will take their 5th ICE in Austria and get a 10 place grid penalty.