- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Kimi Räikkönen experienced a tough Sunday in the Chinese GP as the 2007 champion had to work very hard to claw back into the points after having been hit hard by his Ferrari teammate Sebastian Vettel.
The track was dry aside from 2 spots under the grandstand. This performance was a dry weather performance and not a damp track performance. The Ferraris would have been quicker then Daniel if they hadn't stuffed up. Kimi was definitely on course for pole until he stuffed up. Maybe it would have been closer with Vettel but he should have still had at least 2 tenths on Daniel. Who knows where Lewis would have been because he has barely turned a lap over the weekend.giantfan10 wrote:GPR-A wrote: As far as that Mercedes reliabilty upgrade last year i suggest you do more research on that before you do the usual blustery nonsense, take a close look at the sheer volume of parts mercedes changed for "reliability" the info is out there google it.that is the sole reason Italian websites are saying that Ferrari will spend no tokens fixing their supposed turbo issues because mercedes got away with murder with that "reliability" upgrade last which in reality was basically an engine performance upgrade.
In Malaysia 2015 .. whatever tire it was my point remains the same.
Red bull are very very good in low grip situations to include the wet. they probably have the best chassis on the grid but chassis dont win championships in this era
why was red bull only 5 tenths away from mercedes in these damp conditions?
Hamilton is starting last because of an engine change ... how did that ever happen to a mercedes with all the reliability they had in the bank from testing?
Don't quote some rubbish BS from some Italian website. Be informed first that any change done under the reasons of reliability (without spending tokens), have to be agreed from other manufacturers and FIA as OK to do so and is not giving any performance advantage. Why would Renault and Ferrari approve Mercedes' changes on the grounds of reliability that is potentially providing performance enhancement? The only stuff that was reliably available to read was all about Mercedes' knocking issue in races, if they ran their PU settings at the Qualifying mode. Which was limiting them from running their PU at full power. That they fixed and spend tokens to do so and unlocked performance. When did Mercedes introduced changes to PU without making a news of it, under the reasons of reliability last year?giantfan10 wrote:GPR-A wrote: As far as that Mercedes reliabilty upgrade last year i suggest you do more research on that before you do the usual blustery nonsense, take a close look at the sheer volume of parts mercedes changed for "reliability" the info is out there google it.that is the sole reason Italian websites are saying that Ferrari will spend no tokens fixing their supposed turbo issues because mercedes got away with murder with that "reliability" upgrade last which in reality was basically an engine performance upgrade.
In Malaysia 2015 .. whatever tire it was my point remains the same.
Unlike Ferrari, at least Red Bull has the ability to create best chassis. Ha...giantfan10 wrote:Red bull are very very good in low grip situations to include the wet. they probably have the best chassis on the grid but chassis dont win championships in this era
why was red bull only 5 tenths away from mercedes in these damp conditions?
Hamilton is starting last because of an engine change ... how did that ever happen to a mercedes with all the reliability they had in the bank from testing?
here let me explain the changes due to reliability scenario for you....i saw the listed changes that mercedes made,SUUUURE it was purely for reliability ... secondly as we all know you have to pick your fights in F1, contest mercedes "reliability" changes which would be next to impossible for another team to prove against and you would have just opened a hornets nest, because the first time you try to make any changes due to reliability legitimate or not guess which team would be first in line to protest your changes? and Fyi the other teams dont have to approve anything they either protest it or they dont.GPR-A wrote:Don't quote some rubbish BS from some Italian website. Be informed first that any change done under the reasons of reliability (without spending tokens), have to be agreed from other manufacturers and FIA as OK to do so and is not giving any performance advantage. Why would Renault and Ferrari approve Mercedes' changes on the grounds of reliability that is potentially providing performance enhancement? The only stuff that was reliably available to read was all about Mercedes' knocking issue in races, if they ran their PU settings at the Qualifying mode. Which was limiting them from running their PU at full power. That they fixed and spend tokens to do so and unlocked performance. When did Mercedes introduced changes to PU without making a news of it, under the reasons of reliability last year?giantfan10 wrote:GPR-A wrote: As far as that Mercedes reliabilty upgrade last year i suggest you do more research on that before you do the usual blustery nonsense, take a close look at the sheer volume of parts mercedes changed for "reliability" the info is out there google it.that is the sole reason Italian websites are saying that Ferrari will spend no tokens fixing their supposed turbo issues because mercedes got away with murder with that "reliability" upgrade last which in reality was basically an engine performance upgrade.
In Malaysia 2015 .. whatever tire it was my point remains the same.
Unlike Ferrari, at least Red Bull has the ability to create best chassis. Ha...giantfan10 wrote:Red bull are very very good in low grip situations to include the wet. they probably have the best chassis on the grid but chassis dont win championships in this era
why was red bull only 5 tenths away from mercedes in these damp conditions?
Hamilton is starting last because of an engine change ... how did that ever happen to a mercedes with all the reliability they had in the bank from testing?
You are being too naive and over simplifying the things here. There have been multiple instances of a team protesting another team's misappropriation of regulations. It is not always the case that everyone goes hand in glove and scratch each others' back. Teams have always taken advantage of a prevailing situation and pulled down the competitors, whether it was 2005 Renault Barge Boards, 2009 Brawn Double Diffuser, 2011 Renault EBD, 2012 Mercedes DDRS, 2015 Ferrari-Haas partnership and the list goes on. Even the 2015 in season development of PU was initially exploited by Ferrari, protested by Mercedes and then finally everyone agreed to do so.giantfan10 wrote:here let me explain the changes due to reliability scenario for you....i saw the listed changes that mercedes made,SUUUURE it was purely for reliability ... secondly as we all know you have to pick your fights in F1, contest mercedes "reliability" changes which would be next to impossible for another team to prove against and you would have just opened a hornets nest, because the first time you try to make any changes due to reliability legitimate or not guess which team would be first in line to protest your changes? and Fyi the other teams dont have to approve anything they either protest it or they dont.
I recommend a simple remedy for you. Stop denigrating other teams and hyping up Ferrari and you will automatically be relieved of the pain to hear back nonsense.giantfan10 wrote:i will just ignore the" unlike Ferrari" nonsense you can go troll somebody else
True. I thought Ferrari was closer but the most worrying fact is how Mercedes behaves. They are so confident that its quite depressing for the competence.ferkan wrote:Ferrari without mistakes would be closer, yea, maybe 1-2 tenths but fact remains, this is one of the tracks with least amount of time on full trothle.
So, the less engine is used closer RB and Ferrari are to Merc. I think that shows Lowe is spouting bs about everyone being pretty close...If he thinks 0.5s-1.5s is close then yea, he is right. Otherwise its bs.
On a normal weekend, it would be hard for a Red Bull to fend off Ferrari, but because today's rain would have taken off all the rubber and left the track green, I wouldn't surprised to see a very competitive Red Bull for the first third of the race. Once the track rubbers in, even if a Ferrari stay behind him, Ricciardo might just be an easy meat for the Ferraris."Today is encouraging. If we can have this on one lap then in the race we should still be pretty competitive," said Ricciardo.
"We're normally better off in the race.
"Hopefully we've a race with Ferrari. Nico [Rosberg] starting on the softs should be in good shape, so if we can battle for the podium that would be awesome."
"We've only had a couple of races, but up until now we've exceeded, maximised everything we've got, and we've shown true dry pace here," he said.
It sounds like the most logic option, but I dont know if it will work.giantfan10 wrote:So Vettel says he only made one run in Q3 to save a set of tires...HMMMMM i'm thinking he is going for a 3 stopper SS-S-S-SS ?