2016 Chinese Grand Prix - Shanghai, Apr 15 - 17

[dans79]

I don't mind one team dominating as long as there is a fight for the championship and some drama a la 2014.

I have a strong feeling that this is going to be a repeat of the 2014 season, Nico ahead on points early and Lewis clawing them all back over the rest of the season.

[AtOmIc]

The determination is strong with this one.

If i wanted to show determination i would pull out some videos showing Vettels over-agression on lap 1s, but i dont feel like it now.

Yes very useful... Maybe you don't realize it but the world isn't black or white. Looking at all the different angles the blame is bit distributed over all three drivers (so a racing incident). I would give Kvyat 50% of the blame, Raikkonen 30%, Vettel 20%.
However, if Vettel wouldn't have gone left (you can see it on the video you have posted with DiResta) All 3 would have been out the race and it would have been 100% Kvyats fault. This is not speculation, but a fact. Also this is what Vettel was angry about, and from my point of view it is all natural behaviour to do so. I would do the same. But I can also understand Kvyat explanation (well, not the self absorbed nonsense we are both on the podium, what is the problem?) - It is just racing.

Verdict: Racing incident, but could have been much worse if Vettel didn't steered left.

100% agreed. It was a racing incident, but just because one of the 3 drivers had common sense. Otherwise all 3 probably out of the race, no way kvyat could hold that line, even he knew it. That's why he said what he said in the press conference. He went on a ballsy bansai move that was something senna liked to do and gave other driver a choice, either you move or we crash

I hate that he did so because I like Ferrari team and was looking forward on watching them race Nico(fullishly hoping they would beat him) but given the opportunity and the position Kvyat is in I would have done the exact same thing.

[PlatinumZealot]

I don't know if my pulmonary system can take another 2014 though, dans.

[Phil]

I'm sorry, but what we're both doing is hypotheticals, i.e. the 'what might have been' discussions with some probabilities thrown in that may have some relevance to your hypothetical situation where Mercedes win the majority of the remaining races and in all those races they finish 1-2.

Just to be clear; No one can predict the future. Yet, most people don't bet on an anomaly happening, i.e. like a meteorite striking and altering the race outcome. More accurate example: Monaco last year where Mercedes and Hamilton threw away a guaranteed win by pitting in the most stupidest way possible. That is an anomaly or circumstance. Singapore was an anomaly too if you look at the entire season. Take any dry race last year and for the most part, most races were very predictable; The two fastest cars came in first and second. Predictable. They did not on just 8 races. One of those 8 races was Singapore, the other was Malaysia (very hot conditions), another was Hungary (a very messy race) and the rest were inflicted on some level by technical gremlins. One or the other had an issue of some sort that prevented a 1-2 finish. Another interesting statistic: A Mercedes driver won the race 17 times. Vettel, the only other driver to win GPs; 3. So from those 12 1-2 finishes, 5 were won by a singular Mercedes driver while the other usually suffered some issue of some sort or other circumstance like safety car, a crash, and/or hot clutch from an additional formation lap (Hungary). The other 3, were Vettel wins - 1 by hot conditions (Malaysia), another in Singapore (Mercedes couldn't get their tires in the optimal window) and the one in Hungary (messy race, Rosberg puncture etc).

So, would you agree that 2015 was very predictable, despite the early euphoria that Ferrari was supposedly close?

We're seeing that very same euphoria now. Yes, they're closer, but the data doesn't suggest they are that close. If you can't match them in qualifying (~ 5 tenths gap), you're factually already a step behind. That step needs to be made up somehow. Ideally, through better race pace. I have not seen that so far. Even in the one race where Ferrari had a tactical advantage, Melbourne, running ahead of both Mercedes could they not keep them behind them and were beaten, despite holding that advantage of position.

So yes, normal race conditions, meaning dry, no safety cars, no meteorites, no punctures, no miracle starts, Hamilton & Rosberg not crashing into each other - I am safely predicting a much higher probability that Mercedes will be ahead of Ferrari, usually both of them. Not all races, as every now and then, you will have unexpected circumstance. Rain hitting the track, or a wet race weekend (rain brings the field closer together), a safety car etc etc etc. I think this year, based on what I am seeing now, will be very similar to 2015. Of course, that can change, as things develop. Last year i.e. we had tire pressures being introduced that altered the performance slightly. This can of course happen this year too, so nothing is set in stone.

Another small point; If you look at the data closely from last year and compare the same 3 races, you will see that Ferrari was usually quite close to. Perhaps in Qualifying they were further behind due to missing the same engine-modes Mercedes are able to unleash for that ultimate 1-lap pace, but race-pace, the Ferrari last year was quite competitive, just like they are this year. But being as quick is not good enough if you are disadvantaged by having to following them during the race as a direct consequence of being that bit slower in qualifying. If the qualifying difference was closer, like e.g. 2 tenths, then I'd say there is a much higher probability that a Ferrari could land pole, because that kind of difference could be made up through driver skill. An example to underline this; Both Mercedes drivers are extremely close, given they are running the same car, yet they are also separated by tenths in qualifying. But 5 tenths? That's a bit too big, hence why we have only seen front-row starts by Mercedes so far with the exception of China where Hamilton could not compete.

BTW: Monaco is going to be fascinating. I think I might actually gamble on a RedBull/Ricciardo win there. That RedBull looks mighty in slow corners and they might just nick the win there (as a consequence of the cars strength, the power unit being less of a factor and Monaco being next to impossible to overtake).

[Vasconia]

Don´t forget Kvyat, he will improve and he will be a contender for victory in this race, for sure.

[Vasconia]

I don't know if my pulmonary system can take another 2014 though, dans.

Taking account that we wont have the stupid double punctuation in the last race, it will be better because no one will be able to blame this system for the lack of legitimacy of the winner.

[Vasconia]

2016 chinese gp had the most overtakes in history:

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... _the_most/

most of them were boring DRS overtakes...yawn

Still better than a no overtake race. And come on, with or without DRS there were great battles with some cars side by side. Increase the downforce in 2017 and wont see this anymore.

[Nuvolari]

Just to be clear; No one can predict the future. Yet, most people don't bet on an anomaly happening, i.e. like a meteorite striking and altering the race outcome.

I love how you explain away the races in which Ferrari were competitive as being anomalies, while equally cherry pick "circumstances" to explain the uncompetitiveness of Mercedes in races where they fell short. I'm sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. I imagine you would have strongly believed the first seven races of 2012 to be anomalies too? And after race 7 of 2012, expected Red Bull to win the championship barring any further anomalous circumstances...such as the change in tyre construction method...purely because they won the previous year in such dominant fashion?

Anomalies that happen so frequently, cease to be anomalies anymore. But, you know that. If anything, a lot of the so-called anomalous circumstances have been happening to Ferrari lately, such as the fire in Kimi's car in Australia or the warm up lap blow up to Vettel's car or a very fast Kvyat suddenly appearing beside Vettel in the 1st corner of this very race. Could I then suggest that barring these anomalous circumstances, Ferrari would have competed for the win? By your logic, I should do so.

So, would you agree that 2015 was very predictable, despite the early euphoria that Ferrari was supposedly close? We're seeing that very same euphoria now.

I would say 2015 was predictable, in hindsight. Because Hamilton was in the form of his life, fresh from his 2nd championship; and we didn't know if Ferrari could catch up to Mercedes quickly enough. But they had the 2nd best package next to Mercedes in the vast majority of the races.

I would also say that the euphoria you speak of was purely created by the media. Arrivabene was quite clear at the start of '15, with a realistic target of winning 2 races. Given that Ferrari exceeded their own expectations during the season, it behoves one to take what he says seriously. And I think he has expressed his belief that a fight for the WDC is definitely on for this year, and under performing in the races till now. Ignore Arrivabene at your peril.

So yes, normal race conditions, meaning dry, no safety cars, no meteorites, no punctures, no miracle starts, Hamilton & Rosberg not crashing into each other - I am safely predicting a much higher probability that Mercedes will be ahead of Ferrari, usually both of them. Not all races, as every now and then, you will have unexpected circumstance. Rain hitting the track, or a wet race weekend (rain brings the field closer together), a safety car etc etc etc. I think this year, based on what I am seeing now, will be very similar to 2015. Of course, that can change, as things develop. Last year i.e. we had tire pressures being introduced that altered the performance slightly. This can of course happen this year too, so nothing is set in stone.

But you've gone so far away from reality! We've barely had a "normal" race according to your criteria this year, yet the winning constructor of these races is still considered to be the fastest. Talk about inconsistency. How many times does these anomalous(!) events like safety cars and miracle starts has to happen before it becomes non-anomalous? If you haven't realised, the starting procedure was changed to introduce variability in the starts. And crashes have happened due to these starts that have brought out the safety car.

It's not a miracle, but a variable, which Mercedes seem to have some difficulty with at the moment. It's all part of racing. You can't create a hypothetical scenario where you control all variables like a scientific experiment, and then declare the winner of the scenario to be the "true" winner in reality.

I think I've said my piece here.

[Phil]

I love how you explain away the races in which Ferrari were competitive as being anomalies, while equally cherry pick "circumstances" to explain the uncompetitiveness of Mercedes in races where they fell short.

Are you really going to argue that a team that won 3 races opposed to the other team winning 17 is not an anomaly?

anomaly
əˈnɒm(ə)li/
noun
noun: anomaly; plural noun: anomalies

1.
something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
"there are a number of anomalies in the present system"

I certainly see a pattern there. Sadly, I also see a lot of reasons why that dominant team of 2014 and 2015 did not win in those 3 races of each season. 2014, we've had technical issues/glitches and collisions that saw RedBull win 3 of those races. In 2015, as I pointed out, Ferrari won a very messy race (Hungary), one where the Mercedes simply did not work (Singapore) and another, that was highly discussed on this very forum if Mercedes had shot themselves in the foot on strategy alone (Malaysia). I was actually among the ones that thought Ferrari had done a very good job and that the high temperatures neutralized the performance gap that was very present over the course of the entire season. I'll actually give you that in 2015 at least, the 2nd team to win races actually did so on merit and not through pure luck as IMO RedBull lucked in, in 2014. They [RedBull in 2014] were fortunate to win those because Mercedes had failures on both cars on 2 of those 3 instances (Canada, Spa) and Hungary was very unfortunate with the safety car.

I'll tell you what; your mentioning of Kimi's car failure in Australia and the Vettels DNF - it had zero outcome on the winner of those races. We might not know what Vettel could have pulled out of the bag had he not had the failure in Bahrain, but given on each of those races we have either partial data or at the very least the performance of one of the two cars to gauge and it's clearly evident that Ferrari did not have the pace nor the position to compete for the win. In Australia, Vettel was the quicker and leading Ferrari driver and both Rosberg and Hamilton ended up ahead. In Bahrain, Kimi never stood a chance. In China, neither did, perhaps due to circumstance, but had that not altered the race, we might have seen a closer race, but there is still no evidence there that Ferrari had the quicker pace had they been on the leading Mercedes tale. None. At no point. That's the reality and it's painting a rather clear picture to me so far.

I would say 2015 was predictable, in hindsight.

At what point did you start watching? Because reviewing the data, it is very evident that the season started pretty much the way it ended; 1-2, 2-3, 1-2, 1-3, 1-2, 1-3, 1-2, 1-2, 1-2....... (note the anomaly in position 2...). It certainly didn't take me till the end of the season to see the pattern.

BTW; That pattern is/was a progression of the 2014 season. And what we are seeing now, is also a progression of 2015. If we had new rules this year, new unknown venues etc, a lot of unknowns, I'd be more hesitant to point out the blatant obvious, but as it is - considering that this season is very much an evolution to the previous 2, it's quite logical why this season is shaping up to be very similar to the previous season, as was the one before it.

There was reason to be optimistic however, that somehow, other teams might have closed that gap entirely (due to reaching the point of diminishing returns of the current rule set), but it seems there was still some potential left for Mercedes to make more optimizations to their car and engine which has made it more difficult for other teams to catch them.

Again, I think the field has become more competitive [than 2015 & 2014], but we're a far cry away from a closer field like i.e. 2010 or 2012 and that advantage Mercedes still has is considerable, as supported by their pace in qualifying so far and the data we have seen in the races. Once they start getting both drivers beyond the first corners without any headaches, it will be a lot more difficult for the teams behind to capitalize.

IMO, it will take a lot to change that. Rule changes (tire changes?) or Mercedes imploding over perhaps their drivers taking eachother out in a desperate fight to the WDC. Or a lot of rainy, unpredictable races and technical glitches.


@Mods; This discussion is probably not suited to this race-topic. Perhaps this should be moved to a general WDC/WCC 2016 topic?

[Andres125sx]

Apologies if it has been posted before, VET vs. KVY incident POV - http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... urn_1.html

I never tought it was Kvyat fault as he always stayed in the inner line and it was the Ferraris who went too long, but after watching this replay now it´s even easier to see. Kvyat not even accelerate to get into the space Vettel left, he only kept his line at constant speed. If he put his car wheel to wheel with Seb´s one, it´s only because Seb went long so he lost speed.

Kvyat did nothing, kept his line, kept constant speed, and crashed with none. 100% Ferrari fault, name it Vettel or Kimi, but there are very little accidents where you can exonerate one driver as categorically as Kvyat on this one

[Nuvolari]

Are you really going to argue that a team that won 3 races opposed to the other team winning 17 is not an anomaly?

No, I only pointed out the logical inconsistency of using 'circumstances' to explain where Ferrari have been competitive, but not also extending the same courtesy in the other direction. But that is beside the point.

I could also offer a lot of explanations as to why Ferrari's competitiveness has been masked by circumstances in all three races this year. Certainly, their gap to Mercedes is a lot smaller in qualifying compared to last year. And given that they were a lot more competitive in the races compared to qualifying last year, I'd say they are even more likely to challenge Mercedes consistently in the races, rather than just the three races they won last year.

I believe we did see signs of this consistent challenge in all the three races so far, compared to last year. For instance in Bahrain, Kimi lost out in the start due to his hand slipping from the clutch paddle but recovered to finish just +10s down the road to Rosberg. Given the time he lost fighting back through slower cars, I have no doubt he'd have given some headaches to Mercedes. Actually in the race, Mercedes played it safe in the strategy to cover Kimi's movements. If they had no worries about a potential Ferrari challenge, they would have taken it easy and run their own race, once Kimi got stuck in the midfield. If Vettel was in play, I would be willing to bet that Mercedes would have got a proper challenge to the point of us getting to see a genuine strategic race between the teams for the win. It wouldn't have been so predictable.

You acknowledge that Vettel was leading in Australia, I would say a strategy error of being aggressive when leading, rather than being conservative in the tyre choices cost Ferrari the race after the very anomalous situation of the red flag nullifying the position Ferrari were in, in terms of the gap built up by Vettel to P2. It is pure myopic travesty to suggest that Ferrari never had the pace to win that race if it were a "normal" one. How often do you see red flags?

At what point did you start watching? Because reviewing the data, it is very evident that the season started pretty much the way it ended; 1-2, 2-3, 1-2, 1-3, 1-2, 1-3, 1-2, 1-2, 1-2....... (note the anomaly in position 2...). It certainly didn't take me till the end of the season to see the pattern.

BTW; That pattern is/was a progression of the 2014. And what we are seeing now, is also a progression of 2015. If we had new rules this year, new unknown venues etc, a lot of unknowns, I'd be more hesitant to point out the blatant obvious, but as it is - considering that this season is very much an evolution to the previous 2, it's quite logical why this season is shaping up to be very similar to the previous season, as was the one before it.

I watched all of 2015. I'd agree with you, but we've also had an important rule change, with regards to the tyre choices this year. I disagree that we are seeing the progression of the 2014 pattern to 2015 and thus extrapolate to 2016. Ferrari were nowhere in 2014. I'm sure at the end of 2014 you wouldn't have predicted Ferrari winning 3 races in 2015. If you were to predict based on the progression of 2015, you would see Ferrari being more competitive, not maintaining the status-quo.

[dans79]

Are you really going to argue that a team that won 3 races opposed to the other team winning 17 is not an anomaly?

No, I only pointed out the logical inconsistency of using 'circumstances' to explain where Ferrari have been competitive, but not also extending the same courtesy in the other direction. But that is beside the point.

You missed the point........

When something happens 85% of the time, it's not an anomaly!

[Nuvolari]

I agreed that Ferrari were the 2nd best. In 2015.

[turbof1]

Guys, the discussion is getting stuck into symantics about anomalies, hypotheticals and probabilities.

My view on this:
-Mercedes still has a qualifying advantage. Competitive-wise during the race this is a big advantage as it will ensure that atleast one car runs in clean air, given your start is well. Having a qualifying advantage is part of your race advantage. Ferrari could hypothetical have a small race pace advantage, but as long as you are behind an other car you cannot use it.

-That being said, I believe Ferrari's race pace is close at the very least to Mercedes.

-Lastly, I feel it's much too early to judge about how competitive they are against one another. We had only 3 races, and all those 3 races were messy. Let's first look how competitive they are if all 4 drivers have a normal start and normal race.

[henra]

I have a strong feeling that this is going to be a repeat of the 2014 season, Nico ahead on points early and Lewis clawing them all back over the rest of the season.

Possible.
That said Nico completely derailed in 2014 after having been massively set straight by the Team for colliding with Lewis in Spa. If that hadn't taken place I doubt it would have been so easy for Lewis to catch up. Nico completely lost the plot afterwards and it took a long time to recover from that.
Now, after 6 consecutive wins I doubt he will collapse again so drastically. This time it might be a bit harder for Lewis to catch up.