2016 Hungarian Grand Prix - Hungaroring, 22-24 July

[ChrisDanger]

Did anyone see what happened to Wehrlein? He did a 1:47.840.

Nevermind. It was an early pitstop...

[turbof1]

Why? I think the strategy was perfect. Merc had no chance to pit that early and not the pace (at least 1.5, maybe 2 sec advantage) at the end to attack the Bulls if the undercut had worked. The signs were really good: Right before the stop, the Mercs were slower than the Bulls and were running into traffic. The problem was, that the Bulls got really slow on the last set of tires. Ric could only do one 24 lap, the rest was in the 25s. On the other hand the Mercs, that seemed to struggle into 26s, could get back to pace and do 24s.
And what did they loose? There was no chance for Vet to overtake Ric with that small tire deficit. Ves did not look different, he was on a fast strategy as his laptimes dropped before his stop.

Except it put Verstappen behind a Raikkonen with old tyres, completely whiping out any advantage of the undercut and even allowing vettel to jump him, throwing away a 3-4. If not for that mistake Red Bull would be in front of Ferrari now. So yeah: bollocks strategy.

[FoxHound]

Mercedes advantage is clearly on energy deployments. A good engine is not only based speed trap at the end of the main straight but also on the quality of the ERS which permit a better/more balanced brake because as I can seen on the oboard the Mercedes are the cars with the most stabel/efficient braking system and that's certainly why he overheat so often. Plus their energy deployment allowed them a really good traction. Also the strat.1 mode is so impressive in Q3 I mean in Silverstone from Q2 to Q3 they up their pace by +1second. This better engine means also most of the performance come from him, and not the chassis (like Red Bull) so = lesser tires deg with a less aggressive setup, a better braking stability, and a better use of the 100kg of fuel (maybe they start the race with less fuel than the others).

From Q2 to Q3 increasing pace by a second is not unheard of, this happened in the V8 era plenty.

I'd like to know if the FIA still publish the weight of the cars prior to racing, because this would give some indication as to fuel load if not to the maximum allowed.
Also, are Red Bull not involved with Renault in the ERS? I recall them having some involvement.

I think after 2013 and the W04 (incidentally a car with great aero but was abysmal on tyres) the work Mercedes did to understand tyres never stopped! Definitely their ace. I think of all those laps in pre season now just pounding around...

I think with the set up of the organisation they now have from engine aero suspension coordination and even tyre understanding, though different rules next year I think Mercedes will be just fine in 2017. And going forward

The spanner might be if, with new rules, someone finds an 'unforeseen trick'

Again, spot on.
But for 2017 the tyres will not be falling off a cliff, so tyre management(a Merc forte) will not be as crucial as it is or has been for the last 5 or 6 years.
Allied to a wider aerodynamic profile, and wider tyres, it will allow for faster stints without the worry of "driving like a granny" as Verstappen put it today.
And there's always potential for some magic bullet to be discovered, a la DDD, F-duct, EBD etc.

[Sonador]

I think they are doing a good job under these circumstances.

I know children who could do a better job than these clowns.

For a guy that accuses some forummembers of "snarky remarks"

This does not sit wel with me, you can disagree with what they do.
But to cal them clowns is a bit to far.

Among the race stewarrds were Alan Jones, he does know a thing of 2 about racing in F1.
So a bit more respect is in order i think.

I think the rules must be looked at, not the race stewards.

[ripper]

Marc Gené said that Renault pu has very good early energy deployment and this help traction, while Ferrari pu gets better after medium power/rpm (he was a bit generic here)

[Spoutnik]

Yes I agree with tyre and chassis correlation. Though I don't believe it's the only factor that affects tyres. Otherwise of course every car with good aero would be kind to its tyres.

Re straights in Hungary, they're relatively short. BUT we saw Redbull holding off some Mercedes powered cars on the long straights of China, even BEFORE the Renault engine upgrade in Canada. Clearly Mercedes advantage is not just power. If one reads between the lines, when Horner talked of challenging Ferrari soon (not Mercedes) with their superior to ours technical analysis, he knew power was not the great differentiator any more

Re Ferrari I thought warmer tracks would help them. Their race with Redbull now is very much track dependent

Agree pretty much with everything there.

The real ace card for Mercedes is how that car uses it's tyres. They can go longer and quicker than anyone else, irrespective of track and it's PU dependency.
Next year this will be neutered due to the wider tyre and chassis.

If Ferrari can find a solution to qualy, they'll beat Red Bull this year. Big IF.

I think after 2013 and the W04 (incidentally a car with great aero but was abysmal on tyres) the work Mercedes did to understand tyres never stopped! Definitely their ace. I think of all those laps in pre season now just pounding around...

I think with the set up of the organisation they now have from engine aero suspension coordination and even tyre understanding, though different rules next year I think Mercedes will be just fine in 2017. And going forward

The spanner might be if, with new rules, someone finds an 'unforeseen trick'

I don't think they improve incredibly on this point, the only thing we can say is most of the win of Hamilton this season come from good tires management (Austria, Monaco, Canada).

You have to understand that having the best PU doesn't mean only "fastest speed trap".
Firstly, it's clear that it's a power advantage; better acceleration, speed, which make the chassis and the aero look good.
Furthermore, the MGU-K power deployment is faster, smoother, which help tires life, and make the car more driveable in wet condition and with cooking tires. This make also the chassis and the aero look good.
And as I said early the MGU-K harvesting = better braking stability. Again the chassis and the aero look good.

I don't say Mercedes only had the best PU because especially this year their aerodynamic seems to work really well. But you have to say even if the Renault and mostly the Ferrari PU is now more near to the Merc PU, lot of work on others area is needed for those constructors.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Massively worrying precedent set this weekend after the stewards didn't penalise Rosberg for speeding through double waved yellows. Jules Bianchi's death can be mostly attributed to not slowing down for yellow flags. Very worrying.

[basti313]

I think they are doing a good job under these circumstances.

I know children who could do a better job than these clowns.

You surely do...

[FoxHound]

You have to understand that having the best PU doesn't mean only "fastest speed trap".
Firstly, it's clear that it's a power advantage; better acceleration, speed, which make the chassis and the aero look good.
Furthermore, the MGU-K power deployment is faster, smoother, which help tires life, and make the car more driveable in wet condition and with cooking tires. This make also the chassis and the aero look good.
And as I said early the MGU-K harvesting = better braking stability. Again the chassis and the aero look good.

I don't say Mercedes only had the best PU because especially this year their aerodynamic seems to work really well. But you have to say even if the Renault and mostly the Ferrari PU is now more near to the Merc PU, lot of work on others area is needed for those constructors.

I don't buy that being the case this year.

Red Bull have been moaning about engines for 3 years and have always pointed to the speed traps as evidence.
The Mercedes PU is superior to the Renault, but not anywhere near as much as Red Bull want you to believe.

Pointing to the MGU-K and it's harvesting and deployment as "evidence" is wrong, because you cannot prove it without hard data. Besides that, Red Bull are renowned for their stability under braking and their traction out of corners. So one could readily say that the ERS on the RB is as good and possibly even better using the parameters you have set out.

[sosic2121]

I counted at least 7 times Kimi has left track limits.

If only FIA sensors and computers were that precise

[Spoutnik]

You have to understand that having the best PU doesn't mean only "fastest speed trap".
Firstly, it's clear that it's a power advantage; better acceleration, speed, which make the chassis and the aero look good.
Furthermore, the MGU-K power deployment is faster, smoother, which help tires life, and make the car more driveable in wet condition and with cooking tires. This make also the chassis and the aero look good.
And as I said early the MGU-K harvesting = better braking stability. Again the chassis and the aero look good.

I don't say Mercedes only had the best PU because especially this year their aerodynamic seems to work really well. But you have to say even if the Renault and mostly the Ferrari PU is now more near to the Merc PU, lot of work on others area is needed for those constructors.

I don't buy that being the case this year.

Red Bull have been moaning about engines for 3 years and have always pointed to the speed traps as evidence.
The Mercedes PU is superior to the Renault, but not anywhere near as much as Red Bull want you to believe.

Pointing to the MGU-K and it's harvesting and deployment as "evidence" is wrong, because you cannot prove it without hard data. Besides that, Red Bull are renowned for their stability under braking and their traction out of corners. So one could readily say that the ERS on the RB is as good and possibly even better using the parameters you have set out.

Yes, and that's my point Ferrari PU and Renault seems equal now even if Ferrari seem more powerful but struggle with reliability. Red Bull have a better correlation between engine and chassis I think. My view of the things is that in 2014 Merc domination was almost only based on the PU, that's also why Williams have been so strong in this year. In 2015 we have seen Ferrari with a big upgrade, only lack of power on qualy. So the development through 2015 and for 2016 is more oriented on the understanding of the tires, the aerodynamic, because Ferrari and now Renault are almost at the same level

About the MGU-K of course it's an impression, a feeling. But Red Bull even without the PU have been so strong as you said in traction and braking stability. That was one of the issue of Ferrari with Alonso, and before the V6 TH Mercedes wasn't a team with incredible traction. So it show the importance of the energy deployment

[GPR-A duplicate2]

What kind of a f***ing joke is FIA stewardship?
1. Spain collision. Action taken? Joke.
2. Austria qualifying. Hulkenberg issue. Action taken? Joke.
3. Austria collision. Action taken? Joke.
4. Britain - Driver coaching. Action taken? Joke.
5. Hungary qualifying - Violation of double waved yellow flags. Action taken? Joke.

[Sevach]

Their vaunted Aero/Chassis went on holiday this weekend.

Got their behinds handed to them by the Mercs, and Ferrari looked quicker passed half way distance.

More like completely compromised strategy which put them with very old tyres at the end of the race versus ferrari with fresher tyres. That strategy was really bollocks.

It didn't help at all.

But there was no pace in that Red Bull either.

The strategy was sound imo, they knowingly sacrificed the end of the race trying to gain track position on the Mercs.
The problem was Ricciardo on fresh tires was slower than the Mercs on old.

[SectorOne]

What kind of a f***ing joke is FIA stewardship?
1. Spain collision. Action taken? Joke.
2. Austria qualifying. Hulkenberg issue. Action taken? Joke.
3. Austria collision. Action taken? Joke.
4. Britain - Driver coaching. Action taken? Joke.
5. Hungary qualifying - Violation of double waved yellow flags. Action taken? Joke.

They use one of these when deciding penalties.

[basti313]

Why? I think the strategy was perfect. Merc had no chance to pit that early and not the pace (at least 1.5, maybe 2 sec advantage) at the end to attack the Bulls if the undercut had worked. The signs were really good: Right before the stop, the Mercs were slower than the Bulls and were running into traffic. The problem was, that the Bulls got really slow on the last set of tires. Ric could only do one 24 lap, the rest was in the 25s. On the other hand the Mercs, that seemed to struggle into 26s, could get back to pace and do 24s.
And what did they loose? There was no chance for Vet to overtake Ric with that small tire deficit. Ves did not look different, he was on a fast strategy as his laptimes dropped before his stop.

Except it put Verstappen behind a Raikkonen with old tyres, completely whiping out any advantage of the undercut and even allowing vettel to jump him, throwing away a 3-4. If not for that mistake Red Bull would be in front of Ferrari now. So yeah: bollocks strategy.

I thought your problem is the second stop...
Ves had a 21s gap on Rai to come out in front of him only for two laps. But then the problem was that Hulk and Gro would have been in the way. I think it was pure luck for Vet, that the two slowest SS runners pitted in the same lap. After they pitted Rai was too fast (2sec faster). So it was only one lap to go and they missed it. With two cars to pit they always had to choose...either they put Ric behind Hulk or leave Ves in danger for the undercut.
The Bulls did not have the pace to hold a 3-4. This was not strategy.