- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
More teams have hit trouble in the final day of pre-season testing at Barcelona. At a moment when one would expect reliability issues to be nearly ironed out, the lack of running for some teams was surprising.
Given the pathetic penalty for an engine change, all teams would be mad to not just use 4 or 5 and be a lot more powerful.
It was Ferrari who vehemently denied Horner's request to change the ruling and keep the limit at 4 as it was last year. While Ferrari themselves had the reliability issues with their PU last year, they were not willing to bring in a change. Customer teams, other than Red Bull, are happy with 3 PU situation as it costs them less to buy one more.djones wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 17:40Given the pathetic penalty for an engine change, all teams would be mad to not just use 4 or 5 and be a lot more powerful.
If I had to guess they will all do this apart from Mercedes, who will be playing some sort of marketing stunt just so they can say they did it on 3.
Is the amount of problems which are affecting McLaren much more than other teams. I do hope they can solve them but pre-season is running fast and McLaren has Little time to solve its problems.makecry wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 17:09Seriously? Can't people read? Today it has been Renault batteries shutting down. It has been confirmed. Same thing happened with Renault on Thursday. It happened to Sainz's car today. What does McLaren have to do with Renault sourced batteries?
I do agree about the pitstop now.
Mercedes had the same component usage (over quota I mean) than Ferrari, with Lewis and Seb getting 5 ICE, MGU-H and TC and the Finnish drivers using only the allowed components. As for their clients, none of them had a single component over quota, with Mercedes having the advantage of serving more teams thus a higher probability of failure (which they didn't do).GPR-A wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 17:43It was Ferrari who vehemently denied Horner's request to change the ruling and keep the limit at 4 as it was last year. While Ferrari themselves had the reliability issues with their PU last year, they were not willing to bring in a change. Customer teams, other than Red Bull, are happy with 3 PU situation as it costs them less to buy one more.djones wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 17:40Given the pathetic penalty for an engine change, all teams would be mad to not just use 4 or 5 and be a lot more powerful.
If I had to guess they will all do this apart from Mercedes, who will be playing some sort of marketing stunt just so they can say they did it on 3.
Ferrari's issues where because of component failures, Mercedes was because Lewis put the car in the wall in Brazil. Thus, Ferrari had worse reliability.Big Mangalhit wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 18:19Mercedes had the same component usage (over quota I mean) than Ferrari, with Lewis and Seb getting 5 ICE, MGU-H and TC and the Finnish drivers using only the allowed components. As for their clients, none of them had a single component over quota, with Mercedes having the advantage of serving more teams thus a higher probability of failure (which they didn't do).
So I don't know why everybody claims the Merc had such a better reliability than Ferrari. They seem pretty on par to me, especially after Ferrari corrected the TC problems they had, also their first PU run for a crazy amount of km (there was a tweet somewhere saying this).
Fair enough, but tbf the penalty on Vettel was because they found a structural problem in the TC that they fixed but because of that had to introduce the 3rd TC still in April, which left them only 2 TC (non-faulty ones, they for sure still used detuned faulty TC for FP's) for the rest of the year.
i agreed with Ferrari....Mercedes also agreed with Ferrari.....this was a Horner stunt....the facts: wait untill the manufacturers shelled out millions of dollars in research and development to extend the effective lifespan of each engine then say eeegh we should go back to 4 engines..... Red Bull of course spends zero dollars on engine R/D so Horner could care less about the wasted millions along with more millions to reverse course.GPR-A wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 17:43It was Ferrari who vehemently denied Horner's request to change the ruling and keep the limit at 4 as it was last year. While Ferrari themselves had the reliability issues with their PU last year, they were not willing to bring in a change. Customer teams, other than Red Bull, are happy with 3 PU situation as it costs them less to buy one more.djones wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 17:40Given the pathetic penalty for an engine change, all teams would be mad to not just use 4 or 5 and be a lot more powerful.
If I had to guess they will all do this apart from Mercedes, who will be playing some sort of marketing stunt just so they can say they did it on 3.
The number of components used are the same, but the reasons behind them are different. Hamilton got his components changed for Brazil (over the allocation), as he crashed his car in Brazil without having set any time in Q1, which meant that he was set to start from the back of the grid and hence, they went for a change of PU, otherwise there was no NEED to change it. Whereas, for Ferrari, the PU failed in Malaysia for both drivers, which there was no intention to change and even the changed PU, failed in Suzuka. There is that difference and that is why the situation isnt' the same, despite the component usage number being the same.Big Mangalhit wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 18:19Mercedes had the same component usage (over quota I mean) than Ferrari, with Lewis and Seb getting 5 ICE, MGU-H and TC and the Finnish drivers using only the allowed components. As for their clients, none of them had a single component over quota, with Mercedes having the advantage of serving more teams thus a higher probability of failure (which they didn't do).GPR-A wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 17:43It was Ferrari who vehemently denied Horner's request to change the ruling and keep the limit at 4 as it was last year. While Ferrari themselves had the reliability issues with their PU last year, they were not willing to bring in a change. Customer teams, other than Red Bull, are happy with 3 PU situation as it costs them less to buy one more.djones wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 17:40Given the pathetic penalty for an engine change, all teams would be mad to not just use 4 or 5 and be a lot more powerful.
If I had to guess they will all do this apart from Mercedes, who will be playing some sort of marketing stunt just so they can say they did it on 3.
So I don't know why everybody claims the Merc had such a better reliability than Ferrari. They seem pretty on par to me, especially after Ferrari corrected the TC problems they had, also their first PU run for a crazy amount of km (there was a tweet somewhere saying this).
To be clear, in Malaysia it was the exhaust that failed, and in Japan it was spark plug issues.GPR-A wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 18:40Whereas, for Ferrari, the PU failed in Malaysia for both drivers, which there was no intention to change and even the changed PU, failed in Suzuka. There is that difference and that is why the situation isnt' the same, despite the component usage number being the same.
