2018 Chinese Grand Prix - Shanghai, April 13-15

[mani517]

[in response to the discussion on Bahrain pace comparison -- in the Chinese GP thread]

I'm a passive follower of this forum, don't participate in discussions much. So, apologies for barging in... but, I feel, people sometimes only consider the facts that suit their argument and ignore the other equally relevant facts willingly. I don't mean to say this argument is wrong, but, here is my view of the Bahrain race pace -

Hamilton was faster in the race, but, before we use that fact to conclude Mecedes was a faster car than Ferrari in "Bahrain race" we need to consider the following facts

1) Mercedes team came up with a brilliant strategy to force Ferrari to switch to plan B (1 stop) -- it is beyond doubt that Ferrari's plan was 2 stops until Mercedes played their card
2) So, Mercedes handed a big disadvantage to Ferrari with their strategy (either make one extra stop worth a loss of 25 odd secs or make the softs last the distance)
3) Ferrari chose the later of the 2 options, which means they needed to run 9 or 10 more laps longer than the predicted life of the Softs (30 laps, by Pirelli)
4) It is not an easy feat when they had no idea what kind of performance decline they'll see at the end of the tire life

That is enough to conclude that Ferrari/Vettel had all the reasons to NOT stress the tires on their 2nd stint (right from the moment they decided to switch to 1 stop strategy). That proves the performances of Hamilton and Vettel are not representative of their cars.

But, there is more. The Mercedes' strategy was partly influenced by what the team saw with other cars running on Mediums for the 2nd stint. They (others who bolted Mediums before Mercedes) showed good pace and that suggested the performance delta wasn't much between Softs and Mediums on that day -- so, their choice of Mediums gave them a tire that is long lasting than the Softs, but, almost a match for the Softs in terms of the pace. Also, we shouldn't forget that Hamilton pitted 8 laps latter (27) than Vettel (19) and this meant his 2nd stint was that much shorter.

So,
- Vettel had to drive 39 laps on Softs (9 or 10 laps more than predicted tire life)
- Hamilton had to drive 31 laps on Mediums (within the predicted tire life)

Throw in the fact that the actual performance delta between Mediums and Softs wasn't much on that particular day and Raikkonen was missing in the 2nd stint to apply any pressure (thanks to Ferrari's unfortunate pit stop debacle) -- it is very clear that Hamilton's 2nd stint was driven pretty much to the potential of his car while Vettel had to drive to a delta to make it to the flag.

Again, I'm not saying Mercedes was slower than Ferrari in Bahrain. I'm only suggesting what we saw wasn't enough to conclude Mercedes was a faster car in Bahrain.

[Fulcrum]

Vettel vs Raikkonen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyLXBOFQGws

What the hell was that, Vettel gained 1.5 tenths on the straight,

I'm not sure I'd trust the representation of the cars movement as accurate. They're probably updating the graphic as they pass through the mini-sectors, which would explain the granular jumps.

[Chuckjr]

VET smart boy draining his battery on the last straight to reach 207 MPH and take RIK in the third sector. Thats a cunning move. Well played.

[godlameroso]

[in response to the discussion on Bahrain pace comparison -- in the Chinese GP thread]

I'm a passive follower of this forum, don't participate in discussions much. So, apologies for barging in... but, I feel, people sometimes only consider the facts that suit their argument and ignore the other equally relevant facts willingly. I don't mean to say this argument is wrong, but, here is my view of the Bahrain race pace -

Hamilton was faster in the race, but, before we use that fact to conclude Mecedes was a faster car than Ferrari in "Bahrain race" we need to consider the following facts

1) Mercedes team came up with a brilliant strategy to force Ferrari to switch to plan B (1 stop) -- it is beyond doubt that Ferrari's plan was 2 stops until Mercedes played their card
2) So, Mercedes handed a big disadvantage to Ferrari with their strategy (either make one extra stop worth a loss of 25 odd secs or make the softs last the distance)
3) Ferrari chose the later of the 2 options, which means they needed to run 9 or 10 more laps longer than the predicted life of the Softs (30 laps, by Pirelli)
4) It is not an easy feat when they had no idea what kind of performance decline they'll see at the end of the tire life

That is enough to conclude that Ferrari/Vettel had all the reasons to NOT stress the tires on their 2nd stint (right from the moment they decided to switch to 1 stop strategy). That proves the performances of Hamilton and Vettel are not representative of their cars.

But, there is more. The Mercedes' strategy was partly influenced by what the team saw with other cars running on Mediums for the 2nd stint. They (others who bolted Mediums before Mercedes) showed good pace and that suggested the performance delta wasn't much between Softs and Mediums on that day -- so, their choice of Mediums gave them a tire that is long lasting than the Softs, but, almost a match for the Softs in terms of the pace. Also, we shouldn't forget that Hamilton pitted 8 laps latter (27) than Vettel (19) and this meant his 2nd stint was that much shorter.

So,
- Vettel had to drive 39 laps on Softs (9 or 10 laps more than predicted tire life)
- Hamilton had to drive 31 laps on Mediums (within the predicted tire life)

Throw in the fact that the actual performance delta between Mediums and Softs wasn't much on that particular day and Raikkonen was missing in the 2nd stint to apply any pressure (thanks to Ferrari's unfortunate pit stop debacle) -- it is very clear that Hamilton's 2nd stint was driven pretty much to the potential of his car while Vettel had to drive to a delta to make it to the flag.

Again, I'm not saying Mercedes was slower than Ferrari in Bahrain. I'm only suggesting what we saw wasn't enough to conclude Mercedes was a faster car in Bahrain.

Yeah that's cool and all, but Mercedes also did a one stop and were clearly faster with it.

[godlameroso]

Tailwind down the main straight for the race.

[JPBD1990]

Best car in Bahrain? Where are you getting that from? The 1-2 Ferrari had in qualifying kinda says otherwise.

Best strategy in Bahrain, yes, and yet they still weren’t able to win.

Anyway, whatever, we’ll see - my real point was that Mercedes will come back.

I don't think pace in qualifying = pace in the race. It's on a different day, under different track conditions, often using different tyres to those used for the majority of the race distance, with different fuel loads and the former rarely has people deliberately trying to block you. But, happy to agree to disagree as you seem very sure they are the same.

yet they still weren’t able to win

I think the Mercedes strategists dropped the ball again and misjudged when to push. You seem to think Vettel deliberately let Bottas close at 1.8 seconds a lap and into DRS range*.

Just to be clear, if there had been another lap (or, indeed, several), you think Vettel would have comfortably held the race lead? I've looked at Vettel and Ferrari's comments after the race and they seemed happier than I'd have expected if they had cruised to victory with plenty in hand.

You know as well as I do that for 39 laps of the Bahrain GP Vettel was nursing tyres and Hamilton was on more suitable rubber.

Ah, if we take out some of the things that made the Mercedes faster then, yes, you are right, Ferrari were faster. I'd argue it's a bit of a false comparison though. For instance, Hamilton was half a second faster on Soft tyres during Qualifying today, so if we take away Ferrari's pace on the Ultra Softs (they are on more suitable rubber for traversing the relevant distance, so we should ignore that) then you could say that Mercedes is the much faster car in China. I'd disagree though.

*Source - James Allen

Yesterday Mercedes turned their engine up to 11 for their final Q2 run on softs while Ferrari did not. In their respective Q2 modes, Ferrari were ahead on the softs. In their respective Q3 modes, Ferrari were again ahead on the ultras.

There is a great post At the top of this page regarding the Bahrain argument, too.

I’m with Mani517. I’m not trying to say Ferrari or Mercedes is faster - only that you should look at all the facts and maybe conclude “wow, they’re super close in pace and it’s hard to call”... or something... instead of confidently asserting that Mercedes is faster based on your own interpretation of results.

[JPBD1990]

[in response to the discussion on Bahrain pace comparison -- in the Chinese GP thread]

I'm a passive follower of this forum, don't participate in discussions much. So, apologies for barging in... but, I feel, people sometimes only consider the facts that suit their argument and ignore the other equally relevant facts willingly. I don't mean to say this argument is wrong, but, here is my view of the Bahrain race pace -

Hamilton was faster in the race, but, before we use that fact to conclude Mecedes was a faster car than Ferrari in "Bahrain race" we need to consider the following facts

1) Mercedes team came up with a brilliant strategy to force Ferrari to switch to plan B (1 stop) -- it is beyond doubt that Ferrari's plan was 2 stops until Mercedes played their card
2) So, Mercedes handed a big disadvantage to Ferrari with their strategy (either make one extra stop worth a loss of 25 odd secs or make the softs last the distance)
3) Ferrari chose the later of the 2 options, which means they needed to run 9 or 10 more laps longer than the predicted life of the Softs (30 laps, by Pirelli)
4) It is not an easy feat when they had no idea what kind of performance decline they'll see at the end of the tire life

That is enough to conclude that Ferrari/Vettel had all the reasons to NOT stress the tires on their 2nd stint (right from the moment they decided to switch to 1 stop strategy). That proves the performances of Hamilton and Vettel are not representative of their cars.

But, there is more. The Mercedes' strategy was partly influenced by what the team saw with other cars running on Mediums for the 2nd stint. They (others who bolted Mediums before Mercedes) showed good pace and that suggested the performance delta wasn't much between Softs and Mediums on that day -- so, their choice of Mediums gave them a tire that is long lasting than the Softs, but, almost a match for the Softs in terms of the pace. Also, we shouldn't forget that Hamilton pitted 8 laps latter (27) than Vettel (19) and this meant his 2nd stint was that much shorter.

So,
- Vettel had to drive 39 laps on Softs (9 or 10 laps more than predicted tire life)
- Hamilton had to drive 31 laps on Mediums (within the predicted tire life)

Throw in the fact that the actual performance delta between Mediums and Softs wasn't much on that particular day and Raikkonen was missing in the 2nd stint to apply any pressure (thanks to Ferrari's unfortunate pit stop debacle) -- it is very clear that Hamilton's 2nd stint was driven pretty much to the potential of his car while Vettel had to drive to a delta to make it to the flag.

Again, I'm not saying Mercedes was slower than Ferrari in Bahrain. I'm only suggesting what we saw wasn't enough to conclude Mercedes was a faster car in Bahrain.

Great post with awesome points! Sometimes it’s not about asserting that your favourite team is the fastest. I think it’s fair to say that none of us couch observers know - so I’m all for not knowing. Others think that they know everything because of X, Y, and Z.

[Ram]

Ah, if we take out some of the things that made the Mercedes faster then, yes, you are right, Ferrari were faster. I'd argue it's a bit of a false comparison though. For instance, Hamilton was half a second faster on Soft tyres during Qualifying today, so if we take away Ferrari's pace on the Ultra Softs (they are on more suitable rubber for traversing the relevant distance, so we should ignore that) then you could say that Mercedes is the much faster car in China. I'd disagree though.

*Source - James Allen

The bolded part is only partly true. Hamilton was up 0.372 seconds over Kimi by the end of Q2 on softs but Kimi bettered Hamilton's time in both sectors 1 & 2 but he went into the pits without finishing the lap. Hamilton's time in Q2 is deceiving to say the least.

[JonoNic]

Is it fair to say that a Ferrari one-two today means they have overcome their fuel consumption issues during a race? If not then Mercedes still has the edge (ERS?) in that area.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[JonoNic]

I can't believe that SKYF1 used the footage of the mechanic's leg breaking in their show's intro. Then they top it off as a dubb step rewind on that footage!!! Kind of disrespectful to me

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[JPBD1990]

Simon just said Ferrari keep doing this (flubbing pitstops?)? It seems like their Achilles heel? Like sorry what are you talkin about pal?!

[George-Jung]

Eric Boullier gone soon ?

[Restomaniac]

Simon just said Ferrari keep doing this (flubbing pitstops?)? It seems like their Achilles heel? Like sorry what are you talkin about pal?!

They also made out that the Mercedes has been the second best car all season. I assume they were asleep during the Australian weekend. That takes some doing when they were actually presenting and talking. Then again they were talking out of their backsides DURING that race so....

[JonoNic]

First nine positions have a 1 sec gap when DRS was enabled

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[PinkFloydPulse]

Seems we see the real pecking order now when everyone is running normally and no retirements... McL getting a cold shover and reality check saddly...
Do you guys think this will be a borefest until the end?