2018 Canadian Grand Prix, Montreal June 8-10

[RZS10]

I'd rather put my money on him in the wall of champions in FP3

[bonjon1979]

Interesting tire allocation. Mercedes has the least amount of HS, by quite a margin.

Meaning: Ferrari will have much more practice runs on HS for one lap pace. Come race, I assume, like always, all of them will have the same amount of each tyre.

No, it means that Mercedes has gambled that the Super-Soft and the Ultra-Soft will be more important for the race. Both RedBull and Ferrari have 2 sets of SS and 3 sets of the US tire. That means they are limited to some degree what and how they test. For example; If they want to retain a fresh set of SS for the race, they can only use one set each during free-practice and gather intel from them.

Last year, it was a 1 stop for most (= 2 stints) with some that gambled on 2 stops (i.e. Vettel). The one-stoppers (Ham, Bottas, Kimi, Ric) started on the Ultra-Soft (the softest at that race) and some did the second stint on the SS and some on the S. Vettel who did a two stop, did US-SS-US. This year could be a 2 stop race for most if the tires are indeed that less durable because they are more aggressive than last years tires. Hamilton also once demonstrated that stopping more can work if you're fast enough to catch up, as overtaking is possible on this track.

If it is indeed a 2-stop race, having fresh and unused sets of the harder compound could be an advantage. Obviously, the allocation dictate how much you can test and gather intel on them during FP and retain a fresh set for the race. The big question will also be, how usable the HS tire is. No doubt it will probably be the quickest, but how long will it last on a track where you can easily overtake? If it doesn't last long, it may not be a tire you'd want to use during the race.

Possibly strategies:

HS-US-(US)
US-SS-(HS/US)
HS-SS-(HS/US)

Mercedes will do Q2 on the Ultra soft tyre and then fit SS until the end. They have the pace on the straights for that strategy and I think we'll see a Ferrari/Mercedes shoot out for the win. Hopefully we'll see a mix of strategies with Ferrari going for two stops quicker stints versus mercs 1 stop. Red Bull won't have the power to make up the time on the straights.

[LM10]

Apparently, Renault have 6 engines with the new spec, but it's not sure yet if all 6 cars will race the new engine, due to usage of components and varying mileage of the parts already in use. I think however that RedBull will use it in both (if they can) due to their upcoming decision regarding engines for 2019...

Ferrari is also said to bring the upgraded spec with La Gazzetta dello Sport claiming is worth 15-20 horse power. Any news on Mercedes? I presume they will bring their new spec to Canada as well? I'm also curious to see if Ferrari remain having that edge in qualifying or if the focus on their battery usage has cost them some.

Nothing on their ERS has changed (so far). Also no new software or hardware. Without any changes, FIA finally understood what they wanted to understand after thursday in Monaco and were happy with what was going on. That's what Charlie told.

[Phil]

Nothing on their ERS has changed (so far). Also no new software or hardware. Without any changes, FIA finally understood what they wanted to understand after thursday in Monaco and were happy with what was going on. That's what Charlie told.

Direct quote from Charlie Whiting

Their duty is to satisfy us that the car complies, as you know, but they've been finding it hard to satisfy us. But by the time we got to here and looking at data, software changes that were implemented, it becomes clearer exactly where we were and after the first day of running we were then able to say 'OK we're happy now. We understand it now'.

Other publications such as AMuS have reported and confirmed this since as well:

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... korrektur/

Ferrari hat den Technikkommissaren der FIA in Monaco eine korrigierte Software des Energiemanagements präsentiert. Sie soll Missbrauch ausschließen.

Together, they confirm that there were software changes made to the energy-management.

You are free to believe what you want to believe or if Ferrari gained any advantage with the prior to the software update, but the fact remains that there were changes made for Monaco.

[Sevach]

No, it means that Mercedes has gambled that the Super-Soft and the Ultra-Soft will be more important for the race. Both RedBull and Ferrari have 2 sets of SS and 3 sets of the US tire. That means they are limited to some degree what and how they test. For example; If they want to retain a fresh set of SS for the race, they can only use one set each during free-practice and gather intel from them.

Last year, it was a 1 stop for most (= 2 stints) with some that gambled on 2 stops (i.e. Vettel). The one-stoppers (Ham, Bottas, Kimi, Ric) started on the Ultra-Soft (the softest at that race) and some did the second stint on the SS and some on the S. Vettel who did a two stop, did US-SS-US. This year could be a 2 stop race for most if the tires are indeed that less durable because they are more aggressive than last years tires. Hamilton also once demonstrated that stopping more can work if you're fast enough to catch up, as overtaking is possible on this track.

If it is indeed a 2-stop race, having fresh and unused sets of the harder compound could be an advantage. Obviously, the allocation dictate how much you can test and gather intel on them during FP and retain a fresh set for the race. The big question will also be, how usable the HS tire is. No doubt it will probably be the quickest, but how long will it last on a track where you can easily overtake? If it doesn't last long, it may not be a tire you'd want to use during the race.

Possibly strategies:

HS-US-(US)
US-SS-(HS/US)
HS-SS-(HS/US)

Canada's pitlane cuts the final chicane and T1, often you see someone lost 21s in the pitlane yet came in front of someone who was 18s behind, it's a good track for 1 extra stop (not even mentioning the high SC/VSC probability).

I think teams will probably avoid the HS if they can, opening the door for US-SS with a possibility of a late change back to Ultra.

[TAG]

Ferrari is also said to bring the upgraded spec with La Gazzetta dello Sport claiming is worth 15-20 horse power. Any news on Mercedes? I presume they will bring their new spec to Canada as well? I'm also curious to see if Ferrari remain having that edge in qualifying or if the focus on their battery usage has cost them some.

Any and all "accusations" aside, this is the circumstancial evidence I've been wanting to keep an eye on. I recall from last year this is the track that Vettel was GAINING time on the Mercs after the hair pin which is all acceleration (it was the moment that kicks off the oil burn inspections and removal of the secondary tank and plumbing by Ferrari) So far this year Ferrari has had the edge on Saturdays.

[LM10]

Nothing on their ERS has changed (so far). Also no new software or hardware. Without any changes, FIA finally understood what they wanted to understand after thursday in Monaco and were happy with what was going on. That's what Charlie told.

Direct quote from Charlie Whiting

Their duty is to satisfy us that the car complies, as you know, but they've been finding it hard to satisfy us. But by the time we got to here and looking at data, software changes that were implemented, it becomes clearer exactly where we were and after the first day of running we were then able to say 'OK we're happy now. We understand it now'.

Other publications such as AMuS have reported and confirmed this since as well:

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... korrektur/

Ferrari hat den Technikkommissaren der FIA in Monaco eine korrigierte Software des Energiemanagements präsentiert. Sie soll Missbrauch ausschließen.

Together, they confirm that there were software changes made to the energy-management.

You are free to believe what you want to believe or if Ferrari gained any advantage with the prior to the software update, but the fact remains that there were changes made for Monaco.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21958&start=1440

Scroll down and read my post. I quoted an article from motorsport.com. These are also direct quotes from Charlie and they clearly say that there were no changes. These quotes were also to be found in a detailed analysis on motorsport for prime users (Im trying out a subscription this month, that's why I read it).

So I guess it's a question of evidence in each article?

[Phil]

Charlie is obviously in an awkward position. If he says too much, he is risking that media will cry foul play or make accusations/suggestions that the FIA are protecting Ferrari. Either way, it's a delicate matter and wrong conclusions can be drawn. In that sense, I'm more inclined to think that software changes have been made (Charlie confirmed or slipped that information in what I quoted). Then there is also the case that suddenly Ferrari have been very cooperative regarding the last minute 2019 aero changes which also suggests there's more to it than is publicly available. I also will add - again - that opposing teams did threaten with protests if no action was done. This definitely puts the FIA (and therefore Ferrari) under pressure to demonstrate that everything is in order (hence the alterations in software).

Under the presumption that altering software also alters the test-case, it's a different matter all together if there was a loophole that was effectively used, or not. That's an entirely different topic. If suddenly Ferrari's pace is off (like at Barcelona), it does raise a few interesting questions: Where did that pace go? Was Mercedes simply underperforming from Bahrain to Baku? Was it due to tires (for Mercedes at those 3 races or for Ferrari at Barcelona)? Or was Ferrari really riding on exploiting some advantage, at least in QF, from a loophole that is now closed?

[digitalrurouni]

I am going to this GP. Too bad I am tagging along with some friends who are not as enthusiastic an F1 fan as I am. So I bought General Admission tickets. I hope I get to enjoy the race and I hope Hamilton wins!!!

Absolutely love tearing around in F1 2017 on this track. Best time I set in my career mode is a 1.10.501 Ultrasoft shod lap. Was an absolute blast. Come to think of it I was able to set a 1.10.8 lap at Monaco. Lap times are close with both those back to back tracks! Just realized that!

[TAG]

I am going to this GP. Too bad I am tagging along with some friends who are not as enthusiastic an F1 fan as I am. So I bought General Admission tickets. I hope I get to enjoy the race and I hope Hamilton wins!!!

It's a pretty crappy circuit for general admission tickets. It's as if they go out of their way to place objects in the way to obstruct the views just to encourage people to buy the GS tickets! There's a lot of space but the prime viewing for GA tickets is very limited to those that get there early so keep that in mind.

[digitalrurouni]

I am going to this GP. Too bad I am tagging along with some friends who are not as enthusiastic an F1 fan as I am. So I bought General Admission tickets. I hope I get to enjoy the race and I hope Hamilton wins!!!

It's a pretty crappy circuit for general admission tickets. It's as if they go out of their way to place objects in the way to obstruct the views just to encourage people to buy the GS tickets! There's a lot of space but the prime viewing for GA tickets is very limited to those that get there early so keep that in mind.

Thanks for the tip. That bums me out. Ah well it is what it is I guess. Damnit next time I should not worry about money and if others can afford it or not and just be selfish and get the better tickets!!!

[LM10]

Charlie is obviously in an awkward position. If he says too much, he is risking that media will cry foul play or make accusations/suggestions that the FIA are protecting Ferrari. Either way, it's a delicate matter and wrong conclusions can be drawn. In that sense, I'm more inclined to think that software changes have been made (Charlie confirmed or slipped that information in what I quoted). Then there is also the case that suddenly Ferrari have been very cooperative regarding the last minute 2019 aero changes which also suggests there's more to it than is publicly available. I also will add - again - that opposing teams did threaten with protests if no action was done. This definitely puts the FIA (and therefore Ferrari) under pressure to demonstrate that everything is in order (hence the alterations in software).

Under the presumption that altering software also alters the test-case, it's a different matter all together if there was a loophole that was effectively used, or not. That's an entirely different topic. If suddenly Ferrari's pace is off (like at Barcelona), it does raise a few interesting questions: Where did that pace go? Was Mercedes simply underperforming from Bahrain to Baku? Was it due to tires (for Mercedes at those 3 races or for Ferrari at Barcelona)? Or was Ferrari really riding on exploiting some advantage, at least in QF, from a loophole that is now closed?

To be fair, it must be said that apart from AMuS no one tells that the software change was made to prevent any possible cheating. Whether a software change was made or not, other articles tell that it was to make the FIA understand the matter. Motorsport quotes Whiting saying they understood the ERS without any changes and the article you sent quotes Whiting saying they understood the ERS with the help of software. Both articles have in common that it just took the FIA some time to understand what was going on and when they were at top of things they were convinced everything was and has been ok.
So it just remains AMuS claiming there was a software change to make it impossible for Ferrari to put out more power. I found this article a bit strange anyway. How could they have implemented such "preventing" software without even being aware of how the system was working?

Whatever, we will see in Montreal if Ferrari will significantly be behind power wise or not. I'm curious about that.

[Bill_Kar]

Mercedes will do Q2 on the Ultra soft tyre and then fit SS until the end. They have the pace on the straights for that strategy and I think we'll see a Ferrari/Mercedes shoot out for the win. Hopefully we'll see a mix of strategies with Ferrari going for two stops quicker stints versus mercs 1 stop. Red Bull won't have the power to make up the time on the straights.

But Mercedes will work really sweetly on those SS, Ferrari will just loose 20s or something. Isn't this what happened in Canada 2016?I'm not sure, but IIRC Ferrari pitted and they were waiting for Mercedes to do so and they never caught up.
And there isn't so much graining as in the 2012 race to benefit from it.
I think it'll be a one-stopper easily, with no differentiation in strategy, at least for Vettel-Hamilton.

[f1316]

Mercedes will do Q2 on the Ultra soft tyre and then fit SS until the end. They have the pace on the straights for that strategy and I think we'll see a Ferrari/Mercedes shoot out for the win. Hopefully we'll see a mix of strategies with Ferrari going for two stops quicker stints versus mercs 1 stop. Red Bull won't have the power to make up the time on the straights.

But Mercedes will work really sweetly on those SS, Ferrari will just loose 20s or something. Isn't this what happened in Canada 2016?I'm not sure, but IIRC Ferrari pitted and they were waiting for Mercedes to do so and they never caught up.
And there isn't so much graining as in the 2012 race to benefit from it.
I think it'll be a one-stopper easily, with no differentiation in strategy, at least for Vettel-Hamilton.

Agree but if it’s close I can see either team switching their resident Finn onto a contra strategy to put pressure on the other.

[Phil]

I found this article a bit strange anyway. How could they have implemented such "preventing" software without even being aware of how the system was working?

I’m a software engineer, so let me give you an example:

You have a piece of software (energy management) that has an exploit that could be potentially used for abuse.

There’s no way to know, if that exploit is/was used or not, because there is no log of it.

You alter the software to close/fix that exploit from being used.

It doesnt answer if that exploit was used in the first place, but going forward, you can ensure it cant be used (and ensure full compliance).