Sebastian Vettel won his easiest race of the year, leading the Canadian Grand Prix from start to finish. The German didn't put a foot wrong and kept Bottas at bay, who finished second. Max Verstappen completed the podium in third place after what essentially was a surprisingly dull race.
Didn't Max have the new Renault PU tho, that's got to count for something if Dan is running the old version and using a worn mgu-k?godlameroso wrote: ↑10 Jun 2018, 14:07Wow, it seems no one is making a big deal about Verstappen's previous crashes after dominating Riccardo all week. I guess people really do have short memories and you're only as good as your last race.
Hamilton was slower than Bottas on every sector, yet people are still saying without the lockup (which btw didn't lose him much time, he still took the correct line) pole was his...Sieper wrote: ↑10 Jun 2018, 11:41Lewis locked up on both his Q3 runs, that’s what caused him not to be on pole. New engine would have possibly saved his arse but they don’t have it yet.
Too bad for Lewis but why should he always be on pole, even If he is not mistake free. He starts from P4 and If the FP pace was genuine he still has a good chance to win the race, overtaking is possible here (though tough).
That's not my 'narrative' at all. My 'narrative' is that it's really odd that Ferrari didn't take pole by more. That's not a "Yay, Mercedes are great!" it's a "Hmm, Ferrari should be better than this, I wonder why they arne't matching their early season performance?". Also, Hamilton was nowhere near pole regardless of what may or may not have been on or in his car. Bottas might have snatched it but that's far from guaranteed. Much as Ferrari might have had a front row lock out if Kimi had a new PU.
That's not what I've said at all. Perhaps I'm making it too complicated.
I don't understand how phonometric measurements could work with turbo engines with prescribed fuel flow...they tell you maximum rpm but the translation into power is not univocal now.ripper wrote: ↑10 Jun 2018, 14:58I don't know how much reliable it is but:
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/anali ... a/3119544/
Phonometric measurement: Bottas had 12 hp more than Hamilton, Vettel very near to Hamilton but still a little less, Renault engine missing 27 hp to Bottas. Honda to Bottas 50 and more hp.
As I already told I don't know how much is it realiable, but still worth mentioning
They get 13 sets for the whole weekend. The used tires mentioned here are the ones they have used in qualifying if I'm not mistaken.
You don't seem to take into consideration the tyre problems Mercedes had early season. I'm sure this played a significant role in Qualifying. Toto, Niki, drivers, engineers etc. told that it was a hard task to get tyres in working range. The W09 was said to be as much of a diva as it's predecessor was. But after Mercedes started understanding the problems, they seem to have been on top of things since Barcelona where they brought upgrades.Wynters wrote: ↑10 Jun 2018, 14:37That's not what I've said at all. Perhaps I'm making it too complicated.
- New engine should be better than older engine in Merc (that's the point you've grasped but also...).
- New version of the engine should be better than the engine it's replacing.
Combine the two and you should get a bigger gap than what we've seen at previous power sensitive circuits (e.g. Baku). But...we haven't. I'm happy to change my view should new/better data surface. What gap would you expect to see?
For instance, maybe 0.5 is too much. How about 0.4? Nope, haven't seen that. 0.3? Nope. 0.2...Well, maybe (if we give Vettel the mythical extra tenth), but that's (almost?) entirely explained by the new version. So...what is the drop off between Australia and here? You seem to be arguing that there is either no drop off or that the Mercedes engine has been getting faster (why is it even competitive with a better version of the engine that blew it away earlier in the year)?
Oh, and nicely worded. "Easily"... heh
You sound worried, as if you're trying to rationalize the results, you don't have to convince anyone. Race day today, let's enjoy that. No need to keep rehashing this, leave the pointless back and forth. You keep pointing out plausible reasons yet refuse to acknowledge the obvious one.
I'm not worried, don't worry.TAG wrote: ↑10 Jun 2018, 16:59You sound worried, as if you're trying to rationalize the results, you don't have to convince anyone. Race day today, let's enjoy that. No need to keep rehashing this, leave the pointless back and forth. You keep pointing out plausible reasons yet refuse to acknowledge the obvious one.
Personally, I'm happy that there's nothing illegal going on now. Hit the reset button and move on. Nothing to worry about.
Just pointing out the double standard going on. The double standard is first to tell that Mercedes has tyre problems and therefore lack pace in Qualifying and then not to mention it anymore, to make it look like Ferrari lost several tenths of a second on pure pace. That's interesting. Thank you for the information.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑10 Jun 2018, 13:56The engine software is smart enough to increase boost to make up for any wear in piston rings. At higher rpms the leakage should reduce too. Wolf said it was 1.5 tenths of second the most. And that is old old spec to new new spec. In other words the peak engine power is not that much improved in the new spec engine it is some other aspects like mid ramge power, endurance and reliability.LM10 wrote: ↑10 Jun 2018, 11:46GPA-R, of course it's not, but people here tell that 6 races is equal to a time loss of easily 0.5 seconds. Ferrari's engine was worn half of that last year. If 0.5 seconds was right, the 0.25 sec difference between Vettel and Hamilton in Q3 must have been only because of different engine ages. But I highly doubt that. Mercedes should have easily gotten pole with at least 0.25 sec gap even if Ferrari had been on a new spec too.
There would even be more oil to burn. That should make up the shortfall.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑10 Jun 2018, 13:56The engine software is smart enough to increase boost to make up for any wear in piston rings. At higher rpms the leakage should reduce too. Wolf said it was 1.5 tenths of second the most. And that is old old spec to new new spec. In other words the peak engine power is not that much improved in the new spec engine it is some other aspects like mid ramge power, endurance and reliability.LM10 wrote: ↑10 Jun 2018, 11:46GPA-R, of course it's not, but people here tell that 6 races is equal to a time loss of easily 0.5 seconds. Ferrari's engine was worn half of that last year. If 0.5 seconds was right, the 0.25 sec difference between Vettel and Hamilton in Q3 must have been only because of different engine ages. But I highly doubt that. Mercedes should have easily gotten pole with at least 0.25 sec gap even if Ferrari had been on a new spec too.
Yeah, just +0.007 in Sector 1 and +0.004 in sector 2 and +0.180 in sector 3 slower than BottasSevach wrote: ↑10 Jun 2018, 14:19Hamilton was slower than Bottas on every sector, yet people are still saying without the lockup (which btw didn't lose him much time, he still took the correct line) pole was his...Sieper wrote: ↑10 Jun 2018, 11:41Lewis locked up on both his Q3 runs, that’s what caused him not to be on pole. New engine would have possibly saved his arse but they don’t have it yet.
Too bad for Lewis but why should he always be on pole, even If he is not mistake free. He starts from P4 and If the FP pace was genuine he still has a good chance to win the race, overtaking is possible here (though tough).
