2018 German Grand Prix - Hockenheimring, July 20-22

[Vasconia]

And for the people thinking Ferrari has a better car than Mercedes.....

"We didn't score as many points in the triple-header as we had hoped for. A lot of that was down to our own mistakes. However, there is a silver lining to this - while we didn't maximise on points, we did bring the quickest car to all three races."

- Toto Wolff, 2018 German Grand Prix, Preview

Yeah, I have to agree with him.

At the last race there was no question that FERRARI was the better and faster car.

Was better on qualy, but in the race??? I have my doubts.

[makecry]

Yeah, I have to agree with him.

At the last race there was no question that FERRARI was the better and faster car.

Was better on qualy, but in the race??? I have my doubts.

Mark Hughes had an article on it. Ferrari was faster by 0.026s in race trim.

[thetruth]

Weather updates.
Qualy pretty sure on rain.
Free practice and Race probably dry.

[FrukostScones]

Weather updates.
Qualy pretty sure on rain.
Free practice and Race probably dry.

forecasts lie

[designf1]

https://twitter.com/ImanHansra/status/1 ... 6987701248

[CLKGTR]

FIA introduces third DRS zone on Hockenheim

[f1316]

At the last race there was no question that FERRARI was the better and faster car.

Was better on qualy, but in the race??? I have my doubts.

Mark Hughes had an article on it. Ferrari was faster by 0.026s in race trim.

In case you haven’t seen it:

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... ilverstone

I do think there’s an omission from the article - namely how Bottas was getting pretty close in the second stint.

Vettel says he had it completely under control and was managing the tyres - whereas we saw Bottas run out of tyres despite a long time behind th safety car - so this totally stands to reason. But Hughes’ article doesn’t mention that - in fact he says Vettel was slowly increasing his gap in the second stint, which simply isn’t true.

My view is that the Ferrari had worse tyre management than the Mercedes on that day, so Vettel was consciously being extremely careful with his second set, allowing Bottas to close down, but it’s completely impossible to accurately determine who was faster from th data we have. If it’s true that Mercedes personnel tend to agree that Ferrari were quicker, that’s probably much more reliable.

[Vasconia]

Was better on qualy, but in the race??? I have my doubts.

Mark Hughes had an article on it. Ferrari was faster by 0.026s in race trim.

In case you haven’t seen it:

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... ilverstone

I do think there’s an omission from the article - namely how Bottas was getting pretty close in the second stint.

Vettel says he had it completely under control and was managing the tyres - whereas we saw Bottas run out of tyres despite a long time behind th safety car - so this totally stands to reason. But Hughes’ article doesn’t mention that - in fact he says Vettel was slowly increasing his gap in the second stint, which simply isn’t true.

My view is that the Ferrari had worse tyre management than the Mercedes on that day, so Vettel was consciously being extremely careful with his second set, allowing Bottas to close down, but it’s completely impossible to accurately determine who was faster from th data we have. If it’s true that Mercedes personnel tend to agree that Ferrari were quicker, that’s probably much more reliable.

But Toto has said just the opposite. Who lies?

Mark Huges makes an interesting analysis but he is focused on specific laps and reachs a conclusion for the hole race. I think Ferrari was slightly faster with the softest compound while Mercedes was faster with the hardest one. Another interesting aspect is that Ferrari could make the tyres last as Mercedes did so I have big doubts to judge that Ferrari was faster.

[LM10]

Mark Hughes had an article on it. Ferrari was faster by 0.026s in race trim.

In case you haven’t seen it:

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... ilverstone

I do think there’s an omission from the article - namely how Bottas was getting pretty close in the second stint.

Vettel says he had it completely under control and was managing the tyres - whereas we saw Bottas run out of tyres despite a long time behind th safety car - so this totally stands to reason. But Hughes’ article doesn’t mention that - in fact he says Vettel was slowly increasing his gap in the second stint, which simply isn’t true.

My view is that the Ferrari had worse tyre management than the Mercedes on that day, so Vettel was consciously being extremely careful with his second set, allowing Bottas to close down, but it’s completely impossible to accurately determine who was faster from th data we have. If it’s true that Mercedes personnel tend to agree that Ferrari were quicker, that’s probably much more reliable.

But Toto has said just the opposite. Who lies?

Mark Huges makes an interesting analysis but he is focused on specific laps and reachs a conclusion for the hole race. I think Ferrari was slightly faster with the softest compound while Mercedes was faster with the hardest one. Another interesting aspect is that Ferrari could make the tyres last as Mercedes did so I have big doubts to judge that Ferrari was faster.

He explained pretty well why he focused on those laps. It’s not that he randomly chose them.

Toto telling that their car was the fastest is not a big deal. They got pole. Same goes for France and Austria.

[F1NAC]

bit OT but if anyone is interested, Robert Kubica will hold AMA session on Reddit this friday between FP1 and FP2..

[djos]

Cool, be interesting to see what he has to say. That said I'm sure Williams PR will be keeping it under control.

[FLuidd]

Mark Hughes had an article on it. Ferrari was faster by 0.026s in race trim.

In case you haven’t seen it:

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... ilverstone

I do think there’s an omission from the article - namely how Bottas was getting pretty close in the second stint.

Vettel says he had it completely under control and was managing the tyres - whereas we saw Bottas run out of tyres despite a long time behind th safety car - so this totally stands to reason. But Hughes’ article doesn’t mention that - in fact he says Vettel was slowly increasing his gap in the second stint, which simply isn’t true.

My view is that the Ferrari had worse tyre management than the Mercedes on that day, so Vettel was consciously being extremely careful with his second set, allowing Bottas to close down, but it’s completely impossible to accurately determine who was faster from th data we have. If it’s true that Mercedes personnel tend to agree that Ferrari were quicker, that’s probably much more reliable.

But Toto has said just the opposite. Who lies?

Mark Huges makes an interesting analysis but he is focused on specific laps and reachs a conclusion for the hole race. I think Ferrari was slightly faster with the softest compound while Mercedes was faster with the hardest one. Another interesting aspect is that Ferrari could make the tyres last as Mercedes did so I have big doubts to judge that Ferrari was faster.

actualøy no , the most important thing is to get pole, since not getting pole will push you against a 24/7 hard-on from verstappen,on a track is that is a blend between silverstone and catalunya.

bth, i do not see the mercedes getting pole and as for the race if mercedes doesnt win this race then i will have to say that they are in deep trouble since for the WDC and WCC

[Sierra117]

not getting pole will push you against a 24/7 hard-on from verstappen

but #scarredForLife

[F1Krof]

RBR will be mighty at the last sector.

I believe Ferrari will win, easily. Another one of those Seb performances.

[ME4ME]

I don't expect Red Bull to be mighty at all; they still need to trim some wing off to deal with the long straight.