The German Grand Prix has become an unpredictable event thanks to short showers of rain hitting the track. Error-free strategies and zero-mistake driving saw Hamilton win the race from 14th, ahead of team mate Bottas and Kimi Raikkonen.
It's not about wings, it's about shorter floor and a large amount of aero bits in barge board area. Their diffuser works fantastic, but their efficiency is lacking. So they need to reduce wings a bit more than Ferrari and Merc to reduce drag on power tracks, just like Ferrari had to (compared to Merc) last year.
IF, Vettel didn't have his good start compared to Mercedes, he couldn't have win. That simple.Vasconia wrote: ↑18 Jul 2018, 10:13But Toto has said just the opposite. Who lies?f1316 wrote: ↑18 Jul 2018, 10:03In 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.
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.
It can happen. It all needs a good move by VesPlatinumZealot wrote: ↑18 Jul 2018, 03:35Would bw nice is hulk scores a podium for his home race. I can dream right?
The circuit has 4 corners that bring the speed down to 100 kph or less. Turn 2 (Sector 1), 6 & 8 (Sector 2) and 13 (Sector 3). Except for that, all other corners are high speed corners (200+ kph) and considering the current generation cars have far higher downforce than the cars that went to Hockenheimring in 2016, the cars might be even faster through those fast corners. I am afraid Red Bull is going to struggle here once again, just like in Silverstone, not just on power, but on efficient downforce that longer wheel base is giving to Merc and Ferrari.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑19 Jul 2018, 15:33It's not about wings, it's about shorter floor and a large amount of aero bits in barge board area. Their diffuser works fantastic, but their efficiency is lacking. So they need to reduce wings a bit more than Ferrari and Merc to reduce drag on power tracks, just like Ferrari had to (compared to Merc) last year.
In all that analysis that Mark Huges has done, he didn't speak a word about how the unusual 53 degree track temperature played a role in Silverstone, both in Qualifying and in Race. With these PIRELLI tyres being such a big factor in performance difference between Merc and Ferrari, a good amount of research into understanding who the higher temperatures favored, would have provided better insight into the ultimate pace of cars.foxmulder_ms wrote: ↑19 Jul 2018, 17:30IF, Vettel didn't have his good start compared to Mercedes, he couldn't have win. That simple.Vasconia wrote: ↑18 Jul 2018, 10:13But Toto has said just the opposite. Who lies?f1316 wrote: ↑18 Jul 2018, 10:03
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.
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.
Toto was not saying Ferrari did not deserve. He was saying if the mistakes/misfortunes didn't happen in last races they would have won all. and, I agree with that.
Since you quoted me I guess your post was a response to what I wrote, in which case: I didn't say it was all about wings. Just said they need to trim some off. Just like you agreed to. So I don't see what point you're trying to make. Unless you're trying to add additional information to the thread, in which case you hadn't needed to quote me.
Whoa, even the track has louvers. ~~pinnacle of motorsport~~
One can't blame Toto for expecting them to have won all "last races". who didn't when Mercedes was racing on tyres made as per their request.foxmulder_ms wrote: ↑19 Jul 2018, 17:30IF, Vettel didn't have his good start compared to Mercedes, he couldn't have win. That simple.Vasconia wrote: ↑18 Jul 2018, 10:13But Toto has said just the opposite. Who lies?f1316 wrote: ↑18 Jul 2018, 10:03
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.
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.
Toto was not saying Ferrari did not deserve. He was saying if the mistakes/misfortunes didn't happen in last races they would have won all. and, I agree with that.
Man, don't wanna sound like a hater, but never listen to Mark Hughes has to say. Word salad is all he speaks. Inconsistent with his analysis, one day is one thing next day is the other.GPR-A wrote: ↑19 Jul 2018, 17:41In all that analysis that Mark Huges has done, he didn't speak a word about how the unusual 53 degree track temperature played a role in Silverstone, both in Qualifying and in Race. With these PIRELLI tyres being such a big factor in performance difference between Merc and Ferrari, a good amount of research into understanding who the higher temperatures favored, would have provided better insight into the ultimate pace of cars.foxmulder_ms wrote: ↑19 Jul 2018, 17:30IF, Vettel didn't have his good start compared to Mercedes, he couldn't have win. That simple.Vasconia wrote: ↑18 Jul 2018, 10:13
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.
Toto was not saying Ferrari did not deserve. He was saying if the mistakes/misfortunes didn't happen in last races they would have won all. and, I agree with that.
