- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Robert Kubica is leaving winter testing downbeat, having seen his schedule on Friday being cut short by excessive wear on car parts for which the team did not have spares.
F1Fan2018 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2019, 15:33
Im assuming your thinking Ferrari have done some kind of performance tests too, else I have no idea how you came to your conclusion, just to make it clear I dont think Merc or Ferrari have done any major performance running, so to say Merc got it wrong im not suire how you get this? im not bashing you just curious how you get to this conclusion.
So, the number of laps is a direct reflection of the fuel being carried? If that is the reference, then Leclerc was ONLY carrying 30 Kgs on the lap that he got 1m18.0xx. Right? With every 2.5kgs of fuel equlalling a tenth of a second, with 3 lap worth of fuel required for a proper quali run, that Ferrari can ONLY make 1m17.0xx on C3! If you extrapolate the gap between C3 to C5, which could be around a second, then 1m16.000 is all that Ferrari can do on C5. Knowing that the track performs better in the cooler conditions of the Winter and cars go slower in Summer, that might be slightly slower for a proper race qualifying. And that means, SF90 can't beat last year's pole time! Yeah.motobaleno wrote: ↑21 Feb 2019, 15:464-lap stint.
number of laps-stint is equally important than final time presently
Or they could be carrying more fuel that they are having us think, there is no chance they are fuelled for 4 quick laps.motobaleno wrote: ↑21 Feb 2019, 15:464-lap stint.
number of laps-stint is equally important than final time presently
please guys...of course not BUT in a 12 lap stint you KNOW that you have AT LEAST fuel load needed for 12 lapsGPR -A wrote: ↑21 Feb 2019, 15:50So, the number of laps is a direct reflection of the fuel being carried?motobaleno wrote: ↑21 Feb 2019, 15:464-lap stint.
number of laps-stint is equally important than final time presently
You are right, apologies.motobaleno wrote: ↑21 Feb 2019, 15:18As for you last sentence, please don't confuse my posts with other ones: I nowhere wrote that this testing have already given their final response. but at the end of the 8 days something we will know.
The problem is that, as an F1 fan, if I hadn't watched a single second of 2018 testing, I could've told you that, with the convergence of design and development as the rules aged, Ferrari and Mercedes would be close to one another and that Red Bull, with their aero-heavy design philosophy and Newey, would be the quickest at Monaco. I'd go as far as to argue that I wouldn't even be making a prediction, just stating well-known facts.motobaleno wrote: ↑21 Feb 2019, 15:14the bottom line was ferrari and mercedes really near each other...and that was. Beyond this: RB was very good and top competitive in a track where engine is not the key...and that was
BRO, you write this NOW, this is simply POST-LOGIC after 2018 season, It is a human tendence to think that what you think NOW was so logic and evident also ONE YEAR AGO. I was in barcellona in 2018 and I was on the forum and the common sense was far from what you say now...ON THE AVERAGE people thought that mercedes was far ahead.Wynters wrote: ↑21 Feb 2019, 15:55The problem is that, as an F1 fan, if I hadn't watched a single second of 2018 testing, I could've told you that, with the convergence of design and development as the rules aged, Ferrari and Mercedes would be close to one another and that Red Bull, with their aero-heavy design philosophy and Newey, would be the quickest at Monaco. I'd go as far as to argue that I wouldn't even be making a prediction, just stating well-known facts.
