2016 Singapore Grand Prix - Marina Bay, 16-18 September

[FoxHound]

At a chassis track, Mercedes crushed Red Bull in qualifying and beat them in the race easily controlling it from start to finish.

But as ever some people will solely focus on the engines and top speed, when these qualities take a back seat to a sorted chassis and aero combo.

I'd say Rosbergs quali lap was great while Ricciardo's was merely good. The Merc was better, but not by the extent of half a second.

Saving Rosberg climbing out his car to push it faster, it's always the car.

http://www.foxsports.com/motor/story/f1 ... iew-091716
And Ricciardo was happy with his "clean" lap, as was Horner.....

And there you have it... i was surprised looking at Ferrari being so far behind in acceleration and top speed and surprised at Honda mixing with the Renault's, you were concerned on how they people use that to undermine the Merc's chassis.

Congratulations you won the Chassis Championship™, want a cake or something?

Concerned that at a track with 23 corners, a lot of which are slow 90 degree angled with bumpy braking zones with the least full throttle for the entire calendar, that the shortest straight where the lowest top speed, is used to to somehow extol the virtues of top speed.

Nonsensical.

And if Ferrari were hampered due to their "acceleration and top speed"why was Raikkonen 10 seconds off the lead with similar speeds to the Merc? And why did Vettel finish 5 seconds off a Mercedes at Monza(which loves acceleration and top speed).

And the cerebral sarcasm is top notch, absolutely on point Sevach.

[Sevach]

And there you have it... i was surprised looking at Ferrari being so far behind in acceleration and top speed and surprised at Honda mixing with the Renault's, you were concerned on how they people use that to undermine the Merc's chassis.

Congratulations you won the Chassis Championship™, want a cake or something?

Concerned that at a track with 23 corners, a lot of which are slow 90 degree angled with bumpy braking zones with the least full throttle for the entire calendar, that the shortest straight where the lowest top speed, is used to to somehow extol the virtues of top speed.

Nonsensical.

And if Ferrari were hampered due to their "acceleration and top speed"why was Raikkonen 10 seconds off the lead with similar speeds to the Merc? And why did Vettel finish 5 seconds off a Mercedes at Monza(which loves acceleration and top speed).

And the cerebral sarcasm is top notch, absolutely on point Sevach.

Text comprehension is not your forté on the other hand, because i don't remember saying how much engine power influences competitiveness on Singapore, i just said it's speed traps provide solid evidence on who has more power.

About Monza, probably because that Mercedes had to come from the behind them and other cars, and that they were crusing...

Also by your logic Ferrari did make progress going from Monza to Singapore, since the lead Ferrari was closer to the lead Mercedes today and also closer to the slower one despite the fact that Hamilton wasn't hampered by a bad start here.

[ME4ME]

At a chassis track, Mercedes crushed Red Bull in qualifying and beat them in the race easily controlling it from start to finish.

But as ever some people will solely focus on the engines and top speed, when these qualities take a back seat to a sorted chassis and aero combo.

I'd say Rosbergs quali lap was great while Ricciardo's was merely good. The Merc was better, but not by the extent of half a second.

Saving Rosberg climbing out his car to push it faster, it's always the car.

http://www.foxsports.com/motor/story/f1 ... iew-091716
And Ricciardo was happy with his "clean" lap, as was Horner.....

From the very article you refer to:

but the last lap in Q3 was clean. It probably wasn't as good as Nico's, but it was clean and good enough for the front row."

[FoxHound]

Text comprehension is not your forté on the other hand, because i don't remember saying how much engine power influences competitiveness on Singapore, i just said it's speed traps provide solid evidence on who has more power.

My text comprehension is just fine, thanks.

You are stating that speed, at Singapore, with it's 250 meter straight, is solid evidence of who has more horsepower?
Tell me Sevach, other than exquisite sarcasm, are you versed in traction, drag and corner speed?

About Monza, probably because that Mercedes had to come from the behind them and other cars, and that they were crusing...

That statement suits this convoluted point you are hamfisting your way through. Not like Hamilton has a championship to win.
20 laps with 5 seconds gap is because "hamilton had to come from behind and other cars" and he was yannow....just out "cruising".
Not because Ferrari's engine is half decent or anything. Couldn't be that.

Also by your logic Ferrari did make progress going from Monza to Singapore, since the lead Ferrari was closer to the lead Mercedes today and also closer to the slower one despite the fact that Hamilton wasn't hampered by a bad start here.

I was impressed by Raikkonen, and by that Ferrari today.
So you are having your cake and eating it by using my logic?

[Nathanael F1]

I thought it was a surprisingly entertaining race. Those last 15 laps or so with Ricciardo hunting down Rosberg were great. A bit of a shame he only just caught up to Rosberg right at the last sector, so no real battling was done.

I think it was a great race for Rosberg, Ricciardo, Raikkonen, and Vettel (22nd to 5th is really impressive at Singapore). Raikkonen seems to be coming alive again!

[SR71]

If Kimi is the king of Spa, Vettel, surely is the Sultan of Singapore!

[Fulcrum]

I'm still confused how Ferrari were so asleep at the wheel that they managed to roger Raikkonen as badly as they did.

First, he passes Hamilton on track - lucky break, as it was Hamilton's mistake, but a great pass all the same. Now he is ahead, on SS tyres which still have some life left in them, and he can really make a 2-stop work well by running longer on the SS, adopting a shorter 3rd stint that would definitely have been manageable on Softs.

But no, they pit him immediately and make an apparent commitment to a more marginal version of the same 2-stop. Very obviously driving to a delta, Hamilton catches up and they allow the undercut, throwing away a podium with a clearly too-late pit stop.

It's the type of reactive (not proactive) strategic thinking that makes me wonder who directs the decision-making process on the pit-wall.

Otherwise, Vettel must be feeling a bit bittersweet about that anti-roll bar.

Kimis softs were old and would not have been good enough to keep Hamilton behind in a faster car with much newer tires at the closing stages of the race. Kimis choices were pit then and get back out ahead with newer tires or be a sitting duck later in the race... what choice would YOU have made?
Kimis in lap was too slow and he came out behind Hamilton......thats all it was not some massive failure in strategy .

Pit first for the benefit of the undercut; that's what I was referring to by the pro-active vs. reactive comment.

The only danger this exposed was Hamilton double-bluffing and staying out. If, as you say, the Soft tyres weren't good enough to get to the end, then Raikkonen would have been in prime position to attack Hamilton with severely mismatched tyres.

Or, in the event of Hamilton pitting, Raikkonen would have inherited a comfortable 3rd.

[Swobber]

Magnussen was without a working drinking system - tough race to complete without water!

[Sevach]

Snip

It appears you also don't have a good notion of what 250 meters look like... And here i thought Foxes were suppoused to be clever.

Hamilton himself said he was cruising once he saw he wouldn't catch Rosberg, i guess you don't believe him.


And no, because your logic is quite illogical so i can't say i ever employed it for real.

[max_speed]

Classic Rosberg luck...no brake or tire problems...just one more lap and maybe we could have got a pass from Dani! There's no explanation to Rosberg's form this year! His luck is just unbelievable...it's got to be his year!

i think you did not own any car or have never driven a car in your life or for sure did not watch the race.

Be fair when someone does a better job , i am not a fan of him but he did all right things yesterday and managed everything well.
please refrain from armchair analysis and keep fanboyism in check. Enough ham/alo/vettel fans in this forum. we need more racing fans. before you jump on me i must admit that i must tell you that i am not a Rosberg fan.

[max_speed]

I'm still confused how Ferrari were so asleep at the wheel that they managed to roger Raikkonen as badly as they did.

First, he passes Hamilton on track - lucky break, as it was Hamilton's mistake, but a great pass all the same. Now he is ahead, on SS tyres which still have some life left in them, and he can really make a 2-stop work well by running longer on the SS, adopting a shorter 3rd stint that would definitely have been manageable on Softs.

But no, they pit him immediately and make an apparent commitment to a more marginal version of the same 2-stop. Very obviously driving to a delta, Hamilton catches up and they allow the undercut, throwing away a podium with a clearly too-late pit stop.

It's the type of reactive (not proactive) strategic thinking that makes me wonder who directs the decision-making process on the pit-wall.

Otherwise, Vettel must be feeling a bit bittersweet about that anti-roll bar.

typical ferrari strategies , screwing drivers consistently since 2010. i do not know who is their strategist but that guy must be a genius.

[zac510]

I don't think Ferrari have the flexibility of car performance, compared to the front runners, to be able to call great strategy shots. Whatever they'd done would have ended up in a close battle between Hamilton, probably losing, so they're damned if they pit and damned if they don't.
On the other hand, Vettel's strategy looked excellent, but we only compared his performance to the mid-field runners.

[zac510]

I thought this race was a good showing for the use of Pirelli tyres. They didn't wear too much and there was also a good delta between the different compounds.
If we'd had the 'push the whole race' tyres that people ask for, the top 4 would have certainly have finished in the same order it finished lap 1 on as there'd be no opportunity to try a different strategy.

[basti313]

I don't think Ferrari have the flexibility of car performance, compared to the front runners, to be able to call great strategy shots. Whatever they'd done would have ended up in a close battle between Hamilton, probably losing, so they're damned if they pit and damned if they don't.
On the other hand, Vettel's strategy looked excellent, but we only compared his performance to the mid-field runners.

Well, Ferrari knew the performance of the US tires, because they had them on the car at the moment, when Merc started to think of a different strategy.
The fault was simply to let Ham pick up pace over 5 laps and close the gap. Once Ham was pushing for two laps, Ferrari should have reacted with also picking up the pace and keeping the gap as high as possible. Just seeing how close it was, one lap more to push for Raikkonen and he would have been ahead.

[zac510]

But that's exactly the point; Raikkonen mustn't have had spare performance to just pick up the pace.