2018 Hungarian Grand Prix - Hungaroring, 27-29 July

[Singabule]

In the rain, its the driver, not the car. When its wet, quality naturally rises to the top.

Sorry but this argument is outdated. With current cars, and 10 years ago it was the same, downforce is the key factor. Obviously drivers are a lot more important than in the dry, as the limit is constantly changing and drivers need to rely on their feelings, but nowadays DF is a lot more important than driver.

Or you think Bottas is a better driver than Lecrerc, Hulkemberg or Alonso?

The Ferrari has more downforce than the Mercedes, the RedBull has too (according to everyone). So how does that square with your argument? Of course downforce is important because it still gives the grip but on a wet track where aquaplaning is an issue, where the grip levels change constantly, the driver's feel for the car is what enables the lap time to be extracted.

And dont forget merc car may produce best mechanical grip in wet. As merc tend to set their suspension softer than other big 3 (remember merc squat photo last year) it is make sense that their car is the fastest on rain

[Juzh]

Obviously race was won on saturday. Even with a perfect race for Vettel, odds of him getting past hamilton are probably none. What's done is done.

However, most interesting part of the season is yet to come. Unless merc pulls a rabit out of the hat (which is entirely possible, mind you), they have some tough races coming up with (on paper at least) with pretty much all of them suiting ferrari. Even singapore at this stage probably.
If hungary is anything to go by ferrari is by far the fastest car on the straights in max downforce configuration, based on their constant advantage in S1. Monza and spa will be a big test for them. If they can comfortably edge out mercedes on those 2 tracks then there's still hope for the season, otherwise it'll be tough to come back.

[Ennis]

The pit stop screwed that up for them though. Without losing a second in the stop, we would probably be looking at a very different result.

Vettel himself disagrees with this statement.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13774 ... ton-defeat

Vettel, who went on to finish second after surviving contact while passing the fading Bottas late on, admitted "something didn't go as we planned".

He said: "We lost out and we came out behind, that didn't help.

"Without that it would have been a much more relaxed last part of the race, probably hunting down Lewis.

"But with the gap that he had, I think it would have been difficult to catch - and then it's a completely different story, especially around here to overtake.

"I think we could have done the catching bit, but not really the overtaking.

"In the end it doesn't change much, just that it was a bit more work than coming out ahead."

He also had a really bad time in traffic. Lost a lot of time to traffic, then had a poor pit-stop. Remove those two factors and he might have stood a chance. Again it would still be a small chance, but a better chance than charging down on equal tyres.

As soon as they didn't get pole they didn't have a perfect strategy, all they could do was maximise the chance.

[WaikeCU]

See Hamiton's notes on qualifying (what separates him is his feel for the track) and his thoughts on the Ferrari's superior pace in the dry.

Interesting that the grip in some corners is not where one would normally expect it to be in the wet - particularly the last corner where most people are swinging out wide, he stays in tighter and says that's where the grip is. Which begs the question - how does he know that and all of the others don't?

Citing laps, outlaps, you get a feel for how the track responses to the car. If the car behaved this way on Inters, it would probably grip on Wets. Also visual experience helps when you see wet patches and puddles, you get an idea where the grip can be. And of course, your butt feels a lot as well on how the car behaves in the wet.

[Andres125sx]

In the rain, its the driver, not the car. When its wet, quality naturally rises to the top.

Sorry but this argument is outdated. With current cars, and 10 years ago it was the same, downforce is the key factor. Obviously drivers are a lot more important than in the dry, as the limit is constantly changing and drivers need to rely on their feelings, but nowadays DF is a lot more important than driver.

Or you think Bottas is a better driver than Lecrerc, Hulkemberg or Alonso?

The Ferrari has more downforce than the Mercedes, the RedBull has too (according to everyone). So how does that square with your argument? Of course downforce is important because it still gives the grip but on a wet track where aquaplaning is an issue, where the grip levels change constantly, the driver's feel for the car is what enables the lap time to be extracted.

Yes and no. Problem arrises when people try to make absolute statements. As we both said in the wet driver feeling is a lot more important, but that is still less crucial than the car he's driving.

Hamilton on a Renault will never make a pole in the wet, period. The car, even in wet conditions, is still what makes the difference. Then when two cars are close enough in performance drivers will make the difference, but only if cars are close enough.

I'd say if in dry condition car is 80% and driver 20%, in wet conditions car may be 60% and driver 40%, drivers are a lot more relevant, but cars are still more important than drivers

When we compare Mercedes and Ferrari for example, cars are close enough in performance so drivers can make a difference tough

[SiLo]

Hamilton’s been better than Vettel in my view but more through consistently than any massively standout performances, and I still think he gets sulky and despirited when things go against him; we’ve seen a few of them this year.

This is actually a good way to put Lewis. Difference being is that he tends to bounce back with a vengence, where Vettel simply falls to pieces and compounds his mistakes... and sometimes throws his car at other drivers for it or curses Charlie Whitting out or hits another car AFTER the race on the cooldown lap or causes a collision at the start with his teammate.

Hamilton and Vettel combined have won a staggering 55% of the races since 2007, whatever factors one wishes to point out are clearly beyond luck, but a marked difference between the two careers is that Hamilton has been paired with 3 world champions in their prime, so sulkiness or not, it's working out for him.

BTW you wouldn't call a win starting from 14th on the grid a career highlight drive? You're a tough guy to please.

Hamilton did well in Germany to preserve his original set of tyres and still set competitive lap times - bit like Vettel in Hungary. Did he really do anything other than that though?

The circumstances put it right in his lap: it started raining; the leader crashed; the other two cars ahead of him pitted; his teammate was told not to challenge him.

Taking nothing away from Lewis - he didn’t have to do any more, perhaps if he had, he would have - but the others/his team made it very easy for him (FYI it’s his team’s job to make it easy for him, so no problem there). I’ve seen far harder days and better drives for Lewis.

He was in that position because he set great times on his softs. And then was taking massive chunks of time out of those in front. Without Vettels crash and safety car, I'm fairly certain he would have just overtaken them on track fairly easily within 5 laps. He was taking upwards of 3 seconds a lap out of them at a time.

[digitalrurouni]

Sorry but this argument is outdated. With current cars, and 10 years ago it was the same, downforce is the key factor. Obviously drivers are a lot more important than in the dry, as the limit is constantly changing and drivers need to rely on their feelings, but nowadays DF is a lot more important than driver.

Or you think Bottas is a better driver than Lecrerc, Hulkemberg or Alonso?

The Ferrari has more downforce than the Mercedes, the RedBull has too (according to everyone). So how does that square with your argument? Of course downforce is important because it still gives the grip but on a wet track where aquaplaning is an issue, where the grip levels change constantly, the driver's feel for the car is what enables the lap time to be extracted.

And dont forget merc car may produce best mechanical grip in wet. As merc tend to set their suspension softer than other big 3 (remember merc squat photo last year) it is make sense that their car is the fastest on rain

Hmm that doesn't make much sense. Mercedes has no rake so to stop car from bottoming out they need stiffer suspension yet you say they tend to set their suspension softer?

[GrandAxe]

In the rain, its the driver, not the car. When its wet, quality naturally rises to the top.

Sorry but this argument is outdated. With current cars, and 10 years ago it was the same, downforce is the key factor. Obviously drivers are a lot more important than in the dry, as the limit is constantly changing and drivers need to rely on their feelings, but nowadays DF is a lot more important than driver.

Or you think Bottas is a better driver than Lecrerc, Hulkemberg or Alonso?

Lewis is certainly a better driver than that lot, which is why statistically, in the wet, he beats Bottas (in the same car) as well as all those you mentioned. Wet conditions prove a lot of things about a driver; ability, courage, mentality and grit.

Downforce is important, but the best cars have the most downforce and the best drivers get the best cars. The team bosses at Red Bull, Ferrari and Merc have not considered Hulkenberg (solid driver that he is) for a position, so your idea of a top driver is not in synch with theirs. Pierre Gasly is likely going to get into a top team before Hulkenberg, among other examples, what he did in the last quali is stellar:

1) Lewis Hamilton Mercedes
2) Valtteri Bottas Mercedes
3) Kimi Raikkonen Ferrari
4) Sebastian Vettel Ferrari
5) Carlos Sainz Renault
6) Pierre Gasly Toro Rosso *******
7) Max Verstappen Red Bull
Brendon Hartley Toro Rosso
9) Kevin Magnussen Haas
10) Romain Grosjean Haas
11) Fernando Alonso McLaren
12) Daniel Ricciardo Red Bull
13) Nico Hulkenberg Renault
14) Marcus Ericsson Sauber
15) Lance Stroll Williams
16) Stoffel Vandoorne McLaren
17) Charles Leclerc Sauber
18) Esteban Ocon Force India
19) Sergio Perez Force India
20) Sergey Sirotkin Williams

[f1316]

This is actually a good way to put Lewis. Difference being is that he tends to bounce back with a vengence, where Vettel simply falls to pieces and compounds his mistakes... and sometimes throws his car at other drivers for it or curses Charlie Whitting out or hits another car AFTER the race on the cooldown lap or causes a collision at the start with his teammate.

Hamilton and Vettel combined have won a staggering 55% of the races since 2007, whatever factors one wishes to point out are clearly beyond luck, but a marked difference between the two careers is that Hamilton has been paired with 3 world champions in their prime, so sulkiness or not, it's working out for him.

BTW you wouldn't call a win starting from 14th on the grid a career highlight drive? You're a tough guy to please.

Hamilton did well in Germany to preserve his original set of tyres and still set competitive lap times - bit like Vettel in Hungary. Did he really do anything other than that though?

The circumstances put it right in his lap: it started raining; the leader crashed; the other two cars ahead of him pitted; his teammate was told not to challenge him.

It must hurt so bad. Take a few weeks, off, come back refreshed and ready for the second half of the season.

You’ve lost me, i’m afraid.

[bonjon1979]

Sorry but this argument is outdated. With current cars, and 10 years ago it was the same, downforce is the key factor. Obviously drivers are a lot more important than in the dry, as the limit is constantly changing and drivers need to rely on their feelings, but nowadays DF is a lot more important than driver.

Or you think Bottas is a better driver than Lecrerc, Hulkemberg or Alonso?

The Ferrari has more downforce than the Mercedes, the RedBull has too (according to everyone). So how does that square with your argument? Of course downforce is important because it still gives the grip but on a wet track where aquaplaning is an issue, where the grip levels change constantly, the driver's feel for the car is what enables the lap time to be extracted.

Yes and no. Problem arrises when people try to make absolute statements. As we both said in the wet driver feeling is a lot more important, but that is still less crucial than the car he's driving.

Hamilton on a Renault will never make a pole in the wet, period. The car, even in wet conditions, is still what makes the difference. Then when two cars are close enough in performance drivers will make the difference, but only if cars are close enough.

I'd say if in dry condition car is 80% and driver 20%, in wet conditions car may be 60% and driver 40%, drivers are a lot more relevant, but cars are still more important than drivers

When we compare Mercedes and Ferrari for example, cars are close enough in performance so drivers can make a difference tough

You’re getting too hung up on outright performance. Of course Hamilton is up there with the very best, just look at his record. What is most impressive is his consistency and lack of mistakes. If he won the last three wet races you could talk about luck, to win the last 9, over a period of 4 years. Shows a tremendous amount of consistency and lack of mistakes which is what makes someone one of the greats. You’ve got to look at the bigger picture and all the mistakes other so called greats made in the rain. Senna, Schumacher, Vettel, not one of them has had a string of wins in the rain like it. Schumacher had the most dominant of cars for a few years at Ferrari and no challenge from his teammates and where does his record stand for consequetive wet wins? You can have your opinions but facts also speak volumes.

[strad]

I feel that the percentage driver vs car leans more to the car than ever before. One always wanted/wants to be in a superior car, but long gone are the days of a Nuvolari or a Fangio being able to drag a dog to the top.
Anyone that doesn't think that Alonso would shine much brighter in the Ferrari or Mercedes than in the McLaren is wrong in my mind. Would he be WDC? That might be a long shot but he would be much farther up the grid.

[Moose]

The Ferrari has more downforce than the Mercedes, the RedBull has too (according to everyone).

Who says? It doesn't look like it to me. The Mercedes was the fastest car through copse/magots/beckets. It's in general done well at the high speed downforce circuits. The Ferrari's strength seems to me to be braking stability and traction out of low speed corners. A couple of races ago someone posted a speed trace generated from GPS data that showed that the Mercedes had higher mid-corner speed than the Ferrari, but the Ferrari accelerated and braked harder.

Honestly, I think the Mercedes has more downforce than the Ferrari at least. The RedBull is a mystery to me - their poor showing in the wet is confusing as hell.

[Singabule]

The Ferrari has more downforce than the Mercedes, the RedBull has too (according to everyone). So how does that square with your argument? Of course downforce is important because it still gives the grip but on a wet track where aquaplaning is an issue, where the grip levels change constantly, the driver's feel for the car is what enables the lap time to be extracted.

And dont forget merc car may produce best mechanical grip in wet. As merc tend to set their suspension softer than other big 3 (remember merc squat photo last year) it is make sense that their car is the fastest on rain

Hmm that doesn't make much sense. Mercedes has no rake so to stop car from bottoming out they need stiffer suspension yet you say they tend to set their suspension softer?

Higher rake, front suspension is stiffer due to limitation on t-tray area and skid board. Lower rake, more flat bottom, more clearance you can play with. You never see RB and MCL squat didnt you?

[NYGIANTS]

This is where the race was won.

See Hamiton's notes on qualifying (what separates him is his feel for the track) and his thoughts on the Ferrari's superior pace in the dry.

https://streamable.com/i2n37

thanks for posting!!! the wife deleted the pre-race show cause we woke up at 6am PST to watch the race live and didn't think i was going to watch the pre race when the race was over.

[NYGIANTS]

Sorry but this argument is outdated. With current cars, and 10 years ago it was the same, downforce is the key factor. Obviously drivers are a lot more important than in the dry, as the limit is constantly changing and drivers need to rely on their feelings, but nowadays DF is a lot more important than driver.

Or you think Bottas is a better driver than Lecrerc, Hulkemberg or Alonso?

The Ferrari has more downforce than the Mercedes, the RedBull has too (according to everyone). So how does that square with your argument? Of course downforce is important because it still gives the grip but on a wet track where aquaplaning is an issue, where the grip levels change constantly, the driver's feel for the car is what enables the lap time to be extracted.

And dont forget merc car may produce best mechanical grip in wet. As merc tend to set their suspension softer than other big 3 (remember merc squat photo last year) it is make sense that their car is the fastest on rain

is there evidence of merc running a softer set up than the others? i would think because of their low rake concept it would be the other way around.