No, they shift at 12k because that is the sweet spot for power. These engines use the same amount of fuel at 10.5k rpm or at 15k rpm. If you put any of the 4 engines on the grid Merc, Ferrari, Renault or Honda on a dyno at a steady 10.5k rpm or at 15k rpm or even going up and down between those two limits they will all run through 100kg of fuel in 1 hour. These engines do not perform like you are used to in the past where they increase fuel usage with increased rpm.
I´m glad you express your point of view this clearly. This way I don´t waste my time reading any futherFifty wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 02:35Uh oh. You triggered the Alonso nut swingers. How dare you not speak only that he is a god!FrukostScones wrote: ↑09 Apr 2017, 11:02so ALO broke the car because couldn't let go as some people speculate , the driveshaft sheered off becuase of his tring not to be overtaking shenigans? McLaren failed the "curb test" (the real one) ...?
I think Mclaren is aware that he "broke" the car on purpose...
Vettel took a gamble and lost out, if he was more confident in his ability to pass HAM on track he would have no need to take a gamble.Andres125sx wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 17:42Hamilton was very lucky with the SC after his non stop with the VSC, and Vettel unlucky.
Bottas mistake with SC.... OMG. Not what you´d expect from one of the drivers of the top team... or yes? I´m sure Mercedes hired him because he´ll not be a treat to Lewis, so actually, yes, he did what Mercedes was expecting for him
What is "pure speed"?ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 17:47Vettel took a gamble and lost out, if he was more confident in his ability to pass HAM on track he would have no need to take a gamble.Andres125sx wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 17:42Hamilton was very lucky with the SC after his non stop with the VSC, and Vettel unlucky.
Bottas mistake with SC.... OMG. Not what you´d expect from one of the drivers of the top team... or yes? I´m sure Mercedes hired him because he´ll not be a treat to Lewis, so actually, yes, he did what Mercedes was expecting for him
VET was very "lucky" that BOT spun out in front of him because a) BOT didn't collect VET while spinning on the straight, and 2) VET did not have to pass BOT.
Regardless of VSC or SC VET was not going to beat HAM on pure speed, neither VET or his ferrari are good enough to do so.
Exactly, the VSC pit was a good decision. Can't see the future.Shrieker wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 18:25I don't think Vettel took a gamble by pitting under the VSC. Actually, it's a no brainer to pit under the VSC because it's basically half a pit stop for free. I was surprised the Mercs didn't pit also under the VSC, and honestly thought they were gonna lose out to Vettel because of that. Vettel was unlucky only because the VSC was followed immediately by a SC period.
I'm not convinced he was racing so well.....the gap between the midfield and the RedBull is still massive, especially in damp conditions. In the beginning he was just doing what the Merc guys did the last seasons when they had to start in the pack.Andres125sx wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 17:42Nice race, at least first half. Verstappen race was awesome, despite the whinning wich is becoming a norm. This boy has some overtaking abilities!
If you have to ask maybe this is not the sport for you, maybe try bowling or dartsChene_Mostert wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 18:42What is "pure speed"?ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 17:47Vettel took a gamble and lost out, if he was more confident in his ability to pass HAM on track he would have no need to take a gamble.Andres125sx wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 17:42Hamilton was very lucky with the SC after his non stop with the VSC, and Vettel unlucky.
Bottas mistake with SC.... OMG. Not what you´d expect from one of the drivers of the top team... or yes? I´m sure Mercedes hired him because he´ll not be a treat to Lewis, so actually, yes, he did what Mercedes was expecting for him
VET was very "lucky" that BOT spun out in front of him because a) BOT didn't collect VET while spinning on the straight, and 2) VET did not have to pass BOT.
Regardless of VSC or SC VET was not going to beat HAM on pure speed, neither VET or his ferrari are good enough to do so.
No, please define "pure speed", or do you just like saying it cause it sounds "cool".ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 18:57If you have to ask maybe this is not the sport for you, maybe try bowling or dartsChene_Mostert wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 18:42What is "pure speed"?ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 17:47
Vettel took a gamble and lost out, if he was more confident in his ability to pass HAM on track he would have no need to take a gamble.
VET was very "lucky" that BOT spun out in front of him because a) BOT didn't collect VET while spinning on the straight, and 2) VET did not have to pass BOT.
Regardless of VSC or SC VET was not going to beat HAM on pure speed, neither VET or his ferrari are good enough to do so.
Since you can't see the future you have no idea if it was a good decision, it could have started raining again immediately, or they could have called a red flag instead of an SC(although this year I don't think they are still allowed to change tires under a red flag).BanMeToo wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 18:46Exactly, the VSC pit was a good decision. Can't see the future.Shrieker wrote: ↑10 Apr 2017, 18:25I don't think Vettel took a gamble by pitting under the VSC. Actually, it's a no brainer to pit under the VSC because it's basically half a pit stop for free. I was surprised the Mercs didn't pit also under the VSC, and honestly thought they were gonna lose out to Vettel because of that. Vettel was unlucky only because the VSC was followed immediately by a SC period.