I felt I needed to mention that, because the performance in qualifying has a direct correlation to the set-up that is chosen in regards to the race. Essentially; If RedBull are slightly compromising downforce as a means to shed some drag to make them less vulnerable on the straights, this would also influence their overall qualifying performance (the potential of the car in that specific configuration). Other teams (especially those with Mercedes power) would need less of such a compromise because they are less vulnerable on the straights due to the PU already.FoxHound wrote:Is Q3 the fastest guise of the car for the weekend? Yes.
Why is this a valid excuse only for Red Bull? Are you suggesting Red Bull compromised their qualifying to have better race pace?
If so, what is to say no other competition did the same or to a higher extent? This is the Hungaroring, chassis/aero are brought to the fore. Unless this now too is up for discussion?
So if we agree that there is a power-deficit; how can you not see that the team must also be running a higher trade-off to minimalize the effect that the power deficit imposes? It seems to me, you're simply basing your view point on the premise that all teams must be running the highest downforce setting possible (because Hungary is a downforce circuit) with no regard to straight line performance and thus can judge each car on a level playing field in regards to downforce. It isn't that simple.Foxhound wrote:.I have mentioned at least 20 times Renault are behind. I have yet to see much in the way of acknowledging Red Bull's aero/chassis has a deficit to the top teams.
We're just going at the argument from two different angles. You are looking at the effect and trying to argue on an evidence point of view, while ignoring the elephant in the room (the power deficit). I'm not ignoring it and finding reasons how and where that power deficit has an influence on the actual performance of the car and what the teams might do in regards to set-up to tackle it. Essentially saying that looking at sector times and declaring one chassis to be better than the other to be a bit simplistic because we are forgetting the 'handicap' (the trade-off in set-up) they are running because of the power deficit.FoxHound wrote:Face it, you are biasing this toward Red Bull's chassis/aero with not so much as a shred of evidence. Historically, Red Bull ace qualifying...explain that one...
Of course I am. I never intended to imply that Hamilton outperformed his W06. That'd be rather silly. My point was rather that perhaps Hamilton got closer to the maximum potential of his car, than perhaps Ricciardo did, at least in regards to that specific sector. It wouldn't be that far fetched really. The W06 is probably a bit easier to drive (higher confidence) than a RedBull that has been going through many changes with every race. It's no different to the RedBull era when Seb used to stick pole after pole and make it look so easy, while Hamilton in a clearly inferior McLaren drove the socks off that thing to in the end not even come close.Foxhound wrote:You are better than this mate, at least I hope so. Saving Hamilton literally getting out the car to push that W06 faster, it's always the bloody car that does the job. You really need to get this before we can continue further.
Maybe the sector is just less representative because the drivability in that Redbull isn't that good (the slow corners where mechanical grip, traction and drivability is key). There could be many reasons. Maybe he made a small error, missed the apex? I mean, why are we only focusing on S3 anyway? In S2, the downforce bit, Ricciardo was just over 1 tenth off the fastest sector by Lewis. Doesn't this already say quite a bit?
