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

[Sevach]

I've asked you to elaborate on speed relating to power at Singapore. And I get chassis championship cake for being illogical, or something.
Quit with this wonderful sarcasm, it's clearly your forte but it doesnt help you answer my question.

It's actually pretty simple and i already said to you, speed traps at slow tracks tend to show an accurate power picture because drag plays less into it, speeds are lower and setups converge a bit.

Obviously top speed don't determine who's going to win Singapore or Hungary, but the speed traps paint a fairly accurate power picture, more than the speed traps at for example Spa where teams are all over the place with their setups and drag is more influential.


Somehow you'll still think this is all about chassis

[GPR-A duplicate2]

And he still did a good job nonetheless. Instead of trying to compare everything with Hamilton over and over again, and trying to find each time arguments to belittle Rosberg's effort [in this particular race], is it really that hard to say "Rosberg did not put a foot wrong this race. Good for him." My own comment btw was not to compare the performances of Hamilton and Rosberg, but rather to point out he had similar "problems"as Hamilton. Wolff did say so post-race that brake cooling has been compromised for better overall performance, which required more lift and coast from both drivers throughout the race. It's not like Rosberg could just brake as hard as he could each time.

This is just a two horse race and all performances would be seen under each other's light. Look what happened in Spain and what happened in Austria when Nico was leading and Lewis was on his tail. Nico is a decent driver and he can drive faultless, ONLY WHEN Lewis is not his tail. To that extent, if you want to praise him, I have no problem. You can hold your station, but as long as the fight is handicapped, it's hard to give credit to the one who is not suffering it.
Imagine, Usain Bolt loses a shoe while starting to run, because of a manufacturing defect and then there was another guy who runs a FAULTLESS race and wins. You know how it feels like.

[turbof1]

And he still did a good job nonetheless. Instead of trying to compare everything with Hamilton over and over again, and trying to find each time arguments to belittle Rosberg's effort [in this particular race], is it really that hard to say "Rosberg did not put a foot wrong this race. Good for him." My own comment btw was not to compare the performances of Hamilton and Rosberg, but rather to point out he had similar "problems"as Hamilton. Wolff did say so post-race that brake cooling has been compromised for better overall performance, which required more lift and coast from both drivers throughout the race. It's not like Rosberg could just brake as hard as he could each time.

This is just a two horse race and all performances would be seen under each other's light. Look what happened in Spain and what happened in Austria when Nico was leading and Lewis was on his tail. Nico is a decent driver and he can drive faultless, ONLY WHEN Lewis is not his tail. To that extent, if you want to praise him, I have no problem. You can hold your station, but as long as the fight is handicapped, it's hard to give credit to the one who is not suffering it.
Imagine, Usain Bolt loses a shoe while starting to run, because of a manufacturing defect and then there was another guy who runs a FAULTLESS race and wins. You know how it feels like.

In my own opinion, the 2 horse race does not provide an awful lot of tension, so I'd rather focus on an individual race, according to the topic title by the way. I see you are insisting on extrapolating to the other races, but this is neither my own intent, nor this topic's goal. The topic neither yields relevancy towards the races in Spain or Austria, or for that matter to any other particular race. For any comment from me on that, visit those particular race topics.

Again, is it that difficult to say: "Rosberg had a strong race. Good for him."?

Imagine, Usain Bolt loses a shoe while starting to run, because of a manufacturing defect and then there was another guy who runs a FAULTLESS race and wins. You know how it feels like.

Does that exclude any possibility to praise Justin Gatlin for running -for instance- season's best? Not everything is in orbit around Hamilton (or Rosberg, for that matter) you know. There are 21 other drivers racing around.

[FoxHound]

Obviously top speed don't determine who's going to win Singapore or Hungary, but the speed traps paint a fairly accurate power picture, more than the speed traps at for example Spa where teams are all over the place with their setups and drag is more influential.


Somehow you'll still think this is all about chassis

I've never seen a chassis win without an engine. That's just your observational shortfall, or your exquisite sarcasm rearing it's pretty head again.

I'll just repost those links with actual numbers in them, something you've failed to provide in all your posts:

I was waiting for Sevach. Took a while, but he answered.

Singapore speed traps in particular highlighted how much more power mercedes has EXACTLY for the reason you yourself are citing. Even on the short straights of singapore mercedes PU was still able to destroy every other PU. It didn't need a kilometer long straight to stretch it's muscles, those short bursts were enough to leave others far behind already. This further cements the fact they have a lot more peak power than even ferrari do.

Er, you were saying? Bagging qualy figures distorted by DRS is all fine and dandy, especially since the DRS varies from team to team. By eliminating that variable, you come to a more reliable indicator.
Some interesting facts....
Mercedes were a full 1.3km/h faster than the Red Bull!
Wehrlein and Ocon couldn't get passed 300km/h for the entire race.
Both Red Bull's clocked faster top speeds than the race winning Mercedes, itself down 3km/h on Hamilton.

But to further emphasise the point, in 2013 Red Bull had an "underpowered" Renault V8, which was around 30bhp shy of the Mercedes V8.
Vettel won the race, and his top speed was a staggering 18km/h down on the Mercedes of Rosberg.
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... 20Trap.pdf

So, Juzh + Sevach, if we are going to use Speed as an indicator of Horsepower, eschewing drag, downforce, traction or gearing, I could easily say that using the above information, the Renault V8 was over 100bhp down on the Mercedes V8, or the Renault V6 is within the deficit of 2013(~30bhp).
I'm going with the latter, especially given the Renault update to their PU at this venue.

Conclusively then, and utilising the data that matters you can say that measuring top speed, and saying it is an indicator of engine power at Singapore is a falsification. Especially when it is hidden by utilisation of a variable(DRS).

[Webber2011]

Was the Merc brake issue overheating or wear ?

Surely it would have been easier for Nico to manage any brake problems than it was for Lewis if it was just overheating ?

I know the Merc's seemed to have pushed it as far as how they approached this race with regard to brakes, and both cars were in trouble with them.

But he spent so many more laps in clear air.

I'm no where near as technically minded as some of you guys, and there might be something I'm missing, but to me that's a no brainer.

So can someone explain to me whether it was a wear issue or overheating, because the commentators had no bloody idea and I've not found any articles that say specifically.

Cheers

[turbof1]

Was the Merc brake issue overheating or wear ?

Surely it would have been easier for Nico to manage any brake problems than it was for Lewis if it was just overheating ?

I know the Merc's seemed to have pushed it as far as how they approached this race with regard to brakes, and both cars were in trouble with them.

But he spent so many more laps in clear air.

I'm no where near as technically minded as some of you guys, and there might be something I'm missing, but to me that's a no brainer.

So can someone explain to me whether it was a wear issue or overheating, because the commentators had no bloody idea and I've not found any articles that say specifically.

Cheers

I think what's being forgotten is that Hamilton ran in clean air for most of the time as well. You can count "clean air" as a gap of around 2s.

Not to say he surely had some more issues, but both Mercedes cars where quite marginal on it. Mercedes highly compromises on brake cooling for an aerodynamic advantage.

[Juzh]

...

Comparing race data, when people charge batteries and save fuel for laps before actual attempt while using slipstream, at face value ...

Ricciardo was also clocked the fastest in monza 2014 at 362.1 kmh (17 kmh more than in quali) in double slipstream even though everyone knows renault was utter --- in 2014 and 15. Just goes to show how relevant race numbers are.

[zac510]

I'm no where near as technically minded as some of you guys, and there might be something I'm missing, but to me that's a no brainer.

I got the impression that they were just being ultra-conservative about it, they wanted both cars to finish the race. While Mercedes let the drivers race, but we know from the radio messages that they're quite risk averse on stuff like this. Ferrari/RBR might have been as marginal, but were willing to take a bit more risk.

Perfect timing: I just noticed this on motorsport.com http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merce ... re-828326/

[FoxHound]

...

Comparing race data, when people charge batteries and save fuel for laps before actual attempt while using slipstream, at face value ...

Ricciardo was also clocked the fastest in monza 2014 at 362.1 kmh (17 kmh more than in quali) in double slipstream even though everyone knows renault was utter --- in 2014 and 15. Just goes to show how relevant race numbers are.

Whats the point of going 400km/h if you can't achieve that speed in the race?
The race is by far the most important indicator of car performance.

Hamilton was utilising DRS in the race the same as both Red Bulls. Rosberg did so too albeit less frequently, but this is reflected in his lower top speed.
And as we know, Monza is conducive to top speed anomalies, whereas Singapore simply isn't. Cars dont follow line astern for 1200 meters at Singapore, unless you are suggesting now they do?? ]

[Vasconia]

It wasn't luck that made Rosberg won the race - he simply was better all weekend. He had a good start, and did not once put a foot wrong. If he'd lost the race because Ricciardo was on new tyres, it ultimately would have been caused by Mercedes themselves by pitting Hamilton and triggering a chain of events which led to Ricciardo getting a free stop.

And for the record: he had the same brake "problems" as Hamilton. Or rather: had to deal with the same management. The reason why he had no brake or tyre issues, was because he managed those properly.

While Hamilton is more aggressive, and he's better at it than Rosberg, it seems Rosberg understands the car better. We have seen this couple of times.
I have noticed also often Rosberg can "find" more performance between Q2 and Q3,but actually I think he is just trying to save his race tires.
IMO there are many things Ros does better than Ham.

No, thats imposible Hamilton is better than Rosberg on every single aspect of racing and life in general. How can you be so blasphemorous?

Sacasm off

I agree with you that Nico is very good managing this astosnishing amount of data because he studies every single aspect of the car and the data he receives before each race. This explains why he was clearly superior in Bakú and now in Singapur. Both races which required an special preparation before the GP.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

I agree with you that Nico is very good managing this astosnishing amount of data because he studies every single aspect of the car and the data he receives before each race. This explains why he was clearly superior in Bakú and now in Singapur. Both races which required an special preparation before the GP.

So we are back to this non-sense again. Same BS from 2014 that Nico reads data, understands the car blah blah blah. All of it was vapor last year and suddenly this is starting to catch up. Good going. I am waiting for someone to start once again that Nico is the better qualifier. Does it also requires a lot of preparation to struggle in Wet too I guess, like in Monaco this year?

[Vasconia]

I agree with you that Nico is very good managing this astosnishing amount of data because he studies every single aspect of the car and the data he receives before each race. This explains why he was clearly superior in Bakú and now in Singapur. Both races which required an special preparation before the GP.

So we are back to this non-sense again. Same BS from 2014 that Nico reads data, understands the car blah blah blah. All of it was vapor last year and suddenly this is starting to catch up. Good going. I am waiting for someone to start once again that Nico is the better qualifier. Does it also requires a lot of preparation to struggle in Wet too I guess, like in Monaco this year?

The only nonsense is the comparasion you make. Nico is worse in wet, plus he had great problems to make the tyres work in Monaco.

Wha the hell has to do this with the fact that Nico is a very methodical driver? I know its hard for some people to accept that Nico can have some positive aspects but lets make an effort, ok?.

But come on, I am waiting for your conspirancy theory to explain why Nico was faster in this race.

[Just_a_fan]

I agree with you that Nico is very good managing this astosnishing amount of data because he studies every single aspect of the car and the data he receives before each race. This explains why he was clearly superior in Bakú and now in Singapur. Both races which required an special preparation before the GP.

In Baku the team messed up Hamilton's engine maps on Friday night which led him to overdrive to try to find performance as he thought he was the problem. In Singapore the team took off some downforce. Downforce is king at a street circuit. Again, Hamilton blamed himself and talked about not finding the rhythm etc.

Both times the car was physically slower because of errors in the garage.

Rosberg wasn't great, he just benefitted from a hobbled team mate. What he did do well was to ensure he maximised his points when he could.

The real issue here is why the garage keeps making silly mistakes. I don't buy in to the idea that the team are doing it on purpose to favour Rosberg. You don't pay Hamilton multi millions to then screw him over, that's obvious. Perhaps one side of the garage is just better at car preparation than the other. It would be a shame for the title to be decided by silly mistakes on Friday nights.

[Webber2011]

I think what's being forgotten is that Hamilton ran in clean air for most of the time as well. You can count "clean air" as a gap of around 2s.

Not to say he surely had some more issues, but both Mercedes cars where quite marginal on it. Mercedes highly compromises on brake cooling for an aerodynamic advantage.

So do you reckon it was more likely a combination of overheating and wear that they expected, and that they were just keeping an eye on it turbof1 ?

[Webber2011]

I'm no where near as technically minded as some of you guys, and there might be something I'm missing, but to me that's a no brainer.

I got the impression that they were just being ultra-conservative about it, they wanted both cars to finish the race. While Mercedes let the drivers race, but we know from the radio messages that they're quite risk averse on stuff like this. Ferrari/RBR might have been as marginal, but were willing to take a bit more risk.

Perfect timing: I just noticed this on motorsport.com http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merce ... re-828326/

Cheers mate, thanks for that.