Ferrari, and its mother company, Fiat Chrysler, have announced changes at the lead of the company to replace CEO Sergio Marchionne, after the company was informed he will be unable to return to work.
This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
why not? this is a track as they say massive in slipstreaming and the effect is mega even upto 4 secs gap....the midfield drivers did it in qualy q1 and q2
and Vettel himself said that this was Kimi's opportunity to get the tow as Vettel got it last race
..which was pretty dumb from Ferrari. At this stage of the season they need to do everything to maximize the chances for Vettel to win races as he’s driving for the WDC title.
Vettel on pole would have meant a clear and much easier start for him. And he would have controlled it much better than Kimi upfront, I believe.
The tow was not the only reason......Kimi got pole by 0.174 something, the tow maybe worth only 0.050 to 0.075 sec only
..which was pretty dumb from Ferrari. At this stage of the season they need to do everything to maximize the chances for Vettel to win races as he’s driving for the WDC title.
Vettel on pole would have meant a clear and much easier start for him. And he would have controlled it much better than Kimi upfront, I believe.
The tow was not the only reason......Kimi got pole by 0.174 something, the tow maybe worth only 0.050 to 0.075 sec only
I wonder how you come to that conclusion.
By studying the lap time delta in each sector by both cars in q3 and q2.... prime example is Lewis first and second lap in q3
I agree with you, that VET had a not so good lap. But I don't agree that you can see the tows effect in the sector deltas. There are more factors to that.
I agree with you, that VET had a not so good lap. But I don't agree that you can see the tows effect in the sector deltas. There are more factors to that.
Lewis gained .1 sec in his second run in Bottas slipstream....in fact Lewis and Kimi lost time in sector 2 compared to their counter parts in open air....
So accounting the track evolution, we can quantify a 0.050 to 0.070 gain only
Raikkonen earned pole by producing the best traversal of Parabolica of any driver, throughout the weekend, when it mattered most. I can't think of a worse place to be in someones wake on this track, so to suggest he got pole purely as a result of better 'tow' is disingenuous. No amount of team orders, short of remotely turning down his PU would have changed that outcome.
Both Raikkonen and Vettel produced 3 personal best sectors on their final quali laps. Hamilton produced only 1, in the second sector. I think the race illustrated - to me anyway - that Hamilton perhaps didn't get the best from his car on that final lap, because he had pace in hand to be comfortably faster than Kimi, especially once degradation became a factor.
I think Kimi drove out of his skin to be in the position he was in for so long, having done so without the benefit of DRS, any assistance from a team mate, and perhaps without the best strategic calls from his team.
I'm sad he didn't manage the victory, but Hamilton was simply that much faster. Seb's comments in the media, suggesting he would have won, are just noise to me. He needs to keep quiet and make less mistakes.
I agree with you, that VET had a not so good lap. But I don't agree that you can see the tows effect in the sector deltas. There are more factors to that.
Lewis gained .1 sec in his second run in Bottas slipstream....in fact Lewis and Kimi lost time in sector 2 compared to their counter parts in open air....
So accounting the track evolution, we can quantify a 0.050 to 0.070 gain only
There is no way you can measure it like that. Only if every other factor in Lewis’ second run had stayed the same as in his first run, you could have looked at it this way. But his second lap was not a copy of his first lap in regards of driving (taking corners, accelerating, braking etc.). It was not a robot driving.
Both Raikkonen and Vettel produced 3 personal best sectors on their final quali laps. Hamilton produced only 1, in the second sector. I think the race illustrated - to me anyway - that Hamilton perhaps didn't get the best from his car on that final lap, because he had pace in hand to be comfortably faster than Kimi, especially once degradation became a factor.
Hamilton told that he could have just gone half a tenth faster at best. And he told that they, in fact, squeezed everything out of the car.
I agree with you, that VET had a not so good lap. But I don't agree that you can see the tows effect in the sector deltas. There are more factors to that.
Lewis gained .1 sec in his second run in Bottas slipstream....in fact Lewis and Kimi lost time in sector 2 compared to their counter parts in open air....
So accounting the track evolution, we can quantify a 0.050 to 0.070 gain only
There is no way you can measure it like that. Only if every other factor in Lewis’ second run had stayed the same as in his first run, you could have looked at it this way. But his second lap was not a copy of his first lap in regards of driving (taking corners, accelerating, braking etc.). It was not a robot driving.
ok, i agree.....so with the same logic how can some people claim that Kimi got pole only because had the slipstream from Vettel?
so they cant say that the slip stream only got him the pole...
Last edited by siskue2005 on 03 Sep 2018, 15:51, edited 1 time in total.
I think if they would have put Seb on mediums instead of softs that he may have been second, or even won.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing...
won the race?
both Kimi and Lewis came out in front of Vettel after their pit stop.....how can a medium tyred 40 laps old car could win, when compared to a 25 laps old Soft tyres? ?? and moreover the mediums are around 0.7 tenths slower than the softs
Moreover he would been overtaken by Bottas and Verstappen easily
Both Raikkonen and Vettel produced 3 personal best sectors on their final quali laps. Hamilton produced only 1, in the second sector. I think the race illustrated - to me anyway - that Hamilton perhaps didn't get the best from his car on that final lap, because he had pace in hand to be comfortably faster than Kimi, especially once degradation became a factor.
Hamilton told that he could have just gone half a tenth faster at best. And he told that they, in fact, squeezed everything out of the car.
Which is clearly complete BS, because his individual best sector times generate a 1:19.209, already 0.085 faster than he managed.
Both Raikkonen and Vettel produced 3 personal best sectors on their final quali laps. Hamilton produced only 1, in the second sector. I think the race illustrated - to me anyway - that Hamilton perhaps didn't get the best from his car on that final lap, because he had pace in hand to be comfortably faster than Kimi, especially once degradation became a factor.
Hamilton told that he could have just gone half a tenth faster at best. And he told that they, in fact, squeezed everything out of the car.
Which is clearly complete BS, because his individual best sector times generate a 1:19.209, already 0.085 faster than he managed.
yes true
you can add his best sectors and it will be just 0.090 sec of the pole (1.19.209) and second on the grid
considering he didnt improve in S1 and S2 from his first run (Whereas everyone else improved) then surely he could have gone 0.090 faster in S1 and S2. It seems like everything is so close between these two teams
you can add his best sectors and it will be just 0.090 sec of the pole (1.19.209) and second on the grid
considering he didnt improve in S1 and S2 from his first run (Whereas everyone else improved) then surely he could have gone 0.090 faster in S1 and S2. It seems like everything is so close between these two teams
Blindly adding up best sector times is foolish at best. You have now way of konwing if the tires could handle it, or if the ES had enough juice left. Not to mention if he was to close or to far behind the car infront to be helped or hindered on a given lap.
Ferrari lacks leadership...sporting wise they look a bit in turmoil. Technically they are in very good shape...They drop the ball...inside the "track" too often
Honestly that was a disaster for everyone involved, management, Vettel and Raikkonen.
Management is afraid to make the clear obvious decisions (and or enforce them).
Vettel makes bad decisions and can't think long term.
And Raikkonen is out there for himself rather than the team.
How is Raikkonen culpable for being put behind Vettel in qualifying? How is Raikkonen culpable for securing Pole, and leading the race? How is Raikkonen culpable for Vettel's error of judgement and the team's use of strategy throughout the weekend?
I know we've got used to seeing him behave as Vettel's doormat, but the only thing I could potentially blame him for is not being fast enough to win the race - and Ferrari management and Vettel himself have far more liability in that regard than Raikkonen.
Raikkonen is worried about defending his lead from Vettel on the first 2 corners, he crowds Sebastian and that helps Hamilton.
Does Kimi not understand the championship situation?
And yes he should be Vettel's doormat, if he didn't want to be a doormat he should've performed better early season.
?? and moreover the mediums are around 0.7 tenths slower than the softs
