2018 Spanish Grand Prix - Catalunya, May 11-13

[Wynters]

I've just rewatched the race. Vettel's slow second pitstop was nothing to do with Perez. The Force India was past the Ferrari almost immediately. The right rear wouldn't come off the Ferrari and that is what cost Vettel all the time. Does anyone know where the 'Slow pitstop was because of Perez' idea came from?

[NathanOlder]

I heard that last year the only on track overtake between Hamilton and Vettel (the P1 and P2 WDC contenders) was here in Spain (1 overtake) and even that was actually upon pit exit.

I have to say that I do feel that is a bit of a shame.

You heard wrong. There was at least one real overtake, Hamilton on Vettel for the lead in the US GP. Vettel had beaten him off the line and into turn 1 at the start.

Ok, personally I count “start melee” overtakes separate from later real one on one fights. But an overtake is an overtake.

But the start melee doesnt last until lap 6, which is when Lewis flew past Vettel.

Just out of interest, when was the last time Vettel passed Lewis in a straight fight ? Not at the start and not during or around pit stops with new vs old tyres. I mean a straight catch and pass.

[dans79]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... ufflaeche/

Some nice cherry picked, no context given quotes in that article. I don't trust Michael Schmidt any further than i could throw him.

That just shows how not knowing you are.
He talked in September/Oktober 2008 about Mosley beeing shocked about Honda downforce for 2009.
He probably made that up too, because there was no Honda in 2009.

And your post shows how blindly trusting you are of the press.

No one in my opinion should get a free Pass based on stuff they did/wrote almost a decade ago. Specially when you consider in 2018 almost everything is driven by click or view rates.

[Sieper]

You heard wrong. There was at least one real overtake, Hamilton on Vettel for the lead in the US GP. Vettel had beaten him off the line and into turn 1 at the start.

Ok, personally I count “start melee” overtakes separate from later real one on one fights. But an overtake is an overtake.

But the start melee doesnt last until lap 6, which is when Lewis flew past Vettel.

Just out of interest, when was the last time Vettel passed Lewis in a straight fight ? Not at the start and not during or around pit stops with new vs old tyres. I mean a straight catch and pass.

No, the start melee is only the first few turns, until everybody settles in to place (imho).I couldn’t tell You when that happened last time, I truely don’t remember seeing it.

[LM10]

Interesting. The article doesn't talk about Ferrari having similar blistering problems in winter testing. It talks about RB though, who had a great outing!

And about Villeneuve, saying that "known thing in paddock" doesn't mean anything. The design of the change in tread, was finalized after winter testing and what no one is telling me while arguing is that, how did Pirelli managed to created tyres that would suit Mercedes specifically, purely based on Winter Testing data, where Ferrari was also facing the same blistering problems?

You want proofs, but don't deliver proofs yourself. I've not seen, neither heard from anyone in Ferrari team that they had blisterings. Where do you have this from? From Toto telling that everyone was having blistering (such an objective person to ask in this matter )?

[LM10]

Oh boy, you don't speak a word of German do you? And yet, here you are quoting AMuS. Or did you simply not get past the headline?

Let me help you out (from the article you selectively quoted from, but the part you selectively left out):

Mercedes schlug Pirelli vor, auf den kritischen Rennstrecken die Gummischicht zu reduzieren. Eine dünnere Lauffläche bedeutet weniger Bewegung im Gummi und damit eine geringere Gefahr von Überhitzung.

Pirelli folgte der Bitte von Mercedes. „Das hätten wir auch von uns aus gemacht. So sind wir auch schon 2011 und 2012 in Monza und Spa verfahren“, wiegelt Isola Fairness-Bedenken ab. In Barcelona, Silverstone und Paul Ricard wird die Gummischicht auf den Reifen um 0,4 Millimeter reduziert. Das verringert das Gewicht eines Reifensatz immerhin um ein Kilogramm. Die Teams müssen das Geschenk mit Ballast auffüllen.

Translated:
While Mercedes did (apparently) suggest to reduce the thread of the tire, Pirelli [Mario Isola] did say they would have done that anyway. They already did that in 2011 and 2012 in Monza and Spa.

So at the end, lots of noise about something that has been done already in 2011 and 2012 and there were no issues back then.

I'd also add (again) that the change was due to safety concerns. Safety should be taken seriously, even if it only concerns a few cars. If you want to argue against that, we might as well talk conspiracy theories for 2013 when there was a huge construction change mid season or the constant camber and pressure requirements Pirelli keep changing up and down depending on track that can have just as much influence over who can get the tires to work and who not. It was a bigger topic last year and in 2015 (among others) (to the detriment of Mercedes), but some must have selective memories there too.

Pirelli row back from more extreme tyre pressure limits for Italian GP

https://www.racefans.net/2013/07/05/fia ... punctures/

There was even a topic on here not too long ago:
Influence of Pirelli tyre pressure on 2017 contenders

I'm aware of what's written in that article. But honestly, what did you expect Pirelli to tell? Of course they are going to tell it was for safety reasons. Of course they are going to tell that they were going to do it anyway. Of course they are not going to tell it was Mercedes who asked for it.

I'm not telling Pirelli intentionally helped Mercedes. I've just sent the article because some people acted as if there has never been any talks about this before.

I just don't agree people telling that this finally was Mercedes' real pace (because of having found the right setup) and they just were slower in previous races because they had issues. Meaning that without issues there wouldn't be any other winner than Mercedes. That's so arrogant.

[Phil]

So how do you explain Melbourne? Did Mercedes get some secret Pirelli tires? And what does Pirelli have to gain from benefitting Mercedes? Think about what you are suggesting here.

[vanburin]

I've just rewatched the race. Vettel's slow second pitstop was nothing to do with Perez. The Force India was past the Ferrari almost immediately. The right rear wouldn't come off the Ferrari and that is what cost Vettel all the time. Does anyone know where the 'Slow pitstop was because of Perez' idea came from?

It was definitely used as a reason for the slow stop by the Sky commentators. They referenced both the Force India and a potential issue with the right rear.

[dans79]

That's so arrogant.

Pot, meet kettle!

[Vettel165]

You heard wrong. There was at least one real overtake, Hamilton on Vettel for the lead in the US GP. Vettel had beaten him off the line and into turn 1 at the start.

Ok, personally I count “start melee” overtakes separate from later real one on one fights. But an overtake is an overtake.

But the start melee doesnt last until lap 6, which is when Lewis flew past Vettel.

Just out of interest, when was the last time Vettel passed Lewis in a straight fight ? Not at the start and not during or around pit stops with new vs old tyres. I mean a straight catch and pass.

How can you pass a car that has been dominating on the engine side for years now (2014-2017) with the same tyres. Even Vettel in his RBR days always had a car that it is very slow on the straights, Lewis in Mclaren always had more top speed if you remember, but less downforce. Seb passed Hamilton for the lead in first lap at SPA 2013, passed Hamilton in Malaysia 2015, passed Hamilton with a fantastic move in Australia 2016. Korea 2011 also counts, oh yeah passed Hamilton in rainly Brasil 2008 in a Minardi DNA Torro Rosso and nearly cost him the WDC.

[LM10]

So how do you explain Melbourne? Did Mercedes get some secret Pirelli tires? And what does Pirelli have to gain from benefitting Mercedes? Think about what you are suggesting here.

The explanation for Melbourne is simple:

Mainly it was hammer time from Hamilton. Remember that after first run in Q3 Hamilton and Vettel were equally fast. Then he did some magic, hit the sweetest spot possible of the tyres and did a perfect lap (9 tenths faster than first run). He told himself that he could have not gone any faster than that. He and his team in general were surprised of the lap.
On the other hand, Ferrari reportedly wasn't understanding their car yet. They were driving understeery on the front to balance the downforce issues they were having at the back.

Mercedes was fastest there on race pace, but they were on par with Ferrari and RBR in all other races. So it's not that they managed to find the right setup only in Melbourne because only in Melbourne they were clearly faster.

[LM10]

That's so arrogant.

Pot, meet kettle!

I don't know who you are talking about, but I don't think I'm being arrogant. If yes, tell me where and I will react and apologize if needed.

[zibby43]

Mark Hughes on the conspiracy theories re: the tires:

Hughes by Andrew R., on Flickr

[Phil]

The explanation for Melbourne is simple:

Mainly it was hammer time from Hamilton. Remember that after first run in Q3 Hamilton and Vettel were equally fast. Then he did some magic, hit the sweetest spot possible of the tyres and did a perfect lap (9 tenths faster than first run). He told himself that he could have not gone any faster than that. He and his team in general were surprised of the lap.
On the other hand, Ferrari reportedly wasn't understanding their car yet. They were driving understeery on the front to balance the downforce issues they were having at the back.

You are dreaming if you think Hamilton outdrove his car. No driver can do that. A driver can either get close to the potential the car has, or he doesnt. If there is a gap to his team mate, it simply means his team mate underperformed.

Considering you do read AMuS, i’ll assume you also read that Melbourne is better explained by Mercedes getting their tires to work AND Ferrari compromizing their cars set-up due to fuel concerns. If you also read AMuS during winter testing, you must have also read that GPS data showed that in Ferrari’s simulations, they were saving fuel more aggressively.

So i conclude:

Melbourne, Ferrari was slower than usual because they went for low drag setup (for fuel efficiency) and compromized their overall pace.

Then 3 tracks followed with qualifying issues on the softest compound while Ferraris car worked flawlessly (no surprise after last year). Despite this, Mercedes still had very strong race pace and only really suffered in QF on tires they never used during the race.

Then came Spain. Mercedes was very strong at winter testing already. It is somewhat logical to conclude they’d be strong again for that reason on the actual race, especially with similar cooler conditions. If they’d ace their setup to perfect the tires, then certainly one would assume they’d do it on the track they have the most data available to them, on tires they already performed well (no Ultras).

But go on, ignore all these things and keep going on about the special tires. I get it might be frightning to think the Mercedes could be that much faster than the rest if they ace the tires operating windows.



EDIT: And just to add something: Did you notice that apart from Ferrari, just about any other team could make the 1-stop work? If the tire had only helped Mercedes, one would assume other teams would have struggled more, equally. But that's not entirely accurate though, is it? Seems Ferrari were the only ones that struggled, so maybe they had some issue and perhaps one should be asking what their problem is instead of focusing solely on the tire?

[LM10]

The explanation for Melbourne is simple:

Mainly it was hammer time from Hamilton. Remember that after first run in Q3 Hamilton and Vettel were equally fast. Then he did some magic, hit the sweetest spot possible of the tyres and did a perfect lap (9 tenths faster than first run). He told himself that he could have not gone any faster than that. He and his team in general were surprised of the lap.
On the other hand, Ferrari reportedly wasn't understanding their car yet. They were driving understeery on the front to balance the downforce issues they were having at the back.

You are dreaming if you think Hamilton outdrove his car. No driver can do that. A driver can either get close to the potential the car has, or he doesnt. If there is a gap to his team mate, it simply means his team mate underperformed.

Considering you do read AMuS, i’ll assume you also read that Melbourne is better explained by Mercedes getting their tires to work AND Ferrari compromizing their cars set-up due to fuel concerns. If you also read AMuS during winter testing, you must have also read that GPS data showed that in Ferrari’s simulations, they were saving fuel more aggressively.

So i conclude:

Melbourne, Ferrari was slower than usual because they went for low drag setup (for fuel efficiency) and compromized their overall pace.

Then 3 tracks followed with qualifying issues on the softest compound while Ferraris car worked flawlessly (no surprise after last year). Despite this, Mercedes still had very strong race pace and only really suffered in QF on tires they never used during the race.

Then came Spain. Mercedes was very strong at winter testing already. It is somewhat logical to conclude they’d be strong again for that reason on the actual race, especially with similar cooler conditions. If they’d ace their setup to perfect the tires, then certainly one would assume they’d do it on the track they have the most data available to them, on tires they already performed well (no Ultras).

But go on, ignore all these things and keep going on about the special tires. I get it might be frightning to think the Mercedes could be that much faster than the rest if they ace the tires operating windows.



EDIT: And just to add something: Did you notice that apart from Ferrari, just about any other team could make the 1-stop work? If the tire had only helped Mercedes, one would assume other teams would have struggled more, equally. But that's not entirely accurate though, is it? Seems Ferrari were the only ones that struggled, so maybe they had some issue and perhaps one should be asking what their problem is instead of focusing solely on the tire?

I'm not solely focusing on the tyre. I respect Mercedes and think they are a very good team. They managed to be the fastest by far in Spain.
Yes, it would be frightening, if Mercedes was that much faster than anyone else in normal conditions, but i doubt it very much. And that's why I don't accept when people say or think that Mercedes would be dominating, if they figured their tyres. That's ignorant, as much as is to tell Mercedes solely won because of different tyres.