330 replies to this topic

[Kingshark]

I have moved a certain discussion from another topic to the correct thread for the subject.

Now if you could back up those statements with anything substantial, you might actually seem knowledgeable.
I can also go around claiming silly things like "Ferrari was actually the fastest car all year", but it's just stupid talk unless I back it up.

Certainly.

Red Bull clearly had the pace to win in all the races all, apart from Malaysia, Spain, Belgium and Italy.

In terms of pace, Ferrari, Mclaren and Lotus were far more inconsistent.

How does that not make them the fastest team throughout the season?

All that pace combined with perhaps only one or two reliability glitches for Vettel, and he still nearly managed to throw the championship away.

Edited by Kingshark, 08 January 2013 - 19:55.

[1Devil1]

I have moved a certain discussion from another topic to the correct thread for the subject.


Certainly.

Red Bull clearly had the pace to win in all the races all, apart from Malaysia, Spain, Belgium and Italy.

In terms of pace, Ferrari, Mclaren and Lotus were far more inconsistent.

How does that not make them the fastest team throughout the season?

All that pace combined with perhaps only one or two reliability glitches for Vettel, and he still nearly managed to throw the championship away.

What, McLaren had the speed to win it all (I' am exaggerating, of course), if you want to put it that way. It doesn't make it a dominant if you are up to speed most of the time.

Austin McLaren was way better
Valencia Vettel's car broke down in the lead
In Abu Dabi McLaren was faster + Vettel had to start in the pit lane
In Brazil he had to secure the title, like Alonso he had to play it safe
In Monaco Mercedes had the best car like in China
In Budapest McLaren was clearly better
.... an so on and so on

so what you are talking about? Just leave out all the things you want and come up with the conclusion Vettel had the car to win everything this year. Your post can't be serious. To rank Hamilton and Alonso higher, I can accept such opinions, but to come up with such a curious interpretation

[Mauseri]

Hard call this time. For the big teams in this event I´d say:

Qualifying:

1) Ferrari
2) RB
3) Mercedes
4) Lotus
5) McLaren

Race:

1) RB
2) Ferrari
3) Lotus
4) McLaren
5) Mercedes

Overall

1) Ferrari/RB
3) Lotus
4) McLaren
5) Mercedes

Williams and Sauber are wasting decent potential with the drivers´ recent shape.

LOL

[Kingshark]

LOL

Read when his comment was made.

[Kingshark]

What, McLaren had the speed to win it all (I' am exaggerating, of course), if you want to put it that way. It doesn't make it a dominant if you are up to speed most of the time.

So did Red Bull.

Austin McLaren was way better

Based on what? Vettel was easily controlling the race from up at front, and it wasn't until he met Karthikeyan that finally Hamilton was given one opportunity to pass, which he took.

Valencia Vettel's car broke down in the lead

Indeed, unfortunate for him. His one of only two retirements this season.

In Abu Dabi McLaren was faster + Vettel had to start in the pit lane

It might have been faster, but by how much? Hamilton qualified on pole, but he had to fight for it tooth and nail with Red Bull. Webber qualified 2nd and Vettel 3rd, with the latter even making a mistake on his quick lap, which put him behind his teammate. On the other hand, where was Button?

In Brazil he had to secure the title, like Alonso he had to play it safe

Fair Nuff'

In Monaco Mercedes had the best car like in China

Mercedes was a hit or miss car at the start of the season, and never a real contender. Red Bull were better than both Mclaren and Ferrari that weekend, whom were the real rivals.

In Budapest McLaren was clearly better

Again, only in qualifying. In the race Lotus were clearly quicker, and Red Bull were on par.

so what you are talking about? Just leave out all the things you want and come up with the conclusion Vettel had the car to win everything this year. Your post can't be serious. To rank Hamilton and Alonso higher, I can accept such opinions, but to come up with such a curious interpretation

I never said that, however, his car had near-perfect reliability bar one or two glitches, and at the same time had a car as quick as Mclaren. He should have won the championship much more convincingly than how he did.

Oh, and one more thing. I don't "hate" Vettel. He's far from my favorite driver, but I don't have an agenda against him. I just feel that this season, he was a lot less impressive than last season, and did not prove himself to be within the same barometer as Lewis or Fernando. His championship reminded me of Schumacher in 2003.

[mnmracer]

Australia: McLaren > Red Bull
Malaysia: Ferrari, McLaren > Red Bull
China: McLaren, Mercedes > Red Bull
Bahrain: Red Bull > McLaren
Spain: Ferrari, Williams, McLaren > Red Bull
Monaco: Red Bull = Ferrari = McLaren = Mercedes
Canada: Red Bull = Ferrari = McLaren
Britain: Red Bull, Ferrari > McLaren
Germany: Red Bull = Ferrari = McLaren
Hungary: McLaren, Lotus > Red Bull
Belgium: McLaren > Red Bull
Italy: McLaren, Ferrari > Red Bull
Singapore: Red Bull = McLaren
Japan: Red Bull > McLaren
Korea: Red Bull, Ferrari > McLaren
India: Red Bull > McLaren
Abu Dhabi: McLaren > Red Bull
USA: Red Bull = McLaren
Brazil: McLaren > Red Bull, Ferrari

8 races where McLaren was faster than Red Bull
5 races where Red Bull was faster than McLaren

[apoka]

I never said that, however, his car had near-perfect reliability bar one or two glitches, and at the same time had a car as quick as Mclaren. He should have won the championship much more convincingly than how he did.

It is not "near perfect", when that "glitch" (and that was by far not the only problem he had) costed him 32 points relative to Alonso. Remove that and you get a 35 point WDC lead at the end (theoretically). It is Alonso who had near-perfect reliability (but a slower car in qualy).

if Vettel should have got even more WDC points, what about Button and Webber, who were also in fast cars?

Oh, and one more thing. I don't "hate" Vettel. He's far from my favorite driver, but I don't have an agenda against him. I just feel that this season, he was a lot less impressive than last season, and did not prove himself to be within the same barometer as Lewis or Fernando. His championship reminded me of Schumacher in 2003.

Last season he was more impressive, but that was probably one of the best ever in F1. This year Vettel showed different qualities. Overall, Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel were all great this year - you can try to put them in some order but I don't see how you can rate them on entirely different levels (assuming that is what "not the same barometer" means).

[Kingshark]

Australia: McLaren > Red Bull
Malaysia: Ferrari, McLaren > Red Bull
China: McLaren, Mercedes > Red Bull

Australia - This comes from the guy who constantly repeats that qualy pace does not equal race pace when someone speaks highly of Alonso.
Red Bull were easily on par with Mclaren over race trim.

Malaysia - I agree about Ferrari, but not about Mclaren. Vettel was catching Hamilton by quite a bit before his puncture.

China - Again, I agree about Mercedes but not about Mclaren.
Webber and Hamilton were wheel to wheel all race long, which one of those two is a better driver, you think?

Once again, Red Bull were certainly equals with Mclaren on race trim.

Bahrain: Red Bull >>> McLaren

I have that fixed for you.

Red Bull on their day were one-two seconds quicker than Mclaren.

Spain: Ferrari, Williams, McLaren > Red Bull

I agree.

Monaco: Red Bull = Ferrari = McLaren = Mercedes

Mclaren equal to Red Bull and Mercedes? Really?

Is that why Hamilton was struggling like crazy with the tyres, while Button was fighting a Caterham?

Canada: Red Bull = Ferrari = McLaren
Britain: Red Bull, Ferrari > McLaren
Germany: Red Bull = Ferrari = McLaren

Correct.

And how come you didn't mention Europe, where Vettel was two seconds faster than Hamilton thanks to his illegal engine mapping? Why not mention all the races?

And please don't use his alternator failure as an excuse, as you didn't think twice about mentioning Abu Dhabi. Hypocrisy much?

Hungary: McLaren, Lotus > Red Bull

Lotus was much quicker than Mclaren in the race, and Red Bull were by no means far behind. If anything, Vettel was easily as quick as Hamilton on the race.

Belgium: McLaren > Red Bull
Italy: McLaren, Ferrari > Red Bull
Singapore: Red Bull = McLaren
Japan: Red Bull > McLaren
Korea: Red Bull, Ferrari > McLaren
India: Red Bull > McLaren

Agree with all of them.

Abu Dhabi: McLaren > Red Bull

Based on what? Vettel made a mistake on his quick lap and was outqualified by Webber. Hamilton might have taken pole, but Red Bull were 2 and 3, and where was Button?

USA: Red Bull = McLaren
Brazil: McLaren > Red Bull, Ferrari

Agree about USA.

Brazil - No. Red Bull had the pace to take pole position. Likewise, Vettel was easily the fastest car in the race when he had to push, even despite exhaust damage.

8 races where McLaren was faster than Red Bull
5 races where Red Bull was faster than McLaren

Not quite mate.

Red Bull quicker in Bahrain, Monaco, Europe, Britain, Japan, Korea and India. They were clearly ahead of Mclaren in all those races, apart from Monaco which might be debated. That's 7.
Mclaren quicker in Spain, Belgium and Italy. Those were the only times Mclaren were ever really quicker, all the other races you listed were doubtful/very close. That's 3.
They were give or take equal in every other GP on race trim.

Despite having a slower car overall, without his misfortunes, Hamilton would've beaten Vettel this season. Similar to Jacques Villeneuve and Michael Schumacher in 1997.

Interesting, isn't it?

[Zava]

I have moved a certain discussion from another topic to the correct thread for the subject.


Certainly.

Red Bull clearly had the pace to win in all the races all, apart from Malaysia, Spain, Belgium and Italy.

In terms of pace, Ferrari, Mclaren and Lotus were far more inconsistent.

How does that not make them the fastest team throughout the season?

All that pace combined with perhaps only one or two reliability glitches for Vettel, and he still nearly managed to throw the championship away.

blablabla

AUS-mclaren
MAL-mclaren
CHN-mclaren
BAH-red bull
ESP-mclaren
MON-red bull
CAN- lets say equal
EUR-red bull
GBR-red bull
GER-equal/mclaren slightly better*
HUN-mclaren
BEL-mclaren
ITA-mclaren
SIN-mclaren
JAP-red bull
KOR-red bull
IND-red bull
ABU-mclaren
USA-equal/mclaren slightly better**
BRA-mclaren

and about the occassions where I added possibly equal because otherwise I would be eaten alive:
*I'd say that if Button can overtake and Hamilton can unlap himself, that the car had better pace
**now this one is tricky: I'd say that if you can't keep your opponent out of the DRS window, then you're fighting for survival, and not controlling the race. as Hamilton was using DRS lap in-lap out, while Vettel couldn't get in the window, I'd say Vettel-fighting for surival, Hamilton-controlling the race

even if you take those all as equals, mclaren comes on top.

Edited by Zava, 20 January 2013 - 08:43.

[Skinnyguy]

No doubt McLaren had the pace over RB in more races this year. Only reliability, absurd mistakes during pitstops and other stupid screwups stopped them.

OZ: McLaren
MAL: Equal
CHI: McLaren
BAH: Red Bull
ESP: McLaren
MON: Red Bull
CAN: Equal
EUR: Red Bull
UK: Red Bull
GER: Equal
HUN: McLaren
BEL: McLaren
ITA: McLaren
SIN: McLaren
JAP: Red Bull, but would like to see Hamilton doing all weekend on a car without suspension pieces broken
KOR: Same than before
IND: Red Bull
ABU: McLaren
USA: Equal
Brazil: McLaren

[Shiroo]

races arent won only due to pace. if we will focus solely on pace, then without a doubt, McLaren was the faster car out of these 2, BUT it had serious problems with relaibility, and the team didn't help with genius tactic or perfect pit stops as well

[Skinnyguy]

races arent won only due to pace. if we will focus solely on pace, then without a doubt, McLaren was the faster car out of these 2, BUT it had serious problems with relaibility, and the team didn't help with genius tactic or perfect pit stops as well

McLaren wins no doubt the fastest car debate, but RB -and even Ferrari- were better places to be in order to sustain a decent WDC challenge this year.

[Shiroo]

McLaren wins no doubt the fastest car debate, but RB -and even Ferrari- were better places to be in order to sustain a decent WDC challenge this year.

and Lotus as well. 3 main drivers from these 3 teams were ahead of any McLaren driver, not due to better pace, but due to superior reliability

[Kingshark]

blablabla

AUS-mclaren
MAL-mclaren
CHN-mclaren
BAH-red bull
ESP-mclaren
MON-red bull
CAN- lets say equal
EUR-red bull
GBR-red bull
GER-equal/mclaren slightly better*
HUN-mclaren
BEL-mclaren
ITA-mclaren
SIN-mclaren
JAP-red bull
KOR-red bull
IND-red bull
ABU-mclaren
USA-equal/mclaren slightly better**
BRA-mclaren

Funny how I've done an identical list to yours, which you completely ignored.

Australia - Red Bull's race pace was easily on par with Mclaren. Same goes with China, where Hamilton and Webber were going at it all race long. Even in Malaysia, Vettel was closing in drastically on Hamilton before cucumber caused a puncture.

In none of these 3 races, Mclaren were ahead on race pace.

Bahrain - Red Bull on their day were one-two seconds quicker than Mclaren.

I agree about Spain, Monaco, and Canada.

Europe - yet again, on their day Red Bull were easily over a second quicker than Mclaren.

Great Britain - Red Bull once again have an enormous advantage.

I will respond to Germany later.

Hungary - Again, Red Bull's race pace was easily on par with Mclaren, and Lotus were much quicker than both.

I agree about Belgium and Italy.

Singapore - again, Red Bull's race pace was equal or better than Mclaren's. How come Lewis had Seb up his gearbox all race long? How come Button couldn't even come close to challenge?

In Japan, Korea and India - for 3 races in a row Red Bull were clearly a class of the field.

Abu Dhabi - Based on what? Vettel made a mistake on his quick lap and was outqualified by Webber. Hamilton might have taken pole, but Red Bull were 2 and 3, and where was Button?

Brazil - No. Red Bull had the pace to take pole position. Likewise, Vettel was easily the fastest car in the race when he had to push, even despite exhaust damage.

and about the occassions where I added possibly equal because otherwise I would be eaten alive:
*I'd say that if Button can overtake and Hamilton can unlap himself, that the car had better pace

Perhaps the only reason to why Button overtook Vettel in the pits was because;

1.) Vettel was held up by Alonso all race long.
2.) Button's pitstop was much quicker.
3.) Hamilton only overtook Vettel because his tyres were much fresher.

**now this one is tricky: I'd say that if you can't keep your opponent out of the DRS window, then you're fighting for survival, and not controlling the race. as Hamilton was using DRS lap in-lap out, while Vettel couldn't get in the window, I'd say Vettel-fighting for surival, Hamilton-controlling the race

I agree about Mclaren being slightly ahead at COTA.

even if you take those all as equals, mclaren Red Bull comes on top.

Fixed. ;-)

Red Bull quicker in Bahrain, Monaco, Europe, Britain, Japan, Korea and India. They were clearly ahead of Mclaren in all those races, apart from Monaco which might be debated. That's 7.

Mclaren quicker in Spain, Belgium and Italy. Those were the only times Mclaren were ever really quicker, all the other races you listed were doubtful/very close. That's 3.

They were give or take equal in every other GP on race trim.

Now add to the fact that Red Bull didn't have half the reliability glitches Mclaren did. There's your answer. It's been clear this season on whose had the best car overall, by quite a margin.

[Kingshark]

Zava and mnmracer, if you guys conclude that Mclaren were faster than Red Bull in races such as Australia, Malaysia, China, Hungary, Singapore, Abu Dhabi and Brazil - purely based on qualifying pace alone - then where does that put Ferrari?

Edited by Kingshark, 20 January 2013 - 18:00.

[Zava]

OK, I get it, when mclaren were faster, they actually weren't, and when red bull were faster, they were on another planet, nay, another universe. damn, I should've known
if you don't mind, I'd like to cut it loose: there's no point in arguing over it longer, we both stated our opinion, it hardly could be more differing, and there's no way we'll convince the other about one's truth (at least I'm damn sure I'm not buying yours), so let's just agree to disagree, and live in our own worlds: you in the "Vettel is so lame he almost managed to lose the WDC in the fastest and very reliable car", and me in the "Vettel won the WDC in not the outright fastest, and not the most reliable car, but overall a very WDC-capable one"

[abc]

Zava and mnmracer, if you guys conclude that Mclaren were faster than Red Bull in races such as Australia, Malaysia, China, Hungary, Singapore, Abu Dhabi and Brazil - purely based on qualifying pace alone - then where does that put Ferrari?

Jesus god,

if you neglect quali then many cars were around the same pace in race considering race tactics. To quali in first row gives you big advantage and respective car is more often than not car to have.

And again if you neglect quali then we can say Ferrari was equal to McLaren and Red bull from Spain onwards, you cant have it both ways.

As for your opinions above, taking into account respective weekends (quali + race), McLaren dominated Red Bull in Australia, Malaysia, China, Singapore, Abu Dhabi and Brasil. If Vettel was somehow equal to Hamilton in Australia, China, Hungary, Singapore, Abu Dhabi and Brasil, all you need to know is to evaluate pace of Button and Webber in those races to recognise better car.

[Kingshark]

OK, I get it, when mclaren were faster, they actually weren't, and when red bull were faster, they were on another planet, nay, another universe. damn, I should've known

How else could one describe Red Bull's advantage over Mclaren at Bahrain, Europe, Great Britain, Japan, Korea and India over Mclaren?

When Mclaren had the advantage in races such as Spain, Belgium and Italy; I've openly admitted it.

However, truth is, they haven't been as dominant, as often as Red Bull. Even on raw pace alone.

we both stated our opinion, it hardly could be more differing, and there's no way we'll convince the other about one's truth (at least I'm damn sure I'm not buying yours)

What is ridicule about your logic, is that whenever in doubt, you always "assume" that somehow Mclaren had the quicker package.

so let's just agree to disagree, and live in our own worlds: you in the "Vettel is so lame he almost managed to lose the WDC in the fastest and very reliable car", and me in the "Vettel won the WDC in not the outright fastest, and not the most reliable car, but overall a very WDC-capable one"

Impressive way to twist my words.

However, I'm getting quite annoyed by the people who constantly parakeet that Mclaren were quicker than Red Bull this season.

Jesus god,

if you neglect quali then many cars were around the same pace in race considering race tactics. To quali in first row gives you big advantage and respective car is more often than not car to have.
And again if you neglect quali then we can say Ferrari was equal to McLaren and Red bull from Spain onwards, you cant have it both ways.

Red Bull had a better qualy car than Mclaren in:

Monaco
Europe
Great Britain
Germany
Japan
Korea
India

They were equal in:

Bahrain
USA
Brazil
Abu Dhabi
Singapore
Canada

Therefore, all in all, it's 7 in favor of Red Bull, 6 that were give or take a draw, and 7 in favor of Mclaren. Hamilton had 7 pole positions against Vettel's 6. No, Mclaren was not faster than Red Bull on Saturdays. And even if it was, the gaps suggest that the difference was very marginal.

Edited by Kingshark, 20 January 2013 - 22:11.

[Seanspeed]

And again if you neglect quali then we can say Ferrari was equal to McLaren and Red bull from Spain onwards, you cant have it both ways.

Nope. Ferrari may have been better in the races, but people overblow it sometimes. They were still always at least 2nd to somebody in race pace in almost any given weekend. At least.

I agree you cant neglect qualifying, though, cuz this year showed just as much as any that starting up front is still crucial.

[abc]

Nope. Ferrari may have been better in the races, but people overblow it sometimes. They were still always at least 2nd to somebody in race pace in almost any given weekend. At least.

I agree you cant neglect qualifying, though, cuz this year showed just as much as any that starting up front is still crucial.

Cant agree totally, not so overblown im afraid.

Speaking about Sundays only, Ferrari had better race than both Red Bull and McLaren in couple of races. I would say Spain, Canada (Massa after his spin was as quick as leading trio unlike Button and Webber), clearly Monaco. They were obviously very competitive in Germany, Silverstone, Monza and practically in all races after Singapore. For example in India Alonso closed the gap after he cleared McLarens especially on harder tires. Massa was as quick as Vettel in Austin after he cleared all traffic. He said he could have fought for victory in Brasil. It was all matter of 1-2,5 tenths not more. Since Spain they only sucked (relatively ie gap bigger than half of second) in Hungary and Singapore.

Anyway its all futile to take into account only Sundays, it only went to show how flawed is Kingsharks argumentation.

[Kingshark]

Cant agree totally, not so overblown im afraid.

Speaking about Sundays only, Ferrari had better race than both Red Bull and McLaren in couple of races. I would say Spain, Canada (Massa after his spin was as quick as leading trio unlike Button and Webber), clearly Monaco. They were obviously very competitive in Germany, Silverstone, Monza and practically in all races after Singapore. For example in India Alonso closed the gap after he cleared McLarens especially on harder tires. Massa was as quick as Vettel in Austin after he cleared all traffic. He said he could have fought for victory in Brasil. It was all matter of 1-2,5 tenths not more. Since Spain they only sucked (relatively ie gap bigger than half of second) in Hungary and Singapore.

Anyway its all futile to take into account only Sundays, it only went to show how flawed is Kingsharks argumentation.

Ferrari had the pace of the leaders in Spain, Monaco and Canada which I never denied.

Ferrari did not have the pace of Red Bull and Lotus at all in Europe. That victory by Alonso was a combination of a lot of luck, and some great overtaking moves on crucial moments.

Germany and Great Britain, yes. In Hungary they were quite a bit slower.

How can you judge Ferrari's pace in Spa? Alonso was decimated in the first corner, but from what I saw, Massa's race pace was quite a bit slower than Button/Vettel's.

Monza, yes. In fact, I believe Ferrari had the best car that day, and if it wasn't the best, it was at least equal to Mclaren.

Singapore. Obviously not. lol.

Regarding Japan, did you notice how easily Vettel pulled out a 20.7 second lead on Massa when the Ferrari ever looked like the most minor threat?

In Korea and India, Ferrari only had the pace of Red Bull on the prime tyres. On soft tyres they were half a second slower.

Abu Dhabi and USA are two other races where neither Alonso or Massa couldn't keep up with the front runners at all. Massa at COTA is debatable, but his laptimes were nowhere near as consistent and Hamilton and Vettel's, so likely not.

Brazil. Yes.

Are you really going to argue that whether either/or Ferrari had an equal car in terms of pace to Mclaren and Red Bull this season?

[abc]

They were equal in:

Bahrain
USA
Brazil
Abu Dhabi
Singapore
Canada

Canada clearly Red Bull
Singapore Hamilton 1:46.3, Vettel 1:46.8 (from Q2), Button 1:46.9, Webber 1:47.5, I assume that means equal
Abu Dhabi - you have it wrong in your posts, Hamilton didnt fight for it hard, he made only one attempt in Q3 which was quickest by almost 4 tenths, his Q2 attempt was good enough for pole. Vettel didnt make mistakes on his quick lap, he was close to Mark throughout all quali and in the end just 1 tenth slower. Button was only 2 tenths behind RBR with his problems. It was easy pole for Hamilton.
Brasil - clearly McLaren, times are always very close in Brasil, having all front row and 1,5 tenths up on quicker RB is quite telling.
Bahrain - RBR - Mcl - RBR - McL, mixed grid with margins under 1 tenth on long track, thats what I call by whisker
USA - we dont know how JB would fare baring technical problem, Vettel by 1 tenth with Webber over half a second down makes it unable to make call over this one.

And BTW in 7 races with RB advantage, two of them were wet where McLaren lost it in tire lottery, where Hamilton dominated Q2 and lost it in changeable conditions.

Overall no car had clear speed advantage and it swinged like pendulum, but McLaren was quicker on more weekend than RBR.

[abc]

Ferrari had the pace of the leaders in Spain, Monaco and Canada which I never denied.

Ferrari did not have the pace of Red Bull and Lotus at all in Europe. That victory by Alonso was a combination of a lot of luck, and some great overtaking moves on crucial moments.

Germany and Great Britain, yes. In Hungary they were quite a bit slower.

How can you judge Ferrari's pace in Spa? Alonso was decimated in the first corner, but from what I saw, Massa's race pace was quite a bit slower than Button/Vettel's.

Monza, yes. In fact, I believe Ferrari had the best car that day, and if it wasn't the best, it was at least equal to Mclaren.

Singapore. Obviously not. lol.

Regarding Japan, did you notice how easily Vettel pulled out a 20.7 second lead on Massa when the Ferrari ever looked like the most minor threat?

In Korea and India, Ferrari only had the pace of Red Bull on the prime tyres. On soft tyres they were half a second slower.

Abu Dhabi and USA are two other races where neither Alonso or Massa couldn't keep up with the front runners at all. Massa at COTA is debatable, but his laptimes were nowhere near as consistent and Hamilton and Vettel's, so likely not.

Brazil. Yes.

Are you really going to argue that whether either/or Ferrari had an equal car in terms of pace to Mclaren and Red Bull this season?

We agree

Valencia - I didnt say word about it, so why arguing? hard to conclude much out of it as Alonso spent first half of race in traffic, but they were close in Q, I refuse to believe they would be more than 0,5 per lap behind if Alonso started further ahead, but agree with your sentence.

We agree

Spa again no word about it in my post if you want to speculate they were more than 0,5 sec. behind leaders pace on Sunday, heck even Massa wasnt

We agree

Singapore we agree, maybe I should write lol agree

Japan
lap 1 - 13 Massa behind other cars
lap 14 Massa 11.4 behind Vettel
lap 35 Massa 17.1 behind Vettel and pits, but in lap 27 the gap was 10.6 sec. after that Massa obviously lost tires, Alonso was always better in this regard
lap 37 Vettel pits gap 18.5 in lap 51 gap was 19.3 very stable, than Massa slowed with two laps to go, make your own conclusion

India, Korea we agree lol, well almost 0.5 on soft and 0 on hard means max 0.2 over race distance (biggest part is almost always done on harder tire) besides Im not convinced about 0.5 sec gap at all.

In India gap went from 6.3 in lap 5 (Alonso got ahead of Button) to 8.7 in lap 21. Then he (Alonso) got under two sec. from Webber, they slowed down so that the gap increased to 13 sec. in lap 28 before pit stop. It is still only 6.7 sec over 23 laps.

Abu Dhabi - Alonso = Kimi pace wise, I would estimate 0.3 behind Hamilton with RBR somewhere between, we agree they couldnt keep up, when you can keep up it means you are as quick or even quicker.

USA, Brazil we agree

Lol We agree a lot, could your next protest post aim at real points?

Edited by abc, 21 January 2013 - 10:44.

[Skinnyguy]

Really entertaining reading you guys, but surely stablishing that McLaren had a faster (not better, faster) car than RB more times this season doesn´t need such in-depth analysis.

But I guess that when someone calls "equal" a weekend when a team qualifies 1-2 and the other 5-6, and when the front row team is on their way for an easy 1-2 on race day too until bad luck with a SC and pitstops make them lose second... then you can get dragged into stupid overanalysis.

[Kingshark]

Really entertaining reading you guys, but surely stablishing that McLaren had a faster (not better, faster) car than RB more times this season doesn´t need such in-depth analysis.

But I guess that when someone calls "equal" a weekend when a team qualifies 1-2 and the other 5-6, and when the front row team is on their way for an easy 1-2 on race day too until bad luck with a SC and pitstops make them lose second... then you can get dragged into stupid overanalysis.

You did actually watch Australia, right? Webber and Vettel had at least equal pace to the Mclaren's all race long. In fact, in a pure 58 lap time trial I would've put my money on Webber to win, based on the laptimes I saw.

But hey, in 2011 Vettel fans were often talking about how qualt pace does not equal race pace. They were right. It does't!

And if you want to bring qualifying into relevancy/account, where does that put Ferrari?

[Skinnyguy]

You did actually watch Australia, right? Webber and Vettel had at least equal pace to the Mclaren's all race long. In fact, in a pure 58 lap time trial I would've put my money on Webber to win, based on the laptimes I saw.

There´s no way to spin it: McLaren had a car as fast as anyone else on race day and they both started on front row, while RB started from row 3 in a roughly similar car on race day. Calling that "equal" is moronic, as RB guys will be 10 seconds behind them by the time they clear the slower guys in the way, and they don´t have the speed advantage to pull it back. Without a weird race with there´s no way a RB driver could beat one of the McLarens, how can you possibly call that "equal"?

But hey, in 2011 Vettel fans were often talking about how qualt pace does not equal race pace. They were right. It does't!

Well, that´s right, isn´t it? Of course it doesn´t.

And if you want to bring qualifying into relevancy/account, where does that put Ferrari?

It´s well known Ferrari were one step behind McLaren/RB speed wise this season, and could hang on down to reliability, brilliant strategy and teamwork and great driving. Your point? How´s this relevant to the comparison between McLaren and RB?

[Kingshark]

There´s no way to spin it: McLaren had a car as fast as anyone else on race day and they both started on front row, while RB started from row 3 in a roughly similar car on race day. Calling that "equal" is moronic, as RB guys will be 10 seconds behind them by the time they clear the slower guys in the way, and they don´t have the speed advantage to pull it back. Without a weird race with there´s no way a RB driver could beat one of the McLarens, how can you possibly call that "equal"?

See a few posts above. Even in qualifying, Mclaren was not that much ahead of Red Bull this season. We have had 7 Red Bull poles this season compared to Mclaren's 8. No big difference. Ferrari on the other hand, have only had two, both in the wet.

Well, that´s right, isn´t it? Of course it doesn´t.

What I make out of this is that Vettel drives in Spain and Monaco last year were really nothing special since he had track position due a better qualifying car.

It´s well known Ferrari were one step behind McLaren/RB speed wise this season, and could hang on down to reliability, brilliant strategy and teamwork and great driving. Your point? How´s this relevant to the comparison between McLaren and RB?

Shows for the desperate double standard many people are looking for. When I point out that Red Bull had equal race pace to Mclaren in races such as Australia, they immediately reply that grid position gives you a massive advantage. However, when I present the fact that Ferrari have been rather poor in qualy this season, they immediately bring up the fact that race pace does not equal qualy pace.

If that's not fanboy logic, I don't know what is.

Edited by Kingshark, 21 January 2013 - 16:55.

[Skinnyguy]

See a few posts above. Even in qualifying, Mclaren was not that much ahead of Red Bull this season. We have had 7 Red Bull poles this season compared to Mclaren's 8. No big difference. Ferrari on the other hand, have only had two, both in the wet.
What I make out of this is that Vettel drives in Spain and Monaco last year were really nothing special since he had track position due a better qualifying car.

Hold on a second, pal. Now, let´s concentrate, use all your attention spam: This isn´t the "latest agenda and propaganda thread", it´s "latest qualifying and race pecking order". Here people argues about the speed of the 2012 cars, and right now we´re arguing about RB and McLaren´s speed. How much Ferrari cars are all crap, how Alonso is fighting alone against a rocket, how Vettel´s wins are insignificant and easy, and how crazy these rabbid Vettel fans are is totally irrelevant here.

You´ve just made an appalling analysis of the real topic being argued and other people is correcting you. You´ve judged as "equal" a car that is good enough for an easy 1-2 to a car that has to start from row 3 and somehow beat a car which is just as fast next day. And as you´ve made similar moronic ratings for most of the rest of the season, your overall rating makes just no sense at all. And that´s it, basically, here we are.

I have no interest at all in your fanboy wars against Vettel camp, in your double standards acusations and all that yada-yada, but I´ll just suggest you to stop and have a look here:

Shows for the desperate double standard many people are looking for. When I point out that Red Bull had equal race pace to Mclaren in races such as Australia, they immediately reply that grid position gives you a massive advantage. However, when I present the fact that Ferrari have been rather poor in qualy this season, they immediately bring up the fact that race pace does not equal qualy pace.

If that's not fanboy logic, I don't know what is.

Says the guy that understands Ferrari must be considered slower than McLaren and RB because it lacks qualifying pace, but then can defend half a page to rate McLaren and RB equal in Australia because qualifying doesn´t matter anymore when it´s the bad guys stuck on row 3.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 22 January 2013 - 01:04.

[Kingshark]

Actually, Ferrari were generally slower than Red Bull and Mclaren on race day too, especially on option tyres, and with light fuel loads. Or did you miss that part out?

[Skinnyguy]

Yes, I missed that part, me and lots of other people by the looks of it. Because the general consensus is that Ferrari´s problem was Saturday putting them in a bad position to start the races, where their pace was as good as anyone else´s from Spain on overall. Even between what you (rightly) rate as RB washouts, there are plenty of races where Ferrari could have fought RB had they started from the front, like India, where only the time lost between the McLarens avoided Alonso challenging Vettel. But I´m pretty sure you wouldn´t rate all these as "equal" between RB and Ferrari, would you?

I see you´re not interested in the topic discussed at all, only in covering what everyone says once it doesn´t fit your agenda. If you have any genuine interest in the RB vs McLaren relative speeds comparison further than twisting it to use it as a way to show how much Vettel sucks and Alonso rocks, if you are interested in a proper analysis, I´ll be around to discuss it. Until then,

[Seanspeed]

Saying that Ferrari were slower than Red Bull and Mclaren in not only qualifying, but also race pace, is pretty much just a factual statement. People denying it are the ones that seem to have some agenda.

Edited by Seanspeed, 22 January 2013 - 15:05.

[boldhakka]

Saying that Ferrari were slower than Red Bull and Mclaren in not only qualifying, but also race pace, is pretty much just a factual statement. People denying it are the ones that seem to have some agenda.

You'll find that Hamilton's McLaren had a much lower average speed than Alonso's Ferrari.;)

[canaus]

You'll find that Hamilton's McLaren had a much lower average speed than Alonso's Ferrari.;)

I don't know who made this comparation and why, but it serves for nothing. I'll give u a list of reasons for this.

- Lewis didn't finished the races as often as Alonso, so his average pace was based most on high fuel runs: Singapore, Abu Dhabi - races where McLaren was clearly superior.
- Bahrain: Maybe they counted the 2 pit stops too
- Spain: I suppose they didn't count that Lewis was sent back to the grid and in traffic.
- Germany: Did they counted that Lewis was 1 lap down because of a tyre problem? Don't think so. 1 lap means more than 1 second per lap. When you think at Button and Alonso which had same pace, you understand how stupid is this.
- Count also Canada for Alonso and Valencia for Hamilton where due to degradinng tyres they losing 2 seconds per lap to eachother, where in fact they had about equal pace.

So, if u want to give a proper response to @Seanspeed try anything else, not this useless thing.

[Seanspeed]

You'll find that Hamilton's McLaren had a much lower average speed than Alonso's Ferrari.;)

I dont even know what 'average speed' is supposed to mean in the context of the discussion.

[Skinnyguy]

Saying that Ferrari were slower than Red Bull and Mclaren in not only qualifying, but also race pace, is pretty much just a factual statement.

Maybe in Ferrari world. Let´s check what I said:

...Ferrari´s problem was Saturday putting them in a bad position to start the races, where their pace was as good as anyone else´s from Spain on overall.

Now, let´s see if it´s true. A direct race to race speed comparison with McLaren, the fastest car, will do:

Spain: Ferrari
Monaco: Ferrari
Canada: Equal, McLaren victory down to chosing the right strategy. Nothing between them.
Europe: Ferrari.
UK: Ferrari
Germany: Equal, Ferrari victory down to starting in front. Nothing between them.
Hungary: McLaren
Belgium: Unknown, but let´s give it to McLaren.
Italy: McLaren
Singapore: McLaren
Japan: Ferrari
Korea: Ferrari
India: Ferrari
Abu: McLaren
USA: McLaren
Brazil: McLaren

As you see, no need for agenda. Having watched the races without Ferrari goggles on is enough to see they were perfectly OK on Sunday.

But let´s talk a bit about agendas now. People with agenda usually has to twist stuff to avoid implying some other stuff they don´t want to admit. As I consider Alonso the driver of the year (unlike others I CAN rate all drivers fairly ) I have no need to adapt my view on cars´ speed to match preconceived biased views on the drivers... unlike in your 2007-2008 McLaren/Ferrari comparisons. If you want to see an agenda in action during car´s ratings, so you can recognize it wxt time you see it, check these comparisons by you.

So yes, as you can see up there, Ferrari was as fast as anyone on Sunday from Spain on. And that´s a result of having watched the races. And the comparison doesn´t drag any agenda like trying to downplay your honey´s season, because he´s been simply the best out there this year.

And the lesson is over boys, that´s how you rate a car without letting your ridiculous biases about drivers getting in the way. Hope this is enough for you to do it properly from now on. Cheers.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 23 January 2013 - 00:47.

[gillesthegenius]

Interesting, isn't it?

Pathetic imo.
Btw what goggles do you wear?

[as65p]

And the lesson is over boys, that´s how you rate a car without letting your ridiculous biases about drivers getting in the way. Hope this is enough for you to do it properly from now on. Cheers.

Since when are pulled-off-dark-places fantasy performance ratings called "lessons"?

So you watched the races, that's your highly scientific measuring method?

Come to think of it, there's indeed a lesson or two to be learned here, but it's more about human Hybris than anything else.

[boldhakka]

I dont even know what 'average speed' is supposed to mean in the context of the discussion.

Oh, I was just humorously suggesting that reliability is part of a speed of a car. But you guys clearly have much more sophisticated analysis going on, so never mind me, carry on!

[Seanspeed]

So yes, as you can see up there, Ferrari was as fast as anyone on Sunday from Spain on. And that´s a result of having watched the races. And the comparison doesn´t drag any agenda like trying to downplay your honey´s season, because he´s been simply the best out there this year.

Your comparison was to Mclaren only^ and I would disagree with a few of your conclusions as well in regards to just them. But I'm pretty sure there were 13 teams out there, not 2. I'm also glad you watched the races. I do believe it was necessary to clarify that.

Anyways, all I've been saying is that Alonso had a lot to do with Ferrari's successes in 2012. The car really wasn't that terribly good. Had a period in the middle where it showed some genuine race-winning pace, but only in a handful of races. There wasn't a single time I think you could say Ferrari clearly had the fastest car out there on Sunday.

But again, this is just me being 'ridiculously biased' and having all these agendas, cuz yea, Alonso is 'my honey'(?) and all.

And the lesson is over boys, that´s how you rate a car without letting your ridiculous biases about drivers getting in the way. Hope this is enough for you to do it properly from now on. Cheers.

Is it hard to breathe in here? All this smug.

[Kingshark]

You're trying to make the Red Bull faster than both the Ferrari and the McLaren, and I show the flaw in both.
I show you the flaw in using only qualifying as indicator for best car, and I show you the flaw in using only race pace as indicator for best car. The connection between the two is just in your head.
You're just miffed that your arguments why the Red Bull was 100x better than any car and how Vettel should be ashamed for only just winning the championship, falls flat every team you measure the arguments by the same standard.

Please point out exactly when you did all of this?

http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=6090689

You presume that in Monaco, Ferrari and Red Bull were equal, even though, as Mark Webber showed, Red Bull clearly had an advantage in qualifying. An advantage of 6-7 tenths. Although in the race, Ferrari showed equal pace to Red Bull, thus fair enough.

Simultaneously, you rate McLaren higher than Red Bull in Australia; not withstanding the fact that Red Bull were easily as quick as McLaren in the race. You saw how Vettel reeled in Hamilton after he cleared the Mercedes.

This is coming from the guy who complains about double standards.

[Kingshark]

Maybe in Ferrari world. Let´s check what I said:

Now, let´s see if it´s true. A direct race to race speed comparison with McLaren, the fastest car, will do:

Spain: Ferrari
Monaco: Ferrari
Canada: Equal, McLaren victory down to chosing the right strategy. Nothing between them.
Europe: Ferrari.
UK: Ferrari
Germany: Equal, Ferrari victory down to starting in front. Nothing between them.
Hungary: McLaren
Belgium: Unknown, but let´s give it to McLaren.
Italy: McLaren
Singapore: McLaren
Japan: Ferrari
Korea: Ferrari
India: Ferrari
Abu: McLaren
USA: McLaren
Brazil: McLaren

For starters, the season starts in Australia, not Spain, so the fact that you don't include the first four races of the season tells me all about your credibility.

Spain: How the hell was Ferrari better when Hamilton out qualified the field by 6 tenths of a second, and was the only car to make the two-stop strategy work?

I agree about Monaco, Canada, Europe, and Great Britain.

Germany? Seriously? Button was all over Alonso despite starting way back. The only reason Alonso won that race is because he took pole position, track position is king in a car with good top speed. Had Vettel or Button gotten past him at any point, they would have driven away.

Belgium - Button out qualified the field by seconds, and it's still unknown?

Italy - Ferrari were equal, actually.

Japan - Massa beat Button on strategy, nothing more.

Korea - nope. LH out-qualified the Ferrari's, made a mistake on lap 1, and was generally close to and matching Alonso, before his anti-roll bar failure.

I agree with India.

In the final three races of the season, Mclaren were clearly better than Ferrari.

That being said, I'd like to point out that I believe Lewis was equal to Fernando in 2012. He should've been champion if it wasn't for Mclaren's incompetence, with an otherwise very good car.

As you see, no need for agenda. Having watched the races without Ferrari goggles on is enough to see they were perfectly OK on Sunday.

But let´s talk a bit about agendas now. People with agenda usually has to twist stuff to avoid implying some other stuff they don´t want to admit. As I consider Alonso the driver of the year (unlike others I CAN rate all drivers fairly ;) ) I have no need to adapt my view on cars´ speed to match preconceived biased views on the drivers... unlike in your 2007-2008 McLaren/Ferrari comparisons. If you want to see an agenda in action during car´s ratings, so you can recognize it wxt time you see it, check these comparisons by you.

So yes, as you can see up there, Ferrari was as fast as anyone on Sunday from Spain on. And that´s a result of having watched the races. And the comparison doesn´t drag any agenda like trying to downplay your honey´s season, because he´s been simply the best out there this year.

As fast as anyone on Sunday.

You accuse me of having an agenda?

Ferrari were nowhere near Red Bull pace in Europe.
Nor did they have Mclaren's pace in Germany, Hungary and Belgium,
Nor Red Bull and Mclaren's pace in Singapore,
Nor Red Bull's pace in Japan, Korea, and India;
Lastly, they didn't have Red Bull's and Mclaren's pace in Abu Dhabi, USA, and Brazil.

I have an agenda? Well, good on you, you are making yourself look ridiculous here.

And the lesson is over boys, that´s how you rate a car without letting your ridiculous biases about drivers getting in the way. Hope this is enough for you to do it properly from now on. Cheers.

So much ego.

[Zava]

^ mnmracer will be thankful to you for proving his point without him writing a single letter.

[mnmracer]

You presume that in Monaco, Ferrari and Red Bull were equal, even though, as Mark Webber showed, Red Bull clearly had an advantage in qualifying. An advantage of 6-7 tenths. Although in the race, Ferrari showed equal pace to Red Bull, thus fair enough.

So, basically you're saying I'm right...

You saw how Vettel reeled in Hamilton after he cleared the Mercedes.

Vettel:Hamilton gap lap 6: 8.2 seconds
Vettel:Hamilton gap lap 15: 7.6 seconds
average time faster per lap: 0.067 seconds

BAM!
He sure did reel him in fast...

Simultaneously, you rate McLaren higher than Red Bull in Australia; not withstanding the fact that Red Bull were easily as quick as McLaren in the race.

The fastest McLaren was much faster than any other car on track.
The fastest Red Bull was slightly faster than the slowest McLaren.
The slowest Red Bull was could kind of keep up with the slowest McLaren only with DRS after the safety car. Before that, the slowest Red Bull was nowhere near the slowest McLaren.

Hmm, now how come the general consensus is that McLaren was faster in Australia?

[Kingshark]

So, basically you're saying I'm right...


Vettel:Hamilton gap lap 6: 8.2 seconds
Vettel:Hamilton gap lap 15: 7.6 seconds
average time faster per lap: 0.067 seconds

BAM!
He sure did reel him in fast...

Before the second pit stops series, on lap 35, Vettel was only 1.6 seconds behind Hamilton.

He clawed back such a margin from a 7.6 second deficiency.

Yes, Vettel was faster than Hamilton, no matter how you like to twist the facts.

The fastest McLaren was much faster than any other car on track.

Following 20 laps of racing after the SC, Button beat Vettel by 2.1 seconds.

The fastest Red Bull was slightly faster than the slowest McLaren.

Quite a bit actually, reeling 6 seconds in one stint.

The slowest Red Bull was could kind of keep up with the slowest McLaren only with DRS after the safety car. Before that, the slowest Red Bull was nowhere near the slowest McLaren.

As usual, you only look at statistics, and probably didn't watch the race.

Webber was that far behind, only because he had a signature poor start, which dropped him behind multiple slower cars, such as Rosberg and Alonso.

Lastly, Webber was easily faster than Hamilton after the restart. He finished only 0.5 seconds behind, and was constantly all over him.

The slowest Red Bull was faster than the slowest McLaren.

Hmm, now how come the general consensus is that McLaren was faster in Australia?

As yourself.

[Kingshark]

Gap from Button to Webber as soon as Rosberg pitted:

Lap 31: 31.06 seconds
Lap 32: 30.57 seconds
Lap 33: 30.27 seconds
Lap 34: 29.57 seconds
Lap 35: 28.51 seconds

Then Button pitted on lap 36.

Webber, who was according to mnmracer, the slowest Red Bull, was lapping an average of 0.64 seconds quicker than the fastest Mclaren, Button.

Gaps from Webber to Hamilton from Lap 31 onward, when Webber was finally in clean air.

Lap 31: 21.39 s
Lap 35: 17.68 s

Webber was on average, almost 1 second/lap quicker than Hamilton, 0.928 s/lap to be exact.
Clearly, Webber proved that in Australia, Red Bull had the pace to win.

Edited by Kingshark, 03 February 2013 - 23:04.

[mnmracer]

Before the second pit stops series, on lap 35, Vettel was only 1.6 seconds behind Hamilton.
He clawed back such a margin from a 7.6 second deficiency.

The fact you don't care to convince me because you know I actually look at the facts, doesn't mean you should try to deceive people reading along by leaving out context.
After pit stops, when both were in clear air, the difference was 0.6 seconds because Lewis got stuck behind Perez.

Following 20 laps of racing after the SC, Button beat Vettel by 2.1 seconds.

Button kept the gap at ~2 seconds. It doesn't change the >10 second gap in the 40 laps before.

Quite a bit actually, reeling 6 seconds in one stint.

As previously covered, a factual lie on your part there.

As usual, you only look at statistics, and probably didn't watch the race.

As usual, you look at what your memory tells you, and disregard the statistics that proof you wrong.
Statistics are not everything, but if your memory tells you a car did a lap of 1:30, and the statistics tell you a car did the lap in 1:29, then your memory is still flat-out wrong.

Webber was that far behind, only because he had a signature poor start, which dropped him behind multiple slower cars, such as Rosberg and Alonso.

Multiple slower cars that, despite being in the fastest car, he couldn't pass for 33 laps...

[Kingshark]

The fact you don't care to convince me because you know I actually look at the facts, doesn't mean you should try to deceive people reading along by leaving out context.
After pit stops, when both were in clear air, the difference was 0.6 seconds because Lewis got stuck behind Perez.

He kept the gap under 1.6 seconds for some 20 laps. That says something, it clearly shows that he wasn't hampered by the Mclaren's turbulent air.

Button kept the gap at ~2 seconds. It doesn't change the >10 second gap in the 40 laps before.

Again, only because Vettel was being held up by Hamilton, and Webber by Rosberg.

As usual, you look at what your memory tells you, and disregard the statistics that proof you wrong.
Statistics are not everything, but if your memory tells you a car did a lap of 1:30, and the statistics tell you a car did the lap in 1:29, then your memory is still flat-out wrong.

You did look at the statistics I posted above, right?

FACT: Once in clean air, Webber's lap times were in a planet of his own.

I have proven this, and you dismissed it.

Multiple slower cars that, despite being in the fastest car, he couldn't pass for 33 laps...

31 laps, and only because of Mercedes' famous straight line speed.

[mnmracer]

He kept the gap under 1.6 seconds for some 20 laps. That says something, it clearly shows that he wasn't hampered by the Mclaren's turbulent air.


Again, only because Vettel was being held up by Hamilton, and Webber by Rosberg.


You did look at the statistics I posted above, right?

FACT: Once in clean air, Webber's lap times were in a planet of his own.

I have proven this, and you dismissed it.

31 laps, and only because of Mercedes' famous straight line speed.

You have to get your standards straightened out here.
Do you really want to retro-actively take back "Vettel had the fastest car" every race in 2011 where he kept his lead at a steady pace even when cars further down were faster?

[Kingshark]

I never said that Vettel had the fastest car every race in 2011. In fact, there were many weekends where Mclaren were equal or better, and occasionally Ferrari too.

Edited by Kingshark, 03 February 2013 - 23:17.

[mnmracer]

Then I applaud you for that.
In the case of Australia though, it was clear that Button was just protecting his lead, certainly considering the McLaren's tires dropped off relatively badly towards the end of a stint.