275 replies to this topic

[MissingTheApex]

See? You are making the point that the Merc is a good car. That is not the argument I am making. I am saying the Merc is REALLY good but that in SOME areas the Red Bull is better.

 

No, I am saying that if the RBR was that good, then the equalisers that are rain and short twisty circuits would have played to their strengths, and they didn't.  I see no areas, to be honest, where the RBR is better.

[HPT]

F1 cars are so complex that I don't think there is any 'equalizer' due strictly to conditions alone. Eg. F2012 at the beginning of the year. Was a POS in the dry but somehow class of the field in the wet/drying track in Sepang. I doubt it had a better chassis that RBR or McLaren but perhaps the Ferrari engine's torque or whatever is more suitable in those conditions as the Sauber was quick as well.

[Kulturen]

No, I am saying that if the RBR was that good, then the equalisers that are rain and short twisty circuits would have played to their strengths, and they didn't.  I see no areas, to be honest, where the RBR is better.

 

Well, your argument is completely incorrect.

 

• Short twisty circuits are equalisers for say top speed advantage. NOT for a pure massive horsepower advantage which would mean better torque, power delivery, so therefore better acceleration etc. Add to that the fact that the Merc has probably the best mechanical traction as well which means they lost nothing in the delivery of the power.
• Rain can make things closer but you will notice that the RedBull WAS able to be faster in such conditions and also, while making things closer, rain is not an "equaliser".

 

You are basing your argument on an arbitrary and illogical assertion that if the RBR chassis was better (not even specifying by how much) it should be able to overcome any engine disadvantage otherwise it's proof that it isn't better. Even if we accepted that a massive engine disadvantage between close tier teams can be overcome (it can't), it still wouldn't be proof of a worse or better chassis if they failed to do so, just an indication that it wasn't good enough.

Edited by Kulturen, 22 November 2014 - 21:23.

[MissingTheApex]

Well, your argument is completely incorrect.

 

• Short twisty circuits are equalisers for say top speed advantage. NOT for a pure massive horsepower advantage which would mean better torque, power delivery, so therefore better acceleration etc. Add to that the fact that the Merc has probably the best mechanical traction as well which means they lost nothing in the delivery of the power.
• Rain can make things closer but you will notice that the RedBull WAS able to be faster in such conditions and also, while making things closer, rain is not an "equaliser".

 

You are basing your argument on an arbitrary and illogical assertion that if the RBR chassis was better (not even specifying by how much) it should be able to overcome any engine disadvantage otherwise it's proof that it isn't better. Even if we accepted that a massive engine disadvantage between close tier teams can be overcome (it can't), it still wouldn't be proof of a worse or better chassis if they failed to do so, just an indication that it wasn't good enough.

 

 

Ok, I'll eschew the long winded stuff and come back with 'and your argument isn't the same?'.

I've been watching F1 a lot, and I know the wet is a great equaliser.  I know short twisty stuff too, is an equaliser.

Sorry, but to save myself a long argument, I can't, genuinely, see how the RBR is better in any way shape or form.

[syolase]

See? You are making the point that the Merc is a good car. That is not the argument I am making. I am saying the Merc is REALLY good but that in SOME areas the Red Bull is better.

Their front wing flexes more thats for sure! (Confirmed by even the FIA!)

Edited by syolase, 22 November 2014 - 22:03.

[redraven9]

F1 cars are so complex that I don't think there is any 'equalizer' due strictly to conditions alone. Eg. F2012 at the beginning of the year. Was a POS in the dry but somehow class of the field in the wet/drying track in Sepang. I doubt it had a better chassis that RBR or McLaren but perhaps the Ferrari engine's torque or whatever is more suitable in those conditions as the Sauber was quick as well.

It was the man in the car that was the class of the field

[Kulturen]

Sorry, but to save myself a long argument

 

 

All you did was restate "this is an equaliser and this is an equaliser" and you can't even explain how that is, let alone provide an argument on how your explanation is correct.

 

You didn't refrain from making a long argument, you don't have an argument at all.

[BillBald]

No, I am saying that if the RBR was that good, then the equalisers that are rain and short twisty circuits would have played to their strengths, and they didn't.  I see no areas, to be honest, where the RBR is better.

 

In Suzuka, the Red Bulls were held up by the Williams' in the early laps. Once they got past their speed was very similar, even though the Mercs had more power.

 

Conclusion: the Red Bulls had more downforce - it was quite obvious in the Esses. Next year might be a different story, of course.

[payinkind]

In Suzuka, the Red Bulls were held up by the Williams' in the early laps. Once they got past their speed was very similar, even though the Mercs had more power.

 

Conclusion: the Red Bulls had more downforce - it was quite obvious in the Esses. Next year might be a different story, of course.

 

Power doesn't matter in the wet, though.

[MissingTheApex]

All you did was restate "this is an equaliser and this is an equaliser" and you can't even explain how that is, let alone provide an argument on how your explanation is correct.

 

You didn't refrain from making a long argument, you don't have an argument at all.

 

Ok, I'll do this for you.

If it is wet and you have more power, this is a disadvantage unless you have a good medium for putting that power to the floor.

 

If a car has a good chassis and aero, it will have more grip, so in conditions where you need more grip, it would show.

 

Of course, we have the other area which is the software, which controls how the power is delivered.  

 

But then again, watching the Red Bull in Suzuka, it wasn't all over the show, it didn't show lurid power on/off moments like you see with the Ferrari.  However, when Hamilton set off after Rosberg, they left the RBR's trailing, by some distance, ditto Singapore.  That's grip, that's chassis and aero, coupled with possibly good power delivery, or software.

 

The same, of course, is for smaller twister circuits where keep the car glued to the floor is more important that the extra 30 odd hp we're discussing.

 

And finally, one moment you are saying the red bull has the best aero, Merc the best engine, now it's power delivery?  That's software, that's the engine maps.

 

So, in short, I think I am right and you wrong and no matter how many ad hominem you sneak in, you haven't given me anything in your argument which is strong enough to change mine.

 

PS - Massive power difference?  Massive.  And you know this how?  Estimates vary from 30-50.  Most sage's put it down to having a better ERS, not engine.  But, I digress...

PPS - Just thought I'd add maybe we've seen some more of the dark arts of RBR being used, like the adjustable suspension, now flexi wings, just 5 years too late.

[Kulturen]

Sigh, you continue to not understand the argument here. 

 

"But then again, watching the Red Bull in Suzuka, it wasn't all over the show, it didn't show lurid power on/off moments like you see with the Ferrari.  However, when Hamilton set off after Rosberg, they left the RBR's trailing, by some distance, ditto Singapore.  That's grip, that's chassis and aero, coupled with possibly good power delivery, or software."

 

For the last time, no one is arguing that the Merc does not have a good chassis. Here, you seem to be arguing that "if merc had a bad car, it would have shown here..." but no one is saying they have a bad car!! Just that RBR is better.

 

And I will say it for one last time: What I am saying is that RBR is better in some areas but NOT by a margin that is anywhere near enough to cover the engine disadvantage.

Here it is on a fictional 1 to 10 scale: I think that RBR has a 10 chassis and a 5 engine. I think that Merc has a 10 engine and an 8 chassis. Get it?

 

PS: You may want to look up Ad hominem in the dictionary if you think I made any ad hominem attacks  

[Darrenj]

Whilst reading these comments and watching the penultimate race of the season I remember that the only other car that won this season is a Red Bull with a Renault engine. A lot of could have been would have been but still not bad

[MissingTheApex]

Sigh, you continue to not understand the argument here. 

 

"But then again, watching the Red Bull in Suzuka, it wasn't all over the show, it didn't show lurid power on/off moments like you see with the Ferrari.  However, when Hamilton set off after Rosberg, they left the RBR's trailing, by some distance, ditto Singapore.  That's grip, that's chassis and aero, coupled with possibly good power delivery, or software."

 

For the last time, no one is arguing that the Merc does not have a good chassis. Here, you seem to be arguing that "if merc had a bad car, it would have shown here..." but no one is saying they have a bad car!! Just that RBR is better.

 

And I will say it for one last time: What I am saying is that RBR is better in some areas but NOT by a margin that is anywhere near enough to cover the engine disadvantage.

Here it is on a fictional 1 to 10 scale: I think that RBR has a 10 chassis and a 5 engine. I think that Merc has a 10 engine and an 8 chassis. Get it?

 

PS: You may want to look up Ad hominem in the dictionary if you think I made any ad hominem attacks  

 

Sigh, I think it's you that doesn't understand the argument here, I am not saying that Merc was bad, I was saying completely the opposite, that it wasn't, that it's the best in possibly all areas.  I am saying IF the RBR had any kind of advantage, in any areas, it would have shown at these two races.  Can you see that?

Look, it very obvious we disagree, so let's let it go, for I will never agree with you, your argument is too weak.  You keep using the words MASSIVE engine advantage when you know nothing about it, you can only guess.

From what I have seen, Merc have overtaken RBR in the aero department.  More so now we know RBR have been cheating all year with theirs too.

Merc, for me have the best engine, best chassis, best software and best aero.  There, that's my view, you think differently.  That's cool; I'll go about my way thinking you are wrong, and you feel free to do the same to me.  That better?

Edited by MissingTheApex, 23 November 2014 - 15:15.

[OO7]

In Suzuka, the Red Bulls were held up by the Williams' in the early laps. Once they got past their speed was very similar, even though the Mercs had more power.

 

Conclusion: the Red Bulls had more downforce - it was quite obvious in the Esses. Next year might be a different story, of course.

The RBR were set up for the wet, even Nico said that Mercedes didn't get their set up right for the race.  From onboard the RBs had a touch of understeer at the limit, the Mercedes' were fighting oversteer most of the time.

[teejay]

Easy way to sum it up

 

If the RBR was running an optimised Merc engine and ers, would it be a better car?

 

Imho, no.

[BadVoice]

Honda will struggle, work teams or privateers always do in the beginning. How long did it take to get Mercedes to this pinnacle? and that is after a winning chassis from Braun

Honda? Are you watching the same f1. Because as far as we know its an existing McLaren car using Honda engine. And you talk as if Honda are building the chasis.

[RedRabbit]

Easy way to sum it up

 

If the RBR was running an optimised Merc engine and ers, would it be a better car?

 

Imho, no.

 

Seriously??

[OO7]

Seriously??

A better car than the Mercedes?

[Leprechau]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/116886

 

This tells a lot how Ferrari and Renault won't be able to catch up with the freeze

[GrumpyYoungMan]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/116886

 

This tells a lot how Ferrari and Renault won't be able to catch up with the freeze

Can not see it happening given the costs involved in all the R & D in getting the V6 T Hybrids in the cars...

 

Its probably more  a bargaining chip - but whats to say even if Mercedes agreed to the 13 extra tokens that they don't do this anyway if they still get it wrong...

 

Mercedes are not in the wrong here - An agreement was made and Mercedes are the only ones who are sticking to it or at least trying too...

[teejay]

Seriously??

 

Very

 

Nothing to show me that adding a merc engine to it would do nothing else than bring it closer, as opposed to making it a better car than the merc.

[Sash1]

If I were Mercedes and the Italians and Frenchies pull such a move (majority vote rule change) on me, I'd be out and put that tech and my star drivers in an LMP1 entry to wipe the floor with Audi and Toyota at LeMans with a big middlefinger to simpleton F1. The teams really want to kill the sport don't they?

[GrumpyYoungMan]

If I were Mercedes and the Italians and Frenchies pull such a move (majority vote rule change) on me, I'd be out and put that tech and my star drivers in an LMP1 entry to wipe the floor with Audi and Toyota at LeMans with a big middlefinger to simpleton F1. The teams really want to kill the sport don't they?

That was my point...

[hankalis]

If I were Mercedes and the Italians and Frenchies pull such a move (majority vote rule change) on me, I'd be out and put that tech and my star drivers in an LMP1 entry to wipe the floor with Audi and Toyota at LeMans with a big middlefinger to simpleton F1. The teams really want to kill the sport don't they?

 

by that same logic Ferrari and Renault might say: if you want to keep us in a hopeless situation for the upcoming years we will simply quit F1 .... that would probably be a bigger problem for F1!!

 

I think everybody should simply agree that a "longterm hopeless situation" is simply inacceptable for any top team. For sure current rules, initially agreed upon by all teams, are legit ... but if today they imply "a longterm hopeless prospect" for several top teams, they should be altered for the good of the sport (i.e. the good of most stakeholders)

[MissingTheApex]

This is what I take from the situation.

Renault threatened to put out of F1 if they didn't down size the engines and make them forced induction.  So they said, initially, ok, 4 cyl turbos with eco tech. Ferrari then said no, it had to be V6 or nothing as 4 cyl didn't fit in with their business model.  They wanted 1.8V6, Renault 1.6 4Cyl.  Mercedes went with the flow.  This was, iirc, 4 years ago.  Then the FIA said ok, get it right, as the amount you can change it will diminish yoy, you'd not be able to change the fundamental design of it.  So, all in agreement, went for it.

 

One did their job well and now the other 2 are complaining that the Merc is the best engine, and is getting better.

 

Somehow, I suggest they should cry me a river.  I do hope Mercedes either tell them to foxtrot or say show me the money...

[Skizo]

I think the best would be if they let them in season engine updates.They are spending the money on it,they just wait 1 year before upgrading the engine.If somebody done a lot better job(Mercedes),others don't have to give up a whole year.Sure there could be problems,they could only test in practice,and when the small teams get the new engine,or they will test the engine for the manufacturers on track,so if something wrong...It is complicated without tests,but i think it is better than wait 1 whole year.