Forum Replies Created
6th August 2016, 22:25 at 10:25 pm #326486
@lolzerbob Yeah, that, I think, is actually the smallest gap there is between two drivers on my list – if I could make them equal, I would, I think that close they were to each other on pure pace, driver errors and what not.
Perez had the better ultimate laptime 4 times compared to Hulkenberg’s 3 on Saturdays and it was practically a dead heat (!) between them on two further occasions – and I don’t have notes on that, but I think they may have regularly had the smallest gap between them of any two drivers.
Perez clearly had better race pace based on average laptimes in clean air on roughly equal strategies 2 times (Montreal, Spielberg) compared to Hulkenberg’s 1 (Silverstone) and they were practically even on five other occasions (Melbourne, Bahrain, Shanghai, Hungaroring, Hockenheim).
In terms of driver errors (slow starts, leaving time on the table in qualifying compared to their best sectors combined, offs during the race, etc.) they made the same number of significant mistakes across Saturdays and Sundays.
…Hmm, this would actually mean, it’s Perez ahead by the tiniest of fractions. :P What I also took into account for Hulkenberg is that I think he has had more bad luck, he finished behind Perez despite having better race pace or having track position in both Monaco and Silverstone and that he had the momentum going into the summer break – in the last three races, he was either quicker or was level on pace and made less costly errors 2 vs. 4. But yeah, you can basically switch over the two, it’s that close.
So, overall, Perez’s points lead is highly misleading, but it’s so close between the two of them (the closest driver pairing on pure pace, actually) that it could easily be too close to call.6th August 2016, 14:34 at 2:34 pm #326478
Just a list, I’ll provide notes if someone is interested in any particular choice.
22. Nasr23rd July 2016, 0:24 at 12:24 am #325379
You’re welcome. (Literally. :D)
It’s @atticus-2, by the way, the other nick without the number was taken by the time I registered. (I just thought I would check back to see if you got the message and if you have other questions.)22nd July 2016, 8:53 at 8:53 am #32523922nd July 2016, 8:53 at 8:53 am #325238
@swilliaam There you go: http://www.bkk.hu/apps/docs/terkep/repter.pdf
In short: take line 200E, travel through the whole line, take night bus 956 into the centre and you’re all right.
Cheers from Hungary. :)23rd June 2016, 1:13 at 1:13 am #323218
What Renault incident? (I clearly missed something.)2nd June 2016, 0:31 at 12:31 am #321550
@huhhii Yeah, I spotted it as well. But thanks anyway.
It seems like Bottas was indeed overly optimistic about that attempt. It was understeer city for him completely. Shame as it was his only driver error of the difficult race and even then it came two corners from home.13th May 2016, 22:12 at 10:12 pm #319806
Aah, I haven’t presumed you haven’t seen this one before either and so I fully expected a better angle before I clicked on the topic, lol.
It was also at the exit of the old Verriere sweepers which they don’t use anymore. It was at the entry of those sweepers where Elio de Angelis flew off the track and died in 1986. That flat-out chicane must have placed an unimaginable amount of load on the suspensions.13th May 2016, 22:08 at 10:08 pm #319805
Was just about to post.
It’s a win-win except for TV audience and/or attendance – NASCAR has probably one of its biggest and most successful events on that weekend, the Southern 500 in Darlington. If there’s one oval I like and a track of that mold which is as revered as The Glen among the road courses, it’s Darlington.
I hope the retro feeling of the Indy cars returning to Watkins Glen will pull through anyway. I’ll try to catch the race somewhere between the Monza sessions.10th May 2016, 17:09 at 5:09 pm #319525
A top-category open-wheeler on The Glen is stupid fast, especially with the recent repave – and that’s not a complaint either. The Glen is one of the top 5 best race tracks in the world.11th March 2016, 0:36 at 12:36 am #314884
Basically, count me as someone who quotes this entirely post above and asks the same thing.25th February 2016, 10:35 at 10:35 am #313181
Further on the ‘how much Toro Rosso will gain/lose by switching from the less powerful Renault to the more powerful Ferrari, but from an up-to-date engine to a year-old one’ topic.
It’s interesting to note how Ricciardo claimed the new Renault (sorry, TAG Heuer) PU is not as much of an improvement as Renault expected, yet when Formula1.com asked Franz Tost who would their main opponents be in 2016, he listed Force India, McLaren, Sauber and Haas instead of Red Bull (or Renault, for that matter, although he probably expects the latter to be more behind rather than ahead.)17th February 2016, 23:04 at 11:04 pm #312453
There you go, re my previous posts here.16th February 2016, 22:45 at 10:45 pm #312364
@xtwl Williams is actually abandoning their low drag-low downforce approach and are going more conventional this year. It’s a completely new aero design for them. Now others, like Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Mercedes are two years down that development path so that may still mean Williams won’t be among the best downforce-wise – but they tell us their numbers look very well-improved from last season, so I think they will. And that elevates them above Red Bull pretty firmly.
Judging from the lists above, I think we can concur that the three biggest dark horses of the season should be McLaren, Toro Rosso and Haas – people rank them wildly differently and indeed their success hangs on just a few factors playing out right or wrong.
Has Honda managed to get larger turbines into the V and improve recovery efficiency? Will the ’15 Ferrari indeed be better than the ’16 Renault, especially mid-to-late season? Did Haas really benefit from using Ferrari expertise wherever it could?
Opponents sounded off this winter like they really expect all three questions to be answered with a more or less confident ‘yes.’ Mercedes TWICE warned of a much-improved McLaren-Honda based on their nearly 20-year experience with McLaren recently, Max Verstappen said switching from ’15 Renaults to ’15 Ferraris will alone yield 1s to Toro Rosso and Force India expected Haas to be regularly in contention in the midfield battle a while ago.16th February 2016, 10:40 at 10:40 am #312351
I almost fully agree with you which is a miracle given how ‘murky’ these waters all are…
The odd bits of different opinion comes in when it comes to gaps (e. g. between Force India and Renault, I think it’ll be bigger) and the position of Toro Rosso.
Toro Rosso actually had one of the best chassis on the grid in 2015, so there’s a point (I mean ask anybody), and the ’15 Ferrari was so much better than the ’15 Renault that I can’t imagine the ’16 Renault being better than the ’15 Ferrari, especially early-to-mid season. On par later on, at best. That gives Toro Rosso exactly the same position in the pecking order as last year – very near to and occasionally ahead of Force India. A bit behind this year, I reckon, due to the potential chassis compromise to fit the Ferrari PU.
I think the Renault chassis will be even worse than last year’s. Last year’s was already pretty bad – I remember Verstappen or Sainz saying in Melbourne that the STR is sooo much better in every corner, it’s just the Mercedes ngine that helps Lotus pull away on the straights. With next to no funds even keeping their 2015 project alive, I imagine their ’16 project suffered even more badly. And what applies to STR in the PU department, applies here as well: no way the ’16 Renault will be stronger than the ’15 Mercedes. Than means, on engine alone, Renault will be slower than the ’15 itself. ‘In F1, even if you stay stationary, you’re basically going backwards,’ imagine what will happen if you’re getting slower.
So my tl;dr list is:
4. Red Bull
6. Force India
7. Toro Rosso