Grand Prix 2019 Australian Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion

Ruslan

Points Scorer
I think that it's a bit of both, Vettel was very very slow at the end of the race, and I don't believe that it was just to a poor set of tyres, considering that he was complaining about not having enough power my take is that they had some reliability issue and gave him less revs to take the car to the end, on the other hand Leclerc was flying on the hard tyres whereas he was just about ok on the red ones.

The fact that they were faster on the hard tyres rather than on the mediums IMHO shows that they didn't have a clue of what was going on, had they knows they would have put Vettel on hard tyres rather than on the yellow ones.

My impression is that Ferrari didn't know what was going on, it was embarassing to watch because in qualy they weren't so bad, IMHO yesterday was one of the occasion when Ferrari completely loses the plot
The question is.....is this a one-of problem that is only occurring in Australia....or it is a sign for the entire season to come. I am leaning towards it being season long, as the difference between Ferrari and Mercedes was at least 0.7 seconds. I can see how they could make some adjustments and end up regaining 0.2 or 0.3 of that, which I assume they will (and which is why I think they are still ahead of Red Bull).....but I don't see how they are going to make up 0.7 without a new (re-designed) car.

Added to that, if Vettel's problem was a reliability issue, are they also entering the season with a fragile car against what appears to be the rock-solid Mercedes? None of this looks good.
 

F1Brits_90

Race Winner
cant remember who posted on here something like "that instead of criticising/moaning mercedes should praise them for doing a great consistent job." tried to find & qoute but to no avail

that sporting domination bar olympic events like redgrave or bolt. every team or individual becomes hated because its becoming "boring" & loved when underdogs look at red bull. it how sport is. domination is revered but in 10 times time. i bet by 1990 people were sick of mclarens but are loved now
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
F1Brits_90 That is why the rules change every 3 years or so but the teams with most resources always get there in the end

Mercedes probably were helped by the track which is not reliant on aero as Barcelona
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
F1Brits_90 No just Senna kept winning that's all and he seem to always win . As for Mercs they were weak on the slower twisty tracks last year so lets see if this is the same or not
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
Five theories to explain Ferrari's crisis: Five theories to explain Ferrari crisis

Briefly summarized:
1. They turned down the power so nothing would break
2. Couldn't make the tires work
3. Wing doesn't work on bumpy tracks
4. Set up was wrong
5. Lacking driver experience
6. Mercedes has a better car (that is my theory...they never state that in the article)

I think it is combo of #2 and #6.
 

Olivier

Race Winner
Vettel complained about a slow car, so #6 may be true but that's not the core of the issue. #2 is also true though that's not a cause but rather a consequence. I'm going with #3. I hope they have something under their sleeve for next race or they might as well write off this season
 

Angel

🧸 Smile, it might never happen.
Contributor
I think sadly it's mostly #6, Mercedes has the better car, again, and were hiding their true pace in testing big time.
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
Article on Hamilton: https://www.yahoo.com/sports/f1-lewis-hamilton-visit-mercedes-073000072.html

A few points:
1. Hamilton says that the floor damage occurred on lap 4. I have not gone back through the race (which is recorded) and see if we can see a difference in his pace in the first three laps compared to the next 54 laps. But if this is the case, it should be easily visible. Also, we might be able to see exactly when and where and how the floor was damaged.
2. "No-one was expecting to have a gap like that when we came into the weekend."
3. "What I was shown and led to believe was that, from the analysis we were given, that they were ahead and obviously that wasn't the case during this weekend."

Now....at this point, I don't think that Hamilton has a lot of reason to blow smoke. So....that last quote is particularly interesting.
 

RasputinLives

Not dead
Contributor
I don't know. Merc (not Lewis) have had a tendency to blow smoke about not being the quickest for the last 3 years now. It's a 'keep the fans interested' strategy they've had for a while now. Maybe this now extends to blowing it up their own drivers backsides.

I'll be honest Lewis has come out and said Bottas beat him fair and square and that's good enough me. I think damaged floor discussion is pointless after that.
 
Five theories to explain Ferrari's crisis: Five theories to explain Ferrari crisis

Briefly summarized:
1. They turned down the power so nothing would break
2. Couldn't make the tires work
3. Wing doesn't work on bumpy tracks
4. Set up was wrong
5. Lacking driver experience
6. Mercedes has a better car (that is my theory...they never state that in the article)

I think it is combo of #2 and #6.
I have found an interesting article on the subject on Motorsport.com Italy Analisi Ferrari: due micidiali concause che hanno mandato in crisi la Rossa - Formula 1 News

In essence they highlight the fact that Vettel's fastest lap was 2.3 seconds slower than Bottas' and 1 second slower than Leclerc. Leclerc's fastest lap was the last lap on the race whereas Vettel couldn't improve his pace after the pit stop despite a lighter car. Also they highlight the fact that Vettel's top speed was considerably slower than Bottas'.

On the basis of the above they claim that Vettel's Ferrari had some serious reliability issues during the race and as a consequence the engineers turned down his engine. In order to understand why that was the case (given that Ferrari hasn't mentioned any reliability problem) they point to the fact that in Malbourne the Ferraris were the cars with the smaller intakes for the radiators so they assume that Vettel's problems could originate in the overheating of some parts of the PU.

they also claim that the Ferrari has less suspension travel that the Mercedes and on the bumpy surface of Melbourne they couldn't find the right set up (a bumpy track is not always so easy to replicate on a simulator, let alone the effects of high temperature).

In essence they claim that (i) they couldn't find the right set up because the data fed into the simulator wasn't accurate enough and anyway the car has been designed in such a way that it is diffuclt to extend some parameters (ie suspension travel) and (ii) given that they didn't have enough cooling effect they had to turn down the engine to prevent a failure.

Both things are quite serious, on the one hand a severely restricted suspension travel means that their car is very extreme and not suitable to work at its best in borderline conditions. On the other hand the cooling issue is a textbook mistake and I'm not surprised that are cagy about it.
 
I have founf another interesting article on Ferrari on Analisi Tecnica F1 https://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2019/03/gp-australia-analisi-ferrari-sf90-la.html

They claim that Ferrari's main problem is their PU, they have some reliability issues and are working on them. The fact that their engine is not as strong as they wish it would be has led, according to the author of that article, to a very aggressive front of of the car. He claims that especially on qualy they suffered a lot of understeer (I can't comment on that as I didn't watch qualy). He claims that they also have some issues with their suspensions and couldn't find the correct set up for Melbourne on their simulator.
 

Angel

🧸 Smile, it might never happen.
Contributor
So if all those things about the Ferrari are true, why then Publius Cornelius Scipio did none of it show up in testing? That's what I don't understand. Surely they should have encountered some of these problems then and had time to do something about them, shouldn't they?
 
Top Bottom