So in this thread you said it was clear Mercedes weren't sandbagging and were obviously miles faster last year, yet in the thread of 3rd test last year, you stated that Mercedes were sandbagging and that Williams may well be on pole in Melbourne.
It's odd how the memory works, isn't it?
I decided to check it out for myself since you mysteriously claimed I posted something in the third test thread last year but failed to link to or quote it. So I checked and found two posts in search with my name and the word sandbagged.(the other was someone else using the word quoted in my post). So this is the only post I actually used the term sandbagged(or several variations of it).
i think that order might end up applying for qualifying in Melbourne but come the race Williams may have the advantage purely on reliability. I saw Williams comment that the stoppage they had I think yesterday, maybe it was saturday, was the first stoppage they'd had on track in testing(I presume just the third test) and it was right outside the pits so never used the recovery truck which they were proud of
That is mighty impressive though, their reliability has been immense. Of course it's possible they went not hard enough in a lot of their testing and didn't find problems that might crop up in race.
Also will be interesting to see how cars react, and which ones react, to following close behind another car, hotter air will be a problem for some cars(as it always has been to a degree). I don't think anyone on the grid has a clue how tyres will react over the race to being close behind someone.
While you certainly get the feeling Merc have something left over to use and I think Hamilton is the better driver than Massa, we're presuming Williams ran only the minimum fuel to finish such runs and that they didn't go a tad slow in a few different corners every lap to hide a few tenths or half a second. That kind of sandbagging is easy enough to do. Drivers getting a feel for the car at almost max speed can still pull out of a few corners and hold a little back without taking away from knowing what the car can do and the team knowing which corners you slowed in and by how much can work out their own real pace while hiding it from others a bit.
In the bolded part, I described how Williams might hide speed then said that kind of sandbagging would be easy enough to do. I can't remember 100% but that reads to me like I'm suggesting Williams might have been sandbagging there to me, but also suggested Hamilton might have a little left in the tank. The top drivers leave 2-3/10ths in the bag for Q3, always, it's not sandbagging, just when they are willing to risk absolutely everything.
However Mr "it's odd how memory works isn't it" , Williams fastest lap was 2/100ths faster done on a brand new set of super softs, Hamilton's fastest lap which was not surprisingly 2/100ths slower was done on a used set of softs. So add a second or more to that time and they had a significant lead. ANyone reading two cars with almost identical times one with the fastest possible tire setup, one on a slower tire, will read the slower tire doing the same time as the
much faster car/lap. Which is what I presume I would have done because it's the only thing that makes sense. In that light it also makes sense that I was saying that order(where Merc on the same tires would be over a second ahead) would make sense in qualifying but come the race Williams may have the advantage due to reliability. "but come the race" would to me imply a change or advantage. IE Merc(2013) might have an advantage in qualifying but come the race their crappy rear tire wear means they'll not even get many podiums.
So what you seem to have proven using my post is that the times showed Merc/Williams miles ahead and was discussing which of them would win, not a Ferrari, not anyone else, just the two clear fastest teams in testing, weird, I must have believed they were sandbagging hard to be the two fastest teams, the only ones I considered having a chance of winning the first race. I said Williams might be ahead based on reliability alone and that Merc were faster and MIGHT not have put every tenth out there.
So, your post describing what I said last year was basically entirely made up, not relevant to the point of Ferrari vs Mercedes engine and how the timings showed one miles ahead(which was the general point I initially made) AND you missed another salient point entirely.
Even if I did think Mercedes were sand bagging at the time, I stated
today that they weren't sandbagging last year. Because what you think in testing can be confirmed, or proven incorrect over the course of a season. It's called hindsight. Regardless of what I thought at the time, the statement that Mercedes
weren't sandbagging last year was made today because of what I know now from how the season played out. Merc engine dominating lap count and lap times throughout testing, Merc being the fastest in long runs and relatively speaking the fastest lap in all testing by 1-1.5seconds(adjusting for the tires) but maybe reliability would hurt them. So what I thought last year was actually proven to be true, Williams only shot of beating Merc was reliability, Merc did fastest laps, Merc had best race pace.
When you're(due to tires) 1-1.5seconds ahead of the next closest Merc which is already 2-2.5 seconds ahead of the nearest next type of engine... you are NOT sandbagging, well or you really really suck at it.
Team work!
