planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:04 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 1983
I want as many people vying for the WDC as possible, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't!

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19149
GingerFurball wrote:
People keep taking away the wrong conclusions from last season's testing as well; Ferrari started last season quite close to Mercedes and should have won in Melbourne. They failed to develop and were overhauled by Red Bull ovwr the course of 2016, but they started off close to Mercedes.

I don't think they were ever that close, tbh. Lewis qualified eight tenths faster than Seb; Nico was half a second ahead. But both Ferraris got great starts, which made it look like a competition.

The following race both Mercs had half a second in hand in qualifying. Even with a damaged car Lewis was able to close Kimi down until the final stops. In China Rosberg again qualified half a second ahead of the Ferraris and finished 37s ahead. I agree that Ferrari development tailed off, but I don't think they were ever anywhere near the Mercs at all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:40 am
Posts: 185
mds wrote:
Blackcat75 wrote:
mds wrote:
Blackcat75 wrote:
Between winter testing and the first race last year, we saw Mercedes make a larger jump in performance than Ferrari (IIRC).


Again, that just holds true for single lap pace. The long run pace between both teams was not far off the real pace difference of the season's start.


Yea, I'm not saying you are wrong (I don't record of all the lap times as I used to), but how many times have we said 'what happened to the Ferrari challenge?'.


I'm very well aware that this is testing, I'm not even trying to argument that Ferrari WILL be ahead. That would be foolish :)
I am just saying that what we've seen in testing this year is very different to what we saw in 2014, 2015, 2016 - that we can't say it's the same old as we've always seen from Ferrari.

Quote:
Example 1.
The Guardian's piece after 2015 testing (couldn't find Autosport's):

Example 2.
Autosport's Headline after 2016 testing:

Example 3.
Autosport's Headline after 2017 testing:


The thing is, the examples of year 1 and 2 are different as they only focus on single lap pace. Mercedes duly used that to hide a bit, but looking at long run pace it was always evident also in 2015 and 2016 that Merc were ahead.
This same pattern does not hold true for 2017 testing.

Quote:
Because no-one has tried to go particularly quick yet. It's like watching athletes jogging round a running track, some are testing out their shoes, some are stretching, some practising their starts, some cruising at 90%, some testing their heartbeat. But no-one has gone 100% full pelt yet.


Maybe not, but then I'm wondering what sense there is in going testing and at least during race sims not turning the wick up like you would do in actual races. How are you going to test reliability? How are you going to know if there are issues if you aren't anywhere close to potential? Isn't testing when you want to find and solve those issues instead of encountering them during actual races and then having to solve them during the season, with virtually no testing available and thus with fixes possibly taking much longer?

Unless they are so confident that their new power unit will be reliable - but that's a huge leap of faith.

Oh I really hope you are right - it would be nice to see some racing up front. :)

But there's no point in testing engines to destruction. Stress them, yes, a bit towards the end of the testing program to see what shakes, rattles and rolls, or what components wear faster than designed to. I've never designed a test program for racing cars, but I've designed tests for prototype military equipment and you only plan potentially destructive testing once you have all the data you need.

Unless of course you want to test the pit crew to see how long it takes for them to change an engine, and the accountants who calculate how much an engine costs these days, and you can afford to skip laps that help you understand the car in different conditions and formats.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2743
Ferrari have made a huge step with their PU over the winter, they're able to get 50s of the 160bhp ERS boost now(Last year around 30s) and reliability has taken a step forward thanks in part to a new fuel from Shell. Did the entire test on one unit as did Haas. Can harvest more efficiently from MGU-H thanks to new turbo and reducing bar from 5.5 to 3.5.

Unsure if some of the woes of Mercedes are down to a too long a wheelbase or the new package not working as intended thanks to the HPC suspension being limited now which was noticeably different from 1st test but performance in slow corners is poor and tricky on the drivers.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/anali ... ce-882107/

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2471
Lotus49 wrote:
Ferrari have made a huge step with their PU over the winter, they're able to get 50s of the 160bhp ERS boost now(Last year around 30s) and reliability has taken a step forward thanks in part to a new fuel from Shell. Did the entire test on one unit as did Haas. Can harvest more efficiently from MGU-H thanks to new turbo and reducing bar from 5.5 to 3.5.

Unsure if some of the woes of Mercedes are down to a too long a wheelbase or the new package not working as intended thanks to the HPC suspension being limited now which was noticeably different from 1st test but performance in slow corners is poor and tricky on the drivers.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/anali ... ce-882107/



Wow if true!

But I thought the rules only allowed for 30 secs of deployment per lap? Did they scrap that rule?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2743
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Ferrari have made a huge step with their PU over the winter, they're able to get 50s of the 160bhp ERS boost now(Last year around 30s) and reliability has taken a step forward thanks in part to a new fuel from Shell. Did the entire test on one unit as did Haas. Can harvest more efficiently from MGU-H thanks to new turbo and reducing bar from 5.5 to 3.5.

Unsure if some of the woes of Mercedes are down to a too long a wheelbase or the new package not working as intended thanks to the HPC suspension being limited now which was noticeably different from 1st test but performance in slow corners is poor and tricky on the drivers.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/anali ... ce-882107/



Wow if true!

But I thought the rules only allowed for 30 secs of deployment per lap? Did they scrap that rule?


I think that might have been from the MGU-K that was limited. MGU-H is unlimited I believe but not sure.

Either that or it was as ambiguous as every other F1 rule!.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 141
Wonder if there's any truth to this?

http://en.f1i.com/news/261925-mercedes- ... ngine.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1004
SR1 wrote:
Wonder if there's any truth to this?

http://en.f1i.com/news/261925-mercedes- ... ngine.html



Well. That changes things.

Mercedes might not immediately unlock that pace though, as well as perhaps needing more time to find a general balance in their setups. Ferrari look well oiled and ready to party in Melbourne, straight up and out the box.

Any more rumblings about the potential Merc engine issue?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 9999
Blackcat75 wrote:
But there's no point in testing engines to destruction. Stress them, yes, a bit towards the end of the testing program to see what shakes, rattles and rolls, or what components wear faster than designed to. I've never designed a test program for racing cars, but I've designed tests for prototype military equipment and you only plan potentially destructive testing once you have all the data you need.


Not really talking about testing to destruction, just testing to realistic parameters i.e. seeing what it does in actual race pace, testing whether the normal use case is sustainable by your solution.

Surely that's something you absolutely want to do?

I would take an educated guess that failure rate rises exponentially rather than linearly, meaning an engine could be perfectly reliable at say 95% of race settings but can exhibit a few faults at 100% of race settings. So how can you take comfort in just testing at 95% when you know you will have to run one unit at 100% for several races, and outside of preseason testing the time for testing solutions to problems is severly limited?

I still don't see why teams would take such a risk.

_________________
Supporting all drivers with surnames starting with "V".

Proud member of the "It's Toro Rosso, not Torro Rosso" action committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3732
Location: Michigan, USA
mds wrote:
I would take an educated guess that failure rate rises exponentially rather than linearly, meaning an engine could be perfectly reliable at say 95% of race settings but can exhibit a few faults at 100% of race settings. So how can you take comfort in just testing at 95% when you know you will have to run one unit at 100% for several races, and outside of preseason testing the time for testing solutions to problems is severly limited?

I still don't see why teams would take such a risk.

Neither do I, particularly when there's no actual advantage to sandbagging. The only reason to hold back is if you have something clever you don't want to reveal before Melbourne.

Or maybe if you have something clever the other teams have been protesting recently, and you're scrambling for a solution to replace it... 8)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7117
What we need to know is-

1 DO Merc really have a problem that is likely to mean DNF's or finishes outside the top 6. These will be hard to catch up

2 How much of that Ferrari as Allison, and do the remaining team understand it?


At both extremisms here, we could see a Ferrari first part of the season with Merc having a lot of work to do to catch up.
Throw in RBR and Williams with the same Merc problem, Renault developing the engine through the year, and Honda coming good as time (and engineers) heals things, and we may have a very interesting season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 9999
moby wrote:
2 How much of that Ferrari as Allison, and do the remaining team understand it?


Allison worked on it until the end of July, then left. It's hard to imagine that he left it and since no meaningful work has been done on it. So I would say the remaining team seems to have a good handle on the car.
Now, that does not automatically mean that the path forward is evident or clear, but up until now it seems like they have been able to do good work on and with it.

_________________
Supporting all drivers with surnames starting with "V".

Proud member of the "It's Toro Rosso, not Torro Rosso" action committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7117
mds wrote:
moby wrote:
2 How much of that Ferrari as Allison, and do the remaining team understand it?


Allison worked on it until the end of July, then left. It's hard to imagine that he left it and since no meaningful work has been done on it. So I would say the remaining team seems to have a good handle on the car.
Now, that does not automatically mean that the path forward is evident or clear, but up until now it seems like they have been able to do good work on and with it.



I'll cough up with what I was thinking ;)

If he knew it was a good car, which it seems to be, why would he move on right now?
Either the development plan is in place and he is going to get the credit anyway, or he sees limited development, so gets the glory of it being good out of the box, his part, then tailing off.

Seems strange to walk when a winner is there?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1692
moby wrote:
mds wrote:
moby wrote:
2 How much of that Ferrari as Allison, and do the remaining team understand it?


Allison worked on it until the end of July, then left. It's hard to imagine that he left it and since no meaningful work has been done on it. So I would say the remaining team seems to have a good handle on the car.
Now, that does not automatically mean that the path forward is evident or clear, but up until now it seems like they have been able to do good work on and with it.



I'll cough up with what I was thinking ;)

If he knew it was a good car, which it seems to be, why would he move on right now?
Either the development plan is in place and he is going to get the credit anyway, or he sees limited development, so gets the glory of it being good out of the box, his part, then tailing off.
Seems strange to walk when a winner is there?

Wasn't it a family bereavement that forced him out?

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19149
MistaVega23 wrote:
moby wrote:
mds wrote:
moby wrote:
2 How much of that Ferrari as Allison, and do the remaining team understand it?


Allison worked on it until the end of July, then left. It's hard to imagine that he left it and since no meaningful work has been done on it. So I would say the remaining team seems to have a good handle on the car.
Now, that does not automatically mean that the path forward is evident or clear, but up until now it seems like they have been able to do good work on and with it.



I'll cough up with what I was thinking ;)

If he knew it was a good car, which it seems to be, why would he move on right now?
Either the development plan is in place and he is going to get the credit anyway, or he sees limited development, so gets the glory of it being good out of the box, his part, then tailing off.
Seems strange to walk when a winner is there?

Wasn't it a family bereavement that forced him out?

That's the public line. But by all accounts there was a fundamental disagreement between him and Marchionne on how to run things and there was always only going to be one winner with that one.

Bottom line is I don't think it was entirely Alison's call, so how good he thought the car was may not have been a factor


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:48 am 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 10876
From what we've heard I doubt very much that it was Allisons decision to leave. I don't even think bereavement was ever suggested as the reason by Ferrari, just what the media assumed before they knew better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1394
SR1 wrote:
Wonder if there's any truth to this?

http://en.f1i.com/news/261925-mercedes- ... ngine.html

Must be from the Hamilton 2016 batch of engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 7508
GingerFurball wrote:
People keep taking away the wrong conclusions from last season's testing as well; Ferrari started last season quite close to Mercedes and should have won in Melbourne. They failed to develop and were overhauled by Red Bull ovwr the course of 2016, but they started off close to Mercedes.


0.8 down in qualifying in Melbourne was one of the largest gaps of the year. Melbourne was also down to Mercedes poor starts and then a SC, race stoppage gifting it to them and then them blowing it.

0.5, 0.8 and 0.7 down again in the next 3 races in quali and then finally 1.1 seconds down in Barcelona.

Canada was there best race getting within 0.2 and Vettel had a good race pace too.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1004
The thing is, if Mercedes were holding back just in the general sense on top of losing .6 or so seconds from not using the full potential of the engine, then it really changes the complexion for the start of the season. Initially, I thought Ferrari would be clearly ahead at the start of the season but if there's an obvious and quick fix to this supposed Merc engine problem then they will magically gain over half a second on top of whatever else they "gain" through the illusions of their sandbagging.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5463
Location: Nebraska, USA
Assuming of course, that Ferrari went all out and did not hold back a bit....
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1004
Blake wrote:
Assuming of course, that Ferrari went all out and did not hold back a bit....
;)



Yes, and I believe they do still have something in reserve. I hope for the sake of Mercedes they really were hiding a technical issue, otherwise they might get annihilated by Ferrari in the first stanza of the season. :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7117
Invade wrote:
Blake wrote:
Assuming of course, that Ferrari went all out and did not hold back a bit....
;)



Yes, and I believe they do still have something in reserve. I hope for the sake of Mercedes they really were hiding a technical issue, otherwise they might get annihilated by Ferrari in the first stanza of the season. :twisted:


I think that would be good. Even though I am not a Ferrari fan. It would be nice if RBR are in there too, because if there is a company who will do all to catch up, its Merc.

This would give us a very good season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 7508
I know it was different tyres and temperatures, but Mercedes Vs Ferrari 2016 qualifying times compared to race times.

Rosberg -0.620
Hamilton -1.622

Vettel +0.524
Kimi +0.348

My hunch is still that Ferrari are ahead though but not by enough to 1-2 the races and it could change even by Melbourne. My feeling is that Mercedes updates did not work during testing.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 10:21 pm
Posts: 336
I think Ferrari were under some pressure to be fast in testing, so they would have wanted to be fast to keep the Italian press off their tails. However, no one would go flat out at the first few tests and Ferrari knew they were fast based on where they were at those, so in conclusion, I believe they determined early in testing that were fast enough that they had room to hold something back and did. How much? I can't say. If they would have come from no-where to post the fastest time on the last day (like Williams had been apt to do in the past) I would conclude it was a low fuel glory run. I do not have that conclusion. I think they are ahead, but by how much and whether they can maintain it over the course of the year, is anyone's guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 514
I dont base any pre-season analysis on testing. There are simply too many variables.

I guess that's not entirely true, as we know Honda is in serious trouble. I doubt that they would sandbag so hard as to actually blow up their own engines. But aside from that, the only time things get real is on qualification day at race #1. Anything before that is just pure guessing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 7508
Herb Tarlik wrote:
I dont base any pre-season analysis on testing. There are simply too many variables.

I guess that's not entirely true, as we know Honda is in serious trouble. I doubt that they would sandbag so hard as to actually blow up their own engines. But aside from that, the only time things get real is on qualification day at race #1. Anything before that is just pure guessing.


2004 and 2012 are the only seasons I can remember where the pecking order was incorrect come the first race.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1004
moby wrote:
Invade wrote:
Blake wrote:
Assuming of course, that Ferrari went all out and did not hold back a bit....
;)



Yes, and I believe they do still have something in reserve. I hope for the sake of Mercedes they really were hiding a technical issue, otherwise they might get annihilated by Ferrari in the first stanza of the season. :twisted:


I think that would be good. Even though I am not a Ferrari fan. It would be nice if RBR are in there too, because if there is a company who will do all to catch up, its Merc.

This would give us a very good season.


For sure. I think given recent history in terms of successful in-season development, the best thing that could happen would be Ferrari out front to start. Also, we know just how much Ferrari are loved and revered, so it would be great to see them truly battle for both World Championships. Red Bull will be hot in the 2nd half and be SUPER strong in 2018.

#predictions


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1004
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2017/03 ... -analysis/

Might as well post this here too...


Last edited by Invade on Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 141
Invade wrote:
SR1 wrote:
Wonder if there's any truth to this?

http://en.f1i.com/news/261925-mercedes- ... ngine.html



Well. That changes things.

Mercedes might not immediately unlock that pace though, as well as perhaps needing more time to find a general balance in their setups. Ferrari look well oiled and ready to party in Melbourne, straight up and out the box.

Any more rumblings about the potential Merc engine issue?


Can't find any solid updates on this. But it's touched upon in this article

http://www.eurosport.co.uk/formula-1/me ... tory.shtml


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3732
Location: Michigan, USA
lamo wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
I dont base any pre-season analysis on testing. There are simply too many variables.

I guess that's not entirely true, as we know Honda is in serious trouble. I doubt that they would sandbag so hard as to actually blow up their own engines. But aside from that, the only time things get real is on qualification day at race #1. Anything before that is just pure guessing.

2004 and 2012 are the only seasons I can remember where the pecking order was incorrect come the first race.

:thumbup:

For all the talk about pre-season testing being meaningless, it's a far better indicator of form than looking at the preceding year - especially after a major rule change.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1004
I'm surprised there isn't more excitement surrounding that f1metrics analysis!


***

SR1 wrote:
Invade wrote:
SR1 wrote:
Wonder if there's any truth to this?

http://en.f1i.com/news/261925-mercedes- ... ngine.html



Well. That changes things.

Mercedes might not immediately unlock that pace though, as well as perhaps needing more time to find a general balance in their setups. Ferrari look well oiled and ready to party in Melbourne, straight up and out the box.

Any more rumblings about the potential Merc engine issue?


Can't find any solid updates on this. But it's touched upon in this article

http://www.eurosport.co.uk/formula-1/me ... tory.shtml



Thanks. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3732
Location: Michigan, USA
Invade wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't more excitement surrounding that f1metrics analysis!

I read it, but it mostly confirms what I already believed!

Seriously though, what everyone cares about is whether Ferrari is ahead of Mercedes, and the F1Metrics article stops short of making a call on that.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3695
Invade wrote:
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/2017-preseason-analysis/

Might as well post this here too...

This is actually really good


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1004
Exediron wrote:
Invade wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't more excitement surrounding that f1metrics analysis!

I read it, but it mostly confirms what I already believed!

Seriously though, what everyone cares about is whether Ferrari is ahead of Mercedes, and the F1Metrics article stops short of making a call on that.



Indeed, indeed.

Your mimicking of my large font and incredulity made me chuckle BTW. :thumbup: :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 4504
Location: Mumbai, India
Invade wrote:
SR1 wrote:
Wonder if there's any truth to this?

http://en.f1i.com/news/261925-mercedes- ... ngine.html



Well. That changes things.

Mercedes might not immediately unlock that pace though, as well as perhaps needing more time to find a general balance in their setups. Ferrari look well oiled and ready to party in Melbourne, straight up and out the box.

Any more rumblings about the potential Merc engine issue?


Don't know if anyone read this but Mercedes will be bringing a new spec engine which would take care of the crankshaft issue for itself & the customer teams. They unleashing the entire power still not certain as a precautionary measure:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/all-mercedes-teams-to-use-latest-engine-in-australia-883702/

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 4504
Location: Mumbai, India
Exediron wrote:
Invade wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't more excitement surrounding that f1metrics analysis!

I read it, but it mostly confirms what I already believed!

Seriously though, what everyone cares about is whether Ferrari is ahead of Mercedes, and the F1Metrics article stops short of making a call on that.


The sport needs Ferrari to be ahead of Mercedes to win back F1 viewership.

Ferrari is probably more closer to Mercedes when compared to last year's gap. Ferrari will be in a better position to grab an oppurtunity if it comes their way for winning. Last year, Red Bull were in this position. However, Red Bull also should come back strong.

Under 1 week for all our speculations / assumptions / presumptions to show their true colour! :nod: 8)

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:02 am
Posts: 533
Location: India
Last year when RBR also got better of them and Ferrari became 3rd best team. I think they were demoralized. So it will be good if they can have win a race quickly this year and sustain it. Having said that we have to wait some races to know as Australia is not the proper track to indicate the performance of the car. I also think RBR will be good. So it will be a 3way fight. Ferrari, Mercedes are probably ahead in first 4-5 races

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM9-GK3MeLI


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19149
Mercedes-Benz wrote:
Last year when RBR also got better of them and Ferrari became 3rd best team. I think they were demoralized. So it will be good if they can have win a race quickly this year and sustain it. Having said that we have to wait some races to know as Australia is not the proper track to indicate the performance of the car. I also think RBR will be good. So it will be a 3way fight. Ferrari, Mercedes are probably ahead in first 4-5 races

I'm not sure I'd agree with the first sentence. I think they made a decision to switch to 2017 development very early on, when they knew they didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning anything. Sure, they probably got peed when they saw Red Bull overhaul them, but I doubt they got demoralised as they weren't putting as much effort into 2016 development as they could.

This year's their big chance. If they screw it up, then I'm sure they will get demoralised. But so far it looks like the decision to focus on 2017 may have paid off and they may have closed the gap (I say may, because personally I'm not convinced they've overhauled Mercedes and we've yet to see the Germans anywhere near their full strength).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 4504
Location: Mumbai, India
Zoue wrote:
Mercedes-Benz wrote:
Last year when RBR also got better of them and Ferrari became 3rd best team. I think they were demoralized. So it will be good if they can have win a race quickly this year and sustain it. Having said that we have to wait some races to know as Australia is not the proper track to indicate the performance of the car. I also think RBR will be good. So it will be a 3way fight. Ferrari, Mercedes are probably ahead in first 4-5 races

I'm not sure I'd agree with the first sentence. I think they made a decision to switch to 2017 development very early on, when they knew they didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning anything. Sure, they probably got peed when they saw Red Bull overhaul them, but I doubt they got demoralised as they weren't putting as much effort into 2016 development as they could.

This year's their big chance. If they screw it up, then I'm sure they will get demoralised. But so far it looks like the decision to focus on 2017 may have paid off and they may have closed the gap (I say may, because personally I'm not convinced they've overhauled Mercedes and we've yet to see the Germans anywhere near their full strength).


Maybe not in terms of speed but isn't the Ferrari more stable than the Mercedes through the corners?

This I've read very often from various people that have analysed the testing.

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:40 am
Posts: 185
mds wrote:
Blackcat75 wrote:
But there's no point in testing engines to destruction. Stress them, yes, a bit towards the end of the testing program to see what shakes, rattles and rolls, or what components wear faster than designed to. I've never designed a test program for racing cars, but I've designed tests for prototype military equipment and you only plan potentially destructive testing once you have all the data you need.


Not really talking about testing to destruction, just testing to realistic parameters i.e. seeing what it does in actual race pace, testing whether the normal use case is sustainable by your solution.

Surely that's something you absolutely want to do?

I would take an educated guess that failure rate rises exponentially rather than linearly, meaning an engine could be perfectly reliable at say 95% of race settings but can exhibit a few faults at 100% of race settings. So how can you take comfort in just testing at 95% when you know you will have to run one unit at 100% for several races, and outside of preseason testing the time for testing solutions to problems is severly limited?

I still don't see why teams would take such a risk.


Maybe race pace doesn't put that much stress on critical components and it's more longevity that has caused problems, and teams can predict/detect failure with usage as opposed to stress.

I'm sure some stress testing has happened, full acceleration, practice starts, full pelt round slow/medium/fast corners, just not consistently enough to see it in lap times (or even sector times apart from Ferrari teasing us right at the end).

I just can't get in to a debate on what the gradient of curve of failure rates of critical/non-critical electrical/mechanical components/subsystems/systems under what conditions, looks like.

A testing plan that ends with;
"Test n+1: Test the front wing with increased angles until it probably fails and breaks off at Vmax so that we can validate our front wing mounting point failure prediction. See appendices in warehouses 1-15 for the associated risk registers for this test."

Even Flavio would think twice about signing that test plan off. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Herb Tarlik, mikeyg123 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group