planetf1.com

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21417831

It turns out we can read into testing times after all

'The big surprise is Red Bull, who appear to have some work to do.'



Red Bull are sandbagging. They have already done their work, it's just small improvements to the car that will make it fast as always.

Well I don't know what to say other than he is guessing .... Like us ! There are many varables he does not know. So what do we say .. It's only testing.

Is it just me, or does he adjust times for fuel but not for tires?
He mentions Buttons fastest time was set on the hards, but forgets to mention the same about Vettel, to then conclude RBR "has some work to do".

If you ask me, that's a major fail from Anderson.

bit too much conclusions from the first testing session , right ?

The guy has too mucht time on his hands, he should look for a real job
This numbers are pointless

_________________
"Everything you can imagine is real." Pablo Picasso

It seems to be the case as he doesn't mention tires at all. He also doesn't take into account track evolution across the 4 days. He would be better taking the times from one day or compensating for the change in conditions by adding on the estimated difference. It wouldn't be accurate but at least more accurate than what he's done!

So Red Bull have 10% more downforce than anyone else but still have some work to do?

Its a good effort at least but just speculation. This part is interesting, the times adjusted to how much fuel was known to be in the tank by how many laps there did after their hot lap. At least that has a good grounding.

1. Massa 1:17.536, 2. Rosberg 1:17.566, 3. Grosjean 1:17.961, 4. Raikkonen 1:17.977, 5. Bianchi 1:18.004, 6. Vergne 1:18.160, 7. Vettel 1:18.308, 8. Perez 1:18.430, 9. Hamilton 1:18.476, 10. Gutierrez 1:18.498, 11. Button 1:18.690, 12. Di Resta 1:18.832, 13. Ricciardo 1:18.877, 14. Rossiter 1:19.132, 15. Webber 1:19.167, 16. Hulkenberg 1:19.331, 17. Bottas 1:19.508, 18. De La Rosa 1:19.887, 19. Maldonado 1:20.350, 20. Van Der Garde 1:20.882, 21. Pic 1:20.934, 22. Chilton 1:21.012, 23. Razia 1:21.226

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

Merge?

_________________

I love how they leave out what they do know, the tyre compounds but put in what they don't, the fuel loads. Complete guess work from Gary. A lap done on soft tyres on a low fuel load will be much faster than one done on hards on a higher fuel load, or hards on a low fuel load and softs on a high one, or mediums on a medium fuel load over hards on a high etc. until we know exactly what fuel they were running with each compound and how the cars differed aero wise on each day we won't know the true order until Melbourne. Testing last year proved that it doesn't mean the actual running order come race day.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

I thought it was a very good read. You can understand the work he did and how he got to those conclusions. It's abit more definitive than what we had to work on before but at the same time, there's still alot of if's in the equation. We don't know what fuel loads each car was on. He says

that's a fair bit of time for a single lap. When you realize that teams could have a significant variation of fuel loads on board you realize that it's still rather speculative. Then there's things such as engine modes, DRS usage, KERS usagem tyres used, the day it was set on and you realize, that overall it wasn't that informative.

_________________
Forza Fernando !

I think his statement about Red Bull is quite fair. He said that they still have work to do; would that be a fair comment given that Button set his fast time on a really green track without really getting his eye fully in and that Vettel did his on a really rubbered in track? Its obvious that Red Bull sandbag, you do that with fuel, that's why he tried to recalculate the times. Adding the estimated changes or difference goes far too much into guesswork, then you have to also start guessing at who wears out the tyres quicker than who, who was using scrubbed shoes, totally guess at the diff in the new compounds straight away, and so on. What he did was a simple and fair attempt to make things look a bit clearer.

We all know that RB haven't really updated things yet. I guess its fair to say that they still have a bit of work to do?



Compared to who? Ted Kravitz and his awful notebooks? I've never ever seen a man pointing out/mentioning so much stuff whilst having no clue what it does/means before. Day three was notorious for this.

_________________
Forza Ferrari

I read that the track rubbering in was worth something like two seconds from day one to four. This is why there are such big gaps between team-mates who ran 2/2 programs (Sauber, Red Bull, STR). That and the lack of tyre compound information essentially nullifies the results for me.

Surprised he'd produce something like that, though I appreciate what he's trying to do.

Anderson was doing something quite different, at least making an attempt to look at long run data, rather than some people getting excited at the fastest lap of the day and not willing to consider any of the reasons for that number.

I remember that James Allen's analysis of testing on his blog the previous couple of years was reasonably close to the running order in Melbourne too because he also looked at the long runs to try and factor in fuel loads and also took into account tyre compounds and track conditions.

I'm can't decide how reliable a pundit Gary Anderson is yet but the fact that Perez is top of his adjusted times is interesting.. more fuel to the idea that the Mclaren is on top (wrt Button's time)

But it doesn't... Those times could have been set with just enough fuel to do those runs, or the team could have chucked in an extra 20kgs of fuel just to sand bag a little bit.

Imagine if Vettel and Webber did those times with enough fuel to add 1 sec of time. Drop that and suddenly Vettel is 1st and Webber could be 6th...

Just saying, we don't know...

Yes of course, I did not add that as I thought that bit was obvious. Hence why I said "known to be in the tank".. We know Rosberg had 15 or more laps fuel. We know Massa had 6 or more laps fuel. Everything else is speculation.

But I could have been a bit clearer. That list is a lot more meaningful than the fastest times list on its their own.

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

Given part of Anderson's job is as an F1 analyst for the BBC, might it be the case that when he put this together he was working?

The numbers aren't definitive but they provide more information around which to assess testing and also a foundation for assessing future tests.

At this stage to me it looks as though McLaren and Lotus have genuine pace with questionmarks over Ferrari and Red Bull depending on what their testing programme entailed and indications that Mercedes have similar tyre wear issues to what they have had in previous years. Outright pace is not the be all and end all and no team has done a race simulation for analysis yet. So when I watch the next test I'll have narrowed down the scope of what I'm looking for.

This may all be wrong, but it's more productive to make an assessment comparing to a prediction.

_________________
Formerly kai_

His opinions ( I don't even consider it an analysis) are based on the assumption that the cars in testing will not be modified or improved by Melbourne. But ever year, such teams as Red Bull leave the go-fast parts off until the very last test session. Upgrades are an important in Formula One, the teams continually change and improve the cars. Remember Silverstone when the Mclarens were shamefully out of the picture, yet two races later were dominant? Even if you were the quickest car in Jerez that's no guarantee that you will even get past Q2 at Melbourne.

Yes, we can use the lap times from testing to arrive at conclusions, but not to determine who's quickest. On Friday Hamilton didn't come close to topping the time sheets. Do you know why? It's because all of his runs were long runs, in fact he even simulated an entire race distance, from 2:56 PM to 3:58 PM, putting in 42 laps interrupted only by one pit stop.

Thanks to the internet we can access the same data ( http://f1tests.info/2013.php ) as Anderson, we don't have to blindly accept what some pundit spoon-feeds us but rather decide for ourselves, form our own personal opinions, and not be herded around like sheep. Don't listen to him, don't even listen to me, just, please, look and decide by yourselves. Unlike the pundits, I have faith you guys are intelligent enough to think for yourselves.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Where is he making assumptions that things will be like this till Australia?
This is last paragraph



Anderson over last 2 years has earned my respect. He was first one to point out Ferrari has serious problems last year when many fans thought he is just guessing that and Ferrari times looked OK on time sheets. He also predicted the Lotus resurgence last year and most people had even discounted that.

The fuel load analysis is not total guess work. This guy has been part of F1 team. Actual team. There is a thought process behind the work teams do. They dont just run random fuel load for tests. There was nice post about this from Cooper about this as well. Most of the testing is done beteen 40-60KG Fuel load. Quali pace testing is done with at least 20KG fuel load in testing. Only those looking to light up timing chart for sponsor benefits or to actually find some more sponsors go below that weight. None of the top teams will do that in first test. And only full race simulation run full fuel load.
People like Gary will be more in tune with this thought process. They can make more educated guess about fuel load based on lap run and the possible objectives behind that particular stint.

It is easy to dismiss things like this, but he is only trying to make educated guess of who is where after 1st test. Not predict the entire season or even start of the season.

Don't forget that Ferrari's fastest driver has not yet driven the car..

Reverse the names in the following quote and I'm sure you wouldn't be this bitter.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

But his entire article is an attempt to determine the pecking order, when even he admits that right now no one knows. He failed to mention anything that might actually be relevant. For instance, even though the Jerez road surface is abrasive and not indicative of most tracks, there is a trend appearing, where the lap times steadily fall off, and never stabilize in a plateau. That tells us that we should expect the new tires to have those same characteristics, and will lead to freaky-crazy strategies.

He just offered the old argument of "driver A is faster than driver B", a pointless exercise at this point when he could have actually offered something relevant.

It is somewhat fair to say they have work to do, but that's kind of a hollow statement since everybody has work to do.
The fact he doesn't take the (known) tire compounds into account and just looks at his fuel corrected times to conclude some are fast and others seem to be slower, it just doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to make guesses based on running data as to how much faster one could have been if not for the fuel, he could as well have made good guesses about how much time there was to lose going from one tire compound to the other.

Had he done that, I'd have commended the effort.

edit: if I'm not mistaken, it's been said that the mediums at Jerez were about .5s slower than the softs, and the hards another .4s slower than the mediums.
So that would leave Vettel with a (as he says it) "potential" lap time of 1:17.4 and Button with a 1:17.8.

I took the article differently. I didn't see it that he was trying to offer a definitive analysis, but providing some insight into the testing times. His article can't really be too tailored towards the more involved fans because then it wouldn't have any appeal to the more casual fans. So for us I see it as more a foundation for further assessment and a basis from which we can debate and factor in more elements. It's an hypothesis to be tested and re-tested (no pun intended) and developed as testing proceeds.

The other thing is that Anderson can incorporate into his insight something we can't: first-hand impressions of how the cars looked. AFAIK he was actually at testing. I know myself that when I go to races and watch the cars, whatever the timing sheets show I am always comparing that back to what I have witnessed. So for example if driver X has a better time than driver Y but the former looked as though he was absolutely on the edge and the latter didn't I'll take that into account. Someone of Anderson's experience would no doubt do that much better than me as well. Obviously I'm just surmising, but when I read insight from someone like him, I assume that he hasn't just crunched the numbers and ignored what he saw. A good example is the Brawn from 2009. Just looking at the numbers it was easy to believe that they were doing glory runs, but the people at the track knew otherwise fairly quickly.

It's a personal thing, of course, but there are analysts I respect more than others based on what insight they've provided over the years and its objectivity and accuracy. Some of the more experienced people have, over the course of testing over the years, come up with a fairly accurate picture of how things really are. Anderson has been one of them.

_________________
Formerly kai_

Incase you've not already guessed it, what Garry has provided may as well be a picture of a brick wall. It's completely useless to speculate.

_________________

So Red Bull has been sandbagging for most of 2012 season?!

_________________
Renault!

2012 Planet F1 Prediction Competition Champion

we DO KNOW other things:

- merc are testing lots of different parts and setups (frontwing, exhausts, floors, ddrs)
- same for ferrari - both teams admitted that they will try different solutions over the course of testing
- mclaren have a lot of work in terms of their new car concept and new team-lineup
- redbull took basically a new car with old bodywork to jerez - they will have a b-spec bodywork at one of the barcelona-tests
- lotus has a solid base and posted quick laptimes as last year - as last year they are still looking for a sponsor...
- sauber started a new design-philosophy which (having 2014 in mind) probably no one will follow - unless they are quickest from day 1 in oz
- we have no idea about williams
- observers do know how the cars looked like on the track - but don't know about the setup used, the programm run or the fuel loads
- tyre degredation at jerez is far from reality, temps at barca will be low - teams will be scratching their heads about tires till oz at least

imho anything besides "marussia and caterham behind" and "all top teams close to each other" is pure specualtion after jerez - come barca and come the first updates it will be easier to tell...

PS: we don't even know if some of the long-runs were started on fresh or used tires, because we don't know the program teams were on ... in jerez a 2 lap old tyre will make you loose a lot of time..

Has Anderson taken red flaggs into consideration?
Therfore the stints from the pilots have been shorter than they would have been without them
Maybe a driver carries fuel for 15 laps, but after 5 laps it's red flagged?
So this stint/fastest lap is regarded as relatively slow, but maybe ist wasn't because of the amount of fuel the car carried around etc.

EG. When Hamilton set his fastest lap there came the break after the 5th lap of his stint,because of the hole in the track there was 1 hour break if you look at the link http://f1tests.info/2013.php
So how can Anderson judge the time if there could have been fuel for 10 more laps in the tank?
As long as we don't see similar stints from all cars/ drivers we know nothing

Do we know how much fuel Vettel had in the car when he set his fastest time, or Button?

_________________
"Everything you can imagine is real." Pablo Picasso

I was skeptical right off the bat when he said that McLaren, Ferrari and Merc were the fastest. I felt pretty sure that the Lotus was quicker, and quicker than the Merc at least. So I don't trust his analysis, just doesn't seem quite right.

_________________

complete and utter guesswork by Gary.

just that he has more time on his hands and is paid more money to write about it than we do.

still an interesting read.

Well, at Auto motor & sport they think RedBull is the fastest, & Sauber & Lotus are very , fast , too

_________________
"Everything you can imagine is real." Pablo Picasso

And then I read your signature line.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota

Personally I don't find it incredibly useful to discuss pace after the first test because what's more important is how well the teams react to the information they've got from the test. Not only that but most teams will have plenty of upgrades already in the pipeline.

Last year red Bull didn't start blisteringly fast but by the end of the year Newey had turned the RB8 into a fairly formidable car, Ferrari looked incredibly slow and nearly won the title and McLaren were relatively solid from day one but at the end of the year weren't fighting for the title.

I read the responses to the article first to see what people where saying & then read the article. His analysis is full of ifs & buts especially about how much fuel the cars were carrying so basically it's BS as he doesn't actually know. For instance, one of the first things he says is that Massa did 6 laps so he must have had 6 laps worth of fuel. Duh, that's goes without saying. What we don't know, & neither does he, is that Massa may have had a tank full of fuel & only did 6 laps cause Ferrari only needed him to do 6 laps to see what would happen with tyre wear with a full tank, how a particular part worked with a full fuel load etc. As I said, it's still all ifs & buts a bit like us fans do

Well, if you look at his final rough guess list - the Lotus does look like a quick car...

Here's my total bollox calculation of which cars are fastest based on GA's final list:

1 - Mclaren, 2 - Ferrari, 3 - Merc, 4 - Mclaren, 5 - Lotus, 6 - Lotus, 7 - FI, 8 - RBR, 9 - STR, 10 - Sauber, 11 , 12 - Merc, 12 - FI, 13 - STR, 14 - RBR, 15 - Sauber, 16 - Williams, 17 - Ferrari, 18 - Williams

This turns in to the following cumulative scores (based on the top 2 drivers from each team - IE I've ignored Rossiter)

Mclaren – 5
Lotus – 11
Merc – 14
Ferrari – 19
FI – 19
RBR – 22
STR – 22
Sauber – 25
Williams – 34

NOW, obviously this is only a very rough total bollox list at this stage, as lots will change between now and test 2 - let alone Melbourne - but does show Mclaren and Lotus being the two fast cars, with Merc having some good pace and then a tight bunch behind.

Again, teams may be hiding pace (*cough* RBR *cough*), or the difference between places is marginal, but the impression I got from commentary and expert impressions was that the Mclaren and Lotus did appear quick. I also got the impression the RBR looked to be hiding some pace and I'd expect Ferrari to score a lot better at Barca with Alonso doing much better than PDLR...

Personally, I reckon we'll see something like the expected 5 teams at the front come Barca. Mclaren, RBR, Lotus, Ferrari and Merc...

Early days yet, but I think we can vaguely use the info from Jerez to start to pencil in an outline of a sketch of what might happen...

Well its on the BBC F1 web page so i would say he was definitely working

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

Current Standing: 16th

I bet he's real sad he doesn't have a "real job" though.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas