planetf1.com

Everyone always says "testing doesn't show us everything", but that's not true. Every year going back to 09, the pundits have been able to put a representative list together based on long run data.

However, that said, I think anyone would be a fool to write-off Red Bull at this stage. The only hope for a slow RB is that the DRS-changes has a bigger impact on their qualifying speed than on other cars.

The real caution comes from the idea that Mercedes near the top I wish...

In terms of RBR, I think they've got decent pace anyway - as shown in the races where they cannot use DRS as much as quali. It's just the characteristics of the car is that it is slower in a straight line but lightning fast round the corners...

I do believe they were hiding their pace in Jerez, despite the fact they've all probably still got lots of new parts to add on to their cars...

OH, and as for Merc - they might indeed have a fast car, but the one grey area for them - which is true of all the cars - is whether they can translate that pace into either quali lap speed or more importantly consistent race pace...

...the latter is the area that Merc struggled last season with the car eating it's tyres - and indications from pundits are that they still have some issue in that area... So they might indeed be quick, but not able to keep that pace up...

Merc was decent only on short runs. Hamilton did race sim and it was slow. Kinda pattern of last year. Sometimes decent or even excellent in quali and sad pace in race.
So unless Hamilton really needs more time getting adjusted to new car, they have long way to go.

I don't think it was a race sim, they only used medium or hard tyres, and run different front wings , back to back
(IMO fuel load, same tyres diff. wing etc.)
They also tested the passive DRD on Friday. Hamilton also said they did not go for lap time

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

Hamilton did over 40 laps split by only one stop. It was a race sim. The times were not consistent either. Could be the Merc is heavy wearing or it could be that Jerez was unsuitable for the tyres. We won't know for a while yet.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

No he didn't .Nobody makes a race sim at Jerez. He did no longer stint than 16 laps, most of the time it have been about 12
http://www.msfree.gr/includes/livelaps. ... e=HAMILTON
He also used different front wings, as it was seen on pictures

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

This is why you should check live timings which show the actual time. .

http://f1tests.info/2013.php?rev=on

They did do race sim or call it long stint runs. From 70-110. They were also not the only one. Sauber did the same.

Who was more consistent Merc or Sauber?

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

A long run, or some long runs next to each other, is NO race sim!
Nobody does race sims at Jerez as it's pointless
I don't think Mercedes does a race simulation at the first day with a new driver in a new car. They tested different wings &fuel loads tyres set ups & Hamilton tried to get used to the car
For Merc it was important to get as much mileage on the car as possible on this days, to test diff areo, DRD etc
Races sims are usually run at the last test at Barcelona.

The other link does not show anything different, as some long runs run on this afternoon.

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

It is about fuel loads. Jerez is not ideal place due to the nature of circuit, but that does not stop teams from actually doing race sims, even if it is to check reliability of the package and gather whatever data they can. With no gap between 2 runs and just tyre change, it is as good as race simulation for the team as it will be carrying almost full fuel load to do 40+ laps without long stops. That means close to 80KG or even more fuel. That is only done for race simulations.
The other link has time stamp on extreme left. That is why it is more useful.

There's not so much difference between a long run and a race sim if you think about it. Isn't a race sim just a series of long runs linked by a pitstop? Looking at a long run would be the equvilant of a stint on a race day. Still useful information

Teams can see how the reliability of the car is in conditions similair to races. They won't be looking for things like degredation as much, more reliability

_________________
Forza Fernando !

As someone mentioned above, over the last 5 years or so testing HAS shown the relative basic pace of the cars.

Since the ban on unlimited testing the teams have a finite time to get through the pre-season schedule and to collect data etc. Most plod along with their own programs and run various fuel/tyre configurations and not all is clear all of the time but that is not to say if you delve deeper and analyse properly that a running order cannot be determined. although not mentioned I would expect that Anderson has taken the appropriate tyre differences in to account and other discrepancies mentioned to come up with his list. Assuming he has done that then his order of dominance is probably correct for Jerez.

The problem is that it only counts for that one track, different cars dominate different types of circuit based on a load of different variables. So it he is not saying this is how it will be come Melbourne, he is giving a baseline judgement of the cars pace around Jerez and nothing more.

The Williams dog of a few years ago topped the times several times but was reported as being underweight to attract sponsors, which turned out to be true. The Brawn was late to tests and blitzed the field, was reported to be genuine, true again. Ferrari last season was reported to be a dog and was at the start of the season. The '09 McLaren was a nightmare and it was, the list is endless...........

Testing gives us a baseline as to how the cars will perform at the 1st few races, the order might change slightly with updates before Oz, but it does give a solid baseline. The only baseline being offered by Anderson was the fastest laptimes of the last week overall which gives a very rough guide of the potential throughout the year. If a car is basically bad or good does show through, so all he has said is the top 5 haven't changed too much. The best his analysis would show was the order of quali as things stand which as we all know doesn't represent race speed.

Give the guy a break, he's just offering his opinion. It is an opinion with hell of a lot more background knowledge than the armchair theorists on here that are upset that their team/driver isn't top of his list!!

He has explained his method for compiling his list, and tire performance differences are not taken into account. It's there in black and white, to be honest.



All I'm saying is he could have done way better had he taken 1 more ridiculously important factor into account. If you're going to start guessing, it really isn't too far-fetched to include tires.
Who's on top, I couldn't care less.

very good post

yes I'm quite sure he didn't disregard the tires just because he failed to mention them. tires are too fundamental.

its no good arguing that testing times don't mean anything because if they didn't extremely few people would follow them. its a bit like weather forecast. you can never predict it perfectly but you can make a good calculated guess. and that's really all we're looking for - clues/trends/patterns. he is a specialist at doing such analysis so if anyone pays heed to that you can't blame him. personally I read his article and found it to be a good read. that's all.

_________________

What exactly did Gary Anderson say that makes you say this?

He is just having a look at what the pecking order seems to be at Jerez.

I trust the knowledge and understanding of a guy who has had a successful career as a designer/engineer.

I also thought pretty much everything you said were the nonsensical ravings of a malcontent.

No offence.

_________________
Forza Ferrari

In fact - to further annoy Blinky, GA specifically states it has no bearing on Melbourne...

Very interesting article. Perez for WDC anyone?

_________________
"No matter how the subject was started, somehow Hamilton's name eventually pops up" -- Blinky McSquinty

It's funny reading some of the comments disregarding Gary's Analysis, I think its says more about them than anything else.

Hmmm let me see.... Gary Anderson or the resident PF1 forum experts......

Until I see a CV that reads like Gary's I'm gonna have to go with him on this one.

In fact, until the likes of a Newey, Byrne, Lowe, Allison, Brawn, etc take a job in the pit lane I would take his opinion on anything technical over anyone else working for Sky or BBC be it ex-driver, ex-team owner or presenter and especially the pit lane clown (Ted).

Id expect him to get a win this season. He was able to take advantage of the sauber's strengths last season, so i dont see why he cant do the same with the McLaren if it continues to be fast. Hopefully he will have matured with regards to his focus on track and the ability to race under pressure at the top of the field (whenever he is up there), because he sure is going to have to cope with that from about 5 other drivers to take a win.

_________________
Forza Ferrari

Too Slow.

Yes because let's write him off before the season begins.

If the McLaren is a fast car, maybe even the fastest, then Perez will win races.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Gary isn't trying to do real analysis, he's generating page hits. Mission accomplished, I guess. PEACE.

Oh, please explain. And what do you want, him to place his article in a newspaper? So contributing ideas based on educated reasoning is generating page hits

You shame the word 'PEACE'

Once again...

With a better car underneath him Perez' slow and steady approach could have won him the race in Monza.

_________________
"I am a believer, but I start each Grand Prix with 195 liters of fuel behind me," he explains. "I don't rely entirely on God, I rely on Prost."

It is like saying farmer is a greedy crook because he is trying to grow grain to make money. Geez.

Sometimes there are link bait articles. Countless examples of that on web, some right here on PF1 home page. This is clearly not that.

Nearly won in the Sauber - I think if the Mclaren is the fastest car as it was last year it would be a surprise if he did not win a race.

Oh man, how hard is it to understand? Made up fuel-corrected times (which is fine), doesn't do the same for tires (deliberately or not, I don't care), which is a glaring omission, then draws conclusion "RBR has work to do" (implicating they're not very fast) while the hard compound is estimated to be anywhere between .8s and 1s slower than the softer tires used by most of the frontrunners.

Now you explain me why my opinion should be disregarded. And not "because it's Gary Anderson !!1!!11!", but real arguments.

Ferrari were terrible at the first race, but they recovered very quickly. These days the cars develop so fast that even how fast you are at the first race isn't *that* important.

Ferrari last year turned out to handle pretty well in the wet, whereas the McLaren wasn't so good.

This seems to vary, I know the teams don't design the car to handle well in the wet. We've seen before Williams 1997, Ferrari 2008, simply very difficult cars to drive in the wet.

Sure but I don't see him outpacing Button.

I don't know... the Ferrari's in Brazil weren't really impressive imo.
Maybe their development towards the latter part of the year made the car better in the dry and slower on wet? Either that or something that will start wars when I speak it out, so I won't

i always enjoy what ever gary says and don't you think all of his time at the tracks over the years , he must have picked up a few ways
to determine different cars relative performance all those years as a car designer is sometimes about checking out the opponants cars in an imformed view

That's true actually. I guess McLaren sorted their problems out. Felipe won Brazil 2008 in the F2008 remember, a car that didn't like the wet for much of the season.

My guess would be that Jay will respond that it's because Gary Anderson spent 4 days in Jerez watching the testing - which allowed him to personally create some context behind the times he created - whereas you just followed it online...


Look, GA hasn't said "this is how it is" - he's merely written an article to give a very rough indication of how things might be looking after Jerez. He's stated it's far too early to draw full conclusions so why are you and others so vehemently trying to ridicule him as talking complete bollox.

Personally, I don't think he's actually said much more than some on here have already said. Particularly when it came to how the cars looked in Jerez.

In my view, RBR do have some ground to make up on where they were in Jerez - but I do believe that they've already done some of that work as they'll have loads of updates to add for next week, and more to trickle through after that.

As for tyres, some tyres suit some cars better than others - so it's not really possible to apply an automatic time adjustment per car, as the difference might be 0.3secs on one car but 0.7 secs on another...

Rosberg spent some time at the track on Friday & watched the cars his opinion:
Mercedes made a big step foreward ( compared to last year)
Ferrari had some problems with aero, but improved
McLaren & Redbull look to be the best

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

Probably not far off. Although still hard to tell at this stage. My opinion on where the cars are is as follows:

I do think Mercedes have made a big step forward - but I do think they've still got some work to do to make the car as good as it needs to be to be consistently battling at the front

I think Ferrari have also made much improvement on last year. They seem fast (hence Massa topping the timesheets) but we've yet to see enough to judge quali pace and/or race pace consistency.

Mclaren look to be much improved also, and I think the other teams should be worried. I think some early issues to iron out following a switch in philosophy to the high nose, but if they sort those out, Mclaren will be the ones to beat.

RBR I don't think stood out at Jerez, and I think that was there intention. I think they know they've got a fast car, but nothing in Jerez really stood out and shouted "look at me!". I reckon what we'll see is RBR slowly dripping new parts onto the car until Melbourne where they'll be at the sharp end battling as always...

Lotus I think are improved on last year and will be right in the mix. Hopefully Kimi will be improved havnig had a years practise back in F1 and Grosjean can avoid taking everyone else out... They've certainly got the car to battle I think.


However, as with all early analysis, lots of time and development to go till the first race...

What do you think?

I, for one, don't know exactly what to think. There will probably be a truckload of new wings and gizmos installed on this beta-cars by Melbourne, so a lot can change. Come Barcelona, a new set of tingling data will appear, plus the new Williams, which may not be a title contender but will probably stir up time laps, so...everything still goes.

_________________
Olivier Panis fan.
...and also Jenson Button fan.

Well seems like Gary has some work to do.

_________________

Museli: thanks for that Gary Anderson piece on testing. He really knows what he is talking about; interesting how he compensates for fuel load and comes up with potential lap times.

Biggest surprise for me is the pace of the Rosberg Mercedes; was this freakish? Could it indicate race-pace?

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

If the McLaren is as fast as 2012 I also expect Perez to score a win. Like Maldonado in 2012; most of the drivers are really good and given a fast-enough car, could score a win.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

Its my understanding, and Gary Anderson's also (if you've read his stuff over the winter), that the top teams don't bring in their final 'killer parts' at the first test. This would show their hand early, and possibly allow for the ideas to be copied sooner rather than later. I expect RB to be examining the basic principles of their car, with the intention of developing the details to maximise what they find. So yes, some work to do.

On another note, Vettel looked super pissed of after the Friday test when he was doing his mandatory talking to the media. Maybe all is not well...

_________________
Forza Ferrari