They're predicting torrential rain?richard_leeds wrote:Another bath of testing coming up soon...
Pretty much as Valencia is for testing traction and braking events as well as slow to medium corner ability and quick changes in direction. Jerez is more for medium to high speed corners that are more of a constant radius as well as a good track for brake testing. Barcelona is more of a mix of the two, but the 1km main straight is ideal for straightline aero testing. Bahrain is ideal for figh speed runs and testing braking and traction events, not to mention quick changes in direction from turn 4 to turn 7 and turn 9 to 11 if memory serves me correctly from my many hundreds of laps arround Bahrain in F1:CE on PS3.luca wrote:This circuit should be a good aerodynamic test, right?
In the autosport live feed there was a comment from an ex F1 designer, really sorry but forgot his name, where he said that you don't learn much from doing a low fuel run. He said that a car set up well for a heavy fuel run will still be there or there abouts for the low fuel runs, whereas the reverse is rarely true. So maybe each of the grandee teams will do a low fuel run or two, but I wouldn't expect too much of that. They'll spend most of their time on heavy fuel making small setup changes to see how the car responds, and on longer runs to see how the tyres respond.mx_tifosi wrote:While not being an expert on the matter, I would expect Barcelona to offer a more conclusive insight on the overall running order. Valencia and Jerez have served their purposes to shakedown and begin setting up the cars, so Barcelona will only expand on that and take it to the real level where cars will also have more updates.
And since most teams were doing long runs to figure out the tyres, I would expect some low fuel runs to get an idea of what the cars can really do with fresh tyres.
This is the times from Barca 2010:nipo wrote:Experts, how should we take the times we see at this test? Do they carry a little more meaning now? I know we won't know for sure until the first Qualifying, but will we be able to read more like into how Reb Bull is doing, or interesting things like whether Lotus has really done the job closing the gap, etc?
And to counter that I quote veteran F1 engineer Frank Dernie, who worked for Williams, Lotus, Benetton, Ligier, Arrows and Toyota (via Autosport):richard_leeds wrote:The low fuel runs are relevant for F1 because of the importance of qualifying. However, it is better to run in second and finish with good reliability, than to have a pole position car that fails to finish. Vettel was an example of that in the first half of 2010. Hence the importance of long runs.
Frank Dernie wrote:I thought readers may be interested in the type of testing teams are likely to be doing.
Every engineer has a different approach to keeping the others guessing. The fact is that, by miles, the most important thing everyone needs to do is learn how to get the best from the tyres. You learn almost nothing running light, so it is unlikely that any serious team will run low fuel at all, or if they do one or two runs only.
A car set up well for the tyres whilst heavy will be good light, the converse is almost never true. It means that it is quite likely nobody important will show their true pace before the first race.
Getting a race distance on the car is crucial. The best way to evaluate the competitiveness of the teams will be to compare the pace in the race simulations, but this data is rarely published, unfortunately.
The list of fastest times, which is always published, is probably the least useful testing information an observer gets!
Nice in theory, but subtly different testing programs would heavily skew the results.godlameroso wrote:I think a more useful measure would be to take an average of all timed laps, minus out and in laps, as well as laps that are obviously off the pace. Take those lap averages for each driver and you have a more accurate guess as to the pecking order.