2013 Testing - Barcelona 2: 28 Feb - 3 Mar

[iotar__]

I told fuel corrected calculations are coming , those are always fun.
"If we take Red Bull's best time from the two Barcelona tests – which was Vettel’'s 1m22.197s last month – take off 0.7 seconds for the track improvement that happened this week, and deduct 2.45s to fuel correct it down to empty and you are left with a probable potential of 1m19.047s.
If Rosberg was running 30kg of fuel today (as could be expected), then that leaves a theoretical best of 1m19.08s. However, if the W04 was running on even less fuel, its potential best would start heading towards the mid-1m19s."
Really? What about different front wing, different rear wing, different exhaust (examples, I don't know if they were different) and/or better understanding of those components? What about hundreds more laps of data and better understanding of tyres? How many tenths for that? Although to be fair the assumption may be that those equalise themselves.

Somehow Red Bull end up 0,2 in front, which is basically within calculation error, let's say 0,1 on one side and 0,1 on the other. I think they deserve it, for name, Newey, past reputation and the fact that they did not do much, spectacular time-wise which makes it easier to speculate. It's a safe bet and you can't disprove it. Because also you know, "they may be sandbagging", woooo.

Useless F1 teams didn't even bother to run race sims on the last day, apart from Force India and Sauber (abandoned one). I've read on AMUS FI's was slightly better so I'm tipping them as a dark horse based on that and the fact that I like them.

Another number, from S. Michael: nine teams within 1 second. Probably until the second part of the first stint on full fuel on SS in Australia.

[raymondu999]

I told fuel corrected calculations are coming , those are always fun.
"If we take Red Bull's best time from the two Barcelona tests – which was Vettel’'s 1m22.197s last month – take off 0.7 seconds for the track improvement that happened this week, and deduct 2.45s to fuel correct it down to empty and you are left with a probable potential of 1m19.047s.
If Rosberg was running 30kg of fuel today (as could be expected), then that leaves a theoretical best of 1m19.08s. However, if the W04 was running on even less fuel, its potential best would start heading towards the mid-1m19s."
Really? What about different front wing, different rear wing, different exhaust (examples, I don't know if they were different) and/or better understanding of those components? What about hundreds more laps of data and better understanding of tyres? How many tenths for that? Although to be fair the assumption may be that those equalise themselves.

Somehow Red Bull end up 0,2 in front, which is basically within calculation error, let's say 0,1 on one side and 0,1 on the other. I think they deserve it, for name, Newey, past reputation and the fact that they did not do much, spectacular time-wise which makes it easier to speculate. It's a safe bet and you can't disprove it. Because also you know, "they may be sandbagging", woooo.

Useless F1 teams didn't even bother to run race sims on the last day, apart from Force India and Sauber (abandoned one). I've read on AMUS FI's was slightly better so I'm tipping them as a dark horse based on that and the fact that I like them.

Another number, from S. Michael: nine teams within 1 second. Probably until the second part of the first stint on full fuel on SS in Australia.

You should really cite the source next time. http://plus.autosport.com/premium/featu ... ing-giant/

For reference, the 2.45s mentioned is taken from the Red Bull historically running 70kg - ie 2.45/7 = 0.35s per 10kg

[King Six]

Anyone know what the total mileage was for each car through all the tests? Would be interesting to see how Mercedes ended up after their initial troubles. Likewise with Lotus who seemed to have a few reliability issues. I know I could just do it myself, but I was wondering if any F1 site already did it

EDIT: Here we go: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/03/04/r ... g-mileage/

[JMN]

I must admit I'm a bit worried how this new generation of tyres will affect the Q3 show.
Last year we had glimpses of the brilliant Q3 shows of 2010. 2012 warm-up issues made it possible and preferable to run 2 timed laps, which resulted in some very close shootouts late in the sessions. With faster degrading tyres I'll be surprised if we see the teams run more than a single timed lap. The opportunity cost of running a second timed lap or even a second set could very well be altogether unacceptable.

[mclaren_mircea]

About Rosberg using DRS on every sector of the circuit, compared with Alonso using DRS only on the long straight where is permited. How much time cand be? We have to notice that Alonso as Rosberg used the DRS on the long straight , and that zone is the zone on the Montmelo Circuit where the DRS can have the most serious impact on the lap time: on this zone we have parity between Rosberg and Alonso. The question is that how much can count the other areas of the circuit where Rosberg used DRS? I don't think that can count more than -200 or -250, because are a lot of medium and slow corners and only one straight line which is only about a half compared with the long straight for the DRS. Last year a heared a report that the difference between using DRS on every section and not using it at all is about half a second. So with parity on the long straight it's not much difference between Rosberg using DRS on sector 2 and 3 and Alonso using only on sector 1.
And we even don't know if Rosberg used the DRS on that zones. Auto Sport und Motor said that he used it only like Alonso on the long straight, while Sky Sports said that he used it everywhere.

[iotar__]

I told fuel corrected calculations are coming , those are always fun.
"If we take Red Bull's best time from the two Barcelona tests – which was Vettel’'s 1m22.197s last month – take off 0.7 seconds for the track improvement that happened this week, and deduct 2.45s to fuel correct it down to empty and you are left with a probable potential of 1m19.047s.........................[deleted]
SS in Australia.

You should really cite the source next time. http://plus.autosport.com/premium/featu ... ing-giant/

For reference, the 2.45s mentioned is taken from the Red Bull historically running 70kg - ie 2.45/7 = 0.35s per 10kg

I would if I knew it, I copied it from from a post on their message board. "0,2 RB in front" one was from SKY, I think, I read it here. Plus it wasn't really my point to critique this or the other prediction, just the general thought on how those calculations are IMO flawed and only a bit of harmless fun.

Jumping on a Mercedes bandwagon for a second. Imagine that: they have a great car in 2013, they win something, many races, constructor championship top three, whatever, they end up being top team. And the person responsible for getting technical team together and all those successes would be Ross Brawn.

Now it might be a bit awkward if at the end of the season Lowe arrives in his above technical director role. Do they keep Brawn and somehow share responsibilities, or what?

[Work_in_f1]

Tyre issues will almost certainly affect the qualifying "show". Midfield teams will not run in Q3 and some might even sacrifice Q2 if they are unlikely to make Q3. I think there will be a lot of backlash in the media on Saturday night...

[Artur Craft]

From a comparison W03-W04 Barcelona test, Rosberg improved from 1:22.932 to 1:20.130. Schumi's fastest lap was merely the same.
Maybe they weren't pushing the car at the limit, but when they reached Spaing GP (can't remember how many updates they took at that point of the season), Rosberg Q2 were Mercedes fastest in 1:22.882 on soft tyres (failed to better it in Q3).
Purely comparing testing times, adding to that SkySport Italy quoted Hembery saying 2013 tyres are generally 0.8s faster, Mercedes found 2 seconds till today, not to say we are probably missing aero upgrades coming Melbourne

NO!

It's so frustrating that people keep with this comparison with pole times and etc. I'll say this once again, do not compare winter testing times with times from the GP weekend because climate makes a big difference on lap time. Running on winter and then on summer can produce a big variation in performance.

This winter was colder than last ones, at Barcelona, which improved lap times even more than usual

I won't be surprised at all if during this year's qualifying, at Barcelona, they can't even get into the 1.21s. It will depend if it will be "cold" enough in May

For reference, in 2010, these were some of times from winter testings in Barcelona(on the left) versus their respective best qualifying time in the same year(on the right):
F. Massa Ferrari 1:20.539 1.21.585
A. Sutil Force India 1:20.611 1.21.985
M. Schumacher Mercedes 1:20.745 1.21.294
R. Barrichello Williams 1:20.870 Problem in Q but compare with Hulk's time
K. Kobayashi Sauber 1:20.911 1.21.984
N. Rosberg Mercedes 1:20.686 1.21.408
S. Buemi Toro Rosso 1:21.413 1.22.191
N. Hulkenberg Williams 1:20.614 1.22.131
F. Alonso Ferrari 1:20.637 1.20.937
P. de la Rosa Sauber 1:20.973 1.22.026
V. Liuzzi Force India 1:21.056 1.22.854
J. Alguersuari Toro Rosso 1:21.571 1.22.207
L. Hamilton McLaren 1:20.472 1.20.829

Or, if you prefer, here's how much slower each driver's qualifying time was than his' respective winter testing time:
Massa 1.046s
Sutil 1.374s
Schumacher 0.549s
Kobayashi 1.073s
Rosberg 0.722s
Buemi 0.777s
Hulkenberg 0.514s
Alonso 0,300s
PDLR 1.053s
Liuzzi 1.798s
Alguersuari 0.636s
Hamilton 0.357s

It all depends on who pushed more and who sandbagged more, but all of them were a lot slower during Q compared to their testing times. Mercedes can easily be more than 1 second slower than this 1.20.1 when Barcelona's qualifying come

Sorry moderators for this post which is not related to technical aspects of the car, it's just that this comparison with last year's Q time is been used over and over again and hopefully this put's an end into it

[dren]

How much did RB sandbag with their RB7 in testing? Just curious, because we all know what happened that year.

It's their MO. That's what they do every year.

[Juzh]

About Rosberg using DRS on every sector of the circuit, compared with Alonso using DRS only on the long straight where is permited. How much time cand be? We have to notice that Alonso as Rosberg used the DRS on the long straight , and that zone is the zone on the Montmelo Circuit where the DRS can have the most serious impact on the lap time: on this zone we have parity between Rosberg and Alonso. The question is that how much can count the other areas of the circuit where Rosberg used DRS? I don't think that can count more than -200 or -250, because are a lot of medium and slow corners and only one straight line which is only about a half compared with the long straight for the DRS. Last year a heared a report that the difference between using DRS on every section and not using it at all is about half a second. So with parity on the long straight it's not much difference between Rosberg using DRS on sector 2 and 3 and Alonso using only on sector 1.
And we even don't know if Rosberg used the DRS on that zones. Auto Sport und Motor said that he used it only like Alonso on the long straight, while Sky Sports said that he used it everywhere.

They both used it on the 2 pre-agreed straights by the teams. I really don't know what the fuss is all about. Webber said in valencia last year DRS is worth 1,2s+ around the lap.

For reference, in 2010, these were some of times from winter testings in Barcelona(on the left) versus their respective best qualifying time in the same year(on the right):
F. Massa Ferrari 1:20.539 1.21.585
A. Sutil Force India 1:20.611 1.21.985
M. Schumacher Mercedes 1:20.745 1.21.294
R. Barrichello Williams 1:20.870 Problem in Q but compare with Hulk's time
K. Kobayashi Sauber 1:20.911 1.21.984
N. Rosberg Mercedes 1:20.686 1.21.408
S. Buemi Toro Rosso 1:21.413 1.22.191
N. Hulkenberg Williams 1:20.614 1.22.131
F. Alonso Ferrari 1:20.637 1.20.937
P. de la Rosa Sauber 1:20.973 1.22.026
V. Liuzzi Force India 1:21.056 1.22.854
J. Alguersuari Toro Rosso 1:21.571 1.22.207
L. Hamilton McLaren 1:20.472 1.20.829

Or, if you prefer, here's how much slower each driver's qualifying time was than his' respective winter testing time:
Massa 1.046s
Sutil 1.374s
Schumacher 0.549s
Kobayashi 1.073s
Rosberg 0.722s
Buemi 0.777s
Hulkenberg 0.514s
Alonso 0,300s
PDLR 1.053s
Liuzzi 1.798s
Alguersuari 0.636s
Hamilton 0.357s

Not entirely correct. You deliberately left out red bull which vent much faster in the race weekend.

[hollus]

And the cause why winter testing times almost always are faster than quali times in may: mostly temperature affecting...
Air density
The fastest laps this winter were probably made with an air temperature of about 13C. That translates into about 3% extra air density for the aero to work and likely over 4% extra oxygen density for the engine to burn, after accounting for likely humidity levels, compared to last may.

[Juzh]

And the cause why winter testing times almost always are faster than quali times in may: mostly temperature affecting...
Air density
The fastest laps this winter were probably made with an air temperature of about 13C. That translates into about 3% extra air density for the aero to work and likely over 4% extra oxygen density for the engine to burn, after accounting for likely humidity levels, compared to last may.

Yep, air density along with humidity is the most singnificant reason. Even I in my 2.0l 180bhp peugeot can feel much more responsive throttle and eninge's urge to rev at lower temperatures (5-12°C) on a sunny day.

[bonjon1979]

How much did RB sandbag with their RB7 in testing? Just curious, because we all know what happened that year.

It's their MO. That's what they do every year.

This just isn't true.

2010, they were around .156 off the fastest time at the final test. RB6
2011 they were 5 tenths off the fastest time in the final test. RB7
2012 they were 6 tenths off the fastest time in the final test. RB8
2013 they were 2.4 seconds off the fastest time in the final test. RB9

To say that this is a continuance of their MO is false. This year it's drastically different. They did set a time that was quicker in the previous barcelona test but they weren't as close as they have been to the lead time in previous seasons.

[Nando]

Well looking at those years then comparing the car they had when the season started they definitely sandbagged...
RB6 and RB7 is great examples of that.

Even if they had done identical times as the top runner in season tests it would still be a form of sandbagging when you can pull out a second from nowhere come AUS.

[OppositeLock]

Well looking at those years then comparing the car they had when the season started they definitely sandbagged...
RB6 and RB7 is great examples of that.

Even if they had done identical times as the top runner in season tests it would still be a form of sandbagging when you can pull out a second from nowhere come AUS.

Checking the results from the first 4 races last season shows that Red Bull was one of several closely matched fast teams. Four different teams won those first races as they all learned about the Pirelli tires. The teams that were strong in testing claimed podiums in the opening races.