2013 Testing - Barcelona 2: 28 Feb - 3 Mar

[bonjon1979]

But Mclaren is an unique team doing this, they can have a shitty car and in two weeks make an incredible improvement, the only similar case I have seen in the last seasons was last years Ferrari, but they needed Mugello for this, Mclaren achieved this improvement only with factory/simulation work.

Just because they have a track, doesn't mean they're allowed to use it. Ferrari weren't doing any on track tests to improve their car.

I think you might be confusing Mugello with Fiorano.

Indeed I am. Kept awake all last night by a non-compliant five year old. I'm getting confused by a lot of things today...

[k.ko100v]

Merc can make over 2 sec in a year. Because they already proved they did.

So please stop saying its impossible, because they times show they have improved over 2 sec.

I guess you are ignoring the different tyres?


They did 22.9s in last years testing, they got down to a 20.1 in this years testing. 1.8 sec minus the tyreDelta (which Pirelli estimate at ~0.6-0.8 sec).

Its a net 1 - 1.2 second difference in their absolute times* over 12 months. Which is in line with reasonable expectations.

*=/= relative pace as the others are improving too. I would estimate the general pace of improvement in F1 to be in around ~0.1 sec/month [given consistent regs - but with all the chopping and changing in the regulations most winters its hard to verify that].


I'll maintain that Merc won't be at the very sharp end at the start of the year (obviously barring freak weather etc), but may progress to get there by the latter stages of the season.

+1 for this joke? Is this F1 technical or F1 "fannical" ? ? ?

1st 22.9 minus 20.1 is 2.8!!! simple math
2nd According to Pirell, the tyres are 0.5 faster, so the difference is 2.3 sec
3th DRS ban for all straights this year , this means around 1 sec more!!
So Overall difference from last test is more than 3 sec!!!
4th Merc said they have found 2 sec from the last race, which is obvious by the lap times! Zauber said that... who else have to say it - God???

[Hail22]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htXVi-zWZkc[/youtube]

[Phil]

2009 was also very different, with the new regs only just have been put into place. In such a situation you can very quickly turn a very weak car around. You absolutely cannot do the same now; the knowledge has been fully developed and the cars have been fully matured. A fundamental mistake is not going to be made; if you happen to be with a 1 second deficit you will not be able to turn that around. There is very little scope of development.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think there's a difference between how much a car can improve over an active season (March - November) than over the winter when the car is still in development. I agree that once the season starts and is on-going, limited resources, limited time as well as the point that you are also concentrating on making the best come every 2nd weekend on a raceweekend. The biggest gains that a team can get out of a car is over the winter testing, then when the car is still largely in development. In other words right now.

Also, you say 'the knowledge has been fully developed' - I would think there are multiple ways on how to extract performance out of a car. Some solutions are built with bigger risks, for potentially bigger gains (some work out, some don't) and others are more straightforward, allowing for more consistant results, but perhaps less potential. So, even if the rules between 2012 and 2013 are largely the same and most teams are using an evolution of their car, it doesn't quite mean that a team is forced to follow the path they've used on their previous car and thus are bound to the normal gains one can expect.

I think it is clear that most of the top teams (sans Ferrari) have build a car for this year that is a clear evolution of the previous one. The gains they make, are perhaps a bit more limited - because they already have a very strong basis and a car that runs quite efficient. Other teams, like Mercedes, have had to turn many things around because they had fundemental flaws. It's no guarantee that all their changes will work, but it allows for a greater potential to gain performance over their relative inefficient 2012 car.

I would be very surprised if Mercedes (and other teams learning from their mistakes) have not gained more over their 2012 car relative to what the top teams have. Will it be enough to narrow the gap completely? Who knows - and I'm sure the new tyres will play a factor in that too (and perhaps distort the image slightly as to the absolute speed of the cars).

[bonjon1979]

2009 was also very different, with the new regs only just have been put into place. In such a situation you can very quickly turn a very weak car around. You absolutely cannot do the same now; the knowledge has been fully developed and the cars have been fully matured. A fundamental mistake is not going to be made; if you happen to be with a 1 second deficit you will not be able to turn that around. There is very little scope of development.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think there's a difference between how much a car can improve over an active season (March - November) than over the winter when the car is still in development. I agree that once the season starts and is on-going, limited resources, limited time as well as the point that you are also concentrating on making the best come every 2nd weekend on a raceweekend. The biggest gains that a team can get out of a car is over the winter testing, then when the car is still largely in development. In other words right now.

Also, you say 'the knowledge has been fully developed' - I would think there are multiple ways on how to extract performance out of a car. Some solutions are built with bigger risks, for potentially bigger gains (some work out, some don't) and others are more straightforward, allowing for more consistant results, but perhaps less potential. So, even if the rules between 2012 and 2013 are largely the same and most teams are using an evolution of their car, it doesn't quite mean that a team is forced to follow the path they've used on their previous car and thus are bound to the normal gains one can expect.

I think it is clear that most of the top teams (sans Ferrari) have build a car for this year that is a clear evolution of the previous one. The gains they make, are perhaps a bit more limited - because they already have a very strong basis and a car that runs quite efficient. Other teams, like Mercedes, have had to turn many things around because they had fundemental flaws. It's no guarantee that all their changes will work, but it allows for a greater potential to gain performance over their relative inefficient 2012 car.

I would be very surprised if Mercedes (and other teams learning from their mistakes) have not gained more over their 2012 car relative to what the top teams have. Will it be enough to narrow the gap completely? Who knows - and I'm sure the new tyres will play a factor in that too (and perhaps distort the image slightly as to the absolute speed of the cars).

Exactly. The coanda exhaust was a fundamental design concept that the previous car wasn't built for. This year, the car has been fully optimised around this feature so we're not really talking about a linear development curve here. It's like how all the teams built their car around the double diffuser in 2010. They all made a massive leap in performance as they exploited this new design. What caught them out was the exhaust blowing that Red Bull pioneered. The following year, everyone tried to optimise the exhaust in an attempt to get a leap in performance to bring them closer to the front.

[turbof1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think there's a difference between how much a car can improve over an active season (March - November) than over the winter when the car is still in development. I agree that once the season starts and is on-going, limited resources, limited time as well as the point that you are also concentrating on making the best come every 2nd weekend on a raceweekend. The biggest gains that a team can get out of a car is over the winter testing, then when the car is still largely in development. In other words right now.

I think you are wrong. The car that stands now is not a product of only the wintertesting. It goes back months before that. Wintertesting is about making sure your car is reliable, and to see if your new solution work and what needs finetuning. The aero package many teams are bringing to the last testing days also have been much longer in development. The period between the end of testing and melbourne is all about some last finetuning everything. Fundamental flaws cannot be resolved in such a short time. Redesigning the flawed part usualy takes a few months.

The exception confirms the rule. Mclaren in 2011 had their fundamental flaw: the fantail exhaust. They only were able to fix it that quickly due the floor and sidepod shape remarkably fitted the red bull solution very well. They had to change very little; if I recall only the diffuser and exhausts.

[raymondu999]

But Mclaren is an unique team doing this, they can have a shitty car and in two weeks make an incredible improvement, the only similar case I have seen in the last seasons was last years Ferrari, but they needed Mugello for this, Mclaren achieved this improvement only with factory/simulation work.

Just because they have a track, doesn't mean they're allowed to use it. Ferrari weren't doing any on track tests to improve their car.

I think you might be confusing Mugello with Fiorano.

Mugello is also Ferrari-owned. But I think that Vasconia is referring to the official in-season test at Mugello, rather than an illegal use of testing.

[Phil]

I think you are wrong. The car that stands now is not a product of only the wintertesting. It goes back months before that. Wintertesting is about making sure your car is reliable, and to see if your new solution work and what needs finetuning. The aero package many teams are bringing to the last testing days also have been much longer in development. The period between the end of testing and melbourne is all about some last finetuning everything. Fundamental flaws cannot be resolved in such a short time. Redesigning the flawed part usualy takes a few months.

The exception confirms the rule. Mclaren in 2011 had their fundamental flaw: the fantail exhaust. They only were able to fix it that quickly due the floor and sidepod shape remarkably fitted the red bull solution very well. They had to change very little; if I recall only the diffuser and exhausts.

I think I may have misunderstood your post. When you started about 'how the 2009 season was different' in how you could turn a weak car around (because of the new rules then) compared to now, a new season in which the difference to the one preceeding it is marginal, I was trying to point out there surely must be a difference between the scope in which a team can make changes to their car during the running of a season and before the season starts, then when the car is still being designed, built and tested.

We do not know the pecking order of the cars yet. We will see that in Melbourne when everyone is going all out on the same track, under equal track conditions.

The big question in here is, has Mercedes effectively gained a substantial amount of performance over their previous year? As I have said earlier, I don't think this question is dependant if there is a major rule change or not. In fact, I think now that the rules haven't changed much, and most teams with a strong basis are going with an evolution of their old car is precicely why it should be easier for a team that has had fundemental flaws in the previous year, to gain exponentially and close the gap. It is IMO also the reason (not only the tyres) why the competition has become fiercer between the teams. There's only so much you can do under the present regulations, some cars are obviously closer to getting most out of the regulations, others, like Mercedes, are still (were?) further behind.

[turbof1]

I think you are wrong. The car that stands now is not a product of only the wintertesting. It goes back months before that. Wintertesting is about making sure your car is reliable, and to see if your new solution work and what needs finetuning. The aero package many teams are bringing to the last testing days also have been much longer in development. The period between the end of testing and melbourne is all about some last finetuning everything. Fundamental flaws cannot be resolved in such a short time. Redesigning the flawed part usualy takes a few months.

The exception confirms the rule. Mclaren in 2011 had their fundamental flaw: the fantail exhaust. They only were able to fix it that quickly due the floor and sidepod shape remarkably fitted the red bull solution very well. They had to change very little; if I recall only the diffuser and exhausts.

I think I may have misunderstood your post. When you started about 'how the 2009 season was different' in how you could turn a weak car around (because of the new rules then) compared to now, a new season in which the difference to the one preceeding it is marginal, I was trying to point out there surely must be a difference between the scope in which a team can make changes to their car during the running of a season and before the season starts, then when the car is still being designed, built and tested.

We do not know the pecking order of the cars yet. We will see that in Melbourne when everyone is going all out on the same track, under equal track conditions.

The big question in here is, has Mercedes effectively gained a substantial amount of performance over their previous year? As I have said earlier, I don't think this question is dependant if there is a major rule change or not. In fact, I think now that the rules haven't changed much, and most teams with a strong basis are going with an evolution of their old car is precicely why it should be easier for a team that has had fundemental flaws in the previous year, to gain exponentially and close the gap. It is IMO also the reason (not only the tyres) why the competition has become fiercer between the teams. There's only so much you can do under the present regulations, some cars are obviously closer to getting most out of the regulations, others, like Mercedes, are still (were?) further behind.

Yes exactly. I might not have been completely clear; my apologies for that. Also, I named Mercedes more as an example. It counts for every team. Of course designing a new car allows you to remove flaws of the old one. Unfortunaly, a redesign takes a long time. Infact, the timing of the wintertests are kind of unlucky. If you happen to have a dog of a car, like Ferrari did last year, you don't have the time to solve its problems before the season starts.
Also, back in 2009, the mclaren was at its best still very much flawed. They did decrease the impact of it, but the flaws were built into the car its core design. Nothing they could do about that. However, due all teams had minimal understanding of post 2008 aerodynamics back then, one could have big performance gains by simple solutions in other areas. McLaren did just that, bringing a package to Germany that although was significantly big as a whole, it actually consisted of smaller updates around the car. They kept updating the car afterwards and even though they never got around solving some big issues, they got around making it on par with Red Bull, the fastest car at that time. But that card unfortunaly cannot be played anymore. Upgrades nowadays are either essentially aero finetuning or big upgrades that change the complete airflow around the car.

[kilcoo316]

You suck at subtraction.

hahaha - I'm an idiot!

Sorry!


That would be a net 2-2.2 second difference in their absolute times over 12 months [assuming all else is equal]. More astoundingly, it would probably equate to a net ~1.5 difference in 3 months (which I have great difficulty in believing - not unless there was a clear fundamental flaw in W03 that is not in the public domain).

Given they were around half a sec off in Aus 2012 (in qual) and around a sec a lap off in race... and that the other teams will probably have put around about 1-1.2 second on their cars... then Merc *may* be in-around the pace.



***BUT***... it keeps coming back to ambient temperatures for me. They looked great in China last year when it was cold. They look great in Barce this year when it is cold. If it had been 25+degC in Barce this year, then I'd have less trouble believing their runs are representative.

[kilcoo316]

Kilcoo316, aren't you jumping to a few conclusions here?
I don't doubt that under normal conditions perhaps an improvement of ~0.1sec/month is realistic. I would say that this only applies under normal conditions (i.e. car upgrades are an evolution like over a season) but doesn't necessarely apply when there is a fundemental flaw within the car's design.

By the same reasoning, a fundemental flaw can very well cost you 2 seconds of performance - on the other hand, correcting that, could gain you 2 seconds using the same logic. I'm not saying that Mercedes had a fundemental flaw that cost them that exact amount, but it's clear to see that they did have a major tyre deg issue and that the car had stagnated mid season. IMO I wouldn't bet against them that they have indeed corrected fundemental flaws that cost them dearly the last couple of seasons.

Its easier to gain exponentially on a bad car than it is to gain on a good car that is already running very efficient. I do not believe this applies to the Mercedes at all, hence why your metric doesn't entirely add up in this case.

Agreed on all counts.

I am jumping to a few conclusions based on what is out there. There are of course reasons you can argue the other way:

-Yes, Merc burned tyres, whether that impacted their absolute pace or not is another matter (they may have been forced to use very compromised setups to conserve tyres, I don't know either way). That'd be the fundamental flaw we're referencing.
-Yes, they probably moved to the 2013 car a few months ahead of the other teams.
-Yes, some of their later 2012 parts just didn't work.
-The same team has a history of blowing hot and cold from year to year i.e., the 2006 Honda, 2009 Brawn...


But I don't see them making up all that ground in one winter. It would be pretty much a first (outside of reg changes).

[Nando]

Just because they have a track, doesn't mean they're allowed to use it. Ferrari weren't doing any on track tests to improve their car.

I think you might be confusing Mugello with Fiorano.

Mugello is also Ferrari-owned. But I think that Vasconia is referring to the official in-season test at Mugello, rather than an illegal use of testing.

Yes this has been established since the start of the conversation, it was a simple mistake from Bonjon only.

[Richard]

I agree that it is possible Merc have made a step change by throwing last year's design in the bin.

Merc are aiming at a barn door to show improvements, while the top teams can only fine tune tiny details to get improvement. It's a simple principle of diminishing returns,

So yes, it is believable that Merc have significantly closed the gap, but highly unlikely* that they've overtaken top teams who are fettling already optimal designs.

So to get back on topic - Interpreting testing laptimes is s like playing poohsticks or conkers. We have a general impression that some sticks/conker/cars are quicker/harder/faster than others. However, it's only an impression and impressions can be awfully deceptive.

* Caveat ..... unless Merc have got a magic bullet on par with the DDD.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poohsticks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conkers

[Vasconia]

But Mclaren is an unique team doing this, they can have a shitty car and in two weeks make an incredible improvement, the only similar case I have seen in the last seasons was last years Ferrari, but they needed Mugello for this, Mclaren achieved this improvement only with factory/simulation work.

Just because they have a track, doesn't mean they're allowed to use it. Ferrari weren't doing any on track tests to improve their car.

I think you might be confusing Mugello with Fiorano.

I was obviously referring to the official mid-season test made in Mugello. That was an excellent opportunity for Ferrari to indroduce and check some important updates.

[turbof1]

It was a turning point, yes. At the Spanish GP Alonso was the 3th fastest (got promoted to 2) during qualifying and in the race the ferrari was, alongside the williams, the fastest car.

But, I don't think you can just so easily compare mclaren 2011 and ferrari 2012. Ferrari wasn't in concept wrong; the finetuning was off, indeed a consequence from their bad correlation between wind tunnel, cfd and on track data. McLaren downright went down the wrong path and found themselves afterwards having designed a car that very conveniently fitted the red bull EBD solution. In orders words, they did stroke lucky. If they had to redesign the sidepods they would have lost much more time.