2017 F1 general testing thread

[Kalsi]

Hamilton barcelona 2017 onboard lap

[supermarine]

I think that adding more aero to the equation will make the racing worse but the new tyres will make it better, it will be interesting to see where we end up. With the cars being more draggy I imagine that IF a driver can get into the slipstream of the car in front the reduction in drag ought to be more significant than previously, which should help overtaking

[SR71]

Max seems to think overtaking won't be any harder.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/02/28/o ... erstappen/

[bjuncek]

I'm sorry if this was already posted here, but I was wondering if there is any comprehensive dataset (teams, fuel status, tires, lap times, etc.) from the testing for a data nerd to play around with?

[CBeck113]

Good first test though, am I right? Ferrari looking strong, Merc probably on top - Red bull going to be somewhere in the mix? Exciting cars, fast times, what's not to love?

Oh no! You just had to open that can of worms .

I have to be honest, I haven't fell this excited about F1 in years. Even if racing is going to be worse (not saying it will be necessarily, we'll have to see about that in Melbourne), it still can't ruin it for me as we finally have some actual development on those cars.

Mark my words: the racing won't be worse. The cars will be able to drive closer, at least through the slower corners, but at higher speeds than the previous years, so we'll finally have bumper-to-bumper fights again, especially if Ferrari and RB have caught Merc. Through the different design philosophies I can imagine that each car will be faster on certain tracks, adding more excitement (as long as the differences aren't too big).

[Just_a_fan]

This is all interesting but WTF has any of it got to do with the tests? And why is a mod joining in an off topic discussion? If you want to discuss Hamilton's motivation and team relationship then do it in the team topic.

[turbof1]

This is all interesting but WTF has any of it got to do with the tests? And why is a mod joining in an off topic discussion? If you want to discuss Hamilton's motivation and team relationship then do it in the team topic.

I think it is on topic since it is about yesterday's testing day and why Hamilton preferred not to run?

I do understand that frustration btw as there is little talk about the actual running on track, but should that be really surprising after the poor show we saw yesterday?

[SparkyAMG]

This is all interesting but WTF has any of it got to do with the tests? And why is a mod joining in an off topic discussion? If you want to discuss Hamilton's motivation and team relationship then do it in the team topic.

I think it is on topic since it is about yesterday's testing day and why Hamilton preferred not to run?

I do understand that frustration btw as there is little talk about the actual running on track, but should that be really surprising after the poor show we saw yesterday?

I usually agree with all the modding decisions but honestly I came in here expecting to read details and anecdotes about the cars and comparisons in performance throughout yesterday's wet session... not a discussion about Hamilton's motivation and his involvement in historic tyre tests. Surely that belongs in the Mercedes team thread?

[turbof1]

Ok, I'll move that discussion to the team thread.

Anyway:

Completed Laps overview

http://i.imgur.com/lOHb3IT.png

Nothing too surprising, although interestingly Toro Rosso ran less than McLaren.

Mercedes and Ferrari are very close to the projected 600 laps without a PU change, so the longetivity needed for this season is there.

[Restomaniac]

This is all interesting but WTF has any of it got to do with the tests? And why is a mod joining in an off topic discussion? If you want to discuss Hamilton's motivation and team relationship then do it in the team topic.

I think it is on topic since it is about yesterday's testing day and why Hamilton preferred not to run?

I do understand that frustration btw as there is little talk about the actual running on track, but should that be really surprising after the poor show we saw yesterday?

I usually agree with all the modding decisions but honestly I came in here expecting to read details and anecdotes about the cars and comparisons in performance throughout yesterday's wet session... not a discussion about Hamilton's motivation and his involvement in historic tyre tests. Surely that belongs in the Mercedes team thread?

I don't think you can gather anything by it at all.
Some team did it, others ticked it, some hardly did it at all.
Both Kimi and Hamilton said it was pretty much pointless (Just 24 hours apart) and I think they were both right.

[Wass85]

From what I've seen of the footage the Ferrari looked more planted than the Mercedes, Gary Anderson has mentioned this. Has anybody on here been to the test?

[turbof1]

Let's bring this back up as it got drowned in the Hamilton discussion:

Author of f1metrics here. I've been doing some analysis of long runs for a pre-season f1metrics post, as I did last year. I just thought I'd share some interesting results so far, as a sort of preview.

Ideally, for testing, you want to examine long runs, rather than individual lap times, if you're hoping to learn about true pace. The reason for this is that individual lap times can be set under many different configurations (tyres, fuel, set-up, weather), and can be easily masked (e.g., if drivers back off in the last sector). In long runs, teams are usually running something closer to a race simulation, which can give better insights. I've been able to obtain some long stint data both for 2016 and 2017, mostly from @f1debrief on Twitter.

The main difficulty in comparing long runs is that they may be set at different fuel loads, and the difference between a long run done on full tanks and on a last-stint fuel load can be up to about 3 seconds. By careful analysis, however, it's possible to anchor some of these stints, e.g., by finding those that were set at a start of race fuel load and working from there.

This is essentially what I did for race simulations run by Ferrari and Mercedes. I first cleaned any outlier laps out of the runs (defined as any laps that are at least 1.5 seconds slower than the lap on either side), as these are usually due to traffic or other issues. I then fuel-corrected each lap in each stint, by calculating the equivalent time on full fuel tanks. For Barcelona, I'm finding a cost of ~0.06 sec per lap of fuel, which sounds about right given it was 0.09 sec in 2013, and the cars use about 2/3 as much fuel per lap these days].

I'm not yet at the point of comparing Mercedes and Ferrari's pace, but I can already say some interesting things about tyre degradation.

http://i.imgur.com/gTOiJYL.png

The fitted lines for each tyre compounds are quadratic functions, using a least-squares fit to the data.

Some key points to note:

1. 2017 times on race stints are averaging ~4-5 seconds per lap quicker than in 2016.
2. The 2016 Soft compound tended to degrade very quickly (especially at Barcelona, which is a tyre killer), resulting in a clearly nonlinear progression in lap times.
3. Within about 5 laps, this resulted in a cross-over point between lap times on a worn 2016 Soft and a fresh 2016 Medium. This was strategically important, because it allowed drivers to pit at that point onto a fresh medium tyre to attempt an undercut. Depending on the circuit, this cross-over point tended to occur around 5-15 laps into a stint.
4. Degradation rates for both the 2017 compounds are lower and much closer to linear. Based on data so far, the 2017 Soft compound degrades just slightly quicker than the 2017 Medium -- there is nothing like the difference in wear rates between compounds seen in 2016. The 2016 Medium could become faster than the 2016 Soft after a while, due to different degradation rates. The 2017 Medium seems to start slower and stay slower, at least over the range examined so far.
5. The cross-over point between a worn 2017 Soft and a fresh 2017 Medium now comes much later, around lap 12.
6. The relative benefit for an extra pit-stop is now also much smaller, meaning we should expect fewer pit-stops (somewhat stating the obvious). As a rule of thumb, a pit-stop costs around a net 20-25 seconds these day, due to the low pit speed limits. Making that up on tyres that lose ~0.08 sec per lap in 2017 is going to be challenging compared to making that up on tyres that were losing ~0.13 sec per lap in 2016.

There will be more detailed analysis in the blog when I have everything together after the second test, including a direct comparison of tyre degradation to the 2010 Bridgestones (I found some old testing data at Barcelona, including full race simulations!).

First off: awesome post! Thanks for the effort =D> .

Some things I noted before reading your own findings below the graphic:
1) The 2017 soft tyre regression shows a lot less variance. The 2016 tyre clearly had a cliff built in, or otherwise was unsuited for the cold Barcelona track.
2) Obviously the times are faster, but as you cannot filter out the effects of the aerodynamics it is difficult to appropiate how much is due to the tyres.
3) The 2017 medium and soft tyres have a very similar and lineair wear pattern. I believe the 2016 soft tyre had a wider operating window and thus might have been an entirely different compound altogether. The consistency between the 2017 ones makes me think they are very similar with just a step in softness.
4) The 2017 medium tyre regression shows a flatter curve compared to its 2016 counterpart, meaning they wear off less over time.
5) Just going from these 2017 regressions, the medium tyre seems to be inferior in every way to the soft tyre. There's no drop off in the soft tyre and its wear pattern is almost equal to the medium one. On top of that, unless you feature in a step between compound choices, there's no possible combination throughout the season where the medium tyre is an option while the soft tyre is not. In plain english: any race featuring the medium tyre will also feature the soft tyre. You'll end up seeing teams perhaps running the medium tyre at the very end for a lap or 2 as the soft tyre as they are forced to, or otherwise running the super soft, ultra soft or hard tyre.

[Wass85]

Very interesting, I believe they should drop the different compounds and just use the one throughout the season, that way they can get on top of the variation and up the consistency.

[Restomaniac]

Let's bring this back up as it got drowned in the Hamilton discussion:

Author of f1metrics here. I've been doing some analysis of long runs for a pre-season f1metrics post, as I did last year. I just thought I'd share some interesting results so far, as a sort of preview.

Ideally, for testing, you want to examine long runs, rather than individual lap times, if you're hoping to learn about true pace. The reason for this is that individual lap times can be set under many different configurations (tyres, fuel, set-up, weather), and can be easily masked (e.g., if drivers back off in the last sector). In long runs, teams are usually running something closer to a race simulation, which can give better insights. I've been able to obtain some long stint data both for 2016 and 2017, mostly from @f1debrief on Twitter.

The main difficulty in comparing long runs is that they may be set at different fuel loads, and the difference between a long run done on full tanks and on a last-stint fuel load can be up to about 3 seconds. By careful analysis, however, it's possible to anchor some of these stints, e.g., by finding those that were set at a start of race fuel load and working from there.

This is essentially what I did for race simulations run by Ferrari and Mercedes. I first cleaned any outlier laps out of the runs (defined as any laps that are at least 1.5 seconds slower than the lap on either side), as these are usually due to traffic or other issues. I then fuel-corrected each lap in each stint, by calculating the equivalent time on full fuel tanks. For Barcelona, I'm finding a cost of ~0.06 sec per lap of fuel, which sounds about right given it was 0.09 sec in 2013, and the cars use about 2/3 as much fuel per lap these days].

I'm not yet at the point of comparing Mercedes and Ferrari's pace, but I can already say some interesting things about tyre degradation.

http://i.imgur.com/gTOiJYL.png

The fitted lines for each tyre compounds are quadratic functions, using a least-squares fit to the data.

Some key points to note:

1. 2017 times on race stints are averaging ~4-5 seconds per lap quicker than in 2016.
2. The 2016 Soft compound tended to degrade very quickly (especially at Barcelona, which is a tyre killer), resulting in a clearly nonlinear progression in lap times.
3. Within about 5 laps, this resulted in a cross-over point between lap times on a worn 2016 Soft and a fresh 2016 Medium. This was strategically important, because it allowed drivers to pit at that point onto a fresh medium tyre to attempt an undercut. Depending on the circuit, this cross-over point tended to occur around 5-15 laps into a stint.
4. Degradation rates for both the 2017 compounds are lower and much closer to linear. Based on data so far, the 2017 Soft compound degrades just slightly quicker than the 2017 Medium -- there is nothing like the difference in wear rates between compounds seen in 2016. The 2016 Medium could become faster than the 2016 Soft after a while, due to different degradation rates. The 2017 Medium seems to start slower and stay slower, at least over the range examined so far.
5. The cross-over point between a worn 2017 Soft and a fresh 2017 Medium now comes much later, around lap 12.
6. The relative benefit for an extra pit-stop is now also much smaller, meaning we should expect fewer pit-stops (somewhat stating the obvious). As a rule of thumb, a pit-stop costs around a net 20-25 seconds these day, due to the low pit speed limits. Making that up on tyres that lose ~0.08 sec per lap in 2017 is going to be challenging compared to making that up on tyres that were losing ~0.13 sec per lap in 2016.

There will be more detailed analysis in the blog when I have everything together after the second test, including a direct comparison of tyre degradation to the 2010 Bridgestones (I found some old testing data at Barcelona, including full race simulations!).

First off: awesome post! Thanks for the effort =D> .

Some things I noted before reading your own findings below the graphic:
1) The 2017 soft tyre regression shows a lot less variance. The 2016 tyre clearly had a cliff built in, or otherwise was unsuited for the cold Barcelona track.
2) Obviously the times are faster, but as you cannot filter out the effects of the aerodynamics it is difficult to appropiate how much is due to the tyres.
3) The 2017 medium and soft tyres have a very similar and lineair wear pattern. I believe the 2016 soft tyre had a wider operating window and thus might have been an entirely different compound altogether. The consistency between the 2017 ones makes me think they are very similar with just a step in softness.
4) The 2017 medium tyre regression shows a flatter curve compared to its 2016 counterpart, meaning they wear off less over time.
5) Just going from these 2017 regressions, the medium tyre seems to be inferior in every way to the soft tyre. There's no drop off in the soft tyre and its wear pattern is almost equal to the medium one. On top of that, unless you feature in a step between compound choices, there's no possible combination throughout the season where the medium tyre is an option while the soft tyre is not. In plain english: any race featuring the medium tyre will also feature the soft tyre. You'll end up seeing teams perhaps running the medium tyre at the very end for a lap or 2 as the soft tyre as they are forced to, or otherwise running the super soft, ultra soft or hard tyre.

Indeed.

Having a cross over point of 5 laps from the soft to the med and having the softs pretty much dead after 10 laps in 2016 was quite simply insane.

It's looking like 10 seconds is now the cross over point but with the softs having a far larger life span. I would say that gives teams REAL options this year but it does kind of make the Medium redundant.

[turbof1]

What do you guys think about a separate, statistical/mathematical testing topic?