2017 F1 general testing thread

[Restomaniac]

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

I would leave it here.
Its all around the same subject and some (like me) may learn a thing or two.

[djos]

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

I would leave it here.
Its all around the same subject and some (like me) may learn a thing or two.

+2 just fine were it is.

[etusch]

Or Honda - if you listen to Eric, it's all their fault anyway...

Just read a mechanic gave Alonso a condolecending pad on the back. Knowing Alonso's patience is running low I wouldn't have risked loosing that hand .

It does look like chaos at McLaren now. Bouillier should keep the rest at all times, not instigating a fire no matter who is to blame.

Did you saw the photo??? The face of Alonso hearing the engineer speaking seems like: "i'm gonna punch this guy in the face".
https://images.scribblelive.com/2017/2/ ... 2d_800.jpg

But I dont know if he knows kung fu

[krisfx]

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?

It could just be that Mercedes are running more fuel... I wouldn't read too much into what he says =D>

[dougskullery]

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?

It could just be that Mercedes are running more fuel... I wouldn't read too much into what he says =D>

A more heavily fuelled Merc with an overdriving Bottas at the wheel would be a likely explanation. And, as has been pointed out many times before, planted-ness isn't the same as speed. But, for the sake of the championship, I hope he's right - a one-horse season with Lewis romping into the distance every race wouldn't be ideal.

[FLuidd]

I watched some of the videos from all 4 days of testing and i get the impression that Mercedes suffers from understeer in tight slow corners due to the higher momentum of inertia caused by the longer wheelbase. In high speed corners Mercedes looks very good and planted.

I expect Mercedes to struggle at Monaco and Suzuka and dominate at Spa and Monza.

Ferrari seems more agile and less twitchy than Mercedes in tight corners, overall Ferrari seems the car that handles best.

[Wass85]

Has anyone seen the footage of the Mercedes nearly losing it at turns 7-8? It looks like Hamilton but I can't quite make out, can anyone confirm this?

[bjuncek]

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!).

a) this is an awesome analysis
b) is there any way one could get their hands on the spreadsheet you mentioned?
I could not scrape the data from @f1debrief

[GPR-A duplicate2]

[*]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.
[*]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.
[*]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.
[*]The cross-over point between a worn 2017 Soft and a fresh 2017 Medium now comes much later, around lap 12.
[*]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.[/list]

It seems you missed a critical point here, the track temperature! Barcelona is a tyre killer in hot summer, when the Race is scheduled, not in colder temperatures of February. You have also failed to understand the race situation where drivers' are running behind each other and destroying tires, unlike in Winter Testing, where they run in a convenient, uninterrupted way. If all or most of your analysis is based on that, then you might have to rework it.

[Just_a_fan]

But, for the sake of the championship, I hope he's right - a one-horse season with Lewis romping into the distance every race wouldn't be ideal.

It would be ok one driver doing so (whichever it is) so long as there is close racing somewhere and the director concentrated on it. If we go back to the processional "races" of yesteryear then it will be very dull indeed.

Testing so far suggests there may be some battles this year. Let's hope that we get to see them and the coverage is up to scratch.

[jonas_linder]

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

I would appreciate it! There is too much opinions in this thread and the good stuff gets lost among it. Especially if you catch up at the end of the day when there are several new pages to browse through!

[jonas_linder]

[*]

It seems you missed a critical point here, the track temperature! Barcelona is a tyre killer in hot summer, when the Race is scheduled, not in colder temperatures of February. You have also failed to understand the race situation where drivers' are running behind each other and destroying tires, unlike in Winter Testing, where they run in a convenient, uninterrupted way. If all or most of your analysis is based on that, then you might have to rework it.

Isn't the comparison with pre-season data from 2016? That is how I read it and in that case I would say it is a fair comparison.

[henra]

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

I would appreciate it! There is too much opinions in this thread and the good stuff gets lost among it. Especially if you catch up at the end of the day when there are several new pages to browse through!

Me too.
Would be also better readable after some time and it would still be of interest as a point of reference.

[turbof1]

[*]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.
[*]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.
[*]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.
[*]The cross-over point between a worn 2017 Soft and a fresh 2017 Medium now comes much later, around lap 12.
[*]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.[/list]

It seems you missed a critical point here, the track temperature! Barcelona is a tyre killer in hot summer, when the Race is scheduled, not in colder temperatures of February. You have also failed to understand the race situation where drivers' are running behind each other and destroying tires, unlike in Winter Testing, where they run in a convenient, uninterrupted way. If all or most of your analysis is based on that, then you might have to rework it.

Dude, there is nothing to rework at this point. There is no 2017 race data, no 2017 practice data. We only had one week of testing now and within that framework he made a comparison with last year's first week testing, which was run in the same conditions, meaning dirty air is omitted, actually just not present, as a variable in both the 2016 and 2017 regressions. Which means you neither to worry about it.

Once we are in Melbourne he will probably make the same comparison for that. Criticism is fine, but it has to make sense. There's no issue with the data he compared, as both data sets have the identical conditions.

For the record, the author has a doctorate in mathematics:
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/about/

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

I would appreciate it! There is too much opinions in this thread and the good stuff gets lost among it. Especially if you catch up at the end of the day when there are several new pages to browse through!

Me too.
Would be also better readable after some time and it would still be of interest as a point of reference.

Right. I know roughly the same people have voiced against it, but I also think these posts are getting lost if they are being kept here. I will open up a separate topic. With strict rules.

[Just_a_fan]

I will open up a separate topic. With strict rules.

Now you're talking =D>