2017 F1 general testing thread

[FW17]

I wonder why no one is talking about the Hamilton stint in the second test that was some 21 laps on super softs all in the 1'21" bracket

That is way faster than the Vettel stint on mediums which was 1'23" brackets

Also wonder why JAF1 did not consider the same.

[Nuvolari]

Agreed. Can't draw anything firm from the data JA presented. I'm waiting for whatthefat to do his stuff. I'm sure there are a lot more stints that can be analysed from the top teams.

[Mr.G]

Shouldn't this be more likely here - link. IIRC in the article from JA he mentioned he take the fastest simulations for each team/driver...

... In our race plots above (click to enlarge), you can see the relative pace of the cars in action. These are generated using the best long runs of each team during the tests...

[Phil]

I wonder why no one is talking about the Hamilton stint in the second test that was some 21 laps on super softs all in the 1'21" bracket

That is a very good point. I think he didn't take it because it wasn't a full race-sim (?), so it might be hard to pin point how much fuel he was carrying. It's only the (uninterrupted) long runs where the fuel level can be accounted for.

From the JAF1 article, I assume he took the fastest times and those most comparable to one another. I am not sure, but I think the Mercedes was always affected by red-flags during the 2nd week when either driver was on a race-simulation. Since Hamilton was the faster driver, he took the only full race simulation that was available (from the first week).

[giantfan10]

I wonder why no one is talking about the Hamilton stint in the second test that was some 21 laps on super softs all in the 1'21" bracket

That is way faster than the Vettel stint on mediums which was 1'23" brackets

Also wonder why JAF1 did not consider the same.

Because it was not a race simulation
So there were red flags during hamiltons race simulation as there was with kimi's
So a Hamilton's 21 laps on softs was faster than Vettels race simulation stint on mediums and you hold that up as an example of JA not taking the correct data to form his opinion.
The time to come up with implausable excuses is after Australia if Ferrari finishes ahead of Mercedes not after testing
I stand by my earlier opinion that i believe that Ferrari will be competittive with Mercedes in Australia with one caveat: Qualifying mode, if Mercedes is still the only team with the ability to get an extra X amount of horsepower from their engine in qualy and when needed during the race then they will walk away with the championship again

[dans79]

So explain how this unsubstantiated urban legend, which i might add cannot be proven or disproven, affects race simulations.
How does Ferrari get around the fuel required to run a full race simulation in order to run light?

first off, the 30 kg dfifference is not about race simulations, its about regular testing laps.


However, its not hard to mask your performance in a race simulation either. All teams have been doing it in one fashion or another since in season testing was kiboshed.

• In testing teams can run way above the minimum weight if they want to, i.e. more ballast than needed.
• They can run more fuel than needed, nothing is preventing them from carrying 120 or 130 kgs except the capacity of the tank.
• They can limit the engine revs. (in the past people have done audio analysis to determine who and by how much this was done.)
• They can run aero parts optimized for tracks different from Barcelona.
• They can run the engine in a less aggressive mode. (this is probably why we see people in the paddock with laser thermometers)
• The drivers can break earlier and accelerate late.
• The drivers can take sub optimal lines
• etc etc etc

[giantfan10]

So explain how this unsubstantiated urban legend, which i might add cannot be proven or disproven, affects race simulations.
How does Ferrari get around the fuel required to run a full race simulation in order to run light?

first off, the 30 kg dfifference is not about race simulations, its about regular testing laps.


However, its not hard to mask your performance in a race simulation either. All teams have been doing it in one fashion or another since in season testing was kiboshed.

• In testing teams can run way above the minimum weight if they want to, i.e. more ballast than needed.
• They can run more fuel than needed, nothing is preventing them from carrying 120 or 130 kgs except the capacity of the tank.
• They can limit the engine revs. (in the past people have done audio analysis to determine who and by how much this was done.)
• They can run aero parts optimized for tracks different from Barcelona.
• They can run the engine in a less aggressive mode. (this is probably why we see people in the paddock with laser thermometers)
• The drivers can break earlier and accelerate late.
• The drivers can take sub optimal lines
• etc etc etc

I asked a specific question that you are yet to answer.
let me take a guess at what you're trying to say... Mercedes uses one or all of these masking tricks and Ferrari is going full bore with pedal to the metal right?
JA used race sims to come to the conclusion he did .... you decided to add running heavy and /or light in regular testing laps to the discussion . Pretty good job at muddying the water and trying to change the subject =D>
I'm going to end this discussion here. Its pointless.

[kooleracer]

So explain how this unsubstantiated urban legend, which i might add cannot be proven or disproven, affects race simulations.
How does Ferrari get around the fuel required to run a full race simulation in order to run light?

first off, the 30 kg dfifference is not about race simulations, its about regular testing laps.


However, its not hard to mask your performance in a race simulation either. All teams have been doing it in one fashion or another since in season testing was kiboshed.

• In testing teams can run way above the minimum weight if they want to, i.e. more ballast than needed.
• They can run more fuel than needed, nothing is preventing them from carrying 120 or 130 kgs except the capacity of the tank.
• They can limit the engine revs. (in the past people have done audio analysis to determine who and by how much this was done.)
• They can run aero parts optimized for tracks different from Barcelona.
• They can run the engine in a less aggressive mode. (this is probably why we see people in the paddock with laser thermometers)
• The drivers can break earlier and accelerate late.
• The drivers can take sub optimal lines
• etc etc etc

If they do that they aren't testing, the things they suppose to be testing because they need the data themselves in order to find out how the car is doing. Teams are far less likely to sandbag during a race simulation because they need to acquire data to prepare themselves for the start of the season plus they need data for their simulation. Teams often sandbag to mask their ultimate pace and not their race pace. Mercedes doesn't run qualy engine modes during the races unless they need to overtake. The modes Mercedes and most team ran during the race pace is their actual pace. Maybe some teams started with 105kg like Mercdes and others with 95-100kg that is up for debate.

However we have seen in the past that Mercedes free practice 2 long run pace never a good indication of their true pace during the actual race on Sunday. Ferrari and Red Bull always seem closer but on Sunday Mercedes ups the pace and just runs off in the distance. I think that Mercedes fills it up to the brim at races when they even know that they will only need to use 90-95kg. Thats why I am saying that if the gap in race pace between Ferrari and Mercedes seems close in reality Mercedes will be quicker because during the last 3 years that has often been the case.

As off Mercedes sandbagging there is ample proof of that the last 3 years even during the season. We have all seen that Mercedes during Q3 pulls out 6 or 7 tents in some cases even a full second during their ulimate Q3 runs. Therefore their is no reason to think they didn't do the same this test. It has been widely reported that Mercedes did not ran their engine at full power (like many others) but we know from history that the Mercedes qualy mode delta is the biggest compared to Renault and Ferrari. That Vettel and Raikonen lap was maybe to bait Mercedes to also turn up their engine or lower their full level to beat that time, but Mercedes did not respond.

I have seen the 2017 onboards many times and have seen to many onboards during the 2016 season. The only thing i can say is that the Ferrari seemed to be close to full power, while the Mercedes lap from Bottas during testing sounded like an engine that was in race mode. The proof for this is, look at the shifting lights during the pit straight in 8th gear, the engine does not even ref out.

I'm not saying that Ferrari is was running low fuel and max engine power. But from the sound of the engine and body language of the car from that footage it looks like Ferrari was using more power and had less fuel onboard compared to the Bottas lap. That is my opinion its not a fact, just my two cents. From my own amateur analysis I think Mercedes is still well in the lead and the gap of last year might be smaller but much bigger then the 0.2 sec that is floating in the media right now. By the way from the footage the Red Bull is definitely not able to challenge Mercedes or Ferrari. I think that Red Bull needs a huge engine and aero upgrade to challenge those 2.

[Phil]

If they do that they aren't testing, the things they suppose to be testing because they need the data themselves in order to find out how the car is doing.

The way I figure it, is the more sophisticated tools the team has, the more options they have in regards to "performance masking". Why mask performance? I'd say going into this year with all these different aero concepts, there is a big incentive to keep the opposition guessing for as long as possible, especially when the 'magic', the performance differentiator, could be in plain sight.

I agree it would make sense to do the race-simulations with 'real data'. On the other hand, is it absolutely necessary? What is the goal and incentive of the simulation? I would think tire wear is the most crucial part of the test. You would want those 3 stints with realistic fuel (or weight) levels to find out how that weight impacts the wear of the tire. Technically though, you could mask it by going heavier (lets say by 30kgs) by adding ballast. That would mean that the first stint would probably be close to useless as the car would be running in an configuration where the car would be heavier than it ever is on a typical race weekend. One way or another, there would be enough data from other runs to probably get a pretty good estimation on typical tire wear during certain fuel levels.

It all comes down to what the teams want to test. Running the engine under full power over prolonged periods? Add weight/ballast for added strain to the drive-train, the power-unit etc. Tire wear. Handling under different weight loads. etc etc etc.

[Restomaniac]

So explain how this unsubstantiated urban legend, which i might add cannot be proven or disproven, affects race simulations.
How does Ferrari get around the fuel required to run a full race simulation in order to run light?

first off, the 30 kg dfifference is not about race simulations, its about regular testing laps.


However, its not hard to mask your performance in a race simulation either. All teams have been doing it in one fashion or another since in season testing was kiboshed.

• In testing teams can run way above the minimum weight if they want to, i.e. more ballast than needed.
• They can run more fuel than needed, nothing is preventing them from carrying 120 or 130 kgs except the capacity of the tank.
• They can limit the engine revs. (in the past people have done audio analysis to determine who and by how much this was done.)
• They can run aero parts optimized for tracks different from Barcelona.
• They can run the engine in a less aggressive mode. (this is probably why we see people in the paddock with laser thermometers)
• The drivers can break earlier and accelerate late.
• The drivers can take sub optimal lines
• etc etc etc

If they do that they aren't testing, the things they suppose to be testing because they need the data themselves in order to find out how the car is doing. Teams are far less likely to sandbag during a race simulation because they need to acquire data to prepare themselves for the start of the season plus they need data for their simulation. Teams often sandbag to mask their ultimate pace and not their race pace. Mercedes doesn't run qualy engine modes during the races unless they need to overtake. The modes Mercedes and most team ran during the race pace is their actual pace. Maybe some teams started with 105kg like Mercdes and others with 95-100kg that is up for debate.

However we have seen in the past that Mercedes free practice 2 long run pace never a good indication of their true pace during the actual race on Sunday. Ferrari and Red Bull always seem closer but on Sunday Mercedes ups the pace and just runs off in the distance. I think that Mercedes fills it up to the brim at races when they even know that they will only need to use 90-95kg. Thats why I am saying that if the gap in race pace between Ferrari and Mercedes seems close in reality Mercedes will be quicker because during the last 3 years that has often been the case.

As off Mercedes sandbagging there is ample proof of that the last 3 years even during the season. We have all seen that Mercedes during Q3 pulls out 6 or 7 tents in some cases even a full second during their ulimate Q3 runs. Therefore their is no reason to think they didn't do the same this test. It has been widely reported that Mercedes did not ran their engine at full power (like many others) but we know from history that the Mercedes qualy mode delta is the biggest compared to Renault and Ferrari. That Vettel and Raikonen lap was maybe to bait Mercedes to also turn up their engine or lower their full level to beat that time, but Mercedes did not respond.

I have seen the 2017 onboards many times and have seen to many onboards during the 2016 season. The only thing i can say is that the Ferrari seemed to be close to full power, while the Mercedes lap from Bottas during testing sounded like an engine that was in race mode. The proof for this is, look at the shifting lights during the pit straight in 8th gear, the engine does not even ref out.

I'm not saying that Ferrari is was running low fuel and max engine power. But from the sound of the engine and body language of the car from that footage it looks like Ferrari was using more power and had less fuel onboard compared to the Bottas lap. That is my opinion its not a fact, just my two cents. From my own amateur analysis I think Mercedes is still well in the lead and the gap of last year might be smaller but much bigger then the 0.2 sec that is floating in the media right now. By the way from the footage the Red Bull is definitely not able to challenge Mercedes or Ferrari. I think that Red Bull needs a huge engine and aero upgrade to challenge those 2.

I made this very point.

I phrased it as Ferrari collectively threw down the gauntlet and shouted 'Come on then!!!'. Mercedes collectively got up out of their chair, looked at it, shrugged their shoulders, shook their head and just sat back down and ran THEIR testing plan.

[dans79]

If they do that they aren't testing, the things they suppose to be testing because they need the data themselves in order to find out how the car is doing. Teams are far less likely to sandbag during a race simulation because they need to acquire data to prepare themselves for the start of the season plus they need data for their simulation. Teams often sandbag to mask their ultimate pace and not their race pace. Mercedes doesn't run qualy engine modes during the races unless they need to overtake. The modes Mercedes and most team ran during the race pace is their actual pace. Maybe some teams started with 105kg like Mercdes and others with 95-100kg that is up for debate.

it depends what you consider testing. At one point in my life, I spent a substantial amount of time doing essentially this (not for f1 though). I was involved in running real world tests, edge cases, and outside the envelope tests, and then validate that they followed the mathematical predictions (within reason). All the data was used to refine the mathematical models and simulations. in some cases it showed we could stretch the envelope further in some area than the original models predicted we could. Once we felt we learned everything we could, the entire processed started over again.

[dans79]

It all comes down to what the teams want to test. Running the engine under full power over prolonged periods? Add weight/ballast for added strain to the drive-train, the power-unit etc. Tire wear. Handling under different weight loads. etc etc etc.

This!

The teams simple don't have enough time to test every possible configuration, so they are gathering various types of data, that they will then model, fit, and extrapolate from.

[giantfan10]

If they do that they aren't testing, the things they suppose to be testing because they need the data themselves in order to find out how the car is doing. Teams are far less likely to sandbag during a race simulation because they need to acquire data to prepare themselves for the start of the season plus they need data for their simulation. Teams often sandbag to mask their ultimate pace and not their race pace. Mercedes doesn't run qualy engine modes during the races unless they need to overtake. The modes Mercedes and most team ran during the race pace is their actual pace. Maybe some teams started with 105kg like Mercdes and others with 95-100kg that is up for debate.

it depends what you consider testing. At one point in my life, I spent a substantial amount of time doing essentially this (not for f1 though). I was involved in running real world tests, edge cases, and outside the envelope tests, and then validate that they followed the mathematical predictions (within reason). All the data was used to refine the mathematical models and simulations. in some cases it showed we could stretch the envelope further in some area than the original models predicted we could. Once we felt we learned everything we could, the entire processed started over again.

BUT to make a point in your favor : ) as far as masking pace.. team X has all the data needed to run in engine mode Y and absolutely predict what their lap time and tire deg would be in engine mode Z.
Which brings us back to the fact that this is nothing but a guessing game with guesses slanted in the direction of the team you are a fan of ... 10 more days SMH cmon Australia!

[kooleracer]

If they do that they aren't testing, the things they suppose to be testing because they need the data themselves in order to find out how the car is doing.

The way I figure it, is the more sophisticated tools the team has, the more options they have in regards to "performance masking". Why mask performance? I'd say going into this year with all these different aero concepts, there is a big incentive to keep the opposition guessing for as long as possible, especially when the 'magic', the performance differentiator, could be in plain sight.

I agree it would make sense to do the race-simulations with 'real data'. On the other hand, is it absolutely necessary? What is the goal and incentive of the simulation? I would think tire wear is the most crucial part of the test. You would want those 3 stints with realistic fuel (or weight) levels to find out how that weight impacts the wear of the tire. Technically though, you could mask it by going heavier (lets say by 30kgs) by adding ballast. That would mean that the first stint would probably be close to useless as the car would be running in an configuration where the car would be heavier than it ever is on a typical race weekend. One way or another, there would be enough data from other runs to probably get a pretty good estimation on typical tire wear during certain fuel levels.

It all comes down to what the teams want to test. Running the engine under full power over prolonged periods? Add weight/ballast for added strain to the drive-train, the power-unit etc. Tire wear. Handling under different weight loads. etc etc etc.

2017 is different though, new aero regs, new tires. Teams only have 8 days to collect data and work on setup. There is no team during testing that is trying to sabotage its own data collection, because they are scared that other teams will find out their true pace. Because, there is no way to find out a teams true pace because only they know the fuel loads, engine modes, tire pressures, tire life. So there is no need to waste your time masking your pace. That is why every team principal repeat themselves by saying we are just focusing on our program, because the truth is you will learn nothing from looking at the opposition this moment in time. So handicapping yourself with ballast is definitely not happening because you are only hampering your own data collection and muddying your own data sample by inserting more variables.

Mercedes uses 60kg as base line, if Ferrari is running less or more it is not because Ferrari or any other team for that matter is sandbagging or running less to look quicker, its because they want to compare their data with older data which was run on the same loads.

[SR71]

first off, the 30 kg dfifference is not about race simulations, its about regular testing laps.


However, its not hard to mask your performance in a race simulation either. All teams have been doing it in one fashion or another since in season testing was kiboshed.

• In testing teams can run way above the minimum weight if they want to, i.e. more ballast than needed.
• They can run more fuel than needed, nothing is preventing them from carrying 120 or 130 kgs except the capacity of the tank.
• They can limit the engine revs. (in the past people have done audio analysis to determine who and by how much this was done.)
• They can run aero parts optimized for tracks different from Barcelona.
• They can run the engine in a less aggressive mode. (this is probably why we see people in the paddock with laser thermometers)
• The drivers can break earlier and accelerate late.
• The drivers can take sub optimal lines
• etc etc etc

If they do that they aren't testing, the things they suppose to be testing because they need the data themselves in order to find out how the car is doing. Teams are far less likely to sandbag during a race simulation because they need to acquire data to prepare themselves for the start of the season plus they need data for their simulation. Teams often sandbag to mask their ultimate pace and not their race pace. Mercedes doesn't run qualy engine modes during the races unless they need to overtake. The modes Mercedes and most team ran during the race pace is their actual pace. Maybe some teams started with 105kg like Mercdes and others with 95-100kg that is up for debate.

However we have seen in the past that Mercedes free practice 2 long run pace never a good indication of their true pace during the actual race on Sunday. Ferrari and Red Bull always seem closer but on Sunday Mercedes ups the pace and just runs off in the distance. I think that Mercedes fills it up to the brim at races when they even know that they will only need to use 90-95kg. Thats why I am saying that if the gap in race pace between Ferrari and Mercedes seems close in reality Mercedes will be quicker because during the last 3 years that has often been the case.

As off Mercedes sandbagging there is ample proof of that the last 3 years even during the season. We have all seen that Mercedes during Q3 pulls out 6 or 7 tents in some cases even a full second during their ulimate Q3 runs. Therefore their is no reason to think they didn't do the same this test. It has been widely reported that Mercedes did not ran their engine at full power (like many others) but we know from history that the Mercedes qualy mode delta is the biggest compared to Renault and Ferrari. That Vettel and Raikonen lap was maybe to bait Mercedes to also turn up their engine or lower their full level to beat that time, but Mercedes did not respond.

I have seen the 2017 onboards many times and have seen to many onboards during the 2016 season. The only thing i can say is that the Ferrari seemed to be close to full power, while the Mercedes lap from Bottas during testing sounded like an engine that was in race mode. The proof for this is, look at the shifting lights during the pit straight in 8th gear, the engine does not even ref out.

I'm not saying that Ferrari is was running low fuel and max engine power. But from the sound of the engine and body language of the car from that footage it looks like Ferrari was using more power and had less fuel onboard compared to the Bottas lap. That is my opinion its not a fact, just my two cents. From my own amateur analysis I think Mercedes is still well in the lead and the gap of last year might be smaller but much bigger then the 0.2 sec that is floating in the media right now. By the way from the footage the Red Bull is definitely not able to challenge Mercedes or Ferrari. I think that Red Bull needs a huge engine and aero upgrade to challenge those 2.

I made this very point.

I phrased it as Ferrari collectively threw down the gauntlet and shouted 'Come on then!!!'. Mercedes collectively got up out of their chair, looked at it, shrugged their shoulders, shook their head and just sat back down and ran THEIR testing plan.

Completely disagree, didnt look like Ferrari was actually trying to be fastest. Just the way it turned out. They were running THEIR testing plan.

Not sure I'd use that lap to describe Ferrari's ultimate pace - that goes for every team up and down the grid. Nobody showed their hand. I'm not saying that's a fact, it's just that it is.