Mansell89 wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 01:06
Open question to the forum:
What do you all tend to look for in testing in terms of understanding relative performance of cars/teams?
As I’ve openly said many times I’m more just a fan of the sport itself as opposed to the science and technicalities behind it, so my knowledge is poor.
I tend not to take times at face value and instead like to watch the video footage of the cars heading through the long flat out right handed (usually where the Sky F1 highlights report from- turn 3 perhaps) for traction and general grip a car seems to have. I always remember seeing Red Bull around 2012 testing and thinking they looked pretty tidy to say the least, without lighting up the time sheets.
Anyway, would be great to hear your views and the little nuances to keep an eye on over the 8 days of testing.
Thanks all.
It's a good question because I, for one, do think you get a reasonable sense of where people stand from testing - although not always easy to put your finger on why you've come to that conclusion. I always think back to the 2011 season where Ferrari seemed strong in testing from all the headline times - and the buzz was that it was close between they and Red Bull - but you just sensed Red Bull had an edge; every time they went out they just seemed to be able to do a competitive time with relative 'ease', and so it proved when the season started and they had a 1 sec advantage on Ferrari.
In these first few days, lots of running is certainly important; I do also think you notice when a time pops up that looks 'easy' - e.g. a car on harder tyres, on a reasonably long run, but reasonably close to others on softer tyres; I think we all saw that last year with the Ferrari in the first test and it immediately made you stand up and pay attention.
Trackside observations are also quite interesting - Gary Anderson, for all his flaws, certainly called the Ferrari as being quick during testing last year and was spot on.