Robert Kubica is leaving winter testing downbeat, having seen his schedule on Friday being cut short by excessive wear on car parts for which the team did not have spares.
Stringing together the three fastest sectors doesn't mean it's the fastest possible lap. In the end the only thing you can look at it lap time. Many tracts in the calendar force a driver to set up the car in a compromising way to achieve that total lap time.
Of course they were pushing. The question is with how much engine power (mapping) and how much fuel. Then there are also tires and set-up to take into account. They could have been pushing relative to a longer stint (aka race stint) or a QF sim (doubtful given the weight). I assume Anderson was reporting on what looks like drivers being on the limit within what the current package allows (fuel, setup, tires etc).Wynters wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 15:17Anderson seems to be pretty certain that the times Mercedes were posting yesterday are a very accurate representation of the best the drivers could get out of it.Phil wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 14:54I think it's intriguing, especially given the differences in aero philosophies that Ferrari (and more so Sauber/Alfa) has gone in a very different direction than Mercedes and somewhat RedBull has. The big question here is, if Mercedes have got it wrong and missed a beat or not. If they have (or Ferrari have), it won't be as easy to change.
"The car is where the car is and the driver's can't make up for much."
I assume he's trolling. They may well not have the fastest car, but I suspect it's unlikely that Bottas and Hamilton were ringing the neck of the car on Day 1.
All you have to do is start a sentence with “Anderson says/thinks etc.” and we know how much faith to put in it. Another person who thought last year’s Ferrari wasn’t fast btw.Wynters wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 15:17Anderson seems to be pretty certain that the times Mercedes were posting yesterday are a very accurate representation of the best the drivers could get out of it.Phil wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 14:54I think it's intriguing, especially given the differences in aero philosophies that Ferrari (and more so Sauber/Alfa) has gone in a very different direction than Mercedes and somewhat RedBull has. The big question here is, if Mercedes have got it wrong and missed a beat or not. If they have (or Ferrari have), it won't be as easy to change.
"The car is where the car is and the driver's can't make up for much."
I assume he's trolling. They may well not have the fastest car, but I suspect it's unlikely that Bottas and Hamilton were ringing the neck of the car on Day 1.
I know it doesn’t mean fastest possible but it means peaking at the right moment, maximising what he is capable of; it’s not my impression that Seb did that last year as he final runs were often not an improvement, but the stats suggest that he didn’t throw away a lot of good laps with fast first sectors, for example.
Maybe they're aiming to perfect their qualifying and max-attack abilities? Could be they have a good idea of fuel loads from internal testing at Maranello or wherever. Or maybe they're doing everything in reverse.JPBD1990 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 16:00People have made a big deal of Mercedes testing program, but personally I don’t understand ferrari’s. I can’t percieve of any possible benefit of just coming straight out and spanking lap times so early. Also different to their 2018 strategy (from memory).
Can anyone speculate? Wouldn’t they just want to get a baseline of the cars aero performance first and foremost? How could introducing a whole lot of different fuel loads so early... help?
Ps I’m a Ferrari fan so don’t attack me as if I’m saying it’s wrong... just trying to learn.
Years ago, when BrawnGP was dominating pre-season testings, everyone said they ran light because it was for them to get attention for possible sponsors. But later it was clear they were just fast...JPBD1990 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 16:00People have made a big deal of Mercedes testing program, but personally I don’t understand ferrari’s. I can’t percieve of any possible benefit of just coming straight out and spanking lap times so early. Also different to their 2018 strategy (from memory).
Can anyone speculate? Wouldn’t they just want to get a baseline of the cars aero performance first and foremost? How could introducing a whole lot of different fuel loads so early... help?
Ps I’m a Ferrari fan so don’t attack me as if I’m saying it’s wrong... just trying to learn.
If I were doing part comparisons and testing various aspects of a new design, I don't think I'd be pushing super hard all the time (or, at all on the first day) because then the driver becomes a significant factor. If the drivers are both driving within themselves, to a Delta perhaps, then their performance is pretty much removed from that comparison, no? That would seem to be better for establishing a starting baseline of actual car performance, wouldn't it?Phil wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 15:47Of course they were pushing. The question is with how much engine power (mapping) and how much fuel. Then there are also tires and set-up to take into account. They could have been pushing relative to a longer stint (aka race stint) or a QF sim (doubtful given the weight). I assume Anderson was reporting on what looks like drivers being on the limit within what the current package allows (fuel, setup, tires etc).
08:00 Long run snippets: We saw Leclerc's first run of the afternoon start in the 1m23s on C2s before drifting way out to the 1m27s before he made a mistake and came in. Bottas put in a very interesting run that was consistently in the 1m21s on the softer C3s - but crucially we don't know how their fuel loads compared. We've also heard from Daniel Ricciardo that he was happy in the morning with the Renault being able to lap around the low 1m23s and high 1m22s. Meanwhile, right now we have Norris circulating very consistently in the 1m26s, using C2 tyres on the McLaren. It seems unlikely all three of Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault would run lighter than McLaren, so is that bad news for the British team?
