- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
On the back of his first pole position last weekend, Mercedes driver Valtteri Bottas topped the second day of in-season testing at Sakhir. The Finn ejoyed a trouble-free day and completed a massive 143 laps.
Neither to both, you?sAx wrote:Are you trying to impress yourself with some new found wisdom, or just new to F1?Wass85 wrote:Exactly so lets look at the facts, Bottas was quicker than Hamilton on slower tyres.turbof1 wrote: Could, would, should. Let's simply stop speculating about it. There's no point in it. Just stop.
All will be revealed very shortly in Melbourne.
Roll your eyes in you want, but the fact that teams run different fuel loads has rung pretty true over the years.Sevach wrote:
The idea that the teams are always at a certain fuel level
The laptime and the footage all point to Ferrari having a great car, all the evidence is there in testing. Of course that doesn't mean they will dominate like Mercedes have done for the last few years, I just hope the top 3 are close.Phil wrote:He does. I think the problem most are having with your posts, Wass85, is that you seem to be taking it for granted that this and that time are comparable or derived under a specific set of circumstances (e.g. little fuel, close to qualifying spec).Wass85 wrote:Vettel looks on fire, I think Ferrari's pace is genuine. I hope for the sports sake they are a match for Mercedes. I still don't understand why they are doing a lot of running on the medium tyre though.
The truth is: We don't know.
But therein lies the fun in it. We are following this testing and trying to make some sense of it by analyzing the lap times, the sector times and the circumstance in which they took place. In addition, there are people here trying to link those specific times to on-board footage to methodically analyze how the car was driven during that lap.
Simply looking at a lap time without context is meaningless. To understand under what circumstance it took place, we need to look for example how many laps followed on that specific run. For example: if Hamilton did a 1:20.5 on a specific lap and then later continued to do 20 laps on that same tire without going into the pits, we know that the lap time was done with
1:20.5 = x + 20 laps (wherein x is the amount of fuel)
Knowing how much each kg of fuel corresponds to lap time is also more or less given too, but not exact science, certainly not with this year and new regulation, new cars etc. But it can give us a ballpark figure for analysis sake.
What we however don't know is engine mapping. A driver could be pushing 100% but with the engine in a slightly detuned mode. Might look sincere from the on-board footage (driver pushing, braking late, full throttle early) but that doesn't mean the car is driving at its full potential.
I think the point of this long post is, is that teams are testing all sorts of things at this test. It makes little sense for them to post quickest times just for the fun of it. Some of them might be doing it openly, either to try to impress Sponsors (or gain new ones), while others might be more interested in masking that performance. As an example: Imagine what would be if William had the quickest car. If they would post times no other team thought they could achieve, the other teams would be closely watching or analyzing their car in trying to understand what they are doing differently. Same applies to RedBull. They are going through great lengths to mask their advantage. Right now, some believe Ferrari is competitive, while RedBull is lacking. Everyone is expecting that RedBull to increase in (aero) complexity. Maybe they are just fooling us; Maybe, RedBull has build the most efficient car by going simple and by masking their pace, people aren't looking at them closely enough and rather concentrating on Ferrari?
There are many reasons. Many failed to understand why the RedBull was so dominant from 2010 to 2013. They remained so dominant because they were able to hide their advantage (the sum of what the car did well). Similarly 2014 to 2016. Everyone just assumes that Mercedes simply has the best PU. It does. But there is more to it, or else, Williams and ForceIndia (also Mercedes powered) would have been much better too. It's the sum of all parts.
It's why in 2013, RedBull rarely showed its full pace. The aim was to win, but win in the slowest possible way. I think Singapore 2013 was one of those very rare races when Vettel had none of it and blasted through the race with shocking pace (and possibly revealed what made that RedBull so quick).
Nope.PhillipM wrote:All the evidence was there in testing lap year too.
Not at all, I can't remember any comments about the Ferrari looking the best on track and being the most planted.PhillipM wrote:All the evidence was there in testing last year too. That went well.
It wouldn't be a 'race sim' if they started light on fueldanielk wrote:Question will be is do Ferrari do 66 Laps on their race sim? or did they start light on fuel?
Go back and look at the 2016 testing threads, they're all on here. There was the exact same pointless raving about laptimes then, and how good the car looked, and how good it was on tyres.Wass85 wrote:Not at all, I can't remember any comments about the Ferrari looking the best on track and being the most planted.PhillipM wrote:All the evidence was there in testing last year too. That went well.
