With just two weeks to go before the 2013 Formula One season gets underway in Melbourne, the final four-day test took place in Barcelona, with two days of wet weather followed by two days of dry running. This enabled the teams to sample the entire range of 2013 Pirelli tyres and finally provided conditions representative to racing.
I really think that the engine mapping matter has affected RB, but I don’t know how much, yes, they are faster that these laptimes but I am very doubtful about seeing them in the lap in Australia.Juzh wrote:How much did RB sandbag with their RB7 in testing? Just curious, because we all know what happened that year.
He's not actually predicting the times in Melbourne, but rather, what he attempted was to make a list of the testing result in Barcelona, that gives the pecking-order down to the 0.001. In other words, he's predicting the Melbourne Qualifying grid as by the performances of the drivers in Barcelona.Ganxxta wrote:Prediction to the .001 second?pocketmoon wrote:"The tyre degradation for the Mercedes and the Ferrari looks quite similar,"
They don't to me. Merc fall off is visibly less than Ferrari.
p.s Gary Anderson's promised grid prediction for Aus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21660055
1 Rosberg 1:19.730
2 Button 1:19.764
3 Vettel 1:19.797
4 Hamilton 1:19.886
5 Raikkonen 1:19.968
6 Alonso 1:20.004
etc
Sorry but thats ridiculous, even if its Gary Anderson...
I stopped reading when I watched Pic and Bianchi ahead of Ricciardo. Utopian.Ganxxta wrote:Prediction to the .001 second?pocketmoon wrote:"The tyre degradation for the Mercedes and the Ferrari looks quite similar,"
They don't to me. Merc fall off is visibly less than Ferrari.
p.s Gary Anderson's promised grid prediction for Aus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21660055
1 Rosberg 1:19.730
2 Button 1:19.764
3 Vettel 1:19.797
4 Hamilton 1:19.886
5 Raikkonen 1:19.968
6 Alonso 1:20.004
etc
I stopped reading all these predictions, assumptions, etc. a couple of weeks ago. They're overdoing it at BBC/SKY tbh. They spend tons and tons of time analysing and predicting the times/order, while they have absolutely no idea what the teams REALLY do. I used to like the winter testing to see the technical evolution in F1, but this year it's been absolutely hilarious.SchumiSutil wrote:I stopped reading when I watched Pic and Bianchi ahead of Ricciardo. Utopian.
Had anybody stated numbers down to thousandths? This is ridiculous to any person with half decent scientific/engineering background. It's like if you read in a cookbook "get a piece of beef, splash a bit of oil, add a pinch of salt, roast and you would get a 258 gram steak".Phil wrote:He's not actually predicting the times in Melbourne, but rather, what he attempted was to make a list of the testing result in Barcelona, that gives the pecking-order down to the 0.001. In other words, he's predicting the Melbourne Qualifying grid as by the performances of the drivers in Barcelona.
From what I can gather, he worked out the numbers by normalizing tyres, fuel load and how the track evolved over the days.
Well, if somebody else calculated a lap-times down to thousandths, it would be equally laughable. IIRC most of the "times" I've seen are down to tenths. Which is also not too honest but not quite as much.I guess it really is just pure speculation, playing with numbers and coming to some conclusion that can in no way be accurate, but fun all the same. I don't see them all that different than the more transparent "normalizing" of testing-laptimes others have done in this thread or on other sites, without drawing parallels or far fetched conclusions to the Australian qualifying in less than 2 weeks.
They would. But I doubt their estimates are down to the third digit.Wouldn't the teams actually be doing the same, just doing that with more data, sound analysis, trying to get an impression on where they and the others are?
I don't always trust his technical analysis, he seems way off at times, but I do trust his track side impressions. I do believe him that the car initially looked like it understeered and then snap oversteered out of corners. I also believe him when he said the car looks really good now, which drivers and other track side observers have noted. I expect the Mercedes to be in the top 5 spots on the grid when qualifying. I wouldn't be surprised to see one on the front row.Mika1 wrote:Would love to see a Merc on pole, but we have to be realistic. By the way, I don't take GA serious. He made an u-turn again (Mercedes) just like last year with the MP4-27.
Probably the most salient point in the thread.hendrix wrote:The only thing that seems to be free of doubt is that Pirelli tyres were not designed for this temperature. Then is impossible to say who is going to be at front row in Melbourne and less who is going to have more or less tyre degradation.
And after that doing a good looking long run? Impossible. As Dren said, it isn't one guy who thinks Merc made progress. All the observers made the same comments about Merc.Mysticf1 wrote:Has anyone considered that Merc may have looked good in testing because they are working the tires harder, getting them up to temp and therefore avoiding the graining that has plagued almost everyone?
Not that I am aware of... then again, if it's that big of a bother, just ignore the last digit(s). It's not as if these values or predictions (whatever you want to call them) are ment to be exactly scientific. I can imagine he probably took the lap times, normalized them using a metric he thought to be quite accurate (softer tyre -0.5s / track evolution perhaps a factor of -0.x a day) and ended up with the figures he did and instead of rounding them up - or perhaps putting down a +/- 0.2s as he should have done, he just left them as is, down to the 0.001s. Not exactly the way I would do things on my blog or when writing an article.timbo wrote:Had anybody stated numbers down to thousandths? This is ridiculous to any person with half decent scientific/engineering background.Phil wrote:He's not actually predicting the times in Melbourne, but rather, what he attempted was to make a list of the testing result in Barcelona, that gives the pecking-order down to the 0.001. In other words, he's predicting the Melbourne Qualifying grid as by the performances of the drivers in Barcelona.
From what I can gather, he worked out the numbers by normalizing tyres, fuel load and how the track evolved over the days.
