Pre-Season Winter testing : 2014 Season

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Artist..... That's what I love about forums, be sincere enough, or polite enough, or enough of a gentleman to admit a very small error and some pratt sees fit to grind you down further or to belittle you to make their poorly judged point. I stand by my comment based on very reliable sources that Williams were on low fuel qualifying runs and had been low fuel performance testing for the entire day.

The reason why I responded in the way I did is that you are presenting supposition as FACTS. It's very annoying for everyone. Particularly when you argue when others suggest we just might not know! Personally, I'm not arrogant enough to suggest that I know exactly what's going on...
 
Mephistopheles . These are completely new cars leaving the teams with a huge learning curve, they can't hope to learn if they're sandbagging unlike the last few years when they had good knowledge of their cars behavior and the way it was likely to react to changes.

I don't know if you see the irony in this point- the timeline of your argument goes something like this
  1. Only Massa did a low fuel qualifying run
  2. Ok Rosberg also might have
  3. EVERYONE did a low fuel qualifying run
Do you see why that complete change of position might annoy people? It feels as if you're taking a contrary position on anything anyone says- irrespective of the merits of the argument!
 
The Artist..... No I don't.

1. I corrected myself regarding Rosberg's Qualifying runs
2. I didn't comment on any of the other teams
3. I think its fair to assume when any of the teams sent their drivers out on the softs or supersofts they would have undoubtedly been trying to gain data of their cars performance when its being pushed nearer its limits, though I never suggested any of the other teams did low fuel runs, though I think we can safely assume they would have.

My statement of fact regarding Massa's low fuel run in the Williams was a statement of fact because the information came from the Williams garage. I thought I had been very clear on that in my original posting, obviously not.
I haven't noticed being offside with anyone other than you.
 
There is no reason why a team would not send out a car on super-softs with a full load of fuel. It is quite likely that this is precisely what teams do at the start of a GP. They are also likely to have sent the cars out on last stint fuel and also with qualifying fuel.
 
One key reason the Mercedes engine is so better sorted is it was developed in conjunction with the gearbox. The Ferrari and Renault engines were not. The first time engine and bag o' gears were mated was when they were installed in the cars. Which essentially has reduced those teams to beta-testers.

But I'm not so convinced the Mercedes will be unbeatable, even at Melbourne. Arguments surrounding tire compounds and fuel loads aside, as far as I know no one outside the teams themselves has any idea if or when any testing was being conducted with "qualy power" or when they were adhering to the 0.45 litre/km race limit. It stands to reason that they would want to stress the cars as much as possible and as often as possible during testing, so I am inclined to believe they primarily would have used "qualy power." Who can say how fast the Mercedes is when running at race-pace fuel consumption? They might well dominate qualies but the whole rationale for the 100kg race fuel load limit was to make brake specific fuel consumption the key to victory. To this point, I do not think we have any evidence that Mercedes (nor anyone else) are dominating in that category.

Which is another reason I yet see hope for Red Bull (provided they can get that damned Renault lump sorted). RBR have strung together four consecutive WCCs with a car that clearly was neither as powerful nor as fast as most of the competition, yet it lapped quicker. Newey's designs excel at efficiency. And the RB10 already shows flashes of brilliance. They're still running a more exaggerated chassis rake than all the other teams, and paddock buzz already holds they remain the downforce kings.

From the F1 Times,
Jenson Button witnessed the RB10's downforce advantage during testing and, whilst he questioned their straight-line speed, he was under no illusion that the car has potential.

"I was driving with [Daniel] Ricciardo for quite a few laps and he couldn't get past me on the straights," explained the McLaren driver.

"He overtook me around the outside of turn 11 instead, which is a high-speed left-hander. I've never seen anything like that before."

Even if Red Bull should come away from Oz and Malaysia completely pointless, it would only take seven race wins to more than recover from those losses and put them back on top in WCC. That would be an absurd ask, except that Vettel comes into Melbourne on a winning streak of NINE. I don't think it is a matter of IF they will return to dominance, I think it is a matter of WHEN, and whether that return comes with sufficient races remaining for them to take another WCC.

The greatest irony of all is that the rules tweak that Bernie dreamt up to keep us all on tenterhooks through the final race by preventing him running away with the title might well be what gives Vettel the boost he needs to take WDC #5.
 
Last edited:
I have two comments Blog Zbod :

1) Williams are still using their own gearbox and they're looking pretty good, so I'm not sure that a big chunk of Mercedes' advantage is coming from there.

2) When the teams have been performing race simulations they surely will have been adhering to the fuel restrictions. How much, and the best way to, fuel save is one of the most important things that the teams could have learnt from testing.

I agree that I wouldn't even consider writing anyone off at this point though. After the first 5 races we can probably have a half decent idea of where the season is going, but even then this season is likely to be very unpredictable. Frankly, I might even be more surprised if Red Bull don't end the year with the fastest car than if they do, even now after seeing testing.
 
I have two comments Blog Zbod :

1) Williams are still using their own gearbox and they're looking pretty good, so I'm not sure that a big chunk of Mercedes' advantage is coming from there....
The point being the Mercedes engine was not developed in a vacuum. It was no stranger to external vibrations and RFI and other "distractions," and would have been better able to cope, right out of the box.

...2) When the teams have been performing race simulations they surely will have been adhering to the fuel restrictions. How much, and the best way to, fuel save is one of the most important things that the teams could have learnt from testing....
To finish first, you must first finish. I would have thought the most important thing to learn at this juncture was whether you could make the engine last the race's distance. That end is best served by flogging it sans merci as often as possible. They can learn everything they need to know about fuel consumption rates in Melbourne's FP1.
 
Last edited:
An interesting point Blog Zbod, and one which I was toying with on Friday, in the final test of the year before race one why not run a motor until it pops to see what the tolerances are? This gives me even more faith in the Mercedes mill since they've got loads of miles in with engine failures happening only after high mileage.
 
Blog Zbod ….. Can you explain Ferrari's situation. They designed their own engine and their own gearbox. Surly during the design process they made sure the two were complimentary.
 
Blog Zbod We know that the likes of Mercedes and several others completed "proper" race simulations without refuelling, at least that's what I'm led to believe. If they are completing a race distance on one tank they can't be using above say 20% more than the allowed 100kg, or whatever margin in the size of the tank the teams have decided is necessary. It wouldn't be possible to complete a whole race in qualifying spec.

Alonso completed a race simulation in which he was relatively slow for the most part and then very fast at the end, presumably because they were saving too much fuel earlier in the run and had some to burn. There have also been comments from pundits about how much the teams are learning from each race simulation and the changes in approach this has caused in their later race simulations, if they had the luxury of being able to do more than one.

The engines obviously need to be reliable but there is so much they had/have to learn about how to use them, in realistic conditions, as well.
 
And that's one of the reasons Red Bull pulling this back isn't going to be easy. They might be the aero kings now, but who is to say that by the time they've both sorted reliability and how to actually race it, someone else won't have caught and passed them on performance?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom