2012 Testing - Barcelona 2: 1 - 4 March

[AbulafiaF1]

Great work! Very balanced

Thanks mate... I'm glad you liked it...

[Neno]

Great work! Very balanced

I can't agree, how can he call Lotus mediocre, all his basework on Lotus was just some random conclusion, all because they missed 4 days of testing (i mean didnt have heavy fuel running lap times) He saying Ferrari is third team of testing... Ferrari have one of the worst winter testings in this decade I can only agree with him about RBR and Mclaren, i watched all, and i saying all videos from Barcelona. This two teams look superb fast, Lotus is little behind not much, same go for Mercedes, and Ferrari is diffirent story. I congrats him for this major work, but statistic is one thing, and seeing car on track is other (even just on videos).

Huh? Did you actually take the time to read it? Where in earth do I say Ferrari is the 3rd team, pray tell? And where do I say that Lotus seem mediocre? Seriously - you should read before you post, people here aren't dumb.

i read it, and i make that impression. When you consider that top teams are RBR and Mclaren. Then you call Lotus mediocre, that leave only Mercedes and Ferrari in option. You writed lot's information about Ferrari, and i get that impression compared to the Mercedes.
Here you write it:
Lotus is behind Ferrari here, and look relatively mediocre.

[AbulafiaF1]

i read it, and i make that impression. When you consider that top teams are RBR and Mclaren. Then you call Lotus mediocre, that leave only Mercedes and Ferrari in option. You writed lot's information about Ferrari, and i get that impression compared to the Mercedes.
Here you write it:
Lotus is behind Ferrari here, and look relatively mediocre.

That's a quote from a previous blog entry.

[Neno]

i read it, and i make that impression. When you consider that top teams are RBR and Mclaren. Then you call Lotus mediocre, that leave only Mercedes and Ferrari in option. You writed lot's information about Ferrari, and i get that impression compared to the Mercedes.
Here you write it:
Lotus is behind Ferrari here, and look relatively mediocre.

That's a quote from a previous blog entry.

crap, then i read wrong blog entry

[AbulafiaF1]

i read it, and i make that impression. When you consider that top teams are RBR and Mclaren. Then you call Lotus mediocre, that leave only Mercedes and Ferrari in option. You writed lot's information about Ferrari, and i get that impression compared to the Mercedes.
Here you write it:
Lotus is behind Ferrari here, and look relatively mediocre.

That's a quote from a previous blog entry.

crap, then i read wrong blog entry

Lol... Ok, that's quite alright - here's the correct one: http://abulafiaf1.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/331/

[Lurk]

I think the main problem of this analysis is that it never taken in account the tyre spec, which can count to 1.5 to 2s.

The other is you just looked at raw number: if you compare Raikkonen race sim to Grosjean's one two day before, Raikkonen had either destroy its tyres at the beginning of his stints, or Lotus give him a lap time to not go under.
Kimi was not faster than Romain on soft vs hard during its last stint but was not slower either on hard vs soft. And the finn 1st stint was only 1 to 2s slower than his last one while the fuel load should have make him gain more or less 4.5s.
I didn't pay attention to other racesims to try to catch who where hiding their pace but Lotus clearly were last sunday.

[AbulafiaF1]

I think the main problem of this analysis is that it never taken in account the tyre spec, which can count to 1.5 to 2s.

The other is you just looked at raw number: if you compare Raikkonen race sim to Grosjean's one two day before, Raikkonen had either destroy its tyres at the beginning of his stints, or Lotus give him a lap time to not go under.
Kimi was not faster than Romain on soft vs hard during its last stint but was not slower either on hard vs soft. And the finn 1st stint was only 1 to 2s slower than his last one while the fuel load should have make him gain more or less 4.5s.
I didn't pay attention to other racesims to try to catch who where hiding their pace but Lotus clearly were last sunday.

You are correct, more or less, in your assessment of the race simulations, which is why I paid no heed to them. As I said, the worst way to judge performance is via race simulations. As for the rest, teams tend to go through the majority of the tyre sets available to the during the winter, so if you take all the laptimes into account that fall into a specific bracket of time, then things *tend* to even out. I think that's the most educated guess we can do at the moment. I will never argue that this analysis is a portrayal of the exact, real situation. It just highlights some patterns and some trends, which may clarify things for some people...

'tis all...

[Sam3219]

Great work Abula! Very interesting read!

Just wondered if you had thought about fuel correcting not only the low fuel runs but for the medium fuel and heavy fuel stints also?

I'd hazard a guess that the order of the heavy fuel stints wouldn't change too much but looking at your medium fuel stint data, the average laps each team have run on them stints are quite scattered. E.g. Caterham 5.0, Ferrari 9.1. Fuel correcting this data may show a different picture again.

[reichsmarshal24]

@abulafiaF1

Just a suggestion if possible:

How about doing the same analysis and number crunching on the 2011 Barcelona tests then compare it with what actually transpired in Melbourne 2011 if the data from the test analysis translated on the race weekend. From this, we can gauge the accuracy of the theories and formula you used for the 2012 pace estimates based on what transpired in 2011. Thanks mate!

[CHT]

@abulafiaF1

Just a suggestion if possible:

How about doing the same analysis and number crunching on the 2011 Barcelona tests then compare it with what actually transpired in Melbourne 2011 if the data from the test analysis translated on the race weekend. From this, we can gauge the accuracy of the theories and formula you used for the 2012 pace estimates based on what transpired in 2011. Thanks mate!

wont it be easier if we would just wait till melbourne?

[sriraj1031]

@abulafiaF1 it is an interesting read, no doubt but the analysis is as vague as it can get

but good effort though as it complies all the tests in one page, its best to wait till Melbourne

[reichsmarshal24]

@abulafiaF1

Just a suggestion if possible:

How about doing the same analysis and number crunching on the 2011 Barcelona tests then compare it with what actually transpired in Melbourne 2011 if the data from the test analysis translated on the race weekend. From this, we can gauge the accuracy of the theories and formula you used for the 2012 pace estimates based on what transpired in 2011. Thanks mate!

wont it be easier if we would just wait till melbourne?

Going through 10 days of zero F1 action is not that easy.

[AbulafiaF1]

@reichsmarshal24 and Sam... Guys, mercy! I don't think I have enough time in my hands, between my day job, my g/f and my family, it's a small miracle I find the time to write these blogs... I think the idea of doing fuel-corrections on the heavier stints has some juice in it, and could be explored further, but the idea of going through all of 2011 pre-season testing, just to check the validity of the model against the 2011 Australian GP results, and then apply the corrections to today is just..... well, brilliant, but too much work!!

However, I am planning to use THIS year's model against the results of the first 2 races, and apply what I will learn in the 2013 pre-season....

[Lurk]

As for the rest, teams tend to go through the majority of the tyre sets available to the during the winter, so if you take all the laptimes into account that fall into a specific bracket of time, then things *tend* to even out. I think that's the most educated guess we can do at the moment. I will never argue that this analysis is a portrayal of the exact, real situation. It just highlights some patterns and some trends, which may clarify things for some people...

'tis all...

But some could have run mostly on hard and others on soft (say 65/35 and 35/65) so you could still have a 1s biais induced by tyres which is huge. You could retrieve tyre specs on live coverage like autosport one's, so it would have been great to have it.

Anyway, I never will have enough patience to do what you've done so even if some points are perfectible, it's still a great work.

[AbulafiaF1]

Yes, Lurk, you are correct. Tyres are a big part of the equation - however you can't find tyre info anywhere on the net, for every stint, of every driver in every test day. Maybe 2013 pre-season testing then....