2012 Testing - Barcelona 2: 21-24 Feb

[marcush.]

the point is:you need to push the car to the limit to get any information of value.
I expect all teams are doing this otherwise they start all over again when the real thing starts.So in effect you need to know if people deliberately lift at certain points of the track to mask their performance ,you need to look at fuelloads and tyre choice.
Additionally the track conditions play into this .
A team could even go as far and put ballast into the car to mask ultimate performance..mind you with the lowish temperatures you might be looking for setups not useful for hotter conditons .The additional load would also help to establish more relistic cooling demands.

Whitmarsh stating there was 2 seconds in lap times left for the big teams is just stating,they are not running the car yet on qualy fuelload in fact they go for a medium load ,as they have effectively considerable variable there you will never know for the last tenths,maybe not even second.
a clear indication is some teams -sauber,Williams,ForceIndia,TR,Marussia look better than you would expect ,but thats simply the tyre choice and fuelload,maybe even ballast

[ArchAngel]

Probably using lean fuel mixtures and a thousand or so less RPMs, too. The "sandbags" won't probably really come off all the way 'til FP1 in Melbourne.

[marcush.]

less power=less stress ..I would not embark towards that road validating the car...realistically a lot of performance factors are influenced by ambient and track temperature ,so testing in colder conditions can lead into blind alleys...aero , cooling performance ,tyre degradation ..

[Mr.S]

If they turn is down a few RPM's less the test has no meaning. Engine is an important paramener too. How many HP's will you loose,relibility?? There is talk of cold blowing,engine life.

Also fuel consumption might alter too. If you are intentionally adding ballast just to slow down laptimes it is ridiculous. The whole balance of a car might shift,the cars might behave in a funny way. These are Formula1 cars & very sensitive.

They need to maximize the potential & speed of the car & work on its setups. Addings kgs of ballast might throw a completely different scenario. All the data becomes meaningless.

[PhillipM]

No it doesn't, you can compensate for the changes mathematically in your statistical analysis, it's not difficult.

[Mr.S]

No it doesn't, you can compensate for the changes mathematically in your statistical analysis, it's not difficult.

Then what is the use of running.Everything can be done in simulator. It prints a wrong picture with the team not knowing where they stand. Putting on ballast changes everything,the whole balance & maybe even the behaviour & degradation. The whole testing becomes useless. The whole development of the car may go in a different direction.

I can understand running worn tyres or full tanks but adding kgs of ballast just to sanbag instead of focusing on their own programme. No sane team would do that

[PhillipM]

No it can't, you still need to correlate your data, simulation isn't always accurate.

Besides, you wouldn't use it to sandbag, you'd compare it to a baseline without it, or with differing amounts, the same as they do with fuel to estimate the tyre degradation curve for different loadings and temperatures.

[snoop1050]

speed trap results courtesy of james allen
Mercedes 320.5
Toro Rosso 319.5
Caterham 318.5
Force India 317.5
Sauber 315.8
McLaren 314.9
Ferrari 311.2
Williams 311.2
Red Bull 310.3

fast in a straightline if nothing else but it might mean <W03> lack downforce compared to the slower teams.

interestigly redbull is the slowest like last year and is likely to be much better in the corners than us, i just hope its not a sign that mercedes sacrafice downforce for straightline speed with their design philosophy

[Ganxxta]

speed trap results courtesy of james allen
Mercedes 320.5
Toro Rosso 319.5
Caterham 318.5
Force India 317.5
Sauber 315.8
McLaren 314.9
Ferrari 311.2
Williams 311.2
Red Bull 310.3

fast in a straightline if nothing else but it might mean we lack downforce compared to the slower teams.

interestigly redbull is the slowest like last year and is likely to be much better in the corners than us

DRS, Kers, slipstream, FW-FDuct, reduced RPMs by Redbull etc...
So again its only testing...

[snoop1050]

yea but williams were pretty much show boating alot of the time and got some fast times yet they are still slow on a straight?
dont tell me they didnt use drs , kers , light fuel and have there engine turned right up.

to me its a bad omen

[siskue2005]

havent you considered that this could be due to F-duct front wing?

[Pup]

If they turn is down a few RPM's less the test has no meaning. Engine is an important paramener too. How many HP's will you loose,relibility?? There is talk of cold blowing,engine life.

Also fuel consumption might alter too. If you are intentionally adding ballast just to slow down laptimes it is ridiculous. The whole balance of a car might shift,the cars might behave in a funny way. These are Formula1 cars & very sensitive.

They need to maximize the potential & speed of the car & work on its setups. Addings kgs of ballast might throw a completely different scenario. All the data becomes meaningless.

I pretty much agree with this. They can't just run one fuel load and expect to know perfectly how the car will behave at others. Though, for the most part, I think the smart teams run with heavier loads since that stresses the car more and so is more likely to reveal flaws. Engine and tranny life, I'm guessing it's better tested back home, provided they know that they have the temps under control.

I do think that the teams sandbag to a certain extent. I just think that they do it mostly by using old tires, different engine settings and - mostly - by taking different lines around the track. For these drivers, adding a second or so per sector just by taking a consistently poor line probably isn't too hard while still putting the car through hell. And you can do different runs to test different elements of reliability - one morning you run to full revs but back off on the corners, another you hit the corners hard but cut back on top speed, etc.

[Maynard G. Krebs]

I agree with that too. I would expect they set up the car to handle, say, high speed corners, refine that for a while, push the car in those corners but not the others, then change the setup for slow corners and do that for a while, then try to find where the compromise setup is between them. Then they do high speed straightaway runs and factor all that in too. That's why it would be nice to have sector times to look at, but even so, they wouldn't necessarily be testing "per sector" so even that wouldn't mean too much.

I like what Kobayashi said: "It's testing, it's better than nothing and it's better than last, for sure, but I don't think this is a real result,".

[Ferraripilot]

havent you considered that this could be due to F-duct front wing?

exactly.

[snoop1050]

havent you considered that this could be due to F-duct front wing?

noone even knows if it is a F-duct front wing its just guessing