- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Sebastian Vettel topped the times on the second day of testing at Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona. His time set just on Pirelli's new ultra-softs before noon remained best as teams focused on longer runs in the afternoon.
I don't necessarily have a dog in this fight. But, I do find it a bit curious that statements in the mold of, "[Team-X} only has [characteristic-Y] because of [action-Z]," are often met with such enmity. They're not really damning since they can usually be rephrased, "[Team-X] only has [characteristic-Y] because of something [team-x] did for themselves," and as such, the appropriate response is almost always, "Yes, and your favorite team should have done it, too!"GPR-A wrote:Ben, most of your links are afterthoughts, posted later than 2014 after the success of Mercedes.
Correct.bhall II wrote:Who gives a --- if Mercedes' reliability is the result of finding the proper solution early? Doing something correctly before rivals can do the same is the very essence of racing.
How did Ferrari exploited a loop hole regarding Haas? What have they done?GPR-A wrote:Correct.bhall II wrote:Who gives a --- if Mercedes' reliability is the result of finding the proper solution early? Doing something correctly before rivals can do the same is the very essence of racing.
Well, my point of argument is that, neither did Mercedes' early start, nor did any amount of the money they poured in is a reason for their success. If that was the case, you wouldn't have seen Toyota failing and Brawn succeeding. Still, I have heard many times crap being repeatedly posted that Mercedes started work on their PU in cave ages and they poured a Zillion and THAT IS WHY THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL and that they laid the foundation of the current success through the car in 2012. I have posted enough statements and links from the horse's mouth that they didn't started any earlier than the rivals OR that they were provided with Zillions. Even if they did, it still doesn't matter as what really matters is that, they did the things right and that is the only thing that should count, whereas others didn't. Everything else is just pure BS. Let us see what Ferrari can do because of exploiting a loop hole due to Haas' partnership. They have poured in money and they had time.
Analysis: Why Mercedes doesn't believe in Honda's size zero concept"It is a bit like gold mining, you work bloody hard, you get lots of dust and now and again, you get a nice big nugget that makes you smile. And we still find those nuggets…."
There isn't another team so far in the recent times, which has maintained such a phenomenal record. For a moment Imagine if these achievements were from Ferrari, would have believed anyone could have beaten Ferrari? I wouldn't be surprised if Mercedes have actually moved away from Ferrari.[/quote]Mercedes believes its power unit was delivering more than 45 percent thermal efficiency last year – and a graph shown to journalists suggested that the step being prepared for 2016 could be as big a leap forward as the team made between 2014 and 2015.
Cowell would not elaborate on the specific data to confirm that is the size of jump expected, but did hint that big chunks of power were still being unlocked.
When asked if it was logical that as efficiency improved, the turbine got bigger, Cowell said: "Yeah. Two areas are going to improve, the efficiency of the ICE is going to go up and up and up every year, and the efficiency of that turbo is going to go up.
"That means the turbine sizing number is going to go up as long as it is not stealing from the engine."
In Mercedes' case, Cowell confirmed that its turbine had got bigger year on year – helping deliver more power.
Had that compressor and turbine size been restricted to the inside of the engine, like the Honda is, then the scope for making it larger is not there – as it will no longer deliver the advantages that size zero supposedly brings along.
so they changed their turbo... shouldnt affect reliability much at all . as far as the coy hints about nuggets of performance found... hmmm you sure thats not just like the innovations promised in aero that turned out to be an Sduct and barge board treatment that has been recycled? every single team is saying their car improved
The failure that Lewis suffered in Singapore, wasn't a PU failure but a clamp that broke inside.
a failure is a failure is a failure " just a clamp" "just a piston ring" "just a hydraulic hose worked loose"
Mercedes lead the testing mileage in 2014 and in 2015 and dominated both the years. To see the trend continue, at least in Testing, makes for a similar picture to continue for the season. That's is all it is at this point of time.giantfan10 wrote:In 2011 Ferrari topped testing miles....you know what that gave them? exstensive knowledge about their car and third in the constuctor championships. Jump forward to 2016 Mercedes leads testing miles and somehow in some peoples minds that translates to an increased gap to their nearest competitors.
somewhat agreed... my point does still stand though,reliability in testing means nothing
For arguements sake :team A is doing 200 laps a day in testing..team B has a few issues and doesnt run half as much laps... team B fixes the little issues before the first GP and wins the world championship because their car is faster
Mercedes ended the last season with a handsome 8 tenths(6 TENTHS) lead in qualifying. It was never really clear about how much was the advantage in Race as Mercedes mostly managed the races by going ahead in qualifying. They started baseline work for 2016 PU from Monza itself. They mostly used last few races to test a number of 2016 development items.Mercedes recorded the second fastest VMax speed during Wednesday’s running at 337.5kph. The car was running plenty of rear wing, so clearly the engine is strong, especially as it PROBABLY wasn’t turned up at this stage with reliability testing the name of the game.
You look at Andy Cowell's interviews and you will see a great deal of optimism about the new PU. They came to the winter testing, keeping very high targets of mileage to achieve and they have done so in first test. They didn't even bothered about ordering soft, supersoft or ultrasoft tyres for testing. They are optimizing every possible area of the chassis and aren't shying away from adding aerodynamic variations. Doesn't that speaks volumes about where they have positioned themselves?
so they dont have reliability issues and are bolting new parts on their car before other teams....thats their plan and kudos to them for following it....
"The front wing is an improvement, which is good," he said.
Really don't understand why it matters either way. They did the best job and deserve every ounce of success that comes with that; if they started earlier than the opposition then it shows particularly prescient thinking and that's just as commendable as anything else.GPR-A wrote:Correct.bhall II wrote:Who gives a --- if Mercedes' reliability is the result of finding the proper solution early? Doing something correctly before rivals can do the same is the very essence of racing.
Well, my point of argument is that, neither did Mercedes' early start, nor did any amount of the money they poured in is a reason for their success. If that was the case, you wouldn't have seen Toyota failing and Brawn succeeding. Still, I have heard many times crap being repeatedly posted that Mercedes started work on their PU in cave ages and they poured a Zillion and THAT IS WHY THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL and that they laid the foundation of the current success through the car in 2012. I have posted enough statements and links from the horse's mouth that they didn't started any earlier than the rivals OR that they were provided with Zillions. Even if they did, it still doesn't matter as what really matters is that, they did the things right and that is the only thing that should count, whereas others didn't. Everything else is just pure BS. Let us see what Ferrari can do because of exploiting a loop hole due to Haas' partnership. They have poured in money and they had time.
As Haas were not entrants to the 2015 world championship they were not bound by the regulations such as max wind tunnel size & hours, CFD teraflops etc so Ferrari & Haas had a partnership where tech was shared/bought as per the rules and regs that both teams were bound by.Fer.Fan wrote:
How did Ferrari exploited a loop hole regarding Haas? What have they done?
The Honda on partial throttle sounds absolutely bonkersgandharva wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67nI71Bs7J0
Also noticed that. Does somebody know: was this the case through whole 4 days, or it was just 1 day/1 video issue?dot235 wrote:Finally some good footage from pre-test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAKxkd7tcBs
Ferrari seems kinda twitchy, no?