via f1fanatic
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Formula One tyre supplier Pirelli have said that the final day of testing at Jerez will be used for wet tyre testing after the track is artificially watered. The company also developed a special tyre for this test, specifically for the colder conditions.
No chance.Javert wrote:We can get an initial placement for teams. Adjusting times properly (-0.5s to Button for setting time the first day not 4th; -0.5s to Force India which I think can't be so bad they sandbag; -0.5s to Caterham after all they didn't seem SO slow) we get
1- McLaren MP4-28
2- Red Bull RB9 +0.2s
3- Ferrari F138 +0.5s
4- Lotus E21 +0.8s
5- Mercedes W04 +0.9s
6- Force India VJM06 +1.1s
7- Sauber +1.3s
8- Toro Rosso +1.4s
9- Williams??
10- Caterham CT-03 +2.9s
11- Marussia MR02 +3.3s
JAonF1 wrote:The first F1 test of the 2013 season at Jerez provided little in the way of concrete pointers for the season that lies ahead; we do not know who is favourite for pole in Melbourne yet. But one would not expect to at this stage, as it was only the first test and the cars will change a lot before the season proper starts again with Melbourne qualifying on March 16. Many of the cars started the week looking like 2012 models, but the wind tunnel models will look quite different already. However, it is possible to read some trends and some signs from the testing done so far; to look at the kind of car some of the teams are dealing with, to look at early indications of how they are using the tyres and at some trends on single lap and longer run pace. So here are some pointers, with the thoughts of JA on F1′s technical adviser Prof Mark Gillan. The first thing to say is that it is clearly going to be very close this year at the front and also between midfield teams, so we should have a really exciting championship and points will be hard to get for the midfielders. It will come down to development, as always, but with no rule changes the gains the teams can make are constantly diminishing in size, so it could come down to tiny margins later in the year.
Red Bull
The new Red Bull looks a step forward from the car that ended the 2012 season fighting for wins with McLaren. Aerodynamically it is efficient, as Adrian Newey’s cars always are. It’s not done any eye catching times yet; this is classic Red Bull, they don’t show their hand. As has been the trend in recent years, the Red Bull is the second slowest car on the straights: Vettel was clocked at 291km/h in the speed trap, compared to 305km/h for Force India and Lotus. Last year their double DDRS system increased their straight line speed without sacrificing downforce in the corners towards the end of the season, but without it (and without being able to use DRS anything like as much under 2013 rules) they are back down the list.This doesn’t matter if you are the quickest car and start from pole. But if you are in a battle, being 10-15km/h slower than your rivals could prove your Achilles Heel in a race. The Red Bull’s longer runs on the Red Bull look consistent and fast, so they are on target. But they have lost something due to new rules on aeroelasticity on the front wings (i.e. flex wings) and one of the key areas engineers will be studying from the test data is how much performance has been lost there.
Ferrari
The Ferrari set the fastest time of the four day test in Jerez, with Felipe Massa dipping into the 1m 17s on Day 3. The new Ferrari is a good step forward from last year’s car and clearly is not riddled with problems, as last year’s was on its debut. This meant that Ferrari was able to crack on with testing development parts from as early as Day 2. They ran different exhausts, floor, diffuser and front wing in Jerez and many new things are no doubt planned for the Barcelona tests. The Ferrari is using a DRS booster system using a Fluidic Switch, which channels air flow above a certain speed to increase the drag reduction system. It’s a difficult thing to get working right on a race track, but could be a useful gain if they nail it. Most of the top teams will probably evolve one as the year goes on. It looks like this innovation could be the first “must-have” technology gizmo of the 2013 season. The goal for Ferrari was to start the season with a car that is at or close to the pace of the front runner, as that will provide a platform for Fernando Alonso’s relentless consistency to mount a title campaign.
McLaren
McLaren maybe just shaded Round 1 – this first test – but it’s debatable. Jenson Button’s lap in the 1m 18s on hard tyres on a dirty track on Day 1 was an eye opener. The McLaren hasn’t done anything eye catching since, but it got all their competitors wondering. At this stage the car looks better on the hard tyre than the soft, but there is a lot of new parts and set up changes to come so that may not be a pattern for the season. If you take a one second delta for the hard to the soft tyre, then this equals the Massa’s time on Day 3 when allowing for the tyre difference, but Button did the time on a dirty track on Day 1, whereas the track was clearly faster when Massa did his time. So it’s close, but the McLaren looks fast.
Lotus
The Lotus was arguably the most consistent car across the 2012 season and this year’s model looks like a nice improvement. They will be there or thereabouts, which is good news for Kimi Raikkonen fans.
James Allison’s technical team approaches things in a sensible, pragmatic way if new ideas aren’t working out. The feedback so far has been good and the car looked fast on the single lap runs on the soft tyre. Qualifying was a weakness of the 2012 car, so this is an area they have to get right this year if they are to better their 2012 results.
Mercedes
The Mercedes had reliability setbacks on the first two days, but they also didn’t look as strong as the front running Red Bull, Lotus, McLaren and Ferrari in the two high mileage days. The car is definitely losing its tyres on the longer runs, so they still have a lot to do, but Hamilton is making all the right noises and it’s really down to development from here.
Sauber
Sauber is always a dark horse, they were impressive last year in terms of capability to manage the tyre. They are on a similar budget level to Lotus, but have always done a good job. They aren’t far away and look to be ahead of Mercedes at this early stage.Gutierrez caught the eye with some fast, consistent longer runs at the end of the week. It’s easy to go well in testing; for him the mental pressure of stepping up to having to deliver on a race weekend will be the challenge, it’s a big step up that some drivers don’t manage and we will watch that with interest.
What are the teams trying to achieve in a test?
F1 Teams are very regimented, they run 4 fuel levels: 20kg, 60kg, 80kg and 140kg. Most of the running you see at tests is done in 60-80kg loads. The only time they will do 140kg full tank runs is when they do a race simulation. The only time they will do less than 20kg, is when they simulate qualifying prior to the race simulation run. Serious teams don’t run less than 20kg, which is a six-lap run. They have to be careful because the tyres don’t last more than a couple of timed laps. Temperatures this week were 15 degrees, which isn’t too bad for winter testing, but it’s still not representative of the race weekend running which is usually 30 degrees plus and this is always one of the unknowns coming away from winter testing.
The parts I have highlighted each contradict each other do they not? Claiming that the Red Bull is aerodynamically efficient, but is also nearly the slowest in a straight line? Also I was under the impression that Newey's cars have never really been very efficient in the sense that he has always gone for the high DF/low top speed approach? Assuming that I'm understanding 'aerodynamically efficient' to mean high DF/low drag?The new Red Bull looks a step forward from the car that ended the 2012 season fighting for wins with McLaren. Aerodynamically it is efficient, as Adrian Newey’s cars always are. It’s not done any eye catching times yet; this is classic Red Bull, they don’t show their hand. As has been the trend in recent years, the Red Bull is the second slowest car on the straights: Vettel was clocked at 291km/h in the speed trap, compared to 305km/h for Force India and Lotus.
You can look at "efficient" in two ways though, efficient in creating high downforce, or, efficient in creating low drag, to have both is the holly grail of F1ajdavison2 wrote:The parts I have highlighted each contradict each other do they not? Claiming that the Red Bull is aerodynamically efficient, but is also nearly the slowest in a straight line? Also I was under the impression that Newey's cars have never really been very efficient in the sense that he has always gone for the high DF/low top speed approach? Assuming that I'm understanding 'aerodynamically efficient' to mean high DF/low drag?The new Red Bull looks a step forward from the car that ended the 2012 season fighting for wins with McLaren. Aerodynamically it is efficient, as Adrian Newey’s cars always are. It’s not done any eye catching times yet; this is classic Red Bull, they don’t show their hand. As has been the trend in recent years, the Red Bull is the second slowest car on the straights: Vettel was clocked at 291km/h in the speed trap, compared to 305km/h for Force India and Lotus.
The changes they used in abu dhabi are illegal in 2013. They were specifically designed to remove some of the abnormally high drag of the car.Rikhart wrote:The red bull can be mighty fast in a straight line as well with some changes, as demonstrated by vettel in abu dhabi. Their usual low top end speed is by choice, not because of excessive drag. So the car is indeed very efficient.
So what? Aerodynamic efficiency is pretty much their downforce to drag ratio. It's clear their high drag is offset by really high downforce, so it's still an aerodynamically efficient car. Not in the Toyota Prius sense, but in which cars with a Cd of 1, identical to that of a brick can be efficient.beelsebob wrote:All of the cars have similar levels of power, low top speed can only be explained by drag.
Except that the car has significantly more drag (as evidenced by the low top speeds), but not that much more downforce than the competitors – e.g. McLaren were commonly beating RedBull in high speed corners at the end of last year.paipa wrote:So what? Aerodynamic efficiency is pretty much their downforce to drag ratio. It's clear their high drag is offset by really high downforce, so it's still an aerodynamically efficient car. Not in the Toyota Prius sense, but in which cars with a Cd of 1, identical to that of a brick can be efficient.beelsebob wrote:All of the cars have similar levels of power, low top speed can only be explained by drag.
The assumption that all cars have the same power is wrong. It can differ quite a lot, Mercedes having the highest power, Ferrari is off by about 10% and Renault is somewhere in between.beelsebob wrote: All of the cars have similar levels of power, low top speed can only be explained by drag.
That's blatantly wrong. First of all we know that Red Bull has quite an agressive gearing, giving priority to acceleration over high top speed. Second, the coanda exhaust makes you lose some hp. That;s true for every team, but it could be that Red Bull looses a bit more.beelsebob wrote:The changes they used in abu dhabi are illegal in 2013. They were specifically designed to remove some of the abnormally high drag of the car.Rikhart wrote:The red bull can be mighty fast in a straight line as well with some changes, as demonstrated by vettel in abu dhabi. Their usual low top end speed is by choice, not because of excessive drag. So the car is indeed very efficient.
All of the cars have similar levels of power, low top speed can only be explained by drag.
No. Merc enginge is without a shadow of doubt the most powerfull of the 3. Then it is ferrari, and then renault something like 10% off the merc.mep wrote:The assumption that all cars have the same power is wrong. It can differ quite a lot, Mercedes having the highest power, Ferrari is off by about 10% and Renault is somewhere in between.beelsebob wrote: All of the cars have similar levels of power, low top speed can only be explained by drag.
How will those changes be illegal in 2013? Something I missed in the rules?beelsebob wrote:The changes they used in abu dhabi are illegal in 2013. They were specifically designed to remove some of the abnormally high drag of the car.Rikhart wrote:The red bull can be mighty fast in a straight line as well with some changes, as demonstrated by vettel in abu dhabi. Their usual low top end speed is by choice, not because of excessive drag. So the car is indeed very efficient.
All of the cars have similar levels of power, low top speed can only be explained by drag.
Your comment makes me scratch my head....Final drive ratios do not play a role in top speed?beelsebob wrote:The changes they used in abu dhabi are illegal in 2013. They were specifically designed to remove some of the abnormally high drag of the car.Rikhart wrote:The red bull can be mighty fast in a straight line as well with some changes, as demonstrated by vettel in abu dhabi. Their usual low top end speed is by choice, not because of excessive drag. So the car is indeed very efficient.
All of the cars have similar levels of power, low top speed can only be explained by drag.