planetf1.com

MistaVega23 wrote:No, no and no. I'd like to hear Kimi's thoughts on what visibility was like.

If cockpit protection IS going to happen, at least make it aesthetically pleasing. We've suffered enough with these hideous noses for a few seasons so please let there be some respite!

They're going to have to move the on-board cameras if these get the go ahead.

You will get used to it. Of course it's subjective, but for me current cars aren't pretty when I compare them to cars like this:



source: http://myautoworld.com/ferrari/cars/his ... 0-375.html

F1Today now showing top speed info. That is interesting. Good addition to their coverage!

1. Hülkenberg 285.7 0
2. Rosberg 284.2 0
3. Räikkönen 281.2 0
4. Palmer 280.5 0
5. Wehrlein 279 0
6. Verstappen 279 0
7. Nasr 278.3 0
8. Kvyat 276.2 0
9. Alonso 275.5 0
10. Massa 272.7

MistaVega23 wrote:No, no and no. I'd like to hear Kimi's thoughts on what visibility was like.

If cockpit protection IS going to happen, at least make it aesthetically pleasing. We've suffered enough with these hideous noses for a few seasons so please let there be some respite!

They're going to have to move the on-board cameras if these get the go ahead.

Kimi Raikkonen has said that the visibility was 'okay' during his lap with the protective halo. "It wasn't too bad", he has declared.

http://www.f1today.net/en/live/f1/20931 ... st-2-day-3

Zoue wrote:

MistaVega23 wrote:No, no and no. I'd like to hear Kimi's thoughts on what visibility was like.

If cockpit protection IS going to happen, at least make it aesthetically pleasing. We've suffered enough with these hideous noses for a few seasons so please let there be some respite!

They're going to have to move the on-board cameras if these get the go ahead.

Kimi Raikkonen has said that the visibility was 'okay' during his lap with the protective halo. "It wasn't too bad", he has declared.

http://www.f1today.net/en/live/f1/20931 ... st-2-day-3

[Unsourced image removed]

drivers POV

1:23.009 from Kimi - fastest time yet on the softs

Herb wrote:1:23.009 from Kimi - fastest time yet on the softs

Well, now I'm thinking of the Tuesday's discussion again.

Either we would now have to think Ferrari is roughly on par with Merc, or Rosberg could have gone considerably faster.

Ferrari have said that the halo was just a test for drivers visibility and the final version would look better.


Also nice to see Ferrari put in a quick time, there's plenty of pace left in the front runners. The only question is who is holding back more IMO.

I think those saying Mercedes will be a long way in front could be wide of the mark.

Seems like the softs are the sweet spot for fast lap times? There is a noticeable difference in speed between the mediums and the softs, but the steps to supersoft and ultrasoft don't seem to be as big.

Either that or Raikkonen is holding back immensely on these ultrasofts.

mds wrote:Seems like the softs are the sweet spot for fast lap times? There is a noticeable difference in speed between the mediums and the softs, but the steps to supersoft and ultrasoft don't seem to be as big.

Either that or Raikkonen is holding back immensely on these ultrasofts.

Or the UltraSoft tire just doesn't last the whole lap in Barcelona

Uffman wrote:

mds wrote:Seems like the softs are the sweet spot for fast lap times? There is a noticeable difference in speed between the mediums and the softs, but the steps to supersoft and ultrasoft don't seem to be as big.

Either that or Raikkonen is holding back immensely on these ultrasofts.

Or the UltraSoft tire just doesn't last the whole lap in Barcelona

But the supersoft isn't that much faster either - and both have similar drop-off times in the second hot lap.

Ferrari/Mercedes
Force India
Williams
Toro Rosso
Red Bull/Renault
McLaren
Sauber
Haas
Manor

More or less... In terms of fastest lap time tyre adjusted at the moment.

Llotyhy wrote:Ferrari/Mercedes
Force India
Williams
Toro Rosso
Red Bull/Renault
McLaren
Sauber
Haas
Manor

More or less... In terms of fastest lap time tyre adjusted at the moment.

I believe Red Bull is quicker than we think it is. They always sandbang.

Manor just 4 tenths slower than Mclaren on the same tyres.

My general gut feeling tells me Ferrari and Mercedes are close, which is great news if true.

mds wrote:

Herb wrote:1:23.009 from Kimi - fastest time yet on the softs

Well, now I'm thinking of the Tuesday's discussion again.

Either we would now have to think Ferrari is roughly on par with Merc, or Rosberg could have gone considerably faster.

Which doesn't make that Nico's lap 'not quick'. If anything both laps seem to indicate they're quite close to optimal, all things in these tests considered.

But some on here are apparently wrongly reading that conversation along the lines of Merc vs Ferrari. I'll happily let you guys continue.

justmoi wrote:

mds wrote:

Herb wrote:1:23.009 from Kimi - fastest time yet on the softs

Well, now I'm thinking of the Tuesday's discussion again.

Either we would now have to think Ferrari is roughly on par with Merc, or Rosberg could have gone considerably faster.

Which doesn't make that Nico's lap 'not quick'.

May I remind you again that I never said, or even implied, that Nico's lap wasn't quick?

If anything both laps seem to indicate they're quite close to optimal, all things in these tests considered.

It is a possibility. Or Merc were sandbagging. I guess we'll find out at the season's start, depending on how close Ferrari are then.

Herb wrote:1:23.009 from Kimi - fastest time yet on the softs

Kimi has been pretty bad in qualifying for sometime but this time is definitely good

mikeyg123 wrote:Manor just 4 tenths slower than Mclaren on the same tyres.

Yeah but Nasr faster than Alonso on the slower soft tyre. Methinks that's not a representative time for the McLaren

mcdo wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Manor just 4 tenths slower than Mclaren on the same tyres.

Yeah but Nasr faster than Alonso on the slower soft tyre. Methinks that's not a representative time for the McLaren

Wehrlein fastest out of everybody at the end of the straight too.

Herb wrote:

mcdo wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Manor just 4 tenths slower than Mclaren on the same tyres.

Yeah but Nasr faster than Alonso on the slower soft tyre. Methinks that's not a representative time for the McLaren

Wehrlein fastest out of everybody at the end of the straight too.

I wouldn't be too surprised, his haircut has "go faster" stripes on either side


Pic: XPB

mds wrote:
May I remind you again that I never said, or even implied, that Nico's lap wasn't quick?

Unless I recall wrongly, you did say all 'we know' is that Nico's lap was the quickest, but we don't know if it's 'quick', which you also did say was absolute.

Which is rather a shame for those of us who don't work with any of the F1 teams as even during the season we'll never know who's truly quick... Based on the 'reasons' you gave of course

justmoi wrote:

mds wrote:

Herb wrote:1:23.009 from Kimi - fastest time yet on the softs

Well, now I'm thinking of the Tuesday's discussion again.

Either we would now have to think Ferrari is roughly on par with Merc, or Rosberg could have gone considerably faster.

Which doesn't make that Nico's lap 'not quick'. If anything both laps seem to indicate they're quite close to optimal, all things in these tests considered.

But some on here are apparently wrongly reading that conversation along the lines of Merc vs Ferrari. I'll happily let you guys continue.

Actually as Massa has set a 1:23:193 I would say that at least one of the Merc/Ferrari laps was not optimal, as I would be surprised if Williams were only 2 tenths behind Mercedes.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

justmoi wrote:

mds wrote:

Herb wrote:1:23.009 from Kimi - fastest time yet on the softs

Well, now I'm thinking of the Tuesday's discussion again.

Either we would now have to think Ferrari is roughly on par with Merc, or Rosberg could have gone considerably faster.

Which doesn't make that Nico's lap 'not quick'. If anything both laps seem to indicate they're quite close to optimal, all things in these tests considered.

But some on here are apparently wrongly reading that conversation along the lines of Merc vs Ferrari. I'll happily let you guys continue.

Actually as Massa has set a 1:23:193 I would say that at least one of the Merc/Ferrari laps was not optimal, as I would be surprised if Williams were only 2 tenths behind Mercedes.

I said close to optimal. And one thing we don't actually know is how near or far these teams are to each other this year

justmoi wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

justmoi wrote:

mds wrote:

Herb wrote:1:23.009 from Kimi - fastest time yet on the softs

Well, now I'm thinking of the Tuesday's discussion again.

Either we would now have to think Ferrari is roughly on par with Merc, or Rosberg could have gone considerably faster.

Which doesn't make that Nico's lap 'not quick'. If anything both laps seem to indicate they're quite close to optimal, all things in these tests considered.

But some on here are apparently wrongly reading that conversation along the lines of Merc vs Ferrari. I'll happily let you guys continue.

Actually as Massa has set a 1:23:193 I would say that at least one of the Merc/Ferrari laps was not optimal, as I would be surprised if Williams were only 2 tenths behind Mercedes.

I said close to optimal. And one thing we don't actually know is how near or far these teams are to each other this year

I agree it's certainly possible that Williams have closed the gap, I just don't consider it likely given they have a lower budget and that would effectively mean closing a gap nearly twice the size to the one Ferrari had to close.

Let's see, I'd like Williams to be in the mix but to me that time indicates that both Mercedes and Ferrari have some in reserve.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Let's see, I'd like Williams to be in the mix but to me that time indicates that both Mercedes and Ferrari have some in reserve.

So we're saying the same thing then...

Ferrari/Merc close to optimal = something in reserve

So 0.2sec separated by top3 teams on soft tyres

Mercedes-Benz wrote:So 0.2sec separated by top3 teams on soft tyres

Is that not good?

It will be great if it is true and everyone are looking much closer together. Let us see tomorrows time and then start guessing again

A bet on vettel in aus has to be worth it.

I think there are going to be two scenarios.

1. Ferrari are close enough on speed to beat merc in races due to better tyre wear. Alison has generally made cars which are kind on tyres and if they have the speed then they are going to be a real threat.

2. Merc have everything in hand are are ensuring they don't completelt take the mick to avoid focus on slowing them down "for the show". There is a real possibility that they are light years ahead in allowing engine to be run at a much higher setting.

There's also a possibility they are struggling with tyres, getting drivability with the additional power which they are notorious for

The amount t of long runs they have been running is either to get as much tyre data as they can or test reliability of parts or something I have no idea about.

Either they really are close or for some reason merc just not feeling they need to put as much in pure speed optimisation which would be a massive sign of confidence

justmoi wrote:

mds wrote:
May I remind you again that I never said, or even implied, that Nico's lap wasn't quick?

Unless I recall wrongly, you did say all 'we know' is that Nico's lap was the quickest, but we don't know if it's 'quick'

Saying "we don't know if it's very quick" does not equal "Nico's lap wasn't quick". I said the former, but not the latter. There's a clear difference and if you're not even going to acknowledge that, I don't even know why you are on a forum in the first place.

which you also did say was absolute.

I see no problem with that. 1:50 is slow, 1:10 is insane. Somewhere in there lies a point where a time becomes "quick" and "very quick".

Which is rather a shame for those of us who don't work with any of the F1 teams as even during the season we'll never know who's truly quick... Based on the 'reasons' you gave of course

No need for those quotation marks. I'm conducting in civilized debate, I'm not saying anything out of the ordinary. The chances of Merc, Ferrari and Williams being so close together aren't that great. So prove Merc can't go faster or accept the possibility they have been sandbagging and that time is not per se "very quick" as they could possibly go quite a bit quicker.

mds wrote:F1Today now showing top speed info. That is interesting. Good addition to their coverage!

1. Hülkenberg 285.7 0
2. Rosberg 284.2 0
3. Räikkönen 281.2 0
4. Palmer 280.5 0
5. Wehrlein 279 0
6. Verstappen 279 0
7. Nasr 278.3 0
8. Kvyat 276.2 0
9. Alonso 275.5 0
10. Massa 272.7

Maybe I am reading too much into it, but looks like the Williams is not anymore concentrated on the top speed, but perhaps other areas where they were weak (I am making this out). It looks good, then.

May i state somthing that might be completely wrong but i would like your opinion on it as well.

I think that all times (one off like qualy runs) on Ultra-Soft and Super-Soft tires are meaningless plus maybe even some of the softs.

Barcelona is one of the toughest tracks on tires, if not the toughest one (always hards and medium compounds there) and i think that the U.S. & S.S. tires are starting to drop before even the end of the first lap. This sometimes might even apply to the Softs under certain conditions.

The gaps between the types of them are not big enough... Raikkonen improved only 3 tenths from softs to ultra-softs today.

I think tires will be massively important this year and will probably play to the hands of Ferrari and especially Raikkonen. Might be completely wrong and they must be just sandbagging or trying different stuff.

Fountoukos13 wrote:May i state somthing that might be completely wrong but i would like your opinion on it as well.

I think that all times (one off like qualy runs) on Ultra-Soft and Super-Soft tires are meaningless plus maybe even some of the softs.

Barcelona is one of the toughest tracks on tires, if not the toughest one (always hards and medium compounds there) and i think that the U.S. & S.S. tires are starting to drop before even the end of the first lap. This sometimes might even apply to the Softs under certain conditions.

The gaps between the types of them are not big enough... Raikkonen improved only 3 tenths from softs to ultra-softs today.

I think tires will be massively important this year and will probably play to the hands of Ferrari and especially Raikkonen. Might be completely wrong and they must be just sandbagging or trying different stuff.

I think the puzzling lap times yielded from the ultrasoft and supersoft tyres were more due to the fact that the track temperatures never really got high enough to put either of the softest compounds in a proper working window. I think this is why Merc didn't bother putting anything softer than the softs on. If the softest rubber isn't warm enough then its performance will be lessened and it will go off sooner in the stint. This really seemed to be the case where we saw some drivers (with ssoft and usoft tyres) put in purple times in S1 & S2 only for the times to fall off in the final sector. It could also be that the gains attributed to the softer compounds aren't as large as the gains between the harder compounds. Thus if you're a Ferrari fan that was a bit disappointed that Vettel and Raikkonen could only improve a few tenths on their (kimi's) efforts on the soft tyre, I wouldn't worry - I just don't think it was ever warm enough for the ssoft and usoft to get into the proper performance range.

mds wrote:

justmoi wrote:

mds wrote:
May I remind you again that I never said, or even implied, that Nico's lap wasn't quick?

Unless I recall wrongly, you did say all 'we know' is that Nico's lap was the quickest, but we don't know if it's 'quick'

Saying "we don't know if it's very quick" does not equal "Nico's lap wasn't quick". I said the former, but not the latter. There's a clear difference and if you're not even going to acknowledge that, I don't even know why you are on a forum in the first place.

which you also did say was absolute.

I see no problem with that. 1:50 is slow, 1:10 is insane. Somewhere in there lies a point where a time becomes "quick" and "very quick".

Which is rather a shame for those of us who don't work with any of the F1 teams as even during the season we'll never know who's truly quick... Based on the 'reasons' you gave of course

No need for those quotation marks. I'm conducting in civilized debate, I'm not saying anything out of the ordinary. The chances of Merc, Ferrari and Williams being so close together aren't that great. So prove Merc can't go faster or accept the possibility they have been sandbagging and that time is not per se "very quick" as they could possibly go quite a bit quicker.

Mate you did imply it was not quick. And if you're dancing around that now that is straw arguing as we may or may not know. I mean how do we know it's not the ulimate fastest they can go? See? I said it was very quick based on everything we had seen at these tests, this year. You went on about last year testing and unknown factors few in the world will ever know, even when the season starts, like true limit of an f1 car. Why my original statement is difficult to grasp I'm not sure.

I mean I'm wondering why we're even looking at ANY times then. What's the point if we'll still be in the dark.

Those laps thus far are clearly top of the pile, thus far. And they're both very quick. Which clearly doesn't mean nothing will/can go quicker. How that has morphed into this long uninteresting debate I'm not sure.

You're still asking me to prove unknowns. I could just as well ask you to 'prove' they're not the fastest also. Now see the real danger of straw arguments?

We're all conducting civilised debate. I haven't seen anyone uncivil yet.

And my suspicion is possibly one of the reasons you're on the forum is you like to argue.

I said Nico's lap was very quick. Further to quick there's quicker and quickest. I can't see where I said it was any of the latter. Should be simple really

I'm truly done with this. But not for the first time on this forum I do enjoy reading your posts.

some slow motion footage of the 2016 cars

mds wrote:

justmoi wrote:It tells us that's a very fast time

I don't agree. It's slower than Rosbergs best time of last year, which was also set on softs. As the PU has progressed throughout 2015 and the past winter, and as the car has evolved and gotten faster, they should be able to lap quite a bit faster still.

Like I pointed out yes you did imply

justmoi wrote:

mds wrote:

justmoi wrote:

mds wrote:
May I remind you again that I never said, or even implied, that Nico's lap wasn't quick?

Unless I recall wrongly, you did say all 'we know' is that Nico's lap was the quickest, but we don't know if it's 'quick'

Saying "we don't know if it's very quick" does not equal "Nico's lap wasn't quick". I said the former, but not the latter. There's a clear difference and if you're not even going to acknowledge that, I don't even know why you are on a forum in the first place.

which you also did say was absolute.

I see no problem with that. 1:50 is slow, 1:10 is insane. Somewhere in there lies a point where a time becomes "quick" and "very quick".

Which is rather a shame for those of us who don't work with any of the F1 teams as even during the season we'll never know who's truly quick... Based on the 'reasons' you gave of course

No need for those quotation marks. I'm conducting in civilized debate, I'm not saying anything out of the ordinary. The chances of Merc, Ferrari and Williams being so close together aren't that great. So prove Merc can't go faster or accept the possibility they have been sandbagging and that time is not per se "very quick" as they could possibly go quite a bit quicker.

Mate you did imply it was not quick. And if you're dancing around that now that is straw arguing as we may or may not know. I mean how do we know it's not the ulimate fastest they can go? See? I said it was very quick based on everything we had seen at these tests, this year. You went on about last year testing and unknown factors few in the world will ever know, even when the season starts, like true limit of an f1 car. Why my original statement is difficult to grasp I'm not sure.

I mean I'm wondering why we're even looking at ANY times then. What's the point if we'll still be in the dark.

Those laps thus far are clearly top of the pile, thus far. And they're both very quick. Which clearly doesn't mean nothing will/can go quicker. How that has morphed into this long uninteresting debate I'm not sure.

You're still asking me to prove unknowns. I could just as well ask you to 'prove' they're not the fastest also. Now see the real danger of straw arguments?

We're all conducting civilised debate. I haven't seen anyone uncivil yet.

And my suspicion is possibly one of the reasons you're on the forum is you like to argue.

I said Nico's lap was very quick. Further to quick there's quicker and quickest. I can't see where I said it was any of the latter. Should be simple really

I'm truly done with this. But not for the first time on this forum I do enjoy reading your posts.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're going on about.

specdecible wrote:some slow motion footage of the 2016 cars

"Still faster than McLaren-Honda"

Has Vettel done all of his running so far with the halo on?