planetf1.com

Ricciardo's DRS crash from a different angle:

Some number crunching from Karun Chandhok:


1 lap pace:
https://twitter.com/karunchandhok/statu ... 8339055618

Long runs:
https://twitter.com/karunchandhok/statu ... 1113281536

Thermal tyre deg issues:
https://twitter.com/karunchandhok/statu ... 1111710720

aice wrote:Some number crunching from Karun Chandhok:


1 lap pace:
https://twitter.com/karunchandhok/statu ... 8339055618

Long runs:
https://twitter.com/karunchandhok/statu ... 1113281536

Thermal tyre deg issues:
https://twitter.com/karunchandhok/statu ... 1111710720

the bit about the thermal degradation issues confirms what I'd noticed during testing and is a little worrying. It'll mean drivers competing to see how slow they can finish a GP

Quite a interesting analysis of all the 10 team's front wings:

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 3vXAEatNwc


Source - http://www.imgur.com

Zoue wrote:

aice wrote:Some number crunching from Karun Chandhok:


1 lap pace:
https://twitter.com/karunchandhok/statu ... 8339055618

Long runs:
https://twitter.com/karunchandhok/statu ... 1113281536

Thermal tyre deg issues:
https://twitter.com/karunchandhok/statu ... 1111710720

the bit about the thermal degradation issues confirms what I'd noticed during testing and is a little worrying. It'll mean drivers competing to see how slow they can finish a GP

Yeah I've just read something about that, the intention was to have more durable tyres but they have basically turned up with the same tyres from last year, so tyre management we have again.

From what I've been reading the cars are going to change a lot going into the next test then again probably for Australia so things can change quite a bit in particular for Mercedes.

However once again I expect Ferrari to start the season with the fastest car with Mercedes having to play catch up. Red Bull will start the season like they tend to finish seasons so will be a threat from the get go this time but I don't see the Honda being as reliable as either the Ferrari or Mercedes, ultimately I think that will be telling for them.

Disappointed that Sky aren't showing the second test, not even half hour summary shows like last year as far as I can tell from the tv listings.

pokerman wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

Zoue wrote:No I don't think so. The most that could be said would be that Vettel may have had to overdrive the car if he felt it was missing that final bit of speed, but even so that's still down to the driver making the best of it. I don't think the car can be blamed for the mistakes that were made, even if I don't share the view that it was the best car last year

Vettel and his team made a lot of mistakes and wrong strategy calls, there is no doubt about that. My point is that while some car can be quick, they can also be very difficult to setup and drive. I thought Ferrari was a bit like that last season and that it contributed a bit to Vettel poor form. It was said in 2014 for example that Red Bull made car that didn't suit Vettel for the first time in years and Vettel looked really terrible in that Red Bull. Some drivers are better in such a situations, but probably Vettel isn't. Also this is why such a news are good for Vettel and Ferrari: https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/47322639

Of course I'm not following F1 that closely anymore so I could be very wrong about last season.

The Mercedes was said to be difficult to drive hence it being called the diva, the Ferrari never got that tag line.

Thanks. It makes sense now for me. That shows why people say that Hamilton is great driver and why Bottas wasn't so good last season.

First up, I may be wrong, I don’t mind being wrong I’m not so self centred as to dismiss the truth when presented or so fanatical to dismiss the facts when presented but can some one please explain why the point I brought up hasn’t be commented on as a race winning factor.

I can see that tyres are a factor, that tyre degradation as a result of temperature is an unknown, I can see that power out put can de disguised but not hidden, I can see that drivers can offset mechanical advantages by their skill. I can also see that engine modes affect times. However, isn’t fuel consumption a complete unknown.

If your car is down on power for a given weight resulting in a faster time for the manufacturer then better fuel consumption means less fuel, less weight, less tyre wear and a faster time but only when the fuel load is set for the race. If it isn’t significant can someone put me right. Isn’t 5kg less fuel significant or does the driver weight regs change nullify that? (Autosport analysis @6.40)

Option or Prime wrote:First up, I may be wrong, I don’t mind being wrong I’m not so self centred as to dismiss the truth when presented or so fanatical to dismiss the facts when presented but can some one please explain why the point I brought up hasn’t be commented on as a race winning factor.

I can see that tyres are a factor, that tyre degradation as a result of temperature is an unknown, I can see that power out put can de disguised but not hidden, I can see that drivers can offset mechanical advantages by their skill. I can also see that engine modes affect times. However, isn’t fuel consumption a complete unknown.

If your car is down on power for a given weight resulting in a faster time for the manufacturer then better fuel consumption means less fuel, less weight, less tyre wear and a faster time but only when the fuel load is set for the race. If it isn’t significant can someone put me right. Isn’t 5kg less fuel significant or does the driver weight regs change nullify that? (Autosport analysis @6.40)

Fuel is still a very significant factor in lap time, and indeed, if a car doesn't need to carry as much fuel that can make it faster in race trim than an equally quick car that uses more fuel. Less weight is always a good thing in racing; it makes the car easier to drive, it reduces the wear on the tyres - it does nothing but good, basically.

I don't think anyone has dismissed the potential effect of fuel efficiency, it's just that it's almost impossible to guess at from testing, when nobody knows what fuel load is being put into the car.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Disappointed that Sky aren't showing the second test, not even half hour summary shows like last year as far as I can tell from the tv listings.

It kind of makes no sense at all, it's baffling.

dizlexik wrote:

pokerman wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

Zoue wrote:No I don't think so. The most that could be said would be that Vettel may have had to overdrive the car if he felt it was missing that final bit of speed, but even so that's still down to the driver making the best of it. I don't think the car can be blamed for the mistakes that were made, even if I don't share the view that it was the best car last year

Vettel and his team made a lot of mistakes and wrong strategy calls, there is no doubt about that. My point is that while some car can be quick, they can also be very difficult to setup and drive. I thought Ferrari was a bit like that last season and that it contributed a bit to Vettel poor form. It was said in 2014 for example that Red Bull made car that didn't suit Vettel for the first time in years and Vettel looked really terrible in that Red Bull. Some drivers are better in such a situations, but probably Vettel isn't. Also this is why such a news are good for Vettel and Ferrari: https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/47322639

Of course I'm not following F1 that closely anymore so I could be very wrong about last season.

The Mercedes was said to be difficult to drive hence it being called the diva, the Ferrari never got that tag line.

Thanks. It makes sense now for me. That shows why people say that Hamilton is great driver and why Bottas wasn't so good last season.

Well as pointed out it was in 2017 when the Mercedes was called the diva, I was just making the comparison that no such thing was being said about the Ferrari these past 2 years, in regards to Bottas he sometimes did better than Hamilton in 2017 when the car was misbehaving.

Option or Prime wrote:First up, I may be wrong, I don’t mind being wrong I’m not so self centred as to dismiss the truth when presented or so fanatical to dismiss the facts when presented but can some one please explain why the point I brought up hasn’t be commented on as a race winning factor.

I can see that tyres are a factor, that tyre degradation as a result of temperature is an unknown, I can see that power out put can de disguised but not hidden, I can see that drivers can offset mechanical advantages by their skill. I can also see that engine modes affect times. However, isn’t fuel consumption a complete unknown.

If your car is down on power for a given weight resulting in a faster time for the manufacturer then better fuel consumption means less fuel, less weight, less tyre wear and a faster time but only when the fuel load is set for the race. If it isn’t significant can someone put me right. Isn’t 5kg less fuel significant or does the driver weight regs change nullify that? (Autosport analysis @6.40)

Fuel weight can be a factor in the race, to this point the Mercedes engine is reckoned upon as being the most fuel efficient maybe able to start a race with 5kg less fuel?

5kg equates to about 2 tenths so if true it's going to be very much a factor in the races this year.

The 1st day of the 2nd test can be followed here:
https://www.gptoday.net/en/live/f1/2454 ... st-in-2019

pokerman wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:First up, I may be wrong, I don’t mind being wrong I’m not so self centred as to dismiss the truth when presented or so fanatical to dismiss the facts when presented but can some one please explain why the point I brought up hasn’t be commented on as a race winning factor.

I can see that tyres are a factor, that tyre degradation as a result of temperature is an unknown, I can see that power out put can de disguised but not hidden, I can see that drivers can offset mechanical advantages by their skill. I can also see that engine modes affect times. However, isn’t fuel consumption a complete unknown.

If your car is down on power for a given weight resulting in a faster time for the manufacturer then better fuel consumption means less fuel, less weight, less tyre wear and a faster time but only when the fuel load is set for the race. If it isn’t significant can someone put me right. Isn’t 5kg less fuel significant or does the driver weight regs change nullify that? (Autosport analysis @6.40)

Fuel weight can be a factor in the race, to this point the Mercedes engine is reckoned upon as being the most fuel efficient maybe able to start a race with 5kg less fuel?

5kg equates to about 2 tenths so if true it's going to be very much a factor in the races this year.

Which, if true, would make it about 1 tenth a lap average over the entire race.

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:First up, I may be wrong, I don’t mind being wrong I’m not so self centred as to dismiss the truth when presented or so fanatical to dismiss the facts when presented but can some one please explain why the point I brought up hasn’t be commented on as a race winning factor.

I can see that tyres are a factor, that tyre degradation as a result of temperature is an unknown, I can see that power out put can de disguised but not hidden, I can see that drivers can offset mechanical advantages by their skill. I can also see that engine modes affect times. However, isn’t fuel consumption a complete unknown.

If your car is down on power for a given weight resulting in a faster time for the manufacturer then better fuel consumption means less fuel, less weight, less tyre wear and a faster time but only when the fuel load is set for the race. If it isn’t significant can someone put me right. Isn’t 5kg less fuel significant or does the driver weight regs change nullify that? (Autosport analysis @6.40)

Fuel weight can be a factor in the race, to this point the Mercedes engine is reckoned upon as being the most fuel efficient maybe able to start a race with 5kg less fuel?

5kg equates to about 2 tenths so if true it's going to be very much a factor in the races this year.

Which, if true, would make it about 1 tenth a lap average over the entire race.

A tenth a lap is 5-6 seconds at the average GP. That's often greater than or equal to the winning margin of a contested race.

@SkySportsF1

10:48

Still just six laps on the board for Charles Leclerc and we haven't seen him on track in over an hour.

Not the fast and busy morning we've come to expect from Ferrari in 2019...

Official word from Ferrari on Leclerc's absence
"We need some time to check a few things."

@Autosport

11:59 Leclerc is back out in the Ferrari.

Times from the morning session till lunch:


Source - www.imgur.com

Autosport not covering it?

Merc bringing lots of upgrades, new sidepods, front wing, t bar. God knows what else - looks like the pressure is on. As a merc fan I have this feeling that they are massively sandbagging and come australia are going to smash it.

stevey wrote:Merc bringing lots of upgrades, new sidepods, front wing, t bar. God knows what else - looks like the pressure is on. As a merc fan I have this feeling that they are massively sandbagging and come australia are going to smash it.

I don't get that feeling at all apparently the front wing design is somewhat lacking and would take months to replicate what Ferrari have done.

Looking at the list of parts you mentioned I was hoping to see a front wing on the itinerary instead it seems like loads of parts to try and enable the front wing to work better?

front wing/nose was on the list, not a replica of ferraris design but an suspected improvement to their own design as

stevey wrote:front wing/nose was on the list, not a replica of ferraris design but an suspected improvement to their own design as

Oh yeah sorry I somehow missed you saying that.

Source - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0VOcwdWoAAa9pP.jpg:large

@Autosport

14:30 And we have a red flag.

14:31 Bottas is the cause, pulling off on the inside of Turn 3.

Bottas in the Mercedes has stopped causing a Red flag!

Ferrari in morning session, now Merc in afternoon

@GPToday

Gasly moves into P1 with the first sub 1:18 time of the day. The Frenchman clocks a 1:17.715.

Red Bull looking quite impressive. McLaren must be kicking themselves...

Any news on why did Bottas stop? Engine or other issues?

@SkyF1

15:57

Sebastian Vettel has just finished his impressive afternoon stint, which included that 1:17.925 before consistently lapping in the 1:18s and then 1:20s.

He's completed 31 laps in less than two hours, which is more than Charles Leclerc got under his belt in the whole morning session.

Looks like Seb had lot more fuel than Gasly when he did 1.17 lap on C3

Mercedes is changing the engine for Bottas after an oil pressure problem.

Clarky wrote:Mercedes is changing the engine for Bottas after an oil pressure problem.

Ah, thank you

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:Merc bringing lots of upgrades, new sidepods, front wing, t bar. God knows what else - looks like the pressure is on. As a merc fan I have this feeling that they are massively sandbagging and come australia are going to smash it.

I don't get that feeling at all apparently the front wing design is somewhat lacking and would take months to replicate what Ferrari have done.

Looking at the list of parts you mentioned I was hoping to see a front wing on the itinerary instead it seems like loads of parts to try and enable the front wing to work better?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHJ07PQJRFM

Yup. It looks like they got it wrong on some level with their initial concept. They have had some handling issues and it seems entirely possible that this is another double diffuser situation; where teams who identified the real opportunity provided by new aero regulations will have an initial advantage. The production of outwash supersedes the maximization of downforce created by the front wing apparently and the teams who went with that philosophy seem to have the edge.

Exediron wrote:

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:First up, I may be wrong, I don’t mind being wrong I’m not so self centred as to dismiss the truth when presented or so fanatical to dismiss the facts when presented but can some one please explain why the point I brought up hasn’t be commented on as a race winning factor.

I can see that tyres are a factor, that tyre degradation as a result of temperature is an unknown, I can see that power out put can de disguised but not hidden, I can see that drivers can offset mechanical advantages by their skill. I can also see that engine modes affect times. However, isn’t fuel consumption a complete unknown.

If your car is down on power for a given weight resulting in a faster time for the manufacturer then better fuel consumption means less fuel, less weight, less tyre wear and a faster time but only when the fuel load is set for the race. If it isn’t significant can someone put me right. Isn’t 5kg less fuel significant or does the driver weight regs change nullify that? (Autosport analysis @6.40)

Fuel weight can be a factor in the race, to this point the Mercedes engine is reckoned upon as being the most fuel efficient maybe able to start a race with 5kg less fuel?

5kg equates to about 2 tenths so if true it's going to be very much a factor in the races this year.

Which, if true, would make it about 1 tenth a lap average over the entire race.

A tenth a lap is 5-6 seconds at the average GP. That's often greater than or equal to the winning margin of a contested race.

But it's just a plane mathematics, with the assumption that this theoretical average advantage of 1 tenth of sec/lap is being continuously utilized over the entire race, lap after lap.
How it actually pans out under the race, with all the variables and strategies involved, and particularly so in the last period of the race (when the fuel loads are pretty much already equalized) would be all another question, perhaps far too complicated to come to such a "formula" of 5-6 sec advantage at the average GP.

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:Merc bringing lots of upgrades, new sidepods, front wing, t bar. God knows what else - looks like the pressure is on. As a merc fan I have this feeling that they are massively sandbagging and come australia are going to smash it.

I don't get that feeling at all apparently the front wing design is somewhat lacking and would take months to replicate what Ferrari have done.

Looking at the list of parts you mentioned I was hoping to see a front wing on the itinerary instead it seems like loads of parts to try and enable the front wing to work better?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHJ07PQJRFM

Yup. It looks like they got it wrong on some level with their initial concept. They have had some handling issues and it seems entirely possible that this is another double diffuser situation; where teams who identified the real opportunity provided by new aero regulations will have an initial advantage. The production of outwash supersedes the maximization of downforce created by the front wing apparently and the teams who went with that philosophy seem to have the edge.

They still have time though. I have faith in Merc, if there's one team that can make this sort of change so fast it is them.

I just can't believe they got it "wrong" in the first place. I guess this is why we have testing

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:Merc bringing lots of upgrades, new sidepods, front wing, t bar. God knows what else - looks like the pressure is on. As a merc fan I have this feeling that they are massively sandbagging and come australia are going to smash it.

I don't get that feeling at all apparently the front wing design is somewhat lacking and would take months to replicate what Ferrari have done.

Looking at the list of parts you mentioned I was hoping to see a front wing on the itinerary instead it seems like loads of parts to try and enable the front wing to work better?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHJ07PQJRFM

Yup. It looks like they got it wrong on some level with their initial concept. They have had some handling issues and it seems entirely possible that this is another double diffuser situation; where teams who identified the real opportunity provided by new aero regulations will have an initial advantage. The production of outwash supersedes the maximization of downforce created by the front wing apparently and the teams who went with that philosophy seem to have the edge.

They still have time though. I have faith in Merc, if there's one team that can make this sort of change so fast it is them.

I just can't believe they got it "wrong" in the first place. I guess this is why we have testing

I don't think it's that simple. The front wing design is connected to the overall design philosophy as the front wing is basically the element that channels airflow to the rest of the car. It would probably take months for them to redesign the car to mimic the direction that Ferrari have taken. They will need to hope that their direction is actually the better one and only needs some tweaks.

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:Merc bringing lots of upgrades, new sidepods, front wing, t bar. God knows what else - looks like the pressure is on. As a merc fan I have this feeling that they are massively sandbagging and come australia are going to smash it.

I don't get that feeling at all apparently the front wing design is somewhat lacking and would take months to replicate what Ferrari have done.

Looking at the list of parts you mentioned I was hoping to see a front wing on the itinerary instead it seems like loads of parts to try and enable the front wing to work better?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHJ07PQJRFM

Yup. It looks like they got it wrong on some level with their initial concept. They have had some handling issues and it seems entirely possible that this is another double diffuser situation; where teams who identified the real opportunity provided by new aero regulations will have an initial advantage. The production of outwash supersedes the maximization of downforce created by the front wing apparently and the teams who went with that philosophy seem to have the edge.

They still have time though. I have faith in Merc, if there's one team that can make this sort of change so fast it is them.

I just can't believe they got it "wrong" in the first place. I guess this is why we have testing

I don't think it's that simple. The front wing design is connected to the overall design philosophy as the front wing is basically the element that channels airflow to the rest of the car. It would probably take months for them to redesign the car to mimic the direction that Ferrari have taken. They will need to hope that their direction is actually the better one and only needs some tweaks.

Still think we're jumping the gun on this one.

Forget Merc, if there's anyone I'd trust to nail the aero package it's Red Bull. And they've also gone for the maximum downforce route.