planetf1.com

I know we shouldn't look too much into testing times but some betting sites are offering 8/1 and even 7/1 on WDC for JB, which IMO is a pretty damn good deal!

and 11/2 for AUS win.

So the question remains, just how good was JB's time @ Jerez?

I'd bet on him for the AUS win, given his previous form.

No-one can know how good his time was.

To even think about times at this stage of the season is a waste of time.... JB's times are meaningless for now.

First day of testing, too early to tell yet.

It's way too early to be looking into testing times. There's two-and-a-half tests to go before Melbourne!

If you've got a dollar to spare, AUTOSPORT's Edd Straw is at Jerez at the moment and wrote up a feature explaining what he'd seen from the cars. It's a very entertaining read and explains whose cars look like they have potential.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/featu ... e-verdict/

I'm posting just to reiterate my signature.

Just like in practice, one quick lap can make you look like a hero in the media at the end of the day. I'd be much more interested to see the full lap charts and know how consistent long runs were between the teams and know what fuel loads they were running. Ashley's signature sums it up nicely!

We haven't even seen Vettel and Alonso run yet, bit early to be looking at odds for Button on the championship if you ask me.

Means absolutely nothing...
Wait till Melborne kiddies...

nowhereman wrote:Means absolutely nothing...
Wait till Melborne kiddies...

...is exactly what everyone said about the Brawns pace in pre-season testing.

Darkarium wrote:

nowhereman wrote:Means absolutely nothing...
Wait till Melborne kiddies...

...is exactly what everyone said about the Brawns pace in pre-season testing.

One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Also, given that Grosjean was .6s faster yesterday than Button was on Tuesday (and seeing how close Di Resta and Ricciardo came), everybody can answer this question: JB's time meant nothing.

I'm even amazed this question pops up given Grosjeans time

mds wrote:

Darkarium wrote:

nowhereman wrote:Means absolutely nothing...
Wait till Melborne kiddies...

...is exactly what everyone said about the Brawns pace in pre-season testing.

One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Also, given that Grosjean was .6s faster yesterday than Button was on Monday (and seeing how close Di Resta and Ricciardo came), everybody can answer this question: JB's time meant nothing.

I'm even amazed this question pops up given Grosjeans time

Definitely. I still remember the headline in Autocar magazine, getting over excited about British prospects before the 2005 season based only on the fastest laps of the day: "Jenson flies, Fernando cries." Fast forward to the start of the season, and they were royally shown up.

mds wrote:

Darkarium wrote:

nowhereman wrote:Means absolutely nothing...
Wait till Melborne kiddies...

...is exactly what everyone said about the Brawns pace in pre-season testing.

One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Also, given that Grosjean was .6s faster yesterday than Button was on Tuesday (and seeing how close Di Resta and Ricciardo came), everybody can answer this question: JB's time meant nothing.

I'm even amazed this question pops up given Grosjeans time

I think JB was on the hard compounds though, hence the questions over his lap times. (Don't think RG was on hards)

I'm just gunnu post what I posted in another thread.

No.

It's testing. I think we need to put this in big bold letters at the top of the forum for testing days.

No time, high or low means anything. They all mean naff all as:

1) Its unofficial
2) You dont know who is/isnt usind DRS/Kers during testing
3) You dont know fuel loads
4) You dont know tires
5) You dont know if they cut corners
6) Every single car except 1 may be on a very conservative test, thus making one seem amazingly fast.
7) It's testing
It's testing
9) It's testing
10) It's testing

Please oh please stop making posts about how "I know you cant read anything into it but do you think X will win based on the testing times" - no. Just no.

Volantary wrote:I'd bet on him for the AUS win, given his previous form.

No-one can know how good his time was.

+1

Strange, everyone says he cant do this and has no talent yet how many of us would really bet on him winning the 1st race.

Like last year, how many bet on him to win even though Lewis was 2nd? I thought Lewis would get JB but never did. JB may not be consistently at his best but lets face it - neither is Lewis.

Alonso posted the same time as Button last year in the F2012.

Just because it's testing doesn't meant people can't guess things guys. If people want to make a stab in the dark as to how they think things will go then let them. They will either be right or wrong.

Laura23 wrote:Just because it's testing doesn't meant people can't guess things guys. If people want to make a stab in the dark as to how they think things will go then let them. They will either be right or wrong.

We can now massa does decent time.

Laura23 wrote:Just because it's testing doesn't meant people can't guess things guys. If people want to make a stab in the dark as to how they think things will go then let them. They will either be right or wrong.

I completely agree Laura. But at this stage of the evolution of the season, a roll of the dice or a Ouija board is just as accurate.

Personally, the only thing I consider relevant is laps on track, and the impact they have on development and learning the car and tires.

Sounds like a reasonable shout. Button will probably have a pretty good car, and I don't think Sergio will be finishing ahead of him very much, so he stands a reasonable chance at getting the points of a one man team kind of thing.

Regarding betting, I remember he was 250/1 for 2009 and 500/1 for the Oz win. I was talking to mates suggesting that £10 on that was not unreasonable if a buy out was possible (this was early 2009). I didn't put the money on, and didn't win the £1250 and £2500 that I would have if I wasn't so cheap. These days I'll stick money on stuff I think might be a laugh, I limit myself to £10 though, and only really bet on F1 and the Superbowl.

You got to love testing - Massa for WDC confirmed - about to bet my life savings on it now.

Its obviously good to be at the top of the time sheets, meaningless, but still positive none the less.

Same with qualifying statistics. Mean eff all, Sundays on race weekends are all that matters.

The times look promising that's it. Promises can always be broken.

Cars going faster today doesn't mean much as the track has rubber in more. AND we have no idea who is on what program. who are trying flying laps and who are just out to try something and happen to put in a good lap.

Valen wrote:

mds wrote:

Darkarium wrote:

nowhereman wrote:Means absolutely nothing...
Wait till Melborne kiddies...

...is exactly what everyone said about the Brawns pace in pre-season testing.

One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Also, given that Grosjean was .6s faster yesterday than Button was on Tuesday (and seeing how close Di Resta and Ricciardo came), everybody can answer this question: JB's time meant nothing.

I'm even amazed this question pops up given Grosjeans time

I think JB was on the hard compounds though, hence the questions over his lap times. (Don't think RG was on hards)

The details for the lap are completely unknown other than it was on hard tyres - we dont know if it was a legal lap (did he shave a few corners), Did he use DRS as much as possible, how much kers was used?, what was the fuel load.

If we new that then we could make an educated analysis of the lap, but all we can do is make a guess.

Massa is now 1 second faster so I think that about covers it.

Jenson Button sets a good time and there is a new thread, can we please start a new forum for Massa's time?

If I was to guess I'd say the order probably hasn't changed much on last year. The rules are consistent, no one has gone radical, so why should things shake up big time. The only team I can see making a big improvement is Ferrari and that could be down to Massa simply performing back at his best, after all if he had been on top form through the entirety of the 2012 season Ferrari could have won the WCC.

Laura23 wrote:no one has gone radical, so why should things shake up big time.

Don't agree for two reasons:
- Ferrari did a lot of work on the back of the car. If, by doing that, they've solved last year's problems, they'll be much more competitive.
- I'd call Mclarens new car entirely different than last years. They even changed their design philosophy.

Look, we've got 2 camps going on here:

1) Look at the fast times - X is going to win

2) It's testing, it means nothing.

In my view, you are both wrong (well, kind of).

While you can't make any snap judgements because a driver posts a single fast lap - I think that anyone with enough time and knowledge probably could look at the entirety of testing and make reasonable judgements about who is fast and who isn't. How the cars behave over various types of scenario, etc...


I do agree with those in camp 2) in that you cannot look at a singular fast time from a driver and say that the car is quick, but experts will be able to analyse who the cars are performing in terms of consistency over short stints, long stints, how the cars performance drops off over those stints, visually looking at the car to see how it behaves, making estimates of fuel loads based on all of that information - and add it all up into a rough indication of who is fast and who isn't.


We've all seen some of the early analysis from technical experts so far about how some cars are looking better than others - and this will evolve over time...


Thing is though, it's early days yet. Whilst you may say "it's testing, long way till Melbourne", that's not really isolated. It's kind of like trying to pick the winner of the Silverstone GP based on the Oz GP.

It's not that it's testing, it's just the pace of development means we can tell who is quick now. But that will change.

Thing is, I don't expect a fast car to suddenly become slow...

Gothalamide wrote:Look, we've got 2 camps going on here:

1) Look at the fast times - X is going to win

2) It's testing, it means nothing.

In my view, you are both wrong (well, kind of).

While you can't make any snap judgements because a driver posts a single fast lap - I think that anyone with enough time and knowledge probably could look at the entirety of testing and make reasonable judgements about who is fast and who isn't. How the cars behave over various types of scenario, etc...


I do agree with those in camp 2) in that you cannot look at a singular fast time from a driver and say that the car is quick, but experts will be able to analyse who the cars are performing in terms of consistency over short stints, long stints, how the cars performance drops off over those stints, visually looking at the car to see how it behaves, making estimates of fuel loads based on all of that information - and add it all up into a rough indication of who is fast and who isn't.


We've all seen some of the early analysis from technical experts so far about how some cars are looking better than others - and this will evolve over time...


Thing is though, it's early days yet. Whilst you may say "it's testing, long way till Melbourne", that's not really isolated. It's kind of like trying to pick the winner of the Silverstone GP based on the Oz GP.

It's not that it's testing, it's just the pace of development means we can tell who is quick now. But that will change.

Thing is, I don't expect a fast car to suddenly become slow...

After many calculations with my calculator i brought from poundland i can tell you that Mercedes are half a second off Mclaren's Quali pace and equal on race pace.

The times in testing are about as meaningless as a Mark Webber pole position (sorry Mark!).

Misinformed wrote:The times in testing are about as meaningless as a Mark Webber pole position (sorry Mark!).

No need for that at all, below the belt but i agree 100%

Misinformed wrote:The times in testing are about as meaningless as a Mark Webber pole position (sorry Mark!).

Totally.

The cars don't even need to be legal and without DRS or KERS being monitored teams go be doing anything.

For example one team might be doing quick laps but they could also be trying to push their KERS to the max to stress it for reliability tests and running it as much as possible.

MclarenBullet wrote:

Misinformed wrote:The times in testing are about as meaningless as a Mark Webber pole position (sorry Mark!).

No need for that at all, below the belt but i agree 100%

It was a tongue in cheek comment. I'm a die-hard Mark Webber fan. As biased as they come.

Well, it depends on how every one of us cheers and has confidence.
I myself have a very clear image of what's going on:

Button kicks donkey.
Or, who knows, he's just got lucky.
Oh, wait, it's testing.
But it could mean the real thing.
Or not...
Everybody else in sandbagging.
Maybe Button was sandbagging himself. Maybe the car is even quicker.
But maybe Hamilton is quicker.
I'm a Button fan, so I believe he;s better than Hamilton and I believe this is the year.
But my conscience tells me I said the same thing after Australia last year.
So what, it doesn't have to be like this again, no?
But history repeats itself, they say.
But...but...

chocolate fudge cake, I hate this period of the year, every time I get around these testing days I get soooo confused. I just wish Australia would come sooner and would keep me busy with real live issues, not just shots in the dark.

The good analysts have been spot on practically every year for the last 10 to my memory... they analyse long run data and race simulations usually.

Renault looked strongest going into 2005...
Renault/Ferrari equal going into 2006...
2007/2008 Ferrari were thought strongest
2009 Brawn
2010,11 - Red Bull
2012 - Nobody knew much because of the tyre situation.

MclarenBullet wrote:Jenson Button sets a good time and there is a new thread, can we please start a new forum for Massa's time?

then we should launch a website dedicated to Kimi's time since most people here worships him

lamo wrote:The good analysts have been spot on practically every year for the last 10 to my memory... they analyse long run data and race simulations usually.

Renault looked strongest going into 2005...
Renault/Ferrari equal going into 2006...
2007/2008 Ferrari were thought strongest
2009 Brawn
2010,11 - Red Bull
2012 - Nobody knew much because of the tyre situation.

But the analysts haven't really been able to conclude much from the Jerez test. I think the teams have been focussing on reliability and aero tests to validate wind tunnel results rather than performance. I think we'll have clearer picture after the next round of testing when the performance tests begin.

It is a good point though, although the fastest lap times are often not a good indication of things to come (Sauber's low fuel glory runs in 2010 spring to mind), there are often rumours about the pecking order that come out of testing that tend to be quite accurate. Gary Anderson's insight on the BBC has been interesting to read, he seemed to think that the Red Bull had more downforce than any of the others, and that the Ferrari was looking strong too.

Tyres have been an issue so far in testing also this year due to the track surface. That added to the fact that no one know when DRS was open or closed during testing means its real hard to read anything into the times.

MclarenBullet wrote:Jenson Button sets a good time and there is a new thread, can we please start a new forum for Massa's time?

Go ahead Shouldn't you be in the "Hamilton already faster than Rosberg" thread defending Lewis from the evil powers of Nico?

In past years when one team has had a gun car and dominated testing sure it matters.

But this year its pretty clear to everyone the front runners and the upper midfield could all be within half a second of eachother. So the smallest of differences could throw the times out