F1 2013 Testing: Week 1 Jerez
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
Only Seb and Button set their fastest times on hards.
Sebs time looks good when the consensus seems to be half a second difference between compounds, making the hard a second slower than the soft. Doesnt look like Merc, RBR or McLaren managed to get a qualifying sim in.
Not to say that Adrian has run out of ideas, but I think we'd all be agreed that last year the RB had the most downforce at the end of the season. On the premise that downforce is primarily a diminishing rate of return venture then it would be reasonable to assume that the grid will close up at the front for the first part of the season.
With speculation mode on I think the testing has shown that. The RB, McLaren, Ferrari and Lotus have all shown forms of pace. I think the Merc could have decent pace too, and I feel they're the most likely to innovate a major advantage as Brawn's previous. A dangerous exercise though if those devices don't pay out and your Newey powered opponents continue to shave tenths off their lap times. A few races down the line and you're half a second off.
I'm most excited about the mid-level teams, FI and Sauber. I'm hoping they've built the platforms to mix it up at the front.
With speculation mode on I think the testing has shown that. The RB, McLaren, Ferrari and Lotus have all shown forms of pace. I think the Merc could have decent pace too, and I feel they're the most likely to innovate a major advantage as Brawn's previous. A dangerous exercise though if those devices don't pay out and your Newey powered opponents continue to shave tenths off their lap times. A few races down the line and you're half a second off.
I'm most excited about the mid-level teams, FI and Sauber. I'm hoping they've built the platforms to mix it up at the front.
So,
Vettel was the fastest on hard tyres.
Massa was the fastest on soft tyres.
Obviously, we must all bear in mind that this was only the first pre-season test.
I think it has provided a lift to Ferrari morale. Being fastest in a test is never a bad thing.
Vettel was the fastest on hard tyres.
Massa was the fastest on soft tyres.
Obviously, we must all bear in mind that this was only the first pre-season test.
I think it has provided a lift to Ferrari morale. Being fastest in a test is never a bad thing.
Most people assume this.
Logically, it makes sense.
However, in practise this has not been the case.
In 2009 there was a major overhaul of the regs. Brawn were the best, RBR were 2nd best.
In 2010, when more regs were changed, RBR moved forward and had the best car.
In 2011, when the regs were relatively stable, RBR opened up a bigger gap over the opposition and had by far, the best car.
In 2012, when the regs changed, RBR started average and then moved forward after the Summer break, compared to the opposition.
Considering the above, RBR have continued to maintain their advantage, even after the regs have stabilised. There has been no sign of the field bunching up (except in early 2012 - though this was more down to the tyres and RBR having to revamp the the underfloor and back-end of the car). However, after the Summer break, RBR understood their tyres and their car better and moved forward, finishing with arguably the best car.
If all teams had the same quality of staff, then we would expect all teams to move closer together, as the performance of all cars, plateau. However, RBR appear to have the best staff in all areas. This means they have been (since mid-2009) the fastest and are able to continue to hold their advantage.
Not sure if others went quicker than Button on hards.
Soldato
Hmm, looking more and more like I may not be subjected to the finger....
kd
kd
Ont he BBC website, I read that the soft is roughly 0.5 seconds faster than medium, then the hard is oddly 0.4 secs faster than medium
Doesn't that make Mercedes look a lot faster if true?
Oh yeah...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21390731
I didn't notice that. That does seem a bit odd, but if true it means the soft and the hard are the same? Maybe that was based on longer runs though, as I imagine the first lap on softs would be faster than the hards by a long way, but then they just fall apart?
JB's was done on the first day on a green track don't forget. All is meaningless though until qually in Oz
Indeed
It does seem odd, doesn't it!
I think the overriding feeling I got from following the test this week was that the abrasive and deteriorating surface of the Jerez track made any conclusions about the tyres pretty hit and miss.
The thing I found most interesting was Massa praising JB's slower lap time on the hard tyres on day one (when he was nearly 2 seconds back). JB's WDC odds have shortened noticeably in the last few days....
The thing I found most interesting was Massa praising JB's slower lap time on the hard tyres on day one (when he was nearly 2 seconds back). JB's WDC odds have shortened noticeably in the last few days....
It did sound strange hearing Massa say that.
On the other hand a lot of people (Autosport, BBC and a few other online articles) after the test was completed all said that JB's time was the most remarkable.
Testing is always difficult to read, add on that no one really knows much about this tyre formulation, fuel loads or what kind of spec cars are running compared to Oz (McLaren could be running Oz spec, where as Ferrari, Merc and RBR could be 2012/13 hybrid for example) no one will really know anything until Fri/Sat in Melbourne at the earliest.
We may not know, but the teams do. As that BBC article says they will all sit there after qualifying in Australia and say they are where they expected to be after seeing peoples testing times, yet all through testing they will shrug their shoulders and say its only testing, they don't know 
.
The teams know a lot more about each others pace than they let on.
.The teams know a lot more about each others pace than they let on.
I think there is a lot more to consider in the example years you suggest.
The Brawn was a lightning abomination. The 2010 RB wasn't hugely dominant. The 2011 was, but the "relatively stable" rule changes meant that some of the 2010 innovations for the opposing front runners were banned, so they had quite an impact at the business end. And 2012 saw the season starting points elude the best car.
As a general rule of thumb I think it's a legitimate one. There's just a whole lot of smart people trying to shave off a second rather than a tenth.
We may not know, but the teams do. As that BBC article says they will all sit there after qualifying in Australia and say they are where they expected to be after seeing peoples testing times, yet all through testing they will shrug their shoulders and say its only testing, they don't know
.
Or after seeing everyone's times in the 3 practice sessions prior to qualifying maybe.
I think that generally, impressions from testing hold true into the season. Teams will run *roughly* equivalent programs, and there's nothing to be gained through sandbagging.
Brawn *looked* good in their tests, and those in the paddock said "that's a good car". Weeks of internet speculation of "running light to attract sponsors" followed, and was only put to bed in Melbourne. I still regret walking past the door of the bookies in town the day I read tweets from the paddock on the first morning of the 3rd test saying the Brawn looked amazing, checking the odds online and finding JB was 200-1 for the WDC, checking my wallet to find a £20 note and thinking, hmmm, I might go and put that on when I'm in town later.... Chickened out at the door. Bum!
The exact pecking order will (as always) change from race to race, but after the first test I'd bung a fiver on:
- The McLaren being generally strong,
- The Lotus being faster than last year, and regularly up the front,
- The Mercedes being comparatively unreliable with more "tyre wear" issues,
- The Red Bull quietly and efficiently being fast (again),
- The FI being able to pull a surprisingly quick lap out the bag on occasion (a la Bianchi),
- The Caterham being disappointingly off the pace again,
- The Sauber putting in strong showings like last year.
It'd be interesting to return to this post after the first few races to see if first test impressions hold true!
Brawn *looked* good in their tests, and those in the paddock said "that's a good car". Weeks of internet speculation of "running light to attract sponsors" followed, and was only put to bed in Melbourne. I still regret walking past the door of the bookies in town the day I read tweets from the paddock on the first morning of the 3rd test saying the Brawn looked amazing, checking the odds online and finding JB was 200-1 for the WDC, checking my wallet to find a £20 note and thinking, hmmm, I might go and put that on when I'm in town later.... Chickened out at the door. Bum!
The exact pecking order will (as always) change from race to race, but after the first test I'd bung a fiver on:
- The McLaren being generally strong,
- The Lotus being faster than last year, and regularly up the front,
- The Mercedes being comparatively unreliable with more "tyre wear" issues,
- The Red Bull quietly and efficiently being fast (again),
- The FI being able to pull a surprisingly quick lap out the bag on occasion (a la Bianchi),
- The Caterham being disappointingly off the pace again,
- The Sauber putting in strong showings like last year.
It'd be interesting to return to this post after the first few races to see if first test impressions hold true!