F1 Testing 2010
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
A lot of the testing will revolve around consistent laps, then when setup changes are made the differences can be evaluated and reported. It's also why you have some drivers who are very good at testing (Pedro dlR springs to mind) but not very good at racing. The ability to run laps within a tenth or so is just as important as ultimate one lap pace.
This is true. But would it not also be true to say that a driver would almost never be asked to drive slow on purpose, unless there was a very specific (technical) reason for it?
What I'm trying to say is that if a team sandbags and goes slow on purpose, there is no point in attending the test as very little meaningful information can be gained, as the car is never placed under the stresses that would normally be experienced during a race weekend.
I agree. But even when a driver is driving with lots of fuel onboard, his job is drive as he would in a race and not drive slow, on purpose.
The whole idea of testing is to gather as much data as possible, on the behaviour of the car, when being driven at speeds similar to that seen at races.
There is no point in collecting data, if the car is being driven at 90% of what it is capable of.
Too many people talk of sandbagging, but I have yet to see a single good reason to sandbag/hide your true performance.
I've been a follower of F1 since 1991 and even during the dominance of Williams in 1992/3, when sandbagging would've been possible (due to the distance between Williams and the rest of the field), Williams never hid their true performance. Thanks in part to Mansell and his big ego, when Williams went testing, they went all-out - the aim being to humiliate the opposition. Even before the first race of 1992, everybody in the paddock new Williams were by far, the class of the field.
no one is saying the drivers arent doing the best they can but you dont know the fuel loads , just because someone does a 20 lap run doesnt mean they have 20 laps of fuel onboard the sand bagging would be them having twice as much fuel as they need.
everyone else has to guess how fast the car really is while the team would know how much time each lap of fuel adds to a lap
everyone else has to guess how fast the car really is while the team would know how much time each lap of fuel adds to a lap
+1, just what I was thinking. More fuel + offset timing = flat out testing and the results not fully known to the rest of the field.
It won't be a completely linear "X kg of fuel = Y seconds per lap" relationship though.
What happens if a team does this, and the first time they ever run the car on runes is in Q1 at the first race of the year, and they suddenly discover the balance of the car is way out of whack with an empty fuel tank.
And besides, what is the point in making other teams think you're slower than you are? They're hardly going to work less hard because they think they're ahead?!
In testing, you want to test the car in all states. Heavy, light, long consistent runs and qualifying laps. Racing drivers also have egos, and they ALL want to be top of the timesheets, ALL the time!
I think we need to define what sandbagging actually means.
2 definitions:
Defn1: loading the car up with a full tank of fuel and less than optimal setup, while having the driver drive as quickly as he can, is classified as 'sandbagging'. Lets assume that the team only run the car with near full fuel loads. This would be very very dangerous. The team will end up setting up and developing the car which performs great on heavier fuel loads (remember, all their data is based on full fuel loads, as they have not tested the car with low fuel loads). The idea must be to produce a car which performs well at all fuel loads and not just a heavy or light fuel load. Hence, assuming that running the car with heavy fuel loads is defined as sandbagging - would be a very dangerous practise and would only be practised if the team believe their car is miles ahead of the competition, which in turn means they don't ever have to bother testing the car with light fuel loads.
Defn2: the team set the car up to perform fast (low fuel loads, fast set up) and slow (high fuel loads and inappropriate setup). However, now the driver is instructed to go slow on purpose (ie. hide the true performance of the car). This practise would be pointless and risky, as the team will almost never get a true reflection of just how fast their car can go. At some point, the team will need to estimate the true capabilities of their car, which in itself is risky. Any improvements/atlerations to the car would be based on assumptions and estimates. Developing the car in this way could be disastrous, as the first time the driver drives the car on the limit (at the first race weekend), the car may not perform as predicted, when at its limit. Hence, asking the driver to "hide" the true performance of the car or "sandbag", is very very dangerous.
Whichever definition of sandbagging you use, sandbagging, gives you virtually no advantage and can in fact leave a team with no idea of just how fast their actually is and how it performs when at the limit. Sandbagging (using both the above definitions), may also have the effect of reducing morale, within the team as they see their cars always slower than the opposition.
In all the years I've watched F1, I have never seen a team "sandbag" and in general, if a car was fastest during most of pre-season testing, then it was also fastest in the first few races of the season. The perfect example was BrawnGP in 2009 - fastest in pre-season, fastest in the first few races of the season.
2 definitions:
Defn1: loading the car up with a full tank of fuel and less than optimal setup, while having the driver drive as quickly as he can, is classified as 'sandbagging'. Lets assume that the team only run the car with near full fuel loads. This would be very very dangerous. The team will end up setting up and developing the car which performs great on heavier fuel loads (remember, all their data is based on full fuel loads, as they have not tested the car with low fuel loads). The idea must be to produce a car which performs well at all fuel loads and not just a heavy or light fuel load. Hence, assuming that running the car with heavy fuel loads is defined as sandbagging - would be a very dangerous practise and would only be practised if the team believe their car is miles ahead of the competition, which in turn means they don't ever have to bother testing the car with light fuel loads.
Defn2: the team set the car up to perform fast (low fuel loads, fast set up) and slow (high fuel loads and inappropriate setup). However, now the driver is instructed to go slow on purpose (ie. hide the true performance of the car). This practise would be pointless and risky, as the team will almost never get a true reflection of just how fast their car can go. At some point, the team will need to estimate the true capabilities of their car, which in itself is risky. Any improvements/atlerations to the car would be based on assumptions and estimates. Developing the car in this way could be disastrous, as the first time the driver drives the car on the limit (at the first race weekend), the car may not perform as predicted, when at its limit. Hence, asking the driver to "hide" the true performance of the car or "sandbag", is very very dangerous.
Whichever definition of sandbagging you use, sandbagging, gives you virtually no advantage and can in fact leave a team with no idea of just how fast their actually is and how it performs when at the limit. Sandbagging (using both the above definitions), may also have the effect of reducing morale, within the team as they see their cars always slower than the opposition.
In all the years I've watched F1, I have never seen a team "sandbag" and in general, if a car was fastest during most of pre-season testing, then it was also fastest in the first few races of the season. The perfect example was BrawnGP in 2009 - fastest in pre-season, fastest in the first few races of the season.
Soldato
Or http://translate.googleusercontent.....co.uk&usg=ALkJrhg_0YV1W087ivNYnnJlzlRjJ5hnww 
Lotus makes its first outing
Lotus makes its first outing
Don
That looks very nice!!
Love that livery!
Love that livery!
Soldato
Soldato
I dunno if it's because of the lighting, but that shade of green looks damn good in the 2nd pic 
Lots more Lotus pics here - http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_gallery_display.php?fes_gal_id=1087
Great 'behind the scenes' at Jerez testing article here - http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/02/17/behind-the-scenes-at-jerez/