F1 Testing 2016: Week 2 Barcelona (1st - 4th)

So did we learn anything from testing? The order seems the same as last year with the exception of a battle between Haas and Manor for last place :D
 
Kris_90 said:
So did we learn anything from testing? The order seems the same as last year with the exception of a battle between Haas and Manor for last place :D
Click to expand...

Williams maybe closer to Ferrari.
McLaren has much more reliability. But only marginal closer to the front.

But it's so hard to get anything from testing, unless it's blatant from the start like braun. But most dont show their hand like thatr.
 
SS-89 said:
Nothing much can be gleaned from testing. Merc look strong but how much stronger will be clearer on Q3 of Australia!
Click to expand...

Might have to wait for the race.
As qualifying looks like it should massively benefit those who are light on their tyres. Which iirc historically are sauber and ???
Although they're still probably to far fro the front to capitalise.
 
SS-89 said:
Nothing much can be gleaned from testing. Merc look strong but how much stronger will be clearer on Q3 of Australia!
Click to expand...

CcuQSEnVAAA_HqC.jpg


McLaren out of all the teams intrigue me the most as to performance, but then again each car will be notably different spec to what they are today - lots of new parts coming for McLaren according to EB.

I think the order is something like this though:

Mercedes
Ferrari
Williams
Force India
Torro Rosso
Red Bull
McLaren
Renault
Sauber
Haas
Manor
 
Glaucus said:
I don't get what your point is.

Taking something to point if failure is extremely useful, when did that ever mean you then had to keep running it passed the point of failure to complete destruction.
Click to expand...

You don't take something to failure. Failure is when it stops working, which in the case of an ICE is when you blow a whacking great big hole in the thing and it makes nasty mashing noises, not when it starts getting a bit smokey and loses 20kph. That point is failing, which is when it's time to shut it off and hope they can work out why there is oil in the water or visa-versa.

You brought the "point of failure" in later, which would have been a better term to start with. An F1 team would never intentionally blow an engine on the track, which is what you implied initially.

That and the fact the PU wasn't at fault anyway.
 
The_Abyss said:
A few of the sounds from the last two days (might take a while for HD to be available).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwvUuAkqM6U
Click to expand...
It's interesting that Mercedes and Ferrari are increasingly starting to sound like the 'bag of nails' Honda when on partial throttle. Honda must have had some good ideas.



deuse said:
http://www.formula1.com/content/fom...3/f1-halo-exclusive-video-vettel-ferrari.html

On board with the halo. It's looks stupid to me.
Click to expand...

Of course it looks stupid. Nobody thinks is looks great - even those arguing its merits thinks it looks rubbish. The mature debate is whether it can help or if there is a better solution.
 
The halo is a retro fitted test part. Once (and assuming) the engineers can blend it into the lines of the car and it looks more in keeping (also possibly providing an aero advantage to entice its use) it'll all settle down.

As Vettel said today, Surtees and Wilson would probably still be with us if we had it then.

No brainer (no pun intended).
 
this_is_gav said:
It's interesting that Mercedes and Ferrari are increasingly starting to sound like the 'bag of nails' Honda when on partial throttle. Honda must have had some good ideas.





Of course it looks stupid. Nobody thinks is looks great - even those arguing its merits thinks it looks rubbish. The mature debate is whether it can help or if there is a better solution.
Click to expand...

Mature debate is where we all facepalm ourselves ala Lewis yesterday :D
 
I was talking (tweeting) to Andrew Benson earlier (yes I know) but I asked him if it really would have protected Henry Surtees - wouldn't the deformation of the tyre and wheel at the force on impact been enough to penetrate through the halo which Ferrari had on the car today? He went ignorant at that point and I may be wrong but I think it's an interesting question.
 
The thing, is how far do you go though to improve safety? Why not just add a bumper car style ring around the whole car as well whilst you are at it :p.
 
Lopéz said:
Why?

How often are F1 cars subjected to impacts from objects travelling directly downwards from above?
Click to expand...

Henry Surtees.

Anything traveling at an angle from horizontal at a height just above the hoop, up to vertical and heading for his head would hit his helmet first, using that current layout. It needs to be a few inches higher.

Edit: Also, having looked at other pictures, it tapers down and away from the cockpit sides at the back, meaning anything traveling from behing the driver (like a car having mounted the sidepod travelling forward) has an unobstructed path to the drivers head. It needs to be a bit higher, and loop back in and connect to the airbox.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom