***Official 2010 F1 thread***
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
erm since testing lets you develop a car and you can do race sims
Yeah, 'cause doing massive amounts of pre-season track testing did wonders for the BMW challenge last year....and at the other end of the scale, BrawnGP didn't turn a wheel in testing until March 9th and still comfortably had the measure of everyone else in Melbourne.
Testing mileage is great. Actual race speed is better. And the former isn't forced to lead to the latter.
JRS, last year was an anomally. Apart from 2009, when was the last time you saw a minimally tested F1 car dominate?
In years gone by, the best cars have been those who have done the most testing. This year is a good example: I think Ferrari and McLaren put in more mileage than any other team - low behold, these are the very 2 teams who are leading the constructors race.
RedBull are the exception this year as they have put in less miles than most, however, I feel a lot of that is down to the ingenuity of Adrian Newey.
What I'm trying to say is that testing is VERY important, if you want to have a good start to the season.
Last year really was an anomally, the likes of which I've never seen since I started watching F1 (almost 20 years).
I'm not saying that testing is unimportant (there you go again sunama, not actually reading what I'm typing....). I'm saying that lots of pre-season testing doesn't always translate into racing pace (or reliability, actually). You'd think that would have been obvious when I said....
....but given your spectacular history of reading only one word in six that I post I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
me said:
....but given your spectacular history of reading only one word in six that I post I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
JRS, I think you are just twisting words and looking for an argument over nothing.
It seemed pretty clear that you were berating testing,
arguing that it counts for little and that it is quite possible for a car to go into the season with little or no testing and dominate.
I replied, "Yes it is possible, but it is very unlikely. 2009 was an anomally. Apart from 2009, the cars which have put in the most testing miles have started the season well."
Testing miles are VERY important, if you want to have a good start to the season.
It seemed pretty clear that you were berating testing,
arguing that it counts for little and that it is quite possible for a car to go into the season with little or no testing and dominate.
I replied, "Yes it is possible, but it is very unlikely. 2009 was an anomally. Apart from 2009, the cars which have put in the most testing miles have started the season well."
Testing miles are VERY important, if you want to have a good start to the season.
*sigh* One last attempt....
Testing mileage is important. It is not as important, however, as speed when you actually come to race. Cars have been quick in testing and nowhere when they get to the grid (Prost AP04 anyone?). Conversely, cars have been quiet in testing and suddenly right up at the front when they get to the first race. Cars have been metronomically reliable in testing and then grenaded themselves in races. Cars have had all manner of faults in testing and then come right for the racing.
Once again - I'm not saying testing is unimportant. I'm just saying that it doesn't always lead to having the best car, or even a particularly good one.
Testing mileage is important. It is not as important, however, as speed when you actually come to race. Cars have been quick in testing and nowhere when they get to the grid (Prost AP04 anyone?). Conversely, cars have been quiet in testing and suddenly right up at the front when they get to the first race. Cars have been metronomically reliable in testing and then grenaded themselves in races. Cars have had all manner of faults in testing and then come right for the racing.
Once again - I'm not saying testing is unimportant. I'm just saying that it doesn't always lead to having the best car, or even a particularly good one.
Apart from us missing both 1st test sessions of 2009 and 2010 [yet still having a very quick arguably the fastest car] Testing is important to iron out problems but if you have designed a quick car its going to be quick whether you test it or not.
CSi, I can't help feel that part of the fact that your team has produced a good car is down to the personnel - Adrian Newey in particular, who seems to be back on form.
For most teams, who don't have your personnel, they rely on hard work and grinding out the test miles. From those long tests, they garner data and extract the maximum out of their (inferior) package. The test miles help them understand their car better, which in turn allows them to reach the optimum setup of the car faster.
My own take on testing is that it is VERY important and I would much rather have a car which has done more testing than less. An inately fast car though, can turn up late and still beat the well tested car, but relying on your car to be fast straight out of the box is a leap of faith I wouldn't want to take.
Im sure I dont need ot convince you that testing helps to increase reliability...... sorry that was a low blow
Have to agree I think AN is a main factor in how fantastic the RB is - I dont think he has anything to do with the issues with reliability though (as has been mentioned previousely)
Yes a fast car will always be fast - but testing does help a great deal for a decent /reliable car to become fast
(or to put it anohter way - imagine the RB with a Merc engine, think all other teams would pack up and go home if that combination was around)
Last edited:
Im sure I dont need ot convince you that testing helps to increase reliability...... sorry that was a low blow
Have to agree I think AN is a main factor in how fantastic the RB is - I dont think he has anything to do with the issues with reliability though (as has been mentioned previousely)
Yes a fast car will always be fast - but testing does help a great deal for a decent /reliable car to become fast
(or to put it anohter way - imagine the RB with a Merc engine, think all other teams would pack up and go home if that combination was around)
Which is exactly why it was never going to happen, McLaren and Mercedes GP were not going to put up with that and if the shoe was on the other foot,neither would we
I see where you are coming from mate and partly agree. We chose to get more simulated data ie: wind tunnel to make sure we knew exactly where we were.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
Seems ferrari are going to use the engines they changed before the bahrain gp. Can changed engines be worked on or do they have to use them in condition that they were in the first gp?
I think they can make some minor changes but generally are the same unit overall. I expect Mark can give us a little more info if he knows
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=40490
McLaren have abandoned ride height device.
I think they can make some minor changes but generally are the same unit overall. I expect Mark can give us a little more info if he knows
As far as i know, once the engine has been used in practice it is classed as 1 of your allocation and you are not permitted to do anything with it. Just text our lolly-pop guy and thats what he said. He is a little bit crazy so that could be utter rubbish
