2025 Season: Pecking order discussion

[Sergej]

McLaren is ahead but behind it's quite unclear: Ferrari are in one of their typical failed upgrade phase but if they hit the right click they can unlock some speed, Mercedes is better than expected and could be prove to be even second best, Red Bull is a bit of unknown but probably more difficult than fast car; difficult to pick the runner up for Melbourne.

[balex]

I’ve no idea how to read Ferrari & Merc!
I’m reluctant to put McLaren ahead of RB just because the dominant team usually has the confidence to not show their hand, while the challenger tends to wear everything on their sleeve. That and RB have clearly invested in things less visible…

Time will tell!

[BorisTheBlade]

This is what Lawrence Baretto from Formula1.com took away from Testing:



Usually, these analysis do not seem that bad.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 3eX8oB7tHp

[Fred]

This is what Lawrence Baretto from Formula1.com took away from Testing:
https://media.formula1.com/image/upload ... %20Lap%203
https://media.formula1.com/image/upload ... %20Lap%203

Usually, these analysis do not seem that bad.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 3eX8oB7tHp

Here’s last year’s for reference:

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... vmpG7x03NR

The general groupings were reasonable but the order within them deviated a bit. Except for RB and Haas that is.

Here’s 2023’s as well:

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... gcnyBTf0ze

Same story essentially.

I’d say from this year’s, it’s looking like McLaren will start off comfortably leading with Ferrari, Red Bull, and Mercedes all being pretty close together.

From there, I think Aston have sandbagged a lot, they’re not going to drop down that much. So the rest seem like a mixed bag, with Alpine and Sauber at the back end of that. That said, I also think Alpine won’t be as weak as this implies, but it may also be a case of learning the new car and they could struggle a little until they do so.

[continuum16]

After day 1 I wrote:
1 - McLaren
2 - Red Bull
3 - Ferrari
4 - Mercedes
(gap)
5 - Williams
6 - Haas
7 - Aston
8 - Alpine
(gap)
9 - Racing Bulls
10 - Sauber

Two days later, I still back that general order although I think it's more:
McLaren
Ferrari/Red Bull/Mercedes

Williams/Alpine/Haas
Aston
Racing Bulls
Sauber

Aston I have the least confidence in placing.

[Matt2725]

It's still hard to say, but I think it looks like this at the moment

1. McLaren
2. Ferrari
3. Red Bull
4. Mercedes
5. Williams
6. Alpine
7. Aston Martin
8. RBR
9. Kick Sauber
10. Haas

Swap Mercedes with Ferrari and I think it's closer to the truth. Also think Alpine and Williams could be either way round.

That would be some rotten luck for Hamilton. Imagine if Russell/Antonelli get a championship capable car.

Was always going to be a gamble IMO.

I don't think so, its close, but lets not forget 2024 - cold temperatures meant fast Mercedes. Normal and warm temperatures - slow Mercedes. So it is likely that the temperatures suited Mercedes, or at least more than Ferrari.

Anyway - McLaren is probably 3-4 tenths ahead. Ferrari is behind with Mercedes but Mercedes is close too Ferrari, as is Red Bull (but only Verstappen - In general I am critical of Red Bull, the new underbody that came during the tests has already failed again). Hamilton won't win another title either way, whether Mercedes or Ferrari, in my opinion.

Between Alpine and Williams it is as close as it is between Ferrari and Mercedes. The track and the conditions will be decisive and it will vary.

Why are you using last year's car performance to determine performance of this year? That's bogus reasoning.

The Mercedes performance remained stable to the competition throughout the changes in temp. Yes temps were cool, but werr also in the high terms which is what many circuits will be at.

[CHT]

Pecking order is likely to change when they turn up Melbourne. I suspect many teams are thinking the same about keeping their card close to their chest..

[Andi76]

Swap Mercedes with Ferrari and I think it's closer to the truth. Also think Alpine and Williams could be either way round.



Was always going to be a gamble IMO.

I don't think so, its close, but lets not forget 2024 - cold temperatures meant fast Mercedes. Normal and warm temperatures - slow Mercedes. So it is likely that the temperatures suited Mercedes, or at least more than Ferrari.

Anyway - McLaren is probably 3-4 tenths ahead. Ferrari is behind with Mercedes but Mercedes is close too Ferrari, as is Red Bull (but only Verstappen - In general I am critical of Red Bull, the new underbody that came during the tests has already failed again). Hamilton won't win another title either way, whether Mercedes or Ferrari, in my opinion.

Between Alpine and Williams it is as close as it is between Ferrari and Mercedes. The track and the conditions will be decisive and it will vary.

Why are you using last year's car performance to determine performance of this year? That's bogus reasoning.

The Mercedes performance remained stable to the competition throughout the changes in temp. Yes temps were cool, but werr also in the high terms which is what many circuits will be at.

It's not bogus reading in any way, because F1 cars have certain characteristics. One of those characteristics of the Mercedes in the last two years has been to be fast in cold temperatures. So it's quite possible that it will be the same this year. The bogus reading is the statement by Toto Wolff, who himself is not sure whether Mercedes still has this "cold advantage/disadvantage" "in the car" or not:

"So, either we've remedied the problem and we are more balanced through all the climate conditions or not."

And as I said, it's not unusual for F1 cars to inherit certain characteristics and/or problems from their predecessor. Of course, this doesn't have to be the case, but it is neither unusual nor even rare, so it has nothing to do with "bogus reasoning", but simply with realism and experience. And these simply mean that an F1 car often "inherits" certain characteristics from its predecessor, which is only logical, even if it doesn't have to be or is necessarily the case. But anything other than giving this possibility a certain probability in view of Mercedes' "history" in this ground effect era - that would be if not bogus reading, at least quite careless.

And on none of the three days were the track temperatures anywhere near where they would be on most of the tracks during the season.

But before an unnecessary discussion flares up here, here is Mario Isola's statement:

"We’ve had three rather unusual testing days here in Bahrain. For years now, Formula 1 has chosen this circuit for the only pre-season test because the weather is usually very favourable. That was not the case this week, especially the first two days. Low temperatures, considerably lower than at this time of year in previous years, and strong wind affected the teams’ work and made it even harder than usual to interpret the results, with no previous reference points on this track at such low temperatures.”

[balex]

…here is Mario Isola's statement:

"We’ve had three rather unusual testing days here in Bahrain. For years now, Formula 1 has chosen this circuit for the only pre-season test because the weather is usually very favourable. That was not the case this week, especially the first two days. Low temperatures, considerably lower than at this time of year in previous years, and strong wind affected the teams’ work and made it even harder than usual to interpret the results, with no previous reference points on this track at such low temperatures.”

Nice quote. My takeaway then is perhaps the team with the most compliant car with the widest setup window will fare best in the early races. Of the front-running teams, past form says that would disadvantage Merc the most, depending on how much progress they’ve made. That and they have 50% less experienced driver feedback.

[the EDGE]

I'm wary of drawing any conclusions from testing. It is simply a snapshot of a masked performance on a certain type of track surface at one type of layout and in the current prevailing conditions of the time.

As we have seen time and time again, with such fine performance margins between the teams and very sensitive equipment, the balance of performance will swing between teams on a regular basis

No one really has any idea what will happen when we get to Melbourne or any other track this year at this moment in time, other than the fact certain teams will be near to the back, and other teams will be towards the front

The fact that in the past, expert predictions have been kinda-right is more luck than skill, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. I've lost track of the amount of times people have been certain Ferrari, or RB or Merc have had the fastest car, only to be wrong, and at the time they pretty much had a 1 in 3 chance of being correct

[pantherxxx]

This is what Lawrence Baretto from Formula1.com took away from Testing:
https://media.formula1.com/image/upload ... %20Lap%203
https://media.formula1.com/image/upload ... %20Lap%203

Usually, these analysis do not seem that bad.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 3eX8oB7tHp

Yes but from Red Bull only Lawson did a proper race stimulation. They don't have data for Verstappen, and he's surely far ahead of Lawson.

[De Wet]

https://buymeacoffee.com/f1dataanalysis ... -2025-grid


Facts & Figures...

[Seanspeed]

This is what Lawrence Baretto from Formula1.com took away from Testing:
https://media.formula1.com/image/upload ... %20Lap%203
https://media.formula1.com/image/upload ... %20Lap%203

Usually, these analysis do not seem that bad.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 3eX8oB7tHp

It is inconceivable how anybody could have come up with these numbers based on testing. They genuinely dont correlate to anything we actually saw and would require making all kinds of assumptions that are impossible to know and which would completely devalue the 'mathematical' analysis because they'd be utilizing preconceived notions of competitiveness.

[deadhead]

This is what Lawrence Baretto from Formula1.com took away from Testing:
https://media.formula1.com/image/upload ... %20Lap%203
https://media.formula1.com/image/upload ... %20Lap%203

Usually, these analysis do not seem that bad.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 3eX8oB7tHp

It is inconceivable how anybody could have come up with these numbers based on testing. They genuinely dont correlate to anything we actually saw and would require making all kinds of assumptions that are impossible to know and which would completely devalue the 'mathematical' analysis because they'd be utilizing preconceived notions of competitiveness.

Clickbait?

[Seanspeed]

This is what Lawrence Baretto from Formula1.com took away from Testing:
https://media.formula1.com/image/upload ... %20Lap%203
https://media.formula1.com/image/upload ... %20Lap%203

Usually, these analysis do not seem that bad.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 3eX8oB7tHp

It is inconceivable how anybody could have come up with these numbers based on testing. They genuinely dont correlate to anything we actually saw and would require making all kinds of assumptions that are impossible to know and which would completely devalue the 'mathematical' analysis because they'd be utilizing preconceived notions of competitiveness.

Clickbait?

I mean, it's F1. Being an F1 journalist requires having to constantly conjure up takes without actually having enough meaningful information to do so in any kind of truly professional manner because of how 'behind closed doors' so much of the F1 world really is. So I'm not gonna say it's clickbait as much as it is likely some disguised attempt at a high effort analysis that looks professionally laid out and concluded, but without having any terribly valid basis underpinning it.

Though I'm also saying this without having access to the written article to know if they go over their methodology, but I'm gonna be insistent on the 'inconceivable' claim here because there's legit no way these numbers make any sense based on the actual testing laptimes I saw without them making a bunch of assumptions that could only themselves be based on their own idea of what the pecking order already is. So yea, as a mathematical analysis, it seems utterly worthless. Though of course it probably will be closer than if we did analyze the timings on face value, as obviously Williams is not gonna be the fastest car in qualifying and Mclaren probably wont be sixth tenths faster than the next best car in race trim. I just dont see the point in making it seem like it's data-driven when it's ultimately based on 'gut instincts' just the same as all us plebs are judging on.