More teams have hit trouble in the final day of pre-season testing at Barcelona. At a moment when one would expect reliability issues to be nearly ironed out, the lack of running for some teams was surprising.
Good one!!!Morteza wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 17:33The recovery truck is a Mercedes
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXnYL51XkAAdWFQ.jpg:large
The more laps you can do, the more data you have, the better your sim, the better and more in detail you can develop the car.godlameroso wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 19:43Dunno why people insist on drawing conclusions from either lap times or laps completed.
I mean why would they, here was last years testing resultsgodlameroso wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 19:43Dunno why people insist on drawing conclusions from either lap times or laps completed.
bottom three Mclaren, Haas, Sauber in both.bonjon1979 wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 19:57I mean why would they, here was last years testing resultsgodlameroso wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 19:43Dunno why people insist on drawing conclusions from either lap times or laps completed.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/feat ... hest-.html
Here are the team standings at the end of the year
https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2017/team.html
You can kind of see generally that they line up. Those at the top are at the top, those in the middle are around the middle and those at the back are at the back.
That might have been true before, but now, we're really at a point where you can reliably develop on the computer and use the track as validation. From this perspective you really don't need tons of track time to develop the car. The drivers miss out on real world running, and you always learn stuff on track, but I would say that as long as you put in 30 or 40 laps you can pretty much run your entire planned program.Jolle wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 19:53The more laps you can do, the more data you have, the better your sim, the better and more in detail you can develop the car.godlameroso wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 19:43Dunno why people insist on drawing conclusions from either lap times or laps completed.
Electrical or hydraulic issue? Even if it's hydraulic and a line has to be replaced, more often than not it requires you to remove the entire power train and then some to change a hard line.
If you just had one package and one setting with one set of tires and one fuel level. Yes. But that's not the case. Thats why you hear drivers and managers always talk about "we did most of our program" etc etc. Good chance the big teams even have a pair of junior drivers in the sim coping every lap.godlameroso wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 20:18That might have been true before, but now, we're really at a point where you can reliably develop on the computer and use the track as validation. From this perspective you really don't need tons of track time to develop the car. The drivers miss out on real world running, and you always learn stuff on track, but I would say that as long as you put in 30 or 40 laps you can pretty much run your entire planned program.Jolle wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 19:53The more laps you can do, the more data you have, the better your sim, the better and more in detail you can develop the car.godlameroso wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 19:43Dunno why people insist on drawing conclusions from either lap times or laps completed.
McLaren builds their cars on the very ragged edge of what's possible, this is why they always have issues. Run it till it breaks, find out what broke or what caused it to break then make it stronger and lighter than it was before.
Most of the F1 paddock praised their chassis as quite good.
