2018 pre-season testing thread

[dans79]

What is with so many people trying to convince us McLaren have lost their way?

Because they have in the not too distant past. In 2012 the car was good, but the team had no idea why, because it was substantially better than the simulations predicted.

[Atticus]

Hi guys,

Just popping in - can someone tell me what do we know about the difference between the compounds so far? Preferably with source.

(I.e. performance difference over a single lap on the resurfaced Barcelona track on the new cars. High fuel gap is a bonus as is deg difference.)

I'm sure the Mark Hughes' of the paddock have some info and possibly one or two of them have shared it somewhere where those of you following the test the closest (and reasonably keenly and attentively) had found it already.

Cheers,
Atticus

[flexcon]

So I was lucky enough this year to head to week 2 testing again and I heard something really unexpected with 5mins of entering the fan zone

The Torro Rosa Honda was cruising around at maybe 40% and I heard the very same gear change clank sound which Honda had last year. I believe the consensus was they were changing at odd revs to mind the engine load with the oil issues.

Anyone else hear this or have some thoughts to why when cruising around they seem to have that same grinding noise but not on full pelt or long runs?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[motobaleno]

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.

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.

for sure Mercedes and Ferrari do tons of track time just to burn some fuel and it's by chance the similarities between their test laptimes and the pecking order during real races.

besides, you say that mclaren builds their cars on the very ragged edge of what's possible...I respect your opinion but I think that simply saying that mclaren builds their car not so good these last years would be more related with real facts

[foxmulder_ms]

Dunno why people insist on drawing conclusions from either lap times or laps completed.

Because they tell a LOT.

[godlameroso]

Dunno why people insist on drawing conclusions from either lap times or laps completed.

Because they tell a LOT.

What's the gap from Renault to Haas based on testing times, tell me. I'll wait.

[Godius]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXnyQrsXcAAyoKB.jpg:large

This new font really does not read well at all on mobile devices.

[atanatizante]

Those are last year's super softs, they're not a race tire that's for sure. The mediums seem to be holding up well, on that note, the super softs are last year's ultra softs, those seem to be getting a work out. Not a single person has bothered with the hards as usual.

1. This year medium tyre has the soft tyre composition from last year but indeed has a slightly changed construction.
2. The reason behind testing more on medium tyres relies on they have the widest working range, hence Merc team is willing to answer had they solved or not their narrow tyre working range ...

For backing those above this is what Mario Isola - Pirelli - said on an interview at Motorsport.com :

"Moving all the compounds one step softer – and the selection will follow the same approach – means warm up will be less of an issue but potentially there is a higher risk of overheating. To reduce this effect and to reduce blistering as well, we have designed compounds with a higher resistance to temperature.

The working range philosophy is also changed with decreasing working ranges from the medium to the hypersoft compounds, instead of alternating high and low working range compounds as in previous years. This should make compounds easier to use.

Last but not least, new compounds have been developed starting from last year's soft - the compound with the widest working range - with the target to enlarge working range also for the other compounds."

[godlameroso]

Those are last year's super softs, they're not a race tire that's for sure. The mediums seem to be holding up well, on that note, the super softs are last year's ultra softs, those seem to be getting a work out. Not a single person has bothered with the hards as usual.

1. This year medium tyre has the soft tyre composition from last year but indeed has a slightly changed construction.
2. The reason behind testing more on medium tyres relies on they have the widest working range, hence Merc team is willing to answer had they solved or not their narrow tyre working range ...

For backing those above this is what Mario Isola - Pirelli - said on an interview at Motorsport.com :

"Moving all the compounds one step softer – and the selection will follow the same approach – means warm up will be less of an issue but potentially there is a higher risk of overheating. To reduce this effect and to reduce blistering as well, we have designed compounds with a higher resistance to temperature.

The working range philosophy is also changed with decreasing working ranges from the medium to the hypersoft compounds, instead of alternating high and low working range compounds as in previous years. This should make compounds easier to use.

Last but not least, new compounds have been developed starting from last year's soft - the compound with the widest working range - with the target to enlarge working range also for the other compounds."

They're also the main race tire for the Spanish GP, it's a good idea to see what the stints are like using representative tires, and set the groundwork for the raft of upgrades that usually show up around then.

[CriXus]

[media]https://twitter.com/SportmphMark/status ... 0071857152[/media]

[GhostF1]

Dunno why people insist on drawing conclusions from either lap times or laps completed.

Because they tell a LOT.

What's the gap from Renault to Haas based on testing times, tell me. I'll wait.

That was a childish remark. How can he know that.
Anyone who thinks mileage covered, issues encountered etc is irrelevant is naive. And just to clarify, asking someone to give you an answer to a question no one is claiming to know is poor form.

[godlameroso]

I'm sorry I came across so negatively and I deserve that, my point being there's so much we don't know. Even though we can more or less guess fuel level, we can't guess the program teams are running, some team will look slow because they're taking a corner in a specific way to correlate data with their simulator, so they look slow, or teams are running engine modes they wouldn't otherwise be able to run, and so forth.

Again you're right that did come off badly, just saying can't tell much by the times, just a general picture of things. You know someone is behind if they're constantly 3 or 4 seconds behind, you know someone is going to be fast if they're constantly 1 or 2 seconds faster than everyone else. That's easy, but when the times are all within 2 seconds, it makes it much more difficult to really tell who's who.

[atanatizante]

I`ve read on another forum the rumor that Renault batteries issue is due to their long time and same country partner Saft, which in their 100 anniversary are pushing for a renewed technology: solid-state batteries.

The main reason behind this change in technology is that at a given volume these solid-state batteries have almost 50% more energy density ...

Another advantages are as follows:
- regarding mass, overall density is higher than lithium ones and that means they need less volume
- lifespan is almost doubled.
- and last but not least, chemical reactions during charging and depletion are occurring at lower temperatures than lithium-ion batteries ...

[Zynerji]

I`ve read on another forum the rumor that Renault batteries issue is due to their long time and same country partner Saft, which in their 100 anniversary are pushing for a renewed technology: solid-state batteries.

The main reason behind this change in technology is that at a given volume these solid-state batteries have almost 50% more energy density ...

Another advantages are as follows:
- regarding mass, overall density is higher than lithium ones and that means they need less volume
- lifespan is almost doubled.
- and last but not least, chemical reactions during charging and depletion are occurring at lower temperatures than lithium-ion batteries ...

THAT would be legit if they did. Finally, a real world benefit from this excruciatingly expensive engine formula.

[strad]

Because they tell a LOT.

Sorry but I believe you're wrong.
The teams are famous for sandbagging and doing thing to throw off the competition.