2026 Pre-Season Testing

[AR3-GP]

I think that leaderboard is about right.

McLaren has shorter gears than Mercedes and the same engine. Should give them better starts (probably not by much).

The gears don't have much to do with it imo. This phase of the start is traction limited. Shorter gears arguably makes it easier to spin the wheels. Since Mclaren have good starts it shows that driver releasing the clutch and managing his right foot in traction limited phase will create most of the difference between Mclaren and Mercedes.

If the wheels would never slip, only then would Mclaren be favored by the gear ratios.

[AR3-GP]

I wouldn't be confident in putting Mercedes as the team to beat based on what they showed in the test alone. Their runs were relatively cryptic and hard to properly evaluate.
If it weren't for other teams confidently putting Mercedes at the top, I would just say Ferrari are a good step ahead if you base it on what we got from testing.

Is it cryptic? The pace Mercedes did on the longer stints in the 2nd test were very fast. Mostly in 1.36-1.37 at start of each stint. The other teams started their stints in 1.38-1.39 bracket. If Mercedes was on full fuel, then no one else should even bother. I think they were on full fuel. People just don't want to believe that because it's quite scary

[Emag]

I wouldn't be confident in putting Mercedes as the team to beat based on what they showed in the test alone. Their runs were relatively cryptic and hard to properly evaluate.
If it weren't for other teams confidently putting Mercedes at the top, I would just say Ferrari are a good step ahead if you base it on what we got from testing.

Is it cryptic? The pace Mercedes did on the longer stints in the 2nd test were very fast. Mostly in 1.36-1.37 at start of each stint. The other teams started their stints in 1.38-1.39 bracket. If Mercedes was on full fuel, then no one else should even bother. I think they were on full fuel. People just don't want to believe that because it's quite scary

Because they were too constant, both in pace and number of laps. There was also very little pace drift from stint to stint. It seemed like they were trying their best to not show any representative running.

If you think they were on full fuel for those runs, then they’re pretty much a second clear on everyone. Seems a bit too much to be true.

[AR3-GP]

I wouldn't be confident in putting Mercedes as the team to beat based on what they showed in the test alone. Their runs were relatively cryptic and hard to properly evaluate.
If it weren't for other teams confidently putting Mercedes at the top, I would just say Ferrari are a good step ahead if you base it on what we got from testing.

Is it cryptic? The pace Mercedes did on the longer stints in the 2nd test were very fast. Mostly in 1.36-1.37 at start of each stint. The other teams started their stints in 1.38-1.39 bracket. If Mercedes was on full fuel, then no one else should even bother. I think they were on full fuel. People just don't want to believe that because it's quite scary

Because they were too constant, both in pace and number of laps. There was also very little pace drift from stint to stint. It seemed like they were trying their best to not show any representative running.

If you think they were on full fuel for those runs, then they’re pretty much a second clear on everyone. Seems a bit too much to be true.

The way it's taken for granted in the paddock would suggest something of that order.

[FittingMechanics]

I think that leaderboard is about right.

McLaren has shorter gears than Mercedes and the same engine. Should give them better starts (probably not by much).

The gears don't have much to do with it imo. This phase of the start is traction limited. Shorter gears arguably makes it easier to spin the wheels. Since Mclaren have good starts it shows that driver releasing the clutch and managing his right foot in traction limited phase will create most of the difference between Mclaren and Mercedes.

If the wheels would never slip, only then would Mclaren be favored by the gear ratios.

By that logic, Ferrari "smaller turbo" advantage should not exist because they are traction limited as well? Even worse, the fact they generate more power sooner would make it easier to spin the wheels.

Maybe the period they are traction limited is short enough that turbo (and gearing) advantages still play a part.

[FittingMechanics]

Because they were too constant, both in pace and number of laps. There was also very little pace drift from stint to stint. It seemed like they were trying their best to not show any representative running.

If you think they were on full fuel for those runs, then they’re pretty much a second clear on everyone. Seems a bit too much to be true.

To me their stints look like they were trying to control for all the variables and refueled to the same set amount at the start of each stint. To me, most logical would be some kind of "half fuel" run because it's probably closest to what you will run the most of the time in the race, but who knows, could be refueling to a full tank (ominous) or less than half (not ominous).

[mzso]

I think that leaderboard is about right.

McLaren has shorter gears than Mercedes and the same engine. Should give them better starts (probably not by much).

The gears don't have much to do with it imo. This phase of the start is traction limited. Shorter gears arguably makes it easier to spin the wheels. Since Mclaren have good starts it shows that driver releasing the clutch and managing his right foot in traction limited phase will create most of the difference between Mclaren and Mercedes.

If the wheels would never slip, only then would Mclaren be favored by the gear ratios.

By that logic, Ferrari "smaller turbo" advantage should not exist because they are traction limited as well? Even worse, the fact they generate more power sooner would make it easier to spin the wheels.

Maybe the period they are traction limited is short enough that turbo (and gearing) advantages still play a part.

Yeah. I don't thing the traction limit argument can be valid seeing the facts. The Ferrari had enough traction to flay away. And I don't think they had a giant fan sucking the car at low speed.

[FittingMechanics]

Yeah. I don't thing the traction limit argument can be valid seeing the facts. The Ferrari had enough traction to flay away. And I don't think they had a giant fan sucking the car at low speed.

Maybe they are traction limited (Ferrari) but Mercedes engine cars aren't because their turbo generates so little power. I would be surprised if that is the case, but in that case shorter gears should improve your acceleration as you'd get closer to being traction limited.

Both can't be true, Ferrari cannot be faster (traction limited) and at the same time you have Mercedes engine cars which are slower but also traction limited (let's assume traction/downforce at initial getaway is similar)

[AR3-GP]

I think that leaderboard is about right.

McLaren has shorter gears than Mercedes and the same engine. Should give them better starts (probably not by much).

The gears don't have much to do with it imo. This phase of the start is traction limited. Shorter gears arguably makes it easier to spin the wheels. Since Mclaren have good starts it shows that driver releasing the clutch and managing his right foot in traction limited phase will create most of the difference between Mclaren and Mercedes.

If the wheels would never slip, only then would Mclaren be favored by the gear ratios.

By that logic, Ferrari "smaller turbo" advantage should not exist because they are traction limited as well? Even worse, the fact they generate more power sooner would make it easier to spin the wheels.

Maybe the period they are traction limited is short enough that turbo (and gearing) advantages still play a part.

Cars are traction limited, but all cars do not have the same traction limit. It is a property of the car's design. Haas and Ferrari are using the same rear suspension. Ferrari's "smaller" turbo is helping them, but Mercedes and Mclaren have the same turbo. In my opinion, it can't be as simple as gear ratios.

[FittingMechanics]

The gears don't have much to do with it imo. This phase of the start is traction limited. Shorter gears arguably makes it easier to spin the wheels. Since Mclaren have good starts it shows that driver releasing the clutch and managing his right foot in traction limited phase will create most of the difference between Mclaren and Mercedes.

If the wheels would never slip, only then would Mclaren be favored by the gear ratios.

By that logic, Ferrari "smaller turbo" advantage should not exist because they are traction limited as well? Even worse, the fact they generate more power sooner would make it easier to spin the wheels.

Maybe the period they are traction limited is short enough that turbo (and gearing) advantages still play a part.

Cars are traction limited, but all cars do not have the same traction limit. It is a property of the car's design. Haas and Ferrari are using the same rear end. Ferrari's "smaller" turbo is helping them, but Mercedes and Mclaren have the same turbo. In my opinion, it can't be as simple as gear ratios.

For our purposes of launches I think these traction differences are smaller than observed. No one was talking that Ferrari developed a special "traction" rear end, they were talking that Ferrari build their PU to be able to launch quickly of the line. If that was not the case and instead their advantage was in traction, then they wouldn't be against prolonging the start procedure.

It's probably not simple as gear ratios, but gear ratios probably help. It is why they exist. You tune them to achieve optimal laptime and first gear is probably tuned to maximize your launch.

[Farnborough]

By that logic, Ferrari "smaller turbo" advantage should not exist because they are traction limited as well? Even worse, the fact they generate more power sooner would make it easier to spin the wheels.

Maybe the period they are traction limited is short enough that turbo (and gearing) advantages still play a part.

Cars are traction limited, but all cars do not have the same traction limit. It is a property of the car's design. Haas and Ferrari are using the same rear end. Ferrari's "smaller" turbo is helping them, but Mercedes and Mclaren have the same turbo. In my opinion, it can't be as simple as gear ratios.

For our purposes of launches I think these traction differences are smaller than observed. No one was talking that Ferrari developed a special "traction" rear end, they were talking that Ferrari build their PU to be able to launch quickly of the line. If that was not the case and instead their advantage was in traction, then they wouldn't be against prolonging the start procedure.

It's probably not simple as gear ratios, but gear ratios probably help. It is why they exist. You tune them to achieve optimal laptime and first gear is probably tuned to maximize your launch.

To offer the contrary view ... the PU is torque deficient from lack of boost, and you need torque in excess to break traction.

Running a lower 1st ratio, allows the driver to fully close the clutch, while having reduced risk of triggering anti stall. Ultimately to build more boost in that phase.

A lower 1st ratio gives the available torque more advantage over mass, and so moves it more easily without losing traction.

The easy way to trigger anti-stall is to spin the tyre, then drop the throttle too much in attempt to control that spin, then without road speed the tyre "hooks" up again and "bogs" the rpm, to then impinge on anti-stall threshold.

Maximum acceleration is at approx 15% slip in this type of tyre, I believe.

Maybe they're using different throttle "gain" to help driver modulation in that phase ? Didn't look like Colapinto had got the hang of it though

[Badger]

I think that leaderboard is about right.

McLaren has shorter gears than Mercedes and the same engine. Should give them better starts (probably not by much).

The gears don't have much to do with it imo. This phase of the start is traction limited. Shorter gears arguably makes it easier to spin the wheels. Since Mclaren have good starts it shows that driver releasing the clutch and managing his right foot in traction limited phase will create most of the difference between Mclaren and Mercedes.

If the wheels would never slip, only then would Mclaren be favored by the gear ratios.

By that logic, Ferrari "smaller turbo" advantage should not exist because they are traction limited as well? Even worse, the fact they generate more power sooner would make it easier to spin the wheels.

Maybe the period they are traction limited is short enough that turbo (and gearing) advantages still play a part.

Their start advantage basically doesn't exist if we look at the data. It's a narrative based on a few anecdotes, not a scientifically proven fact. Once every team figures out the optimal starting procedure for them and the drivers get used to it, my guess is there won't be a big difference between teams.

[search]

Their start advantage basically doesn't exist if we look at the data. It's a narrative based on a few anecdotes, not a scientifically proven fact. Once every team figures out the optimal starting procedure for them and the drivers get used to it, my guess is there won't be a big difference between teams.

after the rule change (5s more), or also in comparison to before?

[AR3-GP]

Because they were too constant, both in pace and number of laps. There was also very little pace drift from stint to stint. It seemed like they were trying their best to not show any representative running.

If you think they were on full fuel for those runs, then they’re pretty much a second clear on everyone. Seems a bit too much to be true.

To me their stints look like they were trying to control for all the variables and refueled to the same set amount at the start of each stint. To me, most logical would be some kind of "half fuel" run because it's probably closest to what you will run the most of the time in the race, but who knows, could be refueling to a full tank (ominous) or less than half (not ominous).

I'm not sure. Traditionally Mercedes runs very heavy during testing. We used to joke here that they've fueled Valterri's car for a trip to helsinki and back.

[AR3-GP]

By that logic, Ferrari "smaller turbo" advantage should not exist because they are traction limited as well? Even worse, the fact they generate more power sooner would make it easier to spin the wheels.

Maybe the period they are traction limited is short enough that turbo (and gearing) advantages still play a part.

Cars are traction limited, but all cars do not have the same traction limit. It is a property of the car's design. Haas and Ferrari are using the same rear end. Ferrari's "smaller" turbo is helping them, but Mercedes and Mclaren have the same turbo. In my opinion, it can't be as simple as gear ratios.

For our purposes of launches I think these traction differences are smaller than observed. No one was talking that Ferrari developed a special "traction" rear end, they were talking that Ferrari build their PU to be able to launch quickly of the line. If that was not the case and instead their advantage was in traction, then they wouldn't be against prolonging the start procedure.

It's probably not simple as gear ratios, but gear ratios probably help. It is why they exist. You tune them to achieve optimal laptime and first gear is probably tuned to maximize your launch.

You're probably right. I agree.