2017 test one: Best driver times and tyres used

44 comments on “2017 test one: Best driver times and tyres used”

1. 

   Godwin Joseph (@godwin)
   3rd March 2017, 10:34

   Clearly Ferrari and Ferrari powered cars are ahead….
   1. 

      eljueta (@eljueta)
      3rd March 2017, 12:13

      How is that clear? It’s a mixed bag, pretty inconclusive.
      1. 

         Ed (@edly)
         3rd March 2017, 17:26

         Nothing is made clear by this first testing.
   2. 

      Stephen McCarthy
      3rd March 2017, 13:20

      As the article demonstrates, reading the lap times alone is not a good barometer of overall performance. I mean even the first paragraph points to the Ferrari advantage last year in testing…..that failed to materialise in race pace.
      1. 

         MG421982 (@)
         3rd March 2017, 13:51

         Yeah, but thing is, last year their best times from tests were set with SuperSofts and UltraSofts. This time they managed to do it with the slower tyres – Mediums and Softs. This is the part that gives me hope. Plus, for the 2016 Spanish GP, the fastest tyre usable was Soft, probably that’s why only Mercedes and RBR… as this article say… managed to get better times in the GP than in tests! If Ferrari used in tests SuperSofts and UltraSofts, but in the actual race from that track they had to use between Hards, Mediums and Softs… you can bet their times will be slower than in tests.
   3. 

      gweilo8888 (@gweilo8888)
      3rd March 2017, 14:15

      And you’d have said the same thing last year. I fully expect the pecking order to show little to no change this year, honestly, and I’d say there’s a better than 4 in 5 chance that this year is yet another Mercedes walkover. Yes, we’ve gotten rid of the token system, but engine development is still highly restricted both by the life-cycle management which means your engine must be homologated and can’t subsequently be modified for several races without penalty (even if those races don’t necessarily have to take place in a chronological sequence), and it’s also restricted by the near-total absence of in-season testing, meaning that you have to sacrifice your race practice for test sessions instead, and have little real-world opportunity for proper real-world testing either.
2. 

   Craig
   3rd March 2017, 10:50

   I’m reserving my judgement on who’s doing best until Australia.
   1. 

      Ed (@edly)
      3rd March 2017, 17:23

      Australia never proves anything. Driver errors and mechanical failures typify this event.
      After the fifth race, we will see a clearer trend.
      1. 

         CG
         3rd March 2017, 18:26

         +1 in his 4 world championships from 2010 – 2013, Vettel only won one opening gp
         1. 

            Alonso (@alonshow)
            3rd March 2017, 19:10

            Australia 2015: The first three teams to cross the line eventually went to fill the first three places in the final standings, exactly in the same order.
            Australia 2016: The first three teams to cross the line eventually went to fill the first three places in the final standings, this time with the order of the second and third swapped.
            Plus, out of the last 20 years, the team that won Australia went on to win the WCC 15 times.
            Surely Australia tells us a lot.
            1. 

               CG
               3rd March 2017, 19:31

               True, not saying it’s isn’t important, but if you add mine and yours together it’s 50/50 , Mal is nearer a 90% with RB wining all but one, and Merc winning them all (in they years you quote) … so like Ed said, it’s not conclusive, give a few and you get a better picture (of cource if you have a car that can lap the field like merc did in 2015, 2016 .. you have to do a lot to come back from that) , like the year you missed out 2014 , Button on podium in opening round, I think that was the last time in his carrer
            2. 

               anon
               3rd March 2017, 21:49

               @alonshow, since the race switched to being the opening race of the season in 1996, there have been ten occasions in the last 21 years where the winner of the opening race then went on to win the WDC that year. CG, by comparison, in the 17 years where the Malaysian GP was the following race, there were nine occasions where the winner of that race then went on to win the WDC that year – so the ratio is actually not that much different.

               @edly, since you say that, in recent years the fifth race of the season has commonly tended to be the Spanish GP (not always, but probably more frequently than any other venue – it’s also the most common test venue of the teams, so also well known by them). If you look at it over the period from 1996 to date, the ratio is almost exactly the same as the Australian GP, with the winner in 11 of the most recent 21 Spanish GP’s going on to take the title that season.

               Whilst it is true that, in the past few years, the front runners in Australia tended to be the front runners by the end of the season, it hasn’t always given an accurate picture of the relative competitiveness of the teams.
               In 2016, for example, many felt that it was a race that Ferrari lost by making a mistake with Vettel’s strategy when the race was restarted, but they rarely looked that competitive again after that race.

               Similarly, other recent races have thrown up some unusual results – in 2015, Sauber managed a double points finish and looked fairly competitive, but didn’t trouble the midfield pack too much after that. Climatically, it has tended to be a bit more variable than other races – in particular, in recent years there have been a number of colder and wetter races which have thrown up more unusual results, such as Kimi winning in 2013 or Vitaly Petrov taking a podium in 2011 in a pretty terrible Renault car.
            3. 

               mog
               3rd March 2017, 22:29

               The 2015 and 16 data is more a reflection of big team dominance – RB, MB and Fer. MB being the most dominant team in the history of the sport, RB and FER having the biggest budgets along with MB. So in reality, those figures probably don’t favour a prediction of the season to come from the first race, because these 3 were always going to finish top 3 in the WCC.

               And, without a race run this year, you can pretty safely predict MB, RB and Fer will be top 3. Renault may spoil the party, good for them if they can. Williams is an outlier, well done them for 2014.
            4. 

               Robbie (@robbie)
               3rd March 2017, 22:51

               @mog Half man half dog right? You’re your own best friend?
            5. 

               mog
               4th March 2017, 7:21

               @ Robbie. I hadn’t heard of that meme until now, thanks for broadening my universe. I think.

               Surprised you didn’t go with this – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mog_(Judith_Kerr)
            6. 

               Ed (@edly)
               5th March 2017, 6:07

               I enjoy the commentary related to the season. Although team or driver dominance can be sensed to large degree by recent performance and the opening round, it is hopefulness for unpredictability that fuels my excitement for each new season. Team dominance seems to deliver the WDC to one of its drivers…
               Which one of the two will it be? Each year I yearn for this pattern to be nonexistent.

               I stand by what I say about opening rounds no matter where they take place. The car must perform properly,
               and the drivers have an enormous resresponsibilty to re/acclimate to racing conditions, be fast, and not remove themselves and others from the event through contact or error.

               If I rely on @alonso‘s statistic, since 1996 the winner of the opening round has won the WDC less than 50% of the time (10 of 21). @alonso points out, the team that wins the opening round has taken the title 15 of last 20 years. In other words, the first race does not place the crown on the head of any driver or team after the first race. I remain ever hopeful for closer competitiveness and unpredictability.
3. 

   Pratyush P (@pratyushp276)
   3rd March 2017, 11:03

   I don’t know if Red Bull has a few surprises up their sleeves, because this test is totally redundant for them, at least from a spectator’s POV
   1. 

      ExcitedAbout17
      3rd March 2017, 22:43

      As a spectator in Barcelona I noticed that the Ferrari an RBR seemed extremely stable in the turns and the Sauber very unstable.
      The rest wasn’t as clear, often times due to lack of observations from my end. Though the Renault seemed more stable than I expected (low expectations), and Haas reasonable (in line with my expectations). McLaren was close to the top teams, dven though still off on the time sheets.
4. 

   Anthony
   3rd March 2017, 11:11

   Would it not make much more sense to have a table per tyre compound? Or have each drivers fastest lap on each compound?
   1. 

      Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
      3rd March 2017, 16:28

      Would it not make much more sense to have a table per tyre compound?

      You can sort the columns so you can arrange them by tyre compound if you prefer.
      1. 

         Simon le Bon
         3rd March 2017, 19:48

         Nope, it would not be complete because the Intermediates and Full Wet tyre are missing. I think it would be interesting how the cars perform in the wet, as the PU is less relevant in wet conditions.
         Does F1Fanatic have this data?
5. 

   Chris
   3rd March 2017, 12:29

   Clearly manor aren’t getting anywhere this year
   1. 

      Devotti0
      3rd March 2017, 21:34

      As per, I wouldn’t read too much into their times in testing. This could really be their year I think.
   2. 

      juan fanger (@juan-fanger)
      3rd March 2017, 21:40

      But Virgin is right where you’d expect them.
      1. 

         Kie
         3rd March 2017, 22:50

         +1 clever
6. 

   Marcos
   3rd March 2017, 12:41

   Massa’s 22’07” was reached on the 1st day and then he never came back to the car (Stroll kept braking it). I wonder how much more he would have gotten out of the new Williams.
   1. 

      CG
      3rd March 2017, 19:40

      I expect that getting Stroll some experiance is important, but you would have though they would have wanted Massa’s experience … isn’t that why they bought him back
7. 

   nickfrog (@nickfrog)
   3rd March 2017, 16:15

   Surely, Renault’s performance is also bound to be down to a decent chassis and aero out of the box relative to its competitors compared to last year. G. Anderson seemed to think the Renault engines were still held back compared to its competitors…quite promising if you ask me !
8. 

   Oople
   3rd March 2017, 17:11

   Any notes so far about the potential gap is between the tyres?
   Is it close to a second between each compound, less, or are we still plum uncertain?
   1. 

      Diego (@ironcito)
      3rd March 2017, 20:29

      It depends on the compounds. I think that the softer the compounds, the smaller difference. Diminishing returns, of sorts. So, for example, the difference between Medium and Soft is greater than between Supersoft and Ultrasoft.
9. 

   F1 performance (@patent)
   3rd March 2017, 17:15

   I think Mercedes has the best tactic because they use both drivers in every test day.
   It has many advantages: 1, they can run the most km and time. 2, It is easier for drivers to drive a half day (~3-4hours) than a day (~6-8 hours) and they can be more concentrated during test. 3, If a car (or driver) has some problem they can use the another car (or driver) to test. 4, If one day weather is wrong (cold, windy, rain) the driver throws out a half day but in an other team the driver lost a whole day, so it is a fairer and better system to use both driver in every test day.
   Why don’t other teams use this system like Mercedes?
   1. 

      Oople
      3rd March 2017, 17:21

      Am I right in thinking that all teams have only one car available per test, and they just change the seating calibration when they swap drivers?

      Or is this something the smaller teams do due to budgetary constraints?
      1. 

         F1 performance (@patent)
         3rd March 2017, 17:33

         I think drivers use their ‘own’ cars. I saw the 3. day pictures and Bottas went the car number 77 and Hamilton number 44. Or they just exchange numbers and went the same cars?
         Ok smaller teams maybe save money but what about Ferrari, Red Bull, Renault and McLaren?
         1. 

            nase
            3rd March 2017, 17:42

            @patent
            It’s the latter. I’m not sure if it’s in the rules, but the standard procedure for the last few years has been 1 car per team.
         2. 

            anon
            3rd March 2017, 17:42

            @patent, I believe that they just changed the number and the seats over when they switched driver, but continued to use the same chassis for testing (Oople is right that the regulations state that only one car may be used per team during the tests).
         3. 

            varun (@varun)
            3rd March 2017, 18:11

            Just 1 car per team. Even the big teams would not want to waste money bringing 2 cars when they cannot run them simultaneously.
            1. 

               F1 performance (@patent)
               3rd March 2017, 19:37

               Ok then 1 car per team during test. It means some change in my 3. point (without cars only drivers). But I think Mercedes system is better than others (2 drivers per test day).
            2. 

               Henrik
               3rd March 2017, 21:11

               Sure! But that depends on who those two drivers are, doesn’t it? Hamilton and Bottas, yes. Massa and Stroll, no.
   2. 

      Robbie (@robbie)
      3rd March 2017, 22:16

      @patent I think I can add a 5, that being they might be able to confirm some data by having one driver make his assessment on something and seeing what the other driver says later, thus giving them a bit more assurance of a direction to go with a setting, an adjustment, a different wing etc etc. If both drivers felt the same or reacted the same to a change, that’s more useful than just one driver having an opinion and them not necessarily knowing if that’s just because of a uniqueness or tendency of that driver.
10. 

    Tristan
    3rd March 2017, 22:28

    Wholly irrelevant I reckon. Ferrari being first is about as likely as Torro Rosso being last.
    1. 

       Robbie (@robbie)
       3rd March 2017, 22:37

       Yeah perhaps, but if Ferrari were mid-field in testing I bet many wouldn’t just take that as a hohum, oh well kind of thing. They’d be projecting SV’s exit day.
11. 

    Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
    4th March 2017, 4:02

    2016 was an unfortunate year for Ferrari. Considering testing and the early races for comparative purposes, the form in testing did translate to Australia. For Ferrari Melbourne was a missed opportunity. The testing portrayed perfectly how Ferrari and Mercedes were ahead as both teams showed to be the quickest in Melbourne. Ferrari on the race long runs looked a couple tenths behind Mercedes in testing as was the case in Melbourne. Low fuel runs are always deceiving as you can sandbag considerably or do some glory runs, so the usual ferrari timesheet topping times were unrepresentative. We expected Mercedes to be holding back and they were.
    2017 again considering low fuel runs are deceiving, we can’t say much about the lap times. Looking at the long runs however, only Mercedes did true race simulations. Comparing Ferrari’s and Mercedes longer runs, Ferrari seem to start at lower lap time, perhaps again suggesting lower fuel loads. On the face of it and after one test it looks like nothing has changed from testing 2016. I’d say the way tyres have been tested has changed significantly, last year Mercedes was all on the mediums and this year it’s alot on the softer tyres. ferrari started on the mediums went to the softs.
12. 

    kpcart
    4th March 2017, 12:50

    Lot of hate for Ferrari by some, but they improved massively in 2016 from 2015 (even though no wins) and look to have improved even more this year. At last years test ferarri only were ahead when they ran softer tyres than Mercedes. Now, they are getting faster times than Mercedes with slower tyres. These cars will evolve, but Ferrari perhaps has the best star ting point with many experts at the test saying the Ferrari was the most stable through turns. Someone will no doubt say “it is only testing” but that is what we are commenting about, testing pace.
13. 

    Shirley
    26th April 2017, 14:28

    It’s a pleasure to find such raonitality in an answer. Welcome to the debate.

Comments are closed.