Originally Posted by
romitfernandes
Was the pre-season F1 testing picture wrong?
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Was the pre-season F1 testing picture wrong?
GET ALERTS
By: Gary Anderson, F1 technical expert
1 hour ago
Your latest questions tackle Gary’s pre-season predictions, his recent comments about Daniel Ricciardo, why talk of flat-out racing returning to F1 is false, how to deal with Max Verstappen and whether track walks are really necessary.
How has Ferrari gone from apparently having a difficult time in pre-season testing to setting the pace? Was your testing analysis incorrect and the car was strong all along?
David Smith, via email
As I said many times in my testing analysis, we have to make many assumptions to try to get a picture of what is going on. But the finer detail is kept a well-hidden secret by the teams.
That said, I don't think I was that far away. Remember, we are talking about outright pace and I think you will remember that Lewis Hamilton in his Mercedes in Australia blew everyone away there in Q3. Sebastian Vettel went on to win the race, but only after a trip up from Mercedes allowed him to jump Hamilton when the virtual safety car was deployed.
I said the Ferrari in testing looked decent, but when the drivers tried to push that little bit harder it seemed like the front end gave up and they would just run wide. I think Ferrari sort of admitted that after Melbourne, and obviously it found a fix for it. That is what development is all about, identify your problem and instigate developments to rectify them.
Carlos Sainz Jr., Renault Sport F1 Team walks the track
Carlos Sainz Jr., Renault Sport F1 Team walks the track
Photo by: Sutton Images
I'd like to know what the purpose of the track walk is in the modern age? What can the drivers and engineers pick up from walking the track that they can't learn from all the pre-race simulation work?
James Frankland, via email
It's just one of those traditions, but it does improve the relationship between the driver and the engineers. In a garage during a grand prix weekend, there's all sorts of disruptions and distractions so walking the track allows you to get away from that.
During the couple of hours you are out there, you can have lots of discussions about the set-up and potential changes. As you are not under pressure, it allows both sides to think outside of the box a little more.
Also, it allows a closer look at kerbs and what the runoff area behind the kerbs is constructed from. For the driver, that also means you can see places where you can run off and get back onto the track reasonably safely. It just gives that slightly better understanding of where you can push over the limit and have a reasonable chance of getting away with it, and where you need to be more careful.
I always felt it was the best way of kicking off the weekend. You're there with your driver and that's the start of you both getting your brains into gear for the weekend ahead.
It also allows you to discuss and alter the run plan. Getting the best from your group of people is all about everyone knowing what is planned and adding in their contributions.
Then everyone commits to it and does the best job they can, instead of standing at the back of the garage saying 'well I wouldn't have done it that way'.
Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull Racing RB14
Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull Racing RB14
Photo by: Sutton Images
Why, in a recent article, did you say you felt the Mercedes and Ferrari drivers couldn't do what Daniel Ricciardo did in the Chinese Grand Prix if the situations were reversed?
@F1archive, via Twitter
Ricciardo is one of the best overtakers I have seen in a current Formula 1 car. He has the confidence and commitment to get it done as soon as he arrives behind another car and the feel on the brakes that allows him to slow the car down without locking up.
Perhaps it's just the characteristics of the Red Bull, and I am sure it in part is because Max Verstappen has also pulled off some impressive overtakes. But he has also made quite a few mistakes while attempting passes.
Yes, Ricciardo had a tyre advantage in China that played a big part in his overtaking. But he has done the same on many other occasions when the tyres weren't so different from the cars he was battling.
Remember his great passes on Sergio Perez and Nico Rosberg to win his first grand prix in Canada in 2014, and overtaking Fernando Alonso in Hungary later that year? And his double pass on the two Williams drivers on his way to winning in Baku 12 months ago? Then you also have his great move on Kimi Raikkonen at Monza last season.
I could go on, but you get the idea. This doesn't happen by chance.
Many other drivers arrive behind another car and wait around too long trying to plan their attack. They lose downforce, which overheats the tyres and then they don't have the confidence to commit to an overtaking manoeuvre.
Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari SF70H
Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari SF70H
Photo by: Sutton Images
Should less or no street circuits be used in F1 due to the wider cars with even more downforce? And should circuits in general be widened to increase passing opportunities?
Paul Frost, via Twitter
The circuits are there and the car regulations need to be written to allow them to race on the ones that exist. It would cost a fortune for every circuit to be altered to improve racing, and Monaco is just downright madness. Watching a current F1 car in qualifying around there is fantastic. Watching 20 of them on the first few laps of the race when they are all together is mind blowing.
If I had anything to do with it I'd have more of the same please: London, Paris, Milan, Frankfurt, New York etc. You don't know what you are missing!
The change to the wider cars for 2017 doesn't do any good as far as overtaking is concerned. But the increase is a reasonably small percentage so I don't think it is the major problem. It's the extra downforce.
This reduces braking distances and increases corner speed, and both of these make overtaking more difficult. Add to that the fact that the more downforce you have, the more you lose when following another car and you can see why there is a problem.
That said, on circuits there are a few modifications that could be made to allow the possibility of drivers varying their racing line. Banking, the angle of which increases as you went wider, would allow two cars to go around a corner at similar speeds.
I know we don't race there anymore, but when they altered the last corner at Sepang to improve the water drainage they dropped it off to the outside, which is exactly the opposite of what was needed.
Jenson Button, Brawn GP BGP 001
Jenson Button, Brawn GP BGP 001
Photo by: Sutton Images
You mentioned in your piece after the Bahrain GP that a first-year student could have seen through the naivety of the 2009 aero rules. What was it that they got wrong?
Dwayne Pipe, via Twitter
The car models used for their development were far too basic. The front wing assembly was a two or three element component with flat wing endplates. Basically, there was no sophistication over the whole model.
When you give a set of regulations as basic as that to a bunch of highly intelligent design engineers, they are going to tear it to pieces very quickly. The end result will be a car that creates a completely different airflow wake to what you have spent all your time and money researching.
The way F1 is working now, having its own group of people and involving the teams, giving them extra CFD time and allowing them to use current car models to do tandem running, will be better. But I worry that once you step away from the big three, the other teams just don't have the budget or manpower to allocate enough time for the research required.
Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB14 and Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari SF71H battle
Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB14 and Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari SF71H battle
Photo by: Sutton Images
If Max Verstappen was driving for you, how would you deal with him given his recent overly-aggressive driving?
Joao Oliveira, via email
Max is now feeling the pressure and the frustration that a lack of results brings. He was once the new kid on the block that could do no wrong, but now he is just another F1 driver and is expected to deliver. It looks like he is taking that frustration with him into each race weekend.
He needs to realise the past is the past, so forget about it and focus on the next hurdle. In this case, that's Baku. It can all turn around very quickly and a good result will calm everything down. His main problem is teammate Ricciardo, who as we know is out of contract at the end of this year so is driving for his future. On top of that, he just won the last race when Max should have. But Max made a couple of mistakes and didn't.
Max needs someone he trusts, and that he will listen to, by his side to calm him down when things get a little frustrating. His father, Jos, can do that but sometimes advice from your dad is difficult to take in and use constructively.
I don't see anyone else out there that he would respect enough, so perhaps he just needs to go through this period, get a few battlescars and hopefully he will come out the other side a better and more respectful driver.
But he had better hurry up, as I tipped him to win the world championship this year.
Ayrton Senna, McLaren MP4/7A, Riccardo Patrese, Williams FW14B
Ayrton Senna, McLaren MP4/7A, Riccardo Patrese, Williams FW14B
Photo by: Sutton Images
If the 1992 rulebook was reinstated today, with all of the technological progress, how much faster would the cars be now than they were in 1992?
James from Woking, via email
That is like asking how long is a piece of string, it is impossible to say with any sort of accuracy.
Engines have gone from 700hp to knocking on the door of 1000hp, so that increase alone is something like three seconds. The improvement in aerodynamic understanding is again huge so you could expect another three seconds from that. Again, the understanding of the mechanical side of things is now so different I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar step.
So if you add those together, plus bit from tyre technology, and a 10-second improvement wouldn't be too much to ask for. But that's all guesswork unless you sit down and analyse all the influencing factors and how you would apply them to the 1992 rules.
The fuel limit is rising in the future to allow more flat-out racing, but there's still some suggestions people will short-fill and fuel save. Why would teams do this, surely it will always be faster to use as much power as you can all of the time?
Michael Stephens, via email
Weight always has, and always will, have a major influence on lap time. Just 10kg of fuel on average is three tenths of a second lost, so a team will always optimise the weight of the car to get the best lap time.
Currently, from qualifying to lap five of the race when everything has settled down, the cars are on average seven seconds slower. Taking the fuel load of 100kg and applying the time deficit from above equates to three seconds. Then there's a second from the tyres, because they are now used, which leaves three seconds missing. This is because of a downtune to conserve the engine, gearbox and tyres.
There are many conflicting arguments to this increased fuel capacity to allow more flat out racing. Here are some of them:
1) For as long as each driver has three engines for the season, they will never be able race flat out for long periods.
2) While F1 uses tyres that are on a knife edge of overheating, they will never be able to race flat out.
3) Racing flat out is very subjective. Everyone drives flat out, the only problem is that flat out to one driver can be a very different flat out to another driver.
When I was at Jordan we used to do a bit of driver analysis post-race. It was during the refuelling days and looking at various parts of the race when we knew the driver's fuel load - the start of a stint and the end of a stint and the lap time that could be achieved compared to the qualifying time gave us a driver 'race effort percentage'.
It didn't surprise us to find that Michael Schumacher's effort was the highest by a country mile. He was always in the mid-to-high 90 percent bracket, while others - and I'm talking good drivers - very quickly fell into the 80 percent bracket.
There were others a lot worse than that, but I won't embarrass them by naming names.
Bookmarks