Sakae

Pre Season Testing 2020

117 posts in this topic

Binotto:

Quote

Binotto: Ferrari are off the pace of our rivals

Nice to know; I couldn't tell, and I thought Leclerc was credible when he explained first day what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a start for Ferrari I was expecting. Bright point in this is, that they promised something different in comparison to last year, and so far they are succeeding in spades.

One wonders if they run out of healthy engines this week, and the only way to be present at this test was to run it in detuned mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newey on regulations:

Quote

...engineer behind ten championship-winning cars, Newey’s reputation for thinking outside-the-box with his designs is well established.

However, he fears the incoming ruleset could make such innovations a thing of the past.

“In many ways I look forward to regulation change because it’s an opportunity to try to understand new things. What I don’t like is the general trend in successive regulations to become ever more restrictive,” Newey told inews.co.uk.

“What was very nice about the last major change back in 2009 was that it wasn’t more restrictive. But these new ones for 2021 are very restrictive and prescriptive. And I think that is an awful shame.

As a fan (slowly former) of the sport, I've been ranting the same tune for years. After several years of protecting Hamilton from competition by locking Mercedes in hybrid advantage they had from day one, destroying competitive spirit, final blow will be dealt by imposition of budget, yet no one is asking what are real objectives of this madness? Is that suppose to be a solution for decreasing interest in sport? Really? Bland, noisy things running in circles will save a day?

If regulations are anti-innovative, budget will not help, because teams shall be on different baselines. Different in-house expertise, different resources on hand (such as simulator, etc.). I am not sure whether this was thought out through and through.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sakae said:

This is not a start for Ferrari I was expecting. Bright point in this is, that they promised something different in comparison to last year, and so far they are succeeding in spades.

One wonders if they run out of healthy engines this week, and the only way to be present at this test was to run it in detuned mode.

Really, what makes u say that...The drop of times is quite significent, sharp compared to RBR and Merc. Not a good start

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BradSpeedMan said:

Really, what makes u say that...The drop of times is quite significent, sharp compared to RBR and Merc. Not a good start

(My) Sarcasm doesn't play well on the internet. In reality, I actually fully agree with you in observation that low performance was most likely well below what was intended. My understanding is, Ferrari intended to focus on "car - get to know you" in low speeds, something which Leclerc attempted to speak about, however - 

  1. There was a significant delay on getting out of garage first day. (Engineers were busy...)
  2. Engine was later replaced.
  3. Seb, from all what we know, suffered similar issues. It seems there was no other engine (or chassis) available for this test to turn it around.
  4. Seb stopped on track, causing red, and it is almost certain it was not from running out of fuel. 

From outside all what we can do is to make in nature speculative guesses, that there was an issue with PU, which allowed team to run the car, but only in low speeds. Engine setting was most likely reconfigured to adapt accordingly allowing Seb turn some laps. Those three days will be missed, and in second round it will be hectic. Rivals already managed to run simulated race, and performance tests, thus Ferrari has a lot catching to do.

After fixing problem, and kicking car into higher speeds, Binotto still thinks they are slower than competition. We do not know however how much, because of distortion caused by reliability issues. I am not writing however Ferrari off as yet. 

....

I should add, only now I am reading an interview with Verstappen, in which he is describing problems with cars following each other. Sounds like we could be for another processional season. Long live computer design engineering of F1 cars. Mind you, Newey likes old drawing board, that's true, but he has specs which he has to follow, and much of it is based on what is generated on computers. Point here is - not enough validation of assumptions on real track IMHO.   

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sakae said:

(My) Sarcasm doesn't play well on the internet. In reality, I actually fully agree with you in observation that low performance was most likely well below what was intended. My understanding is, Ferrari intended to focus on "car - get to know you" in low speeds, something which Leclerc attempted to speak about, however - 

  1. There was a significant delay on getting out of garage first day. (Engineers were busy...)
  2. Engine was later replaced.
  3. Seb, from all what we know, suffered similar issues. It seems there was no other engine (or chassis) available for this test to turn it around.
  4. Seb stopped on track, causing red, and it is almost certain it was not from running out of fuel. 

From outside all what we can do is to make in nature speculative guesses, that there was an issue with PU, which allowed team to run the car, but only in low speeds. Engine setting was most likely reconfigured to adapt accordingly allowing Seb turn some laps. Those three days will be missed, and in second round it will be hectic. Rivals already managed to run simulated race, and performance tests, thus Ferrari has a lot catching to do.

After fixing problem, and kicking car into higher speeds, Binotto still thinks they are slower than competition. We do not know however how much, because of distortion caused by reliability issues. I am not writing however Ferrari off as yet. 

....

I should add, only now I am reading an interview with Verstappen, in which he is describing problems with cars following each other. Sounds like we could be for another processional season. Long live computer design engineering of F1 cars. Mind you, Newey likes old drawing board, that's true, but he has specs which he has to follow, and much of it is based on what is generated on computers. Point here is - not enough validation of assumptions on real track IMHO.   

Nice post and insights...lovely stuff.. Just read this, hope it looks better at next test..

http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/710564/RED_MIST_Write_Ferrari_off_at_your_own_peril/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sakae said:

Either they're fluking big time, or...it's true. Why wud they run with de-tuned engines tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BradSpeedMan said:

Either they're fluking big time, or...it's true. Why wud they run with de-tuned engines tho

I rather suspect they were forced into it by circumstances. ERS or lord knows what was goofing around. In any case, something wasn't working properly, so much is beyond dispute, and they decided not to stress it more than risk allowed them. Potentially damaging PU (if forced into full performance utility curve) must have been considered and accepted.

 

Quote

The first aerodynamic package of the SF 1000 does not work.

You see here again why whole concept of car development is, simply put, wrong. Why team could not test in Dec and January to learn about it and have it corrected by correlating track data to a design, rather than learning about problems in couple of weeks before a first race? People who are pushing for saving money (by not testing) can be pleased, but we, fans, have very little to look forward, unless Maranello finds a magic bullet in a hurry.

IMHO they should have test driver on the track in Oct last year to work with technical support in prep for a new season. Just as it was in old times.

Repeatedly we see it again and again what restriction do to a team, if you make a mistake during development. Ultimately fans are the injured party as their team needlessly suffers. It doesn't matter it is the same for all teams. Humans are prone to making errors, and this natural condition cannot be overlooked. Current management of F1 is just as bad as the previous one in that regard (restrictiveness).

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time will tell.

I am not convinced it was all "sandbagging". Being off -- like RBR -- a few seconds is one thing, but why destroy your own testing program for sole purpose to confuse rivals? It doesn't make sense to me. Changing engines, sitting in the garage, etc. Why then even participating in the test? If that was a goal, they could sit at home just as well, claim they weren't ready for the season, and achieve the same effect.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it would appear to me that Ferrari had concerns about engine reliability, so they ran it at less than full power. This would imply that the Ferrari engines in the Alfa were different. Perhaps didn’t have the latest updates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slotting Ferrari into P12 would take sandbagging into whole new levels never seen before. That's IMO just a click bait headline from an editor.

In reality, of course Ferrari had reliability issues, we all have seen it, and only remaining questions I think are whether they can fix issues they had in time for next test (and a race), or this will hang over their heads for a while. Second quation is, where are they with performance? None of it is known at the moment. Sandbagging or not, qualifying lap, race sim., etc., none was done yet. An odd lap at 300 km+ by Seb is relatively slow this time around. In Mexico a few years back Vettel clocked over 365 km with his car.

First three days this season could make a lot of people rightly nervous. (Binotto's face during testing wasn't that calm.)

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/2/2020 at 9:23 AM, Sakae said:
11 hours ago, Ruslan said:

Well, it would appear to me that Ferrari had concerns about engine reliability, so they ran it at less than full power. This would imply that the Ferrari engines in the Alfa were different. Perhaps didn’t have the latest updates.

Kimi's time in speedtrap was the fastest... confusing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Alfa vs. Ferrari differences. Alfa most likely was not hindered by reliability issues Ferrari experienced, thus they could run unrestrained, which was not possible in the red garage. I am not saying that's what it was, but it is one of plausible explanations.

Since we don't know how much fuel Kimi was carrying, I would not draw any far reach conclusions of it. There was similar case between Perez and Silver cars for a while. Just different testing strategies.

 

...Binotto is already announcing defeat to Italian media in the first race. Oh my goodness.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sakae said:

Slotting Ferrari into P12 would take sandbagging into whole new levels never seen before. That's IMO just a click bait headline from an editor.

In reality, of course Ferrari had reliability issues, we all have seen it, and only remaining questions I think are whether they can fix issues they had in time for next test (and a race), or this will hang over their heads for a while. Second quation is, where are they with performance? None of it is known at the moment. Sandbagging or not, qualifying lap, race sim., etc., none was done yet. An odd lap at 300 km+ by Seb is relatively slow this time around. In Mexico a few years back Vettel clocked over 365 km with his car.

First three days this season could make a lot of people rightly nervous. (Binotto's face during testing wasn't that calm.)

Well, often if there are engine reliability issues in testing or early in the season, it tends to persist for at least the first half of the season. These are not problems quickly and easily fixed. So, suspect Ferrari is in for a challenging first half of a season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sakae said:

...Alfa vs. Ferrari differences. Alfa most likely was not hindered by reliability issues Ferrari experienced, thus they could run unrestrained, which was not possible in the red garage. I am not saying that's what it was, but it is one of plausible explanations.

Since we don't know how much fuel Kimi was carrying, I would not draw any far reach conclusions of it. There was similar case between Perez and Silver cars for a while. Just different testing strategies.

 

...Binotto is already announcing defeat to Italian media in the first race. Oh my goodness.

I am guessing that Alfa did not have the latest engine updates.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless Ferrari starts big in Melbourne, then I think it's over for this season. Teams are converging in performance, and Perez, Ocon, Verstappen, and maybe some others cannot be ignored.

OK then; should be easy to fix (assuming that's all ).

 

Advantage: Leclerc over Vettel; he is scheduled to drive last day of this week.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ruslan said:

I am guessing that Alfa did not have the latest engine updates.....

They have a contract for same engines..so, don't think thats the case.. Ferrari is fluking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Ferrari supplied their version why Seb had his engine replaced (fault in lubrication subsystem). They still did not explain why traveling in speed was good just for P12.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BradSpeedMan said:

They have a contract for same engines..so, don't think thats the case.. Ferrari is fluking

But did they have the same engine at the test? If Ferrari is doing development work, then would Alfa have that version?

Now Ferrari is saying it is a lubrication system problem. If so, it could be an easy fix without any long term issues. But they were awfully slow in the last test session.

Edited by Ruslan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Play with words...

Quote

Sebastian Vettel has given weight to Mercedes’ claims Ferrari did not turn up the wick in the opening test, saying that’s “not on the agenda”.

Ferrari failed to shine in the first three-day pre-season testing.

Well, is it really failure if low key was actually the original plan? I would say Ferrari succeeded with their plan, but WHY this particular strategy? Anyone knows? I don't want to call anyone a liar, however I still suspect they had an unidentified reliability related issue on the car, which precluded continuous high stress testing.

 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Alfa Romeo using Kubica for testing ...ffs... he was consistenly last on pace last year?????

You can't attribute giving feedback or feel for the car... Let the actual drivers do the fckn driving!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BradSpeedMan said:

Why is Alfa Romeo using Kubica for testing ...ffs... he was consistenly last on pace last year?????

You can't attribute giving feedback or feel for the car... Let the actual drivers do the fckn driving!!!!

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now