andrewbensonf1: Red Bull put L66 on Vettel's pit board - definitely a race simulation. Thank you to the source of that earlier info. You know who you are... Happily for those of us interested in lap-time offset for fuel & trying to work backwards to a low-fuel lap, Vettel heads out on soft tyres One lap and back in to the pits for Vettel. Something wrong? Or are they simulating the 'engine off' time on the grid? and then... Vettel's pit board now suggests he's not on a race-simulation run. Will keep you posted
Oh no he bought it back to a 30 now. Maybe those were starting to overheat... NVM just said he pitted for another set
Good day, folks! Just reading the last few comments… and yes, I must agree: Benson does tend to come across as a bit of a twit to anyone who knows even the slightest about F1. It's also a shame he gets so excited about Hamilton. It seems pretty clear to me that his gushing is not simply a case of talking up a Brit on behalf of the BBC; rather, he seems genuine biased. As others have said, it is very poor journalism. Unfortunately, his corporate employers seem to have so little interest in F1 that they probably don't have a clue about just how poor he is. Back to the topic of the current test: I've seen little to alter my original opinion from a couple of weeks back. Red Bull have a clear lead over their rivals, in my opinion. Their car is beautifully poised and consequently very easy on tyres*. As things stand, it is easily the most consistent and will be the easiest to set up for different circuits. It is a masterpiece. Ferrari have a compliant car which responds very well to subtle changes in set-up. It is an improvement over their 2012 concept and Alonso has every reason to feel he has a better chance to beat Newey (oops: I mean Vettel*) than last year. Unless there is a dramatic change, the McLaren will probably blow hot and cold (near the front) through the season. It is generating loads of downforce and has a well-planted rear end, but – as I suggested would be the case earlier in this thread during the first test at Jerez – it is not particularly well-balanced. My personal belief is that the design team did not give enough attention to the front end and it will be more difficult to set up than a 2013 Red Bull, Ferrari, or indeed Lotus. Lotus have a real smoothie. I would be very surprised if they do not claim several victories this season – and I would not be too surprised if what I've just said turns out to be an understatement! The Mercedes is a bit of a mess compared to the above and I do not see it as comparing more favourably against the others than it did this time last year. There is simply not enough downforce and it is not especially well-balanced; it will therefore likely be a tyre-chewer* because to be competitive, it has to be 'over-driven' (which makes it look even worse on track). Sauber may actually have a better car than Mercedes (and Force India's machinery looks pretty good too), but by the end of the season I do not think either will have amassed enough points to threaten Mercedes because – perhaps contrary to popular belief – drivers can and do make a difference! To put this in perspective: if right now (20thFeb'13) I were forced to choose a weapon to race at a random circuit but restricted to choose between the current offerings from Mercedes, Sauber, Force India or Toro Rosso, I'd choose the Sauber. *It can sometimes seem counter-intuitive that more downforce – which improves traction against the track surface – actually reduces tyre wear. There are several reasons for this but the simplest is that a car which lacks downforce will not be 'pushed down' on to the surface enough to prevent tyre scrub – which quickly leads to graining and/or overheating. Also, it should be pretty obvious that a car's grip dictates its responsiveness to driver inputs and changes in set-up. This is Red Bull's biggest advantage and Mercedes' clear weakness. McLaren have plenty of 'push down' at the rear but are finding it difficult to provoke a better response from the front. *To me, Webber's situation seems not too dissimilar to various 'subservients' chosen by Ferrari for most of the past two decades…
If it's hot in Melbourne, we're going to end up with a stupid situation with people doing maybe 2 laps on the super softs, for fear they won't last any longer. The top 10 might have to qualify on super-softs, pit on about lap 2, then do a 2-3 (well, 3-4) stop race on hards. Those further back might end up running the strategy the other way around, with everyone ducking into the pits late on.
Be so f'd off if a TR or a FI wins the first race all because the front runners got screwed over for qualifying higher up
2012 Q3 - Hamilton 1:21.707 2013 testing - Perez 1:21.848 With the limited DRS its looking fair to say we're finally seeing some of these cars real potential.
At this rate i'm beginning to wonder if the teams will even be given enough sets to finish the race in Melbourne. Pitcrews will earn their money for sure.
Would they be able to change the compounds for the race if they think there will be too many stops or do they have to stick with the original decision?
I think Vettel and Red Bull are trying to find out the best way to drive for the tyres - fast with more deg, or slow with less deg. That's what is looks like anyway: Stint 1 1:29.611 1:31.230 1:31.691 1:31.881 1:32.777 1:34.171 Deg = 0.712 Stint 2 (6 laps lighter than stint 1) 1:30.013 1:30.375 1:31.360 1:30.780 1:31.857 1:32.935 1:33.796 Deg = 0.63
