This is a great signing for Ferrari, not only because of the experience De La Rosa brings but also because they appear to have secured the services of a man in demand. Antonio Lobato elaborates: "I can add this news to me that Fernando is the man behind the signing of Pedro. He asked Ferrari to sign Pedro. One of the fundamental objectives of Pedro will improve Ferrari simulator. He has the advantage of knowing the McLaren. For Pedro few days have been very happy because two of the best pilots that have worked with him wanted him in 2013. Besides Fernando, Hamilton also wanted to bring him to Mercedes." De La Rosa himself confirmed talks with Mercedes a couple of days ago and also mentioned talks with Williams. We already know that Perez wanted him back at McLaren. Excellent signing for Ferrari! Good luck Pedro!
What seems a good signing for Ferrari there, and what I assume is the end of Pedro's career in competitive F1 itself. The fact he was in demand by several teams speaks volumes for the respect he has in the development world of F1.
He would be a good addition to any team. So long as Ferrari have sorted out all their equipment calibration isses from the past, the feedback he can give them will be very valuable.
You know it seems odd they now have the 2 people 'Aparently' involved. Mclaren now pretty much have completely different personnel. What a difference 5/6 years make
This is a bit of a surprise. I hadn't heard about any sorts of talks De La Rosa was having with any team or what he would be considering at the end of the year. Like BLS says, it shows the amount respect he has in a testing, because there is not only a large amount of teams that want him, but they're top teams recommended by top drivers. Would work well with Alonso, worked with McLaren; god move by Ferrari, even if it came out of left field.
Great to see Pedro continuing in the sport. I expected him to go back to McLaren, like he did after his brief spell at Sauber, but Ferrari is a good destination for him.
This is something of a coup for Ferrari. Astute, intelligent, creative, knowledgeable, intuitive, determined, passionate, patient and predictable; his technical ability puts him right up on the top level. PdlR is one of a handful of the very best test drivers Grand Prix racing has ever seen; especially since testing became such an art-form.
I'm not doubting you here but how can you actually tell these things. Gary Paffet has a good reputation as well. I can see how a racing driver builds a reputation but how does a test driver? (also what can he do given the test ban?)
Great question, Di Resta iftu. I'm pleased you've mentioned Paffett; and I quite agree! Others top-testers worth a mention are Damon Hill and Alex Wurz. A test driver's reputation is built upon all manner of things; not least those qualities I credited PdlR as possessing. But there are two over-riding factors of the utmost importance: accurate feedback and total consistency. Total consistency, that is, in the ability to replicate his/her own driver input (in a sense, reducing oneself to a mechanical component) so as to properly evaluate differences elsewhere. Your question about the testing ban is a good one. However, simulators are almost better than the real thing in being able to hone components, so long as the 'driver' of the simulator can replicate his own input to an almost super-human degree of accuracy – and evaluate the changes in components (and set-up) with equal accuracy! The reason simulators can* be so good is that external conditions are able to be entirely eliminated. A test driver's role is far more demanding, technically, than being the race driver. Some racers are not good testers and often the two quite different mentalities required do not go together well in the same person (Damon Hill being probably the most obvious exception; and Schumacher being pretty good too). - - -o0o- - - *Of course, like any other form of computing, this is ultimately dependant upon human input; but once again this makes demands upon a tester to contribute to honing the programming of the simulator!
That kind of boggles me. What does a test driver do that a race driver cant do to optimise a car for the Race driver?
Says a lot about De La Rosa's reputation in the paddock that both Alonso and Hamilton personally wanted him in their teams, he's better of doing this than dragging the HRT around at the back
Yeah, I see where you're coming from with this, Bando. I'll attempt an answer and try to keep it short. But before I try, it's vitally important to remember that we are talking about tiny differences between drivers as well as recognising where an individual's particular strengths lie, relative to others. All F1 drivers these days need (ought) to be pretty good 'testers'. But like anything else, individuals will differ (won't they, Kimi…. These differences mean that some people are naturally consistent and can combine this consistency with an almost computer-like assessment of – and communication of – what they 'feel'. I underline the communication aspect because this makes two separate demands upon the tester: 1/ to be able to tune-in with the various mind-sets of others; i.e. to 'put oneself in someone else's shoes'; and 2/ to be able to communicate with these people such that there is a mutual understanding with the fewest possibilities for misunderstanding. This is a very different skill-set to be able to out-race another driver. Let's look at two extremes: Most people reasonably familiar with F1 will know that neither Pedro de la Rosa, nor Alex Wurz were the best racers; yet their technical ability (in terms of those things I've already mentioned) is out of reach of most of the top racers! Conversely, one of the greatest of all Grand Prix drivers was almost useless (by comparison to his peers) as a test driver. Jim Clark would just get into any car and drive it faster than anyone else could; yet he would not know how. Indeed, such was his driving ability that he was often scratching his head that others weren't able to match his times; and when comparing component 'A' with component 'B', he would deliver almost identical lap times by instinctively adjusting his driving to suit the machine; precisely what a test driver tries to avoid! They are very different skill sets requiring very different approaches, mentally. There is another factor of course: time. The time to dedicate to the testing task. Racers are out there, preoccupied with trying to win Championships on the track, fighting against rivals who are trying to do the same thing. Testing requires a completely unemotional 'robotic' mentality. Any well-financed team will want the best of both worlds, and as I've already said, rarely do they appear in the same person at the very top level. Comparisons can be made in most other walks of life. All astronomers need to be pretty good mathematicians but some are exceptional mathematicians without being quite so successful at astronomy! One only needs to look at one's own vocation to see obvious strengths and weaknesses amongst one's peer group. This is the same when we think of high-speed driving: it's a many faceted thing and no two people are alike.
