2016 Car Launch and Pre-season Testing

We’ve all seen it, broken it down, and cleared up all those lingering questions,
so now we just have to fill these next two weeks with some productive downtime while we wait
for that first race.
Honestly, I'm holding out hope for at least one win for the FW38, mostly because I'm starting to get
a little tired of staring at this Martini livery.

It looks like everyone finally showed up. I have to say, Haas is a pretty pleasant surprise; they clearly aren't going to be bringing up the rear for the next three years, especially since it seems like Ferrari has lent them a hand whenever possible. The car feels like a pure Ferrari underneath, even if it hasn't been fully refined from the original design yet, but those core lines are definitely there.

As for the sound, I think they really nailed it. In my opinion, Honda takes the lead with that sharp, aggressive tone, followed by Ferrari, then Renault, and finally Mercedes... though the Mercedes engine hasn't really changed much to me; it still sounds a bit like a buzzing bee.

Man, Sebastian Vettel was definitely out there on those Super Softs during the qualifying simulations, just like Tibi mentioned. It looks like he was really pushing the limits, at least according to what the "speed trap" data shows 😁

Anyway, now that testing is officially wrapped up, I wanted to throw my two cents in. Here is how I see the pecking order looking

1. Mercedes
~0.2 sec (averaging qualifying and race pace)
2. Ferrari
~0.3 sec
3. Williams
~0.2 sec
3. Red Bull
~0.2 sec
4. STR/Force India
~0.3 sec
5. Sauber/Haas
~0.3 sec
6. Lotus/McLaren
~0.6 sec
7. Manor

Feel free to come and eat your words when we get to Melbourne ☕

stormybadger8 said:Something just doesn't feel right here, does it? 🤔
http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-...ults/race.html

Last year during the race, we saw FL Hamilton 1:28.270, while Sebastian Vettel clocked in at 1:27.527...
It would seem quite extraordinary, wouldn't it, if the Ferrari hasn't just closed the gap to last year's Mercedes, but actually possesses a car that is roughly 0.750 seconds faster than the previous Mercedes model. 🤔

But what is even more baffling—if one were to follow that logic—is the implication that Ferrari has somehow unearthed more than three full seconds compared to their own car from last season. 😵
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?p...stian%20Vettel
Sebastian Vettel's best time in the race last year was 1:30.737, yet now, in this race simulation, Sebastian Vettel is hitting 1:27.527...

I suppose anything is possible in this sport, but to believe they found three seconds of pure performance in a single year? I find that quite difficult to swallow.

One really cannot make fair comparisons when race times are recorded under much warmer conditions. For instance, Nico Rosberg was unable to replicate his testing speeds during qualifying at VN Spain, being nearly two seconds slower in May than he had been back in early March.

ruggedhawk20 said:Exactly.

Pre-season testing.

The year 2001.

Yes, indeed, because Ferrari is clearly on the verge of bankruptcy and desperately needs to lure in sponsors.

Tyler Bennett5 said:Well, we have seen everything and analyzed every detail, resolving all our uncertainties,
so all that remains is to fill these next two weeks with constructive discussion while we wait
for the first race.
Naturally, I am expecting at least one victory for the FW38, as I am starting to get a bit tired
of seeing nothing but dust behind the Martini cars.

It would certainly be refreshing if both Williams and Red Bull could manage a win to spice things up for the championship.
🙂

ruggedhawk20 said:Honestly, you're a complete disaster.

Look, since I clearly care about your reputation—and I'd hate to see you face this much embarrassment—I'm offering you some professional trolling lessons. It’ll cost you $65 plus tax for a 45-minute session.

Who's going to be the last one laughing about these testing sessions? 😁

graniteharbor502 said:You can't just compare race times when it's way hotter on track. Rosberg couldn't even replicate that testing pace during qualifying at VN Spain.He’s nearly two seconds slower in May than he was back at the start of March.)

Of course he wasn't two seconds slower. You're seriously mixing up apples and oranges here. 😉
Rosberg's testing time was just pure software magic, whereas... He spent the May race running on Mediums and Hards....

27.02.2015...

Check out the testing results from February 2015 here: http://www.gpupdate.net/en/testresults/f1-australian-grand-prix-february-2015/
That same day, he clocked a best time of 1:24.319 on the Medium tires, which was only a hair faster than... 1:24.681 in qualifying. What kind of mess did they make on the Medium tires?
Looking at the comparison with this year, it’s pretty wild that Mercedes only managed a measly 0.2-second improvement on the Medium compared to last year's testing. Their best time on the Medium this season is sitting at 1:21.1xx. That’s a weirdly small jump, honestly.
Even on softs, he's actually slower by about 0.2 seconds compared to last year—clocking in at 1:22.8xx versus last year's 1:23.0xx.

So there’s really no talking about some massive two-second gap here, unless you’re trying to compare times from testing sessions run on tires that weren't even used in qualifying or the race.
It’s kind of like trying to compare lap times from a US race that probably won't even happen this season. What's the point?

Comparing Vettel's race time to this simulation is actually pretty fair. Since we're looking at times from the final stint on the Mediums, it’s a decent comparison. Hitting a 1:27.527 on Mediums in the sim. Not bad. I can't even begin to process this. What am I supposed to work with here? Give me something actual to write about. Rough lap (1:30.737)....
Look, I know it’s a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison since Sebastian Vettel ran his final stint on hards, but even if we pretend—just for the sake of argument—and compare it to Kimi Räikkönen's last stint on mediums (1:29.931), the gap is still massive. We're talking roughly 2.4 seconds slower than last year. Yikes.
It honestly sounds insane. Finding over two seconds in Formula 1 in just a single year? Even one second is a massive leap, let alone 2.4 seconds—especially coming from a top-tier team.
Those famous 2.4 seconds would sound ridiculous even if Honda found them—and they were a complete disaster last year. Forget about Ferrari finding them; they were at the very top. 🤔

I laid out the situation for you all right after those initial tests.

Ferrari is sitting about 0.3 seconds behind in race trim, and trailing by 0.5 seconds during qualifying.

With Melbourne approaching—a very specific type of circuit—that gap should shrink to a tenth or maybe two. That puts them right back in the fight.

I might actually know a thing or two!

graniteharbor502 said:Yeah, totally—Ferrari's basically broke and desperate for sponsors. 👏

Nice explanation from our one living witness here. It’s all just a big show for Ennio Morricone—or whatever you call that boss at Ferrari everyone's terrified of.

If you don't buy my crap, at least believe him.

stormybadger8 said:Of course he wasn't two seconds slower; you're really conflating two completely different things here, aren't you? 😉
I find myself wondering if we are perhaps being a bit too trusting of the data presented to us, because I cannot help but suspect that Rosberg's timing from that particular testing session was merely a product of sophisticated software simulation rather than what actually occurred on the asphalt. Is it not possible that the digital models are simply painting a more optimistic picture than the physical reality? I found myself pondering the nuances of tire strategy during that intense May race, specifically wondering if there was any merit to running on the medium and hard compounds throughout the heat of the competition?...

27.02.2015...

I found myself wandering through the archives again today, specifically looking back at those early testing sessions from February 2015, and I couldn't help but wonder if we truly grasp how much the landscape of Formula 1 has shifted since that particular moment in time. There is something profoundly nostalgic about revisiting these old telemetry sets and lap times, isn't there? It makes one contemplate the sheer velocity of change in our sport. Looking at the data from those sessions, one has to ask ourselves: were we even prepared for the technical evolution that was about to unfold? The numbers tell a story, of course, but they rarely capture the tension in the air or the quiet anticipation felt by the engineers in the garage. It is easy to get lost in the spreadsheets, yet the soul of the competition remains tucked between the lines of those statistical breakdowns. Does anyone else find themselves doing this—revisiting the past not just to check the facts, but to try and recapture the feeling of what it was like to witness these eras unfolding in real-time?
That very same day, he clocked an impressive best time of 1:24.319 on the medium circuit, which was only marginally faster than... Is it not truly remarkable when one contemplates the sheer velocity required to achieve a qualifying time of 1:24.681? One cannot help but wonder, as we sit here observing these increments of a second, what level of precision must a driver possess to maintain such a delicate balance between absolute speed and total control? It is quite a feat, isn't it? I find myself wondering, quite frequently actually, what exactly has been achieved on Medium lately? Is there any real substance being cultivated within those digital halls, or are we simply witnessing another endless cycle of ephemeral thoughts passing through the ether? One can't help but ponder if the platform has truly evolved into a meaningful space for discourse, or if it remains merely a repository for fleeting musings that vanish as quickly as they appear. Does anyone else feel this lingering sense of uncertainty regarding the actual impact of what is being published there?
If one were to consider the comparison with this current season, it becomes quite apparent that Mercedes-Benz has achieved a progression of perhaps only 0.2 seconds on the medium tires when measured against last year's testing sessions—given that our fastest lap on the mediums this year sits at roughly 1:21.1xx—which strikes me as being an unexpectedly marginal improvement, wouldn't you agree?
Is it not rather curious when one considers that even with the updated software, the pace seems to have lagged by nearly a tenth or two compared to last year? One looks at the telemetry and sees a 1:22.8 versus a 1:23.0, and one cannot help but wonder if we are witnessing a subtle regression rather than the progress we were all led to expect. Could it be that the refinements are missing the mark entirely?

So, one really cannot find any grounds to argue that there is some massive two-second gap in that regard, unless, of course, one insists on comparing qualifying and race times against testing data gathered on tires that weren't even utilized during the actual sessions. Does it not seem somewhat fundamentally flawed to draw such comparisons?
It feels somewhat futile, does it not, to sit here and obsessively compare these recent lap times clocked on American soil, especially when there is such a high probability that none of those specific setups or tire compounds will even see the light of day during an actual race this season?

When one considers the comparison between Sebastian Vettel's actual race time and the results yielded by this particular race simulation, it appears that the figures are, in principle, relatively sound, provided that we acknowledge the specific parameters involved; after all, we are essentially comparing times recorded during the final stint on the track, are we not? Is it not truly remarkable when one considers the sheer precision required to maintain such a pace, specifically when looking at a simulation race time of 1:27.527? One cannot help but wonder, as we sit here contemplating the data, what specific nuances of driving or perhaps even the subtle calibration of the vehicle allowed for such a particular result to manifest? It occurs to me, as I sit here contemplating the sheer velocity of modern life, that one must wonder if we truly grasp the magnitude of what is being debated in these circles. Is it not possible that we are all merely drifting through a sea of data without a compass? When I consider the arguments presented by graniteharbor502, I find myself falling into a contemplative trance regarding the fundamental nature of competition itself. Does true excellence exist in the moment of victory, or is it found in the quiet, grueling preparation that precedes the spotlight? One cannot help but ponder whether our current metrics for success are even remotely accurate, or if we are simply chasing shadows in a grand, cosmic theater. Perhaps there is more to this discussion than meets the eye, though I suspect many would disagree. Is it possible that we are witnessing a pace so blistering, so fundamentally transformative, that it defies our traditional understanding of what is achievable on a given circuit? I find myself staring at the telemetry, specifically that staggering lap time of 1:30.737, and I am left wondering if we have truly entered a new era of performance. Does such a number even feel real when you consider the sheer physical toll it takes on both the machine and the driver? It makes one pause and reflect on whether the limits of human endurance and mechanical engineering are being pushed toward a threshold from which there is no return....
While I realize one cannot establish a perfectly precise comparison—given that Sebastian Vettel spent his final stint of the race running on the hard compound tires—is it not still worth examining the data? Even if we were to attempt a hypothetical comparison against Kimi’s final stint on the medium tires, where he clocked a 1:29.931, the conclusion remains inescapable; the gap persists as a rather staggering discrepancy of approximately 2.4 seconds when measured against last year's performance.
It truly strikes one as somewhat preposterous, does it not, to imagine that anyone within the realm of Formula 1 could somehow uncover more than two seconds of pace in a single season? Even a solitary second is considered an immense leap in this sport, so to suggest a margin of 2.4 seconds—especially coming from a team that already sits at the very pinnacle of the standings—seems almost beyond the realm of belief, wouldn't you agree?
Those famous 2.4 seconds would sound utterly absurd, wouldn't they? Even if Honda managed to pull them off after being in such complete and utter shambles last year, let alone if Ferrari were the ones attempting to find them, especially considering they were sitting right at the very top of the standings. 🤔

Tiba, you have to realize that the tires simply aren't identical, and even the pressure within them is inconsistent.

I find myself wondering, quite often, whether we truly grasp the profound weight of our own perspectives when we engage in these digital dialogues, though I suppose that is perhaps a question far too heavy for a casual afternoon. Is it not curious how we drift from one subject to another, much like a slow-moving river winding through a vast landscape? I often sit here, reflecting on the nuances of our discussions, and I cannot help but feel that there is a certain sincerity required if we are to find any real substance in this space. One must wonder, does anyone else feel this pull toward deeper contemplation, or am I merely lost in my own thoughts once again? kaže:
He explained it quite beautifully, being the only living witness to the whole ordeal. It feels like nothing more than a theatrical performance staged for Morricone—or whatever that big boss at Ferrari is called whom everyone seems so terrified of.

If you refuse to take my word for it, perhaps you could at least trust his.

Fine, then I suppose we shouldn't expect much more than ten measly points from Ferrari this season. 🙂
stormybadger8 is clearly being overly optimistic, because the reality remains that the folks over at Mercedes-Benz are practically bursting with unearned confidence after testing nothing but the medium and soft compounds. I truly hope that arrogance comes back to haunt them. As far as I can tell, the only team that actually looked like they might pull off an upset during testing was Ferrari. I am expecting a surprise. Perhaps I am just being naive...

Los Angeles is really just the opening act for what promises to be an incredibly long season.
Sure, one team might have nailed their initial car design, but winning requires constant, relentless upgrades.
It’s going to be fascinating to watch how the gaps between teams shift from the start of the year to the very end.
We'll see who manages to stay ahead with their development, who misses the mark, and who ends up giving up
on car development altogether. We still have two weeks to go before the first race, and I suspect we'll see quite a few changes
to the cars by then; I honestly don't think they'll look anything like they did during the launches and testing sessions,
at least for some of the teams.

Mercedes-Benz is the clear favorite here, thanks to their rock-solid reliability and a dominant package carried over from last year that they've only managed to refine further...
I think Ferrari is closing the gap and might actually outpace Mercedes-Benz at certain races, but their lack of reliability is a massive red flag. Taking such radical development risks brings so many potential headaches, and there's just never enough time for proper testing...
That’s why I'm sticking with Mercedes-Benz as the favorite for this season too. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I really don't think I am...😉

Moto X style

On this initial page, you will find all the results and pertinent statistics gathered from the pre-season testing sessions. Perhaps it might be prudent to save this information somewhere for future reference?

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/124...ons-in-testing

Interesting enough...

What's the scoop?
With Sky pumping up the hype and selling us a load of nonsense, wouldn't anyone just grab a subscription to Sky Formula 1 for this supposedly "thrilling" season? 🙂

Honestly, looks like they're in as much trouble as AT&T is with their Motorsport package, MaxGP, or whatever they're calling it these days...
It's pretty telling that starting this season, they're dropping video content online without those British IP restrictions they had last year... feels like their viewership is cratering, so they're sweating bullets trying to trick someone into buying a package...

graniteharbor502 said:Sure, Ford is basically broke and desperate for sponsors. 👏

Not really. But it was pretty obvious their main goal was just chasing the fastest lap during testing.
Even if it was just by two-tenths, they were doing it on tires three classes softer (and faster) than what Lewis Hamilton used for his best laps.

And while Ford was clearly hunting that fast lap, General Motors seemed focused on hiding exactly how much pace they actually have.
An interesting little detail: one of the General Motors drivers decided to play around a bit—was it Lewis Hamilton on day three?—and clocked a 1:26.4... in a stint where everyone else was hovering around 1:27, while others were running 1:28s or 1:29s?
Maybe those second or third laps happened because of some specific orders from the pit wall to keep the stint at 1:27... who knows?

The only silver lining is if Ford is holding even more back.
But honestly? That seems highly unlikely.

Jason Campbell70 said:Not quite, though one could argue their primary objective was simply to chase down the fastest possible lap time during testing at any cost.
Even if it meant shaving off just two-tenths of a second while running on tires that are three tiers softer—and significantly faster—than the ones Lewis Hamilton used to set his personal best.

But really, why would chasing a single fast lap during a testing session be their ultimate goal? 🤷

graniteharbor502 said:Why would they even care about setting a fast lap during testing? 🤷

1) so we can actually talk about them right now

2) so they can get two weeks of peace before the boss starts handing out pink slips

3) to bait some other clueless sponsor

ruggedhawk20 said:1) that we should be discussing them right now

2) that they ought to grab themselves two weeks of peace before the boss starts handing out heads on platters

3) that they need to go out and lure in yet another naive sponsor

It was rather mysterious, wasn't it, how they would suddenly abandon the attempt at a lap in the fast sector while running on ultrasoft tires, even when they were showing purple times in both the first and second sectors...

graniteharbor502 said:They were weirdly skipping laps in the Ford garage back when they were running Ultrasoft—even though they were absolutely crushing it with purple sectors in the first two parts of the track...

I have zero clue what a "purple sector" even is. I don't get the colors or how modern Formula 1 works at all.

But hey—I definitely understand manipulation. Especially when it comes to messing with colors and timing.

ruggedhawk20 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue what a purple sector actually signifies. Between my lack of color theory knowledge and my general confusion regarding how modern Formula 1 operates, I am quite lost.

However, if one were to speak of manipulation—specifically the subtle art of manipulating colors and timing to influence perception—then I might find myself more at home in the conversation.

A purple sector simply means it was the fastest sector recorded during the day.