Been monitoring the testing, Mercedes piling the laps in, surprise shock is how good the Ferrari is, but as mentioned above its testing. So we will wait and see what qualifying and when the lights go out in Melbourne.

My favourite looking car is a toss up between the Williams and the McLaren.

Also they all sound a bit different compared to last year from the bits of footage iv seen, the McLaren sounds great!

Bring on the first race in March, much to the disgust of my wife lol, exciting though!

TBH, after the last few years Ferrari couldnt get any worse, so had to get better

matt1chelski, on 06 Feb 2015 - 03:55, said:matt1chelski, on 06 Feb 2015 - 03:55, said:matt1chelski, on 06 Feb 2015 - 03:55, said:

The times largely mean nothing but people thinking the McHonda is 15 seconds down? I don't think so.

 

You're right of course - they're actually only 7 seconds a lap off - so when it retires on lap 38 it'll be about 270 seconds behind the leader - 1.5 to 2 laps.

 

15 seconds, 7 seconds, it might as well be a minute - last year the Marussia's and Caterhams were about that slow

 

 

To be fair though this time last year RedBull-Renault were even worse off and they finished second on the road in Melbourne.

 

In that context Mclaren and Honda have loads of time to get it running properly, and we'll soon see who the weak link is - the brand new engine with a years less running than the others, or the team that haven't built a truly competitve chassis for 3 years.

 

To be honest I'm hoping Alonso has a hideous season - remember this is the bloke that cost Mclaren a $100million fine last time he was there.

This team (Ron) must be utterly desperate to take the spanish snake back on any terms.

Edited 7 February, 201511 yr by camelspyyder

New facts from Jerez which hint at the power of the engines during the test.

Speed trap figures show Mercedes engines (in 3 different cars) at 306/307 kph

Renault at 303

Ferrari at 300

Honda at 277...

clearly Honda didn't yet run full power in the car.

With Ferrari clocking the quickest lap time of the test, that's a little ominous for them.

But we know that the McLaren-Honda hasn't been running full power - the times are irrelevant at this stage.

 

Any real gap won't be known until the first qualifying session in Melbourne, which is about 30 days away now.

Agreed, times are irrelevant in testing. What is however VERY relevant is how much running they did and Macca does not look pretty there...

If they are to stand any chance of being competitive this season they must really turn up the wick for the Barcelona test!

Edited 10 February, 201511 yr by Jabozuma

Thankfully the McLaren Honda haters are only Red Bull fans/employees. This stuff takes time and this year I see as more of a development year as they are a year behind everyone else when it comes to the engine.

I'm expecting a good year though. Mercs still strong with everyone else catching but closer than last year. Was a good fight last year between the Mercs with Hamilton being a worthy winner

Oh, I am not a hater of Macca/Honda in the slightest. I am rather disappointed and worried that with the meagre amount of running they had they making their jobs next to impossible and it looks like you might be right bang on the money with the development year scenario

Edited 10 February, 201511 yr by Jabozuma

As someone said each test isn't simply about number of laps and speed.

Most of the work is done in wind tunnels and computer simulations. Most test runs are familiarisation and double checking handling.

Most Friday practices aren't run at full power either.

Thankfully the McLaren Honda haters are only Red Bull fans/employees. This stuff takes time and this year I see as more of a development year as they are a year behind everyone else when it comes to the engine.

I'm expecting a good year though. Mercs still strong with everyone else catching but closer than last year. Was a good fight last year between the Mercs with Hamilton being a worthy winner

I emphatically deny being a Vermillian Male Bovine fanboi!

Most of the work is done in wind tunnels and computer simulations. Most test runs are familiarisation and double checking handling.

 

I wonder who said that? Perhaps the same lot which run fluorescent aero paint on their cars surfaces during testing by any chance?

I wonder who said that? Perhaps the same lot which run fluorescent aero paint on their cars surfaces during testing by any chance?

All of the teams have very advanced computer modeling thanks to the in season test ban we had.

As I understand it the computer models are very accurate, but just because a part has the best aerodynamics doesn't mean handling will be unaffected - which is why testing is still important.

For the most part it's simply to confirm computer data. Once confirmed you don't need miles and miles of running flat out.

I emphatically deny being a Vermillian Male Bovine fanboi!

It was more about what I'm seeing on Twitter. Most are hopeful about McLaren Honda's chances with most being realistic. The only moaners are those who work for Red Bull and even then its mainly been about the colour scheme.

What I did read is McLaren aren't going for peak downforce this year. Before they'd be going for 750kg of downforce, for example but they can only use some of the time. Instead going for 700kg but able to use it all the time.

Its a loose example as I don't have exact figures but makes sense

Sorry gadgetman but I cannot agree as well as the proof being in the pudding so to speak. 

Computer modelling is extremely advanced and with the growing  computing power it takes less and less time to run parts through CFD calc rigs. It is still a simulation and not the real world recreation. 

Wind tunnels are unfortunately running scale models and not full size cars.

The Holy Grail of wind tunnels is so called calibration, for which real world testing is absolutely necessary. It is also not one time deal, fire and forget and has to be done continually. 

 

CFD's best use is to limit the amount of blind alleys and dead ends and reduce the time for arriving at the best potential solutions without the need to manufacture scaled models of each of them for wind tunnel testing. Some things simply cannot be done by CFD, it is an approximation after all. Mainframe able to calc every single molecule and its interactions does not exist and will not exist in our lifetimes unless they crack quantum computing.

 

What comes from CFD is then scaled and tested in the tunnel. 

 

What comes out of the tunnel is then tested on the track for final correlation exercise and calibration.

 

Nothing can substitute testing on track unfortunately or perhaps thanks God for that! Otherwise they might as well skip the real world and do everything on computers if they were were able to replicate the real world exactly!

Then you need mileage to test myriad of settings, fuel levels, interaction of all elements at the same time.

 

If it was true that testing mileage does not matter really and all is done as well on computers nobody would really bother with, now would they?

Anybody bored enough can read the below to see how restricted CFD and wind tunnel testing actually is

 

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8713/fia.html

Anybody bored enough can read the below to see how restricted CFD and wind tunnel testing actually is

 

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8713/fia.html

tl;dr version:-

The rules restrict how big you can make the tunnel (you can't run 1:1 models even if you want to which means that your tunnel results need scaling), how many hours you can run ti each day and how many days you can run it each year. There are no similar restrictions on CFD.

Oh yes there is! Even more so, just read up a bit

First of all there is computing power limitation (there are clever ways of bypassing it of course ) then there are restrictions on what can be modelled - intake and exhaust gas flows cannot be modelled for example at all, full car cannot be modelled either, only certain elements. CFD is much more restrictive than wind tunnel testing. 

 

If CFD was not restricted then the team with the biggest purse would win straight away.

New facts from Jerez which hint at the power of the engines during the test.

Speed trap figures show Mercedes engines (in 3 different cars) at 306/307 kph

Renault at 303

Ferrari at 300

Honda at 277...

clearly Honda didn't yet run full power in the car.

That'll be full power, explains the 7 seconds down, prob not even make the 107 rule at most races.

Force India - will they race?

 

FI originally planned to do the Jerez test but couldn't get the car finished.  It's still not ready so now they're going to miss the second test and hoping to make the final Barcelona one.

 

They also blocked Marussia's application to return because they (FI) are desperate for a share of Marussia's prize money.

 

Is this the next team to go out of business?

Edited 13 February, 201511 yr by camelspyyder

Force India - will they race?

 

FI originally planned to do the Jerez test but couldn't get the car finished.  It's still not ready so now they're going to miss the second test and hoping to make the final Barcelona one.

 

They also blocked Marussia's application to return because they (FI) are desperate for a share of Marussia's prize money.

 

Is this the next team to go out of business?

It is looking a bit like. It won't have helped any that I switched to only drinking Cobra after they fired wee Paul.

On modelling. I was told by a pilot that the computer models for fuel useage are so accurate, a flight across europe will be accurate from wheels up to down by single digit litres. what they were judged on was taxiing and take off efficiency. That was using weather stats too to judge fuel usage, i.e. a massive variable!

 

So I somehow find it incredibly hard, so much money and people, that there isn't a bloke in a shed somewhere with a laptop, fan and some modeling clay testing, who happens to share his research That would seem to be the british solution to rules

 

Would it be better to fix all aero for all teams, leave it to engines and drivers, reduce some costs too; pool the aero. Getting a lot of fun out of watching the Aussie V8's. Seems driver skill and elbows count for a bit too

And they do that but in an ever so slightly more sophisticated manner. To skirt around the regs they find very specific CPUs which have a particular efficiency drop off at certain type of calculations, say 20%. Those are the calcs prevalent in CFD modelling. Some CPUs however only drop 5% while using that particular programme. I know it is a bit wooly but I do not understand this exactly myself, it goes on into elective self policing on using specific CPU instruction sets etc, not a CPU designer so bit lost there. 

 

They can easily build near perfect aero model of the whole car, just regs stopping them.

 

I am pretty sure they get pieces of useful data from their other sports programmes and automotive divisions to be plug in into their F1 programmes. 

 

That is the problem, there is plenty of other formulas with aero fixed but engines open, the other way around or some other combination of rules, where as you said strong elbows and driving talent only counts. 

 

I think some of the F1 drivers were known to say that compared to the lesser formulas they used to compete at on their way to F1 they do not find F1 nearly as much fun to drive at all. 

 

I'd personally hope they changed the regs to have just an overall race fuel limit without flow limits and have an overall yearly budget cap - everything else de-restricted with minimum computer driver aids. I am of two minds as far radio coms are concerned, would love to see them drive and make their decisions only as a result of their on board gauges info and what they can see on the track.

I used to know a guy who worked for TWR and now works for Ilmoor , he designed and built cylinder heads , he would know how the head would perform thanks to computer design and the flow bench long before it went on the engine , the engine team would then run the engine to destruction and he would have to re-design the head as required and be back to square one again.

 

So computers can tell you many things but not how all the parts will function together and not how long something will last