F1 2010: Testing sessions thread

I like how everyone assumes that because a car did a 10 lap stint that it only had 10 laps worth of fuel onboard. What's to say the car didn't have 30 laps worth of fuel but only did 10 laps before coming into the pits to make a change?

This isn't qualifying, teams don't have to put the minimum amount of fuel in to extract the best lap time. They put in a fuel load to suit whatever it is that they're doing at any given moment.

We have no idea how many laps of fuel were in any car when a lap time was set. Nor does James Allen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

I like how everyone assumes that because a car did a 10 lap stint that it only had 10 laps worth of fuel onboard. What's to say the car didn't have 30 laps worth of fuel but only did 10 laps before coming into the pits to make a change?

This isn't qualifying, teams don't have to put the minimum amount of fuel in to extract the best lap time. They put in a fuel load to suit whatever it is that they're doing at any given moment.

We have no idea how many laps of fuel were in any car when a lap time was set. Nor does James Allen.

---

James Allen is only doing what every other journalist does hyping up the test times to suggest who will be the frontrunenrs, plus it seels papers/magazines or gets them attention.

Its normal for them to ignore the obvious circumstances behind each team's plans during testing and just assume that because Ferrari set the fastest times in Valencia, that means they've "sounded out a warning to the rest of the competition" whereas everyone who understands what goes on during testing knows that the times are irrelevant and the first true yardstick of where everyone stands will be in Bahrain on March 14th

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Dear God no.

Mark Hughes did an interview with Anthony Davidson a year or so ago and hyped him (he needs all the help he can get) to a great degree into a better driver than he really was. As 'authoritative' and technically minded Mark Hughes is he had the temerity to bring up and applaud the Monza test session where Ant posted a quicker time than Schumi without taking into account of variables like fuel weights.

The same Hughes who thought nothing of Vettel and has now suddenly jumped on the 'Vettel is gifted/special' bandwagon.



The track conditions are constantly changing. You learn nothing about the car because the lap times will be less consistant, constantly having to adapt to the conditions via driving style.

---

The point was Autosport "hating" Schumi. They do not.

I do agree that Mark Hughes hypes drivers. I have never seen him cheer on a driver like he does Hamilton. His Italian Grand Prix report was effectively a Lewis puff-piece. I had to wonder if we watched the same race!

Lewis throwing it into the barrier at Mirabeau and then at the first Lesmo in 2009 was downplayed in the former case and then in the latter, excused as if crashing on the last lap while in a podium place, 3rd, is something teams dream about!

And remember this was not just any other driver, but the one that Hughes amongst others had already claimed to be the "next Schumacher". Such mistakes are not excuseable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1boat

Then maybe only Noble. He seems to have the tact of an elephant in a museum for rare Chinese porcelain. His interviews with Lewis and Jenson were are awful as the one with Michael.

---

:D

The best writer at Autosport I think is Bradley Lord. His page each week is excellent. He ought to be considered for reporting on the grands prix.

He reminds me of the great Pete Lyons' [the American Journalist] GP reports of my youth during the 1974 - 1981 [I don't remember when Lyons left exactly]. I did contact him and urged him to write a book of his favorite reports - wish that he would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazzlaF1

James Allen is only doing what every other journalist does hyping up the test times to suggest who will be the frontrunenrs, plus it seels papers/magazines or gets them attention.

Its normal for them to ignore the obvious circumstances behind each team's plans during testing and just assume that because Ferrari set the fastest times in Valencia, that means they've "sounded out a warning to the rest of the competition" whereas everyone who understands what goes on during testing knows that the times are irrelevant and the first true yardstick of where everyone stands will be in Bahrain on March 14th

---

Your comment concurs with that of Lewis - he said that at Valencia.

Although I think people like Ross Brawn [and Schumi] and Martin Witmarsh and the uber-experienced drivers like Rubens have a pretty shrewd idea as to where everyone stands but will keep that to themselves no doubt :D

I remember the sunny warm days at another circuit which I always loved, Paul Ricard, where Alfa Romeo would be quickest during testing and then come the start of the season they would be nowhere.

Now THAT is disappointing!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

I like how everyone assumes that because a car did a 10 lap stint that it only had 10 laps worth of fuel onboard. What's to say the car didn't have 30 laps worth of fuel but only did 10 laps before coming into the pits to make a change?

This isn't qualifying, teams don't have to put the minimum amount of fuel in to extract the best lap time. They put in a fuel load to suit whatever it is that they're doing at any given moment.

We have no idea how many laps of fuel were in any car when a lap time was set. Nor does James Allen.

---

What's the point of doing a 10 lap stint? Are most stints during a race 10 laps long?

I've seen Piquet Jr do 10 lap stints round Silverstone as if it was qualy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Dear God no.

Mark Hughes did an interview with Anthony Davidson a year or so ago and hyped him (he needs all the help he can get) to a great degree into a better driver than he really was. As 'authoritative' and technically minded Mark Hughes is he had the temerity to bring up and applaud the Monza test session where Ant posted a quicker time than Schumi without taking into account of variables like fuel weights.

.

---

Well Buddy!! this is not exactly true. Ant's time, if I remember correctly was within .2 seconds of SchM's all time record at Monza, and some of us thought that was one helluva achievement for ant in the ant; the fuel loads, and whatever variables and conditions would not have swayed our view that it was a great effort.

Of course, I have the cap that he wore afterward as a birthday gift, and I treasure it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

What's the point of doing a 10 lap stint? Are most stints during a race 10 laps long?

I've seen Piquet Jr do 10 lap stints round Silverstone as if it was qualy

---

I don't know. Ask Ferrari as that's apparently what they were doing when they set their fastest times.

All I know is that just because a car does 10 laps and pits doesn't mean that it had only 10 laps worth of fuel. The number of laps in a stint indicates the minimum amount of fuel the car started with and nothing else. Trying to extrapolate the form book from that is a fool's errand which is why I don't pay any attention to James Allen and his ilk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

I don't know. Ask Ferrari as that's apparently what they were doing when they set their fastest times.

All I know is that just because a car does 10 laps and pits doesn't mean that it had only 10 laps worth of fuel. The number of laps in a stint indicates the minimum amount of fuel the car started with and nothing else. Trying to extrapolate the form book from that is a fool's errand which is why I don't pay any attention to James Allen and his ilk.

---

Maybe they want to see how the car would go in qualifying mode. Or maybe they just want to see how many ants they can run over in ten laps. Who knows. Who cares!! :rolleyes: