F1 2010: Testing sessions thread

[Saint Devote]

Mclaren were using the data from practise, qualifying, and races to develop the car in season. The events themselves were used as a testing platform.. It wasn't all done back in Woking.

Thats correct and many of the processes have been changed as a result. They had people at the track that had never attended a grand prix and it was as they said a "culture shock" for the race team as they had to act as a test team.

The factory was going 24 hours a day and they complimented the drivers in particular Lewis who they said worked intensely.

On the Friday night for example the carbon fabricators literally took over the garage and were cutting the floors that were to be used on the Saturday in qualifying - very "unMclaren" as they said.

They concluded that having the luxury of separate test sessions with a test team as it used to be would have been less effective than being forced to use Fridays as test sessions.

Great story is 2009 Mclaren

[Sonic]

Testing has after all been discovered to be not AS vital these days as was always thought.

I don't think the RBR-Renault is in trouble based on the Mclaren engineers conclusion after last year's frenetic turnaround, that being able to test would have significantly SLOWED the amazing progress of the MP4-24.

Interesting.

And the question surrounding the Virgin-Cosworth is - will they discover that using CFD only and not any windtunnel is sound after all - just look at the 2009 Acura's performance in ALMS?

This confounded the rule that CFD-only is workable in the front but from the middle of the car its effectiveness drops sharply making it impossible to design an effective rear.

Virgin is definitely the most interesting concept this year.

I see what you're saying with regards to McLaren (and others) having to adapt to last seasons lack of testing. However I don't think you can quite connect the dots so simply. It is impossible to say (without access to a alternate universe where test was permited) that the progress made on the McLaren would have slowed with in-season testing.

Its similar to when par ferme condtions were introduced. Reliabity improved. Can it be said with certainty that one caused the other? Possibly, but not without doubt.

[V12]

I'm not against the in-season testing ban so much, I can even stomach the ban from the end of the season to the end of the calendar year. I just don't see the reasoning in banning testing during January as well. OK none of the new cars have been launched yet, but wouldn't mind getting to see how Jenson gets on against Lewis in the '09 McLaren or Schuey take to the wheel of a repainted Brawn instead of a GP2 car.

I understand the cost concerns and I'd much rather see testing sacrificed ahead of introducing things like common parts and so on, I guess I'm just bored of waiting for the season to start!

[Saint Devote]

Considering how little money Brawn had to run the team during last season, it'll be interesting how much was spent developing their 2010 machine. They may have started alot later than others and a late injection of funds from Mercedes wouldn't have bought them any time. We may see them in a similar position to Mclaren in 2009, who knows? Mclaren made the mistake of concentrating most of their resources to the 2008 campaign, whcih left them on the back foot last season. I hope Mercedes/Brawn have not made the same mistake.

MS seems happy and positive with their work ethic, so only time will tell.

The aero rules are the same as far as I know - it is the fuel regs and tyres that are the greatest changes.

But I do agree with you in terms of Brawn falling behind in development during the season compared to Mclaren - how well have they salvaged the situation.

It was Ross who mentioned they had a difficult time trying to finish 2009 as well as they could as well as developing the 2010 car.

If they are behind it will not be as marked as Mclaren or Ferrari were in 2009.

[Saint Devote]

I see what you're saying with regards to McLaren (and others) having to adapt to last seasons lack of testing. However I don't think you can quite connect the dots so simply. It is impossible to say (without access to a alternate universe where test was permited) that the progress made on the McLaren would have slowed with in-season testing.

Its similar to when par ferme condtions were introduced. Reliabity improved. Can it be said with certainty that one caused the other? Possibly, but not without doubt.

The comment regarding testing and how slow or quickly they would have progressed was made during an inteview with the three primary Mclaren development engineers.

[winer]

Testing has after all been discovered to be not AS vital these days as was always thought.

I've heard other people say this too, but never seen any real facts or figures to back it up. It boggles my mind how you can design and build something as complex as an F1 car, and then proceed to racing with only a "minimal" amount of testing. I know a lot of "testing" is done on simulators, but surely "wheels on the ground" is the only real testing that matters. Does anyone have a link to explain the process for testing a new car?

[F1boat]

I'm not against the in-season testing ban so much, I can even stomach the ban from the end of the season to the end of the calendar year. I just don't see the reasoning in banning testing during January as well.

Same here.

[Sonic]

The comment regarding testing and how slow or quickly they would have progressed was made during an inteview with the three primary Mclaren development engineers.

Yes I infered as much from your previous statement. But, not wishing to sound like I know more than McLaren staff (because clearly I don't), they cannot say that the car would have progressed slower with in season testing because they have no evidence to support that claim. Just their, gut instict, as it were.

[CNR]

Lotus won't participate in first two tests
http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,189...856715,00.html

Heikki Kovalainen has revealed that Lotus will not only miss the Valencia test, but also the second one Jerez.

The reason? The F1 newcomers don't have enough spare parts to test properly in the first two outings.

Red Bull boss Christian Horner has already confirmed his team will not head to the Circuito Ricardo Tormo as the RB6 won't be ready in time

i think this may be a bit of bull or should i say it will give other teams less time to copy the bull be fore the first race

[f1indiablog]

Are the NEW teams ready for F1: the pinnacle of motorsport?