F1- 2018 Season.

And guess what happened on the very first day of their testing?

Yes, it broke down.  Oh, Lord, give me strength!

Well, not a breakdown. More a wheel falling off.

Renault got a lot of running done between factory team and RB, so all may be OK. Main concern though was the engine was ‘turned down’ for reliability...May be common sense first day out though?

Not very good for morale though, is it? Also, the Toro Rosso - powered by a Honda engine-,  was just  0.017s behind Alonso.  I, again,  have a bad feeling about McLaren's performance this year. 

I don't think anyone learned much;  cold weather with track temps at or below 14'C in the morning & wet with limited running in the afternoon.   

Yes, it looks like the FIA is considering extending testing time due to weather conditions. In the meantime,  I'll just catch up with the WRC in Sweden in Artic conditions. Now, that  is fun! 

The mind games have started. Interesting to hear  Christian Horner saying  that "Mercedes and Ferrari are working as one team these days, sometimes difficult to know which is which". 

Due to adverse weather conditions,  F1 teams are resorting to killing time by playing an improvised version of curling.

Tony2011 posted:

Not very good for morale though, is it? Also, the Toro Rosso - powered by a Honda engine-,  was just  0.017s behind Alonso.  I, again,  have a bad feeling about McLaren's performance this year. 

Can't say about McMaren, but I've had this gut feeling throughout the tribulations with Honda that it would be unwise to give up on Honda. They make great engines and have a long history of doing so. The F1 engine requirements are daunting period, more so for a newcomer. But I've always suspected that once Honda got wise, Katy bar the door! I think this year will let us know one way or the other. Toro Rosso could end up having some fun.

It's been a funny old week in Barcelona:   cold, snow & rain are not conducive for F1 testing but I expect the teams have learnt a fair bit.

As I expected Mercedes have kept the top spot,   Hamilton set the pace & did not need a supersoft tyre to do it.  The big surprise was McLaren with Vandoorne posting 2nd fastest time on Thursday,  half a second behind LH & needing the new hypersoft compound to do it,  but its a McLaren !!!!

Ferrari & Red Bull are back in the game & the fastest times of the week as of close of play are:

Mercedes (Hamilton) 1:19.333,   Ferrari (Vettel) 1:19.673,  McLaren (Vandoorne) 1:19.854,  Red Bull (Ricciardo) 1:20.179,  Haas (Magnussen) 1:20.317,  Renault (Hulkenberg) 1:20.547,  Williams (Stroll) 1:21.142,  Toro Rosso (Gasly) 1:21.318, Force India (Ocon) 1:21.84,  Sauber (Leclerc) 1:22.808.

It looks to me that Mercedes, Ferrari & Red Bull have to still be the favourites with McLaren the team to watch & time will tell on that,  it looks like Honda have not gained much in the close season if the time difference to the Renault engines is a guide,  seems the wheels fell off the Sauber.

Even taking into account the weather, Honda completed the most laps of any engine....big change from last year. Speed through the traps was fourth fastest and very very close even as the engine itself was on it's reliability setting. Hmmmmmm. Not out of the woods yet but.....

Week 2 testing has been interesting.    McLaren had more highs & lows than most but breakdowns aside must be pleased with the performance when it did keep going.    The top three look to be Mercedes, Ferrari & Red Bull.   

Yesterday - the final day - Raikkonen set the leading time on hypersoft tyres,  McLaren & Renault had a go at chasing him,  Alonso was closest at just over half a second slower.      Mercedes chose to not chase low fuel/fast lap times & focused on high fuel long runs with harder tyre compounds & clocked up an impressive 201 laps between them.  

2 weeks to go before Melbourne & then we will better see who has done what with the new cars.

GraemeH posted:

Is the central stanchion on the halo not an obstacle in itself?

G

Interesting to see the helmet cam view with ‘halo’ and to hear Toto’s commentary - despondent to say the least.

G

Well that was that as far as qualifying goes. I won't mention the scores yet in case some have yet to catch up!

I may regret this as I'm not usually one to bark at a safety features but the halo has to go.

I've twigged the key difference between open cockpit and sports car racing as a spectator is that it's much more involving when you can see the driver, even if only their helmet and hands. And now, you just can't. It's like watching transformers hurtling around the track.

I honestly can't see it lasting. I know F1 feels they have their hands tied now in case of an accident. But maybe they could make it optional?

They seem to be suggesting the camera will be mounted in front of (or on?) the halo...so none of the instrumentation will be visible. The on-board shots during qualy were embarrassing.

G

Would it be churlish to draw comparison between today’s events and Nelsinho Piquets ‘crash’ at Singapore in 2008? 

Nah, took two goes to get it to work today.

kevin J Carden posted:

Would it be churlish to draw comparison between today’s events and Nelsinho Piquets ‘crash’ at Singapore in 2008? 

The reason for the virtual safety car has failed today ... the idea behind the VSC is to “neutralise” the race for safety... when you can gain 10 seconds by pitting under the VSC (rather than pitting normally something is wrong. The pit lane should be closed under a VSC or there needs to be a approx 10-15 second penalty for putting under VSC (to allow pitting for safety reasons). 

The (negative) idea of pitting under the safety car is put in context for me when the commentators are saying things like “his only hope for a win is if there is a safety car!”

Eloise posted:

........................... The pit lane should be closed under a VSC or there needs to be a approx 10-15 second penalty for putting under VSC (to allow pitting for safety reasons). 

Or rejoin the race in the same track position prior to pitting.    Damage repairs incured in whatever reason for VSC needs to be an exception, but in no circumstances can a car gain position under VSC

Mike-B posted:

Eloise posted:

........................... The pit lane should be closed under a VSC or there needs to be a approx 10-15 second penalty for putting under VSC (to allow pitting for safety reasons). 

Or rejoin the race in the same track position prior to pitting.    Damage repairs incured in whatever reason for VSC needs to be an exception, but in no circumstances can a car gain position under VSC

In this situation that wouldn’t work - rejoining in same position - as the point was Vetel (and Alonso and others) failed to loose positions by pitting under VSC rather than actually gaining position. 

Yes it appears Merc got it wrong; but you’re encouraging / rewarding teams who plan their strategy around other people’s misfortunes and surely that’s not right?

OK,  its complex,  more so when collateral damage repairs as a result of the reason for VSC.  But your suggestion of no pitting allowed under VSC has to be a key principle.  

Like someome said on the post race calll in, what's to stop everyone just running through the pit lane during a VSC then?  Mockery methinks.

JamieWednesday posted:

Like someome said on the post race calll in, what's to stop everyone just running through the pit lane during a VSC then?  Mockery methinks.

AFAIK the rules say under a VSC you may only enter the pit lane for the reason of changing tyres; so thats whats to stop everyone running through the pit lane.

Anyway wasn't it more that by pitting under VSC drivers lost less time (compared with the rest of the field) than when pitting normally.  Okay so thats always the case pitting under safety car but in the case of this race and under the VSC its even more so - it still takes the same length of time to enter the pit lane, change tyres and then exit, but the other cars are going much slower.

Andrew Benson, on the BBC (who's opinions you may or may not agree with), summed up what feels to me wrong "The decision [for Vettel to stay out] would have been made in the hope of an incident bringing out the safety car": why are you making strategy decisions based on other people having (what could be potentially life threatening) incidents.  It is a "safety" car; the rules around the safety car should be engineered in a way that its not possible to gain a strategic advantage from it - IMO of course.  Yes I accept that Mercedes and every other team may have gained similar advantage from safety cars in the past ... but it feels wrong to me!

Safety car pit stop issues aside the closer grouping behind the usual suspects bodes well for the coming season. I imagine McLaren are pleased.

G

A report in www.F1 says that Mercedes blame a software bug for a miscalculation over the VSC/Vettel pitstop timing.   

The team & Hamilton had it all under control during the opening stages & were on course to re-take the lead from Vettel during a normal pit stop sequence   - until the VSC,  Then it seems another "offline" tool they use to create delta lap times had a bug.  Going back over the VSC sequence they say there was plenty of time for Hamilton to gain the time & get ahead of Vettel's pit exit,  if the software had been correct. 

Good to know there is a plausible explanation for their misfortune.

It is still a mystery though how the Hass cars performed so well for such a small team. Surely nothing to do with its power plant supplier and exchanging info which is forbidden under the rules of engagement. Surely not. I’m beginning to see red.