F1 2014 - the First Test
On 16 January it emerged that Ron Dennis, former CEO and
team principal of McLaren and its F1 team, had wrested back the position of CEO
from Martin Whitmarsh (also team principal, at the team of writing). Speculation
abounded that someone who isn’t Whitmarsh would be the McLaren team principal.
Ross Brawn’s name was suggested.
This probably decreases the chances of Alonso rejoining
McLaren, as Dennis is the sole focus of his ire regarding the broken promise of
number one status in 2007. With speculation rife Vettel will go to Ferrari in a
year or two, we could see Alonso join Red Bull or maybe Mercedes/another team
that’s highly competitive.
It was hoped, due to the widespread incredulity and
displeasure of spectators around the world, that the insane plan to award
double points for Abu Dhabi (the
final race this season) would be axed. Sadly, it has not been, and the deranged
idea is to go ahead. This is utterly indefensible and completely stupid.
Just as speculation was mounting about the new McLaren team
principal (although Whitmarsh’s departure hadn’t been officially confirmed) it
was announced that Gerard Lopez had replaced Eric Boullier as team principal of
Lotus, prompting immediate speculation Boullier could be off the McLaren.
Schedule of launches and testing is up here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25879420
There are three pre-season tests, each of four days in
duration. At the first (Jerez)
every team save Marussia and Lotus were present (teething problems meant
Marussia did turn up, but a little late). Around the first test Horner
suggested that engine failure rates could be as high as 50% during the races,
and Newey said the whole first test was basically about ensuring everything
worked (and that performance would be an issue for the second test).
During the first test Eric Boullier was, to the surprise of
no-one, confirmed as the new team principal of McLaren. Actually, I think he
has a slightly different job title, responsible to the newly-created position
of racing director (yet to be named), who in turn reports to Dennis.
On the first two days of the first test Vettel’s Red Bull
caught fire. At this stage the Renault engine looked rather fragile, whereas
the Mercedes (Rosberg did more laps on day 2 than the whole field on day 1) was
reliable as a chap from Yorkshire called Bob.
“On average, Mercedes-powered cars managed 51.7 laps on
Wednesday, Ferrari-powered cars 47.5 laps and Renault just 6.3.”
After 3 days of the first test Red Bull had completed just
13 laps. The problem seems to be the battery of the ERS
overheating, coupled with the Renault engine oscillating excessively (it
vibrates like an Ann Summers shop after a lightning strike). They got more
running down on the final day, but not a lot.
After the first test the Mercedes engine appeared most
reliable, Ferrari was also fairly solid, and Renault was mostly terrible (it
worked pretty well in the Caterham, though).
Morris Dancer’s Guide to Noses:
Beluga - Caterham
Tusks - Lotus
Platypus - Ferrari, Mercedes
Rhino - everyone else
The first test also saw Ecclestone make the moronic
suggestion that double points should not merely occur in Abu
Dhabi, but in Brazil
and the US as
well. The rule is crackers and should be abolished, not extended.
At this stage, the pace of cars has emphatically not been
established. We have, however, a first inkling of reliability. Or lack,
thereof, if you drive a Red Bull. The problem is not insurmountable, but if it
persists in Bahrain
then things will look bleak for them.
Laps by teams and engines:
Mercedes - 309
Ferrari - 251
McLaren - 245
Williams - 175
Sauber - 163
Force India - 146
Caterham - 76
Toro Rosso - 54
Ferrari - 251
McLaren - 245
Williams - 175
Sauber - 163
Force India - 146
Caterham - 76
Toro Rosso - 54
Red Bull - 21
Mercedes - 875
Ferrari - 444
Renault - 151
So, where are we? Well, there are two more tests, both to be
held in Bahrain.
There’s about two weeks until the next, so Renault and Red Bull have some time
to work on things. Reports of Red Bull’s demise are greatly exaggerated, at
this stage. However, if they still have such dire reliability in Test 2 (Test
Harder) then they’ll face a very large handicap early on (not least that
they’ll struggle to finish a race). Even if they get it patched up in Test 3 or
halfway through Test 2 they’ll have very little running.
At the moment my thoughts are drifting to a market I hardly
ever touch: classified finishers. The way things stand I suspect we might see a
significant number of retirements in Australia.
I would not advocate betting based on the first test.
There’s time for things to change, we’ve got a baseline of reliability but not
of pace, and teams always sandbag. In addition, highly variable fuel loads,
fuel flow/mixture (increased this year, I’ll mention it more later), tyre
choices and track temperature make the times pretty meaningless. Mood music
matters more.
Right now, Mercedes are listening to Perfect Day, whereas
Red Bull are hearing Dire Straits.
Morris Dancer
A nice summary, thanks. How many laps did Marussia complete after their late start?
ReplyDeleteDue to all the changes, the first four or five races (the flyaways) will be a confidence matter. If they haven't had many laps completed, they'll be more conservative in terms of engines, setup and aero. On the other hand, the teams who have done many laps will breathe easier and be more aggressive.
For that reason, I would be tempted to favour the teams who get the most laps done in all three tests. There's no room for sandbagging this year - the clock has been reset.
I'd also not favour Renault engined competitors for those flyaways, but disfavour Ferrari afterwards - Renault will be getting so much more data from all their teams, and fixes will come fast.
As usual, I'm probably wrong. ;-)
According to Twitter, Marussia did 30 in 2 days.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you disfavour Ferrari (engine/power trains, not the team) after the flyaways?
There's been some intrigue around the apparently interesting rear end of the McLaren. It has some funky suspension which, it would seem, is beneficial in terms of downforce. However, as it's clearly 'proper' suspension rather than embellished to produce the downforce effect it seems to be absolutely within the rules.
"Why would you disfavour Ferrari (engine/power trains, not the team) after the flyaways?"
ReplyDeleteReliability comes with data. Each blown (or even damaged) engine is data. The more cars you have, the more you learn.
Ferrari has three teams, and six opportunities to get engine data per race, Renault and Mercedes have four each, and eight opportunities.
Renault and Mercedes will be getting much more data, and both have two teams who should be front-runners, compared to Ferrari's one.
These powertrains will be a learning curve, and that curve will be biased towards the manufacturers who get the most data. Ferrari will always be behind the curve in this respect. Mind you, I bet everyone's glad that Engine homologation will be phased for the next couple of years ...
All IMHO, of course.
Ah, that makes sense.
ReplyDeleteRenault need some long term running, though. At the moment all they're learning is that their engines last about 6 laps.