This week's Grapevine brings you information fresh from the paddock on: Testing Feedback Pre-Season Safety Concerns

Testing Feedback

There's a lot of fuss made of winter testing times - but as Prost demonstrated last year, posting a top time in the off season can mean absolutely nothing at all. The team's disappointing season blew away all the protestations of the Prost team, and Jean Alesi who set that lap, that it was a genuine time. That said, there have been a lot of interesting things going on since December, some of which are inevitably going to have a direct bearing on the start of the season, and this is as good a time as any to look at testing news from the pits.

News this week that Ferrari would run last year's car in Melbourne seems, at first sight, to be at odds with the team's statements that the new car is basically reliable. If it's reliable, and it is faster than the old car (which it already is, incidentally, to the tune of around a quarter of a second per lap), then why not use it? The answer, ironically, almost completely ignores the state of the new car. Ferrari have been keeping an eye on Williams and McLaren in testing, and think both teams are struggling with reliability at the moment. Each appears capable of running a race distance, but Ferrari believe that to do so reliably requires BMW and Mercedes to detune their engines.

Under the circumstances, last year's bullet proof F2001 should offer Ferrari good odds to pick up at least one podium in Melbourne, on its own merit, and still have good odds on winning the race, as any attempt by McLaren or Williams to go for the win will be a reliability gamble. The new car, whilst going well, is not inspiring the same confidence, and there are questions being asked over its race pace durability. There's no question it is an excellent car, a solid evolution on last year's, but the test team is comparing it to a thoroughbred horse. The cliches are there to be read: it's quick, well bred, looks fantastic, and is a great racer. But perhaps a little nervous, and prone to strains when worked flat out.

Of course, what's interesting here, is to know how the teams are rating each other, on the lead up to Australia. Ferrari have tipped their hand: they believe the F2001 is competitive, having found a couple of tenths over the off season. They see McLaren, working well with Michelin, picking up a second with their new car, which should put them close to where Ferrari finished last season. Of more concern, Williams have found enough speed to have Ferrari worried. Where they were last season, Ferrari believe their advantage lay in the chassis, and they need the F2002 to maintain that advantage. The new Williams chassis is expected to be on a par with the F2001, but powered by the best engine on the grid.

Ferrari's perspective of the ones to watch, otherwise, include Sauber - who are benefiting from Ferrari reliability in the engine department - and Renault, a popular pick to move up the grid this year. The Swiss team has been impressive in testing, and until their drivers wrote off both cars just two weeks ahead of the first event, they were being tipped to get into the first six, if anyone had a bad day.

A contrasting view comes from Jordan. It's harder to disseminate the picture amid the politics here - Honda are hoping to gain a race win over the season, so figures are a bit distorted. However, the team currently place themselves ahead of Sauber, though less consistent. Their off season gains are being put at around a second from the chassis, and perhaps another half second from tyres - which, in theory, puts them on a par with Ferrari's Japanese performance. Or, nearly on a par with McLaren, if compared against Ferrari's estimates! However, it is believed that BAR are around half a second off the Jordan pace, but likely to close fast once the circus gets back to Europe. Renault have been strangely absent from consideration, considering the Fisichella / Trulli seat exchange, but Arrows have been identified as a danger team; it might be the Heinz-Harald Frentzen effect, but Jordan is intent on staying ahead of that outfit..

Then again, it's an interesting view from the back of the grid. Minardi are expecting to finish at the bottom of the heap, unless something unexpected happens. So they are working at ensuring they capitalise on any opportunity that presents itself, and beating Toyota in any case. This year, the target is to cut the deficit to the front to two seconds - and with the new Asiatech engine, it might happen, once the engine gets to its promised rating. Like most of the grid, they are not sure what Toyota will be able to manage this year, but they are anticipating they will be some way off the pace, and that things won't be too smooth to begin with, at least.

Pre-Season Safety Concerns

With a spate of fairly serious accidents taking place in pre-season testing, there are concerns that teams are running with inadequately prepared equipment as they try to get through enormous test programs.

Rear wing failures do happen. The FIA's rear wing test is intended to limit flex, but is woefully inadequate for assessing the actual strength of the wing under a full aerodynamic load. When Heinz-Harald Frentzen's Arrows lost its rear wing in Valencia, the driver escaped with a spin; the second time was not quite so fortunate, as he ended in the tyre wall - but the question raised is, why did this happen twice? Surely, once the first failure took place, the team should have identified the problem and fixed it - or packed up and gone home. Losing a wing is serious in Formula One: losing the rear wing at speed gives the car a kick that almost inevitably results in a high-speed spin, typically involving the barriers. Should it happen as the car approaches a corner, then the outcome is not only unpredictable, but extremely dangerous - even more so, if there is another car in the braking zone.

Tests are largely unregulated. Those sanctioned by the FIA require teams to conform to the same rules for running the cars as they would at Grands Prix, so it's technically illegal to run under the minimum weight, for example. However, that's about it. Teams are left to their own devices to decide what is, or is not, safe on the track. If something fails, they are expected to act responsibly, and fix the problem before continuing.

When Frentzen lost his second wing, it appeared that the team had failed to address the problem before sending the driver out again: and considering that the driver was new to the team, and needed track time as much as the new car, it would be understandable that they jumped to conclusions over the solution, slapped a new wing on, and got on with the program. However, it has raised eyebrows in high places, and there is some serious thinking going on about how to regulate serious failures, requiring underlying problems and their solutions to be identified, before tests - and Grand Prix weekends - can continue.

In fact, the total number of serious failures, rolls, and drivers losing control this year is pretty much normal - it's just that they have just been taking place over a six week period, rather than the three months of last year. Nevertheless, the count is high, and the FIA are pondering the best route to lowering it.