Magnussen leads day two in Bahrain as lap times fall

2014 F1 season

Kevin Magnussen, McLaren, Bahrain, 2014A Mercedes-powered car headed the lap times for the fifth consecutive test day in a row at the end of today’s running in Bahrain.

Kevin Magnussen lapped almost two seconds faster than Nico Hulkenberg’s best time from yesterday, well inside last year’s fast race lap and 2.6 seconds off last year’s pole position time.

Hulkenberg was second-quickest ahead of Ferrari’s Fernando Alonso, who backed off after setting quick sector times on more than one occasion during the test.

Having completed very little running on day one of the test Williams were back up and running today, Valtteri Bottas racking up the most laps with 116.

There was some encouragement for the Renault-powered teams who had a slightly more productive day. As the teams reach the half-way point in pre-season testing Renault have been on the back foot in terms of mileage but today Red Bull and Toro Rosso both manaed over 50 laps each.

Jean-Eric Vergne caused one of the day’s red flags in his Toro Rosso while Nico Rosberg stopped twice in his Mercedes. Esteban Gutierrez was responsible for the fourth and final red flag of the day.

The new Lotus E22 was only seen on track for 18 laps during its second day of public running. Marussia also continued to suffer teething problems with their car – 17 laps for Max Chilton mean they have only done 20 over the first two days of this test.

Driver Car Best time Laps Difference
1 Kevin Magnussen McLaren-Mercedes MP4-29 1’34.910 46
2 Nico Hulkenberg Force India-Mercedes VJM07 1’36.445 59 1.535
3 Fernando Alonso Ferrari F14 T 1’36.516 97 1.606
4 Nico Rosberg Mercedes W05 1’36.965 85 2.055
5 Valtteri Bottas Williams-Mercedes FW36 1’37.328 116 2.418
6 Kamui Kobayashi Caterham-Renault CT05 1’39.855 66 4.945
7 Sebastian Vettel Red Bull-Renault RB10 1’40.340 59 5.430
8 Jean-Eric Vergne Toro Rosso-Renault STR9 1’40.609 58 5.699
9 Esteban Gutierrez Sauber-Ferrari C33 1’40.717 55 5.807
10 Romain Grosjean Lotus-Renault E22 1’41.670 18 6.760
11 Max Chilton Marussia-Ferrari MR03 1’42.511 17 7.601

2014 F1 season


Browse all 2014 F1 season articles

Image © McLaren/Hoch Zwei

Advert | Go Ad-free

89 comments on Magnussen leads day two in Bahrain as lap times fall

  1. Jarnooo (@jarnooo) said on 20th February 2014, 14:23

    Marussia still consistently slowest. Oh dear.

  2. FanatikosF1 (@fanatikosf1) said on 20th February 2014, 14:24

    Mercedes powered teams along with Ferrari are leading the way…
    Let’s see if RB can bounce back and what Renault has to offer!

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 20th February 2014, 15:12

      RB had their best day yet. I wish they get on top of their problems by the last day of Test #1 at Sakhir.

      Ok, people say we cannot read too much into pre-season testing but I like what I see from: Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Force India.

      • Blackmamba said on 20th February 2014, 15:57

        For RedBULL there was only ever 1 way to go after the success tfat they have had. Now some people believe, and I tend to agree with them, that the mark of a true champion is how they get up when they are down. It would be interesting to see howxRedBull responds, but especially Vettel how he handles himself through a race weekend with out a guaranteed win and in amongst the traffic. Ofcourse this could all be a moot point if RedBull get to Australia with all their troubles behind them and blasts everybody out of the water. Again.

        • He has already proved that he can handel it when he was at Torro Rosso

          • socksolid (@socksolid) said on 20th February 2014, 16:45

            I’m not trying to say that Vettel can’t handle a situation where he does not have the best car but there are some challenges that are new to Vettel. Despite winning everything in 2013 he still worked hard and got the rewards for it. If the 2014 car is unreliably and slow then he still needs to put in the hard work but he won’t get the rewards.

            It is different thing to do your absolute maximum best if you get a win in return. But when you are asked to give your best when the maximum is way outside of the podium then some drivers lose some of their speed and motivation. It is not just question of winning or not winning but it is a question of recognition. In fairness nobody cares if you drive the race of your life and finish 15th. Or if you were winning everything last season but now the best you can do is 7th. The reporters start asking stupid questions about your motivation even if you are putting 110% on the line every second you are driving the car because it doesn’t show on the results.

            A slow car is a challenge to winning driver. It teaches the lesson of hard work without rewards which should make you focus even harder and be even more motivated when the car is quick and it is really about hard work. I really hope the rbr is a dud this year. Not because I want Vettel to lose but because I want people to see how good he really is. He will shine even in slow car and I hope the next season is a blinding supernova explosion of skill.

          • OOliver said on 20th February 2014, 17:45

            I don’t disagree that Vettel is extremely talented, but the Torro Rosso argument as proof of such is not the right way to go, because the Torro Rosso of that year, was identical to the Redbull, with the only difference being the Ferrari engine in the Torro Rosso.

          • WilliamB (@william-brierty) said on 20th February 2014, 18:16

            @ean – The Toro Rosso argument is flawed, because Gerhard Berger negotiated the sale of the latest spec of Ferrari’s 056 V8 engines which gave them a four and half tenth advantage over the Renault engined RB4, and 2008 was the end of an aerodynamic era, so a four and half tenth advantage is a massive step bearing in mind the tiny field spread. The STR3 was the exact same chassis as the Newey designed RB4, which was best of the rest behind Ferrari, McLaren and BMW at the mid-point of the season, but had a huge advantage at lower downforce tracks, such as Valencia, Spa, Fuji…and Monza. In essence, when a driver as average as Bourdais can be fastest in Q1 at Spa, the car is good. The cold and soaking wet conditions of Monza, coupled with the Ferrari engine advantage on the long straights and Vettel’s wet weather mastery makes the Toro Rosso win less of a freak result; especially with Bourdais’ pace throughout the race, despite his stall on the grid from his fourth placed spot, being good enough to make it a Toro Rosso 1-2 had he started where he qualified. Certainly Vettel’s first win is more quantifiable than Maldonado’s, or Hulkenberg’s near miss in Brazil in 2012. I believe that Hulkenberg has actually done a better job than Vettel did in the midfield, with none of his cars even remotely as competitive as the STR3 became.

          • Patrick (@paeschli) said on 20th February 2014, 20:10

            It is different thing to do your absolute maximum best if you get a win in return. But when you are asked to give your best when the maximum is way outside of the podium then some drivers lose some of their speed and motivation. It is not just question of winning or not winning but it is a question of recognition. In fairness nobody cares if you drive the race of your life and finish 15th. Or if you were winning everything last season but now the best you can do is 7th. The reporters start asking stupid questions about your motivation even if you are putting 110% on the line every second you are driving the car because it doesn’t show on the results.

            One of the most interesting comments I’ve read recently, I never looked at it that way.

            On what @william-brierty says: Why do you consider Bourdais such a bad driver? If I may quote Wikipedia: “He is one of the most successful drivers in the history of the Champ Car World Series, having won four successive championships from 2004 to 2007.” I’m pretty sure he could have been a pretty decent driver if he would have had more time to adapt to Fomula One.

  3. matt90 (@matt90) said on 20th February 2014, 14:24

    Nice to see the scaremongering about car speed being proved to be nonsense.

    • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 20th February 2014, 14:39

      I’m sure it won’t be long before someone comes along to try and convince everyone that this is not the case..

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 20th February 2014, 15:18

      @matt90 I’ve been hoping for the best and expecting the worst. The picture emerging seems to me much prettier than many people anticipated. So far, I’ve learned:

      1. Cars are not as ugly as many expected
      2. The sound is not as loud but most people on site like it
      3. Cars should match V8s speed
      4. Lap times, at least pole times, will not be nothing to be ashame of

      • Steven (@steevkay) said on 20th February 2014, 15:41

        I agree, any harsh judgements will be reserved for the early season, once we’re a few races deep. I was quite surprised when I (eventually) saw the lap times from Jerez and realized that F1 is not as slow as some are saying.

        Being a few seconds off a qualifying lap when you’re not running at 100% (it’s an assumption, but a safe one considering it’s Day 2 of the 2nd test) is excellent. As others have said, if the cars are already able to surpass the fastest race laps, we’re not going to be short on speed.

      • Tomsk (@tomsk) said on 20th February 2014, 16:08

        Yes, apart from number 1. The noses look ridiculous. Just because they’re 3 weeks old it doesn’t make them any better.

        Well done Caterham for being fastest in “Formula Renault” – doesn’t mean much, but should still give them a boost.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 20th February 2014, 23:30

        @jcost

        1. Cars are not as ugly as many expected

        Indeed; they’re far, far worse.

        Sound and speed are looking good as you say, though.

        • Agreed — when will they finally learn to write the rules sensibly?
          There are some of the Laissez-faire philosophy — I.e. the tyres a box of the gross dimensions and the overall horsepower should be the only things regulated to introduce more innovation. I think this would be interesting, but would probably lead to one team domination (i.e. 1-2 finishes for the whole season). But I do think there is merit in not making the rules too specific — i.e. anything that Charlie Whiting says is not in the spirit of competitiveness (like aero that creates dirty air to make it difficult to overtake) can be outlawed. Sometimes when they tweak a rule to make it more competitive, they leave a massive safety hole, or vice-versa.
          But writing the aero rules with specific limits that can lead to outrageous {ugly} designs ultimately will do so (as 2014 cars has proved).
          They should also scrap the DRS but keep the hybrid tech (possibly even going to electric drive powered by ultra efficient onboard ICE {diesel} generators instead of batteries). Otherwise F1 will lag behind the rest of the world in engine technology, which should not be the case.

        • JCost (@jcost) said on 21st February 2014, 23:17

          @keithcollantine Look-wise, my expectations were so low that I don’t think those cars (bar Caterham) are any close to want I was anticipating.

    • sato113 (@sato113) said on 20th February 2014, 15:19

      no way matt! you need to be convinced that this is certainly not going to be the case.

      • Blackmamba said on 20th February 2014, 15:40

        I dont know why people try to knock something before its even tried. F1 has got to evolve coz it really can’t stay the same for always. Now I am not for or against the 2014 regulations, but some sort of change was needed to move with the times and wishes of the manufacturers who want to stay relevant to the road cars they are trying to sell. Who knows, these changes might produce the sort of racing that would entice bmw, toyota jaguar or any other manufactures back into the sport, with software that they can cross-over to other areas.

    • DaveD (@daved) said on 20th February 2014, 15:56

      Thank you, Matt! They are running ~2.5 seconds off last year’s pole time and it’s only the 2nd day of the 2nd test with nobody even tuning their cars for pole laps yet or even having run time to find speed yet!

      I think the fear about speed is way overblown.

  4. BaKano (@bakano) said on 20th February 2014, 14:24

    Last week there some guys telling me that I was using “too many words” to try to convince people that F1 2014 cars would be faster than GP2.
    I will use less words now: “well inside last year’s fast race lap and 2.6 seconds off last year’s pole position time.”

    such is the way they are gaining time (at least McLaren), in short time they will be lapping faster than 2013 F1 cars.

    • xjr15jaaag (@xjr15jaaag) said on 20th February 2014, 14:26

      Consider in testing, a driver will not be pushing to their maximum too and the cars are looing to be extremely quick :)

    • The Blade Runner (@thebladerunner) said on 20th February 2014, 14:47

      I was just reading Eric Boullier’s Sky interview and he made it clear that nobody has yet brought anywhere near their full package. Coupling that with today’s evidence you would expect the 2014 cars to be at the least as fast as 2013’s. If that is year 1 of the new regulations with plenty of development ahead then it bodes well for F1 and its status as the ultimate in motor sport. Obviously we shall see but so far so good

      • Robbie said on 20th February 2014, 15:32

        I’ll gladly comment. There seems to be a desperation to defend F1 from JV’s comments by dissecting to the second the lap times we are seeing in testing and comparing them to last year’s. We haven’t seen them race in anger yet, nor has JV, and the real times once they are accounting for hotter venues (ie. engine heat mangement) and fuel conservation particularly, are something none of us knows.

        The fact remains there is a trend and people have chosen to just compare to last year to shoot JV’s argument down. He speaks of a trend toward more and more artificial stuff in F1 that takes the driving out of the drivers’ hands, and cars that are barely if at all faster than they were 17 years ago.

        I think it is JV’s opinion that the cars should be 10 seconds a lap faster than they were in 97 (just throwing that number out there to make the point) such that the concept of them being barely faster than GP2 wouldn’t have even entered his mind let alone come out of his mouth.

        So in fact given the safety of the cars and the tracks, and the lengths technology has come in 17 years, the cars should be way faster by now, not debatably faster or slower by a small margin than GP2 cars nor 17 year old ones, nor last year’s cars, and the racing should be way more in the driver’s hands still than recent directions have taken it. So combining cars that are certainly not way faster than 17 years ago, with safer tracks and cars and better technology, and that are now far less in the drivers’s hands, and now with double points, is not a trend JV appreciates. And he’s been intimate with F1 since he was attending his Dad’s races in the late 70’s.

        • BaKano (@bakano) said on 20th February 2014, 15:37

          The fact that you need to use that much words to convince us says it all!

        • matt90 (@matt90) said on 20th February 2014, 15:39

          not debatably faster or slower by a small margin than GP2 cars

          It is neither debatable nor small.

          • And how about to 17 year old F1 cars?

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 20th February 2014, 16:04

            You need to accept that cars just can’t keep getting faster. I think it would be cool if they did, but even with such large improvements in safety there needs to be a limit. You also need to consider the strain on the driver. F1 is still far faster than any other category anyway.

        • BaKano (@bakano) said on 20th February 2014, 15:49

          Now with a proper response since you will never admit to be wrong.
          Your initial “clever” response to my comment was about my rebuke of the cars being slower than GP2.
          Now you deflect it to the argument of not agreeing with Villeneuve. When I rebuked Villeneuve I mentioned max power not lap times.
          In 1997 Villeneuve had less max power available than the cars are putting today and yet he said the power level were ridiculously low. This is what I cannot agree with Villeneuve’s comments, even if he has more authority to talk about F1 than me (although I don’t care about that, since Bernie has much more authority and says lots of stupid things).
          Again you chose to take a new deflection by talking about trends that cars got slower when they should be getting faster. Do you know the history of F1 by any chance? Don’t you know that as soon as the cars seemingly get “too fast” there are new regulations to slow them down? It is just not possible to continue to be faster as the cars would become too fast for the tracks, the same thing that happened to Group B rally cars that became too fast for the roads, or the Croup C cars (Le Mans).
          So the trend of F1 as with all motorsports is to always become faster up until a point where the technical rules are changed (for many different reasons). Then there is a “reset” so to speak and cars become faster again with time. Until the next “reset”.

          We had this same story for many times now. A lot of people complained about the end of Turbo engines because power was less. Then complained about the loss of V12, cause V10 were inferior. Then the move to V8 because V10 were the best engine ever! And so on, and so on…
          Many people complain about the rule changes, stating that “cars will be worse than before, and before was the best ever”, and most of the times people are wrong!

          • Robbie said on 20th February 2014, 17:45

            @bakano I reject that you know more than JV what HP he had in his day, and the fact is that was not a static number that was written in stone. The teams could develope their engines back then, and they were not frozen from that, so I think I will trust JV’s numbers over yours. Proof that HP numbers were not static is that after 97 Renault stopped R&D on their engines and Williams fell behind the competition immediately in 98. And hp is only one aspect anyway. And if he, or those before him had 1000 HP, they certainly don’t have that now so JV is accurate about the trend. Are you aware they also had special quali engines not that long ago, that were swapped out for the race engines on Saturday nights?

            His claim is also correct that there is no room to innovate these engines as their development will be frozen which is not how it was in the past.

            It is my opinion that the tracks and cars could handle more speed yet, without endangering the drivers, and certainly nobody, including JV is saying they need to go back to the 60’s level of risk, danger, and therefore requirement of nerves. But I think he would argue nowadays there is so much less risk, so fewer nerves needed, so much less bravery needed, so much less playing on the mind, when one has DRS for example, and is more a passenger than a racer. Don’t forget we are talking about a purebred racer that has way more balls than pretty much the whole grid right now, with perhaps only FA being an equal in that regard.

            Since I’ve been watching F1 since Gilles’ entry caused F1 to be aired in Canada in 78/79 I have of course observed the adjustments F1 has made in the name of safety. Are you trying to suggest that people are wrong when they continually bemoan the boring Tilke tracks with their massive and forgiving runoffs? Or the lack of innovation? Or the lack of testing?

          • BaKano (@bakano) said on 21st February 2014, 6:25

            Robbie, people more knowledgeable than me can confirm if the 775BHP was only a conservative estimate or indeed the real power output of the RS9 engine (race spec) he had in his Williams.

            Yes I am fully aware of the special specification qualifying engines. Before his time it was even worse as those engines sometimes only lasted 1 lap before breaking down. Yet I don’t think JV was only referring to the quali engines. Did not see a reference to that on his words, but correct me if I am wrong.

            I have do admit I’m getting a bit annoyed by our constant deflection on the key points, such as:
            “Are you trying to suggest that people are wrong when they continually bemoan the boring Tilke tracks with their massive and forgiving runoffs? Or the lack of innovation? Or the lack of testing?”
            Have I talked about the tracks? Have you talked about the lack of testing? No, I was talking about the technical changes that usually “rests” the improving trend and many people (wrongly) moan about as making F1 ridiculous.
            You are now talking about other stuff. Surprised you did not mention the “double points”, might as well throw that into the argument as well.
            As for the “lack of innovation” just look into how innovating these new power units are (whether people like it or not is a different matter). Much more innovation happening this year than the simple fact of reducing max displacement (the move from 3.5l to 3.0l), or cutting down 2 cylinders (the move to the V8 2.4l).

            But as we say in my country, I let you have the bicycle. It’s yours: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00394/123912593_F1_394653c.jpg

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 21st February 2014, 17:41

            I reject that you know more than JV what HP he had in his day

            You reject somebodies ability to look it up easily online? If that’s your argument no wonder nobody can convince you.

            The teams could develope their engines back then, and they were not frozen from that, so I think I will trust JV’s numbers over yours.

            Why does the teams being able to develop their engines have any bearing on the actual power that was produced in that year?

            His claim is also correct that there is no room to innovate these engines as their development will be frozen which is not how it was in the past.

            V8s were unfortunately limited. But these new engines have certain components which will be frozen, and the number of those components will be increased every year. That means engine development, although somewhat restricted, is not frozen any more.

            Don’t forget we are talking about a purebred racer that has way more balls than pretty much the whole grid right now, with perhaps only FA being an equal in that regard.

            What makes you think that he has ‘more balls’, and what about Alonso gives you the impression he’s beyond any other current driver?

            Or the lack of testing?

            I don’t hear many people bemoaning that actually, beyond thinking that doing a test immediately after a race might be sensible.

        • The Blade Runner (@thebladerunner) said on 20th February 2014, 16:10

          F1 does not exist in isolation. It may be a sport but it is an expensive one that requires huge sponsorship including massive commitment from the motor industry.

          Whatever your thoughts on this model, for it to succeed it requires the sport to be relevant to the outside world. It’s no coincidence that Honda are back and that Mercedes have invested massively at this particular time in the sport’s history.

          Putting to one-side those arguements, my issue with JV is that he only has negative comments to make. He never balances his arguments to make them seem reasoned and he show little respect for today’s drivers. It reminds me of my father telling me when I was a kid that everything from his era was better. Maybe he was right but I LIVE NOW!!!
          We all want the best F1 possible but, for the time-being at least, I’m reasonably content with what I see as a new era unfolding in front of us.

          • I think you make some valid points. I personally do think JV is right, and you are right that he has only dwelled on the negative, but I think that he was asked about F1’s direction, and he is speaking I think from being at F1 races since he was a kid in the late 70’s.

            DRS remains my biggest issue with today’s F1, I absolutely hate it’s existence, but I do like that downforce is curtailed a bit for now, that the tires ought to be more durable and stable, and that for now it is a mystery as to who will be where come the end of the first race.

          • DaveD (@daved) said on 20th February 2014, 18:10

            I simply can not agree with you on the JV point @Robbie. He’s coming across as that old guy, sitting on his front porch, screaming: “You kids get off my lawn!”.
            He is being negative and unfairly so and ignoring many glaring problems from each decade of Formula 1. His opinion is not based on some magic insight or technical expertise, it’s just a guy who used to be in the business..and is being negative now. Not helpful, and not even factual about some of the things he’s saying.

          • JV wasn’t asked about glaring problems from each decade. You are right that his opinion is an opinion. He has a right to it, to his one vote, just like everyone else. Did he claim differently? He is also not some guy who used to be in ‘the business’. He has the stuff on his resume that only a few other drivers in racing history can claim. That comment is every bit as demeaning and unfactual as you claim JV’s are towards F1. If you are waiting around for JV to ‘be helpful’ by shading the truth as he sees it, then you’ll be waiting a long time. In fact I would suggest he is being helpful by pointing out the sad path that F1 has taken, and that most agree is the case. I’m sure if he was asked about some constructive suggestions as to a better direction, he’d have lots to say on that too.

        • Today, in my opinion, if you build a car with all available technologies pushed to the max, which is right assumption for F1, you would get car that humans would not be capable to drive, I really don’t want to see robots racing. Look at the aviation technology there is no future military fighter aircraft that will be driven by a human anymore.

          • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 20th February 2014, 23:43

            Sounds like you’re describing the X201x from GT5 and GT6. They can pull 8G+ lateral, which would most likely kill any driver, even if they have a neck made of pure Kevlar.

        • Robbie, it should be pointed out that the authorities have a duty of care that extends far beyond just the drivers.

          Everybody talks about how the cars are safer, but the main beneficiaries of improvements in car design are mostly the drivers.
          Whilst most will remember the drivers who have been killed whilst racing, who, for example, remembers figures like Graham Beveridge or Paolo Gislimberti, volunteer marshals who were killed due to flying debris from the cars (especially tragic in Graham’s case as his death came about precisely because he was risking his own life to save that of others – had he not moved a large group of photographers and spectators out of the way moments earlier, the consequences would probably have been much more grim).

          Those are just the more tragic examples – for example, were never told the name of the marshal who was hospitalised when trying to put out Heidfeld’s burning car in the 2011 Hungarian GP and ended up with leg injuries when a gas canister exploded in the sidepod. What about the marshal who was nearly decapitated by the flying wheels from Alguersuari’s car in the practise sessions of the Chinese GP that year?
          Their presence and dedication at a circuit, and the subsequent impact on driver safety, is rather taken for granted – I would not be surprised if that aspect has never entered into Jacques’s mind, not out of malice but probably because, as a driver, those marshals are simply part of the background to him.

          Even when it comes to track safety, some solutions are still not exactly state of the art – crash barriers and debris fences have not really evolved that much, for example, even though better solutions already exist.

          • Robbie said on 20th February 2014, 22:40

            Seems my responses have been vetoed out for some reason that has nothing to do with foul language or insults or anything, so I guess my further say isn’t welcomed on this topic.

            If I can just remind anon that JV, who lost his Dad to F1, also had a tire come off his car (in a crash with Ralf Schumacher) that killed a marshall, so I highly doubt JV nor myself needs the lecture on safety.

          • Robbie said on 20th February 2014, 23:40

            Spoke too soon. Never mind. I’ll move on.

  5. Lucas Wilson (@full-throttle-f1) said on 20th February 2014, 14:24

    Will we start seeing the teams actually pushing tomorrow?, it would be nice to know where the competitive order is. But we’ll probably have to wait until Australia FP3 for that…

    • Blackmamba said on 20th February 2014, 15:24

      Oh, they will have to push at some point during these tests @ full-throttle-f1. It would be insane to head into the first race without knowing what you have got beneath you. Besides if the power units have any issues at full tilt you want them to show up now so you get some time to fix them rather than waiting for free practice in Australia where issues might arise that could be big enough to stop you from racing at all

    • I think most of the teams will push more on the Next test than this week.

    • Maybe Australia Q1, I’d say. But for now it looks really good. Or reads really good in my case x.x

  6. mysterymen said on 20th February 2014, 14:31

    I think RB will be beaten by Caterham this year LOL…

  7. Christopher (@twiinzspeed) said on 20th February 2014, 14:34

    Ferrari and Williams are banking alot of laps. That bodes well considering knowledge of how the car reacts to changes is the main focus on a new car. The Mercedes engines appear to be solid performers. I hope the Ferrari shows some speed next week. It would be a great year IMO if we get a battle between the old guard teams. Ferrari, Williams, Mclaren, Mercedes, and RBR all trading wins would rock. But I would settle for at least a 3 way fight between the different engines. Merc and Ferrari should start the season well, but I wouldn’t count RBR out. They have proven they don’t need the best engine to win in the past.

  8. Marc Saunders said on 20th February 2014, 14:36

    Look at the Ferrari powered client teams. They are around the bottom of te chart. I dont know wy are the ferraristi so happy

  9. andae23 (@andae23) said on 20th February 2014, 14:45

    2.6 seconds off last year’s pole position time.

    Well, that’s reassuring.

  10. petebaldwin (@petebaldwin) said on 20th February 2014, 14:56

    Wow McLaren look fast! I wonder how much of it is down to their chunky suspension? I assume the rest will have it fairly soon if McLaren keep putting in laps like that!

    • Blackmamba said on 20th February 2014, 15:13

      That time was set on the fastest tyre available and was a very short run suggesting low fuel, not necessarily because of the suspension. I suspect if everyone else did the same they would match that time or surpasss it. Although I think Ferrari did the same but were still over a second behind the McLaren. All Im saying is tyat there is no need for the other teams to abandon their cars and copy Macca before they have even fully opened them up yet. Just don’t put too much stock onto these times yet as there is still some 6 days to go.

  11. KeeleyObsessed (@keeleyobsessed) said on 20th February 2014, 14:56

    Is it possible that the engines may suit tracks like Bahrain more than they suited Jerez? Just by the nature of the engine and the track. It might go some of the way towards explaining why the laptimes have dropped to far closer to the 2013 times. I don’t quite believe the teams are pushing significantly harder than they were in Jerez…

    • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 20th February 2014, 15:03

      I think you misunderstand the technical challenge of these new engines. Even though the times looked bad in Jarez, it was an extremely positive test given that this was the first time any of those engines had been used in an F1 car at all. It’s astonishing they proved as reliable as they were. Speed was never a priority and to go out on brand new engines and try to set qually style laptimes would have been absolute insanity.

      They’ll have run a lot closer to actual race spec in terms of the power from the engines, but certainly they won’t have turned them up to 11 just yet.

      • Lucas Wilson (@full-throttle-f1) said on 20th February 2014, 15:06

        “It’s astonishing they proved as reliable as they were”

        No points for Marussia and Caterham this year then! :-)

        • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 20th February 2014, 15:22

          Maybe, maybe not. Remember, this is testing and not a competitive session. Nobody is here to try and beat the times set by other teams, they’re here to work through their own testing schedules. The checklist of things which need to be tested this year will be much much longer than what needed testing in previous years. The times are not reflective at all of the competitive order or the ultimate pace of the cars. All we know is that they can go at least as fast as we’ve seen so far. But every one of them can go faster. How much faster? Probably even the teams don’t know, and it’ll vary from one team to another depending on where they are in their testing schedule.

    • Skett (@skett) said on 20th February 2014, 15:18

      Its possible, but those fastest laps were also set on the supersoft tires, something I don’t think we saw in Jerez. I also suspect Mclaren were actaully pushing a bit harder for time on that one

      • Robbie said on 20th February 2014, 15:47

        Just a couple of random thoughts. I’m not sure it is that astonishing how some teams are doing with their engines finally in the cars and being on the track, reliability wise and pace wise, since they will have put tons of miles on them in the lab. Don’t get me wrong…I’m impressed, but I’m not astonished.

        I also question for now if we are seeing lap times in testing that are at all sustainable given what we are being told should be reliability issues, mostly heat related, and fuel conservation needs, that could easily see actual race times being relatively slow if they want to reach the checkered flag. They didn’t know til they raced in anger that Pirellis would be delaminating and exploding. We’ll only know what we have in F1 this year once they race in anger at the hotter venues.

        • Skett (@skett) said on 20th February 2014, 20:24

          Perfectly true, it could be interesting to see where the positions of the teams are both in terms of speed and reliability. The fact that Mercedes, Ferrari and Williams all did race sims today is a good sign though (I believe those three did anyway)

  12. Alexander (@alexanderfin) said on 20th February 2014, 15:08

    In last years FP2 Magnussen would have been 9th and Hulkenberg 17th.. So I guess that’s not so bad then… Wonder if any manufacturer is running full power yet from the power units? I still think every one could improve if they wanted to, perhaps Magnussens lap is the only one being close to pushing withe lower fuel loads..

  13. craig-o (@craig-o) said on 20th February 2014, 15:17

    I know it’s testing, but it does make me happy to see McLaren top of the timesheets!

  14. sato113 (@sato113) said on 20th February 2014, 15:21

    typical, Hamilton leaves mclaren to be at mercedes ready to dominate 2014. mclaren turn up at the 2014 tests and look better than them!

    • Skett (@skett) said on 20th February 2014, 22:53

      @sato113
      I don’t think thats fair tbh. Its only testing, so we don’t really know whos quicker and Hamilton seems to be alot happier since his move to Mercedes. I don’t think the 2014 car was the only reason he switched teams

  15. Monosodico (@monosodico) said on 20th February 2014, 15:24

    as i did read somewhere else. He’s now blessed as “McKevin”

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.