187 replies to this topic

[molive]

3 seconds slower than the regular F1 drivers in his first 30 laps with the FW26 at Paul Ricard...not bad.

[KWSN - DSM]

You must have forgotten the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm].

3 seconds of is VERY bad.

[Vilenova]

Jeff Gordon . 1.6 secs off.
Who are we kidding here. Give the ride to someone deserving.
When MS tested he was on the pace right away.

[Racer Joe]

Doesn't Williams have a standard policy of cutting rpm and other measures for rookies who has never driven an F1 car before when evaluating them?

Was Jeff Gordon's time off JPM's time in the same car on that day? Was JPM balls-out?

[glorius&victorius]

Helio would have done better

[Vilenova]

Originally posted by Racer Joe
Doesn't Williams have a standard policy of cutting rpm and other measures for rookies who has never driven an F1 car before when evaluating them?

Was Jeff Gordon's time off JPM's time in the same car on that day? Was JPM balls-out?

Yeah Same car, same day. Same morning actually.
As to whether he was balls out...I can't say but do you think he would've liked to have been shown up by a Nascar guy? I'm sure sure he was pushing a little.;)
JPM also drove Gordon's Monte Carlo that day and the time differential was similar.

[KWSN - DSM]

The only way for a team to really gauge a driver, is for the driver to be given a car totally up to specification. If Williams really have a policy of cutting rpm, and make the car easier to drive, we may now know why they continue to think highly of Piazzonia.

In order for Dixon to be making good times, he must be within 1 to 1,2 seconds of the drivers of the same car on the same day.

3 seconds of pace is very very very poor.

[Vilenova]

Originally posted by glorius&victorius
Helio would have done better

There are a few that would have done better than 3 secs. Bourdais, Tracy, Manning, Tagliani just off the top.

[Crazy Canuck]

Originally posted by Vilenova
Jeff Gordon . 1.6 secs off.
Who are we kidding here. Give the ride to someone deserving.
When MS tested he was on the pace right away.

I'm sure, but don't know for sure, that the JG test was doctored, it was a PR stunt. I would be skeptical about drawing ANY conclusions from those times and making comparisions to Dixon.

3 seconds is more than I would have expected and hoped for.

CC

[Vilenova]

Originally posted by Crazy Canuck


I'm sure, but don't know for sure, that the JG test was doctored, it was a PR stunt. I would be skeptical about drawing ANY conclusions from those times and making comparisions to Dixon.

3 seconds is more than I would have expected and hoped for.

CC

You're sure but not sure?
Are you running for President?
Just kidding.;)
I do disagree about drawing comparisons but it would be more fair had they tested on the same day.

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
The only way for a team to really gauge a driver, is for the driver to be given a car totally up to specification. If Williams really have a policy of cutting rpm, and make the car easier to drive, we may now know why they continue to think highly of Piazzonia.

In order for Dixon to be making good times, he must be within 1 to 1,2 seconds of the drivers of the same car on the same day.

3 seconds of pace is very very very poor.

K-D, sometimes you are just so funny. I thought I clearly wrote for rookies who haven't driven an F1 car before. Do you think Antonia Pizzonia comes under this category after his very first test?

Secondly, your opinion on how a driver should be evaluated is, dare I say, irrelevant. That was the way Williams wanted a rookie to get used to an F1 car and not chuck it into the bushes.

I have no idea how good Dixon is and don't particularly like the guy after his comments on Hornish earlier this year.

[Peter Perfect]

http://www.atlasf1.c.../id/12179/.html

Funnily enough Piquet Jnr. was 3 seconds slower than Ralf on his first test.

I assume Dixon's running the FW25?

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by Vilenova
There are a few that would have done better than 3 secs. Bourdais, Tracy, Manning, Tagliani just off the top.

How far was CdM off the pace in his first test? Anyone remembers?

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by Vilenova
As to whether he was balls out...I can't say but do you think he would've liked to have been shown up by a Nascar guy? I'm sure sure he was pushing a little.;)

Geez, you don't have much confidence in JPM do you? I don't actually think he thought he needed to be balls out so not to be shown up by a Nascar guy.

[K-One]

Originally posted by Peter Perfect
http://www.atlasf1.c.../id/12179/.html



I assume Dixon's running the FW25?

Nope, he has got the Walrus

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by Racer Joe


K-D, sometimes you are just so funny. I thought I clearly wrote for rookies who haven't driven an F1 car before. Do you think Antonia Pizzonia comes under this category after his very first test?

Secondly, your opinion on how a driver should be evaluated is, dare I say, irrelevant. That was the way Williams wanted a rookie to get used to an F1 car and not chuck it into the bushes.

I have no idea how good Dixon is and don't particularly like the guy after his comments on Hornish earlier this year.

No I do not consider Pizzonia a rookie anymore, I consideer him a failed F1 driver, whom Williams for reasons beoynd my comprehension continue to rate highly. They alleged policy of not testing drivers in cars there are up to full specifications may be part of the answer.

A bunch of drivers I ma sure hundreds of drivers can come within 3 seconds of a "regular" F1 drivers time on Paul Ricard. However the number of drivers actually be posting competetive times in the same car on the same day is less than 20.

My opinion may be irrelevant to you, however I can not see a reasoning for the alleged Williams policy, and until explanined why this is a better option than the one I suggest I will maintain that in order to truely gauge a driver he must be given free reign.

[confucius]

Three seconds may be a country mile when evaluating or comparing established F1 drivers, but to seemingly slate Dixon for being three seconds off the regular drivers is a bit unfair I think.

Give the guy a break, it's the FIRST EVER time he's driven a formula 1 car, for Williams no less. Do you really think he's gonna push to the limits and throw the car into the barrier? Bear in mind he might be trying to impress the bosses, but he wouldn't impress them too much by being over eager and over drive a car he's never driven before.

It's not always about the lap times. I'm sure the point of today was merely to let Dixon have a feel for the car, and only begin "real" evaluations on his next test (which is on Tuesday I believe?). Think about how you would feel on your first ever F1 test? How would you approach the test? Methodically and maturely? Or brashly and with no brains?

Don't forget also that he may have never driven on the Ricard circuit before. Not only did he have to learn the car, he also had to learn the track.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by confucius
Three seconds may be a country mile when evaluating or comparing established F1 drivers, but to seemingly slate Dixon for being three seconds off the regular drivers is a bit unfair I think.

Give the guy a break, it's the FIRST EVER time he's driven a formula 1 car, for Williams no less. Do you really think he's gonna push to the limits and throw the car into the barrier? Bear in mind he might be trying to impress the bosses, but he wouldn't impress them too much by being over eager and over drive a car he's never driven before.

It's not always about the lap times. I'm sure the point of today was merely to let Dixon have a feel for the car, and only begin "real" evaluations on his next test (which is on Tuesday I believe?). Think about how you would feel on your first ever F1 test? How would you approach the test? Methodically and maturely? Or brashly and with no brains?

Don't forget also that he may have never driven on the Ricard circuit before. Not only did he have to learn the car, he also had to learn the track.

Yes yes and yes.


BUT!!

Michael Schumacher had nevr driven a F1 car, and never driven on Spa when he qualified 7th in his first F1 race.

If they want him to get a feel for the car, then publish that they are running him with his hands tied, if not then the times must and will be used against him.

[F1Johnny]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


No I do not consider Pizzonia a rookie anymore, I consideer him a failed F1 driver, whom Williams for reasons beoynd my comprehension continue to rate highly.

You hit the nail on the head there. Do you really think that FW and PH of all people just like Pizzonia and feel that they owe him something. these guys have fired a few of their WDC.

[F1Johnny]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


Yes yes and yes.


BUT!!

Michael Schumacher had nevr driven a F1 car, and never driven on Spa when he qualified 7th in his first F1 race.

If they want him to get a feel for the car, then publish that they are running him with his hands tied, if not then the times must and will be used against him.

Used against him, by who? Us here at Atlas. They know what they are doing and unless we know what the specs of the car were we cannot intelligently comment.

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


No I do not consider Pizzonia a rookie anymore, I consideer him a failed F1 driver, whom Williams for reasons beoynd my comprehension continue to rate highly. They alleged policy of not testing drivers in cars there are up to full specifications may be part of the answer.

They don't test ROOKIE (i.e. first time in an F1 car) with full rev. AP tested many times subsequently and was on top of timesheets many times. Are you sure Williams' opinion of him did not derive from subsequent tests when he was running full rpm? Are you just pulling my leg?

My opinion may be irrelevant to you, however I can not see a reasoning for the alleged Williams policy, and until explanined why this is a better option than the one I suggest I will maintain that in order to truely gauge a driver he must be given free reign.

So that he can get used to the car and then give him free rein and minimise the chance that he would write an expensive F1 chassis off?

Could this perhaps possibly tie in with Dixon getting TWO tests? So he can be properly evaluated the second time around?

How unreasonable is it that rookie on their first day of driving an F1 car, doesn't get full rev to use?

[Garagiste]

Originally posted by confucius
(snip) I'm sure the point of today was merely to let Dixon have a feel for the car, and only begin "real" evaluations on his next test (which is on Tuesday I believe?). (snip)

Precisely. This test is all about getting used to a Formula One car, it's a world away from an IRL machine. The real test is in Barcelona next month - then we'll see if he's any good (and as yet I have no opinion on the matter).

[ehagar]

Originally posted by Vilenova
Jeff Gordon . 1.6 secs off.
Who are we kidding here. Give the ride to someone deserving.
When MS tested he was on the pace right away.

Depends on the circuit and length. 1.6 seconds off at Indianapolis is huge. 3 seconds off at Nordscheife is a pittence.

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
Michael Schumacher had nevr driven a F1 car, and never driven on Spa when he qualified 7th in his first F1 race.

I thought he had a test around the Silverstone short circuit before heading to Spa in 1991?

[confucius]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


Yes yes and yes.


BUT!!

Michael Schumacher had nevr driven a F1 car, and never driven on Spa when he qualified 7th in his first F1 race.

If they want him to get a feel for the car, then publish that they are running him with his hands tied, if not then the times must and will be used against him.

So you expect every driver being tested to be comparable to Michael Schumacher??? Geez you'd be a prick of a boss to work for.

And it is not up to the teams to tell the public what their testing program is. Besides, most people with common sense would see the nature of his first test as being one of familiarisation. If you want to use his times against him in such a narrow minded fashion then I guess it's your prerogative.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by F1Johnny


You hit the nail on the head there. Do you really think that FW and PH of all people just like Pizzonia and feel that they owe him something. these guys have fired a few of their WDC.

Owe him something?? No why would I think that?? I just think that a system of testing drivers with a car clearly manageable by hundreds of other drivers will not show any drivers ultimate talent behind the wheel of a F1 car.

Williams have lost at least 1 and arguably 3 WDC's due to their bumbling of driver relations. It is not a strong or good indication of strenght that they may be staring 2005 with two new drivers, on the contrary it is a display of weakness that they despite having package that is bound to be in contention for both the WDC and WCC, can not have their drivers stay on.

[lukywill]

williams did not lose any wdc.
the wdc is a drivers competition not a team one.

[KWSN - DSM]

You can all disagree as much as you want. I do not consider being within 3 seconds of a competive F1 time good, I consider it poor.

[lukywill]

it´s very poor.
that will put jacques villeneuve hopes higer.

[F1Johnny]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
You can all disagree as much as you want. I do not consider being within 3 seconds of a competive F1 time good, I consider it poor.

Even taking the following possiblities/realities into consideration:

The car is detuned for a rookie F1 driver
Dixon has been driving ovals for the past year
Dixon has been driving on slicks
He has never used all the fancy electronics and paddle shift gearboxes
He has never seen the track before and again he has not turned right in over a year
Other cars were on the track

I actually do not think that Scott Dixon is the man for the job, but saying 3 seconds is unacceptable is jumping the gun with the limited knowledge that we have.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Nice to see the calm and objective style of Readers Comments continues on...

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by F1Johnny


Even taking the following possiblities/realities into consideration:

The car is detuned for a rookie F1 driver
Dixon has been driving ovals for the past year
Dixon has been driving on slicks
He has never used all the fancy electronics and paddle shift gearboxes
He has never seen the track before and again he has not turned right in over a year
Other cars were on the track

I actually do not think that Scott Dixon is the man for the job, but saying 3 seconds is unacceptable is jumping the gun with the limited knowledge that we have.

Max Biaggi came within 4,5 seconds when he tested a Ferrari on Fiorano. Dixon could possibly be jumping into a racewinning, championship winning car and he can manage 3 seconds??

Not good, regardless of circumstances. Would be better to press the envelope, fall of track knowing that he has 3 days worth of testing in April coming up.

[ehagar]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Nice to see the calm and objective style of Readers Comments continues on...

Heh... aren't they doing a more serious test later this year? Wasn't this just an acclimatization test?

[molive]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
You must have forgotten the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm].

3 seconds of is VERY bad.

I actually meant it. I think that 3secs off isnt that bad, considering he is not that great of a road course driver and has been turning left for a while.

Now, if after 3 days of testing, using the same car specs, he still cant come closer (say, 1 sec off) he may be qualified as a no hoper.


For the moment I'll hold my judgement...

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
Would be better to press the envelope, fall of track knowing that he has 3 days worth of testing in April coming up.

And of course the team told him he could do that.

[speedmaster]

Originally posted by molive


I actually meant it. I think that 3secs off isnt that bad, considering he is not that great of a road course driver and has been turning left for a while.

Now, if after 3 days of testing, using the same car specs, he still cant come closer (say, 1 sec off) he may be qualified as a no hoper.


For the moment I'll hold my judgement...

Speed is not all they look during this type of test... the capability to adjust the setup, the engineer communication, the team integration and the telemetry shows more than just raw speed. If he gets by this then a new test is scheduled and more is thrown at it... that's all.

Yeah Molive, I'm with you and I do like Dixon. 3 sec can be an eternity but considering he was driving the old model, being a oval driver, etc, etc... he may be able to do it. If by all posters here if the guy does not beat the record at first he isn't a good driver.....

And about Jeff Gordon.. I saw some of his races here in the US and his style is very smooth. He adapted very quickly to the Williams in the test done and so far I think he can be good also.

LP

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by Racer Joe


And of course the team told him he could do that.

You really do not read what I write do you??

[ForzaF1]

Jeff Gordon's times are irrelevant. that was a publicity stunt, the car wasn't set up to go fast, they just wanted to have some fun and do some PR. Personally I think its a shame that Gordon is apparently not interested in a real test, I for one would love to see him have a go at F1.

As far as the Dixon times go, none of us know how they set up the car, what instructions Dixon was given etc. It was billed as a chance for him to get familiar with a F1 car, not an all out test. For all we know everyone could be very happy with the results. We'll have to wait until he gets a rea test to see if he has any potential or not.

[lukywill]

if it was 6'' it would still be perfectly ok.

[panzani]

Just as a side note, the first F1 car Ayrton Senna drove was also a Williams, in 1983. Frank Williams let him drive the FW07, in Donington Park, because he was F-Ford 2000's champion in 1982 [27 races, 20 wins - first six in a row, 21 fastest laps, 14 poles] and was doing well in the English F-3 in 1983 [13 wins - first nine in row, 15 poles, 11 fastest laps], besides winning 1983 F3 Macau GP.

He was given the 1982 FW07 from Keke Rosberg and, in his fourth lap, broke Donington's lap record. Even though Frank and the rest of the team were impressed, he drove for Toleman in 1984, eventually being hired by Williams 10 years late.

Anyway, what is my point?
1. Scott Dixon's curriculum is not very impressive when compared to other current drivers.
2. Three seconds is too much, I guess...
3. Frank sometimes is a little slow in making decisions.

[flyer72]

This is just ridiculous. This is Dixon's first time in F1 so he needs to get used to the car. He will have a second test (a three day test at Barcelona) where things should be better. 30 laps at a new track in a new car means nothing!

He might surprise some of you. If he is slow, then most will go - oh, I never rated him very high anyways...

I don't know if Scott is good enough - but I will wait for the second test until I will make my mind up.



Message edited for ... crappy english???

[KenC]

Not sure about any of the previous comments, but the report I saw in Autosport indicated that Dixon was 8/tenths off Ralf's time by the end of the day. Perhaps, the 30 laps were the get comfortable laps in the morning and the afternoon was for more serious running. Also, the Autosport article indicates Ralf's time was set on new tires. So, 8/tenths, let's all jump to conclusions now.

As for Jeff Gordon's 1.6secs gap to Montoya, I've already stated that Jeff is a hugely talented driver, but that no meaningful comparison can be made. The setup on the car was a safe setup, one that severely hamstrings the car, lots of downforce biased towards understeer, much like what one sees in a development series, in order to instill confidence in the driver. It was not your on-the-knife-edge type of setup. What this does, is to compress any testing times, as the car's performance does not tax a current F1 driver like JPM. In other words, the car's performance threshold is way below the driver's. The only relevant test would be if they changed the setup away from this safe pr setup, to one that might actually approach the car's performance threshold. We know the car was nowhere near its performance threshold from looking at the overall times which were much slower than actual race/practice and qualifying times that year.

I've also mentioned that there was a much more impressive test done by a NASCAR driver last year at Sebring around this time, by Kurt Busch. He's young and that test was run during pre-season testing by other teams. In other words, the other drivers were not using hamstrung setups, and neither was Kurt. His times were impressive, much more so than what Gordon showed. Then again, Gordon did not have a proper setup to drive, so no one knows what he could have done. At the top of of motorsports, the series are now so specialized that it's the details that matter. Finding that last second is what separates the back of the pack from the middle, and the middle from the front, and until proper tests are run, one cannot tell how any outsider would fare.

[JonC]

According to Autosport, by the end of the day, Dixon got down to a 1m12.806s, which compares with Ralf's 1m12.0s on 'new-specification' Michelins.

[crackr]

Why are you all talking about e sec´s? According to Autosport, Dixon´s time was close to RS.

"Dixon, who is tipped to be in the running for a seat at Williams in 2005, began lapping in the 1m21s bracket this morning, but had set a best time of 1m12.806s by the middle of the afternoon. This compared well to regular driver Ralf Schumacher, who did a 1m12-dead on newer compound Michelin tyres."

[senna da silva]

Autosport are claiming that Scott did a 1:12.8 compared to Ralf's best on the day which was a 1:12.0.

Not bad for a first day. I'm still not convinced SD is the man for the 2005 Williams.

[senna da silva]

Oops I guess we all said the same thing at the same time.

[speedmaster]

Originally posted by panzani
Just as a side note, the first F1 car Ayrton Senna drove was also a Williams, in 1983. Frank Williams let him drive the FW07, in Donington Park, because he was F-Ford 2000's champion in 1982 [27 races, 20 wins - first six in a row, 21 fastest laps, 14 poles] and was doing well in the English F-3 in 1983 [13 wins - first nine in row, 15 poles, 11 fastest laps], besides winning 1983 F3 Macau GP.

He was given the 1982 FW07 from Keke Rosberg and, in his fourth lap, broke Donington's lap record. Even though Frank and the rest of the team were impressed, he drove for Toleman in 1984, eventually being hired by Williams 10 years late.

Anyway, what is my point?
1. Scott Dixon's curriculum is not very impressive when compared to other current drivers.
2. Three seconds is too much, I guess...
3. Frank sometimes is a little slow in making decisions.

You're talking about Senna... and Senna is not in the same roll as all of other poor mortals... he should not be taken as a parameter otherwise everyone else would look like a poor snail...

[panzani]

Originally posted by speedmaster
You're talking about Senna... and Senna is not in the same roll as all of other poor mortals... he should not be taken as a parameter otherwise everyone else would look like a poor snail...

Actually it was just an example I'd picked to try to prove my tripod idea [curriculum, speed, FW], but there were others, including that German, who drove very fast in their very first tests, IIRC.

[molive]

Originally posted by panzani
Just as a side note, the first F1 car Ayrton Senna drove was also a Williams, in 1983. Frank Williams let him drive the FW07, in Donington Park, because he was F-Ford 2000's champion in 1982 [27 races, 20 wins - first six in a row, 21 fastest laps, 14 poles] and was doing well in the English F-3 in 1983 [13 wins - first nine in row, 15 poles, 11 fastest laps], besides winning 1983 F3 Macau GP.

He was given the 1982 FW07 from Keke Rosberg and, in his fourth lap, broke Donington's lap record. Even though Frank and the rest of the team were impressed, he drove for Toleman in 1984, eventually being hired by Williams 10 years late.

Anyway, what is my point?
1. Scott Dixon's curriculum is not very impressive when compared to other current drivers.
2. Three seconds is too much, I guess...
3. Frank sometimes is a little slow in making decisions.

AFAIK Frank did offer him a contract, but Senna felt he deserved more, and that he could land a better deal if he did one year in a small team before getting a contract with a top one.

Btw, 20 years ago Senna made his debut for Toleman at the Brazilian GP. Despite being 16th on the grid, he was almost 2 secs faster than Cecotto, who had raced in 16 GPs.

Heres that historic 1984 Brazilian GP grid:

1) Elio de Angelis (ITA/Lotus-Renault), 1min28s392
2) Michele Alboreto (ITA/Ferrari), 1min28s898
3) Derek Warwick (ING/Renault), 1min29s025
4) Alain Prost (FRA/McLaren-TAG), 1min29s330
5) Nigel Mansell (ING/Lotus-Renault), 1min29s364
6) Niki Lauda (AUT/McLaren-TAG), 1min29s854
7) Nelson Piquet (BRA/Brabham-BMW), 1min30s149
8) Patrick Tambay (FRA/Renault), 1min30s554
9) Keke Rosberg (FIN/Williams-Honda), 1min30s611
10) René Arnoux (FRA/Ferrari), 1min30s695
11) Riccardo Patrese (ITA/Alfa Romeo), 1min30s973
12) Eddie Cheever (EUA/Alfa Romeo), 1min31s282
13) Jacques Laffite (FRA/Williams-Honda), 1min31s548
14) Andrea de Cesaris (ITA/Ligier-Renault), 1min32s895
15) Teo Fabi (ITA/Brabham-BMW), 1min33s227
16) Ayrton Senna (BRA/Toleman-Hart), 1min33s525
17) Johnny Cecotto (VEN/Toleman-Hart), 1min35s300
18) Martin Brundle (ING/Tyrrell-Ford), 1min36s081
19) François Hesnault (FRA/Ligier-Renault), 1min36s238
20) Thierry Boutsen (BEL/Arrows-Ford), 1min36s312
21) Pierluigi Ghinzani (ITA/Osella-Alfa Romeo), 1min36s434
22) Stefan Bellof (ALE/Tyrrell-Ford), 1min36s609
23) Mauro Baldi (ITA/Spirit-Hart), 1min36s816
17) Marc Surer (SUI/Arrows-Ford), 1min37s204
25) Philippe Alliot (FRA/RAM-Hart), 1min37s709
26) Jonathan Palmer (ING/RAM-Hart), 1min37s919

[Pete Aaron]

If I was FW, and thank the gods I'm not, the most important thing I would be looking at is how he did thoughout the day. Being the owner, I could tip the head engineer the wink to tweak something on the car and see if the kid came right back in to fix it, or to not even notice. A test is a lot more than what shows on a stopwatch.
First day out for Dixon with paddle shifters, right turns, a waaaay more lighter car, grooved tyres, brakes that are worlds better than what he used to and not least, a car that isn't neutered by a revlimiter like what he makes a check this year to drive.
I've got no dog in this hunt, I could careless whether Dixon gets a ride or not, but for the yahoos on this board to brand him 'very poor' is a freakin' joke.
As Bill Murray would say; "Lighten up Francis"