Motorsport Off Topic Thread

JRS said:
That's the killer, IMO. Not only do we have a situation with the supposed pinnacle of motorsport where you can't properly test your car out for development purposes, but you can't even give a young 'un some mileage to train them.
Click to expand...

I genuinely don't think the FIA realised the issue they were creating when they banned testing. Its created a massive void between tallent and race seats. A void that is easiest to overcome on a big fat cheque.
 
The problem with reintroducing testing would be how much would teams employ 3rd or junior drivers?

Even when Mercedes bent the rules at Barcelona they used their race drivers, just so they could better understand the car and tyres (even if they weren't meant to be 2013 tyres).

Now you've got the simulators to get drivers up to speed, but they don't hone the finite details that only driving an F1 car around a track does, and it seems teams will try to employ their race drivers where they can for those current rare occasions.

To my knowledge, there is nothing stopping a team wheeling out a two or three year old car and booking a circuit to give a youngster the chance to drive what is fundamentally the same car, but because they can't test this or that on the car, they're reluctant to go to the expense of doing so.
 
Last edited:
Race drivers are used due to the limited testing. And teams won't fund testing if they can't test anything.

It needs large volume current car testing restricted to non race drivers. Basically it needs to make being a 3d driver a valuable position to hold again.
 
Indycar had 10,000 test miles allowed per entrant in 2012, distributed amongst various oval and road course tests throughout the year including pre-race tests. Engine testing was unlimited.

Indycar.com said:
Full-season entrants are allocated a maximum of 10,000 miles per calendar year for use in all team tests, Open Tests and race events. Excluding manufacturer test days, no full-season entrant has topped 9,000 total miles this year. Scott Dixon, driving the Honda-powered No. 9 Target Chip Ganassi Racing car, has a series-high 19 test days. The team has two additional test days scheduled (Oct. 11 at Milwaukee and Oct. 29 at Barber).
Click to expand...

According to a Mercedes F1 press release, they tested for less than 3,000 miles in 2012 (per car). I doubt they racked up any significant mileage during the season itself because that is heavily restricted by the FIA. Post-season testing didn't happen in December 2011 as the article mentions February as the first test date. (http://www.mercedes-amg-f1.com/en/#/s/news/1296/winter-testing-round-up-its-the-mileage)

It's not really surprising that teams sometimes give up and focus on the next season if that's the extent of their test mileage.

Bearing in mind that the Ganassi Indycar team had no more than half of the budget that Mercedes F1 had for 2012 (both have wind tunnels, although oval testing is harder on the engines), it obviously isn't as much of a cost issue as the FIA makes out.
 
I've said it before.

Any team that's won a dry race in the past 2 years can test but has limited mileage and must use non race drivers.
Any team that has scored points in a dry race in the last 2 years can test with race drivers but has limited mileage or can test non race drivers with unlimited mileage.
Any team that hasn't scored points in the last 2 years can test with race drivers with unlimited mileage.

The higher level teams don't need the testing. Those playing catchup to RB, Merc, Lotus and Ferrari (Basically Sauber, TR and Force India) will hopefully get closer and the other two need testing full stop.

Do it on a Monday after Bahrain on 07/04 (2 weeks to the next race in China, little used circuit, cars already there), after Austria (2 weeks again, next race is British GP so trucks will be heading home anyway) then after Italy (2 weeks again, next race is Singapore so they can ship non essential stuff straight to Singapore.)
 
Straight from the FIA rulebook:

22) TRACK AND WIND TUNNEL TESTING

22.1 Track testing shall be considered any track running time not part of an Event undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship, using cars which conform substantially with the current Formula One Technical Regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year. The only exception is that each competitor is permitted up to eight promotional events, carried out using tyres provided specifically for this purpose by the appointed supplier, to a maximum distance of 100kms per event.

22.2 Track testing may only be carried out using cars which have been subjected to, and fulfilled the requirements of, the tests described in Articles 16.2-6, 17.2-3 and 18.2-9 of the F1 Technical Regulations.
Furthermore, any car used for track testing must be fitted with the panels described in Articles 15.4.7 and 15.4.8 of the F1 Technical Regulations.

22.3 No competitor may carry out more than 15,000km of track testing during a calendar year.

22.4 No track testing may take place :

a) Whilst a Championship Event is taking place.
b) With more than one car per day at any such test.
c) Before 09.00 or after 18.00 on any day at any such test.
d) On any track located outside Europe without the agreement of the majority of teams and the FIA.
e) During the month of August except under (h)(iii) below.
f) During the month of January.
g) Between 1 February and the start of a ten day period which precedes the start of the first Event of the Championship of the same year with the exception of :
i) Aerodynamic tests carried out in accordance with 22.4(h)(ii) below.
ii) Three team tests of no more than four consecutive days duration, carried out on a site approved by the FIA for Formula 1 cars.
h) Between the start of a ten day period which precedes the start of the first Event of the Championship and 31 December of the same year with the following exceptions :
i) One three or four day young driver training test carried out on a date and site approved by the FIA following consultation with all teams. Any driver who has competed in more than two F1 World Championship races may take part in this test provided that the purpose of him doing so is to test tyres for the appointed tyre supplier and all drivers must be in possession of an International A Licence.
ii) Four one day aerodynamic tests carried out on FIA approved straight line or constant radius sites between 1 February of the current year and the start of the last Event of the Championship. Any of these days may be substituted for four hours of wind-on full scale wind tunnel testing to be carried out in a single twenty four hour period.
iii) If a team declares that one of its current race drivers is to be substituted by a driver who has not participated in an F1 race in the two previous calendar years, one day of track testing will be permitted between the start of a ten day period which precedes the start of the second Event and the last Event of the Championship. The following must be observed :
- Any such day may only be carried out by the new driver and may not take place on a circuit hosting a race in the current Championship year.
- Any such day may only take place within a period 14 days prior to the substitution and 14 days after the substitution has taken place.
- If a team, having declared the driver's substitution and performed the test, does not then enter an Event with the new driver, the team will be penalised by a reduction of one day from the pre-season track testing days available in the following year.
Click to expand...
 
FP1 is being extended next year with an additional set of tyres to encourage young drivers, but not sure yet whether they only get the set if they do run a different driver.

Just make one day of each of the pre-season tests a young driver day only.
 
Duke said:
Just make one day of each of the pre-season tests a young driver day only.
Click to expand...

Pre season testing should be race drivers, its testing the cars they will have to race, after all.

In season testing should be non race drivers only.

This would force teams to use race drivers at race weekends (fans buy Friday tickets to see their favourate drivers out on track, not some random Joe Bloggs who has a rich mate who has bought him an FP1 slot for his birthday).

There are 4 in season tests next year, which is a move in the right direction. The issue with the cost of testing for F1 was that teams were effectively running a second full race team just for testing, and the smaller teams cannot compete with that. Making the tests happen after races at those tracks removes this, they would just use the race team, or the bulk of it at least.

My view is:
- At least four, if not more, 3 day tests held after race weekends at that circuit to remove any need for seperate testing crews.
- All of these tests to be non race drivers only, or at least 2 of the 3 days to be non race drivers only.
- All of these tests to allow 2 cars per team rather than the 1 allowed at the moment.

This would create (assuming 4 x 3 day tests at 8 hours each) 192 hours of in season testing time per team, with a massive chunk of it dedicated to young drivers or test drivers. Thats the equivalent of 96 FP1 sessions (using next years 2 hour time), or 5 whole seasons of following a team around buying a seat on a Friday morning.

Sure its going to create costs the team will have to absorb, but its about the bigger picture. F1 has created a wall around itself that talent alone can no longer get over. F1 is in serious risk of turning into a rich kids playground.
 
whilst I agree more testing needs to be allowed. I cannot shake the feeling that this is a double edged sword. testing increases costs for the teams (tyres, engines, wind tunnels etc...). well funded teams can absorb this; however the teams which currently struggle financially, will struggle even more and rely on pay drivers even more than before.

therefore I am convinced that the organizers need to split the money made from TV distribution more evenly to level the playing field and make the sport more competitive across the whole grid. this in the long run makes F1 more compelling for the audience. as things stand only well funded teams have any chance to win races and the championship (resources to test, to hire the best talent, to upgrade...). pay to win is not sport
 
Last edited:
True, but then there is another flip side to that. Are the back marker teams struggling financially due to them struggling on the track, which is because they have no opportunity to test?

Caterham, Marussia and HRT joined F1 starting pretty much from scratch, and were expected to progress with basically 12 days testing a year.

As with car development, testing carries laws of diminishing returns. With increased testing you would see the teams at the back making larger relative gains than those at the front. A 3 day, 2 car test may see RBR gain 1 tenth, while Caterham or Marussia might find half a second.
 
true there is diminishing returns in testing. but now there are some teams that will struggle to pay for engines. look how many people Lotus have lost to other teams because they were lacking the cash. I know it's team effort, but there is talent also. if all the talent is in the top teams the back markers are doomed on all fronts

my 2 cents
 
I think we can conclude its a massive cluster **** of fail :p

Lack of testing means teams cant progress. Not being able to progress means teams have no money. No money means teams can't afford to test anyway. New engines means teams have no money, but new engines require lots of testing. Etc etc etc.

Suddenly Joe Bloggs whats-his-name with the massive cheque looks like a real enticing option, an voila, pay drivers galore!
 
i dont usually like bandwagons but i do think f1 is starting to kill itself

they try all these ideas to cut costs but they keep hurting the sport/spectacle
ill admit its a hard balancing act.

i will stop watching when i truely believe the team i support can no longer even have a chance of winning, and i think this point gets closer every year as we head towards an effective A and B and even C series but not quite here yet
innovation seems stifled but it is expensive, but how does a team with limited funds then get the upper hand?
the way things are going just seem to be drawing out the process rather than correcting it

i dont know what the answer is, but im not paid to solve it/

i watch touring cars and its more enjoyable, a lot of other formulas are, but they arent as accessible or popular. Its all about the spectacle really regardless of everything else. Fan loyalty is strong in F1 but it must have a limit.

i understand static rules save money but it means you are more than likely always playing catch up if you start behind, this is exacerbated with current testing (or, moreover, lack there of) , it also allows richer teams more gains as small gains cost a lot, due to diminishing returns, which lower teams cannot justify (im guessing), at least with rule changes you get a reset and or a new innovative part/concept, well, the chance is there

i feel like a stuck record saying it but a budget cap per season with regular rule changes and money for testing at a level somewhere in the middle of all team budgets might help, thats my best stab. I would expect potential domination but not so likely between rule changes

less of a cap on innovation and more on finance..hard to police

(and not changing rules mid season..yes im still bitter about the tyre change)
 
Last edited:
To be fair, the tyre change proposed because some teams didn't like them was stopped. The change was on safety grounds following the complete farse at Silverstone.
 
al4x said:
i dont usually like bandwagons but i do think f1 is starting to kill itself

they try all these ideas to cut costs but they keep hurting the sport/spectacle
ill admit its a hard balancing act.

i will stop watching when i truely believe the team i support can no longer even have a chance of winning, and i think this point gets closer every year as we head towards an effective A and B and even C series but not quite here yet
innovation seems stifled but it is expensive, but how does a team with limited funds then get the upper hand?
the way things are going just seem to be drawing out the process rather than correcting it

i dont know what the answer is, but im not paid to solve it/

i watch touring cars and its more enjoyable, a lot of other formulas are, but they arent as accessible or popular. Its all about the spectacle really regardless of everything else. Fan loyalty is strong in F1 but it must have a limit.

i understand static rules save money but it means you are more than likely always playing catch up if you start behind, this is exacerbated with current testing (or, moreover, lack there of) , it also allows richer teams more gains as small gains cost a lot, due to diminishing returns, which lower teams cannot justify (im guessing), at least with rule changes you get a reset and or a new innovative part/concept, well, the chance is there

i feel like a stuck record saying it but a budget cap per season with regular rule changes and money for testing at a level somewhere in the middle of all team budgets might help, thats my best stab. I would expect potential domination but not so likely between rule changes

less of a cap on innovation and more on finance..hard to police

(and not changing rules mid season..yes im still bitter about the tyre change)
Click to expand...

The problem is the rules are so tight and stringent that any innovation is stifled almost immediately. Any team does think of something innovative and the others find out they all start bleating about how they'll need to copy it and it will cost them millions and it should be banned. There's no real scope for genuine ingenuity anymore.
 
Skeeter said:
To be fair, the tyre change proposed because some teams didn't like them was stopped. The change was on safety grounds following the complete farse at Silverstone.
Click to expand...

But the problem was that the safety issue did not affect all of the teams. Just because you design your car to eat the tyres, should not mean they change the tyres when another team was perfectly able to make a car that didn't eat its tyres.
I still think the teams should have been forced to change their cars to suit the tyres, not the other way around.
IMO it was purely because the "big" teams were having trouble, that they went that way. If it was only Sauber and Caterham for example that had the tyre failures, I am sure the decision might have been different.
 
I agree with many of your points skeeter on the testing but the problem of using the race team to carry out the post race testing becomes more of a human problem then a cost one.

These people have familys and they are already stretched as it is. Its easy to say just throw another 3 days (4 realistically including clean up and travel home) on to the end of a race weekend. Those 4 days could be 4 out of only 6 they get to see their families between races.

With 20+ races on the calendar as it is and next year plus in season testing I cannot see this kind of proposal ever working on that basis.

Also there is the element of how much mileage can you put on your power units. Do they get additional power units for testing already?? if not then this will also be a limiting factor.

What I think is that each team should be allowed 2 test chassis, 2 test power units a non race driver (reserve driver) (per year), and each team should be allowed to run a 3rd car during FP1 and FP2 with the tyre supplier being able to provide test tyres as well.

This will be easier on the race crew, which will need to be bigger but far from twice the size, it will make FP1 and FP2 busier, it will give tyre suppliers a chance to get valuable testing done on relevant cars and it will give young drivers time in cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom