Possible decision made this weekend on F1 testing future

CaptainRAVE · 12 Sep 2011 at 09:59

Flibster said:
I'd rather see a track that is not used in season to be used for testing.

Paul Ricard would be the obvious choice - excellent condition track with many different configurations available.

Yep, would be good to see it all on a completely different track.

The problem is at the moment, the team that has the dominant car in pre-season testing is then one or more steps ahead for the rest of the season. There just isn't enough time in practice to try too many different setups or parts.

I would welcome testing back, but not too much of it.

NathanE · 12 Sep 2011 at 10:28

Surely it would be cheaper for teams to travel to Silverstone. Than to some obscure track in the middle of nowhere in Italy?

How exactly is this saving them money?

Duke · 12 Sep 2011 at 10:41

NathanE said:
Surely it would be cheaper for teams to travel to Silverstone. Than to some obscure track in the middle of nowhere in Italy?

How exactly is this saving them money?

I think they are hosting it for free? No idea the cost of booking Silverstone for 4 days compared to haulage to Italy.

trickycurve · 12 Sep 2011 at 10:43

If you read the quote JRS posted, you would know that Ferrari are going to help host the event so that it is not too costly for the teams.

JRS · 12 Sep 2011 at 11:11

Oh, and by the way - this test track that Ferrari have such superior knowledge of and are bound to get an advantage over the other teams by running at? Ferrari haven't ran a current Formula One car at Mugello since January 2009 when Massa did a test run of the F60.

Link.

And look at how well the F60 did - no points until the fourth round, one win all year, development officially abandoned in early August, worst season since 1993. But no, keep thinking that the only reason Ferrari are offering Mugello is to gain an advantage over everyone else. Quite what this advantage could be is beyond me given that Mugello isn't on the race calendar, but I've long since learned just to smile, nod and edge towards the door when people start banging on about how EVERYTHING is a pro-Ferrari conspiracy

CaptainRAVE · 12 Sep 2011 at 11:19

Surely it would be cheaper for the teams to test at Silverstone, since most are based here anyway?

NathanE · 12 Sep 2011 at 11:20

Booking a track for a day is nothing. It's all the travel and accommodation costs associated with it.

Since the majority of F1 teams are based in the UK (all but one?), would it not be prudent to therefore have the test at Silverstone? It is literally just "down the road" for most teams. There would be no expensive flights involved. Just their huge trucks.

I think it is just hilarious how the one team that isn't based in the UK (and is easily the most well funded to pay for their air freight costs to a prospective Silverstone test) ends up getting all the others to travel all the way to them for the test?

JRS · 12 Sep 2011 at 11:36

'The one team that isn't based in the UK' - aren't Torro Rosso still based at Faenza in Italy, Sauber at Hinwill in Switzerland, Hispania at Murcia in Spain? Or has that all changed recently?

NathanE · 12 Sep 2011 at 12:18

It all changed. At 11:19, I paid for their relocation to the UK so as to add weight to my argument here on the pokey old motoring forum of OcUK

JRS · 12 Sep 2011 at 12:41

NathanE said:
It all changed. At 11:19, I paid for their relocation to the UK so as to add weight to my argument here on the pokey old motoring forum of OcUK

Kenai · 12 Sep 2011 at 13:16

JRS said:
Oh, and by the way - this test track that Ferrari have such superior knowledge of and are bound to get an advantage over the other teams by running at? Ferrari haven't ran a current Formula One car at Mugello since January 2009 when Massa did a test run of the F60.

Link.

And look at how well the F60 did - no points until the fourth round, one win all year, development officially abandoned in early August, worst season since 1993. But no, keep thinking that the only reason Ferrari are offering Mugello is to gain an advantage over everyone else. Quite what this advantage could be is beyond me given that Mugello isn't on the race calendar, but I've long since learned just to smile, nod and edge towards the door when people start banging on about how EVERYTHING is a pro-Ferrari conspiracy

So you don't think the years of existing data and experience testing a variety of cars (including fairly recent F1) on that track will provide them any advantage at all?

Why is it so hard to think that maybe having years of experience of a particular testing track might make it easier to interpret or work from the data collected? Maybe extract a slightly deeper understanding compared to others?

JRS · 12 Sep 2011 at 13:38

Kenai said:
So you don't think the years of existing data and experience testing a variety of cars (including fairly recent F1) on that track will provide them any advantage at all?

Honestly, I don't. It's not as if their car was particularly epic the last time they tested there, is it? And why would FOTA have agreed to the test being held there if they thought Ferrari would gain a significant advantage from it? Remember, every team principal has given the okay to this.

Saying that this is Yet Another Example Of Pro-Ferrari Bias™ just smacks of rampant, hysterical paranoia IMO

Kenai · 12 Sep 2011 at 13:45

Just because they tested there previously doesn't automatically mean the resultant car should have been the best, that's not even remotely what people are getting at.

It just strikes me as obvious that a team who know the track inside out will have more to learn than those who don't. If it's raining for example, I would expect Ferrari could make better judgement about relative dry performance looking at past wet/dry data from that track than all the teams who will only have wet data.

It's hardly going to be make or break anyway, 4 days of testing isn't going to radically change the performance of anyones cars really but I still think just outright dismissing the idea that Ferrari would be able to better utilise the data gathered is a touch short sighted.

JRS · 12 Sep 2011 at 13:59

Kenai said:
It just strikes me as obvious that a team who know the track inside out will have more to learn than those who don't. If it's raining for example, I would expect Ferrari could make better judgement about relative dry performance looking at past wet/dry data from that track than all the teams who will only have wet data.

So why did the teams all agree to it then? Could it be that - gasp! - they don't see any performance or data management advantage for Ferrari in it?

Skeeter · 12 Sep 2011 at 14:49

Hang on, are we seriously suggesting that the only way to ensure this (mythical) bias in tracks is removed is to ensure that anyone who owns a race track must have absolutely no connections to motorsport at all?

The cars will all be new, the tyres will be new, the track conditions will be unique to those days. The only advantage Ferrari will have is knowing which restaurant down the road serves the best pasta for lunch!

But hey, what would F1 be without completely unfounded wild conspiracy claims all over the place. Was it Frank who suggested a while back that McLaren shouldn't be able to be sponsored by TAG if they also provided the timing equipment for F1, as it would somehow allow McLaren to cheat?

FrankJH · 12 Sep 2011 at 15:46

Skeeter said:
The cars will all be new, the tyres will be new, the track conditions will be unique to those days. The only advantage Ferrari will have is knowing which restaurant down the road serves the best pasta for lunch!

Bare with me for a second please!

Ferrari have tested there in all (racing) conditions over the years in however many different cars.

They also know for fact how those cars also did on other tracks/ during other races immediately afterwards

Extrapolating the mountains of data that Ferrari have built up over the years will count for something compared to ZERO information every other team has

They can also compare x car on x track to the same car on a track THIS year's car has already run at (either successfully or not) to make the data they have valuable.

Its SUCH an obvious link Im surprised you are even debating it.

It does seem a strange choice to host the test in Italy compared to whee nearly every team is based (even despite the actual track rental being free)

JRS · 12 Sep 2011 at 15:55

Frank, how do you walk down dark streets at night with that paranoia??

Skeeter · 12 Sep 2011 at 16:04

I tell you what JRS, Formula 1 teams these days must be employing hundreds of idiots. How can all 12 teams have signed up to an agreement with such an obvious advantage to Ferrari? They must all be totally stupid :confused:

JRS · 12 Sep 2011 at 16:12

Skeeter said:
I tell you what JRS, Formula 1 teams these days must be employing hundreds of idiots. How can all 12 teams have signed up to an agreement with such an obvious advantage to Ferrari? They must all be totally stupid

Oh, absolutely. I mean, that's the only other explanation - everyone else in Formula One is a complete imbecile.

.

..

...

Or....this is going to provide no performance advantage to Ferrari whatsoever. But that seems far less likely than either a pro-Ferrari conspiracy or every single other team in F1 being staffed by morons....

FrankJH · 12 Sep 2011 at 16:30

ALL F1 teams have already agreed to give Ferrari a larger portion of the money - thats the way its been for god knows how many years , maybe there are bigger fights ahead that the other teams think they can possibly win (or benefit more from)

For all the general public know, that could well be part of the agreement.....

I never stated that any team leader was stupid or an imbecile - only that this gives an advantage to Ferrari, which it does (as does getting more income from each Championship point - but that doesnt stop teams wanting to compete now does it)