F1 Winter Testing (2012)

  • Thread starter Hun200kmh
  • 440 comments
  • 28,029 views
United6694
Of course safety is important, how did it work before they had to pass all the crash tests.

In my view I think it's important that all teams are able to test and these lower funded teams are still a part of F1 and should be allowed to test, but only race if the car passes all tests.
Click to expand...

Before 2012, you could take part in the pre-season tests before passing the crash tests. As long as you then passed the tests before the first race you were good to go. This gave extra development time and power (you could test prototype parts without needing to meet safety standards).

You now need to pass all the tests before testing, so the car has to be "ready" sooner. You still see new parts and pieces on the car, but it can't be anything fundamental to driver safety.
 
pezzarinho17
Before 2012, you could take part in the pre-season tests before passing the crash tests. As long as you then passed the tests before the first race you were good to go. This gave extra development time and power (you could test prototype parts without needing to meet safety standards)...
Click to expand...

I think that is how it should be done, it puts all the teams on a level playing field.
 
pezzarinho17
As we know now, pre-season testing is prohibited as of Monday so the last Sunday of the test was the absolute latest any team had to be ready for. Both teams missed it due to failed crash tests, which means had the same impact occurred on the track rather than in a controlled environment at the factory then we could have seen injuries (the safety margins involved probably mean that the drivers would still be ok though shaken).
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that. I was merely suggesting that the any team who failed to test their new car could be given a full day or two of testing to aid their readiness. I am aware that Marussia and HRT are solely responsible for missing the tests but suggested that as an alternative to avoid any images that are possibly embarrassing for the sport come P1 at Melbourne. For example, massive car failure on the first lap. I suppose the filming day covers that, but I'm not sure if that's enough to do all the required system checks when firing up an F1 car for the first time.

United6694
I think that is how it should be done, it puts all the teams on a level playing field.
Click to expand...

But you're missing the safety aspect again. The rules were introduced for safety reasons. These cars have not been crash tested. Do you really want to continue seeing cars that haven't been crash tested running at speeds up to 200mph?

What if there was some flaw that only crash testing would pick up on? You really want to leave that to chance in order to maintain parity? You obviously haven't seen anywhere near the amount of fatal incidents that I and others here have been exposed to over the years. The fact is that HRT and Marussia failed to have their cars ready in time to test them. That is their fault and no-one else's.
 
F1 fan
I'm not disputing that. I was merely suggesting that the any team who failed to test their new car could be given a full day or two of testing to aid their readiness. I am aware that Marussia and HRT are solely responsible for missing the tests but suggested that as an alternative to avoid any images that are possibly embarrassing for the sport come P1 at Melbourne. For example, massive car failure on the first lap. I suppose the filming day covers that, but I'm not sure if that's enough to do all the required system checks when firing up an F1 car for the first time.
Click to expand...

I thought you'd oversighted it... Rules are rules though and they do still get 100km distance during filming days, which is a decent amount. As you say its their fault they failed to make it to the scheduled tests so a filming day is the most they can expect, and even then they will get a lot of work done. They won't be hanging around for sure so those car failures will be picked up before they happen at Australia.

The embarassment for the sport comes in the form of USGP, passing all of the rigorous selection processes on their way to never accomplishing anything.
 
pezzarinho17
The embarassment for the sport comes in the form of USF1, passing all of the rigorous selection processes on their way to never accomplishing anything.
Click to expand...

Fixed. I agree about them being a bit of an embarrassment. But let's be honest, had they made the grid, we'd just have another backmarker. Don't get me wrong, I want HRT and Marussia to make some good progress, but it's pretty grim at the back.
 
F1 fan
I'm not disputing that. I was merely suggesting that the any team who failed to test their new car could be given a full day or two of testing to aid their readiness. I am aware that Marussia and HRT are solely responsible for missing the tests but suggested that as an alternative to avoid any images that are possibly embarrassing for the sport come P1 at Melbourne. For example, massive car failure on the first lap. I suppose the filming day covers that, but I'm not sure if that's enough to do all the required system checks when firing up an F1 car for the first time.



But you're missing the safety aspect again. The rules were introduced for safety reasons. These cars have not been crash tested. Do you really want to continue seeing cars that haven't been crash tested running at speeds up to 200mph?

What if there was some flaw that only crash testing would pick up on? You really want to leave that to chance in order to maintain parity? You obviously haven't seen anywhere near the amount of fatal incidents that I and others here have been exposed to over the years. The fact is that HRT and Marussia failed to have their cars ready in time to test them. That is their fault and no-one else's.
Click to expand...

I have already said, I understand the safety aspect.
In all honesty yes. They get paid enough and they should know it is a risk of the job.
It all comes down to 'what if' though. They have been testing like that for years so I think they should continue that way.
 
United6694
In all honesty yes. They get paid enough and they should know it is a risk of the job.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's the risk that they have to face but a risk is a risk, they all understand that but safety is still safety. An accident can happen anytime, anywhere. If the safety hasn't been enforced, I think we would have lost more drivers...

I know your intention is to make a level playing field and let the HRT and Marussia have the benefit just like the rest of the teams. The FIA can try to do anything to help them but not in anyway to sacrifice the safety. ;)
 
Yes, the driver of the untested car knows the risks, but what about the marshalls?

Although I realise that crash testing only really affects the crash structure of the car, there is still some doubt
 
United6694
I have already said, I understand the safety aspect.
In all honesty yes. They get paid enough and they should know it is a risk of the job.
It all comes down to 'what if' though. They have been testing like that for years so I think they should continue that way.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine the media uproar in this day and age if someone was killed in a winter testing accident in a car that hadn't passed crash tests? This is a step in the right direction by the FIA as far as I'm concerned. I'm aware that danger is a part of the job, but I welcome the changes.

I frankly, can't believe that you don't. Have you ever witnessed a fatal accident live? I've witnessed countless and it's not a nice thing.

daan
Yes, the driver of the untested car knows the risks, but what about the marshalls?
Click to expand...

Well they should be fully aware of the risks.
 
csmeteora9
Why? Because she's a women? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it's more along the lines of her having very little experience doing any major racing and even less open wheel experience(her career is made up of test roles and single race deals for the most part). Not everyone that criticizes a woman is sexist.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
@ csmeteora: oh pulizzeee ... be honest and tell me,

(but don't forget to remain within the path of political correctness),


why do you think Maria de Villota is test driver for a Formula 1 team.
 
Justin
I'm guessing it's more along the lines of her having very little experience doing any major racing and even less open wheel experience
Click to expand...
Well she has competed in over forty Formula Three races during her career and also competed in two Superleague Formula last year. Considering a number of drivers less experienced than her have driven a Formula One car without any significant trouble adapting, it is not for certain that she will struggle.
 
F1 fan
Can you imagine the media uproar in this day and age if someone was killed in a winter testing accident in a car that hadn't passed crash tests? This is a step in the right direction by the FIA as far as I'm concerned. I'm aware that danger is a part of the job, but I welcome the changes.

I frankly, can't believe that you don't. Have you ever witnessed a fatal accident live? I've witnessed countless and it's not a nice thing.
Click to expand...

No I have not seen a fatal accident, I have seen many crashes that a few years ago would have indeed been fatal. Which is testament to the advances in safety which I fully support of course.

I fully understand your point of view on this.
But I think that it should have been left in the old format personally, and i wonder if you can see my point of view on this.

Anyway, I'm very much looking forward to the new season and think it should be very close now due to the changes enforced. :sly:

I wonder who Red Bull have copied with their exhaust on the new car?
 
csmeteora9
No idea but I don't imagine she paid in the conventional manner. :sly: Now ask me again without the attitude and then I'll give you an honest answer! 💡
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

On topic, well sort of. I can totally see why safety is more important then testing, but perhaps there should be different standerds. Perhaps if it's only marginal then you're allowed to test, but you have to complete pass all tests to race.
 
csmeteora9
Well she has competed in over forty Formula Three races during her career and also competed in two Superleague Formula last year. Considering a number of drivers less experienced than her have driven a Formula One car without any significant trouble adapting, it is not for certain that she will struggle.
Click to expand...

I never said she would have any issues, she has tested an F1 car before, I was just merely pointing out the fact that she is short on experience, especially for a driver who is 32.
 
United6694
No I have not seen a fatal accident, I have seen many crashes that a few years ago would have indeed been fatal. Which is testament to the advances in safety which I fully support of course.
Click to expand...

Well I have seen 3 in the last two years alone. Hence why I'm all for this slight boost to safety.

jcm
On topic, well sort of. I can totally see why safety is more important then testing, but perhaps there should be different standerds. Perhaps if it's only marginal then you're allowed to test, but you have to complete pass all tests to race.
Click to expand...

A crash test is a crash test. If it marginally fails, it means that the car will still not stand up to the requirements. Read up on how Ayrton was killed. In some cases, the smallest thing can be the difference between life and death. That is why the FIA is right.

As for Maria, the term "test driver" means nothing. She will drive at the young driver test at the end of the year. As of now, there are no plans to have her set foot in the car during a grand prix weekend.

Whether or not she is qualified to do so, is a different matter.
 
F1 fan
Well I have seen 3 in the last two years alone. Hence why I'm all for this slight boost to safety.

A crash test is a crash test. If it marginally fails, it means that the car will still not stand up to the requirements. Read up on how Ayrton was killed. In some cases, the smallest thing can be the difference between life and death. That is why the FIA is right.

As for Maria, the term "test driver" means nothing. She will drive at the young driver test at the end of the year. As of now, there are no plans to have her set foot in the car during a grand prix weekend.

Whether or not she is qualified to do so, is a different matter.
Click to expand...

I think she'll also do simulator work (if Marussia have a simulator).

I just think that if you're off by less then 1% in a crash test then your car is probably safe enough for testing.
 
jcm
I just think that if you're off by less then 1% in a crash test then your car is probably safe enough for testing.
Click to expand...

1% can make a big difference. Which is why the FIA are strict.
 
Quoting from the film Tokyo drift:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail
 
While I would never advise anyone to quote from one of the fast and the furious films, that quotation is very fitting here.
 
csmeteora9
Why? Because she's a women? :rolleyes: If she has a reputation for being incident prone then fair enough but if it is simply sexist discrimination then please, cut out the nonsense.
Click to expand...

But isn't it also a kind of discrimination simply to hire a woman for the money+publicity? Clearly its pretty unlikely she is being hired for her ability behind the wheel.
 
csmeteora9
Why? Because she's a women? :rolleyes: If she has a reputation for being incident prone then fair enough but if it is simply sexist discrimination then please, cut out the nonsense.
Click to expand...

csmeteora9
Well she has competed in over forty Formula Three races during her career and also competed in two Superleague Formula last year. Considering a number of drivers less experienced than her have driven a Formula One car without any significant trouble adapting, it is not for certain that she will struggle.
Click to expand...

^Because of this.

I saw her race in Superleague (at Jarama). She was at best a mobile chicane and at worst, bloody dangerous. All the other drivers complained about her to the organisers. Yet she's the only one who raced that weekend with an F1 testing contract in her back pocket now. But who knows, maybe she's improved greatly since then.
 

Latest Posts

Back