Formula 1 Testing Rules

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sach
  • 33 comments
  • 6,991 views
S

Sach

Messages
1,417
Afghanistan
Afghanistan
McLaren reserve driver Pedro de la Rosa thinks the rules should be changed. I have to say that I agree with his points. I understand limiting the costs that come with testing, but I also think it's a bit strange to not only limit the tests to 3 days in the season, but to limit them to "young drivers" as well. And as he states, the definition of a young driver in terms of having driven a GP or not doesn't really make sense either. If a 30-year old driver can test, but a 22-year old Alguersuari cannot, that doesn't really add up, imo. I find it surprising that things are in place as they are.
 
I can't remember where I heard it, but the person suggested just having Friday being an open testing day where the track was open all day(replacing P1 and P2). This would make it so the teams could get some testing in, but wouldn't have to make additional trips anywhere.


That would be the best route in my opinion.
 
I agree, and it´s just what Montezemolo is saying aswell..

"Formula 1 is the only sport in the world where teams are not allowed to train"
 
hampus_dh
I agree, and it´s just what Montezemolo is saying aswell..

"Formula 1 is the only sport in the world where teams are not allowed to train"
Click to expand...

That's why any old joe can do it!

Or is that in another thread?:sly:
 
Justin
I can't remember where I heard it, but the person suggested just having Friday being an open testing day where the track was open all day(replacing P1 and P2). This would make it so the teams could get some testing in, but wouldn't have to make additional trips anywhere.


That would be the best route in my opinion.
Click to expand...



I think that could be a possibility. In any case, I would surely hope that the regulations will be modified in the next few years. Can a team really even gather enough data from three practice sessions, and with drivers who've never been in a GP?
 
Totally agree with Pedro.

Also, teams like HRT and Virgin should be allowed more testing than others teams, simply becouse they need to catch up.
 
Already something has been done: "...in-season testing will return in 2012, with plans for a test to be held at Mugello on May 1 ahead of the European leg of the 2012 championship." //wikipedia

There's probably no going to back to unlimited testing, but some amount of free testing days (or kilometres if private tests) during the season should be allowed. This has to change for 2014 with the new engines.

Idea of the young driver test is good (altough the Gary Paffetts shouldn't be there) because otherwise there would no way for many young drivers to get experience. De La Rosa makes good points but he also sounds pissed because his job as a test/reserve driver has been basically taken away.
 
Last edited:
Sach_F1
I understand limiting the costs that come with testing, but I also think it's a bit strange to not only limit the tests to 3 days in the season, but to limit them to "young drivers" as well.
Click to expand...
It's to stop one team from getting miles ahead of the others. Ferrari already have their own private circuit, and they've been known to step around the testing ban by running new parts on the car during "filming days".
 
The only problem I have with that is the fact that some teams are already ahead of the others, and it prevents the lesser teams from joining the pack, to a degree.
 
Justin
I can't remember where I heard it, but the person suggested just having Friday being an open testing day where the track was open all day(replacing P1 and P2). This would make it so the teams could get some testing in, but wouldn't have to make additional trips anywhere.

That would be the best route in my opinion.
Click to expand...

But Friday is also used for practice and qualifying for the support series, so thats not really practical. Not to mention it runs the risk of the races becoming fairly Noah's Ark when the teams have such a large amount of testing before the race. We already get this with Catalunya...
The better suggestion was to run on the Monday after each race weekend or on select race weekends - that way the race isn't affected by the teams gaining a huge amount of setup data before hand but have some useful comparisons and the costs are pretty minimal as the equipment is obviously still there.

The only problem with this is that the current 20 race calendar makes such ideas pretty impossible logistically.

The other problem with introducing mass testing is the engineers, mechanics and designers have to do more work - to the point possibly where we start going back to having dedicated test teams in the top teams, pushing costs up again. Your Friday idea would work better for this though...but then again how useful is it being able to run more than just the 3 hours normally allowed on Fridays? Considering the number of laps put in pre-season testing, I don't think we would see a huge amount of track action if they had that much longer.

nissman
Totally agree with Pedro.

Also, teams like HRT and Virgin should be allowed more testing than others teams, simply becouse they need to catch up.
Click to expand...

HRT and Virgin need money. Giving them additional test days not only means they need even more money to actually make use of those test days but its also pretty useless considering you can't find 3-4 seconds of pace simply by testing, you only find that amount of time by designing an entirely new car. At best, in season testing can improve a car by tenths and maybe 1 second. But it wouldn't magically put them on pace (though money doesn't do that either...it sure helps a lot more).
 
Last edited:
Ardius
The only problem with this is that the current 20 race calendar makes such ideas pretty impossible logistically.
Click to expand...
And yet, the teams were able to stay in Abu Dhabi for three days after the race.

All it would take is the strategic allocation of calendar slots to allow for two- or three-day tests after a race and give the teams enough time to get to the next event.
 
Well we can already rule out any temporary circuits simply on the grounds of organisation and cost to their respective cities:
Monaco, Valencia, Singapore and Melbourne are not possible then.
Shanghai, Hockenheim, Spa and India are followed immediately by races so they are not suitable.
The rest all have mostly 2 week gaps. Now I don't know how much more hassle it would be but I imagine the teams are already fairly close to the edge of struggling to make each race in time. Certainly the noises they make indicate that and if you ever watch any of the post-race footage of many of GPs (particularly BBC's Ted Kravitz blog) you'll see that they are in a heck of rush most of the time to get out and onto the next race.
For many of the races they actually ship spare stuff ahead of time. This is maybe why the Abu Dhabi tests were possible, especially as its the end of the season and its perhaps easier to ship out parts that aren't needed again elsehwere (for example, most teams have 3 or 4 chassis, so they maybe send 2 chassis to Abu Dhabi and 2 to Brazil as they aren't likely to need any more spares as its the end of the season).
 
If the teams know that a test is scheduled for the Monday-Wednesday after a Grand Prix, they could send equipment there in advance. Because the teams regularly swap out their equipment - they do it at least once during the flyaway legs - the trick is to find events where new equipment will be waiting. That way, the team can collect their new equipment, forward it on to the next race and remain back at the circuit with the resting equipment and the old stuff. Bahrain is two weeks before Spain, and ideally placed to be a testing venue. And the Hungaroring would also work, because it's a month before Spa (although there is a mandatory two-week factory shut-down, most teams prefer to take the middle two weeks off). By the time we get to the end of the European season, most of the teams are already focusing on their cars for the next season.
 
The biggest problem with the testing ban is that it really makes it hard for a team to give rookies a chance. How many times in the past a rookie got a testing position and after proving themselves, got a shot as a driver. Drivers like Hill, Coulthard, and Massa come to mind.

And if a reserve driver has to replace someone today we see the Badoer fiasco, which clearly is bad for the sport.

Ardius
HRT and Virgin need money. Giving them additional test days not only means they need even more money to actually make use of those test days but its also pretty useless considering you can't find 3-4 seconds of pace simply by testing, you only find that amount of time by designing an entirely new car. At best, in season testing can improve a car by tenths and maybe 1 second. But it wouldn't magically put them on pace (though money doesn't do that either...it sure helps a lot more).
Click to expand...

I actually disagree with that. Big teams can test their new parts in their super expensive wind tunnels, whereas smaller teams may not have the same luxury. Besides, big teams will always find a way to spend more money and have a technical advantage over smaller teams.

Also, I see a lot of times small teams trying new parts and failing. I know at some point this season Williams brought some updates that made the car worse, so they had to drop it. Plus, think if Renault had proper time to test their forward exaust system. They'd probably be able to find out it doesn't work fairly quickly, as opposed to waisting the whole season the way they did.
 
tibiquera
I actually disagree with that. Big teams can test their new parts in their super expensive wind tunnels, whereas smaller teams may not have the same luxury.
Click to expand...

ALL teams use wind tunnels and CFD.
The difference is the person designing the parts.
 
hampus_dh
ALL teams use wind tunnels and CFD.
The difference is the person designing the parts.
Click to expand...

I don't know the specifics, but I'd believe the ones owned by the top teams are poabably more advanced. Plus, I thought Virgin originally didn't have one. Did they eventually get one?
 
tibiquera
I don't know the specifics, but I'd believe the ones owned by the top teams are poabably more advanced. Plus, I thought Virgin originally didn't have one. Did they eventually get one?
Click to expand...

Virgin have use of Mclarens wind tunnel. (I'm pretty sure its virgin who use it aswell)


OT but its funny though how even mclaren can't solve the problem of static shocks from their wind tunnel (rolling road van de graf generator).
 
tibiquera
I don't know the specifics, but I'd believe the ones owned by the top teams are poabably more advanced. Plus, I thought Virgin originally didn't have one. Did they eventually get one?
Click to expand...

Most smaller teams have signed a partnership with bigger teams to get technology or other stuff. Basically a helping hand.

Virgin found out the hard way that you have to use a wind tunnel aswell.
But as computers get more advanced there might be a time when teams can rely on pure computing power.

Ferrari had problems with their wind tunnel so they borrowed Toyota´s for a while.

I think that Sauber´s and Toyota have the best wind tunnels, or the most advanced, state of the art ones.
 
I bet you Newey would come up with far better aero packs in a non state of the art wind tunnel then a relatively green person in a super modern facility.

Sauber has one of the best wind tunnels there is yet it barely shows on the car. Thus it´s the person designing the parts that is more important then what state your wind tunnel is in.
 
Probably, but didn't you originally indicate that the wind tunnel (or more like the available budget generally) makes little difference.

I wonder do the smallest teams even get to use all of the wind tunnel allocation (hours or days or whatever the exact rule says).
 
Paulie Walnuts
Probably, but didn't you originally indicate that the wind tunnel (or more like the available budget generally) makes little difference.
Click to expand...

Obviously money do good things but i´m just saying that having alot of money does not garantuee success.

If you took the Virgin team and gave them Ferrari´s budget. Do you think they would be fighting for victories the year after?

Or do you think that they need to learn themselves the hard way and make mistakes along the way until they got the Formula down on how to build a quick F1 car?
 
hampus_dh
Obviously money do good things but i´m just saying that having alot of money does not garantuee success.
Click to expand...
Indeed (case Toyota), but money enables success.

If you took the Virgin team and gave them Ferrari´s budget. Do you think they would be fighting for victories the year after?

Or do you think that they need to learn themselves the hard way and make mistakes along the way until they got the Formula down on how to build a quick F1 car?
Click to expand...
No, they wouldn't be, but no matter how many seasons they practice they will never be winners if the budget remains at the level they now have.

(Unrelated to your post) Somebody said earlier that in-season testing would increase costs for the small teams. Well, perhaps that could be compensated with better results. The sponsors would be more interested in them if they weren't guaranteed to be at the back of the grid all the time.
 
Paulie Walnuts
Indeed (case Toyota), but money enables success.
Click to expand...

Yes like i said, but to a certain extent.
Virgin could be a big spender if they wanted to but probably realise that it´s a total waste of money this early in the career.

Paulie Walnuts
No, they wouldn't be, but no matter how many seasons they practice they will never be winners if the budget remains at the level they now have.
Click to expand...

they will get better but not winners. I think Virgin will increase budget when the time is right.

Paulie Walnuts
(Unrelated to your post) Somebody said earlier that in-season testing would increase costs for the small teams. Well, perhaps that could be compensated with better results. The sponsors would be more interested in them if they weren't guaranteed to be at the back of the grid all the time.
Click to expand...

Question is how much you really can gain when the car is a complete dog though.

Bolded part: True but then again, one team has to finish last :)
My guess is that sponsors are expecting at the highest that they try to beat the other new teams.
 
Paulie Walnuts
No, they wouldn't be, but no matter how many seasons they practice they will never be winners if the budget remains at the level they now have.
Click to expand...



(cough, cough) Brawn!! (cough, cough)
 
hampus_dh
Obviously money do good things but i´m just saying that having alot of money does not garantuee success.

If you took the Virgin team and gave them Ferrari´s budget. Do you think they would be fighting for victories the year after?

Or do you think that they need to learn themselves the hard way and make mistakes along the way until they got the Formula down on how to build a quick F1 car?
Click to expand...

This is true, and if you look over their at that nice sitting area I'll tell you the story of Toyota and Honda F1 teams. hampus knows what I mean.
 
Justin
Which was really just Honda with a different engine and name.
Click to expand...

And being developed for 18 months and having a double diffuser which turned everyone on their heads except for RBR which had none but still was the beginning of an era and a very good car.
(yes i know RBR got a DD after a while aswell)
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
This is true, and if you look over their at that nice sitting area I'll tell you the story of Toyota and Honda F1 teams. hampus knows what I mean.
Click to expand...

Please do, i have forgot most of it, especially Honda. I just remember the hideous earth car. Great idea but man what an ugly car.

Really the only team you can say that almost made it in a short time was BMW.

2006, not championship winning material but fairly good.

2007, still not a championship winning car but would pick up the pieces if the bigger teams F´d up. Came second in the WCC.

2008, Built a car that could seriously fight for the championship,
Took pole in Bahrain that showed they had a very good strong car.
Kubica leading the championship halfway after securing a solid 1-2 finish at Montreal.

Ended up 3rd in the WCC due to switching focus on to 2009 with the new regulations.
Eventually ended up 4th for Kubica.

2009, well let´s not talk about 09 shall we. What a dog of a car that was.
Still could have won the first race maybe if it wasn´t for the little german who is now a 2-time champion.
 

Latest Posts

Back