Autosport reports Mr Toad's plan to reintroduce in-season testing, from 2012 if he can reach agreement with the teams or forced through in 2013 if he can't, in the form of three two-day tests. His argument is that the ban on testing has not delivered the cost reduction it was intended to because the big teams spend as much on running their simulators but I can't believe reintroducing it wouldn't give them an additional significant advantage over the smaller teams, who perhaps can't afford to go testing. The cynic in me wonders if this is an attempt to halt the steady decline of Ferrari, who dominated the first half of last decade as a result of being able to pound unrestricted round their private test circuits. It's clear that Todt does not suggest a return to those days, however, and that Ferrari would not have such an advantage over other teams again.
In Season testing will help HRT Lotus and Virgin the most as well as Williams as they need to find a bit more pace. Overall it will help everyone, but where in the calender will they find the time to test?? The summer break is already where everyone is considered to have a break and the factories shut down for 3 weeks.
Having each test follow on from a GP (on the Monday and Tuesday) should help to keep costs down but I'm not sure how much benefit this would be in terms of testing new parts. Under normal circumstances (notwithstanding McLaren's issues with its upgrades in Turkey) new parts would have been tested during the race weekend. Perhaps they could hold them on the Monday and Tuesday before a meeting, especially when there's a three-week gap between races.
I'm for it if they show it on the red button. Something to watch throughout the day. I think one 2 day session after a GP in a 2-3 week break is plenty.
Todt says yes, off BBC F1 gossip page Jean Todt, the president of governing body the FIA, said in a news conference the decision to have no in-season testing was "stupid". He is to ask the teams for their support in bringing back a limited amount next year. If they do not agree, he will do it unilaterally for 2013. I can see why people would oppose this, but I think it's a very good idea. Thoughts?
3 lots of 2 days a year sounds ok-ish If I was todt I would "impose" on them, all teams have a 3rd car with its own engine/gearbox allocation for the year which can only be used on mondays for monday testing and the race drivers aren't involved. The teams use their test driver for the morning session and a driver completely outside of F1 for the afternoon session or have no afternoon session at all. That way their is 1 extra driver per team constantly gaining experience throughout the year, the team can test/train other drivers and the teams have real data and sufficient on track time for development. Plus all staff and equipment are already at the track saving on expenses. edit: then all teams have the same amount of track time as well. Ferrari, McLaren, Red-Bull and Mercedes can't out test the smaller ones.
Autosport reports that the teams don't want to "go backwards" in terms of cost savings. No comment in the report from Ferrari.
Did RBR manage to operate within resource restrictions in 2010? I didn't notice any report but I remember the suspicions that they'd overspent. You could argue that RBR is the success story of cost cutting in F1 having come from a position well behind McLaren and Ferrari, thus not having the headache of wrestling with reining in its spending while fighting for championships. From that perspective I could see why Christian Horner would not be in favour of giving his adversaries the opportunity to claw back the gap to RBR through testing. He might not be so resistant if Milton Keynes was still getting beat by Brackley, Woking and Maranello. If Force India represents the views of the midfield then I wouldn't be surprised to see more strident opposition come from smaller teams. Team Lotus could perhaps afford to go testing but I doubt Virgin or HRT could, which would leave them falling further back even to the 107% zone. The resource restrictions in F1, including the ban on testing, is what enabled them to come into the sport. I'd be pretty upset if I were them if the FIA now started to promote costly changes. Of course, they were also promised a cost cap before their applications were accepted.
They should allow teams to test all day on a Friday with both cars but their race drivers should only be allowed to test for three hours out of the day and have their reserve/test drivers drive for the rest of the time.
Testing on Monday/Tuesday following a race doesn't work. Any new stuff should be used on Fridays or in the race. The teams will be analysing outcomes on the Monday/Tuesday, before creating work orders for updates back in the factory. Race intervals of 1 week also makes testing difficult.
Im sure HRT would be happy if it is in spain though they have had issues of getting through thier own countries customs.... They do have operations in the UK and rent the mercedes wind tunnel now too though so must have a bit of money behind them
Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions in presuming they wouldn't be able to afford to go testing. With HRT I'm basing that on what we've seen with pre-season testing and not being ready for the first race in 2010 and 2011. Horner and Otmar Szafnauer described how escalating costs would be due to setting up test teams but perhaps the likes of Virgin and HRT simply wouldn't if they couldn't afford to - they'd just use the personnel they have now.
If testing returns, they'll not be able to afford not to go testing, which of course was the whole justification of banning it in the first place. Testing will be of greatest benefit to those who can fully exploit it. It will therefore widen the gaps between teams and make the racing far less interesting if allowed to return to previous levels. Of course, there are imperfections with the 'no testing' rule, but just look at what has happened since its introduction: we have - until very recently with low-budget entries - seen the closest grids in the history of Grand Prix racing, from the front to the back of the grid. No prizes for guessing who stands to gain most if testing is reintroduced: Toadt's old team who are still given extra money in any case. I also have serious doubts that they went out of their way to reduce their own spending in line with their competitors, and of course they were the loudest mouth of objection to the concept of a budget cap too. Meanwhile, as far as I am aware, this cannot be said of their biggest perennial competitor who made a pretty genuine effort to comply with the ethos. Toadt's settling in period is drawing to a close and those who voiced concerns at his appointment are likely to begin to see an insidious, gradual erosion of their shelter, which may prove to have been nothing more than a temporary stemming of the tide…
Hmm, tough one to call, but if they want more testing, but also keep the costs down wouldn't it be better just to make FP1 & FP2 longer?
