Definitely. It's just a shame that, for once, HRT and Marussia were ready to bring their new cars to testing the year the FIA decides that they have to pass crash tests before testing. Testing would allow them to sort out any gremlins other than crash structures. They will still have some opportunity to do this in Australia during free practice sessions but on a much busier circuit than what they'd get in testing. I can understand why the FIA introduced the new rule on safety grounds but, with so little time to build the new car between seasons, I hope they change this requirement next year. They could demand that cars are crash-tested before testing, so the teams that fail know how and why they failed, but passing the crash tests should be mandatory only prior to the first event. I completely agree, and this should also be extended to prize money/added value retainers, but at least Red Bull has wheedled its way in and perhaps this will open the floodgates. Ferrari has always been exceptionally good at playing a weak hand strongly and I believe there is minimal risk of them leaving F1 if all special treatment is withdrawn.
Vettel and Hamilton on the same days again. Hope Hamilton beats him in at least one of them to see what Benson comes out with, he'll probably demand a headline slot on the BBC News homepage as well as the sport.
Nearly all Sporting associations are corrupt to the core, a side/competitor that brings in the big bucks will always be more equal than everyone else.
But what if the driver suffers a freak accident in testing. Surely with an unsafe car that hasn't passed crash tests than this could lead to serious damage to the driver and even death.
There's not much they can do to protect against freak accidents. The crash tests don't even provide full protection against high speed accidents - did someone say they only test up to 135mph? So if there's a freak accident - blown tyre, failed rear wing, collapsed suspension, etc. - on a fast straight then the crash structures will only absorb a proportion of the impact. However, the cause of those freak accidents may have been identified during testing on a sparsely populated track if it weren't for the new rules. Instead, they'll now only come to light during free practice, perhaps when all twenty-four cars are on track running qualifying setups.
I won't pass judgement on the close contests at McLaren and Force India, but all of the other teams who are staggering their days have picked the driver who has achieved more in F1 on the 2nd and 4th.
Details of the tests if anyone's interested: Roll Structure Test. Static Load Tests. Impact Tests. It shows just how stringent they are, failing a test doesn't necessarily mean the car is unsafe. It depends what they fail and how badly, but I'd suggest 99% of the time it would be safer to allow a team to take part in the last test than forcing them to run the car for the first time at a grand prix.
This is indeed the logic of the FIA's new requirement. Freak accidents will always happen sooner or later, but the crash tests are specifically to establish conformity with a safety margin after the wheel has come off.
I understand your logic AG but the primary requirement is to establish driver safety through structural tests before being allowed out onto a track in the first place. Only then should lesser components take centre stage by being put through their paces through the normal practice of testing.
But does failing one test by a small amount make the car unsafe? The safety tolerances here a massive, the roll hoop, which HRT failed on, has to withstand about 15 times the weight of the car. In the event of the car flipping over on the test track, I think the driver will be fairly safe with a roll hoop which can only withstand a meagre 8 tonnes, but if the rear wing flies off on the run to the first corner in Australia and an airborne HRT decapitates a Caterham driver it's going to be a grave error making them miss that final test. It's all ifs and buts, but in my opinion it's a mistake to make them miss this test, assuming the car hasn't completely fell to pieces during a crash test.
If a team isn't ready for FP1 then in my opinion they shouldn't race. Unless there's an extreme circumstance not being ready for the first race suggests your car isn't ready to be raced, and is therefore unsafe in todays world.
I know what you're saying here AG, but it is vital that some standard is set and consistently adhered to. It's a bit like grading something; even examination results or the 'better' (higher standard ) Advanced Driving Tests: the lines drawn must not be fuzzy but must be clearly understood. This sets very clear criteria, without which the very concept of a standard is rendered meaningless. As soon as one begins to allow exceptions of any sort, the whole foundations upon which the ideology is based begins to be eroded. I set exams and regularly test people against the relevant criteria. I also modify the tests when it is shown that they might be improved for the benefit of all. Any 'test' of any sort is designed to ensure a standard that things must reach as a minimum. Therefore one would hope that any such test be sufficiently rigorous to be respected. The moment exceptions are introduced, the whole integrity of the test is brought into question, whether or not it directly impacts upon specific aspects of what is being tested, regardless of triviality or seriousness. I hope that I do not give the impression that discretion and common-sense must be discounted; obviously these things are important. But once the discretion and common-sense has established a 'standard', this discretion and common-sense itself - which provided the basis for the test - becomes questionable if it does not adhere to its own standard! Testing procedures themselves will necessarily evolve and be refined according to discretionary factors; but until such evolution occurs through a re-writing of the test (or the complete abandonment of it), the test is only valid if its standards are respected as self-consistent.
AG, why do you think an untested car is unsafe? Cars and their components are all subject to stringent checks in the factory before they even make it to the car to make sure their stress loads are up to scratch. Lets be honest, how many cars acutally suffered any king of dangerous issue during their tests this year, last year, or any year which could not have occured during the normal course of a racing weekend? Teams test new components at the start of every race weekend without them being tested elsewhere, that includes wings, suspension parts etc. Are these dangerous? We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Too different logical paths will rarely meet in the middle (talkng of 'logic' where's Martial these days!?)
No, but if they let it go and there was an accident in testing and someone died, the resultant lawsuit could, theoretically, finish F1. The world is litigation happy and it just isn't worth it. I don't know why people think the cars are going to be dangerous simply because they havn't been on a tarmac track with other cars. The crash tests are there to make sure the cars are safe, it is not the same as testing, I really can't understand why people think a car that didn't run at testing will be dangerous, do they think the cars are dangerous when they get upgraded? NOOOOO, but none of the upgrades they'll get this season would have been tested prior to race day, and they can put any type of dangerous upgrade without any sort of safety test, would ferrari's front wing 'propellor' passed? no, but I didn't hear anyone saying they should not be allowed to race. This is just people having another dig at HRT for any old reason they can think up.
Neither AG nor I have ever said that an untested car is definitely unsafe. However, it IS unpredictable and as AG put it a while back, would you be happy charging down to the first corner with two cars that have done a maximum of about 30 laps charging down behind you? By denying Marussia and HRT any extra chance of testing, that is the scenario that the FIA are potentially creating.
I can't ever recall a car having a major shunt in testing, so I don't see why this rule has been introduced now. Obviously prevention is better than cure, and these things ideally should be addressed before they become an issue. We'll have to wait and see how this one pans out. I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that neither of HRT or Marussia's drivers would have been endangered during testing. We'll see if any situations arise at the first couple of grands prix that may have been avoidable. Like you say though, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this and hope this issue doesn't rear its head in Australia. I've only criticised the FIA over this.
As opposed to a car mid-way thourgh the season charging down to the first corner with new wings and suspension components that haven't been tested? Why the beef about all this? If a car has made it through practice without incident, is inside the 107% then it can race. The teams check the components of their car after every session, so if it is clear there are issues with it, then it will be replaced, or in some cases teams have withdrawn their cars completely. Lots of teams are turning up to the first GP with lots up 'untested' modifications to their cars, this will include suspension mods, wings, in thoery any component on the car can change between now and the first race.
TBH it wouldn't even cross my mind. I think there's far too many paranoid people, do you all watch Fox 'be afraid, be very afraid' News or something. The last thing most drivers ever think about is safety, if they did they wouldn't be racing drivers. But given the choice, I'd rather drive a car that's passed crash (and rolling road) tests that hasn't been around a track than on that hadn't but had been around a track. (although, tbh, I wouldn't care either way, I have a touch of the Bellofs when on track)
