I always thought Monday testing after a race was the sensible thing to do. A few Mondays here and there, everything you need will already be in place.
Why not tag it on the front (Thursday)? That way they can test components before they race with them. It would be so frustrating for a team to test something on a Monday knowing that they could not use it till the next race no matter how good the part was. Then again if they crash badly on the Thursday they then have less parts for the Race weekend maybe Monday would be better?
The problem with testing being 'tagged on' to another event, whether before or after it, is largely logistical; and perhaps most importantly, with a very full calendar, this is especially so for the less well-financed teams. In principal, I like the logical idea of arriving early (or staying late) at a venue â and it is not a new one â but an underlying subtlety is that weaker teams would likely be further disadvantaged by virtue of wealthier teams being more able to meet the significant extra costs and logistical demands, thus extending their advantage, and ultimately, reducing the competitive spectacle which keeps this boat afloat*. These kinds of problems are really only manifest in F1, due to its ultra-competitive, relatively unprescriptive nature. And I say that despite anticipating cynicism from those who feel F1 is already approaching something akin to a 'one-make' series. Believe me; it's not! To put it simply, in an idealised world where testing is an unrestricted 'free-for-all', competitiveness within the sport becomes compromised, and dullness follows with reduced public interest.** As for the subject matter of the title of this important thread, the whole concept of 'testing' at promotional events is governed by obscure (perhaps ineffective?) regulation. It should come as no surprise that the idea was first mooted by the wealthier teams (especially Ferrari in the early days; but latterly, Red Bull, who have made no secret of their desire to play Ferrari at their own game), and that they saw their own capacity to use any such 'event' as potentially exploitable. In a sense then, it is somewhat heartening to see a less well-financed team trying to compete in exploiting 'promotional' events, since if they choose to stand on their high-horses under the 'ethical' banner, it is they who lose out to the wealthier teams. Nonetheless, it is surely regulation (and its policing) which is ultimately at fault: the reality being that sufficient grey area is left that either the weak join in (reinforcing the existing system) or find themselves further exploited by the strong! - - -o0o- - - F1 is a 'formula'; however, a subtlety often unseen (from the public point of view) is that it is equally difficult to get this formula right enough, such that it fits with a workable, long-term game-plan for the sport itself. *Although it might be argued that more testing might help the would-be innovator, this is not borne out in practice. In fact, what happens is that any lead in development becomes extended, rather than being caught up. ** Historically this was not a problem because the public were a far smaller factor in the equation: they either turned up through pure enthusiasm, or didn't! 'The show' went on regardless because it was essentially for its competitors, not the public! In those days, it was not (and was never conceived as) 'a show'!! And therein lies an oft forgot, but lamented by those who remember, so-called 'purity' which only considered the weak from a noble (and truly honourable) perspective⦠If you don't like what you've got now, blame the 'system'⦠(Edit: I'll stop now because my continuation dissolves into the dark arena where politics meet sport, which I believe should never involve one-another. Besides, it wanders too far off-topic⦠)
Fair point and with retrospect it makes sense. However, if the test were pre agreed and mandatory after certain events and limited to set amount (say 4 or 5) then that would have to help all teams. This would have to be more cost effective than purposely going to an event on your own?
Maybe it's just time to drop organized tests and allow teams to test in private at tracks of their choice (local tracks) but add mileage restrictions to prevent the big hitters pounding around and around.
I don't mind the promotional events that the teams have. 100km is not a lot at all. The Jerez track is 4.428km, which only gives them 22 laps at that event. With in and out laps, that's not many at all. Jerez is also one of the shortest tracks the teams will run on this year, so they'd get even less laps elsewhere. I know the teams push the boundaries with promotional events and they use them when it best suits the development programs of their cars. But, I think the only thing they will be able to test is whether the car actually works. If the FIA really didn't like the teams using it for extra running, they'll make the rules stricter
