And then there were eight....

Super Tourer · 8 Dec 2004, 11:20 (Ref:1174230)

Barely a week ago we were told that nine teams had agreed a set of proposals, leaving Ferrari as the sole dissenting voice.

As we know 'agreement' in F1 usually means someone agree's until they have thought about it and then changed their mind.

Honda have now reportedly rejected the teams proposal as well, thinking that the cut in testing to 24 days is "too drastic".

Hopes that a move by nine of the Formula 1 teams to limit testing to just 24 days during the season will be rubber-stamped early next year appear to have been dashed, with Japanese car manufacturer Honda now set to reject the proposal

Instead, Honda is believed to welcome a much less dramatic testing limit - with a figure nearer the 30-day mark being suggested as the way forward for next year. The company is particularly keen to conduct as much testing as its believes to be feasible because it is on the verge of a fight for the world championship.

One insider told autosport.com: “Honda clearly wants to reduce costs in Formula 1 but believes it would be more realistic to not cut back on testing as dramatically as is being suggested by the 24-day limit. I think a compromise may eventually be reached between what they want and what the other teams want.”

From:www.autosport.com

Glen · 8 Dec 2004, 11:40 (Ref:1174240)

The whole thing is tenuous in the extreme - what happens if McLaren repeat their mistakes of the last two years and can't get their new car reliable, or fast, or both? Ditto Williams. They woud be as quick to break the agreement as Ferrari have been to dismiss it.

Super Tourer · 8 Dec 2004, 11:43 (Ref:1174245)

That is a very valid point - both teams turned around what could have been even more disasterous seasons via extensive testing.

Glen · 8 Dec 2004, 11:49 (Ref:1174250)

BAR and Renault too - they could not have kept up the mutual pressure in 2004 without testing in the late season... the temptation to keep pushing will be impossible to resist, especially if even one other team has gone outside the limit.

BootsOntheSide · 8 Dec 2004, 12:00 (Ref:1174262)

A 30-day testing limit seems reasonable enough, and would certainly represent progress in cost-cutting, but I still thing reducing technology (especially the stuff which reduces driver input and/or makes the cars less exciting to watch / less suited to overtaking) is a better way to cut costs, and would have more immediate benefits in terms of the qualty of the show.

Glen · 8 Dec 2004, 12:21 (Ref:1174280)

Remove the engine technology and you remove the engine manufacturers. Honda, Mercedes, BMW etc don't want to be involved without the electronics.

krt917 · 8 Dec 2004, 12:23 (Ref:1174283)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

A 30-day testing limit seems reasonable enough, and would certainly represent progress in cost-cutting, but I still thing reducing technology (especially the stuff which reduces driver input and/or makes the cars less exciting to watch / less suited to overtaking) is a better way to cut costs, and would have more immediate benefits in terms of the qualty of the show.

I agree!

However, the manufacturers won't like that, so it's going to be a long wait (may never happen).

Super Tourer · 8 Dec 2004, 12:35 (Ref:1174294)

It's the old story though - if they moved the figure to 30, then someone else will want 35 and so on.

This ruling by committee is a disaster. I remember Max Mosely smiling like a cheshire cat after that Monaco meeting, telling us it couldn't have gone better and that the teams agreed with almost everything , only to see the agreement turn to dust in a matter of days.

I can never make out why the teams have to drip feed their decisions, why not dis-agree at the time, not appear to agree then change their mind before the door has shut behind them.

RWC · 8 Dec 2004, 12:58 (Ref:1174312)

Let's face it-this whole testing restriction thing was never going to work

Until they find some way of FORCING ferrari to agree it's all worthless...
and it looks abit like that might possibly happen -going by a comment at grandprix.com

They mentioned that the fia might do a two teir thing again,with those doing restricted testing being allowed to run at the racetracks on friday.
Sounds like a very sensible solution.In fact it's been suggested before on this forum hasn't it ?

You know at one stage i even thought the whole french and brit GP thing was a way of getting ferrari to obey...by making them world championship rounds but not allowing ferrari to run..(is that possible??)
Why on earth would i imagine such a weird thing? H*ll who knows what would happen next in f1

Marbot · 8 Dec 2004, 13:03 (Ref:1174315)

Sure Honda want 30 days and Ferrari will want it to stay exactly as it is, which was the trojan horse(everyone can test as they like if you don't agree to our proposals)they used at the meeting,interesting that Sauber didn't turn up either....and then there were seven.

BootsOntheSide · 8 Dec 2004, 13:05 (Ref:1174317)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RWC

They mentioned that the fia might do a two teir thing again,with those doing restricted testing being allowed to run at the racetracks on friday.
Sounds like a very sensible solution.In fact it's been suggested before on this forum hasn't it ?

You know at one stage i even thought the whole french and brit GP thing was a way of getting ferrari to obey...by making them world championship rounds but not allowing ferrari to run..(is that possible??)
Why on earth would i imagine such a weird thing? H*ll who knows what would happen next in f1

Isn't the two-tier testing exactly what they did in 2003? Seemed to work well then, with the teams who did Fridays getting an advantage earlier in the season but ultimately being overhauled.

As for the France/Britain thing, I think you've misunderstood. The thing was that if Ferrari refused to agree to the restricted testing, the rule change allowing for more than 17 races permenantly wouldn't go through, so tehre'd be no races in France or Britain, and Ferrari would be responsible. A little unfair really - it's not Ferrari who decided to stuff the loyal fans in favour of ambitious but ill-founded Tilke-rings in far-flung places.

Gt_R · 8 Dec 2004, 15:19 (Ref:1174395)

Hhahah.. Wow..so much for the "honour" of the 9 teams... duh.

I'm sorry for being cynical, but i honestly think the 9 teams should just forget these pussy ideas thrown around in a bid to cut back on Ferrari's advantage while trying to gain their own unfair advantage over Ferrari. What's with their latest suggestions? They are trying to get FIA to approve those 9 teams who agree to 24 day testings to be allowed 4 extra hours testing and a third car on raceweekend...in effect trying to gain significantly more time to set up on a race track. Sure..Minardi and Jordans would still line up at the back, but i'm amused that with all the "high moral" talk... the likes of Flavio and Dennis would stoop to such extent and desperation just to win.

Of course, nothing is mentioned against the teams who suggest this idea.

FIA should stop allowing teams to carry out such stupid collaborating between teams or teams trying to set rules (from Ferrari down to the lows) and carefully impose a set of rules which is fair for all.

Its very unfortunate that at a moment where what we need are people who are able to rise to the challenge and try to win from Ferrari, those people are more interested in dragging Ferrari down. So much for the better of the sports..and Honda is just the first sign of crack in a selfish game of politics.

Knowlesy · 8 Dec 2004, 18:36 (Ref:1174562)

Yawn......

ASCII Man · 8 Dec 2004, 19:35 (Ref:1174620)

Sigh......

Well, at least he said he's sorry...

Don K · 8 Dec 2004, 23:17 (Ref:1174834)

I don't quite understand what is happening.

:confused:

At the moment, Ferrari has got the best car.

So if *all* teams decide to bring the amount of testing seriously down, it would probably mean that Ferrari will stay ahead.

In other words, it looks to me as if Ferrari wants to have a situation in which the other teams have a chance to be competitive, while the other teams are trying to create a situation in which Ferrari will stay comfortably ahead.

Jordi · 8 Dec 2004, 23:28 (Ref:1174845)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gt_R

They are trying to get FIA to approve those 9 teams who agree to 24 day testings to be allowed 4 extra hours testing and a third car on raceweekend...in effect trying to gain significantly more time to set up on a race track. Sure..Minardi and Jordans would still line up at the back, but i'm amused that with all the "high moral" talk... the likes of Flavio and Dennis would stoop to such extent and desperation just to win.

Just a little point, when Sauber signed at Brazil he asked for a change in the wording - those 4 hours would not be "testing", but "practice", so all the rules about engines and tyres would be in effect. It wouldn't be unlimited testing.

RWC · 9 Dec 2004, 10:45 (Ref:1175148)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don K

I don't quite understand what is happening.

:confused:

At the moment, Ferrari has got the best car.

So if *all* teams decide to bring the amount of testing seriously down, it would probably mean that Ferrari will stay ahead.

In other words, it looks to me as if Ferrari wants to have a situation in which the other teams have a chance to be competitive, while the other teams are trying to create a situation in which Ferrari will stay comfortably ahead.

And yes you would be right.
So much for the anti ferrari consiracy theories!
Of course the whole point is to reduce costs -and testing is the biggest waste of $.
So the 9 teams' idea is good after all.Pity they had to get involved in that bernie led brit and france race guarantee...which is no guarantee watsoever

Now if the fia had any b*lls at all they would simply allow the friday testing to those teams that restrict their between race testing

IF they had the b*lls

Gt_R · 9 Dec 2004, 12:37 (Ref:1175223)

Honestly,and i mean honestly calling for a serious discussion (and maybe even enlightenment), i can't understand how the proposals of the 9 teams could be praised yet Ferrari be crushed for putting forward their own proposals. This double standard of acceptance of proposal doesn't seem to tally with the virtues of the details in proposal.

I would have expected an even hand at looking at the proposals submitted and i think both proposals are equally flawed.

1) In the 9 team's proposal, what they want is basically call for a so-called clamp down on testing, yet having Michelin able to run 7 times the amount of testing than Bridgestone. Nobody seem to find such an arrangement unfair, yet with Ferrari's proposals which effectively mean BS and Mich getting similar testing mileage, but Ferrari potentially running 6 times the amount of rival teams... the 9 team owners and fans suddenly became aware of such a "difference" in their disadvantage.

2) After the two meetings which the 9 teams put out their proposals, Dennis/Richards/Stoddart/Flavio were quick to criticise Ferrari for not doing things for the better of the sports. They openly called for Ferrari to (paraphrase) "accept the proposal for the better of the sport, and put aside their own interest". Yet, with Ferrari's proposal, the teams fail to practice what they preach... hypocritical?

3) Many fail to understand the different reason for Ferrari's objection. Ferrari had spent huge investment sums in their track-testing facilities. What the 9 teams propose render all the investments useless and worthless. Put yourself in Ferrari's shoes..would you do it? It is as good as telling Sauber or Williams to close down their new windtunnel after it's built, or ban Mclaren from using the new factory after it's completion. Furthermore, Ferrari needs the testing miles to bring their tyres on par with that of Michelin next year, and this is extremely crucial due to the new regulations.

Could people shed light on the first two points? I just couldn't understand how this logic works. And it is increasingly frustrating, that with every year of Ferrari's domination, the intensity from outside factors FIA and rival teams to forcefully remove Ferrari from competitiveness is increasing. Maybe for a moment, put aside the dislike for Ferrari if possible (almost not) and discuss.

I'm not saying Ferrari's right, that's why i don't vocally support Ferrari's proposal as yet. But in any case, it is definitely not inferior, nor more unfair, than the one submitted by the others.

RWC · 9 Dec 2004, 12:38 (Ref:1175224)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

As for the France/Britain thing, I think you've misunderstood. The thing was that if Ferrari refused to agree to the restricted testing, the rule change allowing for more than 17 races permenantly wouldn't go through, so tehre'd be no races in France or Britain, and Ferrari would be responsible. A little unfair really - it's not Ferrari who decided to stuff the loyal fans in favour of ambitious but ill-founded Tilke-rings in far-flung places.

Yeah i didn't even understand it enough to MISSunderstand it

It was totally bizzare all the way through.
Every website was saying that:
a) the Fr and Br GP's were now saved and WOULD go ahead
b)these new testing agreements were allready passed-it was a done deal
c)Ferrari had been snookered and couldn't back out

Now,looking back i'm thinking how on earth it was that all of this came to be??
How was it that bernie tried to talk the teams into doing something that was never going to work?
The more i look back on it now,the more it looks like an incredibly desperate attempt by bern to shift blame to someone else for dropping the brittish and french GP's

f1 politics have allways been abit confusing but this one is the weirdest i can remember

Super Tourer · 9 Dec 2004, 13:45 (Ref:1175305)

On the point of teams on Bridgestone v Michelin, it's pretty clear that Bridgestone only really design and develop a tyre for Ferrari. Michelin are much more open about building a spec car that will work across all the teams that use them. Therefore Ferrari and Bridgestone have effectively created this testing situation themselves, if other teams thought they would benefit from running Bridgestones they would. This is highlighted by Sauber who despite their 'close' relationship with Ferrari, feel they will be much better served by running on Michelins.

So, with Ferrari and Bridgestone effectively putting all their eggs into each others baskets, they have limited data collection and development to themsleves. This is simply market forces and not an unfair advantage. If Bridgestone wanted to court more teams and convince them that they are not just focused on Ferrari, they would have more teams running their tyres and get more overall mileage as a result.

The point about Wind tunnels v test tracks is a fair one, it's been obvious that both McLaren and Williams have been burnt by over reliance on wind tunnel numbers that didn't work in practice and they had to resolve those problems via extensive testing.

The acutal Ferrari tyre testing proposal was always going to rub the other's teams nose in it, as it was clear that all the Michelin teams would have to divide their 15k km between them whereas Ferrari would have Bridgestones 15k km to themselves, as Jordan and Minardi can barely afford to turn a wheel outside a GP weekend.

The solution though is to my mind very simple. Set an overall test limit of say 40 days, but include in that the friday free practice day or even make the Thursday a testing session - all the cars, personnel and equipment are already at the track, so it is bound to be cost cutting. Therefore if we have 19 races, that leaves 21 days of testing on their own tracks or other venues. This brings the engine mileage issue, but the FIA could allow the teams to fit a fresh engine to run on Saturday and Sunday.