Races or Testing?

[Wrex]

The RPM program on channel 10 today talked about the number of races per year and the benefits of cost cuting by limiting testing.

They had interviews with most of the drivers and team managers and got their thoughts on more races and less testing.

Does'nt take a rocket scientist to work out we the fans would love more races. You can add the drivers to that as well, as most of them find testing hard work and boring.

I would assume (and I could be wrong) the sponsors would prefer races to testing, as television rarely watches testing, and I dont think most test tracks get 100,000 people watching either.

Which leaves us with the track owners, TV Networks, Team owners, Manufacturers and Bernie.

Surely Bernie gets more cash with more races, so I would hope he is on board. If the racing is any good, the TV networks should'nt have issue either. We also dont seem to be short of tracks wanting to host a GP.


Now we are getting down to it. Team owners and Manufacturers. Most of the team owners would jump at the chance to limit testing, and reduce the budget required to compete.

I heard Flav say they do 3 times the klms in testing that they do on race weekends in a year.

It will be hard to convince the top teams (like Ferrari) to do it though, as it is the big budget and private test track that helps them stay in front. Although I dont like it, I can hardly blame them.

I also think the big manufacturers are'nt keen either as the possibilty of that $100 million investment turning into a mouldering fire trackside does'nt make for advertising.

The idea of 20-25 races per year, with very limited testing sounds like the perfect way to me to cut costs, increase the benefits to sponsors, and keep us the fans happy.

Race weekends could also be extended 1 day in most cases allowing the klms to be done, without the hardship of freight and test teams.

The race weekends could be : Race - Race - Off every 3 weeks, with a 3 week gap mid season with a testing ban to allow the teams to rest.

Thoughts?

[Mr V]

Forget the 3 week summer ban, add another race in there

[Mattracer]

After last weekend's result, you would wonder about the relevance of testing if you are mid-field to begin with. Depressing!!

More races would be the go, it's supposed to be an entertainment after all, and more money goes around if the circus is on the road, travelling and performing.

[mac]

Racing, for sure.

Limit the testing to an equal and attainable amount for all teams - that is, an amount that even Minardi can always make - so all teams have the same amount of testing if they want it.

Have a minimum of 20 GPs in the year.

After all, F1 makes money racing, and spends money testing.

[f1atic]

Originally posted by Mr V
Forget the 3 week summer ban, add another race in there

I'm with you MrV. I think one of the things F1 has to do to generate greater revenues is have more races. If one looks at NASCAR (which I almost never watch) they race nearly every weekend. The races in Europe could be done weekly. Let's face it, Europe is little more than the equal to the Eastern US so moving from one venue to another in 3 days could be done - IF THEY WANTED TO DO SO.

[Gt_R]

I won't mind if they reduce the track testing to 1 test 1 week work out probs, and 1 test to check system, that's all.

Teams are doing crazy amount of track testing, i really wonder where's "efficiency".

And i won't object if they replace most testing with a new calendar of 20 races.

2 non-world championship races (points do not count), followed by 17 official races, then end with one non world championship race.

And teams are non allowed to field their regular drivers for the 3 non-world championship races.

[Snrub]

Precisely right on the big team's objections to reducing testing. Why would they want to do anything that would reduce their advantage and increase the advantage of the lower teams? Given the level of competition this year this would be the last thing Ferrrai, et al. would want to do.

[Kicking-back]

I don't want too many races - It cheapens the importance of individual events.

In Nascar, no one cares about race wins - it's all about points.

You have to keep the fans wanting more - not give them over exposure.

16-18 races is the limit.

[grumpy1]

Heres an idea.Why not ban the testing totally.
Before you all hit the roof here me out.Thursday is wasted to most teams so why not give each team a 1.5hr session in the afternoon to test.This will not only help develop the cars but also cut costs to the lower teams.Gone would be the so called unfair advantage of the larger teams.This would also give the lower ranked teams valuable track data.
The trade off more races a year.More money for Burnie and more races for the fans lower costs for the teams.

The Grumpy1

[deeks6]

ban testing totally, have 20 or 22 races so the Eorpean ones don't get dropped and, best of all -

Revive the Tasman Series...that way, the teams can roll out their new equipment (or even variations for each driver, or even a third car) and test under summer race conditions.

Yeah!

[Spudgun]

Originally posted by grumpy1
Heres an idea.Why not ban the testing totally.
Before you all hit the roof here me out.Thursday is wasted to most teams so why not give each team a 1.5hr session in the afternoon to test.This will not only help develop the cars but also cut costs to the lower teams.Gone would be the so called unfair advantage of the larger teams.This would also give the lower ranked teams valuable track data.
The trade off more races a year.More money for Burnie and more races for the fans lower costs for the teams.

The Grumpy1

I quite like this idea, but the big teams wouldn't be too pleased because they would be giving up a hell of a lot of testing mileage.

Perhaps if they were given the entire Thursday for what would be a conventional private test day. For example, for Silverstone tests the track is open 10am - 1pm and then 2pm - 5pm. If it was an 18 race calendar that would be 18 test days during the season.

It would save a bit of cash since they would be transporting the freight to the GP anyway, and also it would give third drivers some exposure to team bosses. A third point would be there would be more F1 for the spectators to watch.

For winter testing I think they should be allowed fairly unlimited running, except perhaps no testing before January 1st and/or no testing before the next season's car is launched.

[Rennen]

Testing serves a more important roll than many think...it's a popular misconception that modern F1 cars are 'easy to drive' (in every van drivers dreams he would beat that German given a run in an F1 car!) The truth is they are very technical and very physical...graduate drivers from F3/F3000/etc. need to test F1 cars for several good reasons;
1). There is no F1 drivers school, despite Ron Dennis once saying "It's not my job to train drivers" it is the teams who have to do it!

2). F1 cars exert enormous G forces, far higher than an F3000 or F3 car, an F1 drivers neck looses all it's extra muscle without testing every other week or so.

3). The cars very are complex bits of kit...way beyond F3/F3000, and comprise so many different engineers expensive systems which have to be tested by an expert driver, who isn't created overnight.

4). The better heeled teams have test teams who also need to learn their trades too and have the opportunity testing to graduate to the race teams. Were not just talking jobs here!

5). Motor manufactures and Tyre companies to name just two participants arn't in F1 for "entertainment" (mattracer)!!!
It's business...and ALL products have to be tested, tested, tested...and if it trains drivers too it's needed.

Limit testing by all means...but it has to stay...it's far too important...If only for safety!

[avsfan733]

testing on the track is all anyone ever thinks about. But no one ever realizes that banning testing will only recycle the money into the windtunnel budgets....wait the windtunnel already runs 24 hours a day, so lets just build another one for twice the cost of all our yearly testing

[climb]

Banningh testing could be dangerous: it allows drivers to get in touch with the car and have a better control on its behaviour, thus I don't think it would be good to ban them outright.
About adding more races I agree with those who say that an over-exposure would be negative; my choice is for decreasing a bit the testing, and increase correspondently the races (1-2 more would be good).
Testing is alsoi useful to keep many tracks working, since F1 testing is an important source of revenue, particularly fot those who don't host a F1 race, like Valencia etc.

[shiny side up!]

I would love to see more racing and less testing. As stated in many posts above, I think just about everyone save the big big money teams would win out in that scenario. That grumpy guy's idea of testing on Thursday would be pretty good, I think. Allow 3 cars for all teams on Thursday, 3 cars for the bottom 6 teams on Friday, and everyone is down to 2 for the 1-hour 12 lap qualies on Saturday (wishful thinking, I know... ).

There are problems with that scenario, though. 1 engine per weekend would certainly be difficult to swallow. Maybe one engine on Thursday/Friday, one on Saturday/Sunday. But if you have a 25 race calendar, that is 50 engines per year again. Also, what constitutes testing? Is running last year's Ferrari at Fiorno during the season considered testing? Certainly there would be benefit to do that (tires, engine, drivers...) if you could, playing into the hands of the money teams again. What about getting new blood into F1, waive the Superliscense requirements on Thursdays? And do you leave winter testing as-is?

:confused: