Testing for teams that fail to meet the 107% time

[Nicholosophy]

Something I wrote in the HRT thread but thought could use its own thread.

What I would like to see is that if both cars of a team don't meet the 107% mark that they are allowed to run a test session the following Monday.

They are already at the track and there are tires there that haven't been used. The team could then run some miles and try to improve. This no testing thing is going to make it very hard for them.

I say both cars to stop teams having one car fail to start so they get extra testing. There really is no benefit if both cars don't race.

[Oldtony]

Great idea but in Melbourne they would have to fit in with the commuters on the way to work on Monday.
Only works at permanent circuits.

[Nicholosophy]

Well this is true. Perhaps in these cases it could be that they test at the next curcuit if appropriate on a Wednesday.

I can't see how it would turn a piece of poo into a championship winning car.

[EastonNeston]

Good idea, but I doubt if a team in HRT's situation could afford to meet the costs involved.

[OZ_HCR32]

Was talking about this yesterday whilst watching them almost get tripped over into turn 1 and 2 every lap they were out there circulating in P3.

You can help but think that HRT and Virgin are at a great risk of falling off the map well before mid season. If they have no sponsors, exist only to go from place to place and not even race...well sponsors, mechanics and the management are not going to bother.

So obviously HRT are at real risk, interesting to see how Virgin go over the next few races

[Super Hans]

An interesting idea, but F1 shouldn't be about giving extra perks to the unprepared.

[Tourer]

Thing is though, they had plenty of opportunity to test pre-season but for reasons best known to themselves, did not test.

F1 is and should be hard. Just getting a car onto the grid and to the chequered flag takes a great deal of work, focus and talent.

Personally, I think giving the cars that miss out additional testing should not happen - if HRT had actually run in all practice sessions at Albert Park, they may have actually got themselves into the race, so you could say that the future is in their hands. On the other hand, with HRT not running properly in the practice sessions, additional testing time wouldn't have helped them and we'd all be looking at an empty race track.

[Peter Mallett]

Nope.

If they can't cut it with the rest of the teams then they shouldn't be given any slack. This is a sport (supposedly) not a charity.

[Knowlesy]

No other motorsport does this. Why should F1?

[browney]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Nope.

If they can't cut it with the rest of the teams then they shouldn't be given any slack. This is a sport (supposedly) not a charity.

That only leads to a closed shop though. The other teams have a massive advantage with all the knowledge they have gained over the years (as of course they should have), the new teams don't have that and there isn't the opportunity to make any relative improvements to the other teams.

I don't see allowing these teams to test, especially using their own funds is really charity. Just an acknowledgement of their lack of expertise.

Stopping new teams testing makes entering F1 a self-fulfilling prophecy if you can't improve quite quickly then you will never attract sponsors and thus keep not improving until you disappear with a lack of funds. This would be a sensible measure if we want a grid of more cars.

Whether or not HRT and Virgin were adequately prepared to enter F1 is another question. The FIA also managed to pick USF1, so I have confidence that they had an adequate selection criteria. However, as these are the teams we have, it would be good if they could stick around long enough to have teams worth selling to the next group who'd like to try their luck.

[Peter Mallett]

But the point is why cut these teams any slack? They knew the rules when they entered, do you want to make the fact that they are slow someone else's fault?

If the rules went back to unlimited testing they'd be useless anyway.

So I'm with Brundle on this. If they can't cut it in the real world, drop them.

[Tourer]

There is no way that F1 should become a shrine to mediocrity, if these guys can't make 107% in year 2 of their F1 programs with the existing (same as the other teams) testing and practice times, they don't deserve to be out there getting in the way of teams who actually know what they are doing.

[browney]

I understand your point and we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think we are better off with rules that help the struggling teams get up to at least backmarker pace (up from mobile chicane pace). That doesn't mean letting them test more up untill the point where they are challanging Red Bull, but allowing them some extra time to develop an F1 standard car.

I also disagree about your unlimited testing point. I think the teams could test more, the slowest teams would see the biggest advantage, while the top teams would see diminishing returns.

Without doing this, I think it will keep being almost impossible to get success from a completely new team, with the extremely limited testing rules.

Looking at it the other way. Without testing, how does a new team make any gains on an experienced team and thus start attracting the sponsors required to stay afloat?

This isn't the real world, this is a sport, which fundamentally exists to make money for the promoters. This occurs through an exciting product which people want to watch.

[GolddustMini]

surely a system as proposed punishes the rear most of the qualifying teams (i.e lotus and virgin) who have built a car that is just quick enough to qualify so are not allowed any extra testing to improve, whereas the non qualifying teams are allowed the extra testing to catch up with them.

I'm of the opinion that they are given about 4.5hrs of testing every race weekend anyway, why should the system bend over backwards for a team who rocked up to the (what is in reality) the second race of the season with two tubs and built them in this time that was available to gain mileage. its no one else's fault but their own unfortunately.


would this 'extra testing' be called for if it was virgin outside the 107% ? not sure it would be.

[browney]

I'd think about giving an extra two or three tests (not after every race) a year to any team, for the first three years and maybe one extra test to the bottom 5 finishing teams, the following year.

I actually think F1 is one of the few sports that doesn't help new teams. For example, the Gold Coast team just entering the AFL has been given a heap of help because the AFL knows that if they started from scratch, they would be terrible and thus have no sponsors or supporters and fold within a couple of years. Maybe they went too far in this, but the concept seems correct.

[Peter Mallett]

This all smacks of socialism. "Let's lower the standards so people won't feel left out". The opposite of what it should be which is to encourage excellence.

There's no logic to cutting slack to failures.

As to other sports? Ok, lets give eny team playing against Manchester United a five goal advantage.

[GolddustMini]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

This all smacks of socialism. "Let's lower the standards so people won't feel left out". The opposite of what it should be which is to encourage excellence.

There's no logic to cutting slack to failures.

As to other sports? Ok, lets give eny team playing against Manchester United a five goal advantage.

maybe we could balast the quicker cars to bunch the field up a bit and benefit those that are slower. im thinking about 300kg (or maybe a 2 berth caravan...) should just about do it


I have another idea involving reverse grids, id love to see the likes of vettel doing J turns off of the startline then setting off in chase of the HRTs

[browney]

I knew this thread couldn't go on without someone mentioning socialism (where's Glen Beck? Could someone mention Nazis too! - tongue in cheek, of course)....

I don't think that allowing a new team to test more does anything to discourage excellence, it might just help some new teams survive those first, really tough years, so they can establish themselves.

No-one (well not me) would ever suggest ballast, reverse grids or anything like that to penalise all the successful teams. I even hate the stupid wing that only works when you are within a second of the driver infront. It's just that the current rules seem to give a massive advantage to established teams and drivers, who have the benefit of many years of unrestricted testing that the new teams and drivers will never get.

[GolddustMini]

maybe a cheaper and more workable option would be a men in black style zapper, get everyone together from each of the established teams, a quick zap with the zapper "you have never built a formula one car, you work for a formula one team but have never designed a car, you are however a competant aero/mech/designer" and then let them free to start again.

and its a workable solution as well, the only initial outlay would be buying the existing technology from will smith and tommy lee jones. (he might even perform "the fresh prince of belair" as well if your lucky

[Peter Mallett]

Just think, if this was the mindset back in the day, all the teams would be as good as Andrea Moda!

[browney]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

As to other sports? Ok, lets give eny team playing against Manchester United a five goal advantage.

No, that'd be as silly as giving relegated teams "parachute" money to help them cope with the drop in funding from being relegated, rather than letting them live in the 'real world'

[EastonNeston]

IT was HRT's decision not to build their car until this weekend, they were fully aware of when the season started and their contractual obligations to compete.

It could be argued that by failing to present to cars that were fit for purpose they have breached those obligations and could be excluded from the series.

[Paradise City]

I don't think so. It's F1 not an intensive care ward.

If a team can't make the 107% then tough.

[duke_toaster]

I don't think it's really a good idea to give just a team that got 107%'d the extra testing, that would be extremely unfair on Lotus and Virgin. 2005-style third cars probably aren't that much of a good idea, but I wouldn't mind the return of two in-season tests, you could possibly allow extra milage for the teams that are lower in the WCC or something like that.

[Paradise City]

They should make Friday a long test-day. The whole regime where they can barely test at all is something I don't like.

HRT needs new owners pronto.