"Teams agree to 30 day test limit"

[Sodemo]

Just saw this article over at Autosport.com, and wondered if anyone knew what it was all about....?

[ralf fan]

Havent read anything on the other f1 sites.
As long as Kicking Back doesnt confirm it, it is a rumour...

[Super Tourer]

This is part of the neogtiation process the teams are undertaking to limit costs. The original scheme proposed by 9 teams (excluding Ferrari), was 24 days, but Honda then decided that was not enough and indicated that 30 days was more to their liking.

So, if the teams do decide on 30 days, it will be a compromise fromt heir original figure. Whether Ferrari agree to that is another matter.

[Kicking-back]

It makes sense - and will take the form of 10 tests of 3 days each.

Any more and they'd struggle to fit it in around nineteen races as you're already not allowed to test one week ahead of each race.

[Gt_R]

So far, only Autosports seem to pick this up.

30 days in the form of 10 tests of 3 days each is a far more realistic figure than the 10`days originally proposed. I pretty much expect that the manufacturer teams of the gang of 9 figure they run huge risk of being unable to compete with Ferrari since their attempt to force Ferrari into agreement failed, hence increasing the limit first to 24, and now to 30.

I think Paul Stoddart would be pulling his hair out now...forget 24 days . Minardi cannot even afford 12. Once again Paul was given false hope and have it dashed.

With the new calendar of more races, i pretty much think that Ferrari MIGHT just agree to it. This is because with more back to back races, ard 6 iirc, 30 days is about the most amount of testings they can squeeze in between the races. Hence, this 30 day limit isn't really much "significantuseful" in the sense that even without this limit, most teams would most probably still only run around 30 to 35 days testing.

I'd be curious to see Ferrari's reaction now that the initiative of the 9 teams are starting to weaken, if not crumble. Hopefully, all teams would agree on something FAIR and PURPOSEFUL instead of coming up with empty talks.

[RWC]

I STILL can't believe the teams let themselves be talked in to the testing limit idea in exchange for the extra (large) expense and effort of doing two extra races!
The test limits will be dictated by furrari...so why were they dealing with ecclestone when they knew he couldn't deliver anyway???!!
stupid stupid STUPID

Bernie is the only winner out of all this-he gets more bulk $ from two extra races
The fia look foolish and impotent as usual
Ferrari look like greedy bullies
The teams lose money and gain nothing unless ferrari want them to

[Gt_R]

I really don't want to go through this whole Ferrari vs 9 teams thing again..but honestly, don't make Ferrari sound like "greedy bullies" and as if the 9 teams were helpless victims of the "oh-so-sad cruel Bernie/FIA/Ferrari".

Nobody forced them to agree to the extra races, nobody forced them to come up with proposals and accept them without 100% consensus. Their proposals weren't entirely fair and useful to start with, and it just become more and more insignificant as the day-limit gets increasing with each meeting.

If you think the Mr Nice in each of the 9 teams are pitiful and being bullied...sigh...think again.

[Bellof]

what ppl tend to forget is the tyre situation.
no disrespect to minardi and jordan, but their contribution to the development of the bridgestones is about nil.
so every restriction on testing time will hit ferrari/bridgestone much harder than the michelin teams.
therfore you can't really blame ferrari for not swallowing this...

[courageous]

The thing is, how are they supposed to police such a rule when Ferrari have their own test track at the factory. Also, what consitutes a formula 1 test - what if Jordan loaned a car to Arden with some updates on it and Arden handed the data back to Jordan - Jordan haven't tested....

[Raglanparade]

Of if Ferrari run a sportscar with f1 components ??

[RWC]

Sorry- i didn't mean that ferrari were greedy bullies!

I meant that they now LOOK like greedy bullies-thanks to other factors having little to do with them

[Silk Cut Jaguar]

The teams wouldn't agree to extra races if they were going to make less money from the venture. Anything over 17 races needs their permission to go ahead and I suspect they're being nicely compensated for agreeing.

While I can understand Ferrari being against a test limit due to being the only forerunning Bridgestone shod car but if Bridgestone hadn't put all their eggs in one basket there would be other teams able to take up the tyre testing slack.

[Dixie Flatline]

I seem to recall Flavio saying a few months ago that he would prefer to go racing more than testing, so there should therefore be more races than testing. I also suspect that sponsors might be happier racing, as it gives them far more exposure than a day of the third driver doing lap after lap at a deserted track.

[RWC]

Originally Posted by Silk Cut Jaguar

The teams wouldn't agree to extra races if they were going to make less money from the venture. Anything over 17 races needs their permission to go ahead and I suspect they're being nicely compensated for agreeing.

The teams have allready stated that the extra races will COST them money

[Kicking-back]

Yes, they have RWC - but the extra races will also generate them money, so there may well be an overall gain.

[Gt_R]

I agree that a few more races would be good overall. Not only would teams be compensated/rewarded for the extra races, sponsors might like the increased exposure and hence more willing to back F1 teams. Furthermore, each space on the car would cost more than they currently do.

This would benefit high profile sponsors as well as manufacturer teams who want to market their brand to greater audience. But for small teams like Minardi/Jordan/Sauber, it would unlikely benefit them much as the increase income may barely cover the increase in cost.

[DKGandBH]

Commenting on the tyre testing, didn't Ferrari do most of Bridgestone testing this year, so much so, that people complained that they were getting a tailor made tyre.

Less teams developing the tyre probably won't hurt them "That" much.

D.

[Gt_R]

Ferrari has for the past few seasons be the ONLY team capable of running significant and useful tyre testings. Sauber/Minardi/Jordan can NEVER match that, and hence, Bridgestone gains most of the data from Ferrari and its no surprise that the tyres respond to Ferrari's needs.

The loss of BAR-Honda is unfortunate. But it is as much down to circumstances as much as down to accusations of bias-ness. At that time of BAR's decision to switch, we were still in the world of Ferrari vs Mclaren vs Williams - the big three. Michelins have Mclaren and Williams on their side, and hence Bridgestone is focusing on Ferrari to bring the fight back to Michelin. So much so that Bridgestone (realising their disadvantage of having less top teams to test with) actually pays for Ferrari to do increased testing mileage to offset the increasing burden. And Michelin did have better tyres (bridgestones were struggling even on Ferraris), and BAR felt that their results against their immediate rivals were compromised by BS, hence they make the switch.

Prior to that, the other significant switch of tyres is that of Mclaren. It is interesting with the words that came from Ron Dennis regarding the switch, and while there may be some truth in Bridgestone favouring Ferrari (as much as Dennis favouring Kimi), there are a host of other factors behind (one of which is Dennis's distinct dislike to share with Ferrari and greater trust for Frank).

Looking back to since Mclaren's departure, there's really no reason or surprises why Ferrari would seemingly receive a better treatment than the other BS runners. They are the most competent, if not the only competent. BAR really only came to force this year, remember, and it's as much down to the cars than merely the switch to Michelins.

Overall, Michelin still seem to have a stronger tyre than Bridgestone. And that's a reason why Sauber wants to make the switch despite knowing Ferrari's disagreement. They cannot risk having their better car being beaten by Toyota/Red Bull racing/Midlands-if-they-use-Michelins just because those teams are equipped with better tyres.

People praise Michelin for their "fair-treatment". But one thing that fails to be mentioned is how Michelin is giving supporting a host of manufacturer-backed teams, and with Mclaren/Williams/BAR/Renault very much on par. Do Michelins sit better on a Williams or on a Jaguar? Furthermore, Michelin rejected to supply Jordan and Minardi tyres. Do you think Minardi would recieve same treatment as Mclaren in Michelin?

The current tyre situation may show a one-sided story. But what you see on the surface may be misleading if we analyse the whole situation.

[Marbot]

Luca wotsisname seems pretty intent that Ferrari will test as usual next season, read at www.f1racing.net

[Kirk]

You make some good points GT_R. I can understand Ferrari wanting to test the BS tyres for the reasons you described; I say, take away that element, have all teams running the same tyre. Personally, I doubt that would change anything when it comes to Ferrari test time however.
But perhaps much of this test debate would be rectified by having a single tyre manufacturer in F1. It would make sense particularly now as the tyre situation has been compounded (pardon the pun) by the need for the harder tyre in '05. This is a large challenge for all concerned and I'm afraid that in the upcoming year, the tyres may just play too large a role in determining the fate of the top teams. The gap in performance between tyre manufactures has been for the most part relatively insignificant, but that gap potentially may widen in '05. Obviously it is too late to implement anything along those lines now, so I hope I'm wrong about that.

[Gt_R]

Indeed..when Bridgestone first came into the game and break the hold of Goodyear, i welcomed a tyre-competition hoping that it would add a "different factor" into the mix and spice up the championship. But what i did not foresee then was that the influence of tyres are far too great and simply jus overshadow everything else (aero, driver)...

It's ridiculous when a small tyre improvement gains a second a lap when a comparative improvement in horsepower or aero only give a 0.2s gain. What's worse is that a good tyre from a company can effectively hand the team(s) running the particular tyre a 1second advantage over the rival teams... it just ruin the BALANCE of the sport and threatens to undermine the hardwork of every other part of the team/driver.