Testing for teams that fail to meet the 107% time

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, I'd be firmly in favour of a return to testing, as long as everyone got the same opportunites - ie. no special sessions for backmarkers like HRT nor a return to the days of Ferrari hammering around Fiorano 24/7/365 with Bridgestone on hand.

[ukaskew]

I like the concept of offering new teams a few mid-season test sessions for the first two years, but how do you define 'new' teams? The FIAs definition would probably include any team that is completely renamed.

[duke_toaster]

I think it's based on company registrations for most things, that's how the car numbers generally carry over between identities, that's how it would have worked out with Brawn apart from an agreement to swap numbers due to a whole load of swag being made, Renault kept their numbers at the change of owners, and Mercedes took over from Brawn.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by EastonNeston

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

Good point.

HRT can't afford petrol let alone testing. How much running did they do during the weekend? How much did they do during the winter. They've had a chance to test and not, so offering more opportunity to test isn't going to help.

This thread suggests a nice idea, but it wouldn't help the helpless HRT.

[strider]

Not just helpless but also hopeless.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Good point.

HRT can't afford petrol let alone testing. How much running did they do during the weekend? How much did they do during the winter. They've had a chance to test and not, so offering more opportunity to test isn't going to help.

This thread suggests a nice idea, but it wouldn't help the helpless HRT.

They need saving from themselves......They should politely be asked to go away and work on their cars which will be evaluated at a test session before they are allowed to run again at a GP.

Alternatively perhaps 3 strikes and you are out, which would prolong their and our agony.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

They need saving from themselves......They should politely be asked to go away and work on their cars which will be evaluated at a test session before they are allowed to run again at a GP.

Alternatively perhaps 3 strikes and you are out, which would prolong their and our agony.

What about a minimum standard in pre-season testing? For example doing a 200km run at 110% of the winner's average speed on that circuit last year? That would work out as 197.7 km/h average at Silverstone, a 34 lap run in just under one hour one minute. Or maybe a 17 lap run in 30 minutes 30 seconds, if you want to go for a 100km run. The reason for that is not having settings where the donkey of a car explodes after doing one lap at 107%.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

What about a minimum standard in pre-season testing? For example doing a 200km run at 110% of the winner's average speed on that circuit last year? That would work out as 197.7 km/h average at Silverstone, a 34 lap run in just under one hour one minute. Or maybe a 17 lap run in 30 minutes 30 seconds, if you want to go for a 100km run. The reason for that is not having settings where the donkey of a car explodes after doing one lap at 107%.

I think some sort of pre-season performance testing is required, maybe the FIA should have say 3 x official FIA F1 pre-season tests that ALL teams must attend with 2 cars and drivers, with the final test effectively pre-qualifying for the forthcoming season.

[duke_toaster]

I'd say something like that is logical, I'd go for two three-day and two four-day tests, the last two to be two-car, with a minimum amount of mileage for each race driver (say 200 continuous km, 300km in total) and for reserve and young drivers needed, the first as a safety/ability to perform thing the second in case of emergencies and for driver development.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Yes, I'd be firmly in favour of a return to testing, as long as everyone got the same opportunites - ie. no special sessions for backmarkers like HRT nor a return to the days of Ferrari hammering around Fiorano 24/7/365 with Bridgestone on hand.

Yes, they should be barred from using Fiorano in anything other than preseason tests and all within their alloted days for testing.

Costs are kept good, driver turnover is normalised as they keep young drivers in practice and the teams can test a bit.

[ECW Dan Selby]

I think this'd be a dangerous move.

I can't help but feel you'd see Liuzzi and Karthikeyan go out there and not qualify on purpose (alá Arrows) in order to gain some testing time.

Selby

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

I think this'd be a dangerous move.

I can't help but feel you'd see Liuzzi and Karthikeyan go out there and not qualify on purpose (alá Arrows) in order to gain some testing time.

Selby

I'd have to disgree with that. HRT are desperate for sponsorship - it's imperative that they're in action on Sundays. I doubt they'd sacrifice it for a spot of extra testing. Plus, racing is testing time in itself.

[ECW Dan Selby]

That's a fair point mate.

Selby

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Yes, I'd be firmly in favour of a return to testing, as long as everyone got the same opportunites - ie. no special sessions for backmarkers like HRT nor a return to the days of Ferrari hammering around Fiorano 24/7/365 with Bridgestone on hand.

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Yes, they should be barred from using Fiorano in anything other than preseason tests and all within their alloted days for testing.

Costs are kept good, driver turnover is normalised as they keep young drivers in practice and the teams can test a bit.

What about testing only at FIA organized tests only, at non-GP venues? For example two-day test at Lausitzring in May and one shortly after the August break at Vallelunga? You could limit the second day of each to reserve drivers only.

[JamesH]

Lots of mean spirited comments above! What a lot of people are saying this that, if you don't have the money, bugger off. We don't want you. (Are you lot bankers?) And that really what is comes down to. Money. And one way to get money is to get on the track and attract sponsors (or find a rich benefactor ala Virgin, but that's less likely, and benefactors don't have bottomless pockets).

HRT (and to a lesser extent Virgin and Lotus) most certainly don't have the cash that the other teams do, or the experience to make a immediately competitive F1 car. Cash can make up for lack of experience of course, but if you don't have large amounts of either...??? And the way people are commenting above, means that teams entering for the first time are likely to last one or two years at most before they fold - and good riddance? Harsh. The incumbant teams bring cars from the previous year, cash, and experience - they already hold all the cards. The newcomers need some help or the turnover will continue, and we never get any new teams in f1.

It the same reason that teams that finally make it to the top footy leagues usually leave a little a year or two later - the barrier to entry is just too high.

I'd go for a sliding scale for extra testing. Something like you get more testing hours according to how much slower than the front markers you are.

For example, Additional hrs testing = ((percentage slower over top time) - 100) * 2.

So a team at 107% get 7*2 hrs extra testing.

That way all teams get some extra testing on the circuit of their choice (to keep costs down), it's just the slower ones get a bit more. Should be just enough to get the slower teams in to the 107 bracket, and results in better racing all round.

F1 *is* difficult, but lack of testing makes it much more difficult for newcomers that the incumbants, which makes for very one sided racing.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by 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.

this is the most important factor for me. some teams just make it through and all credit to them for doing so. giving an incentive/benefit to the teams that dont make it through devalues what Lotus and Virgin have done and could potentially change the balance of payments from FOM.
helping out HRT (or anyone who falls ot 107%) with an extra test session does nothing to change the balance between them and the top teams but does everything to change it amongst the the 3 'new' teams.

[JamesH]

My calcs show that if you take Vettels pole time (1.23.529), 107% of that is 1.29.376, which would have excluded both Virgins, and the Lotus' would have been in by only 100ths.

So, presumably, the 107 is worked out from the fastest time in Q1, not Q3. Is that right?

And would the same people who want Hispania out also want both these teams out as well, because they are over or very close to the 107%, depending on how you work it out?

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by JamesH

My calcs show that if you take Vettels pole time (1.23.529), 107% of that is 1.29.376, which would have excluded both Virgins, and the Lotus' would have been in by only 100ths.

So, presumably, the 107 is worked out from the fastest time in Q1, not Q3. Is that right?

Yes, you have to be within 107% of the fastest Q1 time to qualify.

Originally Posted by JamesH

And would the same people who want Hispania out also want both these teams out as well, because they are over or very close to the 107%, depending on how you work it out?

No, because it has nothing to do with how you or I work it out. Competitors have to be within 107% of the fastest Q1 time to qualify. There has to be a cut-off point, and that is it. Virgin and Lotus made the cut, HRT didn't.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

No, because it has nothing to do with how you or I work it out. Competitors have to be within 107% of the fastest Q1 time to qualify. There has to be a cut-off point, and that is it. Virgin and Lotus made the cut, HRT didn't.

Seems odd to base it on a slower than Q1 time, if it's done for safety reasons, but hey ho.

Anyway that wasn't my point - the point was there is very little difference between Hispania and Virgin/Lotus given that the last two almost didnt make the cut either, but neither of those teams get the slagging off that Hispania get in the comments above.

Virgina and Lotus was 5 or more seconds off the pace and they have had more track time than Hispania who were 7 seconds off the pace. They are much closer to Hispania than they are the front runners.

[GolddustMini]

Originally Posted by JamesH

For example, Additional hrs testing = ((percentage slower over top time) - 100) * 2.

So a team at 107% get 7*2 hrs extra testing.

That way all teams get some extra testing on the circuit of their choice (to keep costs down), it's just the slower ones get a bit more. Should be just enough to get the slower teams in to the 107 bracket, and results in better racing all round.

so if im a bit off of the pace then i may as well sandbag to ensure i get more testing time..........

completely unworkable, would maclaren get 14mins extra testing because they are slightly off the pace? or are they deamed to be close enough to the pace to be denied your 'testing tax relief'

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by GolddustMini

so if im a bit off of the pace then i may as well sandbag to ensure i get more testing time..........

completely unworkable, would maclaren get 14mins extra testing because they are slightly off the pace? or are they deamed to be close enough to the pace to be denied your 'testing tax relief'

I don't think they would deliberately sandbag and sacrifice their race efforts (which is where the speed counts) just to get some extra testing time.

I see what everyone means by the whole 'socialism' thing, but this issue is not just about HRT, or Lotus or Virgin Racing or whoever else you may care to name, its about F1 as a whole. If they want extra teams like this, they've got to accept that they're gonna need a bit of help to get up a bit of speed.

To suggest that it's "all the teams fault for not coming prepared" is a completely fair and valid point to make, but if new teams are to be encouraged into F1, you can't just expect them to turn up with a decent race-car in only their second year of racing. Saying they should be gone off the grid, and reintroducing rules like the 107% rule to further alienate them is contentious, confusing, arbitrary, unnecessary and unhelpful, and is the kind of knee jerk reaction that puts people (including me) more and more off F1.

F1 may well be about trying to encourage excellence, and that is definitely something that should be applauded. But if F1 wants the new teams to compete, they've got to help them at some point. Otherwise the team will fold and disappear, the grid will shrink and we will end up with even less action on track than at present.

At least with the new teams being there it creates some sort of challenge in terms of traffic and moving chicanes for the leading cars!

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Seems odd to base it on a slower than Q1 time, if it's done for safety reasons, but hey ho.

It'd be a bit harsh to base it on 107% of the pole time. Teams who need to worry about the 107% rule aren't going to make it out of Q3, which is a slower session for everyone than Q1. Plus, Q3 times aren't really representative of race pace, so I don't think it creates a safety issue.

[kipper]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

It'd be a bit harsh to base it on 107% of the pole time. Teams who need to worry about the 107% rule aren't going to make it out of Q3

It is also theoretically possible that weather conditions can change between Q1 and Q3 meaning that the cars get faster throughout the session, however, the backmarkers would not be able to respond to this as a result of being knocked out of qualifying.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by kipper

It is also theoretically possible that weather conditions can change between Q1 and Q3 meaning that the cars get faster throughout the session, however, the backmarkers would not be able to respond to this as a result of being knocked out of qualifying.

I hadn't thought of that.

Excellent point.

[steve_r]

I really really want to see the new teams do well, but in their second year, HRT only have themselves to balme for not getting the cars ready to run properly in practice, and for not have ANY preseason testing with their new car at all.