Lotus hope to regain lost test days

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Romain Grosjean, Lotus, Barcelona, 2012

In the round-up: Lotus have approached rival teams for permission to reschedule the testing days they have lost this week due to their chassis problems.

F1 links

Oskari Saari via Twitter

Lotus just confirmed to me that the team is seeking permission from other teams to use three days they wont drive in Barcelona in a private test.”

Caterham satisfied with Petrov

Mike Gascoyne: “A very reasonable first day with Vitaly in the car. We spent some time this morning getting him acclimatised, focusing particularly on the brakes, but he has settled in well and did exactly what we asked of him today.”

FOTA split ‘short-sighted’ – Brawn (ESPN)

“We are very committed to FOTA and we think it’s a great shame that we’ve lost the members from FOTA because I think we may live to regret that. I think when there was a crisis and outside pressure it pushed FOTA together, now that there’s not so much outside pressure the natural competitiveness of the teams is pushing us apart a bit.”

Button sets sights on second world title

“There are no excuses this year. I feel that we have everything. There’s nothing to fall back on and say, ‘this is the reason why we didn’t win in 2012’.”

Force India says F1 costs still too high (Autosport)

Robert Fernley: “I believe very strongly that when you cannot make profit based on your television income and your sponsorship income, then there is something wrong with the sport, and I still believe that is the case today. Our costs are too high.”

Barcelona test notebook (Speed)

“Among the top three teams Red Bull seems to be effortlessly fast, McLaren is quietly confident and in much better shape than a year ago, and Ferrari still has a lot of work to do with the F2012, which is such a radical departure from previous designs.”

2011 season video edit (F1)

Official highlights video of last season.

Why I am going to Bahrain (Joe Saward)

“If things do go wrong and Formula 1 finds itself in a mess then I think that those responsible for the decisions should resign their positions. In any case, there will be little confidence left in their judgement. They are taking a risk that they do not need to take, and they should be held accountable for their decisions.”

Follow F1 news as it breaks using the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app.

Comment of the day

It’s between two games for the title of best F1 game ever.

I voted for Geoff Crammond’s series. The number of days spent playing GP2 tells me how playable it was.

F1 2010 was near perfection for me, save the fuel issues but F1 2011 really upped its game. There’s still room for improvement of course but for a truly immersive game that can be both simulator or arcade and every shade in between with countless options and great realism, for me there is no competition!

If you’ve not voted for greatest F1 game yet, add your vote here now:

From the forum

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today. If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

One story which surfaced from five years ago seemed rather innocuous at first: Ferrari announced Nigel Stepney had moved from a track- to factory-based role within the team.

But Stepney dissatisfaction with his job prospects set in motion the chain of events that led to ‘Spygate’, and McLaren’s ejection from the 2007 constructors’ championship.

Image © Lotus F1 Team/LAT

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

99 comments on “Lotus hope to regain lost test days”

  1. I hope they get permission and run a private test, it would be typical though, getting Kimi to come back to Formula 1 only to not test the car as much as you can and because it will then be behind he loses interest and gets replaced buy Trulli midway through the season……

    1. Lotus pace in Jerez was broadly praised and I was looking forward to see Kimi with a competitive car. I think they can fix it and be competitive in Australia but without those three days, drivers and engineers will not get to Albert Park with full understanding of the car. Other teams will probably give a go, because there’s not any justifiable reason to block their private test under this circumstances.

      1. I’m not certain they’d grant all three days (as private tests are potentially an advantage).

        But I would expect Lotus to get at least a day, maybe two (one for each driver), since they also granted Mercedes a private testing day, and they didn’t have an unexpected setback but instead planned it that way, so there seems little reason to not then grant unfortunate Lotus time.

        Unfortunate Lotus: well, conspiracy theory, they found out in Jerez, and now forced the issue to try and get private tests? Doesn’t seem very likely, since it still means lost time to prepare for the first race.

        1. A conspirator and someone who believes him are all you need to give life to a conspiracy theory…

  2. What exactly is wrong with the Lotus chassis then? Presumably it had to have passed the FIA crashtest prior to being flown to Barcelona, is it a design flaw or a safety concern?

    1. Steve Matchett was speculating on twitter that it’s likely an insert in the chassis, possibly a suspension pick up point. He says T1 at Barcelona is waaaay higher loads than anything at Jerez, and the fact that chassis 01 did fine at Jerez didn’t mean that it wouldn’t fail in exactly the same was as chassis 02 at Barcelona. Once the team figured that out they realized they had to reinforce the point on both chassis. Hopefully the other teams grant them permission. It would be incredibly unsportsmanlike to say no just to gain an advantage over them.

      1. Gary Anderson said it could be an engine mount issue. Basically a flaw in the construction of the chassis, not its design.

        1. It could be a flaw in the design though that didn’t become apparent until the bumpy straight + high loads in Barc. But I’m with you on it being an engine mount problem.

          I do hope they’ll get a private test though but I suspect if they do, HRT will be wanting one as well. Both cars have chassis problems so if Lotus get one HRT should as well.

          1. Yeah it sucks for Lotus that they have go fix their car and miss out on testing, but no team should get replacement test days simply because there was a problem with their car.

            The teams have known for a long time what the test dates were, and it is their responsibility to make sure they have their cars ready for those test days. If their cars aren’t ready, then bad luck, it’s their own problem.

          2. Lotus would have enough experience, especially with their current engine, that the design would be satisfactory.

        2. Gary Anderson said it could be an engine mount issue. Basically a flaw in the construction of the chassis, not its design.

          I read that article, but given Autosport’s pro-Lotus stance of late, what’s to say they’re not downplaying the issue?

          1. Its possible, but I see no reason why Autosport should not say it like they see it, even given their highly All-Hail-Lotus stand.

          2. I see no reason why Autosport should not say it like they see it

            Because if it’s a serious flaw, Lotus might be forced to miss Australia. Autosport wouldn’t want that, so they paint it in the most positive light: a manufacturing error that is easily fixed.

          3. Apparently the car worked fine at Jerez, even if the car carried the same problem unknowingly, which suggests to me that a redesign might not need to be extensive, and given the time frame they have I would be amazed to see them miss a race. Surely they planned to build another two chassis for Australia anyway?

          4. Because if it’s a serious flaw, Lotus might be forced to miss Australia. Autosport wouldn’t want that, so they paint it in the most positive light: a manufacturing error that is easily fixed.

            I don’t see how the two are related. If Lotus will be forced to miss Australia, how can Autosport help them? What do they gain by putting a positive spin on the story?

            I think you’re reading into the story more than it’s actually there. We have no basis to suspect that it’s a serious issue.

          5. What do they gain by putting a positive spin on the story?

            Uh, a renewed sponsorship program? Lotus sponsors the Autosport International Show, so all of Autosport’s pro-Lotus stories contribute toward keeping Lotus happy, and keep the dollars flowing in.

            We have no basis to suspect that it’s a serious issue.

            I never said that we did. I simply said that with Autosport’s favouritism of Lotus, they would be inclined to downplay the effect of any potential problems until Lotus actually comes out an announces just how serious the problem is.

      2. I remember some teams voted against Ferrari when they asked for a test day to give car experience to Schumacher/Badoer in 2009.

        1. I think that might have had something to do with a minor uproar over “filming days”. Ferrari did some laps of Fiorano for media purposes, but the car was spotted with a few new parts on it. The concern was that Ferrari was trying to get around the testing ban by evaluating new parts under the guise of filming for commercial purposes. I think the teams that opposed the Schumacher/Badoer tests were concerned that Ferrari would try and stick another upgrade on the car at the same time, mostly because the F60 was horrible.

    2. UNeedAFinn2Win
      23rd February 2012, 7:45

      Keke Rosberg in an interview suspects steering mounts, as Kimi complained about it needing adjustment after Jerez and the complaint from Barcelona was that it’s not responding. That would warrant a redesign/re-enforcement of the front of the chassis.
      If you look at the front of the car the hole in the chassis for the steering is high up and in the middle of the ubiquitous step, and the tapering they chose to do has perhaps made this area exposed to more stress than anticipated. So they’ll pack a few layers of carbon on for good measure.

  3. I certainly hope Jenson gains another world title, all the best :)

    1. Jenson’s confidence is way up! I hope he can deliver. Overall, McLaren is very bullish, Lewis is happy too.

      1. Lets hope they feel the same after the Melbourne weekend!

    2. @scuderiavincero I think i’d like to see him get a title the most out of all the other drivers on the grid. For me, some people just don’t realise how brilliant he is and see his victory in 2009 as something of a fluke.

      1. @AndrewTanner I couldn’t agree more. I certainly believe he can show these people how wrong they are :)

        1. @scuderiavincero He looked to really find his feet at McLaren last year so I’m sure he will build on that and his confidence will be through the roof, being the only ever team mate to beat Hamilton over a season.

          1. @AndrewTanner An impressive feat no matter the circumstance. Do you think this means Jenson has effectively established himself as McLaren’s No. 1?

          2. @scuderiavincero Not quite. Another season like 2011 then probably but I think McLaren recognise that Hamilton had a bad season so will treat them both equally. They’re both pretty much evenly matched in my opinion, whereas at Ferrari there is an obvious divide.

          3. @AndrewTanner So this should be a year of consolidation for Lewis. If he regans his footing, all is well. If he fails (I really hope it doesn’t come to that), one might think Anthony Hamilton should return to managing his son.

  4. Reading that article on Hamilton and Button’s optimism is good news for McLaren fans.

    But if their car is quick enough to win from the start this could be the year their sweet relationship begins to sour.

    Tabloidish, sure, but an exciting prospect nonetheless.

    1. I think if Mclaren has built a quick car then it would be a walk in park for Hamilton. He is surely a faster driver in quali and we would see something like Abu dhabi 2011 from him…Hamilton cruising to victory from start!

  5. I honestly think the internal battle within mclaren will be the most interesting story this year.

    1. To make things better, Webber should be closer to Vettel. I’m expecting drama.

    2. There are quite a few new combinations that will be interesting, Force India, Lotus and Torro Rosso as well.

    3. We are truly spoiled with the depth of quality at the front. I’m not really expecting close racing this year, but hopefully close competition.

      Button is right, there are no excuses now. Remember how Villeneuve’s career faded with bad cars, or how Hakkinen’s suddenly exploded when he had a good one? Today’s drivers of that calibre will not have that to hide behind and I expect them to make the most of what they’re given. Should be a good fight.

  6. Why should the other teams let Lotus have an extra test day(s)? Seems like a dumb move to agree to let them if they think they may be in contention this year.

    1. Some teams have good sportsmanship, and may also realise that by doing them a favour Renault might do the same for them one day.

      1. And also because this appears to have been a manufacturing fault. A lot of people were suggesting yesterday that Lotus staged the problem to give them an excuse to back out of the test and then organise a private one so that they could run secret parts away from prying eyes, but (ignoring for the moment how ridiculous that sounds) if the other teams thought Lotus was trying to pull a fast one, then I doubt they would agree to it. Lotus have developed a problem through no fault of their own, and I doubt the other teams would see any good cause to penalise them for it.

        1. @PrisonerMonkeys

          Lotus have developed a problem through no fault of their own

          Even if it is a manufacturing fault, it was still their own fault. The cars go through endless quality checks to make sure that parts that aren’t entirely to spec go straight in the trash.
          Its their car, so its their fault that it can’t take the stress. Whether it is a design fault or a manufacturing fault don’t make much of a difference.

          1. So they should suffer for that by losing three days of testing?

            This was nothing more than an honest mistake. It’s not like Lotus faked the problem for the sake of some unknowable benefit.

          2. I agree with mads. It was their own fault Nd they should suffer as a result. This is a competition.

            Problem is if the other teams agree this time it opens Pandora’s box for any future ‘problems’ teams may have in testing that can lead to rescheduling.

            Lotus made the error. That’s what happens when you push things too far and they should suffer.

          3. @PrisonerMoneys
            It seems harsh, but thats how the world is. I am not against giving Lotus those 3 days back, but the problem is, where does it end?
            All teams can come and claim to have made a honest mistake, and no one will ever know whether they are lying to gain some sort of advantage by rescheduling the tests for their convenience or they are actually telling the truth.
            Suddenly we could end up in a situation where teams fake problems to test their car away from all the other teams to keep secret components secret.

          4. All teams can come and claim to have made a honest mistake, and no one will ever know whether they are lying to gain some sort of advantage by rescheduling the tests for their convenience or they are actually telling the truth

            The teams watch each other pretty closely. If they think they’re being played, they’ll veto the private tests. But if Lotus is selling them a dummy and they get it approved, who is out of pocket? Lotus. The other teams don’t lose anything by agreeing to a private test.

          5. I’m surprised PM you don’t realise that Lotus’ loss is the other teams’ gain.

          6. I’m well aware of that. I just don’t think that any tem deserves to be punished simply because punishing them benefits everyone else.

        2. PM, you make it sound like it was nobody’s fault and that lotus should be compensated in some way for some bad luck. thats just not true.

          Teams will probably allow them to do a private test since thats the unwritten rule, and even Mercedes were allowed to do it even though they never intended to bring their new car to Jerez.

          But that doesnt change the fact that Lotus made a mistake and it was their fault. Thats why we have testing. To find flaws in a new car and fix them.

          this used to be common, but nowadays we are so used to cars being relatively competitive out of the box that this kind of thing makes the headlines. Now that engines are not being developed, and teams have sophisticated simulations, we rarely see fundamental issues with a new car in testing. But a few decades back the Lotus chasis saga would probably not even get mentioned in the news.

        3. If Lotus’ problem is no fault of their own, then who would be at fault for the problem?

          I have a feeling that getting permission for a private test might be difficult, if Caterham’s approval is needed.

    2. The fact that Mercedes got an extra day after (pre-planned, and deliberately) not doing the last day in Jerez to me says that Lotus should at least get a single day, they did miss two days (well almost three actually) of the current test.

      Also, of course something at Lotus went wrong, and that’s not the fault of the other teams. But, if the teams now work against Lotus (maybe they were reallly impressed with their early pace?) they risk that if they need something decided for them in the future (like engine mod, you name it), Lotus will be less likely to help them too.

      1. I agree with mads on this one. It is entirely their fault. They are responsible for the quality of their engineering and if they haven’t tested that sufficiently before pre season then that’s their fault.

      2. I agree with Prisoner Monkeys and bosyber on this. And I also think the MS thing with Ferrari in 09 when FM got hurt is not to be compared. It was an entirely different scenario.

  7. It will be interesting to see what the viewing figures are for F1 in Britain this year. With only 10 races being offered free to air it may be that many people find it all a bit too fiddly and do something else instead. On the other hand, if the difference between the figures for highlights and live races on the BBC are very different, the sponsors will be asking for better deals from the teams.

    Sky might not have the uptake they expect (but they may say differently). The Japanese experience of this hybrid part free to air and part subscription does not bode well.

    1. I pay the fee because I love F1 more than I hate Murdoch.

    2. Carsvschildren
      23rd February 2012, 3:14

      Interestingly this year in Japan f1 is going to the extra cost digital channel. The delay will only be about 1 hour though.

      Also interestingly the f1 channel is only £20 a month.

    3. Please get your facts RIGHT!!

      only 10 races being offered free to air

      As far as I’ve been able to work out, Beeb still shows all 19 (20 if you want to include Bahrain) races. 10 of them are live, but you still get the others with extended highlights, I also believe there’s qualifying highlights on Saturday evening, it’s primetime slot for F1, viewing figures should shoot up because people are watching the important bits of the sessions at times which best suit them..

      This is from someone who is unfortunate enough to not afford Sky F1 this year, and certainly doesn’t want Football/Cricket aswell.. I’m waiting for Sky to launch the F1 channel separately at a cheaper price, then I might consider it..

      1. I think we all know he means live.

        Watching recorded F1 isn’t watching F1 at all.


        1. tbh, I can make myself avoid the result if that’s what it comes to, it’s getting a sub-standard team (no issue with the BBC, more because sky has poached a lot of the talent) and mostly the incomplete races that bothers me.

      2. @keeleyobsessed I think it’s obvious he meant ten races live and free to air.

      3. Sky F1 HD is available separately from Sky Sports – you just have to take the HD Package. So about £10 extra instead of almost £30 extra.

        1. To be clear, that doesn’t include the price of a Sky subscription in the first place. As you have to buy a 12-month subscription the total cost for one year is £363.

          1. Which is a bargain. That’s £19 per race if you exclude Bahrain. If you want to go to Silverstone and actually watch the race with a seat it will cost you about £250. Excluding travel, accommodation, fuel and refreshments.

            To have such access to a sport that is so focussed on money for that price is, in my opinion, a steal. If you chose to do something else with your weekend instead of paying for Sky, how likely will you be to spend more than £20 to get the same level of enjoyment and entertainment?

          2. That’s right – I meant that it is available separately from the other sports channels, because @keeleyobsessed‘s comment seemed to isuggest she thought that the only way to get Sky F1 was buy paying for football and cricket as well.

          3. @Dobin1000 I’m a guy… :P

            @Voisey5 It’s great have £250 to watch 1 race live, but if you do that, you’re spending an EXTRA £230 on top of what you’d pay normally for Sky.. And of course, I’ve not included

            travel, accommodation, fuel and refreshments.

          4. Err… of course I knew that really, @keeleyobsessed…


          5. @keeleyobsessed: yes you would be spending and extra £230 but you’d only be seeing one race, that’s my point. £250 busy you one race or silverstone or a full season on the TV.

      4. Haha, Extended highlights…


        1. The funny thing is the BBC could, I seem to recall hearing, show the full race later on the red button but for no apparent reason are choosing not to!

          1. That was being put about by Martin Whitmarsh when the Sky deal news first broke but I don’t think it was ever a realistic proposition. I can’t see how Sky would have been happy to allow it.

  8. Would be nice to see a direct battle between the Mclaren drivers without Withmarsh interfering or one end of the pitwall continously being out of the information loop.

    1. It would, but McLaren are team cheeky chappy Jenson now and they will live to regret it when they wake up and realise they should be putting everything behind Lewis who is fundamentally the fastest driver but needs more support.

      1. ahhh the sour words of a Hammy fan…sooo sweet to my ears……
        remember how last season started`? with Ham as the quasi team-leader…..
        remember how it concluded… with JB outperforming Lewis wastly…
        the fact that the power seems to have shifted in McLaren, lays in the fact that JB performed the way Lewis only hoped he could(towards 2nd half of the season..)…being a team leader is something you earn not something that is given to you…it expresses respect, support and trust in you and abilities…. BUT it should also be mutual between the said driver and the team….
        ….. how the hell do you want the team to trust in you when you don´t even manage to respect what they say to you….Hammy´s…i can´t drive slower…response springs to mind…and him heading into the pits two laps later(and 5 laps before ot was planed) bc his tyres were gone….
        ….there is so much more than speed to Formula one… i actually feel pretty bad for the ones who won´t realize this and therefor can´t cherish it…
        Hamilton is a great driver, who brought something new to F1 in 2007, his way of driving can be surely entertaining to watch…but he is not perfect(nobody is..) …. it´s the last thing that some people seem to forget…

        1. Fair enough. Sometimes can get a little carried away with my comments but I do, being as objective as possible here, think that McLaren are backing the wrong driver here.

          Personally, I supported Jenson since watching him at a damp Silverstone qualify 5th in his first season at Williams. I remember eating scotch eggs at the time beside Hangar Straight, cheering him on.

          Yes there is a little sourness here, I am human.., but please don’t judge me as some kind of fan boy with a blinkered understanding of the sport I love.

          1. but please don’t judge me as some kind of fan boy with a blinkered understanding of the sport I love.

            by responding and admitting to getting carried away a bit, you just proved that you aren´t…. also OF COURSE … everybody is somewhat biased NOBODY here can say that he/she is being completely objective… I have no problems when people are trying to back up their favorite drivers, but I can´t stand fan-girlish ignorance…. okay i have gone little off-topic here but..yeah…:D

    2. without Withmarsh interfering or one end of the pitwall continously being out of the information loop

      Again, this nonsense idea that McLaren have a secret plot to undermine one of their drivers.

      Still no-one has offered any proof for it, nor even a compelling argument why McLaren should spend a nine-figure sum going motor racing, then purposefully hobble one of their two entries.

      Go spend some time at the McLaren Technology Centre, note the long hours the technical team work, the enormous resources the team has put at their disposal at vast cost, and come away knowing the idea that it’s all being done to prevent one of their drivers winning the championship is stupid, conspiracy theory claptrap.

      1. Keith is of course correct, the voice of reason. I think there were some comments going around last season, most probably unfounded ones, that Whitmarsh was getting fed up with Hamilton’s antics although I don’t have the examples to hand. Of course in no way does that suggest McLaren were purposefully hindering Hamilton in any way.

        In order to make sure, is there some way for me to spend some time at MTC to observe? ;)

          1. Thanks @keithcollantine for the tip. As I only live 10 minutes away its probably worth me giving it a try. Ta.

      2. Still no-one has offered any proof for it, nor even a compelling argument why McLaren should spend a nine-figure sum going motor racing, then purposefully hobble one of their two entries.

        One of their drivers does badly. That’s all the proof the conspiracy theorists need. Most of the time, it’s to explain away a slump in form by a favourite driver.

        1. Pretty much -.-

      3. And the idea that while Ferrari bang on about having three cars, people imagine that McLaren wish they only had one driver and are being forced to spend millions running two, and are so angry about it that they do all they can to sabotage the ‘stooge’…

  9. Geoff’s GP series of F1 games I believe are the best ever. When one takes into consideration the power of the systems the ran on and how old they are. They also had great demo clips and music.
    in some areas I even rate GP3 higher than GP4, especially the illusion of feed back, while playing with a keyboard and steering assistance.
    Playing GP4, I can empathize with Trulli on his “inert” power steering.
    On area of fustration though was the black flags.

    1. Totally agree. Driving around Spa in monsoon conditions on GP4 felt like the closest thing to driving an F1 car back then and since. The wet weather physics are still superb and the game is 10 years old.

  10. Petrov also said that he would need to adjust his driving style. According to him, the new Caterham responds better to smoother handling than he is used to. I don’t think it’s a very good sign.

    1. How is that not a good sign? From the sounds of things, Petrov was having to wrestle with cars to get them to do what he wanted them to.

      1. I really like to see those comments. First of all it shows the fans that there really are interesting differences in what a car offers a drivers. And off course its really good to see that Petrov spots this and knows what to change in the course of one morning of driving the car.

  11. Robert Farnley is right. When you’re running a sports organization and you fail to cover your costs with sponsors money and TV revenues, something is wrong.

    1. I don’t agree with Robert Farnley at all. Suggesting that sponsorship and TV money are the only two revenue streams available to a team is at best short-sighted and at worst dangerous.

      Perhaps these are the only sources of funding that Force India has, but other teams constantly demonstrate that the development investment in Formula 1 can be recouped in other ways: McLaren’s Technology arm working with businesses outside the sport (e.g. Heathrow), Ferrari’s merchandising power (probably the only team that does this properly), Sauber’s “Club One” business connections idea… even Williams has their Hybrid Power division that’s making money from working with Jaguar on their new supercar and Porsche on their racing cars.

      If a team that is ostensibly the “national” team of the second most populous nation in the world – whose population are clearly happy to follow their chosen sports/drivers/teams obsessively – can’t make money from merchandising, they’re clearly doing something wrong.

      1. Merchandising for any team – even Ferrari – is only ever going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the value of television rights.

        This problem needs to be looked at from both ends – not just in terms of how much money the teams are getting (and the comparatively small cut of the prize fund they get is the biggest shortcoming here) but how much they have to spend.

        It’s abundantly clear the costs of running an F1 team are still too high. It’s years since we had a full complement of 13 teams, and two of the 12 that are currently around (also the two that receive no prize money, having finished outside of the top ten) are clearly struggling.

        This brings us back to what we were talking about the other week – the three big manufacturers to have left F1 recently are now all competing in other, cheaper motor racing series.

        1. Formula 1 should go ahead and introduce a budget cap. The concept is sound; it was Mosley’s execution of it that was inherently lawed. Teams should be allowed to spend no more than $100 million (or maybe $120 million), with serious penalties – like suspension of all championship points if a team is investigated for breaching the budget cap, with the reinstatement of the points if they are innocent or exclusion from the championship and the forfeiture of television rights for that year – for anyone who tries to spend so much as a penny more. Otherwise, we’re just going to see teams happily spending up to $400 million a season again, if they aren’t already.

          The problem is in getting the teams to agree to it in the first place, and then in actually policing it. As soon as the teams agree, they will go looking for ways to spend more money than they are allowed to through creative accounting. Alternatively, they will just try and get one another penalised.

          1. $100 million

            Only a few teams go above that, why should they be punished? F1 is all about the money.
            (Which is what the opposition will say)

            investigated for breaching the budget cap

            That sounds awfully like a easier said than done comment.

            like suspension > reinstatement of the points

            Like the FIA deciding positions after a race, this would go down a storm with both the teams and the fans.

            they will just try and get one another penalized.

            Like claims that Red Bull is ignoring the RRA.

            I totally agree with the budget cap, I just think you should rethink some of those ideas.

            Mosley was tough despite his problems, if he couldn’t get it through what makes you think Todt can?

      2. Cutting costs will always be tough to address. Teams like Ferrari are more likely to support booting struggling teams than see the implementation of more restrictive rules to restrain teams budgets. They should abandon the top 10 rule and make something like NFL where teams share revenues from TV income. But it is easy to work in closed leagues like NFL or NBA where owners always have a say on extensions and other important matters, I think Bernie would not like it.

  12. If Lotus receive permission for extra testing, surely Mercedes, Marussia and HRT would also deserve the same right, which just makes a farce of the testing rules.

    1. I think the testing rules are written in such a way that you can only get days back if you lose them in the first place. For example, Marussia did not go to the first test, so they cannot reclaim the lost days. Lotus and Mercedes can because they went to those tests, but did not run on some days. I can’t confirm it, though.

      Besides, there are twenty-three days until the Australian Grand Prix. Given the time differences between Europe and Australia, the teams would want to arrive well in advance to thwart jetlag, and with it being the first race of the season, that means there are a lot of media commitments to see to. So they would probably arrive the Monday before the race – which means that there are seventeen days in which to arrange and run the test. But then there’s still another four-day group test before Melbourne, which means there are just thirteen viable testing days. If Lotus, HRT and/or Marussia wanted to do a private test, they would need to find an acceptable circuit and book it, and then arrange for transportation and accomodation for the entire team, and all on incredibly short notice. It would get very expensive, very quickly. HRT and Marussia probably wouldn’t be able to afford it.

      1. But if they could coordinate with Lotus, thus making it a closed, but not private test, maybe it would be affordable. And Lotus will likely be doing like Mercedes did now: start early for the next Barcelona test (if the track isn’t booked, I guess, otherwise Silverstone, but therThat’s what FOTA was/is about, the teams need each other in these things.e the others could join too …).

        I don’t think it is a mockery regardless, it is only allowed if all the other teams agree, and for that you need special circumstances to convince them. That said, I don’t see many teams worrying about some extra test days for HRT or Marussia, unless Caterham isn’t so happy as they want to seem and Williams have slumped even further.

        As for Mercedes, well they already got that one extra day, didn’t they, and they ran the old car in Jerez by choice, so it seems they have little to complain or ask.

        1. huh, correction gone wrong, sentence should be: … otherwise Silverstone, but there Marussia, and perhaps even HRT, could also join)

          That sentence about FOTA was a deleted part of another post, sigh.

  13. asking for additional time is as ridiculous as red bull asking to change tires at the start of spa 2011. i suppose it’s worth a shot on the chance everyone else has been hit on the head or something

      1. If they don’t ask, they certainly won’t get…

    1. @f1yankee Seems like a reasonable request to me. I will be surprised if they don’t get at least a day granted.

  14. I hope Mercedes and Lotus could be doing a ‘Brawn’ or a ‘2011-Mclaren’…
    Sometimes starting out wrong, or having less time than others for testing doesn’t mean you’re hopeless, but it can create more adrenaline for the people involved, causing to perform even better.

Comments are closed.