Lance Stroll, Racing Point, Circuit de Catalunya, 2019

Cutting testing will increase unpredictability – Green

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Racing Point technical director Andrew Green says F1’s plan to reduce the amount of pre-season testing could make races more unpredictable.

[dietersinboxpromo]

What they say

Green was asked about plans to reduce pre-season testing to two three-day sessions:

I’m of the opinion that we probably do too much pre-season testing anyway. I think with all the dynos and simulators that we have the cars are relatively pretty reliable. And the places where we can go to test pre-season don’t really represent the majority of the tracks that we go to. And if you really wanted to mix things up a bit then reducing the amount of testing pre-season would would help. So I think that’s a good idea.

Quotes: Dieter Rencken

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

Just how promising a talent is George Russell?

I find it hard to judge whether Russell has the potential to be a Bottas-level driver or whether he is more talented than that. Kubica seems to have severe problems extracting speed from his car. The other cars that Russell has been racing have also been piloted by second or third-rate drivers, like Giovinazzi and Stroll. I want to see him race drivers like Ricciardo and Raikkonen to see how he deals with that level of racecraft.

Russell gets a lot of credit for being mature, but Bottas is mature as well and that doesn’t prevent people from criticising him harshly when his pace is lacking. Actual results always matter more than personality. I don’t think it makes sense for Mercedes to replace Bottas with Russell, rather than let Russell prove himself more.

I hope that Russell either moves to a better team or Williams get their act together again, so he gets the chance to show his true talents and gets challenged in a way that will teach him a lot.
@Aapje

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Luts and Electrolite!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

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.

29 comments on “Cutting testing will increase unpredictability – Green”

  1. “Cutting testing will increase unpredictability” – no it wont: teams will simulate as much as they can in the computers and run on the most conservative options.
    It will be the same as with the tyres: the performance is almost entirily predictable, due the FIA mandate to Pirelli, and teams choose the less risky strategy – as any sane people would.

    1. Totally agree. Reduced testing will mean the top teams will use their bigger resources to sort out the cars quicker and therefore increase the gap between top few teams and the rest. Look forward to more drivers being lapped twice in every race.

  2. Ofc results matter more then personality, otherwise i would be the top f1 driver…
    Bottas aint mature hes just dull, dont confuse things. (He is actually mature but thats not what defines him)

    1. Bottas is not mature sorry, the guy has the emotional intelligence of an instagram influencer.

      Look at his drop off in form after one bad race or team order, one out of place statement (wingman), his entire Bottas 2.0 persona at the start of this year was predicated upon blaming “strange” things in the car and never once being a man and saying today I just wasn’t good enough and coming back stronger.

      He has speed but as mentioned, he’s dull as dishwater and not mentally strong. Unlike many others I thought the whole “whoever it may concern” radio comment was cringey and feeble attempt at machismo.

  3. ” So you never know, but I say to myself that if by 2021 I’m not in contention for podiums and I don’t see it that I’m going to have that opportunity, then I will not be here beyond that. “. This is interesting as well (from the Perez interview).

  4. “Cutting testing will increase unpredictability” – this just goes to show that even F1 has its share of dolts. If testing was cut in conjunction with the introduction of engine/parts reductions, staff reductions, telemetry reductions etc, then yes it could make things unpredictable for one maybe two seasons before the big teams figured it out. However, as the teams have already sorted out the reliability of their components and have simulators that allow them to cope with reduced on-track testing, reducing testing even more would accomplish nothing other than permanently keeping the small teams in their place.

  5. People talk about changing things to make things less predictable, To spice things up & to close the field together but at what point does that start to become artificial & at what point do they just need to start saying that F1 isn’t a sport anymore & there going full on entertainment regardless of the cost to the pure sporting integrity?

    It reminds me a lot of 2012, They went full gimmick with the tyres & we had all this unpredictability & 7 different drivers in 5 teams winning the first 7 races which sounds great but in reality it just felt cheap & artificial. We didn’t get 7 drivers/5 teams winning early on because 5 teams that had built cars that good, It happened purely because of how artificial the tyres were & that didn’t add to ‘the show’ it cheapened it.

    I don’t want to see a Racing Point or Williams running towards the front & getting podiums/wins because the top teams were held back or artificial elements helped create artificial unpredictability. If those teams are to move forward & contend for wins it should be on merit because that is when it feels like an achievement. Things feeling created due to artificial elements never feel as deserved or as special.

    There are more races than ever now yet less opportunities than ever for fans to actually go & watch cars on track & I don’t think reducing that further purely for artificial entertainment purposes is a positive.

    1. Couldn’t agree more, comment of the year.

      1. Agreed, F1 is supposed to be the cutting edge of open wheel racing yet they want to artificially introduce “unpredictability”, surely there are better ways to make the racing closer and more entertaining.

    2. Well put.

      I keep hearing about “unpredictability” and “the show” and it drives me mad. Might as well just put sprinklers in attached to a random generator and be done with it.

      I’ve never watched F1 for “a show” and if all they want is some artificial entertainment it’ll be lost to me. Seriously I can’t see it lasting much longer. Real cars and teams will be replaced by e-sport (with in app purchases and lots of ads) and the cars of today will be relegated to some few nostalgic “historic” events.

    3. @roger-ayles completely disagree 2012 and beggining of 2013 were great, everyone was trying to do their best, they simply hadn’t figured it out, it wasn’t necessarily intended to be that way, it happened to be. Pirelli went with a steel belt and very soft tyres, come australia seb who was on pole by a huge margin started like a lightning and in a few laps chew his tyres out, after a few rounds Horner started campaining for harder tyres he and tv, media called it a lottery and spun it like it had been intended, pirelli just tried to save money on the tyres using a traditional road style steel belt instead of kevlar, forced to revert the tyre things started to favour RB and mercedes. In the end “fans” only want to see their fav drivers and teams win, they don’t appreciate years like 09 and early 2012.

      1. Good to see your comment reminds us what happened that year @peartree.

        Pirelli went with the belts because for one thing, they stay together when they get damaged (instead of flying off in shards like the kevlar ones do) that was a safety consideration that was discussed both with teams and with the FIA, and partly a reaction to issues with tyres shredding cars before. And the other huge part was that it was meant to save Pirelli money, which was probably a wish on Pirelli’s part to do the contract for the agreed price.

      2. @peartree Of the 30 years i’ve been following F1 2012 is by far my least favorite. I hated the early part of that season because regardless of the reasons to me it felt like a random lottery where all the talk all of the time was tyres, tyres, tyres & where nobody understood why they were competitive one weekend only to be nowhere the next. Even when you had a mid-field team fighting to win a race they were never able to repeat it because they didn’t understand what they had done to be towards the front in the first place (Maldonado at Spain been the obvious example).

        Each race started to feel like individual, unconnected races rather than something that was a part of a season long championship & it started to make the title fight seem almost unimportant.

        And something else that didn’t really help with me is that DRS was super effective at that point so we were getting a lot of pretty easy looking push of a button passing & a lot of similarly easy looking candy from a baby passing thanks to how crazy the high-deg tyres were at times. Kimi going from 2nd to 14th in 1 lap in China & been unable to do anything to stop it as his tyres fell off the cliff for instance.

        I think 2012 is probably the least engaged i’ve ever felt with F1 & the closest i’ve ever come to walking away from it & TBH I don’t think the passion I used to have for F1 ever fully came back.

    4. @roger-ayles, there is a curious contradiction in the behaviour of a chunk of the fan base, because some of those who complained so bitterly about the 2012 season being “too random” and “a lottery” are now saying that season was a good season precisely because of that randomness in the results that occurred.

      Some things, it seems, are much more popular in retrospect, given that you can blank out the bits that you do not want to remember…

  6. Even midfield teams do some lobbying.
    Forget the show, Green makes a fair point, there’s so much simulation work on the background, wanna save a few million cut a week of testing, inocuos cost saving measure. Put up a fair set of regulations and a car formula that does not centre itself on aero wake.

  7. Testing is kind of a thing of the past IMO.
    With computer simulations more powerful than ever, engine dynos, wind tunnels, teams can be 100% sure their car will be “working” when they arrive at the first race of the season.

  8. I’m of the opinion that we probably do too much pre-season testing anyway.

    F1 isn’t just a car race, it isn’t just a technology race, it is also a parade! Sure, the “parade” takes 9 months or so, but that’s part of the show. If you cut out the Pre-Season testing then it’s like loosing the parade leader. Cut out the in-season testing and it’s like loosing the big drum. Cut out some of the Final Practices and it’s like loosing the bag pipes and drums.
    Yes, F1 is like a football game on the side of the hill, but the root cause of that is well known … but obviously forgotten by Green (or he thought it was better not to say why). The substantial special bonuses given to the front running 3 teams undoubtedly helps them to stay ahead of all the other teams. Logically, removing or substantially reducing the substantial special bonuses would help to make F1 more like a football game into a head wind instead of on the side of a hill.
    So “NO!” don’t reduce the car testing, “Yes!” get rid of the special bonuses.

  9. I agree with Green in principle although the part about reduced pre-season testing increasing unpredictability; Yes, that might initially make things less predictable, but in the long-term everything would revert to how they are now precisely because of the simulators, and via other methods, etc.

  10. It’s not the testing that’s the issue, it’s the simulation technology that’s the problem! Simulators and virtual garages etc take it away and the races will automatically become more unpredictable

  11. COTD is quite on target yes. Russel really has nothing to bench himself against. Decent personality, ability to not be slower than questionable teammate etc, are hardly a measure of true pace.

    We just wont know until someone will take a gamble on him.

    1. or when Williams replaces Kubica with a known quantity.

      Hulkenberg is performing pretty close to RIC and we know he’s a quality driver. It seems that Renault for some reason want to replace him anyway and so if Nico wants to continue in F1, he could be a great option for Williams. That’s where Nico started, he can lead the team and help their development efforts and be a good benchmark for Russell.

      1. Renault would like to get Ocon @jeffreyj

        1. @bascb I know, they want a French driver (talking about having your priorities straight…haha). Ocon might be a bit quicker in qualifying, but overall he isn’t better than Hulkenberg imho and not nearly as consistent.

          1. Well, everybody seems to think Ocon is most likely the real deal. And he is young. Hulk might be a great driver, but he’s made crucial mistakes whenever he was in with a shot of a breakthrough podium or even win, so is he really their best bet?
            Also, let’s not forget that Hulk isn’t getting any younger, so it might simply be the idea of pairing Ocon with Ricciardo who he can learn for and then have the younger French driver for a long time in the team.

  12. GtisBetter (@)
    17th August 2019, 9:41

    I truly don’t get these calls for less testing and less practice. We want the cars at their very best, don’t we? That happens in testing and practice. You see drivers often look for the limits in the first practice, cause they have free tyres and lots of time. Trying things out results in those great qualy laps where they are flying on the limit. If you have less practice, you have to be more careful. One mistake and you have no shot at qualy.

    Simulations are not all powerful machines. They rely on human input and there are many things hard to program. They can get you far, but to get those extra tenths you need testing and there are always some surprises when you finally put the car together and run it and getting stuck with a flaw for a year, cause you can’t test new things helps nobody.

    There is also no evidence that it will make things unpredictable. If we look at formula 2 with little testing and practice we don’t see unpredictabilty. The teams with the most money are in front. It only shows that the rookies are at a distinct disadvantage and unless you are extremely talented, or just take a bit longer to develop you will be a midfield driver and nowadays people will question your talent right away for some reason.

  13. I’d prefer we look at giving the teams outside the top 5 the option to run more wind tunnel time the following year and give them 4 more days testing to take when they like. Rather than take away already limited running, let’s add some. It at least gives more opportunity for those struggling to improve instead of hoping others mess up.

    I get that limiting testing and wind tunnel work was necessary but it seems an obvious area to allow more leeway. I would be a little concerned of Red Bull and Toro Rosso abusing it mind.

    1. 100% agree – there needs to be something the lower teams can get to help pull themselves up. I would offer if they need cash more than testing time they can sell their testing time.

      1. The lower teams only need more testing time, more cash, more staff and talent. And Newey would work pro bono for the bottom 5 teams.

        For fans the appeal of F1 is perfect parity and all cars finishing on the podium every race. Sometimes I think Liberty/FIA like to spell parity: p-a-r-o-d-y.

  14. Cutting testing will increase unreliability.
    Typical of F1 to let the green do the talking.

Comments are closed.