Lando Norris, McLaren, Circuit de Catalunya, 2019

Norris: Testing cut will “make it tougher” for rookies

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Lando Norris says a reduction in pre-season testing for the 2020 F1 season will hit rookie drivers hardest.

What they say

Pre-season testing will be cut from eight days to six next year:

I think for myself doing four days was good for me: Learning about the longer runs, shorter runs. For a rookie I think it’s more important.

Obviously next year I won’t be a rookie so it won’t matter as much but if it’s another rookie coming through it’s only going to make it tougher for them.

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

Nine years of DRS in F1 have shown us something positive, argues Duncan:

Assuming the 2021 regulations improve the ability to follow closely then yes, of course, DRS per se should go. However, I think the most interesting thing about the experiment is that it’s shown that ‘moveable aerodynamic devices’ can be used safely in top-level motorsport.

With modern technology, the high standard of engineering in today’s F1, and proper oversight, the apparent morbid fear the FIA had of them for forty years has proved to have been unfounded. I’d like to see some kind of driver-trim-able wing retained, without DRS’s arcane restrictions on activation.
Duncan Snowden

Join in this week’s poll here:

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Woffin, Kozo.Higashi and Strontium!

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

On this day in F1

  • 20 years ago today Michael Schumacher, still limping after breaking a leg at Silverstone 40 days earlier, returned to an F1 car for the first time in a test at Mugello. But he ruled out driving in the next race at Spa.

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.

19 comments on “Norris: Testing cut will “make it tougher” for rookies”

  1. What is wrong with the f1 managements? Reducing testing even further. NO amount of simulation can substitute actual tests..

    1. That’s the point. The less practice and testing means less simulated racing where the result and competitive order is pretty much determined before the competitiion itself!

  2. Yes, Renault indeed are good enough to get better, but after the first twelve GP weekends, I don’t hold too much hope on them for the remaining nine anymore. Overall, a bit too many missed opportunities.

    An interesting thing I found out through the Auto Motor und Sport-interview is that he doesn’t live in Dubai anymore, but London now.

  3. I’m with Sato. This was a racing incident if anything and he’s only responding because of Rossi’s predictably crass comments after the crash. To be honest I can’t stand that guy.

  4. I’m getting a very mixed vibe about Renault and their future in F1. Signing RIC was, for me, a clear indicator, that they are taking things seriously and building up the team for the future. But at the same time, I’d assume they would like to spend as much money as possible on development, before the inevitable budget-cap hits.
    Last year, their budget was reported to be less than half of what Mercedes and Ferrari were spending. And while the new regulations will give every team a chance to start fresh (-ish), I feel the lack of investment now, will come back to haunt Renault in the future.

    1. Signing RIC was, for me, a clear indicator, that they are taking things seriously and building up the team for the future.

      @bulion – I sometimes wonder if signing Ricciardo was done with the primary intention of spiting Red Bull, seeing as how apart from that one decision, Renault – as you’ve outlined – don’t seem to be making any decisions or headway in becoming more competitive.

      Forget ambitions about the head of the field, they’re having a rough time of it in the midfield itself, as they’re trailing even Red Bull’s junior team.

  5. According to former Lotus team principle Matthew Carter, who was involved in selling the team to Renault, the French were strongly thinking about leaving F1 after the disastrous start to the hybrid era back in 2015. (heard him saying it in a ‘Missed Apex’ Podcast, but I can’t remember which episode. You can find it on youtube if you want).

    Carter said that Renault/Nissan CEO Carlos Goshn managed to convince the board member 1 by 1 to not only stay in F1 as an engine supplier, but go all-in and buy a team of their own. A road map including podiums and wins in 2019 and challenging for the championship by 2020 helped Goshn convince his fellow board members, according to Carter. Now, they haven’t been hitting those targets, obviously, and the Renault board isn’t quite pumping in as much money as Mercedes, Ferrari and RedBull. I guess the board was only half-heartedly ‘in’ despite Goshn’s passion for F1. Currently, Goshn is no longer the CEO of course, after his financial scandal in 2018.

    Now, the opportunity of signing of Ricciardo came a little out of the blue, according to Carter. He says Ricciardo didn’t ask for the same money as Verstappen got, but asked RBR for at least a comparable salary to Max. RedBull diclined as they thought he had no other options and wasn’t going to leave anyway. They lowballed him and Daniel then called Renault to say his interest to leave RBR is serious and that they should make a serious offer. They quickly did and he signed.

    To me, without the CEO that was the driving force of it’s F1 efforts, against the grain within his own company mind you, I think the Renault F1 team management took a bold step to sign a superstar driver for superstar money in order to solidify their stake in F1 and thereby making it harder for the overall Renault/Nissan board to pull the plug any time soon.

    However, since Squirrell Irritable has been so vocal about the budget cap not being good enough, I think he feels serouis pressure from the board to at least keep the cost of the F1 projec down, and he’s trying desperately to create circumstances that would help him convince his board to stay in F1. If that doesn’t happen or if it does but Renault still doesn’t win, I think it’s inevitable we see Renault pull out in the not so distant future, as soon as they can find a face-saving exit strategy.

    1. Squirrell Irritable

      Genuinely just spat my coffee out, thanks for that.

    2. Squirrell Irritable

      @jeffreyj – I’m using this, with your permission. There’s another popular wordplay on his surname which I refuse to use as it is impolite. This one is perfect for use.

      I think the Renault F1 team management took a bold step to sign a superstar driver for superstar money in order to solidify their stake in F1 and thereby making it harder for the overall Renault/Nissan board to pull the plug any time soon.

      That is probably the best explanation I’ve seen of why they paid so much to get Ricciardo, while running their F1 shop on a (relatively) shoe-string budget.

      1. @phylyp Haha sure, it’s just a wordplay. Besides I think it’s Horner who came up with ‘irritable’.

  6. Bottas, Ocon, Russel, difficult decision. There are pros and cons with each one. What’s for sure though is that Mercedes currently enjoys the most dominant performance ever witnessed in F1, which puts them in a very comfortable situation.

    Despite Bottas currently doing more or less enough to keep Mercedes in front, things may change once Mercedes will loose that edge (because that will happen one day). And maybe someone like Ocon could be a better winger by then?

    1. Very difficult decision indeed. But if Mercedes were to swap Bottas for one of the other two drivers, I’d be more inclined to go towards Russel than Ocon.
      While Ocon is indeed a fast driver, he does appear to be lacking in common sense more of the time.
      He’d rather crash than give up a contest, even if he appears to be headed towards an accident especially with his team mates.
      Mercedes don’t need to hear, “everybody can see what he did”, after both cars are wiped out.
      Russel appears to be very level headed, professional and very competent.

    2. If they want someone to be a #2 driver, Bottas will suffice.

      If they want someone to challenge Hamilton, Bottas isn’t really that guy. But is Ocon? He wasn’t trashing Perez at Force India by any stretch (except in qualifying but anybody can outqualify Perez bar Stroll, it’s race-pace where Perez earns his money)

      If they really do want a strong teammate to Lewis, I don’t get why they didn’t sign Ricciardo when they had the chance…

      1. I don’t think Mercedess wanted 2 drivers fighting for the title so Daniel was out of the question. So they will keep Bottas as Lewis don’t want a hotshot next to him. So we have to watch Lewis for the answer who is in seat nr. 2

  7. It is important to understand why movable aerodynamic devices were banned. Back when wings were first added the wings were quickly mounted on the unsprung suspension parts (uprights and wishbones) so the vertical loads from the wings go directly to the tire and not through the car suspension. This combined with the fact that dynamic stresses were poorly understood at the time and the wings were literally high in the air held by couple of flimsy metal sticks and you had quite a few failures. The reason why the mountings were so flimsy is because anything you add to suspension adds unsprung weight. If you add weight to the upright or wishbone you weaken traction as the tire has harder time following the road going over bumps. So you want to make it light.

    In the end these unsafe “movable” wings were banned altogether and teams were forced to attach the wings to the car body where they can be mounted rigidly and safely. I wrote “movable” because the wings moved with the suspension which was basically just a by product of the design. This also gives you the benefit that you don’t need to put stiffer springs and dampers on the car to handle the increased suspension loads caused by downforce at higher speeds. The movement did not give any benefits in itself like you get with bending wings and drs. The wing just moved with the suspension.

    Of course movable wings had been done already elsewhere. The famous chaparral 2f had already had a pedal controlled wing which gave more speed and less drag on straight and more downforce in the corners. As for the drs the main issue with it is not the loss of downforce but the change in aerodynamic balance of the car. It literally removes grip from the rear which can be really dangerous as a car can spin extremely quickly when it suddenly loses downforce at the rear whereas some loss of front downforce just results in understeer and increased stability. Movable wings were already known to be safe as the cars had movable front wings in 2009 I think. Couple of years before drs.

    The main thing movable wings could do nowadays is allow teams to run monaco levels of downforce everywhere and make the wings flat on straights and then come up in corners. The end result of this is mainly massive increases in straight line speeds which is not very safe either. This was also the main trick of the porsche 919 evo which lapped around nordschleife. Active aero (movable wings and splitter and diffuser) gave it massive downforce in corners and under braking but also very low drag and high speeds on the straights. None of this is really new. If I recall correctly the mclaren f1 road car already had movable wings in the 90s and modern super cars have movable aerodynamic parts under the car as well (pagani huyra).

    1. Discussions on movable aero and wings has been primarily for the current form of the cars. With the advent of a more ground-effects based design coming around the corner, this just screams for a moveable aero approach, whether the rules allow it or not. Reference there is to flexible bodywork, wings and skid blocks dragging on the pavement.
      A past problem with the earlier ground effects cars (as understood) was the extreme sensitivity to ride height. Higher speed, more downfoce, suspension compression and …. more downforce.
      I am sure if the designers had their way, there would be moveable components in the tunnels to control downforce depending on speed and other factors. Sounds like a plug for active suspension.
      How does this problem get resolved.?

      1. I am sure if the designers had their way, there would be moveable components in the tunnels to control downforce depending on speed and other factors

        Only factors I can think of is either typical differentiation between high downforce (braking and corners) and low drag (straights) situations. And other type maybe is maybe to design the wings really close to stalling and then actively move them to get the most downforce out of them while being able to bring them back when the system detect stalling. And maybe to actively move the aero balance backwards and forwards.

        Personally I don’t think f1 needs any more downforce in the corners or ability to run less on straights. Movable wings controlled by computer will sound a lot like driving aid to lot of people and while I think some kind of automatic front-rear balancing system might be beneficial in dirty air the first thing everybody will do with such system is to adjust it for minimum drag on straights and max downforce in corners. Any kind of wing stalling detection sounds nice in principle but all I see is that it would lead teams to design more aggressive and more sensitive aerodynamic packages which not add anything positive to racing.

  8. Kevin Magnussen says he ‘would be there immediately’ if F1 chose to race on the Nurburgring Nordschleife.

    Well, obviously, like every other driver who have to go to every race in the F1 calendar, Kevin.

    Also:

    Squirrell Irritable

    That’s the best nickname I’ve heard in ages.

Comments are closed.