Let F1 teams run two cars in testing – Russell

42 comments on “Let F1 teams run two cars in testing – Russell”

1. 

   Proesterchen (@proesterchen)
   20th February 2023, 0:30

   In a cost-capped formula, there’s no reason to have any limits on testing.
   1. 

      Proesterchen (@proesterchen)
      20th February 2023, 0:32

      Also, GIO looks like a Zombie in that promo shot. Which would also be an apt description of his Formula 1 career.
      1. 

         AlexS
         20th February 2023, 5:34

         Yeah, he does not look very healthy.
   2. 

      drmouse (@drmouse)
      20th February 2023, 7:50

      Personally, I’d say we need a year or two to see how well it’s working, then to phase such restrictions out over a couple of years, but overall I agree. There’s have been a large number of roles introduced to reduce costs, and many (if not all) of them should be removed now there is a direct cost cap. Let the teams decide where their limited budget will be spent. If they want to spend it on more testing, including private testing sessions, let them. If they want to spend it on a larger number of engines or gearboxes, let them.

      (Of course, if they choose to waste it on catering and other costs which are not down to car development, they are also free to do so, as long as they keep the costs within the cap… Nobody can force them to spend wisely, only penalise them for breaking the rules)

      All this is only applicable, though, if the cap is effective. Only time will tell on that.
      1. 

         Adrian Hancox (@ahxshades)
         20th February 2023, 11:51

         @drmouse – makes perfect sense – loosening the regulations now we have a cost cap is the sensible way forwards.
   3. 

      MichaelN
      20th February 2023, 10:56

      The limit is also there for sporting reasons, just like aerodynamic and simulated testing is capped. They’re looking for a balance between on and off-track testing, and while it’ll never be perfect, it’s still important to prevent F1 from being a competition decided by who can spend the most on wind tunnels and co-called supercomputers.

      Part of the reason this remains necessary is that the cost-cap is not for the complete operation. If it were, then it might indeed become more viable to lessen some of the current restrictions. Teams like Mercedes and Red Bull are still vastly outspending teams like Sauber and Haas.
2. 

   S
   20th February 2023, 0:59

   Keep the testing limits – developing out all organic variability just leads to dull events. They still get way too much practice time at every event, anyway.
   Add the element that not all teams are reaching the budget cap, and it’s just setting F1 back again.

   And finally Domenicali said something sensible.
   1. 

      MichaelN
      20th February 2023, 10:34

      And finally Domenicali said something sensible.

      It’s just the reality of the current technology. There is no way a battery car can have the energy output required to race at F1 speeds over a full Grand Prix without either making the cars three to four times as heavy (thus requiring more energy to bring up to speed) or having a ton of ‘battery swap’ pitstops that just makes the technology look extremely unappealing. Even if that doesn’t necessarily mean anything for average road users, the optics would be bad – and we’ve already seen with Formula E that manufactures largely stayed away from the ‘car swap’-seasons.
      1. 

         S
         20th February 2023, 13:01

         It’s just the reality of the current technology.

         There’s also business and entertainment factors at play too, though.
         Formula E retains sole FIA rights as full electric open-wheelers for a further 16 years or so, and I don’t expect that to change any time soon now that they are an official World Championship.
         They aim to be different to F1, and not just due to technical limitations.

         Sound is also a very important aspect as part of the experience. I’d suggest that a firm majority (if not an overwhelming one) would prefer a race car that produces a great soundtrack over one with identical performance and nothing but a mechanical whine. You see and hear it every time the old V8’s or V10’s do a demo run – motorsports fans love the noise, and lament that F1 has moved away from something that made them instantly recognisable and induced a feeling of excitement and awe, even without seeing them yet. Removing it altogether would be a disaster.

         Personally, I’m a big supporter of retaining/continuing current combustion engine tech and making it cleaner. I see that as an extremely important factor in keeping logistics costs and emissions under control over the (long) transition period to something can be truly clean and fully renewable (if that day ever comes).
         People campaigning for all electric often aren’t thinking outside of the city – there are going to be use cases where transitioning away from petrol or diesel will not be viable for a very, very long time. There should be something available to them as soon as possible as a drop in replacement that doesn’t cost the Earth, while also not costing the Earth…
   2. 

      grat
      20th February 2023, 21:31

      Absolutely. No winter testing, no Friday sessions, no practice sessions. The first time they see the track should be 10 minutes before Q1. Eliminate all wind tunnels, CFD and simulators– these pampered pansies have it too easy!!!

      …. No, I’m not serious, but I swear, this is the only sport where the competitors aren’t allowed to practice, and the rules are deliberately designed to try and kill competitors in the name of “sport”.

      We went 20+ years without a fatality, and as soon as people started whining that F1 was too easy, we started getting serious injuries in F2 and F1 again.
      1. 

         S
         21st February 2023, 5:36

         this is the only sport where the competitors aren’t allowed to practice

         They ‘practice’ 24/7 in the virtual world and in controlled/isolated conditions. How many other ‘sports’ do that? They also practice for at least 1-3 hours at every event.
         The teams themselves wanted it this way… Would they ditch the computers for a return to development and testing exclusively in the real world?
         Not on your life.

         and the rules are deliberately designed to try and kill competitors in the name of “sport”.

         Such as?

         We went 20+ years without a fatality, and as soon as people started whining that F1 was too easy, we started getting serious injuries in F2 and F1 again.

         Both series are safer now than they have ever been, and competitors are approaching them as such – ‘safe’ in the knowledge that if something were to happen, they’d probably still walk away from it.
         3 deaths have occurred in those series in the last 20 years – Hubert’s fatality was avoidable with better track design (which has now been improved), Surtees’ has been mitigated by the halo, and Bianchi ignored double waved yellows in terrible conditions. I wouldn’t say any of those where caused or even affected at all by people ‘whining that it’s too easy.’

         It can be countered though, that not only is F1 too easy – it’s also too fast. Not just for safety but also for racing quality.
3. 

   DB-C90 (@dbradock)
   20th February 2023, 2:10

   Question for those in the know.

   Can teams bring both cars and let each driver drive “their” car when it’s their turn or are they only allowed to bring and run a single car for testing?
   1. 

      Tristan (@skipgamer)
      20th February 2023, 2:22

      I’m not in the know but from the regulation 10.8 c)

      Each Competitor may only use one (1) car on each day

      Competitor meaning the team as opposed to each individual driver.

      So from that regulation I’d assume they could bring both cars and test each on different days, but they couldn’t prepare both cars and send them out on the same day.
      1. 

         The Dolphins
         20th February 2023, 3:35

         @skipgamer that is my interpretation as well. What is frustrating about that however is the possibility that your teammate bins it in his half-day ruining your half. So in that sense I agree with George that running both cars would be nice but also they could just run more days, I wouldn’t mind 3 days each
   2. 

      Mark Sinclair
      21st February 2023, 8:02

      Also, given that the first race is the following weekend at the same track, are the cars that are used for testing the same one that is allocated to it’s driver? Eg, for Mercedes, is it Lewis’s car that is being used for testing? So when the race weekend starts, he will have a “used” car albeit with (hopefully) “two careful owners”.

      Or

      The test car is exactly that, a test car, not to be used for racing. So the actual race cars are still back at the factory being fine tuned as the testing goes on and brought to the track the day on Wednesday/Thursday before the race weekend.
4. 

   PeterG
   20th February 2023, 2:36

   The ridiculous testing limits are only hurting the younger, less experienced drivers and any new teams with no past data.

   Plus no in season testing is bad for fans from the perspective that it’s less opportunity to see cars on track for a cheap price.

   Back in the days where testwas allowed we used to regularly head to Silverstone or wherever testing was happening and get to watch the cars at times for free. Was standing trackside watching a test at Brands Hatchthat got me hooked on the sport as a kid in the 70s and through the 80s/90s/00s i had the privilege of been able to stand trackside during tests hundreds of times.

   I feel bad for the younger generation who dont have those opportunities. I bet many have never got to stand trackside at all or maybe only get to once a year or once every few years. Maybe why so many of the younger fans sometimes don’t fully appreciate how incredible F1 is to watch from a pure performance perspective compared to most other categories.

   Nothing else compares to watching them trackside and i dearly miss having the opportunities we used to. Maybe thats part of why i feel far less connected to the sport compared to what i used to. Think most i know who i used to go with feel the same.

   Bring back opportunities for fans to see the cars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
   1. 

      S
      20th February 2023, 3:44

      There are still plenty of opportunities to see the cars – F1 holds more events now than ever before, and in more places.
      Not only that, but more of that time is taken up in competition as opposed to bland testing/data gathering, which is a positive for everyone. It doesn’t just benefit people living in the UK…
      The biggest downside is that it now comes with a price that is out of reach for an enormous number of people – even more so now with inflation going through the roof. F1 is returning to its days of being only for the wealthy.

      As for the drivers – 20, 30+ years ago, they never had (useful) computer simulators to test and practice in. There was no virtual world to integrate into the real one in a meaningful way. Drivers get more time in the (incredibly accurate virtual) cars now than they’ve ever had access to, even when testing was 5 days per week for 48 weeks of the year for some of the mega teams.
      It’d be interesting to see what the teams would choose if given the option of the current system or greatly increased real-world testing (but with no computer simulators or virtual testing).
      I’m pretty sure I can guess their answer…. That’s kinda why it’s evolved the way it has…
      1. 

         Tommy C (@tommy-c)
         20th February 2023, 8:12

         The way things are going, life in general will only be for the wealthy now…I don’t even bother looking at grandstand tickets anymore. General admission tickets cost as much now as the cheapest grandstand tickets did only a few years ago. It’s getting harder to justify the expense which is sad as I’ve not missed a Melbourne GP since 2008.
         1. 

            S
            20th February 2023, 8:26

            Don’t stress – you get better coverage of F1 on TV anyway. You’ll only miss out on a couple of support races and all the negatives of actually being there. Remember the broadcast is free and in full on FTA TV.
            Can’t see the 4th DRS zone making it worth going, either.
            1. 

               SteveR (@stever)
               20th February 2023, 19:47

               TV coverage may be good but, as PeterG mentions above, there is absolutely nothing like being trackside and seeing the speed of the cars through corners. TV doesn’t convey that very well as the cameras keep the cars constant size. The first time I saw a race in person I was absolutely stunned at the speeds; it looks impossible that the cars actually go that fast, not to mention the sound of a N/A engine at speed. It actually made the hairs on my neck stand up.
      2. 

         PeterG
         20th February 2023, 16:19

         There are still plenty of opportunities to see the cars – F1 holds more events now than ever before, and in more places.

         True but also missing my point of been able to see them often & for very little cost.

         Maybe if I save enough for a few months I can justify attending the British Gp but even then it’s just 3 days & about 6 hours of F1 track time (I don’t care much about the support events).

         Compared to been able to go to Silverstone or at times other circuits in the UK multiple times a year to see significantly more hours of track time then no there are not plenty of opportunities to see the cars now.

         Thats what I miss & thats why I don’t feel as connected to F1 as I used to as there’s far less opportunities to be around it unless you have the cash to follow them around the world and attend multiple races which I don’t think many will.

         Don’t stress – you get better coverage of F1 on TV anyway.

         TV coverage is great but nothing compares to actually standing trackside & I miss not been able to do that as often as I used to back when they could go testing.

         I was actually really reminded of how much I miss the testing a few years ago when I was in the US for a few months dealing with some family issues & got to attend several Indycar tests as they still do regular in season testing which fans are free to attend.
   2. 

      Dale
      22nd February 2023, 19:43

      Hahaha … puppet
5. 

   Sumedh
   20th February 2023, 3:38

   Testing with all 20 cars can also help in televising it better and grab more eyeballs.

   Imagine a condensed 2 day test with all 20 cars at the same time. Teams will be moving at fast speeds, there will be no long times just spent in the garages.

   What’s more, in the last hour of the day, you can run a friendly race. 20 mins for old school format qualifying and 40 mins for a sprint.

   I rather watch that than a Drive to Survive which honestly is no more than a terribly late and bad highlights reel
   1. 

      S
      20th February 2023, 3:47

      Or they could just call it a Grand Prix event, and sell tickets for a full crowd…. Maybe even award points at the end of it for a championship?
6. 

   Dex
   20th February 2023, 4:03

   There used to be more (even unlimited) testing time in F1 in the past, but then you didn’t have all the computer and simulation power back in the day, and it was way more difficult to design and manufacture parts, the logistics etc (plus they didn’t brag how they want to reduce cost and emissions). Besides, who wants to see absolutely polished and perfected cars even before the season starts, or anything close to that? Don’t be so spoiled George, I’d like to see much more intuition and talent involved, not just tech + grind, rinse and repeat. I’d understand when you try to gain an advantage over your opponent and wish you could do that somehow, it’s a competition, but this would only make everything much easier for all teams. I’d like things to progress the other way round, and not simply trough financial and (especially) creative limitations.
7. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   20th February 2023, 6:11

   Tests in F1 have traditionally been single-car per team, but a decent compromise suggestion if the day amount were to remain at three.

   Domenicali’s view is interesting, if only I could read the full article.

   I like the creativity in COTD for Caption Competition. Great nomination.
   1. 

      PeterG
      20th February 2023, 16:26

      Tests in F1 have traditionally been single-car per team

      Not until it was mandated in 2009.

      Back when testing was unrestricted it wasn’t uncommon to see teams running 2 cars and i’ve been to a couple test’s where 3 cars were been run by some teams.
8. 

   drmouse (@drmouse)
   20th February 2023, 8:13

   I can’t read the full article, but I think Domenicalli is being very unwise in his statement, there.

   Few can predict the future. Go back to the early 90s, and very few people would have predicted the addition of hybrid systems to F1 cars, and even fewer would have predicted either the rise in electric vehicles on the road or the implementation of such a successful and high performance fully electric racing series as FE. There is every chance we will enough advancement in technology to see ICEs disappear from the transport industry, and to bring non-ICE drivetrains up to a similar persistence level for reaching purposes. If that happens, car manufacturers will not want to be a part of a motorsport which bears no similarity to their business, hence has little advertising or development value. This would lead to a larger reduction in investment and, most likely, F1 losing it’s crown as the Pinnacle of Motorsport. Fewer drivers would wish to take part, choosing better paying, more popular series… The spiral along this path is obvious.

   Alternatives to ICEs are not yet performant enough to take over in F1, and efforts to develop more sustainable ways to run the ICEs we need right now are valuable. But to write off alternative drivetrains altogether with a “never” statement is foolish of him.

   Unless, of course, it’s just being done to appease the cave men who think only cars with ICEs have any worth and that is more important for a racecar to make your ears bleed than for it to go fast. That might actually be a wise move, as long as he doesn’t actually mean what he says and, preferably, has kept some evidence somewhere to prove he’s just trying to take advantage of the Neanderthals.
   1. 

      Alan Dove
      20th February 2023, 9:11

      The FIA set up an electric commission in the late 80s or early 90s. It’s been part of the discussion for years. It’s nothing new. Formula E isn’t particularly successful either. There are simmers who can attract more live stream viewers on Youtube than the races themselves.

      It’s not about performance either. The performance of almost all series is basically set by the governing body, not the technology available.

      The talk about cavemen. The idea there’s ‘more to a racecar than noise’ is ignorant of the excellent and very modern research into music and how sound effects human emotion. it’s embedded in what makes us ‘human’. So this notion that those who like ICE because of the sound and visceral experience are akin to cavemen/neanderthals is itself archaic and very very very out of date. Most viewers of F1 can never ever get the chance to enjoy a race vehicle, but what they can enjoy on equal footing with those that do is the visceral experience of watching one, something electric race vehicles can’t do. In that way electric race vehicles further expand the inequality and disconnect between viewer and participant. That’s to say only those who can afford to race can get a full experience. Modern thinkers understand the importance of sound and visceral experience.
   2. 

      MichaelN
      20th February 2023, 10:50

      Few can predict the future.

      Yes, but one can still run the numbers on the technology. To race 305 kilometers at an average speed of 200-220 km/h with a 900 kilogram car and about 8-14 big acceleration moments on each of the roughly 60 laps requires a certain amount of energy. That energy can be gained from the petrol ICE, which even at relatively low efficiency gets a ton of energy out of just over 100 kilograms of fuel. It can also be gained from generating it outside the car (then transported at notable loss to the track), storing it in batteries, and running an electric motor inside the vehicle. For those batteries to supply the same amount of energy, it takes literal tonnes of them.

      There is every chance we will enough advancement in technology to see ICEs disappear from the transport industry, and to bring non-ICE drivetrains up to a similar persistence level for reaching purposes.

      Whether it’s desirable or not is a separate issue, but most normal road traffic can indeed be done with both types of vehicles. But assuming reaching is meant to be racing; this seems to be vastly underestimating the amount of energy required to give F1-like performances.

      If that happens, car manufacturers will not want to be a part of a motorsport which bears no similarity to their business, hence has little advertising or development value.

      Motorsport already effectively bears no similarity to their business. It’s just marketing to make them look cool. The things people want from cars are generally not allowed in racing; whether that’s ABS, traction control, stability control systems, automatic gears, (adaptive) cruise control, the works. On the other hand, the things that make the difference in racing are largely irrelevant in normal cars. Aerodynamics is almost completely useless given that most trips in cars are made at low speeds and even the fastest highways max out at about 130 km/h, and the engine technology in F1 is way too expensive, not to mention completely superfluous, for normal cars.
   3. 

      SteveP
      20th February 2023, 19:26

      I can’t read the full article, but I think Domenicalli is being very unwise in his statement, there.

      Not really, because he is aware of the formula E lock on all electric racing for the next decade plus.
      Maybe FE will drop the Mario cart aspects and start real racing, but I won’t hold my breath waiting on that.
      Meanwhile, the all electric Mario racing will tour a set of car parks and the hybrid F1 will visit the French car park sometimes (and maybe someone can arrange for that to be replaced)
9. 

   Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
   20th February 2023, 10:53

   Less testing means less time to understand the car let alone develop it which means more unpredictability which means more “fake” drama which is good for the “show” from Liberty point of view. They will never increase testing time and they will even push for a total ban apart maybe from the first shakedown.

   On another note, Russell is pushing for more testing time simply because Mercedes has been in trouble since the new ground effect era started. If they can’t sort their issues sooner, they will be playing the catch up game till 2026.
   1. 

      Alan Dove
      20th February 2023, 10:57

      Is it actually true? Last year was no less predictable in terms of car performance race to race than any previous era I can think of, and that was with completely new cars. less testing can just mean performance differentials get locked in.
      1. 

         S
         20th February 2023, 12:28

         less testing can just mean performance differentials get locked in.

         I’d suggest that aspect comes more from the restrictiveness of the rules than the amount of testing available.
         The next real chance for a significant relative performance gain or shake-up is when the next major rules change comes – a few years from now.
         Go back far enough in F1’s history, and there was a chance for teams to turn up with a car that was a complete engineering revolution from race to race, never mind just season to season. It wasn’t about how much testing they had available (some teams could barely afford any at all) – it was all about what the rules allowed.
         Since then, the rules have become progressively restrictive – resulting in what is now almost a spec series (and in many ways, it actually is).
      2. 

         Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
         20th February 2023, 15:31

         Alan Dove,
         Last year for example RBR did run into reliability issues in the Bahrain and Australian GP that they didn’t encounter during testing and that prompted Leclerc into the lead of the WDC. Mercedes and by their own admission got hurt by the shakedown that took place into extreme weather conditions that prevented them from realizing the seriousness of their porpoising issues.
         1. 

            Alan Dove
            21st February 2023, 10:22

            Well the Mercedes thing proves my point as they weren’t able to sufficiently test their car to dial out their issues until very late in the season. had their been open testing it may, and I stress may, be more of a three tussle.

            Reliability issues, well that’s a couple of instances which have happened time immemorial, but again my point is more general about predictability. F1 is not less predictable with less testing.
   2. 

      MichaelN
      20th February 2023, 11:07

      Less testing means less time to understand the car let alone develop it which means more unpredictability which means more “fake” drama which is good for the “show” from Liberty point of view.

      It’s no more fake to have one hour of testing than it is to have three. That particular bridge was crossed long ago when it became disallowed to test as much as a team could afford.

      Sometimes more testing bunches up the cars in terms of pace, sometimes less testing does the same. If having less testing means less ‘bruteforcing’ development with money then I don’t mind. The start of the season is also usually more competitive than the end when the teams have generally all settled into their ‘optimal’ performance.
      1. 

         Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
         20th February 2023, 15:48

         The decision to ban testing in 2008 for cost cutting reasons was ridiculous to say the least. The cost went even higher with the new technology that have emerged. (Simulations, wind tunnels, AI, cloud computing…). Luca Di Montezemolo kept lobbying unsuccessfully both Ecclestone and Todt to reverse that decision. Marchionne (RIP) was smart enough to realize that he cannot counter that decision and instead took the decision to invest hundred of millions into new state of the art F1 facility. Only someone like him could take a decision with that magnitude since he had the trust of the shareholders.
10. 

    Adrian Hancox (@ahxshades)
    20th February 2023, 11:13

    I am with GR on this – if a team can afford to run both cars within the budget cap, then let them.

    On a tangent, I think there are other things that the budget cap can bring forwards too, such as removing the minimum weight for cars – hopefully encouraging smaller cars and better racing. Safety is already regulated so that should not be a problem.
11. 

    Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
    20th February 2023, 18:45

    No-brainer for me. Drivers clearly want more testing, and single-car testing’s a relic that looks lame compared to sportscar and Indycar test/preview/build-up events, and doesn’t sit well with Liberty taking F1.

    Just waiting for Horner to stick his oar in.
12. 

    Dave (@davea86)
    21st February 2023, 1:52

    Given that the costs of actually running the cars are pretty low when compared to all the other costs associated with testing (logistics, travel and accommodation of the team personnel, circuit hire, etc.) it seems crazy that they wouldn’t try to maximise the benefits from all those costs by running both cars and making the event as cost efficient as possible, rather than as cheap as possible.

    I’d let the teams run both cars as much as they want over the three test days, but if they insist on only running one car at a time then at least let them bring both cars and alternate them. That way they can maximise on track time rather than have nobody out on track while they’re making setup changes, and don’t lose a whole days running if they have a crash or mechanical issue.
13. 

    Dale
    22nd February 2023, 19:53

    I’m amazed that so many people who call themselves fans, and even some drivers, don’t understand why there is only one car per team at pre-season testing.

    Firstly, most teams don’t even have two chassis available to build two cars, having just launched cars a few days ago, tking into account FIA crash tests, and that they have been pushing design concepts as far as possible before even manufacturing the parts for the first test.
    Secondly, most of the parts are ‘development’ parts that need to be evaluated before being produced in quantities. Teams often fly with them in their hand luggage to the test, because they are completed just before leaving.

    George should know better.
    And so should many people on here.
    Stop being such blind cheerleaders.

Comments are closed.