Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Montezemolo: Formula simulators are a 'joke'


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#51 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 26 December 2013 - 06:39

He is right. If you can't afford it then get out. Making teams develop cars in simulators makes about as much sense as telling footballers they can't practice on a real field, rather, on a PS3 game. :stoned: Sure we need to be willing to help small teams but there needs to be a point when consideration stops and common sense begins.



Advertisement

#52 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 26 December 2013 - 08:27

no they don't, the core for both Ferrari and Red Bull (and McLaren afaik) simulators is rFactor pro. They even use the same parameters as rfactor pro (pro being NOT what you can play in your home by the way pro is this -> http://www.rfactor-pro.com/ ), The core is the physics engine, not the render not the "maps" ... they don't even use maps, they use track scans


If it's so standardised how come they do things like signing PDLR just to develop the simulator so that it's closer to the McLaren one?

#53 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,325 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 26 December 2013 - 08:34

With decades of in season testing prior to the ban, f1 was never in danger of fielding "only 4-5 teams". This absurd ban had nothing to do with cost cutting and everything to do with forcefully changing the status quo.

In those decades there were dozens of teams that went bust. Including world championship teams like BRM, Cooper, Lotus and Brabham. And that was an era when there was less money flowing into the sport, and not being channelled into a few favoured teams.

#54 Shiroo

Shiroo
  • Member

  • 4,012 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 26 December 2013 - 08:47

 

He is right. If you can't afford it then get out. Making teams develop cars in simulators makes about as much sense as telling footballers they can't practice on a real field, rather, on a PS3 game.  :stoned: Sure we need to be willing to help small teams but there needs to be a point when consideration stops and common sense begins.

 

 

So you want Formula 1 with 4 teams? That's great thinking, cause there is only 4 teams atm that doesn't have financial problems and only them could afford such costs, cause are backed by manfacturers or biggest can maker

 

 

 

In those decades there were dozens of teams that went bust. Including world championship teams like BRM, Cooper, Lotus and Brabham. And that was an era when there was less money flowing into the sport, and not being channelled into a few favoured teams.

 

 

That's the biggest problem. Even cash from F1 goes to favoured teams like Ferrari or McLaren. It is worth mentioning that there was also tobacco companies that paid shitload to the teams. 

 

 

 

So Monty is back to being a whiner (or he never left that path, he was simply a bit of silent recently).

 

If he would be winning WDC and WCC 4 years in row, he would be all "SIMULATORS SO AWESOME". Yet, his team each year is going full retard, showing that their correlation is on par with Caterham or so. Brining new parts that doesn't work at all, or make the car slower is a good example. They aren't on par with RBR, McLaren, Mercedes or even Lotus that is in shit position financial wise.

 

Ya they would like to have testing back, but as someone mentioned, they are like only team with the track at their home. Wouldn't it basically mean that they can test each day, while other teams couldn't? That would be at least retarded.

Monty, it is time to man up, and get your toys together. 

 

And his argument that so what if we someone isn't rich enough to test... well Formula 1 with 4 teams isn't what I dream of.


Edited by Shiroo, 26 December 2013 - 08:50.


#55 scandyman

scandyman
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 December 2013 - 09:00

BELLA FIGURA talking crap as usual!



#56 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,755 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 26 December 2013 - 09:02

if costs are really the only argument against testing why don't we also run the races in simulators? safe, "green", you can easily accommodate tv prime times, you can spice up the races with some rain etc

 

seriously now, there has to be a solution that is not so extreme (neither full testing nor 0 testing makes any sense). Some teams can't even afford the testing that is allowed today at the beginning of the season. should we also ban those days to make sure everybody can afford it?

 

ferrari have their own track because they built it...with their own money. it's not like they've received a gift from gods.



#57 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,688 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 26 December 2013 - 09:09

Montezemolo: Formula simulators are a 'joke'

 

I bet he hates smartphones too.



#58 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 1,938 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 26 December 2013 - 09:17

What was it that Captain Bligh said? '...the flogging will continue till the mood of the crew continues..' 

 

Small correction:

 

'The beatings will continue until morale improves.'

 

A very good summation of Luca's opinion, though.



#59 Jvr

Jvr
  • Member

  • 765 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 26 December 2013 - 09:20

Just to bring another aspect up: Luca just gave a real motivation booster as Christmas present to Ferrari simulation team... Seems he his whiplashing everybody in his team from right to left.

Advertisement

#60 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,317 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 26 December 2013 - 09:51

It's only a verification tool at the end of the day, it doesn't help you design a better car. Look at McLaren this year who supposedly make the most of the simulator. Jenson's predictions that next year's cars will be more difficult to drive via simulator feedback may be accurate but it's the guys coming up with the aero and mechanical concepts that make the car faster, the simulator only enacts the simulated data that comes out of the CFD and wind tunnel analysis. In the off season (the most important development time) they are simulating analysis data, not real track data. I think this amplified inaccuracy on top of inaccuracy is what LdM refers to. Once the season gets going and you can plug in real data to the simulator it's much more useful but by then the baseline performance has been set in the design and you may be way behind.

#61 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,409 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 December 2013 - 11:56

Nobody here has mentioned that the only post testban race winner is Maldonado. Third driver is a chanceless job these days. Look what happened to Frijns and later Valsecchi.

#62 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 26 December 2013 - 12:32

You'd have thought someone with decades of experience as an F1 clown would know what a 'joke' is.



#63 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 2,164 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 December 2013 - 12:55

The problem isn't with the simulators, it's that it's the only option allowed.

 

If the FIA wants to limit expenses it should just get on with that and impose a cap instead of their current schemes that privilege one form of development over another. :down:


Edited by Nonesuch, 26 December 2013 - 12:55.


#64 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 26 December 2013 - 13:22

Sounds like Ferrari are struggling with their simulator.

:clap:

Don't you just love the irony LOL! :lol: ....I wonder where Caterahams Sim is at compared to Maranellos??



#65 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,688 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 26 December 2013 - 15:00

:clap:

Don't you just love the irony LOL! :lol: ....I wonder where Caterahams Sim is at compared to Maranellos??

 

Like Ferrari's to Mercedes'



#66 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,753 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 26 December 2013 - 16:14

Ferrari suck at aerodynamics, at least lately, so he wants to go back to unlimited testing in his backyard to see if they are able to get closer to other teams with better aerodynamic development. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that endlessly spinning a car round a circuit has any more significant contribution to auto technology overall than simulators. In any case,  I'd agree if Ferrari lets all teams use their tracks, no time limit, no cost. I also suspect that if we go to a spending/WCC position relationa in F1, Ferrari would probably not be second, maybe not even third. Ferrari NBA Jumping Horsies anyone?



#67 vista

vista
  • Member

  • 536 posts
  • Joined: April 13

Posted 26 December 2013 - 17:57

I believe F1 should introduce a cost cap on the use of simulators IF teams really are using considerable amounts of money on this. However, it is extremely difficult to know or guess how many ressources that goes into improving the simulator. In terms of man hours it must be less than track testing, i would imagine.

#68 Morbus

Morbus
  • Member

  • 446 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 26 December 2013 - 20:27

This whole issue will only stop when Formula 1 is ran like any other sport: limit the number of people working on each team.

 

That's THE END for this whole debate. Formula 1 was alright when Ferrari and Lotus and other big names took a dozen of people to a race weekend. Big money came and screwed things up. The only way it's going back to "the old ways" is if we limit the team members. Factory included. 100 people max, working 45h a week max. That's for testing, building the carbon fiber, assembling, marketing, R&D, everything.

 

And THEN they can spend however much they want, and test however much they want.



#69 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 26 December 2013 - 21:11

How would that help exactly? You'd just end up with a few smaller teams spending huge amounts of money on ever more fantastic toys. Oh and they'd "farm out" development to "independent" companies.

 

The only way to limit costs is to limit spending. If there's no limit, the teams will find ways to spend whatever money they can get hold of.



#70 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 26 December 2013 - 21:18

Like Ferrari's to Mercedes'

..And McLaren are top of the Simulators -yes?



#71 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,233 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 26 December 2013 - 21:43

This whole issue will only stop when Formula 1 is ran like any other sport: limit the number of people working on each team.

 

That's THE END for this whole debate. Formula 1 was alright when Ferrari and Lotus and other big names took a dozen of people to a race weekend. Big money came and screwed things up. The only way it's going back to "the old ways" is if we limit the team members. Factory included. 100 people max, working 45h a week max. That's for testing, building the carbon fiber, assembling, marketing, R&D, everything.

 

And THEN they can spend however much they want, and test however much they want.

 

Wouldn't work, so many things in F1 are made by outside companies already that it would be impossible to police any team creating satellite companies to farm out work to.



#72 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,688 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 26 December 2013 - 21:57

I believe F1 should introduce a cost cap on the use of simulators IF teams really are using considerable amounts of money on this. However, it is extremely difficult to know or guess how many ressources that goes into improving the simulator. In terms of man hours it must be less than track testing, i would imagine.

 

You can't introduce a cost cap on the use of sims. It is, even on relatively short term, cost effective, if you build one that is a capable substitute for track testing. I imagine it never will be fully capable, but the really good ones are said to be closer than we imagine. Since you need the driver's feedback, it is not only 'software-driven' technology, hardware-wise, it needs to produce an experience and behavior as close to reality as technologically possible. THAT is still pretty expensive, but I imagine it is still cost effective compared to the classic track-testing era, when you had to actually design, produce, transport, run and try all alterations of any parts tested, and proof it on track. Brawn mentioned a couple of years ago, when they were building the Merc sim a sum of 40m Euros as cost. Ferrari's is allegedly said to be bought, and around 6-8m. McLaren set the standard with their sim, I haven't seen any mention about the cost of building it, but they started in 2003, well into the track testing era, which strongly indicates that it is not a technology only the testing ban made so 'popular', though it certainly made it indispensable. A state of the art sim is not a driver tool, but an integral part of development nowadays, in unison with the WT and CFD, which, in fact, are being more and more working-hour restricted. If LdM is pissed because they realized their sim needs to be further invested in, I imagine he is not mad because of the cost, but more because it takes a long time to make it work, and needs to be fed with accurate data. The more, the better. That is why it is said that the Mc sim is still king. It has a decade of history. With the new - or still further developed - sim, plus WT problems they had/have, they are hindering their own development, especially in-season, and until they have a system that produces reliable, track-correlating data, they desperately need track time.

This is from February this year, from PdLR:

 

http://www.f1fanatic...ears-simulator/

 

sorry for the long post



#73 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,501 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 26 December 2013 - 21:58

Wouldn't work, so many things in F1 are made by outside companies already that it would be impossible to police any team creating satellite companies to farm out work to.

:up:

 

Apart from that, the result would be an immense effort at all costs by the top teams to maximize the use of computers and robots.



#74 Morbus

Morbus
  • Member

  • 446 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 26 December 2013 - 22:06

How would that help exactly? You'd just end up with a few smaller teams spending huge amounts of money on ever more fantastic toys. Oh and they'd "farm out" development to "independent" companies.

 

The only way to limit costs is to limit spending. If there's no limit, the teams will find ways to spend whatever money they can get hold of.

 

If everything on the car has to be developed by those 100 people, it doesn't matter how much money you want to spend, you can only go so far. That's my reasoning, at least.

 

 

Wouldn't work, so many things in F1 are made by outside companies already that it would be impossible to police any team creating satellite companies to farm out work to.

What if you disallow that outsourcing? Seems to me to be the only sporting thing to do.


Edited by Morbus, 26 December 2013 - 22:07.


#75 syolase

syolase
  • Member

  • 203 posts
  • Joined: February 13

Posted 26 December 2013 - 22:16

I know an even bigger joke Mr. Montezemolo: not vetoing the double point last race



#76 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,338 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 26 December 2013 - 22:23

Simulators are the future like it or not. Once teams reach a certain level they will prefer simulators to testing. Setup time and running cost are minimal compared to testing. Weather is always perfect, you can "test" everywhere around the world and nobody sees what you are testing. In the future track testing will be used for correlation testing. Sure simulators might seem expensive but that is only the initial cost. Still a lot cheaper than a new wind tunnel or a test track

#77 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 December 2013 - 00:42

Simulators are the future like it or not. Once teams reach a certain level they will prefer simulators to testing. Setup time and running cost are minimal compared to testing. Weather is always perfect, you can "test" everywhere around the world and nobody sees what you are testing. In the future track testing will be used for correlation testing. Sure simulators might seem expensive but that is only the initial cost. Still a lot cheaper than a new wind tunnel or a test track

 

No, teams would prefer to do both. 

 

Ferrari are annoyed because what has happened is that costs have not been decreased, and with simulators the data and experience you get is of less value. Especially for a company like Ferrari who like to have some form of engineering overlap from the race team to the road cars.

 

You can't stress test a manufacturing method in a sim. And if that time ever arrives it'll be when we are plugging our brains into virtual reality and the questions won't be "should be use the simulator" it'll be "is this the sim or reality I can't f*cking tell any more?"

 

If banning testing was intended to reduce costs then it has failed. That's a fair argument to make.. for Ferrari, for anyone.



#78 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 December 2013 - 03:09

In other motorsports it sounds like a joke.

Look at me I am a rally driver with 1000 hours of driving cars in a computer screen....

I am a professional motorcycle driver. I barely riden a bike but I never ever crashed in the computer...

Yeah, lets argue among ourselves whatever hidden advantage LdM is talking about. Most people who dont know about F1 will agree with him on drivers of today looking like gamerz more than professional motor racers.

#79 SanDiegoGo

SanDiegoGo
  • Member

  • 429 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 27 December 2013 - 05:53

Would it be legal for drivers to have sophiticated simulators in their own home? I mean really sophisticated with hyraulics and powerful computing. Is there a limit to simulator testing dictated by the FIA or can they just have at it?


Edited by SanDiegoGo, 27 December 2013 - 05:55.


Advertisement

#80 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 445 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 27 December 2013 - 06:42

I agree with what he says. You don't expect Usain Bolt to practice his runs on a threadmill. Same concept. 



#81 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 December 2013 - 08:50

I agree with what he says. You don't expect Usain Bolt to practice his runs on a threadmill. Same concept.

But neither do you expect him to practice 5 days a week with and endless specifications of different shorts and 'plimsolls', especially if each pair cost 10-20 grand to make.

#82 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 December 2013 - 09:15

If everything on the car has to be developed by those 100 people, it doesn't matter how much money you want to spend, you can only go so far. That's my reasoning, at least.

 

 

What if you disallow that outsourcing? Seems to me to be the only sporting thing to do.

 

It just wouldn't work. Just a handful of people could outspend a current team if the money was there. And how do you ban outsourcing? Does that mean the team has to make everything from scratch, including their food and cleaning supplies? At some point you have to buy things from the outside.

 

Plus I don't see how limiting your entire operation to a certain number of people is like any other sport. Sports normally limit the players on the field, not the backup staff.



#83 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 December 2013 - 09:16

In other motorsports it sounds like a joke.

Look at me I am a rally driver with 1000 hours of driving cars in a computer screen....

I am a professional motorcycle driver. I barely riden a bike but I never ever crashed in the computer...

Yeah, lets argue among ourselves whatever hidden advantage LdM is talking about. Most people who dont know about F1 will agree with him on drivers of today looking like gamerz more than professional motor racers.

 

Then people would have to learn about F1 wouldn't they? The sims aren't primarily used to train the drivers, but to develop designs.



#84 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 December 2013 - 13:40

If everything on the car has to be developed by those 100 people, it doesn't matter how much money you want to spend, you can only go so far. That's my reasoning, at least.

 

 

What if you disallow that outsourcing? Seems to me to be the only sporting thing to do.

 

Hmm... the only way you could disallow outsourcing would be to introduce spec components like brakes etc...  I wouldn't want to drive a 200mph race knowing that the brakes were developed by a limited group of people within my team due to the regulations. That's dangerous.



#85 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 December 2013 - 13:41

I agree with what he says. You don't expect Usain Bolt to practice his runs on a threadmill. Same concept. 

 

That's not comparable because the simulators aren't about 'practising' for the driver. The are about exploring setup options and understanding things like that.



#86 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 December 2013 - 13:42

 

see, the weird thing is... some sim racers win enough money to make a living making them more 'professional' in the literal sense of theword than some F1 drivers... strange world we live in right now :)



#87 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 27 December 2013 - 14:06

But neither do you expect him to practice 5 days a week with and endless specifications of different shorts and 'plimsolls', especially if each pair cost 10-20 grand to make.

 

That doesn't sound bizarre actually, for the highest level type of competition.

 

Anyway, how hard can it be just to stay one or two more days after every GP like in MotoGP? It's a no brainer.


Edited by prty, 27 December 2013 - 14:07.


#88 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 3,524 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 27 December 2013 - 14:29

The difference between simulators and real testing is that simulators are only expensive (by F1 standards) if you really want to optimise all details and always update to the latest technology, whereas F1 testing is always expensive (maybe logistics wise less for Ferrari, but still you need to physically manufacture the parts you want to test). 

 

To me it seems reasonable not to have unlimited testing - one of the more sensible decisions in F1 of the past years. That doesn't mean we should have zero testing. Next year, there will likely have 3 longer pre-season tests and 4 in-season post-race tests (+ young drivers + maybe tyre testing). This limits the costs for real testing, which evens the playing field a bit between the rich and the poor teams. In the past years, we may not have had enough testing, which caused some problems, but this is looking better now, so there is no real need to overdo it and go for unlimited testing scaring away low and mid budget teams.

 



#89 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,375 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 27 December 2013 - 21:55

Seems he wants F1 to go back to unlimited testing instead of simulators.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/111960

I guess you might think that way if you are the only team to have their own dedicated test track and you cannot get your simulator to work.
Probably wants a tyre war and one tyre supplier to give his team first dibs at testing/choosing the tyres as well.

You make it sound like that happened by accident. It was an investment that Ferrari made that they cannot now reap the benefits of in F1. Don't blame him for saying it.



#90 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 28 December 2013 - 11:21

The difference between simulators and real testing is that simulators are only expensive (by F1 standards) if you really want to optimise all details and always update to the latest technology, whereas F1 testing is always expensive (maybe logistics wise less for Ferrari, but still you need to physically manufacture the parts you want to test). 

 

F1 simulators are insanely expensive. trying to replicate the real world in a virtual world is infinitely difficult. It's hard enough to get an accurate tyre model with a stable tyre you've had experience of for years, but with Pirellis that are constantly changing... that's MEGA hard, almost impossibly hard. It's perfectly plausible to assume that teams are sinking healthy real world testing budgets on trying to get the sim right. We are talking about replicating the infinitely complex real world in a virtual environment... and for what exactly? I love sims but they don't make going to race F1 any cheaper, if anything they make it more expensive.

 

The teams HAVE to optimise every little detail because one slight error throws everything out of the window. Even something as simple as thinking the laser scan of a track havin a 'bump' that 'must be a glitch' in the system can throw a weekend off (Mclaren/Bahrain 2010 or 11).



#91 Red Rocket

Red Rocket
  • Member

  • 206 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 29 December 2013 - 21:28

Firstly, i’m in complete agreement with Luca. The big guys will always have resources to invest in track testing or fanacy simulators. So they will continue to have advantages. Sure every once and awhile a minnow will make it the front but most of the time it will be the big budgets, the big teams.

 
Secondly, as a slowly dwindling F1 fan I miss those times when I’d follow who was testing and those spy photos that would leak out of some new component. I miss the idea of drivers and their teams facing the real elements, dry or wet tracks. wind or no wind, hot or cold, doing lap after lap hour after hour, from early morning to sunset. I miss the idea of fans standing by the sidelines watching that process or sneaking a view from a private test. Sure this last part is merely emotional, human, it merely deals with true fans and those passionate about the sport so why should the FIA care? Our tickets are not valid any way.


#92 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 December 2013 - 21:47

Firstly, i’m in complete agreement with Luca. The big guys will always have resources to invest in track testing or fanacy simulators. So they will continue to have advantages. Sure every once and awhile a minnow will make it the front but most of the time it will be the big budgets, the big teams.[/size]
 
Secondly, as a slowly dwindling F1 fan I miss those times when I’d follow who was testing and those spy photos that would leak out of some new component. I miss the idea of drivers and their teams facing the real elements, dry or wet tracks. wind or no wind, hot or cold, doing lap after lap hour after hour, from early morning to sunset. I miss the idea of fans standing by the sidelines watching that process or sneaking a view from a private test. Sure this last part is merely emotional, human, it merely deals with true fans and those passionate about the sport so why should the FIA care? Our tickets are not valid any way.

I guess you have never watched a real live test session! Lots of standing around with naff all happening from my experience of marshalling at Thursday/Friday 'test days' before major meetings at FIA level categories - romantic seems a long way away when standing around in the rain from 9-5 with a few cars droning around.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 29 December 2013 - 21:48.


#93 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 December 2013 - 23:08

I guess you have never watched a real live test session! Lots of standing around with naff all happening from my experience of marshalling at Thursday/Friday 'test days' before major meetings at FIA level categories - romantic seems a long way away when standing around in the rain from 9-5 with a few cars droning around.

 

You're working. A fan can come late, watch a few cars for a few hours... let little 'Johnny' get his first taste of seeing an F1 car screaming past.  Have a chat, walk around, go home. 



#94 warp

warp
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 30 December 2013 - 03:38

For one, I partially agree. Teams should have the chance of testing on track. With all the advances in computing resources, how many times a team spends resources on Friday/Saturday Free Practices testing some new components only to find out whatever they were using before proved better or the advantage so slim they prefer simply to run what they know it works.

 

They could do all that testing and decisions at home and dedicate their time at the races on something better.