Bring back in-season testing? (Merged)

If a team wants to use some budget on track testing, then why not? They’d have to take it from inside their cost cap allowance, so it seems there’s no justification now for restrictions.

Edited by ARTGP, 01 September 2022 - 21:36.

Good question, I'd personally love to see testing come back but I feel it would be heavily weighted towards those with their own circuit...

Good question, I'd personally love to see testing come back but I feel it would be heavily weighted towards those with their own circuit...

There could be a standard cost allocated to a test day, regardless of the actual out-of-pocket expense to the team.

YES

Good idea.

Jp

I'd be in support. I've thought for a while that maybe F1 should look at introducing the MotoGP "concessions" system, giving teams that are uncompetitive a chance to catch up with opportunities to test - and, eventually, when you start getting better results, you lose the concessions. 

Wait no...

Bad Idea.

for the racing at least.

Jp

Ferrari own their circuit. The others would have to rent. Not fair.

So let’s say Ferrari can’t test at Fiorano….

Problem solved?

Why would the fact that Enzo Ferrari was a visionnary be 'unfair'?

Every single issue the Scuderia has been facing has its root in the capital they squandered when they gave up Fiorano.

If a team wants to use some budget on track testing, then why not? They’d have to take it from inside their cost cap allowance, so it seems there’s no justification now for restrictions.

No there is justification because on track testing is better as wind tunnel hours and if teams went testing more they could bypass the wind tunnel limitations.

Personally I'd rather see new rules alowing test drivers to get mileage (in current cars).

Ferrari own their circuit. The others would have to rent. Not fair.

So let’s say Ferrari can’t test at Fiorano….

Problem solved?

McLaren had a shop near Barcelona in those days, other teams too. So there are practical solutions possible.

If a team wants to use some budget on track testing, then why not? They’d have to take it from inside their cost cap allowance, so it seems there’s no justification now for restrictions.

I've been saying this for a while now. It makes no sense for in-season testing to be banned when you can budget CFD and tunnel time into your cap. Let the teams decide how best to spend that money. It would also open up opportunities to get young drivers some real seat time before they come up to the big team.

It's not just the track costs is it. Its the PU and the rest of the car. Wouldn't work if they had to do it within current part use allowances or face penalties.

Wait no...
Bad Idea.

for the racing at least.

Jp

Ferrari own their circuit. The others would have to rent. Not fair.

So let’s say Ferrari can’t test at Fiorano….

Problem solved?

That's easily remedied within the accounting, as you'd have similar challenges with arrangements for wind tunnels and other facilities based on ownership.  From an accounting perspective you could use a generic, notional rate (based on the actual costs that teams have historically paid) and apply this to all teams' budgets.  This could be done for any facilities.

You would also have to bar teams from utilising revenue from renting out such facilities as revenues within their sporting budgets to prevent unfairness the other way.

I've been saying this for a while now. It makes no sense for in-season testing to be banned when you can budget CFD and tunnel time into your cap. Let the teams decide how best to spend that money. It would also open up opportunities to get young drivers some real seat time before they come up to the big team.

I've felt Mag's fifth at the first race of the year was simply due to the team being able to get the car dialed in better because of the pre season testing at the same track. I've read that they have the old Ferrari stimulator (and also claims that they have no sim at all) so between that and the fact that CFD and 60% wind tunnels are not 100% perfect, on track testing will always give better setup results. 

It's not just the track costs is it. Its the PU and the rest of the car. Wouldn't work if they had to do it within current part use allowances or face penalties.

I'd assumed testing (along with Free Practice) they are not bound by the allowances component, are they? it is simply what's bolted to the car when Q1 starts.  The bigger question is budgets, designing and manufacturing additional, testing components within the current cost-cap.

Dunno, I kinda like the unbound optimism that a team brings with their new updates ...only to find they don't work as expected.

I also don't think opening up testing woud do anything to level the playing field.

On-track testing would let the big teams ensure better correlation between their CFD and wind tunnel process, saving them money over the longer term.

The small teams barely have enough to bring 2 cars to every round as it is.

If a team wants to use some budget on track testing, then why not? They’d have to take it from inside their cost cap allowance, so it seems there’s no justification now for restrictions.

This applies to pretty much all restrictions that they have put in place for cost-saving over the years. Now there's a cost cap, which limits the teams abilities to spend wildly, there's no reason to restrict anything, as all will be naturally restricted by each teams budget allocations (within the cap).

On the other hand, if the restriction is there for reasons other than cost-saving, then that's a different matter.

Edited by pdac, 02 September 2022 - 07:42.

Ferrari own their circuit. The others would have to rent. Not fair.

So let’s say Ferrari can’t test at Fiorano….

Problem solved?

Red Bull though?

If a team wants to use some budget on track testing, then why not? They’d have to take it from inside their cost cap allowance, so it seems there’s no justification now for restrictions.

In theory, yeah. If a team wants to spend money out of their budget to go testing, then why not? Unrestricted it will inevitably give Ferrari quite an advantage though, so I guess any testing where you rent time at an external track would be OK..

Red Bull though?

I don't think it matters much, travelling to Austria with all the equipment needed would probably be as expensive as renting Silverstone.. but I'm guessing.

I'd be in favour. Teams would still limit the amount of testing due to use of PU's and money spent on running. Testing isn't cheap even when you do own your own circuit. That does need to be addressed....maybe Ferrari host a "free" test for any team willing to participate?

Though with the calendar expanding, when is there time to test? Can't afford to have engineers, mechanics and truckies purely for testing these days. 

I agree with bringing testing back though I do think people should put down the rose-tinted spectacles. 

Testing helped teams with a bad car at the start of the season improve it as the season progressed. It also though allowed those with a good car to make it even better. There's no guarantee of a more competitive grid by bringing it back.

If a team wants to use some budget on track testing, then why not? They’d have to take it from inside their cost cap allowance, so it seems there’s no justification now for restrictions.

Im all for it. But I suspect something with carbon neutrality and showing the world how good F1 is, unlimited testing simply doesnt fit into this.

Disagree - since the testing ban we have had sustained periods of domination like never before, first Red Bull and then Mercedes.

F1 is the least competitive its been for over a decade.

I agree with you, typically in any form of performance the leaders inevitably run into diminishing returns, which gives a natural "catch up bias" to those chasing. The problem with F1 of late, is that the catch up teams have no mechanisms available to exploit that. They can't test, and as a result - performance generally gets "locked in" either for a season or worse, a formula generation.

Obviously there are exceptions to this, but generally if you allowed chasing teams to get some test mileage in - the opportunities to "become the exception" would grow, the leaders will get faster too of course but they'll likely be gaining hundreds and thousandths, not tenths.

Ferrari own their circuit. The others would have to rent. Not fair.

So let’s say Ferrari can’t test at Fiorano….

Problem solved?

Make Ferrari pay whatever the usual rental and running costs would be if they want to test there.

I've been saying this for a while now. It makes no sense for in-season testing to be banned when you can budget CFD and tunnel time into your cap. Let the teams decide how best to spend that money. It would also open up opportunities to get young drivers some real seat time before they come up to the big team.

This makes a lot of sense. I don't see how wind tunnel/CFD time is different to track time. But logic hasn't always been the forte of the FIA 

Edited by AlexK, 02 September 2022 - 10:26.

I agree with you, typically in any form of performance the leaders inevitably run into diminishing returns, which gives a natural "catch up bias" to those chasing. The problem with F1 of late, is that the catch up teams have no mechanisms available to exploit that. They can't test, and as a result - performance generally gets "locked in" either for a season or worse, a formula generation.

 

Obviously there are exceptions to this, but generally if you allowed chasing teams to get some test mileage in - the opportunities to "become the exception" would grow, the leaders will get faster too of course but they'll likely be gaining hundreds and thousandths, not tenths.

Of course you can also have different track time available depending on your current WCC/WDC position 

Ferrari own their circuit. The others would have to rent. Not fair.

So let’s say Ferrari can’t test at Fiorano….

Problem solved?

(thinking ahead towards 2026 and its then rumored manufacturers) Mercedes, Audi, Honda and Porsche all own a test track. I believe Renault even does too. So I cant say it will be much of an issue. But Ferrari has the advantage of having it close by where the cars are being manufactured. Which is different to the other teams.

Ferrari own their circuit. The others would have to rent. Not fair.

So let’s say Ferrari can’t test at Fiorano….

Problem solved?

Why not allot testing time on a Manufacturers Championship basis. As in the lower down the table you are, the more testing time you get? What all the fans want is the teams close to each other in perfomance.

edit, oh someone else has made the same point previously. So get it done FIA.

Edited by kensaundm31, 02 September 2022 - 10:25.

Why not allot testing time on a Manufacturers Championship basis. As in the lower down the table you are, the more testing time you get? What all the fans want is the teams close to each other in perfomance.

Why not allot testing time on a Manufacturers Championship basis. As in the lower down the table you are, the more testing time you get? What all the fans want is the teams close to each other in perfomance.

Ferrari used that in 2020 to prepare for 2022. They finished 5th so they had much more time allocated than Merc or RB.

Ferrari made an investment in building their test track. Is it fair they can't use it for F1?

I guess it depends who and how made the investment, if the track was built outside of F1 funds then any F1 teams wanting to use it, should be paying "rent" on an arm length basis. If its the F1 team that made the investment then the capex cost will likely be amortized over a long period of time 

I'd allow testing. For one thing, in what other sport are participants not allowed to properly practise what they do? Also to give more opportunities to new drivers, rather than just the one or two drivers a team might have "owned" for the last 15 years. It needs opening up more.

I'd allow testing. For one thing, in what other sport are participants not allowed to properly practise what they do? Also to give more opportunities to new drivers, rather than just the one or two drivers a team might have "owned" for the last 15 years. It needs opening up more.

Actually Nascar has severely restricted testing as well. Kimi wasn't able to drive his actual car before the race weekend at The Glen. He ran some laps in a Nascar owned test mule crewed by a hired IMSA team iirc for a few laps at VIR and that was it.

I'd allow testing. For one thing, in what other sport are participants not allowed to properly practise what they do?

Boxing, arguably? I mean it's not not allowed, but you don't want to take 12 rounds of punches to the head and body unless you absolutely need to.

Boxing, arguably?

Ed Straw argues for bringing back in-season testing to get more track-time for potential F1-drivers.

If in-season testing was under the cost cap, then the argument for banning it in the first place is perhaps no longer valid - i.e. the wealthy teams cannot just throw money at in-season testing to solve problems.

Edited by cbo, 19 September 2022 - 08:12.

something abt Ferrari having its private track next to its factory etc

I've always been in favour of keeping in-season testing. At the moment the teams with the best CFD/windtunnel/simulation tools are always going to be significantly ahead of their rivals, and that baked-in infrastructure advantage isn't going away with the budget cap. On-track testing at least gives the "poorer" teams a bit of parity.

Even looking past the money issues and the obvious "Ferrari has a test track, so it costs less for them" debate that will be thrown up, it also doesnt fit in the carbon neutral aims of F1 to run cars even more. So that wont happen any time soon.

 

 

 

Even looking past the money issues and the obvious "Ferrari has a test track, so it costs less for them" debate that will be thrown up, it also doesnt fit in the carbon neutral aims of F1 to run cars even more. So that wont happen any time soon.

 

I already thought about this. Why is there still a testing ban while the cost cap should make sure teams stay within budget.

 

 

 

Even looking past the money issues and the obvious "Ferrari has a test track, so it costs less for them" debate that will be thrown up, it also doesnt fit in the carbon neutral aims of F1 to run cars even more. So that wont happen any time soon.

 

You can have a token amount of money reduced from your budget per testing day that should be enough to rent the track and run a current car, if you own a track or not. 

Just plant 50 trees for every lap. Or pay a secondary company to offset the carbon emission.

Greenwashing, yay!

Or cancel 5 GP's.

What ever happened to the in-season tests taking place the days following a Grand Prix that were introduced a few years ago? Wasn't that a thing?

Also, it seems like the ban on in-season testing sort of falls apart when teams can do almost whatever they want with a two-year old car. Those costs still exist.

It seems with the cost cap a lot of restrictions could be lifted and it could allow the teams to use their money as they see fit, while a couple of official tests in season would be a useful thing. Perhaps still have a mileage limit for each team?

I already thought about this. Why is there still a testing ban while the cost cap should make sure teams stay within budget.

 

 

 

 

You can have a token amount of money reduced from your budget per testing day that should be enough to rent the track and run a current car, if you own a track or not. 

 

 

Or cancel 5 GP's.

My answer would be: no, because the limit of testing is excellent for separating the wheat from the chaff, drivers-wise. I can't remember a period in which drivers had to dive so quickly into the deep end and that's good. Yeah, Latifi, but he will be gone next year (I think), while in ye old days of endless testing, he would be still here in 2027, because a.his backers would pay all the testing, b. he would fool some teams after millions of miles he is sort of okayish...