The dangers of an in-season testing ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I understand the point you are making but fundementally disagree with it. If you are benefitting the slower teams by giving them an advantage denied to the faster teams, it follows that they are on the losing end of the arrangement.

I would love more teams in F1 with pre-qualifying etc but only on a level playing field. You get better by investing time, effort and money to build up the skills and experience necessary to win. Winning is not a right but acknowledgement that you have done a better job with the same opportunity as everyone else out there.

People will jump up and say that Toyota, Ferrari, McLaren have bigger budgets compared to the smaller teams but everyone has the opportunity to secure as much money as they are worth. You are not saying to a team that because they aren't doing as well, they can have an extra $$$.

Just doesn't work for me.

---

Fully agree! :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I understand the point you are making but fundementally disagree with it. If you are benefitting the slower teams by giving them an advantage denied to the faster teams, it follows that they are on the losing end of the arrangement.

---

There are other problems with Jon Beagles concept as well. Example Scenario:

Honda and RBR are fighting it out for WCC and are currently 1 & 2 respectively, so no testing allowed for them. Well, along comes sister team STR, who are 2nd last and are allowed to test. So STR test a variety of aero or other parts that just happen to fit quite nicely onto the RBR challenger.

Same rules for all, I say. That's the reason I don't like the quili-fuel thing either.

Excellent point. We've all been banging on about the B drivers, completely forgetting about the B team.

The Monday after the GP seems a logical step to me.

I feel there should be limited in season testing.
I do feel all teams must be allowed to test but only using their reserve driver.
The original idea of this thread was so a relacement driver, either through mid season dumping or an accident will not be driving a current F1 car cold turkey.
One problem with testing the day after a GP is the mechanics are already beat and not really sharp. There is also a natural letdown after a race. Been there, done that! It is also known as a hangover!!! Therefore you should have a separate test team and a fresh car as you do not want to use a tired race car especially with all the requirements for parts longevity.
So really the costs are not going to be that much less than a test day at another track.

Nobody ever seems to think of the poor mechanics!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon 'Massa' Beagles

@KnockOn look at the system, it may reward the mediocre but only if they use it well, and it in no way punishes the strong...rather it simply does not reward them.

---

In other words, the best teams get disadvantaged for doing the best job.

Which is not what Formula One should ever be about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Winning is not a right but acknowledgement that you have done a better job with the same opportunity as everyone else out there.

---

I completely agree with everything you say actually...but that is the reason for my suggestion! Not everyone has the same opportunity, the teams have, as you say, vastly different budgets and levels of experience. A level playing field therefore does not exist in F1 (though I concede that the opportunity to succeed is there for everyone to THEORETICALLY take), if people want one then it must be created artificially.

The problem with rewarding success is that you get the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, hence the situation F1 found itself in a couple of seasons ago. It works brilliantly in theory, but it is seldom that a smaller team has enough continued success to benefit from this. Look at the amount of smaller teams that have been forced out of the sport over the past couple of decades!

I am not saying this idea is perfect, but it is an alternative to constant rule changes. And that would surely be something worth getting rid of?

@Firstgear - I agree that would be a problem, but that surely taps more into the issues of RBR and STR being too closely linked than to any problems with in-season testing.

I know you all seem to be against this but if you don't disadvantage the top teams then you end up with the top teams winning more and more and eventually they take over the sport. Do you want a return to the Ferrari domination years? Cos I sure as hell don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easy Drifter

Nobody ever seems to think of the poor mechanics!

---

HUH :?:

Poor mechanics?
We all do work 5 days a week. The race team works from Wednesday to Sunday every 2nd week. Plus they have 5 months vacation or low activity period at least, every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon 'Massa' Beagles

How would it create an unfair playing field? The whole point is that if a team started benefitting so much from it that they gained a performance advantage they would score points and move out of the teams that are able to test!

If a team not testing was struggling, well it would soon drop into the section of team's allowed to test.

My suggestion is fluid, as in it would change race by race, and as no team is going to deliberately throw away points...it could work. And it would treat every team equally as they'd all have the same chance...treating teams as we do now ensures that new teams struggle to break through and that the same teams dominate until the rules are changed.

This would be a way of preventing that.

---

Yeah, screw those who have done their job well and help help help those who have been idiots. A Labour voter I presume?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon 'Massa' Beagles

@KnockOn look at the system, it may reward the mediocre but only if they use it well, and it in no way punishes the strong...rather it simply does not reward them.

---

It punishes them, and you are delusional if you say otherwise.

Quote:

---

You cannot possibly expect F1 to continue to be exciting without some changes, and 90% of F1 fans love the plucky smaller teams. You want more of them then you have to give them a helping hand somehow...

---

Where did you get your 90% claim? From the same guy who told you about Luca Badoer testing the F60 in wind tunnel?
I dont love "small" teams. I never cared at all about minardi and about the comedy they brought to F1. I dont want idiot teams in F1, I want teams that are serious about racing and dont need a helping hand all the time, because they are just so incompetent and cant manage to get any funding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon 'Massa' Beagles

The problem with rewarding success is that you get the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer,

---

Oh I see, you are a socialist.

What should you reward then? Failure?

So if you ever manage to father a child (lets hope not), and he comes home one day having dropped out of 2nd grade would you reward him for it and say "well done lad", or would you rather reward him if he finished the 2nd grade with all the best marks possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Yeah, screw those who have done their job well and help help help those who have been idiots.

It punishes them, and you are delusional if you say otherwise.

Where did you get your 90% claim? From the same guy who told you about Luca Badoer testing the F60 in wind tunnel?
I dont love "small" teams. I never cared at all about minardi and about the comedy they brought to F1. I dont want idiot teams in F1, I want teams that are serious about racing and dont need a helping hand all the time, because they are just so incompetent and cant manage to get any funding.

What should you reward then? Failure?

So if you ever manage to father a child (lets hope not), and he comes home one day having dropped out of 2nd grade would you reward him for it and say "well done lad", or would you rather reward him if he finished the 2nd grade with all the best marks possible?

---

pun·ishplay_w2("P0661600") (phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ubreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifsh)
v. pun·ished, pun·ish·ing, pun·ish·es
v.tr. 1. To subject to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault.
2. To inflict a penalty for (an offense).
3. To handle roughly; hurt: My boots were punished by our long trek through the desert.

v.intr. To exact or mete out punishment.

It does none of these things. It simply does not reward them ANY MORE than they are already rewarded for the success they are currently enjoying. In no way am I saying to screw anyone, you are blowing this way out of proportion...testing for lower ranked teams would lend a hand to those who struggle due to lower budgets and have less advanced equipment available to them. They would still have to do their jobs well in order to use the data they gather though...so it is not an instant guarantee of performance.

I think that nowadays teams entering F1 are serious about it due to the tough barriers to entry, we are no longer in the days of the 'garagistes' etc you know...and to suggest that Minardi were about 'comedy' is to devalue the effort of all the dedicated engineers and mechanics etc that worked their butts off on a shoestring budget to produce some frankly incredible results considering their circumstances. Your ignorance of and disrespect for them is both perplexing and shocking to me.

I used 90% as an expression meaning 'the vast majority of,' which in my experience it is...I apologise for not having proof of this figure. *Chastises self* :p

We should reward success, but take into account the circumstances it comes in. As such maybe the answer would be to let the teams with a lower budget have more testing allowance, thereby eliminating the possiblity of rewarding a lack of success.

As for your comments about me raising children; unnecessary, petty and childish. And you are how old...?