The dangers of an in-season testing ban.

[gloomyDAY]

Ferrari have an empty seat after Felipe's accident, but their test drivers (Mike and Luca) have never tested the actual F60. I just think that it is an unfair expectation for a driver to come to grips with a new car in 3 practice sessions and qualifying before getting into an actual race.

I think it should be stipulated in the rules that the reserve drivers can at least have a test session during the season to better develop the cars, obviously, but more importantly have a seasoned driver waiting in the wings.

[ArrowsFA1]

Coming from a slightly different perspective, I think it was Felipe who spoke out against the testing ban some time ago. His view was that there was a safety issue with bringing un-tested new parts to a race weekend.

[Saint Devote]

The whole concept of not testing is illogical.

F1 cars ARE test vehicles because they are at the forefront of a technology - despite the current trend by the FIA to dumb it down and chase people such as Ilien and Newey away which would effectively signal the end of the f1 concept.

The risk is increased and the sport loses because new drivers cannot be assessed by teams.

I like the idea offered by Gary Anderson of at least two periods of two test days and and or preferrably making the Thursday of a grand prix a test day.

[Knock-on]

Coming from a slightly different perspective, I think it was Felipe who spoke out against the testing ban some time ago. His view was that there was a safety issue with bringing un-tested new parts to a race weekend.

Was the suspension module modified from the setup that started the season does anyone know.

Anyway, regardless of this, I think the current situation is crazy.

I suppose the arguement is that teams have the opportunity to give a test pilot a shake down before the season starts. It's not the FIA's fault if they don't do it.

The problem with this rule is that it's a badly thought out, knee jerk solution.

One possible solution is that they have a spare care that can have a 60 minute shake down at the very beginning of a weekend but the current drivers cannot do this test. That would allow a 3rd or test driver to check parts and get drive experience with little additional cost.

[ioan]

I like the idea offered by Gary Anderson of at least two periods of two test days and and or preferrably making the Thursday of a grand prix a test day.

I'd rather have it the Monday after the race, in order to be sure that they will not spend time on set-up for the coming race but rather focus on testing new parts to be introduce a few races later.

[DexDexter]

I'd rather have it the Monday after the race, in order to be sure that they will not spend time on set-up for the coming race but rather focus on testing new parts to be introduce a few races later.

That's a good idea, the costs wouldn't be too high. IMO they shouldn't have those after every race but on few occasions during the season.

[Sonic]

Its a logical and well thought out plan; so obviously it will never happen! :rolleyes:

Obviously at some tracks (monaco) it could never work. But surely half a dozen test days a year wouldn't be a stupid idea.

[Knock-on]

I'd rather have it the Monday after the race, in order to be sure that they will not spend time on set-up for the coming race but rather focus on testing new parts to be introduce a few races later.

Yep, either before or after the GP is a good idea.

Doesn't have to be a full day though. 1 or 2 hours fitted in somewhere is enough.

[Jon 'Massa' Beagles]

In-season testing should only be allowed for the bottom half of the championship...that would keep everyone on their toes and ensure a more even playing field.

[Mark]

Yep, either before or after the GP is a good idea.

Doesn't have to be a full day though. 1 or 2 hours fitted in somewhere is enough.

The day after the GP idea is a good one. Obviously it wouldn't work for temporary circuits, but for permanent race tracks then it's a very sensible idea.

[ShiftingGears]

In-season testing should only be allowed for the bottom half of the championship...that would keep everyone on their toes and ensure a more even playing field.

That would be a complete joke.

[Jon 'Massa' Beagles]

That would be a complete joke.

Why? This would be the catalyst that smaller teams in F1 need. The bigger and faster teams are not the ones who need the testing mileage...sure they could and would use it, but if they did have problems then they would be in this bottom half of the championship. And thus able to test!

Name an issue with it, cos unsubstantiated slander is somewhat unnecessary IMO.

[Knock-on]

Why? This would be the catalyst that smaller teams in F1 need. The bigger and faster teams are not the ones who need the testing mileage...sure they could and would use it, but if they did have problems then they would be in this bottom half of the championship. And thus able to test!

Name an issue with it, cos unsubstantiated slander is somewhat unnecessary IMO.

If you want to create an unfair playing field.

All teams must be treated equally IMHO

[Jon 'Massa' Beagles]

If you want to create an unfair playing field.

All teams must be treated equally IMHO

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.

[ioan]

That would be a complete joke.

Agree.

[Knock-on]

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.

If you want to compete in F1 then you should do it on an even playing field. There should not be a handicap system that punishes the sucessful and rewards the mediocre.

This is the pinnacle of motorsport and teams must fight toe to toe without artificial help for the weak.

I would be as against that as I was the preferential treatment Ferrari received.

[Sonic]

I'm with knockie and Ioan on this one.

3rd drivers for 5th place team and lower were given more testing privilages before. It was a rubbish idea then and is still pants now.

[christophulus]

The Monday test sessions sound like a good idea, and I've seen ideas about having a few open test days at Silverstone, Monza etc like they used to have. Thursday tests could work too if only designated test drivers were allowed to drive the cars?

[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.

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...maybe in-season testing is not the way. But as cost cutting is not an option that any larger team is seeimgly readily willing to accept, this is just a possiblity.

I myself would prefer the return of Pre-Qualifying to more testing, considering that it would be far more exciting on Friday afternoons...and that would also give smaller teams an opportunity to run some more miles in a competitive arena.

[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.

[ioan]

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:

[Firstgear]

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.

[Sonic]

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

[WRCS14]

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

[Easy Drifter]

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!

[ShiftingGears]

@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.

[Jon 'Massa' Beagles]

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.

[ioan]

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.

[Garry Walker]

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?



@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.



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.





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?

[Jon 'Massa' Beagles]

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...?

[Garry Walker]

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 penalizes them by not allowing them to test. If this is not a penalty, then what is it?



It simply does not reward them ANY MORE than they are already rewarded for the success they are currently enjoying.

They are not rewarded by the success, they have worked bloody hard for it and deserve it. So if they have done a better job, why artificially help those who are not as good?



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.Tough luck, F1 is not a charity where you deserve help all the time. You want to do better? Simply do your job better.



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. What incredible results did they achieve? Minardi was comedy to me, they were so far behind everyone else that it stopped being funny. They did not do a very good job, because they never had money and were always looking for handouts. I was always hoping they would go under and would be replaced by a competent team.



Your ignorance of and disrespect for them is both perplexing and shocking to me.It is not disrespect when you call a loser a loser. Simply statement of a fact.



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 Have you tested a car in the windtunnel, in your experience?

[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE] No. F1 is not a charity. They compete to be the best and everyone should have equal rules for it. If some teams have more money, it is because they have done a better job of securing funding.

[Jon 'Massa' Beagles]

It penalizes them by not allowing them to test. If this is not a penalty, then what is it?

It is a lack of a reward.


They are not rewarded by the success, they have worked bloody hard for it and deserve it. So if they have done a better job, why artificially help those who are not as good??

They receive cash for their position in the F1 Standings iirc, but the reason for another team not doing so well could easily be related to a lack of resources rather than to any lack of application or effort. I'm not saying this should be rewarded, but rather that these teams should be given the opportunity to have more laps than the others to level the playing field somewhat.


Tough luck, F1 is not a charity where you deserve help all the time. You want to do better? Simply do your job better.

Doing your job better only goes so far if you can't afford the materials and man power with which to do it better. F1 is indeed not a charity, hence why help and support needs to be given to those with less. Let's both start an F1 team...me with 100 million pounds of funding, youi with 20 million pounds. Who do you think is realistically going to do better? Of course the one who used their money better, and I'm sure your opinion is that you would do better. But having so much more money than you would make achieving top 10 finishes far easier for me than it would be for you...yet you would have no help or support, and no extra reward for the level of success that we both achieved. Fair? No. And yes, life is not fair...that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and change it though!


What incredible results did they achieve? Minardi was comedy to me, they were so far behind everyone else that it stopped being funny. They did not do a very good job, because they never had money and were always looking for handouts. I was always hoping they would go under and would be replaced by a competent team.

They did not do a very good job because of a lack of money, yes. Had every other team been budget capped I think you would have seen Minardi move up the grid fairly rapidly...they worked miracles on a budget that was frankly tiny. In 1999 it was estimated at 50 million dollars compared to a conservative estimate of 225 million dollars at Ferrari. (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/2000/bri/faq.html)

That year they scored no less than 7 Top 10 finishes that season, would have scored 5 points under the current system...their drivers were the current Ferrari test drivers, who were hardly the creme de la creme of F1 racers!


It is not disrespect when you call a loser a loser. Simply statement of a fact.

You implied they were comedic, idiots and not serious about F1. These are not statements of facts. Those Minardi employees became Toro Rosso employees (the majority of them anyhow) and with a slightly larger budget they went as far as winning a race...a very impressive achievement.


Have you tested a car in the windtunnel, in your experience?

I can honestly say that I have not, and yourself?


No. F1 is not a charity. They compete to be the best and everyone should have equal rules for it. If some teams have more money, it is because they have done a better job of securing funding.

It may be for that reason indeed. Though it is a fact that most sponsors go for more established teams, look at the troubles Brawn had in attracting sponsors despite 7 race wins in the row and almost complete dominance! With everything geared to helping the larger teams (economics, history, sponsor habits, driver habits...) something must be done to help the smaller teams. Or you can kiss Toro Rosso and Williams good bye, and any other prospective applicants who wont survive for that long without some assistance.

And equal rules would be in place...were the budgets of a more established team to shrink then they too would be allowed extra testing time.

You act as if this is gifting points to lazy idiots, but extra testing is no guarantee of that...rather it only gives the opportunity to improve the car with the correct application of data.

[Knock-on]

OK, lets stop getting anal about a word. Punish may be wrong and should be substituted with Handicap. I don't think anyone would argue that sucessfull teams not being extended the same opportunities to test is a Handicap.

Unlike my old mate Gazza, I do have a bit of a soft spot for the smaller teams that have come through the ranks like McLaren and Williams to what they are now. In doing so, they have evolved and gained a heritage that defines their ethos and identity.

So, lets chuch an unfair (as in it would be fair if everyone had it and unfair if only some do) advantage at USGP and get them competing at the same level.

Isn't that a dis-service to Williams. They have struggled for years and succeeded where others have failed. Yet some upstart with no history in F1 gets preferential treatment.

Does that seem fair?

Let them develop as is their right without trying to engineer results. We've had enough of that.

[ioan]

Let them develop as is their right without trying to engineer results. We've had enough of that.

:up:

[Jon 'Massa' Beagles]

Isn't that a dis-service to Williams. They have struggled for years and succeeded where others have failed. Yet some upstart with no history in F1 gets preferential treatment.

Does that seem fair?

Let them develop as is their right without trying to engineer results. We've had enough of that.

Well, as Williams would be eligible for extra testing due to their smaller budgets I highly doubt they would be arguing too much about their past.

Engineering results is something I am also against...engineering competition when necessary, as I believe it may soon be, is something I am however very much for. I personally would prefer a method like this to constant rule changes, but I do concede that some may prefer the rule changes.

[Easy Drifter]

ioan: Sorry, but if you think race mechanics only work during race meetings you do not know as much as I thought you did.
During the season they do not work 5 day weeks but usually 7. Work days in the shop are more likely to be 12 or 14 hours not 7 or 8. Their time 'off' is getting to and from the races. Getting up at 4 or 5 in the morning to catch a flight. All nighters in the factory are not uncommon. Today because of Parc Ferme rules they do not get the all nighters at the track as a regular occurrence.
Read Steve Matchett's book 'A Mechanics Tale' to see what life as a race mechanic is really like. Your 9 to 5 job does not normally have the thought in the back of your mind of 'Did I miss something or make a mistake that could kill people?' That thought is always lurking somewhere and I do not know a mechanic who has not screwed up some time or other. Usually, thank god, it just results in a DNF.

Note: I was one. Not F1 but a pro series. I totally burned out after 6 years. Two years later I went back to a limited schedule for less than a year.
I did stay as a race mechanic for another 9 years but only in amateur racing with far less pressure, travel and MUST have the car ready did not exist. There were still lots of late nights but the tracks were never more than a 8 hr. drive. Not days as with pro racing and often 20 plus hours driving a day. If not that catching the red eye special at 1 am after a weekend of too little sleep.
Don't ever try to tell me mechanics, engineers and race personell have it easy!

[ioan]

ioan: Sorry, but if you think race mechanics only work during race meetings you do not know as much as I thought you did.
During the season they do not work 5 day weeks but usually 7. Work days in the shop are more likely to be 12 or 14 hours not 7 or 8. Their time 'off' is getting to and from the races. Getting up at 4 or 5 in the morning to catch a flight. All nighters in the factory are not uncommon. Today because of Parc Ferme rules they do not get the all nighters at the track as a regular occurrence.
Read Steve Matchett's book 'A Mechanics Tale' to see what life as a race mechanic is really like. Your 9 to 5 job does not normally have the thought in the back of your mind of 'Did I miss something or make a mistake that could kill people?' That thought is always lurking somewhere and I do not know a mechanic who has not screwed up some time or other. Usually, thank god, it just results in a DNF.

Note: I was one. Not F1 but a pro series. I totally burned out after 6 years. Two years later I went back to a limited schedule for less than a year.
I did stay as a race mechanic for another 9 years but only in amateur racing with far less pressure, travel and MUST have the car ready did not exist. There were still lots of late nights but the tracks were never more than a 8 hr. drive. Not days as with pro racing and often 20 plus hours driving a day. If not that catching the red eye special at 1 am after a weekend of too little sleep.
Don't ever try to tell me mechanics, engineers and race personell have it easy!

I'm pretty sure they the race mechanics don't work 7 days a week every week, neither do they work more than 40 hours a week.
And there are several reasons to that, one of them being the European legislation.

Every team has well trained personell at the factory at the race track and the test track (less of these ones now).

Anyway, the in season testing was ditched to cut costs, and bringing a special testing team to the track when you have the race team already there would be pi$$ing money down the drain and it isn't realistic.

[ioan]

Engineering results is something I am also against...engineering competition when necessary, as I believe it may soon be, is something I am however very much for. I personally would prefer a method like this to constant rule changes, but I do concede that some may prefer the rule changes.

I believe that the best way to close up the field is not to change the rules for very long periods (5 years at least).
In 5 years time even the poorer team will have invested what is necessary to extract 99.9% of the performance under a certain set of regulations, the richer teams will fight between them and spend a fortune to get the available 0.1%, but on the track that might translate only to a tenth of a second per lap, maybe two. And this means that they will be able to fight the big ones in the right conditions and even beat them every now and than.

This is only my opinion, but I often thought about this and always came to this conclusion.

[Sonic]

Spot on drifter.

Unless you've been there its impossible to know the pressure. In fact you working on a pro-team instead of F1 probably had even more pressure as you most likely did the work of about 6 F1 mechanics alone?

Never sat that side of the pit wall myself but I was always hugely grateful/amazed when the boys could somehow get the car I wrecked on sat back on the road by the Sunday.

[Sonic]

Disagree with that last one Ioan. The most radical rule changes in 15 years have just taken place and the grid is separated from front to back by what? 1.5 seconds. That's a tiny gap.

The rules had been stable (largely) for a good number of years before this one yet the gap has never been tighter.

[Firstgear]

Disagree with that last one Ioan. The most radical rule changes in 15 years have just taken place and the grid is separated from front to back by what? 1.5 seconds. That's a tiny gap.

The rules had been stable (largely) for a good number of years before this one yet the gap has never been tighter.

I've got to agree with ioan on this one. That tiny gap is due to todays regulations and design constraints.
...The cars are mandated to have virtually identical engines these days. If one lacks power, they are allowed to reengineer to catch up.
...They all use the same rubber.
The list could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Everyone is working towards the 'perfect' car. Given stable rules, and enough time, any compitant team should approach that, and get really close to it (99.9% like ioan says).
The problem is, that when they get close, they get too fast and the regulations have to change. Also, new technologies make that 'perfect' car a bit of a moving target.

[Knock-on]

I'm pretty sure they the race mechanics don't work 7 days a week every week, neither do they work more than 40 hours a week.
And there are several reasons to that, one of them being the European legislation.

Every team has well trained personell at the factory at the race track and the test track (less of these ones now).

Anyway, the in season testing was ditched to cut costs, and bringing a special testing team to the track when you have the race team already there would be pi$$ing money down the drain and it isn't realistic.

Sorry ioan but that just doesn't make sense to me.

I know a mechanic that maintains some heritage racers such as Atlantic, Cooper etc. He limits himself to 7 days a week and works late into the evening.

I was chatting to some McLaren boys down at Goodwood and got the impression that wives and children were not included in the job description.

Somehow, I get the feeling they work their socks off and for the record, in the UK, only people employed by the state work less than 40 hours a week.

[V12]

I'll readily admit that the small gap between the field these days is good in many ways, but I'd happily sacrifice that to return to the days when we had a variety of engines, variety of rubber, combined with a variety of tracks that increases the likelihood of having different cars suited to different circuits.

These days it just seems to be all about the Brawn tyre temperature.

Although teams are always going to converge on the optimal solution without restrictive regulations, Ferrari went down from a V12 to a V10, and Ford went up from a V8 to a V10 before V10s were made mandatory, but it would still be nice to see the option there to do something different.

[Easy Drifter]

ioan: You are wrong.
The race mechanics work extremely long hours in any series. I have known quite a few F1 mechanics and although I was never a F1 wrench I gophered for one team for a while. The race mechanics also assemble the cars in the first place and tear them completely down between races.
Note that this year there is an enforced ban for work at the factories for two weeks.
The reduced testing will just mean there are fewer employees not less work.
As I said, read Marchett's book. Actually any of his books but the one that describes the life best is 'A Mechanics Tale'. He burned out. Very few, especially the married ones with family, last more than a few years. Some do but they are the exception.
Most F1 mechanics can basically do anything on a car although they have specific jobs.
Probably the cheapest way to test would be to only test close to home base but weather in the winter precludes that. Summer testing could be restricted to closest approved track to the factory. That way you would not have to transport a test car to a race somewhere with a load of parts to be tested and have that car prepped by worn out mechanics who also have to tear down and rebuild the race cars.
No race car mechanic is going to let some guy (their thoughts) back at the factory prepare 'their' car!!!!!
Good race mechanics are a different breed.



The one thing I didn't do was build engines, although I knew how to. Over the years I fabricated a lot of things including Mono Bulkheads, wings etc. I designed wings and an engine bay to accept a new and completely different engine. I also fabricated said engine bay. Designed and built many other small parts.
Designed and built the 1st skirt system on a RALT RT1 in North America. Did skirt systems for two other makes of formula cars
Designed and built a fuel injection system, in conjunction with my driver (who actually built the engines at that time) for an FZ Yamaha. Oh, she later became my wife.

I think you will find anyone on this forum who has done much racing will agree with me.

[ioan]

Disagree with that last one Ioan. The most radical rule changes in 15 years have just taken place and the grid is separated from front to back by what? 1.5 seconds. That's a tiny gap.

The rules had been stable (largely) for a good number of years before this one yet the gap has never been tighter.

The rules were changed in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, quite serious changes, still there was no close field.

This season the field is only bunched up because RBR, Ferrari and McLaren didn't design their cars with a DD diffuser in mind. I have no doubts that the gaps would have been easily over 2 seconds if the FIA wouldn't have accepted the DD diffusers. Just wait and see, next year there will be changes again and we'll see how big the gaps will be.

[ioan]

ioan: You are wrong.

All I know is that the laws do not allow for more than 40 work hours in the EU.

[ioan]

Sorry ioan but that just doesn't make sense to me.

I know a mechanic that maintains some heritage racers such as Atlantic, Cooper etc. He limits himself to 7 days a week and works late into the evening.

I was chatting to some McLaren boys down at Goodwood and got the impression that wives and children were not included in the job description.

Somehow, I get the feeling they work their socks off and for the record, in the UK, only people employed by the state work less than 40 hours a week.

They might brake the laws or found a way to circumvent them, but they really aren't allowed to make people work more than 40 hours a week in the EU.

If someone is self employed than he/she can work as much as they want, but if they work for and are paid by someone else they aren't allowed to.

The laws were made like this in order to have the companies recruit more people instead of make fewer work more.

I only once talked to a guy who use to work for Ferrari where he was making CF parts, he never complained about having to work to much, he's only problem was that his family was in France while he had to work in Italy.

Anyway, I would really like to know what are the terms of their contracts.

[Easy Drifter]

Without getting into trouble with the moderators all I will say is you do not know what you are talking about in relation to the race mechanics.
And they do not care what the EU says. Not true race mechanics.

[DexDexter]

I'll readily admit that the small gap between the field these days is good in many ways, but I'd happily sacrifice that to return to the days when we had a variety of engines, variety of rubber, combined with a variety of tracks that increases the likelihood of having different cars suited to different circuits.

These days it just seems to be all about the Brawn tyre temperature.

Although teams are always going to converge on the optimal solution without restrictive regulations, Ferrari went down from a V12 to a V10, and Ford went up from a V8 to a V10 before V10s were made mandatory, but it would still be nice to see the option there to do something different.

Well next year, even with the current regulations, the gaps are going to be a lot bigger since for sure the new teams will not produce competitive cars with customer engines and limited resources. I liked the era of variety but I'm afraid that's in the past, it's just too expensive.

[ioan]

Without getting into trouble with the moderators all I will say is you do not know what you are talking about in relation to the race mechanics.
And they do not care what the EU says. Not true race mechanics.

I just say what the laws are around here, where all F1 teams are based. I'm not a race mechanic and don't even want to be one.

[Firstgear]

I just say what the laws are around here, where all F1 teams are based. I'm not a race mechanic and don't even want to be one.
....heard over the Ferrari radio on race day - "Kimi, be prepared to jump out of the car and change your own tyres on your second pit stop. The guys have reached their 40hrs, and have checked out and gone to the ice-cream bar." :p

[schmenke]

All I know is that the laws do not allow for more than 40 work hours in the EU.

After a bit of googling, current EU legislation limits the work week to 48hrs, with several countries having an "opt-out" law where this limit can be exceeded.

[Easy Drifter]

You beat me to it Firstgear.
Ioan there is absolutely no chance you would be a race mechanic. If by some chance you got hired you would be dehired within hours with your attitude.
Race mechanics don't give a (insert brown stuff here) about EU laws.
If there are any legal questions the teams would probably hire them as 'independent contractors' rather than employees.
Think about 24 hour races plus the practice. Every one there works more than a 40 hour week including the drivers with practice and qualifying.
As I said before race mechanics are a different breed.

Even with amatuer racing I put in 50 to 70 hours a week on the car plus I had a full time weekday job!
With pro racing 40 hours straight was not uncommon and I worked on the car 7 days a week when the car was in the shop. Time off was when the car was travelling to another race and I flew home. Sometimes I travelled with the car but when the race was more than a 500 miles away I usually flew home, unless we were racing the following week. Then I stayed with the car on the road and started working as soon as we got to the next track. Travelling is part of the work on the job.
The F1 crew that drive the rigs to the track also are either on the race crew or work the hospitality/team rigs. Driving from the UK to some of the races is more than a 24 hr. haul alone.

[Sonic]

I'm pretty sure Ioan has already said he didn't/doesn't want to be a mechanic. He was just mis-informed with regards to EU legislation. And as many have said already even if those rules were in place race engineers would find a way round it as its the job they love. They are the true unsung heroes of F1 (and motorsport in general).

[ioan]

After a bit of googling, current EU legislation limits the work week to 48hrs, with several countries having an "opt-out" law where this limit can be exceeded.

The limit has been reduce this year, and there is talk about reducing it even further in order to reduce unemployment rates.
I've just seen in the news that the country with longest work week in Europe is Romania with 41.8 hours/week while shortest is in France with 35 hours/week.

[ioan]

Ioan there is absolutely no chance you would be a race mechanic.

That's normal, I'm way to overqualified for that, something like 10 years of scientific formation over what is needed to be a mechanic. ;)

[ioan]

I'm pretty sure Ioan has already said he didn't/doesn't want to be a mechanic. He was just mis-informed with regards to EU legislation. And as many have said already even if those rules were in place race engineers would find a way round it as its the job they love. They are the true unsung heroes of F1 (and motorsport in general).

In fact engineers can work more than the limit, for example in France where the work week in 35 hours/week engineers can work extra hours and get paid good money for that.
It's the manual labor that is limited to a certain amount of work hours/week.

[Easy Drifter]

My aren't we full of ourselves.
F1 Race mechanics are every bit as intelligent as you and the engineers probably more so.
I know you are a super fan but you are so far out on this you are in outer space.
As I said read Steve Matchett's books.
You probably won't as you might learn something about the real and gritty side of F1.
Putting down any mechanic, road or race, is a very ignorant position to take.
I used to respect most of your posts but now-----. What I really think would probably get me banned.
I will now shut up before I really lose my temper.

[Easy Drifter]

Mods, especially Pino and Starter I am sorry. I am just seething.
Once, and if/or when I calm down, I will start a thread in Chit Chat relating to race car mechanics/engineers/ designers and what it is like.
I knew 'joe blow' public thought that the crew and drivers did zip between races but didn't think anyone as keen as 'ioan' was that naive.

[Knock-on]

I just say what the laws are around here, where all F1 teams are based. I'm not a race mechanic and don't even want to be one.

All F1 teams are based around where?

Others have patiently pointed out how very wrong you are on this ioan but you might like to remember that France and the UK are very different. In France, they tend to stick to the regs regarding hours worked a week. I remember the Storms in December 1999 and the special dispensation workers had to get from Local Mayors to work longer than their designated working week in order to carry out emergency repairs.

In the UK, most people are contracted between 35 and 40 hours per week and as I said, outside of Local Government, you would not be looked upon too kindly if you started getting all niggley about sticking to it, especially in the current climate.

One of my engineers for example was working on a situation to 23:00 last night with the Chinese and was in work by 10:00 this morning. This is pretty normal.

[ioan]

F1 Race mechanics are every bit as intelligent as you and the engineers probably more so.

Of course they are that's why they are working like slaves, according to you, while I can get money from working less and using my brain more!
I really do not need that kind of intelligence that only works with muscles. :D

[Sonic]

Oh Ioan!

Drifter just cooled off. Why rock the boat dude?

[Firstgear]

using my brain more!

I'm sure there's a joke there somewhere......

[ioan]

Oh Ioan!

Drifter just cooled off. Why rock the boat dude?

Sorry I really didn't read the rest of his posts after the one I answered, which was enough for me today.

My bad if his post was already treated in subsequent discussions. :)

[Easy Drifter]

I guess Ioan has forgotten that John and Charles Cooper were just mechanics.
So are Sir Jack Brabham, the late Bruce McLaren and Derek Bennett (Chevron) and Mo Nunn (Ensign). Maybe I shouldn't mention Ron Dennis.
Steve Matchett, former F1 muscle has written at least 3 books.
If it wasn't for all those dumb F1 mechanics Ioan wouldn't have any F1 racing to watch. I mean just because they build and maintain the cars they must be just muscle, even the women.
There was another guy who was just a mechanic, now who was it?
I think his first name was Enzo. What was his last name ?
Oh I remember now. It was Ferrari. :eek: :D