Alonso-Raikkonen combination a “time bomb” – Vergne

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Fernando Alonso, Ferrari, Korea International Circuit, 2013In the round-up: Jean-Eric Vergne says Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen may clash as team mates at Ferrari next year.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Vergne: Raikkonen and Alonso combination a ticking time bomb (GP Update)

??I am convinced Fernando (Alonso) will be one of the championship candidates, but I’m very interested to see how it will work with Kimi (Raikkonen) as a team mate at Ferrari. Both Kimi and Fernando are very fast but the pair together could be a potential time bomb.”

New Jersey GP up for grabs (ESPN)

“All it needs is somebody serious to come up and say we will get behind this and make it happen. I have given [race promoter Leo] Hindery too much leeway. I wanted to believe that he would do it.”

Montezemolo: F1 simulators are a joke (Autosport)

“It is a joke. We have been forced to invest a huge amount of money in these terrible machines, artificial, instead of testing here [at Fiorano] and Mugello.”

Hamilton ‘confident’ for 2014 (Sky)

“The engine’s going to be difficult for people. There’s going to be blow-ups next year I’m sure all around and how we manage that [is going to be key].”

Comment of the day

India’s tax structure classifies F1 as entertainment rather than sport and Eoin (@Eoin16) says it’s hard to argue against that at the moment:

Can we really find fault with the Indian government taxing F1 as entertainment and not a sport?

Everything F1 has done in recent years has been to “improve the show”… DRS, super degrading tyres, even to the point where we now have the ridiculous double points rule for the final race.

If F1 wants to be a show and continue to ignore its sporting needs then I say that the Indian government is right to tax it as such.

Maybe if more countries follow suit then F1, FIA and FOM will take notice and we can have our sport back instead of the gimmick-filled nonsense we have now.
Eoin (@Eoin16)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Michael S!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy birthday to Red Bull chief technical officer Adrian Newey, who is 58 today.

Advert | Go Ad-free

84 comments on Alonso-Raikkonen combination a “time bomb” – Vergne

  1. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 26th December 2013, 0:07

    “It is a joke. We have been forced to invest a huge amount of money in these terrible machines, artificial, instead of testing here [at Fiorano] and Mugello.”

    Isn’t actually using the cars, tyres, engine, oil, petrol hundreds of engineers, marshalls, FIA observers and all that stuff a whole lot way more expensive than a perfectly good simulator? get on with times, Luca. You only complain at the things you don’t do well. And you have plenty of things going wrong right now…

    • Polishboy808 (@polishboy808) said on 26th December 2013, 0:25

      I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or if you’re being serious, but I’ll assume its the latter.

      The truth is, that no matter how accurate a simulator a team has, it will never fully replace on-track testing. Yes, Ferrari’s sim isn’t up to Mercedes/McLaren standards, but I think the only reason we have these simulators at all is because real testing has been banned.

      That being said, a Simulator does have its benefits as well, and Ferrari definitely need to improve theirs, but I think he’s right about the fact that the testing ban is kind of ridiculous.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th December 2013, 0:32

        It might be kind of ridiculous, but it’s also completely unfeasible. Testing is expensive, and with costs the way they are, bringing it back will just kill smaller teams.

        Luca is just having a senior moment. Rather than have some turkey and go into a food coma like the rest of us, he’s gone to the media in Christmas Day …

        • If you read carefully you’ll discover that they are spending more money now to build and improve that stupid sim than when they were testing for real and, as he said, you can’t see a Formula 1 running outside the race week-ends which is shameful and ridiculous when you constantly hear how hard they’re trying to get F1 closer to the public. The truth is they banned testing because it was the only thing they could do to prevent Ferrari from winning again and again and they succeed, the cost issue was just an excuse. The funny thing is that now we are in the same situation with RB dominating and if you ask me the old days were miles better than this garbage…at least they (Ferrari) are a carmaker.

      • bananarama (@bananarama) said on 26th December 2013, 0:59

        For a team like Ferrari, testing would be the best way to go. They own tracks, they build their own engines and they already employ the people they would need for it. I see only two other teams who could do that as easily, all the others might actually be better off doing simulations since they are already almost bankrupt and can’t afford to rent tracks and buy extra engines and sacrifice staff. So in order to keep them on a more or less or even less even playing field (the richer the team the better the simulator can be) the testing has been taken away.

    • @fer-no65 It’s more expensive impratical and unreliable to develop software and build simulation machines than to test at the track especially if that track is like Fiorano a personal track. Anyone that thinks otherwise is not accounting all the costs involved in the research for what is basically another irrational F1 rule that provokes the exact opposite of what it pretends, which is more spending. No testing produces fruitless upgrades and more expenses but arranging a test like Bahrain ends up being even more insensible if you do not account the tyre testing purposes it makes no sense to bring teams together to test at the same venue with no point in marketing what happens to an even, for that stay at base.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th December 2013, 3:40

      Luca “doesn’t want to seem like some old conservative F1 fan”, that’s OK that’s my job Luca, you just follow my lead and we might get somewhere.
      Once again we hear the clarion cry ” testing is to expensive – flying the cars and all the engineers half way round the world, blah blah blah” Bull-dung, there is a racetrack only a short drive away from all the team factories, a transporter a couple of engineers and a test driver can gain actual performance parameters in a couple of hours, while feeding theoretical performance parameters into a simulator tells you absolutely nothing if the theory does not match reality, and often it doesn’t.
      I think Luca is in a better position to compare the real cost/benefit of testing versus simulator, certainly he has access to a lot more facts than anybody who has not run a F1 team.

      • bag0 (@bag0) said on 26th December 2013, 8:39

        @hohum
        Im a software engineer, I work with prototype devices, and while I agree that real life testing is invaluable, simulations are just as important.

        If you have a good correlation between the simulation and real life data, using sims is way cheaper and faster.

        You can test parts without an actual driver driving the simulator and without actually buildind the part, which means, you can run a lot more simulations in an hour, than on track. You also dont need the staff to change the setup, the fuel tu run, the money for tracktime or transport. For the same amount of money you gain a lot more information. (I cannot be sure about the numbers, because I dont know the price of the on track testing, but I do know that running the simulations is basicly free, so we are talking about a hell lot more data)

        Simulations cannot replace real life testing, but there are undisputable advantages. Of course going by just simulations and CFD results you cannot be competitive (as Virgin/Marussia just showed), but you can work out heuristics for car setup, basic part designs, and train your drivers.

        All in all I don’t think Luca sees the real benefits of having a good simulator, or they just dont have a good one.

        • Hiring a circuit for testing is certainly not cheap given the FIA’s regulations, following serious accidents and deaths in test sessions, state that any test session requires a fully equipped and staffed medical centre (including access to an air ambulance) and having the circuit fully manned with marshals in position to assist with any accidents – all of which has to be paid for by the outfit carrying out the testing.

          That level of manpower is not cheap, and that is even before you consider the direct costs to the team for materials and manpower. As Fiorano is just on their doorstep, Ferrari wouldn’t have to pay so much in terms of transport etc., but staffing the facility would still be relatively expensive given the FIA’s medical requirements.
          Of course, Luca knows that it’d still be cheaper and more convenient for Ferrari to carry out track tests, given that they have all the facilities they need in house, than other outfits, and that inherent advantage explains his enthusiasm for opening up testing again.

          Figures of around $1-2 million a day for testing have been mentioned, which is one reason why the teams are now happy to carry out joint pre-season and young driver tests – the cost of hiring the circuit remains relatively static but can then be split amongst of the teams.

          bag0, I suspect that Luca’s criticism is partially rooted in the relatively low quality of their simulator equipment – de la Rosa commented that Ferrari’s facilities are quite some way behind McLaren’s facilities, and even outfits like Sauber are thought to have more advanced facilities than Ferrari.

          • mantresx (@mantresx) said on 26th December 2013, 15:55

            Sauber don’t have a simulator, but they do have one of the best wind tunnels.

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th December 2013, 21:42

            Anon, then surely the FIA rules have to change, that is gross overkill that probably harks back to the days when F1 cars were delicate incendiary devices.

          • I disagree with that notion @hohum: the late Maria De Villota proved that it is still frighteningly easy to injure oneself, and had the medical staff not been at the track she could have easily died sooner.

            Also, there are even more inherent dangers from the very fact that it is a test session: prototype components could easily fail.

            Slackening the restrictions would be getting complacent; exactly what I don’t want to see happening as that arguably killed Ayrton Senna.

          • mr ROSSI (@mr-rossi) said on 29th December 2013, 19:51

            Really cant understand Max Jacobson `s comment about ayrton senna .

        • CocoaBuster said on 27th December 2013, 1:06

          That all depends on how much computation is required to run the simulator. To do it right would require real time computational fluid dynamics, extremely complex finite element, and large scale multibody dynamics over a rather large scale vehicle, meshed across all parts and likely the entire track. My bet is computational needs are astronomical, needing a good sized supercomputer to do it well, and power consumption is near server farm level. To say it is cheap is total BS or just phenomenally naive.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 27th December 2013, 21:53

          @vettel1, Maria de Villota proved that no amount of track marshalls can prevent an accident from happening, I agree it would be good to have a paramedic/firefighter/ safety car available, every team should already have all but the paramedic and testing regularly might make a full time paramedic a good option. Rescue helicopters are always close to these tracks. Testing nowadays almost entirely involves aerodynamics rather than suspension parts and if you think rationally rather than emotionally you will realise that no amount of on track support would have saved Ayrton Senna.

          • @hohum I fear you may be correct, but the FIA definitely became complacent – nobody had died in several years, so I can understand that.

            And then two people died in one race weekend, could have easily been a third had Barichello impacted at a different angle.

            The main moral being we shouldn’t get complacent and think “the drivers will be safe, the cars are pretty sturdy these days”. Even if the risk is lower, for as you said most parts being tested are purely aerodynamic.

    • ed (@doombug11) said on 26th December 2013, 11:42

      Luca is just annoyed Ferrari were left behind in the early days of simulation by the other teams and have been struggling to play catch up since. One of their greatest advantages in the early 2000′s was the ability to pile Schumacher round one of their circuits lap after lap, far more then any other team was able to do, there may be tracks near to the British based teams but for much of the year their hardly representative of your typical F1 conditions. So the Northern Europe based teams instead of always flying their gear down to Spain whenever they needed to test, invested time, resources and knowledge into understanding simulation.

      For the time being the precarious financial situation of much of the grid and the huge imbalance of the sharing of wealth amongst the teams and rights owners (which Ferrari is most benefited) unlimited testing would be impossible. Sure it would be great for Luca, Ferarri would gain an advantage and win more! though after reading those comments from the barge-board debatable of 1999 the other day I dont think he could open his mouth without myself wanting to vomit at the divinely anointed arrogant drivel that spews from his lips.

      Hopefully this German court case can lead to the annulling of the 99-year rights lease. The money taken off the top by CVC doesn’t even make sense, just a bunch of rich toffs and middle men playing things to make themselves even richer. Divy up the earnings fairly, sure the better you do the bigger your cut but not the huge swings we have now, and most certainly no ‘hertiage’ based bonuses. How can you ever expect new teams to prosper and survive if you have a dynastic force sucking up the net resources.

      How about just for a start they take the ‘historical success’ bonus away from the top teams. use that money to pay for a prize fund for the drivers. Balls to double-points and medals, Bernie should know better than anybody that money is the greatest incentive!! Not just for the points either but all the way down the grid, everyone gets paid!!!! Less pay-drivers and more talent hammering at it, win-win for all except the coffers of the already too rich.

      Pandering to both the rich elite and their sense of historical importance and tradition in the hoarding of wealth whilst devaluing the sport with on track gimmicks to entice a waning public interest into watching their dying spectacle is quite sad really, I do like watching fast cars battling each other after all. It just feels like something really needs to be done before this dinosaur of a concept becomes wholly irrelevant and unsustainable.

      Oh yer testing….. I forgot my point

      • DaveD (@daved) said on 26th December 2013, 19:25

        GREAT POSTS!!! The best post I’ve seen on here in years! Bernie and the “already rich” are draining the sport dry. They could make plenty of money and be happy, but instead, they’re not happy until people like Bernie has sooo much money that his silly daughters act like Saudi oil sheiks who drop $200 on a summer house! While he’s siphoning off that much money from the sport, the rest of us are stuck watching “pay drivers” instead of the best talent in the world drive F1 cars!

        There will be a time of reckoning when F1 will have to totally revamp and it will be lucky to survive this period….and it will all be due to the greedy trolls at CVC and people like Bernie. They could make plenty of money and be very happy and leave the sport healthy, but instead they drain it till there will be nothing left. Very sad after all everyone went through to build it up to this point, including THEM! But they have become so greedy that now they will bleed the golden goose to death. Sad.

        I’ve grown to love F1 and hope to see it thrive for many decades to come. But right now I see a dangerous path it’s on financially.

        • Robbie said on 27th December 2013, 16:15

          Yeah some great points made. I think they have to get back to basics. The gadgets haven’t prevented the runaway seasons and the race processions, and have only dumbed things down and turned people off. They should simplify by getting rid of the gadgets as well as half their downforce, and put the racing back in the hands of the drivers and make them the story of F1 again.

  2. Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 26th December 2013, 0:09

    Luca seems to be forgetting the fact that a Simulator is net cheaper to use than going testing in real life.

    Sure, real testing may give you slightly more representative results, but it’s far more expensive than a simulator running rFactor Pro with racing seat gyros.

    • Hairs (@hairs) said on 26th December 2013, 0:38

      if you think McLaren are running rFactor pro you’re mad.

      • Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 26th December 2013, 1:07

        I read somewhere that most formula one teams run their own unique version of rFactor Pro.

        I have no idea what Mclaren run because I’ve never seen their simulator. Like I actually don’t even know what it looks like.

        Redbull’s videos look like they’re running rFactor Pro, but obviously their own version with track data and car handling characteristics that are kept top secret.

        • Jack (@jackisthestig) said on 26th December 2013, 20:36

          RedBull definitely use rFactor Pro, although I imagine their version is to basic rF Pro what the 6R4 is to the rusty little 1.1 Mini Metro my Gran used to have.

      • Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 26th December 2013, 1:08

        Also, it doesn’t matter what software they use, it will always be cheaper than testing in real life.

        • GongTong (@gongtong) said on 26th December 2013, 1:30

          I read somewhere (A little while back, admittedly) that Netkar Pro was a favourite for F1 teams.

          So yeah, I think the base of their systems are surprisingly close to the software we’re all able to use at home on our gaming rigs. However, it’s only a base. They have their own software teams that essential “mod” the software for their own vehicles. That’s where things move away from what we know… And where it gets a lot more expensive than a £40 computer game.

          A lot cheaper than running actual cars on a track though. Even if you own the track =P

          • Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 26th December 2013, 1:48

            Exactly.

            It doesn’t surprise me that some may use NKpro since it has the best tyre model in sim racing. And I wouldn’t be surprised if teams start using Assetto Corsa as a base level for their sims.

            They use the same base level software, that we can buy, but when the track data and car handling and specs come into it, then the end product of their software is vastly different to what we can buy.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th December 2013, 3:55

      Computings rule # 1:
      GARBAGE IN – GARBAGE OUT.

      • Mike (@mike) said on 26th December 2013, 4:25

        Same can be said for testing. If you don’t know what your doing. You’ll get useless results.

        For Ferrari it is quite easy to say that the sims are bad. You have to keep in mind his motivations.

        • Exactly – consider that McLaren had to write off two days worth of test data from the first pre-season test in 2013 when it transpired that, because of an incorrectly fitted suspension part, their car was running in a configuration that would be illegal in race conditions.

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 27th December 2013, 21:58

            Anon, having discovered their stupid error they could have gone straight back to the track and run the test again but for the ban. What costs more, running a dog of a car for half the season or 2 days at the local track?

  3. Have to agree with Montezemolo for once…

  4. Hairs (@hairs) said on 26th December 2013, 0:41

    Ferrari’s F1 simulators are a joke.

    Fixed that misquote for you, Luca.

  5. Breno (@austus) said on 26th December 2013, 0:43

    The people already saying the simulator is cheaper than doing real testing must think the simulator is the F1 2013 game.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th December 2013, 1:07

      @austus – A simulator would have a high start-up cost, but it would be significantly cheaper than real testing in the long run.

      • and yet no one here is able to offer any reliable cost data, which would be a precursor to arguing successfully and convincingly that testing on track is more expensive than designing, building, staffing, operating, maintaining, etc an in house simulation program that could deliver comparable results…

        • drmouse (@drmouse) said on 2nd January 2014, 15:44

          and yet no one here is able to offer any reliable cost data

          Because no one here has any cost data, reliable or not. The teams will not (for good reason) release info like that.

  6. To an extent, I do agree with Montezemolo: if Ferrari own a test track, why aren’t they allowed to use it?

    That said, in the long run simulators are indeed less expensive which obviously is beneficial for reducing competition costs. So a logical proposal would be to allow a certain amount of simulator running time or a similar (in terms of usefulness of data or cost) amount of time for private track testing.

    Therefore, teams like McLaren and Mercedes can use their highly developed simulators and get more running time whilst Ferrari can stick to traditional means and use the very local racetrack. However, I would like to see the amount of testing completed by Ferrari and the amount of simulator running by McLaren (to stick with earlier example) to be transparent and available to the public, so as to hopefully prevent such fusses materialising as that prosaically named “Tyregate”.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th December 2013, 1:05

      @vettel1 – Because nobody else has a private test track, and since actual testing would be better than using simulators, Ferrari would have a massive advantage.

    • bananarama (@bananarama) said on 26th December 2013, 1:11

      If testing was allowed every team would try to do it somehow (even though as I mentioned above, I think few teams could afford it). Where I work I am building and improving simulations every day (in order to model things on them) but reality strikes in your face time and again. The only substitute for real testing is more real testing. Maybe one day simulations will be good enough to be a substitute but for now it’s only a complement (yet, having such high tech companies try and improve simulations is a welcome push in that regard).

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th December 2013, 4:13

        Simulation might be able to tell you that a faster lap would be possible if your front wing developed 10kg more downforce, but, it is not going to tell you that the new wing design really will produce 10kg more downforce on the track, testing will.

        • Mike (@mike) said on 26th December 2013, 4:28

          I think you are confusing correlation with ability to compute. And testing isn’t a completely better option, you can only do so much with sensors. On simulations, there is not limit.

  7. bananarama (@bananarama) said on 26th December 2013, 1:16

    Vergne might be right, he might be wrong, but I think all of us would be happy to see them push each other and get the best out of the car and their abilities. If it turns bad and they both have a bad season then obviously Raikkonen would want to leave F1 again and Alonso would try to move to McLaren, but who knows, maybe everything will be great :)

  8. tmax (@tmax) said on 26th December 2013, 2:05

    My belief Alonso-Raikkonen combination will work just fine.

    While Raikkonen will end up qualifying higher than Alonso, Alonso will get better starts and better race pace and better support from Ferrari. That means Raikkonen will trail him in points. In 2008 when Kimi was trailing Massa in the championship, he worked out well as a No 2 driver. Unlike Mark Webber, he did not create a great ruckus giving a hard time to his team mate who is fighting for the championship. That is my prediction. I could be wrong. But as far as I see. This pairing will work just fine.

    If they have a very slow car then Alonso will prevail. if they have a fast machine then Kimi will have a good upper hand over Alonos in Qualifying they will be close to each other but I believe Alonso will lead the Championship points.

    Either way I am looking forward to his !!!! Eagerly waiting for March 16th….. The Biggest Anti Climax could be Vettel winning that Race, creating a 10 race win record otherwise everything else would be a surprise :)

    • James (@speedking84) said on 26th December 2013, 13:07

      I admire your optimism but we all know Alonso, if he’s behind Kimi in a race he’ll claim to be ‘quicker’ than Kimi to provoke the team to give Kimi team orders just so Alonso can get an extra position, then Kimi wont move over, then Alonso will get upset and the team will get rid of Kimi and hire a mediocre second driver because that is the only type of driver Alonso can work well with.

    • nicolas nogaret said on 27th December 2013, 19:30

      massa also got good starts last year ; good starts were a function of the car , not the driver
      so no reason to expect alonso to outstart kimi next reason

  9. Denis 68 said on 26th December 2013, 2:33

    Vergne should be more worried about beating his new teenage teamate than the Alonso- Raikkonen battle at ferrari.

    If he gets beaten by the young Russian his F1 career will be cactus. Personally I think Vergne is one of the most over rated drivers I have seen in my 32 years of following F1.

    I really do not see what all the hype is about him.

    • Ivan (@wpinrui) said on 26th December 2013, 4:12

      I have never realised there was any hype around Vergne, what have people been saying about him?

      • Yeah, the hype must have passed me by too. I’ve seen the odd comment that he wasn’t that far behind Ricciardo and his stats were affected by some retirements, but not hype.

    • James (@speedking84) said on 26th December 2013, 12:59

      Well, Ricciardo finished 7 points ahead of Vergne in the championship, Vergne retired whilst running in 6th in Britain and retired whilst in 7th or 8th in Italy. So if you’re any good at maths then you’ll understand that Vergne is actually under rated rather than ‘hyped’, in my view he is better than Ricciardo, he beat Ricciardo in his debut season when Daniel had almost a seasons experience under his belt and Franz Tost said the only reason they chose Ricciardo was because he had more experience. If Vergne gets beaten by Kvyat next season purely on merit, then I think that is a bit embarassing for Ricciardo.

      • Deej92 (@deej92) said on 26th December 2013, 18:48

        Yeah that would be so embarrassing for Ricciardo after thrashing him in qualifying the last 2 years and beating him on points last season…
        Wasn’t Vergne only running 6th in Britain because he hadn’t pitted though? So that’s a non-argument.
        What exactly makes Vergne better than Ricciardo in your opinion? It certainly can’t be qualifying and really he can’t be in races anymore because Ricciardo even beats him in that department.
        I don’t think Vergne is overrated, I just think his stagnating performances since Canada have gone unnoticed by many. If Kvyat gets the beating of him, it will only be Vergne with the red face, and his P45.

  10. HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th December 2013, 3:44

    Bernie says all we need is someone to get behind the NJ race and make it happen, what he means is it just needs somebody prepared to lose $20-30 million to make it happen.

  11. Ryan Petersen (@aiera-music) said on 26th December 2013, 3:47

    I wonder if Alonso will have a slow getaway in the pits during any qualifying sessions with Ferrari next year >.<

  12. Robbie said on 26th December 2013, 3:49

    I think that even LdM with personalized tracks would not be looking to use them if in fact simulators did as good a job for less. So I’m not sure that having the tracks is an advantage in this case, but rather that it is cheaper, if not monetarily, then in much more effective advancement of the car more quickly, to physically test. I know…cheaper when you have your own tracks, too.

    But the new testing concept, finally, is to stay on at select venues to test, which must be vastly more affordable than totally separate journeys with kit and kaboodle in tow. So this sensible approach goes a long way to negating somewhat, Ferrari’s track advantage, with much more ‘easy’ testing (physically and financially) akin to being in one’s own back yard, from having just raced there and being set up for days.

    Knowing full well that it is highly possible LdM could end up being able to use his tracks again at some time in the future, I hope it is at a time when it is not unlimited, and when the other teams can be invited along as well, say, for a pre-season test, and a mid-season test. Ideally with Ferrari only able to test there when other teams can come too.

    Failing that, I hope that Ferrari continues to only be able to test at venues when others are there too, and if it remains that in fact forcing simulator spending is actually worse for cost control, then I won’t hold my breath expecting F1 to change back to a more sensible and affordable approach.

    And really, now that the simulator bug is on, will the ‘have’ teams really spend less on them if there were more on track testing? Or will it continue to compliment, as a poster put it, the real testing, and in a more and more effective way as time and R&D go along?

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th December 2013, 4:07

      It is this “everybody must test at the same track at the same time” philosophy that makes testing so expensive, just let them get on with it and even the smallest budget teams will be able ensure their spending is going on worthwhile developments.

      • Robbie said on 26th December 2013, 4:17

        Well doesn’t all-team testing ensure fairness? Of course we do see some teams bow out of some tests, pre-season primarily of course with that about to change, and I’m not suggesting anyone be forced to test physically if they’d rather chase a different priority. But I certainly don’t want to see Ferrari and only Ferrari allowed to go back to unlimited testing at their whim, if that is what you mean be letting the teams get on with it and sort their own most efficient spending out.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 27th December 2013, 22:04

          No, I mean let everybody allocate their budget to best suit their aims, the big budget teams will have an advantage but that is not a recent development.

  13. Robbie said on 26th December 2013, 4:08

    I hope FA and KR are a ticking time bomb. Every team should have two gladiators duking it out in the pinnacle of racing, especially on a top team. It’s what paying fans should be getting for their money. And there’s no reason it can’t be done respectfully and sportingly. And if they can’t keep it to that, that can be ok for the paying fans too. Ask BE. He’s hoping for the time bomb to blow. I’m not a fan of one rooster, so I’m thrilled Ferrari have done this, and thrilled that for a change, ‘time bomb’ can be attached to a driver pairing there.

  14. TMF (@tmf42) said on 26th December 2013, 6:47

    LDM is right (to an extend) – it’s another cost factor small teams can’t bear so most of them don’t have simulators. What they should have done years ago is either split the profits equally like the NFL is doing it or introduce budget caps – with the right regulations for reporting not only for the teams but also tier-1 suppliers it could be done.
    But even the exodus of 09 didn’t scare them enough to be serious about it and they continue to treat the symptoms rather than the problem.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th December 2013, 8:15

      The big teams never would have agreed to splitting the prize money equally because they would have lost the most – not only in terms of income, but also because it would have been easier for the smaller teams to catch up on the track.

      As for your second suggestion, that’s exactly what Max Mosley tried to introduce. The teams opposed it because of the way he wanted to introduce it, but they also opposed any regulation that required them to report their expenses because it would have meant revealing exactly how much they were spending (which means they were – and probably still are – spending more that the FIA would have liked).

      • Robbie said on 27th December 2013, 16:42

        Sounds like the teams need to have some of their weight taken away or there will never be proper solutions achieved. I’m all for democracy of course, but if having the teams needing to agree on everything all the time means that they kill the sport, then what was the point of conducting themselves with the system they have in place. Ferrari particularly, but also the 3 or 4 other have teams, perhaps need to start thinking more in the long term or the only decisions they’ll be needing to make is where to work next, post-F1.

    • Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 26th December 2013, 8:37

      The problem is that the small teams can’t afford decent simulators, and they can’t afford to go testing either.

      Formula One is just too expensive. So I think the smaller guys should be given more of the ‘pie’, while the bigger teams which don’t need so much financial assistance would get less money.

      The playing field needs to be levelled out. Formula One is probably the most extreme case of “The rich just get richer”, in sports.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th December 2013, 10:18

        @tophercheese21 – The solution is customer cars, with the system modelled on racing of the 1950s and the method M-Sport use in the WRC.

        It’s pretty radical, but it could work: manufacturers withdraw entirely from Formula 1. They build the chassis and are responsible for developing and maintaining them. They sell these chassis (at a fixed price) to private teams, who compete on their behalf. The entire package is a product, sold at a price to keep costs down, but allow constructors to make a profit. But the FIA would have to find a way to separate the team from the constructor. And it wouldn’t allow for combinations of chassis and engine.

    • @tophercheese I don’t agree with that philosophy primarily because then there is a financial incentive for finishing lower, which is a completely backwards philosophy.

  15. LiamBo said on 26th December 2013, 10:51

    Who gives a toss what a Red Bull test driver like JEV thinks.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.