Alonso caring only for himself and not the sport

[olly-44]

Personally, I think Alonso is a very talented and all round complete driver. Lets get that out there.

But, as a lot of people think and know, he can be very selfish and one track minded. And he has shown it again with his recent comments...

http://planetf1.com/news/alonso-calls-f ... d-freedom/

"If some teams cannot afford to test, well that's natural, it's a sport. Real Madrid can buy some players and other teams cannot. But they can't say sorry for that.

"In F1 there is always a need to protect the smaller teams, but if they cannot test, then they cannot test."

I'm sorry mate, but if you were in a smaller team, you wouldnt be saying such things. The sport depends on the teams filling the grid and not just the big boys!

At the moment, F1 is trying (loosely using the word) to make the grid a bit more fair. Let the talent win rather than the outright resource - a bit like Financial Fair Play in football now (despite it being abused).

Yes, teams like Merc, McLaren, Ferrari and that will still have a headstart due to their already in place resources.

However, the saying "Pull the ladder up Jack and sod the rest" comes to mind.


Thoughts?

[mds]

I actually agree with Alonso. I'm not saying there should be unlimited testing, but there should be more.
I'd rather have the FIA look at the distribution of money (not just between teams but take a long good look at how much of the profit actually flows back to the teams) before anything else.

[guardiangr]

I agree with Alonso as well. Point is, whatever you ban or permit the big teams will always have the budget to make the difference. In this practice banned era teams are spending millions upon millions of dollars in CFD, wind tunnels etc, probably more than when they had unlimited testing or at least very very close. Small teams can't compete with that either so it hasn't really changed anything.

Unfortunately in a sport you can't cater for the small fries, they will always be outspent. If you want to blame someone then blame the FIA, with those new power units they brought all those teams close to bancruptcy, unlike the previous years where they were holding on as close as they could with the front runners despite their limited source of money.

[Schumacher forever#1]

I have no idea how on earth that translates to Alonso caring only for himself Once again people hear what they want to hear rather than what's actually being said. I can only imagine this is some dig at Alonso because some fans can't handle the attitude people have towards their favourite driver, so they try to bring every other driver down to that level.

And I also agree with Alonso. Every team is in this sport with the ambition to earn profit. If Ferrari pump €400 million into the sport, then we should expect them to make €400 million back by their prize money and sponsoring (or indirectly through car sales). It would be extremely unhealthy for F1 to have teams with very small budgets to surpass or equal the larger companies' revenue as that would lead to the small teams earning supernormal profits and the larger teams earning losses. It wouldn't make financial sense. While small teams at the moment are struggling and they probably deserve a bigger slice of the pie, it would be even worse if the larger teams went into administration.

[Zoue]

I also agree with Alonso. Testing is arguably less of an issue in a spec series. But in a series such as F1, where innovation and creativity is key, then it's positively foolhardy not to allow testing. And if the smaller teams cannot afford any testing, then why are they competing?

How much money do these new PUs cost? Figures of $30M have been thrown around by the likes of Red Bull and others. Indy engines cost a fraction of that, yet they still do 200mph+. How much would the sport benefit if instead of spending all their budget on PUs the teams could instead buy cheaper engines and put the remaining $20M or so towards testing and development? Sorry, but as long as these PUs exist then F1 cannot seriously argue that they are even remotely interested in cutting costs. It's lip service, that's all.

I'd go so far as to say that the public humiliation of McLaren, Honda and Renault last year arguably brought the sport into disrepute, and that's a direct consequence of the regulations and the lack of testing and development restrictions. I don't care if they stick a flux capacitor in the back of the car: I want to see racing, not a year-long testing session. If the powers that be cared as much about the sport as they did their own interests, then we would see a very different F1 than we do now.

[aice]

I certainly agree with the assertion that Alonso is a talented, complete driver.
I certainly agree with the assertion that he can be very selfish and one track minded.

But reading his latest comments--i'm not so sure. Depends on which angle you look at it from. Regardless, i for one am getting a little tired of how every word these drivers mutter are analysed, dissected and examined to death and then used by some eager beavers as a weapon with which to denigrate them. Yes, i know that is partly what we should expect on such forums and it would be naive to expect otherwise, but it sure makes it easier to understand why a lot of these drivers come across as so guarded. They know every word will be pounced upon and examined to within an inch of its life. I suppose i should just shut up and be thankful that for once, it isn't Ham under the microscope! LOL!

[Alex53]

Many people are calling for more testing. Turning that opinion into a personal attack on Alonso is a bit cheap.

Also, it's almost a given with most drivers that they are competitive and ambitious to the point of selfishness. How different do you think Alonso is to other F1 champions?

[mcdo]

Isn't this about a week old?

If he has a problem with F1 looking after the smaller teams then I disagree with him. But if he's specifically talking about testing then I do agree with him. It's ludicrous that the teams cannot test their designs properly on track. Add Pirelli and their tyres to that too. No matter what era of F1 there has always been a team or two that couldn't afford to test as much as the big boys.

[mac_d]

He has a point.

I'm not sure I'm in favour of increased testing, but you can't stop everything that some smaller teams can't afford.

Would testing, at say, Silverstone really be that expensive for the teams based around that location? I'm not trying to make a point there, I'm generally unsure. I mean, to me the guys are at the factory anyway and can go home at the end of the day so no extra wage cost. You need a truck for the equipment, maybe two. And I guess Silverstone will need to get a cut. How much would that actually cost? Or is the issue with the cost of testing more than you test a high number of parts so you have 10 new front wing configurations, 10 rear wings, 20 side pods and so you've had to produce 40 new parts?

[guardiangr]

Just let each team have X amount of testing days and also let them arrange it. It would be weird e.g. for Ferrari to have to travel all the way to Silverstone, Barcelona etc just for the FIA organized test while they have Fiorano, Mugello or whatever near them. Same for McLaren, Williams, Mercedes and all the other British based teams having to travel outside of Britain. That way you minimize the testing costs as much as possible while you also minimize the use of CFD, wind tunnels etc.

But that would be too logical for FIA to make it happen I guess. Alonso may be a lot of things but he is absolutely right on this one.

[Exediron]

How much money do these new PUs cost? Figures of $30M have been thrown around by the likes of Red Bull and others. Indy engines cost a fraction of that, yet they still do 200mph+. How much would the sport benefit if instead of spending all their budget on PUs the teams could instead buy cheaper engines and put the remaining $20M or so towards testing and development? Sorry, but as long as these PUs exist then F1 cannot seriously argue that they are even remotely interested in cutting costs. It's lip service, that's all.

I have my doubts about the $30m price tag for an engine supply - partially down to the source - but even if it's true, according to the equally dubious 2015 budget estimates that would mean the $20m saving would be:

About 4% of the budget for Mercedes, Red Bull or McLaren.
About 5% of the budget for Ferrari.
About 11% of the budget for Williams.
About 14% of the budget for Lotus or Toro Rosso.
About 15% of the budget for Force India.
About 19% of the budget for Sauber.
About 24% of the budget for Manor.

A much bigger issue to the health of F1, in my opinion, becomes obvious when you look at the above table. The teams that are in financial trouble now were in financial trouble before the V6 engines came along, and it needs more than a piffling $20m of cost balancing to get them out of it. If those $400m budgets at the top of the chart were trimmed and the money redistributed, the cost of the engines wouldn't be a problem for the lower teams at all.

[LKS1]

I agree with Alonso as well. Point is, whatever you ban or permit the big teams will always have the budget to make the difference. In this practice banned era teams are spending millions upon millions of dollars in CFD, wind tunnels etc, probably more than when they had unlimited testing or at least very very close. Small teams can't compete with that either so it hasn't really changed anything.

Unfortunately in a sport you can't cater for the small fries, they will always be outspent. If you want to blame someone then blame the FIA, with those new power units they brought all those teams close to bancruptcy, unlike the previous years where they were holding on as close as they could with the front runners despite their limited source of money.

Exactly.

[Zoue]

How much money do these new PUs cost? Figures of $30M have been thrown around by the likes of Red Bull and others. Indy engines cost a fraction of that, yet they still do 200mph+. How much would the sport benefit if instead of spending all their budget on PUs the teams could instead buy cheaper engines and put the remaining $20M or so towards testing and development? Sorry, but as long as these PUs exist then F1 cannot seriously argue that they are even remotely interested in cutting costs. It's lip service, that's all.

I have my doubts about the $30m price tag for an engine supply - partially down to the source - but even if it's true, according to the equally dubious 2015 budget estimates that would mean the $20m saving would be:

About 4% of the budget for Mercedes, Red Bull or McLaren.
About 5% of the budget for Ferrari.
About 11% of the budget for Williams.
About 14% of the budget for Lotus or Toro Rosso.
About 15% of the budget for Force India.
About 19% of the budget for Sauber.
About 24% of the budget for Manor.

A much bigger issue to the health of F1, in my opinion, becomes obvious when you look at the above table. The teams that are in financial trouble now were in financial trouble before the V6 engines came along, and it needs more than a piffling $20m of cost balancing to get them out of it. If those $400m budgets at the top of the chart were trimmed and the money redistributed, the cost of the engines wouldn't be a problem for the lower teams at all.

I was also initially sceptical about the $30M figure, until I saw a report from Honda (I think) confirming that.

I agree that there is a lot financially wrong with F1. My point is that they would have been far better off allowing testing with cheaper tech, than introducing such expensive technology and not allowing the teams to test it. They cannot really claim to be concerned about costs when they follow this path. Purely on financial concerns these PUs should never have seen the light of day.

It may sound as though I'm anti-hybrid, but I'm not. Tbh I couldn't really care less what powers the cars, as long as they are still quick. But I'm very angry at the expense they represent and the lack of any form of common sense with their introduction. Every time I hear someone in F1 voicing cost concerns the word that immediately springs to mind is "hypocrite."

[Exediron]

But I'm very angry at the expense they represent and the lack of any form of common sense with their introduction. Every time I hear someone in F1 voicing cost concerns the word that immediately springs to mind is "hypocrite."

You could probably do without the bolded part of that sentence!

I agree, the hybrids do nothing to cut costs. But cost cutting in F1 is nothing except a massive charade anyway; reduced testing leads to $50m simulators and supercomputers; penalties for engines used in the season leads to nothing at all except widespread mockery, and all the while they tighten the rules so much that the only way to find an advantage is to spend hundreds of millions on bizarre aero solutions.

To me however what powers the car is very important; F1 to me is as much (if not more) about technology as it is about racing, and I would be very angry if they eliminated the current engines - which have finally put F1 near the front of the technology race again - and introduced a piece of technology that wasn't new in the 80s, with regulations to give it a competitive advantage it doesn't deserve.

[Zoue]

But I'm very angry at the expense they represent and the lack of any form of common sense with their introduction. Every time I hear someone in F1 voicing cost concerns the word that immediately springs to mind is "hypocrite."

You could probably do without the bolded part of that sentence!

I agree, the hybrids do nothing to cut costs. But cost cutting in F1 is nothing except a massive charade anyway; reduced testing leads to $50m simulators and supercomputers; penalties for engines used in the season leads to nothing at all except widespread mockery, and all the while they tighten the rules so much that the only way to find an advantage is to spend hundreds of millions on bizarre aero solutions.

To me however what powers the car is very important; F1 to me is as much (if not more) about technology as it is about racing, and I would be very angry if they eliminated the current engines - which have finally put F1 near the front of the technology race again - and introduced a piece of technology that wasn't new in the 80s, with regulations to give it a competitive advantage it doesn't deserve.

It's all about where the emphasis lies. Using tech to improve performance is one thing, but making tech centre stage has never been what F1 has been about, until recently. The tech should support the series, not be the main focus of it. I still don't see what is so out-dated about e.g. biturbos. Ferrari have recently launched a road car with one and I don't recall anyone deriding it for being out of date. I think there is a real danger that people think F1 has to have sci-fi tech to be valid, but history will show that is simply not true. It's been a very clever marketing ploy by Mercedes et al to convince the world that this is what F1 should be.

[mcdo]

But I'm very angry at the expense they represent and the lack of any form of common sense with their introduction. Every time I hear someone in F1 voicing cost concerns the word that immediately springs to mind is "hypocrite."

You could probably do without the bolded part of that sentence!

I agree, the hybrids do nothing to cut costs. But cost cutting in F1 is nothing except a massive charade anyway

So is the push for a "green" future. If they really wanted to be green they'd race at Silverstone 15 times a year and maybe 5 goes around Fiorano

P.S. I have no problem with the new engines. But everybody sees through the "green" BS

[Sevenfest]

I just don't understand why they don't let teams test for a couple of days after each GP that isn't immediately followed by one the same week. No extra travel for the teams, plus if the circuits open up to spectators who just want to watch some cars go around it's a little extra income. means they can give their 3rd driver some extra time in car as well - for the smaller teams they can get extra money from their paid development drivers.

Is that dumb? Would it really be that simple?

[guardiangr]

It's all about where the emphasis lies. Using tech to improve performance is one thing, but making tech centre stage has never been what F1 has been about, until recently. The tech should support the series, not be the main focus of it. I still don't see what is so out-dated about e.g. biturbos. Ferrari have recently launched a road car with one and I don't recall anyone deriding it for being out of date. I think there is a real danger that people think F1 has to have sci-fi tech to be valid, but history will show that is simply not true. It's been a very clever marketing ploy by Mercedes et al to convince the world that this is what F1 should be.

Exactly what Zoue says, especially the bolded part. I am amazed that people with decades of F1 viewing don't understand that. F1 was never "road relevant", it just happened that technologies used on F1 cars could be adopted and used successfully to road cars. F1 never chased that relevance until recently and that bugs me a lot when people claim that F1 should be "road relevant".

[mcdo]

I just don't understand why they don't let teams test for a couple of days after each GP that isn't immediately followed by one the same week. No extra travel for the teams, plus if the circuits open up to spectators who just want to watch some cars go around it's a little extra income. means they can give their 3rd driver some extra time in car as well - for the smaller teams they can get extra money from their paid development drivers.

Is that dumb? Would it really be that simple?

Don't you come in here talking sense

[Robot]

He is probably talking more sense than anything FIA or FOM said in the last 5 years.

[chican]

Alonso made a good point on testing. They should save money in other areas.

[hittheapex]

I also agree with Alonso. Testing is arguably less of an issue in a spec series. But in a series such as F1, where innovation and creativity is key, then it's positively foolhardy not to allow testing. And if the smaller teams cannot afford any testing, then why are they competing?

How much money do these new PUs cost? Figures of $30M have been thrown around by the likes of Red Bull and others. Indy engines cost a fraction of that, yet they still do 200mph+. How much would the sport benefit if instead of spending all their budget on PUs the teams could instead buy cheaper engines and put the remaining $20M or so towards testing and development? Sorry, but as long as these PUs exist then F1 cannot seriously argue that they are even remotely interested in cutting costs. It's lip service, that's all.

I'd go so far as to say that the public humiliation of McLaren, Honda and Renault last year arguably brought the sport into disrepute, and that's a direct consequence of the regulations and the lack of testing and development restrictions. I don't care if they stick a flux capacitor in the back of the car: I want to see racing, not a year-long testing session. If the powers that be cared as much about the sport as they did their own interests, then we would see a very different F1 than we do now.

[pokerman]

Alonso made a good point on testing. They should save money in other areas.

Testing is supposed to be extremely expensive so simply saying teams should save money in other ways is a bit of an oxymoron.

Alonso is simply being a politician, lobbying for the best interests of his team and not for F1 as such.

[Zoue]

Alonso made a good point on testing. They should save money in other areas.

Testing is supposed to be extremely expensive so simply saying teams should save money in other ways is a bit of an oxymoron.

Alonso is simply being a politician, lobbying for the best interests of his team and not for F1 as such.

But isn't testing expensive largely because they insist on taking the whole circus to different venues on specific occasions? Most of the teams are either located near an established F1 track (e.g. Red Bull, Mercedes etc near Silverstone), close to a multi-purpose track (McLaren), or have their own track (Ferrari). Why don't they just let teams test at their own convenience, wherever they want, then the logistical costs, which I'm sure I've read are among the biggest expenses, would all but disappear.

In any event, it's even more of an oxymoron for F1 to ban testing on the grounds of cost while at the same time giving the green light to the most expensive PUs the sport has ever seen. Cost saving only when it suits, it seems

[pokerman]

Alonso made a good point on testing. They should save money in other areas.

Testing is supposed to be extremely expensive so simply saying teams should save money in other ways is a bit of an oxymoron.

Alonso is simply being a politician, lobbying for the best interests of his team and not for F1 as such.

But isn't testing expensive largely because they insist on taking the whole circus to different venues on specific occasions? Most of the teams are either located near an established F1 track (e.g. Red Bull, Mercedes etc near Silverstone), close to a multi-purpose track (McLaren), or have their own track (Ferrari). Why don't they just let teams test at their own convenience, wherever they want, then the logistical costs, which I'm sure I've read are among the biggest expenses, would all but disappear.

In any event, it's even more of an oxymoron for F1 to ban testing on the grounds of cost while at the same time giving the green light to the most expensive PUs the sport has ever seen. Cost saving only when it suits, it seems

Well I don't know the specifics of the costs involved, also I'm not replying to what rules have been put in place but specifically to what the poster said.

You yourself consistently say the costs of the Hybrids to the smaller teams is unfair but then champion Alonso and his unlimited testing which he would prefer, clearly this is something that the smaller teams would prefer did not happen on the grounds of costs and the even more disadvantaged position it would put them in.

[Zoue]

Alonso made a good point on testing. They should save money in other areas.

Testing is supposed to be extremely expensive so simply saying teams should save money in other ways is a bit of an oxymoron.

Alonso is simply being a politician, lobbying for the best interests of his team and not for F1 as such.

But isn't testing expensive largely because they insist on taking the whole circus to different venues on specific occasions? Most of the teams are either located near an established F1 track (e.g. Red Bull, Mercedes etc near Silverstone), close to a multi-purpose track (McLaren), or have their own track (Ferrari). Why don't they just let teams test at their own convenience, wherever they want, then the logistical costs, which I'm sure I've read are among the biggest expenses, would all but disappear.

In any event, it's even more of an oxymoron for F1 to ban testing on the grounds of cost while at the same time giving the green light to the most expensive PUs the sport has ever seen. Cost saving only when it suits, it seems

Well I don't know the specifics of the costs involved, also I'm not replying to what rules have been put in place but specifically to what the poster said.

You yourself consistently say the costs of the Hybrids to the smaller teams is unfair but then champion Alonso and his unlimited testing which he would prefer, clearly this is something that the smaller teams would prefer did not happen on the grounds of costs and the even more disadvantaged position it would put them in.

the cost is unfair. But so is the absurdity of being unable to develop your way out of a problem. At the moment pretty much everything hinges on whether you get it right before the season starts, but without testing it's a bit of a lottery. And if you start wrong, under current rules your season is already over before the first flag drops. This is sport?

Besides, it's debatable whether the testing ban cuts costs. RD said a month or two ago that actually it ended up costing more as teams ran parallel developments in case one option didn't work. It's a PR exercise but it offers no tangible benefits.

Do you honestly think McLaren are looking back on 2015 and saying "well, at least we didn't spend all that money on testing?" When the engines were frozen it may have made more sense, but banning testing while introducing such complicated and unknown technology is the work of an idiot.

[pokerman]

Alonso made a good point on testing. They should save money in other areas.

Testing is supposed to be extremely expensive so simply saying teams should save money in other ways is a bit of an oxymoron.

Alonso is simply being a politician, lobbying for the best interests of his team and not for F1 as such.

But isn't testing expensive largely because they insist on taking the whole circus to different venues on specific occasions? Most of the teams are either located near an established F1 track (e.g. Red Bull, Mercedes etc near Silverstone), close to a multi-purpose track (McLaren), or have their own track (Ferrari). Why don't they just let teams test at their own convenience, wherever they want, then the logistical costs, which I'm sure I've read are among the biggest expenses, would all but disappear.

In any event, it's even more of an oxymoron for F1 to ban testing on the grounds of cost while at the same time giving the green light to the most expensive PUs the sport has ever seen. Cost saving only when it suits, it seems

Well I don't know the specifics of the costs involved, also I'm not replying to what rules have been put in place but specifically to what the poster said.

You yourself consistently say the costs of the Hybrids to the smaller teams is unfair but then champion Alonso and his unlimited testing which he would prefer, clearly this is something that the smaller teams would prefer did not happen on the grounds of costs and the even more disadvantaged position it would put them in.

the cost is unfair. But so is the absurdity of being unable to develop your way out of a problem. At the moment pretty much everything hinges on whether you get it right before the season starts, but without testing it's a bit of a lottery. And if you start wrong, under current rules your season is already over before the first flag drops. This is sport?

Besides, it's debatable whether the testing ban cuts costs. RD said a month or two ago that actually it ended up costing more as teams ran parallel developments in case one option didn't work. It's a PR exercise but it offers no tangible benefits.

Do you honestly think McLaren are looking back on 2015 and saying "well, at least we didn't spend all that money on testing?" When the engines were frozen it may have made more sense, but banning testing while introducing such complicated and unknown technology is the work of an idiot.

I don't understand the relationship between testing and the Hybrid engines, did either Mercedes or Ferrari need testing to develop the Hybrid engines?

[Zoue]

Testing is supposed to be extremely expensive so simply saying teams should save money in other ways is a bit of an oxymoron.

Alonso is simply being a politician, lobbying for the best interests of his team and not for F1 as such.

But isn't testing expensive largely because they insist on taking the whole circus to different venues on specific occasions? Most of the teams are either located near an established F1 track (e.g. Red Bull, Mercedes etc near Silverstone), close to a multi-purpose track (McLaren), or have their own track (Ferrari). Why don't they just let teams test at their own convenience, wherever they want, then the logistical costs, which I'm sure I've read are among the biggest expenses, would all but disappear.

In any event, it's even more of an oxymoron for F1 to ban testing on the grounds of cost while at the same time giving the green light to the most expensive PUs the sport has ever seen. Cost saving only when it suits, it seems

Well I don't know the specifics of the costs involved, also I'm not replying to what rules have been put in place but specifically to what the poster said.

You yourself consistently say the costs of the Hybrids to the smaller teams is unfair but then champion Alonso and his unlimited testing which he would prefer, clearly this is something that the smaller teams would prefer did not happen on the grounds of costs and the even more disadvantaged position it would put them in.

the cost is unfair. But so is the absurdity of being unable to develop your way out of a problem. At the moment pretty much everything hinges on whether you get it right before the season starts, but without testing it's a bit of a lottery. And if you start wrong, under current rules your season is already over before the first flag drops. This is sport?

Besides, it's debatable whether the testing ban cuts costs. RD said a month or two ago that actually it ended up costing more as teams ran parallel developments in case one option didn't work. It's a PR exercise but it offers no tangible benefits.

Do you honestly think McLaren are looking back on 2015 and saying "well, at least we didn't spend all that money on testing?" When the engines were frozen it may have made more sense, but banning testing while introducing such complicated and unknown technology is the work of an idiot.

I don't understand the relationship between testing and the Hybrid engines, did either Mercedes or Ferrari need testing to develop the Hybrid engines?

I find that quite a bizarre statement. If you really don't understand the relationship between untried technology and testing then I don't really know what to say to make you see. That's got to be one of the strangest things I've ever heard anyone say on this forum, and there have been a lot of strange things

[pokerman]

What track testing did Mercedes do prior to 2014 winter testing, what track testing did Ferrari do in between the end of 2014 and prior to 2015 winter testing?

[Zoue]

What track testing did Mercedes do prior to 2014 winter testing, what track testing did Ferrari do in between the end of 2014 and prior to 2015 winter testing?

Are you suggesting that because Mercedes got it right at the beginning there should be no need for testing for anyone else? Is it your opinion that e.g. McLaren Honda should get it right first time if they only applied themselves? They're not taking it seriously, is that it?

No one, and I mean no-one, has ever argued that Mercedes didn't do the best job from the start, so if that's your argument then you are creating a strawman. But if you seriously think that if Ferrari had been able to test and develop that they wouldn't have ditched the too-small turbo early in 2014 and been much further ahead in their development program now then I think you are not applying common sense. Likewise, how anyone could imagine that McHonda would not have ironed out at least some of their issues by now if they had had a free hand to test, is beyond strange.

Saying you don't understand the relationship between testing and the hybrid engines is just baffling. If a team has miscalculated at the beginning (and don't forget, as if anyone needs reminding, this is wholly new and unexplored territory for everyone), how is it not obvious that being able to test would give them a better chance of getting to the root of their problem? Whether you agree whether they should be allowed to or not is another story, but to not grasp how the two are related????

[chican]

Alonso made a good point on testing. They should save money in other areas.

Testing is supposed to be extremely expensive so simply saying teams should save money in other ways is a bit of an oxymoron.

Alonso is simply being a politician, lobbying for the best interests of his team and not for F1 as such.

Extremely expensive? Could you be more precise?

[pokerman]

What track testing did Mercedes do prior to 2014 winter testing, what track testing did Ferrari do in between the end of 2014 and prior to 2015 winter testing?

Are you suggesting that because Mercedes got it right at the beginning there should be no need for testing for anyone else? Is it your opinion that e.g. McLaren Honda should get it right first time if they only applied themselves? They're not taking it seriously, is that it?

No one, and I mean no-one, has ever argued that Mercedes didn't do the best job from the start, so if that's your argument then you are creating a strawman. But if you seriously think that if Ferrari had been able to test and develop that they wouldn't have ditched the too-small turbo early in 2014 and been much further ahead in their development program now then I think you are not applying common sense. Likewise, how anyone could imagine that McHonda would not have ironed out at least some of their issues by now if they had had a free hand to test, is beyond strange.

Saying you don't understand the relationship between testing and the hybrid engines is just baffling. If a team has miscalculated at the beginning (and don't forget, as if anyone needs reminding, this is wholly new and unexplored territory for everyone), how is it not obvious that being able to test would give them a better chance of getting to the root of their problem? Whether you agree whether they should be allowed to or not is another story, but to not grasp how the two are related????

Both Mercedes and Ferrari managed to develop the engines perfectly alright without the need for track day testing, so saying that this is essential for the development of the engines is clearly not true, also the rules in place that stopped the development of the engines in 2014 has nothing to do with track testing.

[pokerman]

Alonso made a good point on testing. They should save money in other areas.

Testing is supposed to be extremely expensive so simply saying teams should save money in other ways is a bit of an oxymoron.

Alonso is simply being a politician, lobbying for the best interests of his team and not for F1 as such.

Extremely expensive? Could you be more precise?

How could I be more precise when I don't pay the bills?

I thought it common knowledge that testing was stopped on the grounds of cost so by that I assume it is expensive, sorry if you found the word extremely to be a bit over dramatic.

[Exediron]

How could I be more precise when I don't pay the bills?

I thought it common knowledge that testing was stopped on the grounds of cost so by that I assume it is expensive, sorry if you found the word extremely to be a bit over dramatic.

It's common knowledge that that was the reason given. I think curbing Ferrari's competitive advantage was also a significant motive.

Either way, multiple teams have come forward and said that they actually spend more now on computer simulation than they ever spent on testing, so it clearly hasn't worked if it was intended to cut costs (if it was intended to get rid of Ferrari domination, then it did work).

[Zoue]

What track testing did Mercedes do prior to 2014 winter testing, what track testing did Ferrari do in between the end of 2014 and prior to 2015 winter testing?

Are you suggesting that because Mercedes got it right at the beginning there should be no need for testing for anyone else? Is it your opinion that e.g. McLaren Honda should get it right first time if they only applied themselves? They're not taking it seriously, is that it?

No one, and I mean no-one, has ever argued that Mercedes didn't do the best job from the start, so if that's your argument then you are creating a strawman. But if you seriously think that if Ferrari had been able to test and develop that they wouldn't have ditched the too-small turbo early in 2014 and been much further ahead in their development program now then I think you are not applying common sense. Likewise, how anyone could imagine that McHonda would not have ironed out at least some of their issues by now if they had had a free hand to test, is beyond strange.

Saying you don't understand the relationship between testing and the hybrid engines is just baffling. If a team has miscalculated at the beginning (and don't forget, as if anyone needs reminding, this is wholly new and unexplored territory for everyone), how is it not obvious that being able to test would give them a better chance of getting to the root of their problem? Whether you agree whether they should be allowed to or not is another story, but to not grasp how the two are related????

Both Mercedes and Ferrari managed to develop the engines perfectly alright without the need for track day testing, so saying that this is essential for the development of the engines is clearly not true, also the rules in place that stopped the development of the engines in 2014 has nothing to do with track testing.

So essentially you are saying that because Mercedes got it right there is no need for testing for anyone else. A case of "I'm all right, jack?" Nothing to do with the fact that your favourite driver drives for them?

This is the kind of self-serving attitude that has characterised all the recent decision making in the sport and which has contributed to the mess that F1 is in. The fact that you don't even understand the need for anyone else to be able to develop when they have clearly been struggling is, frankly, staggering.

I notice you side-stepped my point on whether you think Ferrari would have been in a better position had they been able to ditch their too-small turbo at the beginning of 2014. You are perfectly content with a team having to waste an entire year because, even though they have the means and knowledge to improve, they are forbidden to do so by the regulations?

Likewise you ignored the point about McHonda. The non-sequitur about the link between testing and development of the engines has nothing to do with whether or not it's sensible or desirable to allow struggling teams to do everything in their power to improve themselves. It's basic common sense that if they can test things before coming to a race the odds of them correcting at least some of the issues, thereby actually being able to race instead of using the two hours as an extended test session, improve dramatically. But I guess if they are not Mercedes it doesn't really matter?

[pokerman]

What track testing did Mercedes do prior to 2014 winter testing, what track testing did Ferrari do in between the end of 2014 and prior to 2015 winter testing?

Are you suggesting that because Mercedes got it right at the beginning there should be no need for testing for anyone else? Is it your opinion that e.g. McLaren Honda should get it right first time if they only applied themselves? They're not taking it seriously, is that it?

No one, and I mean no-one, has ever argued that Mercedes didn't do the best job from the start, so if that's your argument then you are creating a strawman. But if you seriously think that if Ferrari had been able to test and develop that they wouldn't have ditched the too-small turbo early in 2014 and been much further ahead in their development program now then I think you are not applying common sense. Likewise, how anyone could imagine that McHonda would not have ironed out at least some of their issues by now if they had had a free hand to test, is beyond strange.

Saying you don't understand the relationship between testing and the hybrid engines is just baffling. If a team has miscalculated at the beginning (and don't forget, as if anyone needs reminding, this is wholly new and unexplored territory for everyone), how is it not obvious that being able to test would give them a better chance of getting to the root of their problem? Whether you agree whether they should be allowed to or not is another story, but to not grasp how the two are related????

Both Mercedes and Ferrari managed to develop the engines perfectly alright without the need for track day testing, so saying that this is essential for the development of the engines is clearly not true, also the rules in place that stopped the development of the engines in 2014 has nothing to do with track testing.

So essentially you are saying that because Mercedes got it right there is no need for testing for anyone else. A case of "I'm all right, jack?" Nothing to do with the fact that your favourite driver drives for them?

This is the kind of self-serving attitude that has characterised all the recent decision making in the sport and which has contributed to the mess that F1 is in. The fact that you don't even understand the need for anyone else to be able to develop when they have clearly been struggling is, frankly, staggering.

I notice you side-stepped my point on whether you think Ferrari would have been in a better position had they been able to ditch their too-small turbo at the beginning of 2014. You are perfectly content with a team having to waste an entire year because, even though they have the means and knowledge to improve, they are forbidden to do so by the regulations?

Likewise you ignored the point about McHonda. The non-sequitur about the link between testing and development of the engines has nothing to do with whether or not it's sensible or desirable to allow struggling teams to do everything in their power to improve themselves. It's basic common sense that if they can test things before coming to a race the odds of them correcting at least some of the issues, thereby actually being able to race instead of using the two hours as an extended test session, improve dramatically. But I guess if they are not Mercedes it doesn't really matter?

I didn't dodge 2014 at all, I said that Ferrari's problems had nothing to do with the inability to test, obviously the problem was with the engines being frozen for that year, but you seem to be determined to put everything under the none testing umbrella.

Also you seem to keep ignoring the fact that Ferrari were able to successfully develop their engine without the need for track testing, all your focus being on Mercedes this and Mercedes that.

[guardiangr]

What track testing did Mercedes do prior to 2014 winter testing, what track testing did Ferrari do in between the end of 2014 and prior to 2015 winter testing?

Are you suggesting that because Mercedes got it right at the beginning there should be no need for testing for anyone else? Is it your opinion that e.g. McLaren Honda should get it right first time if they only applied themselves? They're not taking it seriously, is that it?

No one, and I mean no-one, has ever argued that Mercedes didn't do the best job from the start, so if that's your argument then you are creating a strawman. But if you seriously think that if Ferrari had been able to test and develop that they wouldn't have ditched the too-small turbo early in 2014 and been much further ahead in their development program now then I think you are not applying common sense. Likewise, how anyone could imagine that McHonda would not have ironed out at least some of their issues by now if they had had a free hand to test, is beyond strange.

Saying you don't understand the relationship between testing and the hybrid engines is just baffling. If a team has miscalculated at the beginning (and don't forget, as if anyone needs reminding, this is wholly new and unexplored territory for everyone), how is it not obvious that being able to test would give them a better chance of getting to the root of their problem? Whether you agree whether they should be allowed to or not is another story, but to not grasp how the two are related????

Both Mercedes and Ferrari managed to develop the engines perfectly alright without the need for track day testing, so saying that this is essential for the development of the engines is clearly not true, also the rules in place that stopped the development of the engines in 2014 has nothing to do with track testing.

So essentially you are saying that because Mercedes got it right there is no need for testing for anyone else. A case of "I'm all right, jack?" Nothing to do with the fact that your favourite driver drives for them?

This is the kind of self-serving attitude that has characterised all the recent decision making in the sport and which has contributed to the mess that F1 is in. The fact that you don't even understand the need for anyone else to be able to develop when they have clearly been struggling is, frankly, staggering.

I notice you side-stepped my point on whether you think Ferrari would have been in a better position had they been able to ditch their too-small turbo at the beginning of 2014. You are perfectly content with a team having to waste an entire year because, even though they have the means and knowledge to improve, they are forbidden to do so by the regulations?

Likewise you ignored the point about McHonda. The non-sequitur about the link between testing and development of the engines has nothing to do with whether or not it's sensible or desirable to allow struggling teams to do everything in their power to improve themselves. It's basic common sense that if they can test things before coming to a race the odds of them correcting at least some of the issues, thereby actually being able to race instead of using the two hours as an extended test session, improve dramatically. But I guess if they are not Mercedes it doesn't really matter?

I didn't dodge 2014 at all, I said that Ferrari's problems had nothing to do with the inability to test, obviously the problem was with the engines being frozen for that year, but you seem to be determined to put everything under the none testing umbrella.

Also you seem to keep ignoring the fact that Ferrari were able to successfully develop their engine without the need for track testing, all your focus being on Mercedes this and Mercedes that.

Don't try to sugar coat it, with testing the benefits are tremendous for everyone, fans included. Ferrari and Honda would've identified their problems a lot sooner and we wouldn't have 2 years of absolute dominance from Mercedes.

[pokerman]

Are you suggesting that because Mercedes got it right at the beginning there should be no need for testing for anyone else? Is it your opinion that e.g. McLaren Honda should get it right first time if they only applied themselves? They're not taking it seriously, is that it?

No one, and I mean no-one, has ever argued that Mercedes didn't do the best job from the start, so if that's your argument then you are creating a strawman. But if you seriously think that if Ferrari had been able to test and develop that they wouldn't have ditched the too-small turbo early in 2014 and been much further ahead in their development program now then I think you are not applying common sense. Likewise, how anyone could imagine that McHonda would not have ironed out at least some of their issues by now if they had had a free hand to test, is beyond strange.

Saying you don't understand the relationship between testing and the hybrid engines is just baffling. If a team has miscalculated at the beginning (and don't forget, as if anyone needs reminding, this is wholly new and unexplored territory for everyone), how is it not obvious that being able to test would give them a better chance of getting to the root of their problem? Whether you agree whether they should be allowed to or not is another story, but to not grasp how the two are related????

Both Mercedes and Ferrari managed to develop the engines perfectly alright without the need for track day testing, so saying that this is essential for the development of the engines is clearly not true, also the rules in place that stopped the development of the engines in 2014 has nothing to do with track testing.

So essentially you are saying that because Mercedes got it right there is no need for testing for anyone else. A case of "I'm all right, jack?" Nothing to do with the fact that your favourite driver drives for them?

This is the kind of self-serving attitude that has characterised all the recent decision making in the sport and which has contributed to the mess that F1 is in. The fact that you don't even understand the need for anyone else to be able to develop when they have clearly been struggling is, frankly, staggering.

I notice you side-stepped my point on whether you think Ferrari would have been in a better position had they been able to ditch their too-small turbo at the beginning of 2014. You are perfectly content with a team having to waste an entire year because, even though they have the means and knowledge to improve, they are forbidden to do so by the regulations?

Likewise you ignored the point about McHonda. The non-sequitur about the link between testing and development of the engines has nothing to do with whether or not it's sensible or desirable to allow struggling teams to do everything in their power to improve themselves. It's basic common sense that if they can test things before coming to a race the odds of them correcting at least some of the issues, thereby actually being able to race instead of using the two hours as an extended test session, improve dramatically. But I guess if they are not Mercedes it doesn't really matter?

I didn't dodge 2014 at all, I said that Ferrari's problems had nothing to do with the inability to test, obviously the problem was with the engines being frozen for that year, but you seem to be determined to put everything under the none testing umbrella.

Also you seem to keep ignoring the fact that Ferrari were able to successfully develop their engine without the need for track testing, all your focus being on Mercedes this and Mercedes that.

Don't try to sugar coat it, with testing the benefits are tremendous for everyone, fans included. Ferrari and Honda would've identified their problems a lot sooner and we wouldn't have 2 years of absolute dominance from Mercedes.

Ferrari knew what their problems were without testing but the engines were frozen in 2014 and that's why nothing was done, also without testing they were able to develop the engine to a competitive level.

Testing is not tremendous for everyone, it only benefits the teams that can afford to do it, here in lies the double standards of the supposed concern about the smaller teams being able to afford the Hybrid engines, and the horror of the proposals that were put forward for them to use cheaper older engines because of the performance disadvantage, but you are quite happy for them to be disadvantaged every time they have to miss a test session because they can't afford it.

[Zoue]

What track testing did Mercedes do prior to 2014 winter testing, what track testing did Ferrari do in between the end of 2014 and prior to 2015 winter testing?

Are you suggesting that because Mercedes got it right at the beginning there should be no need for testing for anyone else? Is it your opinion that e.g. McLaren Honda should get it right first time if they only applied themselves? They're not taking it seriously, is that it?

No one, and I mean no-one, has ever argued that Mercedes didn't do the best job from the start, so if that's your argument then you are creating a strawman. But if you seriously think that if Ferrari had been able to test and develop that they wouldn't have ditched the too-small turbo early in 2014 and been much further ahead in their development program now then I think you are not applying common sense. Likewise, how anyone could imagine that McHonda would not have ironed out at least some of their issues by now if they had had a free hand to test, is beyond strange.

Saying you don't understand the relationship between testing and the hybrid engines is just baffling. If a team has miscalculated at the beginning (and don't forget, as if anyone needs reminding, this is wholly new and unexplored territory for everyone), how is it not obvious that being able to test would give them a better chance of getting to the root of their problem? Whether you agree whether they should be allowed to or not is another story, but to not grasp how the two are related????

Both Mercedes and Ferrari managed to develop the engines perfectly alright without the need for track day testing, so saying that this is essential for the development of the engines is clearly not true, also the rules in place that stopped the development of the engines in 2014 has nothing to do with track testing.

So essentially you are saying that because Mercedes got it right there is no need for testing for anyone else. A case of "I'm all right, jack?" Nothing to do with the fact that your favourite driver drives for them?

This is the kind of self-serving attitude that has characterised all the recent decision making in the sport and which has contributed to the mess that F1 is in. The fact that you don't even understand the need for anyone else to be able to develop when they have clearly been struggling is, frankly, staggering.

I notice you side-stepped my point on whether you think Ferrari would have been in a better position had they been able to ditch their too-small turbo at the beginning of 2014. You are perfectly content with a team having to waste an entire year because, even though they have the means and knowledge to improve, they are forbidden to do so by the regulations?

Likewise you ignored the point about McHonda. The non-sequitur about the link between testing and development of the engines has nothing to do with whether or not it's sensible or desirable to allow struggling teams to do everything in their power to improve themselves. It's basic common sense that if they can test things before coming to a race the odds of them correcting at least some of the issues, thereby actually being able to race instead of using the two hours as an extended test session, improve dramatically. But I guess if they are not Mercedes it doesn't really matter?

I didn't dodge 2014 at all, I said that Ferrari's problems had nothing to do with the inability to test, obviously the problem was with the engines being frozen for that year, but you seem to be determined to put everything under the none testing umbrella.

Also you seem to keep ignoring the fact that Ferrari were able to successfully develop their engine without the need for track testing, all your focus being on Mercedes this and Mercedes that.

Look through the posts and you will see I have constantly mentioned development and testing, not just testing.

If they test different configurations then it's much easier for them to discard wrong avenues and focus on areas with the greatest growth and development potential. Testing and development are intrinsically linked, since there is absolutely no point is testing if not to learn which development paths are giving the correct returns. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that if Ferrari had been able to test their car properly before the season started in 2014 they might have picked up on the fact that their concept was flawed and corrected it right at the start. As it is, they had to sit out a year before being able to have another go. And we all know the problems McHonda had last season. Do you honestly not understand that if they had been able to test properly before the season started they might have resolved some of the issues they were plagued with? And, after that, they may also have been able to catch up a lot quicker during the season?

[pokerman]

Are you suggesting that because Mercedes got it right at the beginning there should be no need for testing for anyone else? Is it your opinion that e.g. McLaren Honda should get it right first time if they only applied themselves? They're not taking it seriously, is that it?

No one, and I mean no-one, has ever argued that Mercedes didn't do the best job from the start, so if that's your argument then you are creating a strawman. But if you seriously think that if Ferrari had been able to test and develop that they wouldn't have ditched the too-small turbo early in 2014 and been much further ahead in their development program now then I think you are not applying common sense. Likewise, how anyone could imagine that McHonda would not have ironed out at least some of their issues by now if they had had a free hand to test, is beyond strange.

Saying you don't understand the relationship between testing and the hybrid engines is just baffling. If a team has miscalculated at the beginning (and don't forget, as if anyone needs reminding, this is wholly new and unexplored territory for everyone), how is it not obvious that being able to test would give them a better chance of getting to the root of their problem? Whether you agree whether they should be allowed to or not is another story, but to not grasp how the two are related????

Both Mercedes and Ferrari managed to develop the engines perfectly alright without the need for track day testing, so saying that this is essential for the development of the engines is clearly not true, also the rules in place that stopped the development of the engines in 2014 has nothing to do with track testing.

So essentially you are saying that because Mercedes got it right there is no need for testing for anyone else. A case of "I'm all right, jack?" Nothing to do with the fact that your favourite driver drives for them?

This is the kind of self-serving attitude that has characterised all the recent decision making in the sport and which has contributed to the mess that F1 is in. The fact that you don't even understand the need for anyone else to be able to develop when they have clearly been struggling is, frankly, staggering.

I notice you side-stepped my point on whether you think Ferrari would have been in a better position had they been able to ditch their too-small turbo at the beginning of 2014. You are perfectly content with a team having to waste an entire year because, even though they have the means and knowledge to improve, they are forbidden to do so by the regulations?

Likewise you ignored the point about McHonda. The non-sequitur about the link between testing and development of the engines has nothing to do with whether or not it's sensible or desirable to allow struggling teams to do everything in their power to improve themselves. It's basic common sense that if they can test things before coming to a race the odds of them correcting at least some of the issues, thereby actually being able to race instead of using the two hours as an extended test session, improve dramatically. But I guess if they are not Mercedes it doesn't really matter?

I didn't dodge 2014 at all, I said that Ferrari's problems had nothing to do with the inability to test, obviously the problem was with the engines being frozen for that year, but you seem to be determined to put everything under the none testing umbrella.

Also you seem to keep ignoring the fact that Ferrari were able to successfully develop their engine without the need for track testing, all your focus being on Mercedes this and Mercedes that.

Look through the posts and you will see I have constantly mentioned development and testing, not just testing.

If they test different configurations then it's much easier for them to discard wrong avenues and focus on areas with the greatest growth and development potential. Testing and development are intrinsically linked, since there is absolutely no point is testing if not to learn which development paths are giving the correct returns. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that if Ferrari had been able to test their car properly before the season started in 2014 they might have picked up on the fact that their concept was flawed and corrected it right at the start. As it is, they had to sit out a year before being able to have another go. And we all know the problems McHonda had last season. Do you honestly not understand that if they had been able to test properly before the season started they might have resolved some of the issues they were plagued with? And, after that, they may also have been able to catch up a lot quicker during the season?

Honda were able to test before the season started and there was no deadline for the homologation, plus they have been basically testing throughout the season at race weekends, so were was the actual testing restriction for them that would have provided them with some sort of golden bullet?

The problem for Ferrari in 2014 was that the engine had to be homologated by the end of February, I'm not sure what you think they would have been capable of rustling up at short notice, the lead time for engine developments runs into months?