"Limited testing" BS by the Group of 9.

Michellin-equiped cars racked up 5,000km today at Barcelona, as oppose to Bridgestone-equiped cars at 555km. Someone please explain to me how much money is being saved again??

 

Don't you mean "by the group of 7"?

 

*L* To be honest with you, I never actually sat down to count how many teams are there in the field.

 

Michellin-shod cars: 4257km to Bridgestone-shod: 726km

Don't hide behind the banner of "Cost-cutting", just come out and say that you are trying to gain an advantage over Ferrari. Granted that it is Ferrari's choice of staying with Bridgestone, but at least let us be honest about the true intentions here.

Funny thing is, the teams that are really strapping for cash are the teams running on Bridgestone (Jordan and Minardi).

 

There is certainly an element of that in the equation, but I think most people who think long term want a ban on testing for the right reasons. It does inflate costs dramatically and I bet it will come some day. At which point the big teams will shift their "testing" to CFD and wind tunnel.

 

Anthony your logic is wrong ... lets do the maths:

Testing miles PER TEAM: 4257 / 7 teams = 608km Michelin
Compared to 726km for Bridgestone (I have excluded Minardi as they do not test).

Thus Ferrari is STILL doing more testing than ANY other team. Thus are you suggesting that all Michelin shod teams have some sort of restriction for poor old Ferrari or something?

Yep Michelin probably are getting more data over Bridgestone ... but that is 100% Ferrari's fault, and used to their advantage to win WC's.
Pete
ps: I will official remove my future support of the Ferrari team if they whinge on about this ... they created this situation and they have a massive advantage in the testing area, er, like their very own, right next door, test track with cameras and computer monitoring all the way around. Bloody fantastic facility!
Good on them and all, but for fnck's sake shut up and show some back bone and pride/spirit.

 

Absolutely......

 

Interesting comment on TV by one of the team principals the other week (apologies - can't remember who it was). He was saying that the new rules have been so costly that their total investment in bringing a competitive team to the field would be enough to keep almost three teams in the game for a year. Unbelievable.

Cost cutting my arse....ther rule changes were a Ferrari limiting measure.

Cheers, MARK

 

Once again, we disagree, I guess that is nothing new.

The fact is that tyres are a major force behind how a F1 car will perform. You may not like it, but that is a fact we can not denied. Another fact that we can not ignore is that distance = data, thus can result in better tyres. If you think that Michellin is really catering to all the teams individually, then I have a swampland in Florida that measures 3'x3' to sell you for a bargain price of $1,000,000.00. For the arguement's sake, let's say that Michellin IS catering to 7 different teams/cars individually, the bill for that must be enormous, and thus not exactly "cost cutting" either, is it?

The 7 Michellin-shod teams are sharing datas and thus have an advantage over Bridgestone-shod teams. Ferrari may gain in specific data collected but they are losing out on the general data, as in they will have take on all the tyre testing. Think about it this way, if for every 200km/1000km is needed for general data collection, 200km/7 = 28.4km per team for the Michellin users. And for in Bridgestone's case, 200km/3 = 66.7km per team. As you can see, for Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi to gain the same amount of data, they will have to spend more time and resources. And yes, by shear number, they will have more team-specific data to use, but for them to gain team-specific data, they will have to finish up collecting the general data first and then put in the extra resources and time to gain the team-specific data, no? And we all know, that in F1, time is money. right? And yes, you are right that it is Ferrari's own fault for staying with Bridgestone, because they are getting special treatment from them. But if you think that Renault, McLaren, Williams are not getting better treatment than Toyota, Sauber, Red-Bull and BAR, then again, my offer on the swampland still stands I think what Ferrari and Bridgestone did not expect was that Sauber's switch to Michellin this season.

For your information, I don't agree with what Ferrari was suggesting either on the "self-imposed" testing limite. I think that also gives Ferrari an advantage, since it is just an opposite extrem to what the Michellin teams wanted. A good solution for the tyre war would be, force each manufacture to supply 5 teams, no more and no less. If a third manufacture enters the tyre war, then 3 teams to each tyre company and the team that came in last the year before gets to choose which tyre company they want to go with. Follow the similar formula whenever a new manufacture enters or withdraws from F1.

Now, onto the part of unfair advantage by Ferrari by having their own track and a state of art facility etc. Didn't McLaren just opened up their multi-Zillion dollar complex in GB? Doesn't Honda, Toyota, McLaren, Renault and Williams all have their own private track to test? If they are willing to out their own money in, why shouldn't they be allow to use it? Think of it like this, if the Australian Olympic team have a state of art facility build and hired the world's best trainers to train their athletes but however, they are not allowed to use them because athletes from Antigua sees it all as an unfair advantage in training, how would you feel?

Fact is, Formula One racing is very expensive these days, major manufactures from all over the world see it as a great source of advertisement. Unfortunately, the cost of it all is that the privateer teams will go the ways of extinction because of it, that is the rule of natural selection, thus evolution. Anyway, my point is that the teams shouldn't hide behind the "cost-cutting" banner when it is obiviously not true and there is obiviously an advantage to be gained by them. At least Ferrari doesn't lie about wanting to find that edge, that little bit of competitive advantage over the other teams.

PS: One last fact, I hate to break this to you, but I don't think Jean Todt or Ross Brawn is loosing any sleep over either yours or my support for team Ferrari. In fact, I don't think the Ferrari forum would even know or care if neither one of us ever post on the forum ever again. I would however, miss the good debates/discussions I have had here on the forum.

 

I think my point as not been clearly explained ... again. I must have a chat to myself about this

I agree with all of this BUT and this is the big BUT: Who engineered this situation?

FERRARI

Nobody else. Ferrari purposely engineered this almost sole supplier situation with Bridgestone ... why?, so Bridgestone would 100% concentrate on what Ferrari wanted as a tyre.

The DISADVANTAGE any of the Michelin runners have (but I believe not Renault ) is that they have to run whatever Michelin supplies which might not 100% suit their design direction. This I believe is why Renault are so fast ... cause they are French and I believe Michelin are really making tyres to suit Renault and the other teams just have to take them ... as well.

Thus Renault are benefiting BIG time by Ferrari's (nobody elses) move over the last 5 years to have Bridgestone to themselves. Thus now we have Renault getting purpose built tyres with also (as you correctly say) huge testing miles, helped by the other teams. Bravo Renault ... fncken stupid Ferrari.

I 100% agree with all your testing versus mileage points, but you cannot allow Ferrari to run more miles than all the other teams to make up for this ... that is totally unfair as they would learn other things about their car ... and again it is Ferraris doing.

As I have said, I think it is reasonably obvious that Renault is getting the special treatment ... I mean it is not like the French to look after their own interests is it (note the huge sacasim ).

Yes you are probably right here ... but I think Peter Sauber might actually have sussed the situation (ie. massive changes to tyres rules) and thus wanted to be with the larger supplier ...

Agree and good idea!

I did not mean that Ferrari had an unfair advantage, more so that they have nothing to moan about regarding testing.

NO! ... if so prove me wrong. McLaren have resently bought Goodwood (I believe) with the plan to turn it into a personal test track, but all the other teams (other than Ferrari) have to pay a fee and go testing at which ever track they choose. And ofcourse these tracks do not have all the fancy simulator stuff that Ferrari have. Points to Ferrari for doing the right thing many years ago

I don't think any of the big teams are hiding behind anything regarding cost cutting ... in fact I think they are all stating that these rule changes have driven costs up and required MORE testing. Thus we differ here

Me too

Pete

 

Very very True PSk. Ferrari is to blame here.

 

To PSK,

1) You should remember this, both Ferrari and McLaren were running on Bridgestone at least until 2000. Remember that Ferrari stayed with Goodyear until the final year which I believe was 1998. Also, ironically, Bridgestone first entered, I believe it was actually McLaren that picked them up first. From what I remembered, Williams defected to Michellin first when they entered F1, then McLaren followed in either 2000 or 2001. I remember reading that it was McLaren and William's intention in joining and sharing tyre data in order beat Ferrari. So you see, it was McLaren and Williams that left Bridgestone and thus Ferrari became the only major team with Bridgestone.

2) At least we both agree on something this time. It would appear to me that you also suspect that Renault has special treatment from Michellin.

3) Dude, I don't know where you have been in the past six months. McLaren, Williams and Renault has openly attack Ferrari about not joining in on the limited testing issue, stating the cutting cost was the goal and the reason for it, which we both agree that the current state of F1, cost cutting is the furtherest thing from anyone of their minds. Go to any one of the F1 news sites and do a little research and read the news from the off-season.

4) If I recall correctly, McLaren and Williams all are located close to a track that can be considered as their own. Honda owns Suzuka and another track in Japan and Toyota owns at least two tracks in Japan (One of them is near Mt. Fuji, in fact, they are trying to take that Japan GP away from Suzuka once the contract is up.) In both Honda and Toyota's case, they are base in Europe, and it is their own fault and decision of not having a team based in Japan thus take advantage of the tracks. Also, Toyota F1 team is also close to a track in Germany that they can easily use whenever they want. Again, if the other teams choose not to use their own resources, who is to blame? Also, let's not forget, Ferrari has been in F1 longest, the tracks and the facilities are the modern interpertation of what it used to be. They have been testing on Fiorano track forever, and now Mugello, which they already owned and just re-modeled and modernized. You can't punish them for using what they have. Mercedes and BMW all have their own track that they test on, it is their own fault for not having McLaren and Williams use them.

 

Anthony we are both saying the same thing ... sort of. I'll explain.

Yep and Ferrari was very, very happy about this. But now they are not ... to bad IMO . The point of my first post on this subject was Todt's apparent whinge about unfair tyre testing. He made that bed ... now lie in it like a man with pride!@! Refering you to my first post ...

Yes I am aware of this, but my point was that with new tyre and engine rules ALL teams (er, except Minardi and Jordan) have had to test like mad. Thus my point is that there had been no cost reduction.

No they have to pay enormous track hiring fees ... Ferrari don't, although the maintenance costs might even this out. BUT McLaren and Williams cannot just go and change a corner like MS and Ferrari did a few years ago. You can only do that if you own the track.

Did not know this ... thanks for the info, but ...

... again Honda and Toyota find themselves in the same game as McLaren and Williams, they have to pay and fit in with the tracks schedules ... Ferrari don't )).

Again they are not their resources (tracks that is).

Now this is where you have gone of track. I never ever said that they should be punished or stop using their track(s) ... just that they have it good so shut up Todt and please don't whinge about tyre testing issues.

Agree.

Have a great weekend ... time to go home
Pete

 

I guess all of the team principles should just shut up and deal with the current situation, afterall, they all made the decision past and present based on the hope of finding that special edge over the others. I guess a fight between Ron Dennis and Jean Todt would definitely would be classified as a cat-fight.

My point of the thread is to show how the rest of the 9 teams on the F1 grid are saying that Ferrari is not co-operating with the un-official limited testing agreement during the season and hiding behind the reason of "Cost-saving".

You have a nice weekend too.

 

Yeah I agree with what you are saying. Ofcourse us chaps, that are out of the loop, will hear all about the 'cat' fight, 'cause the media want something to talk about

Pete