2024 Pre-Season Testing - Bahrain International Circuit, Feb 21 - 23

[RedNEO]

I don’t know anything about being greener, but it certainly saves money. Testing for 6 days or having 2 cars for 3 days would require twice as many wearable parts… engines, gear boxes, brakes, etc.

Testing brings in zero revenue, racing does

So drivers may be a little rusty at the start of the season. They’ll all be in the same boat, but as I said, I’d rather have more racing than more testing, which is what we now get

Testing is quite frankly boring, I will of course follow, but I certainly won’t be watching

They literally race there the week after so they would have to do everything you are suggesting a couple of days later so they save nothing it’s ridiculous.

Well no… they are paid to race which pays for the wearable parts. They are not paid to test

No. Testing is broadcast too. Where do you think that money goes?

[the EDGE]

They literally race there the week after so they would have to do everything you are suggesting a couple of days later so they save nothing it’s ridiculous.

Well no… they are paid to race which pays for the wearable parts. They are not paid to test

No. Testing is broadcast too. Where do you think that money goes?

I seriously doubt a profit is made from broadcasting testing. If it was, they’d do it much much more

[SiLo]

Bring back unlimited testing, but include testing under the cost cap. I think that would be interesting because it allows teams to forego R&D of new parts for testing of current ones.

[Xyz22]

Bring back unlimited testing, but include testing under the cost cap. I think that would be interesting because it allows teams to forego R&D of new parts for testing of current ones.

I wouldn't do that.
I would add regulated testing sessions during the season based on WCC position, but out of the BC.

For example (random numbers):

P10 WCC 10.000 km
P9 WCC 8.500 km
etc.

[RedNEO]

Well no… they are paid to race which pays for the wearable parts. They are not paid to test

No. Testing is broadcast too. Where do you think that money goes?

I seriously doubt a profit is made from broadcasting testing. If it was, they’d do it much much more

It’s irrelevant because it’s almost like driving 1000 miles to a movie theatre and then skimping out on the popcorn and only paying to watch the first 10 minutes because “costs”. It’s silly because costs don’t just double if you just stay there once you’re already there.

[Sieper]

The real reason, as every change has been catered to, is a higher chance of more spectacle, that is what sells F1.

[RedNEO]

The real reason, as every change has been catered to, is a higher chance of more spectacle, that is what sells F1.

I’d argue it does the opposite. So any team that has an advantage like Red Bull last year will be impossible for anyone else to do anything about it before the racing starts. Having three less days or one car instead of two isn’t going to reverse the chances of “spectacle” or create some kind of lottery. It might help cement dominance though imo.

[maxxer]

Bring back unlimited testing, but include testing under the cost cap. I think that would be interesting because it allows teams to forego R&D of new parts for testing of current ones.

Just for fun and to keep 2025 interesting bring back unlimited all

[Sieper]

The real reason, as every change has been catered to, is a higher chance of more spectacle, that is what sells F1.

I’d argue it does the opposite. So any team that has an advantage like Red Bull last year will be impossible for anyone else to do anything about it before the racing starts. Having three less days or one car instead of two isn’t going to reverse the chances of “spectacle” or create some kind of lottery. It might help cement dominance though imo.

You could successfully argue that point, true. But the way I am thinking is that nobody can fully iron out the gremlins in 3 days so we might have some set-up misjudgements those first few races. Too little fuel even. Brakes, engines giving in. 6 days gives much more leeway to iron that out so then the first race is more likely to see the best package win. With less test time, less so.

[RedNEO]

The real reason, as every change has been catered to, is a higher chance of more spectacle, that is what sells F1.

I’d argue it does the opposite. So any team that has an advantage like Red Bull last year will be impossible for anyone else to do anything about it before the racing starts. Having three less days or one car instead of two isn’t going to reverse the chances of “spectacle” or create some kind of lottery. It might help cement dominance though imo.

You could successfully argue that point, true. But the way I am thinking is that nobody can fully iron out the gremlins in 3 days so we might have some set-up misjudgements those first few races. Too little fuel even. Brakes, engines giving in. 6 days gives much more leeway to iron that out so then the first race is more likely to see the best package win. With less test time, less so.

Fair point. Maybe just like they do with wind tunnel time and similar to MotoGP just give the teams struggling more concessions aka more testing days than the top finishing teams in the championship. But allow both cars to be able to test from all teams on the same day. I think that should be something implemented and is overdue.

[AR3-GP]

The real reason, as every change has been catered to, is a higher chance of more spectacle, that is what sells F1.

I’d argue it does the opposite. So any team that has an advantage like Red Bull last year will be impossible for anyone else to do anything about it before the racing starts. Having three less days or one car instead of two isn’t going to reverse the chances of “spectacle” or create some kind of lottery. It might help cement dominance though imo.

You could successfully argue that point, true. But the way I am thinking is that nobody can fully iron out the gremlins in 3 days so we might have some set-up misjudgements those first few races. Too little fuel even. Brakes, engines giving in. 6 days gives much more leeway to iron that out so then the first race is more likely to see the best package win. With less test time, less so.

Maybe, but it makes teams more conservative which is the opposite of what is needed to catch RB.

Reality is in most of the last few years, the best 1-2 cars over the season won the 1st race of the year no matter how little testing. Removing the testing just limits the ability of others to make big changes to close the gap.

[Sieper]

In 22 we had two redbulls running out of fuel on track in one race and max stopped with a smoking engine in another in the first 3 races. I think that has to do with very little testing.

[AR3-GP]

In 22 we had two redbulls running out of fuel on track in one race and max stopped with a smoking engine in another in the first 3 races. I think that has to do with very little testing.

True, but Ferrari was the fastest car at that point and Ferrari won the races.

If the goal was to spice things up, then their only challenger was RB and RB didn't have enough testing time. That is the problem in a nutshell.

[Sieper]

The goal is spectacle, tragedy, conversation. 2 cars stopping on track just before race end, even more when they are front runners, perfect!

All these sprint races towards end season this year. If there is no big gap in points, will keep the title race alive (for longer).everything is aimed at that.

[dialtone]

The goal is spectacle, tragedy, conversation. 2 cars stopping on track just before race end, even more when they are front runners, perfect!

All these sprint races towards end season this year. If there is no big gap in points, will keep the title race alive (for longer).everything is aimed at that.

I agree with you but realistically the next 2 years are set for RBR. And with budget caps and no testing the ability to catch up is minimal.

The trade off of having a couple of reliability issues at beginning of season is not worth it.