We need testing as another driver has died

[mrkjf]

We need testing as you have heard Henry Surtees has tragicaly died.The FIA say F1 cant have the tests well i hope they can justify this rule when a rookie comes in and this happens again.All our thoughts with the Surtees family.

[Andy B]

This was a freak accident and I dont know if testing would have made any difference.

[Ian]

As tragic as it is you can't legislate on freak accidents.

[John S]

We need some limited in season F1 testing especially for young drivers just to allow a stepping stone into F1.

But please not because of the very tragic Surtees accident, this unfortunately appears to be a a very very unlucky and chance occurance and no amount of testing would have avoided it.

[Jericoke]

We need some limited in season F1 testing especially for young drivers just to allow a stepping stone into F1.

But please not because of the very tragic Surtees accident, this unfortunately appears to be a a very very unlucky and chance occurance and no amount of testing would have avoided it.

The Superliscense still has mileage requirements before someone can race in F1, doesn't it?  The mileage will be harder to acquire without in season testing, but it doesn't change the requirements.

I wonder if the teams, in the interests of cutting costs, should setup a 'rookie camp'?  Anyone the teams want to evaluate can run a car that is very much like an F1 car, but not identical to any of the current entries so it's not a technology test (or perhaps even test out any common components?).  Up and coming drivers can run for a weekend in identical cars, in identical conditions to prove what they've got, as well as develop safely outside of race conditions. 

By sharing the costs across teams, it's not such a big deal, and by doing it during the season, it doesn't take away valuable test time.  It would also be a great place for technicians to get experience working on F1 machines without the stress of a race weekend.

[Scott]

Even cheaper would be to use any teams surplus cars from at least two years ago and let an FIA official scrutineer it and observe the test with the original blueprints and photos.

[Jericoke]

Even cheaper would be to use any teams surplus cars from at least two years ago and let an FIA official scrutineer it and observe the test with the original blueprints and photos.

I'm sure an expert can get the numbers to work on an idea 'non technology' test for rookie drivers.  I just forsee an organisation that is owned by FIA (or FOTA, or FOM) that is responsible for the cars, not the individual teams.  It would be cheaper to use the cast off cars from the previous season though.  Maybe the losing teams can sell their cars to help off set costs - a sort of boobi-prize.

[Scott]

Have a pool of older cars and stipulate that no team can use their own cars during the rookie tests.  Those without two year old cars themselves would have to pay a 'rental' fee of some kind.

[John S]

Have a pool of older cars and stipulate that no team can use their own cars during the rookie tests.  Those without two year old cars themselves would have to pay a 'rental' fee of some kind.

Sounds ok in theory but most teams will want to see how their chosen drivers cope with a car they may want to put them in. IMO this school for rookies using old machinary is likely to lead to more confusion as teams would not rely on it and certainly would not want to pay for it.

I feel each team could organise a shoot out weekend for at least 4 rookies during each season, with a current chassis and two engines that are not part of the full year allocation. They could have weekends randomely allocated from just after the Fifth and up to the 11th race, two teams at a time ( one lot of 3 as 13 teams), they get to choose their venue as long as it is not a track that will hold a GP in the following 3 months. It wouldn't matter if they get to evaluate new parts as they will all get a chance to do the same.

As some young drivers may be more in demand perhaps there should be a limit of 4 or 5 tests per driver so more get a chance to shine. The pay off for the teams is some in season testing so they will fund it.

   

[lkjohnson1950]

Too good an idea for it to happen.

Lonny

[cosworth151]

Maybe the losing teams can sell their cars to help off set costs

I like that idea. It would be a way to get some extra cash to the always struggling lower end teams. I'm sure teams like Minardi and Super Agrui could have used the extra scratch.

The only small bit of light in this tragedy is that a death in motorsports is now a rare occurrence. I can remember when there were at least one driver death a season, usually more. Thank you, Sir Jackie!

[Jericoke]

Sounds ok in theory but most teams will want to see how their chosen drivers cope with a car they may want to put them in. IMO this school for rookies using old machinary is likely to lead to more confusion as teams would not rely on it and certainly would not want to pay for it.

I feel each team could organise a shoot out weekend for at least 4 rookies during each season, with a current chassis and two engines that are not part of the full year allocation. They could have weekends randomely allocated from just after the Fifth and up to the 11th race, two teams at a time ( one lot of 3 as 13 teams), they get to choose their venue as long as it is not a track that will hold a GP in the following 3 months. It wouldn't matter if they get to evaluate new parts as they will all get a chance to do the same.

As some young drivers may be more in demand perhaps there should be a limit of 4 or 5 tests per driver so more get a chance to shine. The pay off for the teams is some in season testing so they will fund it.

The goal is to provide an opportunity for drivers to learn to drive an F1 car while respecting the current testing ban.  If they were running current cars, it would be foolish of the teams not to use it as a test, no matter what the 'rules' say.  In the context of this thread, it's safety first, evaluation second.

I don't see a reason to limit rookie testing at all.  More miles = more experience = safer driving.
   
Now, if the testing bans are lifted, then it becomes academic.  F1 can resume using test drivers to develop new talent as well as developing the cars.

[Scott]

Again, this goes against Max's beloved budget cap, but I say bring back testing, but limit it to the smallest team's available testing budget.  Throwing a driver on the grid with a weekend of testing is a scary thought, and I bet the rest of the grid just hope to hell they qualify ahead of Jaime just to stay out of his way.

[cosworth151]

I liked Friday test drivers. It gave the teams more data on the actual track on the race week-end, it gave younger drivers seat time and it gave more of a show for the fans.

I just don't want to see another Yuji Ide incident. Ide might have done alright if he'd had more F1 car laps before being thrown into a race seat. I don't think he would have ever been a winner, but he wouldn't have been the disaster that he was.

[Scott]

Me too.  That was where BAR/Honda got their best press with Ant setting fast laps all day.  Plus it's another full day for the fans at the track and gives us a better idea of lap times for the Grid Game