mx_tifosi wrote:
Can you imagine how many engines, tyres, etc., teams would go through with unlimited testing? That's simply unacceptable in the situation facing Formula One, which is cutting costs and having less of an affect on the environment.
mx_tifosi, always enjoy and respect your input - with a name like mx_
tifosi it has to be good!
However, this time I have to point out some (partial) fallacies we all seem to accept without question:
1) Testing expenses were NOT saved in total - at least some portion of those expenses were plowed back in to simulation hardware and software. (Think about McL's investment in that sophisticated driver simulator. Think about companies like Nick Wirth's who specialize in doing - at great expense - all the "testing" through software and simulators.)
2) "cutting costs" - KERS is increasing costs significantly, not cutting them; "savings" on longer-life engines and transmissions involved significant and expensive redesign and retesting. And we now know that engine development has not stopped anyway.
3) "less of an affect on the environment" As an old marketing/PR guy, I love this one. Really, think about this. If F1 cut its environmental impact by 99% - or increased it by 1,000% - how great an effect would it really have on the global situation? That argument might work on the rubes and yokels, but it does not stand up to analysis.
My basic position is simple: F1 should be the arena for brilliant engineers and drivers - not politicians and bean-counters. One example that some of you will understand: one of the greatest, most innovative F1 designers of the last 50 years - John Barnard - left the sport for MotoGP.
Enzo Ferrari was a great man. But he was not a good man. -- Phil Hill