Free Practice 1 to be cut?

[FullMetalJack]

http://motorsportstalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/06/f1-could-reduce-practice-sessions-to-help-cut-costs/

As another measure to cut costs and give the smaller teams a slight financial break, the Friday morning session could be scrapped. This would result in all media interviews being pushed back from the Thursday to the Friday morning in place of the practice session.

[Eifelland]

Seems more like Bernie is trying to maximise his earning potential then dressing it up as a cost-cutting measure to me...

[mario]

Seems more like Bernie is trying to maximise his earning potential then dressing it up as a cost-cutting measure to me...

There is a suggestion that the engine manufacturers are also pushing for a reduction in practise session running too - with the number of permitted engines reduced to 4 for a season from 2015 onwards, cutting the amount of mileage covered in practise sessions makes it easier for them to eke the engines out across a full season.

[AndreaModa]

Seems more like Bernie is trying to maximise his earning potential then dressing it up as a cost-cutting measure to me...

There is a suggestion that the engine manufacturers are also pushing for a reduction in practise session running too - with the number of permitted engines reduced to 4 for a season from 2015 onwards, cutting the amount of mileage covered in practise sessions makes it easier for them to eke the engines out across a full season.

And you'd have to say, the reduced running will only help to improve the spectacle on Sunday. The more running they have the more the established order is allowed to settle. The only issue I can see is if the weather is poor on Friday/Saturday, they might need a contingency.

[FullMetalJack]

Seems more like Bernie is trying to maximise his earning potential then dressing it up as a cost-cutting measure to me...

There is a suggestion that the engine manufacturers are also pushing for a reduction in practise session running too - with the number of permitted engines reduced to 4 for a season from 2015 onwards, cutting the amount of mileage covered in practise sessions makes it easier for them to eke the engines out across a full season.

And you'd have to say, the reduced running will only help to improve the spectacle on Sunday. The more running they have the more the established order is allowed to settle. The only issue I can see is if the weather is poor on Friday/Saturday, they might need a contingency.

Especially at any new circuit, as the drivers would have even less time to learn its characteristics.

[AustralianStig]

And you'd have to say, the reduced running will only help to improve the spectacle on Sunday. The more running they have the more the established order is allowed to settle. The only issue I can see is if the weather is poor on Friday/Saturday, they might need a contingency.

Especially at any new circuit, as the drivers would have even less time to learn its characteristics.

Am I the only one that actually likes the idea of that prospect?

[mario]

And Force India have already responded to the suggestion that FP1 is cut by stating that removing that session would not cut costs.

Furthermore, their complaint is that removing that session would deprive them of a means for trying out new drivers, like Hulkenberg, di Resta or Calado, which would negatively impact on both their finances and their data acquisition programs. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/06/06/s ... rce-india/

[Shizuka]

Yeah, there's the problem right there.

This cuts severely down the chance for third drivers to take the car out for a ride. Therefore, it is going to be harder to evaluate their capabilities - and not being as familiar with the car as they could be, this can be a huge blow if the gambit ends up as a bad move on a driver. (It's just a possibility though, but teams will factor this in, if FP1 gets cut)

[CoopsII]

I always thought that third driver thing was usually just a sponsorship move anyway. The big teams dont seem to do it and the smaller teams dont always have the luxury of choosing drivers based on ability anyway, only money.

[Cynon]

I can only see this ending with the big teams even more scared to take a risk with signing a new driver...

And Force India have already responded to the suggestion that FP1 is cut by stating that removing that session would not cut costs.

Furthermore, their complaint is that removing that session would deprive them of a means for trying out new drivers, like Hulkenberg, di Resta or Calado, which would negatively impact on both their finances and their data acquisition programs. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/06/06/s ... rce-india/

Makes you wonder if this suggestion by the big teams is a way for them to kill off the smaller teams so that they can be swallowed up in the same way Toro Rosso was swallowed by Red Bull, then allowing for customer cars...

[mario]

I can only see this ending with the big teams even more scared to take a risk with signing a new driver...

And Force India have already responded to the suggestion that FP1 is cut by stating that removing that session would not cut costs.

Furthermore, their complaint is that removing that session would deprive them of a means for trying out new drivers, like Hulkenberg, di Resta or Calado, which would negatively impact on both their finances and their data acquisition programs. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/06/06/s ... rce-india/

Makes you wonder if this suggestion by the big teams is a way for them to kill off the smaller teams so that they can be swallowed up in the same way Toro Rosso was swallowed by Red Bull, then allowing for customer cars...

It could also be a way for the top teams to claim that they are trying to introduce measures to cut costs when they are aware that the smaller teams are unlikely to support those changes. If the changes go through it is unlikely to impact them, whilst if they are rejected, they can push the blame onto the smaller teams for refusing cost cutting measures they propose.

I always thought that third driver thing was usually just a sponsorship move anyway. The big teams dont seem to do it and the smaller teams dont always have the luxury of choosing drivers based on ability anyway, only money.

It is that latter point that Force India have picked up on as a reason why they dislike the move - the potential for a sponsored third driver to bring in revenue potentially offsets the cost of the additional session.

Mind you, to be fair to Force India they have tended to use the first practise sessions of races to evaluate drivers - they did it with di Resta, Hulkenberg and Calado, whilst their latest reserve driver (Juncadella) is due to be given some time in practise sessions later this year too. To a certain extent, Williams also did that with Bottas in 2012 - in fact, they did it so frequently you have to wonder whether they hurt themselves by cutting off so much of Bruno Senna's practise time - so some midfield teams do seem to use those sessions to try out third drivers rather than look purely for money.

[Aerospeed]

Doesn't proposals like these require all the teams to agree? If so, I wouldn't be too concerned, Force India are already set against ilthe move. And besides, the only true way to cut costs is to impose a budget cap. All other measures that we've seen are only causing the gap between the good and the bad, since basically the ban on in-season testing (I.e. see 2005) means the only way to develop the car is to put it through the wind tunnel machine and have the best designer available make improvements. Windtunnels aren't cheap...

[AdrianSutil]

I'm pretty sure that back in 2003, the five teams that finished at the back of the seasons previous championship were given an extra session on Friday to help their chances during the weekend. Now I'm not saying do that, but make FP1 a session for all teams to test their third/reserve/sponsorship-driven driver. You only use one car, not two. Surely that would cut costs? Also, have a 'five-component rule' for them as well, saving in the race-drivers taking an unfortunate penalty.

[mario]

Doesn't proposals like these require all the teams to agree? If so, I wouldn't be too concerned, Force India are already set against ilthe move. And besides, the only true way to cut costs is to impose a budget cap. All other measures that we've seen are only causing the gap between the good and the bad, since basically the ban on in-season testing (I.e. see 2005) means the only way to develop the car is to put it through the wind tunnel machine and have the best designer available make improvements. Windtunnels aren't cheap...

Not necessarily - with the Strategy Group cut down to just the top six teams, plus six FIA and six FOM representatives, the smaller teams have lost some of their leverage there (and only a majority vote is needed in the Strategy Group, so even the teams present could be outvoted if the FIA and FOM banded together).

As for the next stage, when it goes to a vote before the WMSC IIRC, although all of the teams can vote on that measure, their voice is relatively small compared to the number of representatives that the FIA have.

[Shizuka]

I'm pretty sure that back in 2003, the five teams that finished at the back of the seasons previous championship were given an extra session on Friday to help their chances during the weekend. Now I'm not saying do that, but make FP1 a session for all teams to test their third/reserve/sponsorship-driven driver. You only use one car, not two. Surely that would cut costs? Also, have a 'five-component rule' for them as well, saving in the race-drivers taking an unfortunate penalty.

Hey, that's a genial idea...
This gives exposition for all third drivers, saves some costs and can collect data for the team as well without fearing the components would break... and to mix in the 2003 rule, how about the bottom five teams able to use two cars?