McLaren: ‘This isn’t what F1 is about’

To test or not to test, that is the question. I was reading an article about McLaren boss Ron Dennis’s distaste for the lack of testing in Formula 1 and how this may also be Fernando Alonso’s frustration as well.

The thoughts, as posited by the folks at, is that Fernando’s insinuation that he may be interested in other forms of racing could be a the first sign of a life outside of F1 given his current struggles to which Dennis suggests this is born from an inability to improve their car via the ban on testing.

The testing ban is either a critical cost-saving element or a red herring depending on how you look at it. You won’t find Mercedes clamoring for more testing and you won’t find Sauber, Marussia, Force India or Lotus demanding more tests. You will find the “thereabout” teams asking for a lift in the ban and with good reason.

These teams—McLaren, Ferrari and Red Bull—have much to play for and the resources to win it. They can allocate the right tools and talent on the right topics in order to make gains mid-season and match or surpass Mercedes. If allowed, they can take the resource, innovation and fabrication fight to Mercedes and possibly win. None of that happens when there is no testing. Dennis said:

“That isn’t what F1 is about. F1 is about competition, not about handicapping. And perversely the biggest handicap in F1 is no testing.”

Dennis feels it is not saving money as it is more expensive to bring a host of changes to the cars that haven’t been proven or vetted. They are just fabricating lots of changes and seeing what works. He suggests it’s an expensive way to run a railroad.

Dennis also states that the testing ban only saves the small teams money and the big teams are wasting money on un-proven upgrades. Perhaps the comments from McLaren race director Eric Boullier, shared by James Allen, shed light on this theory:

“I hope that Honda is aware of the situation and has a plan to make up for lost time,” said Boullier. “You cannot buy time of course, but you can add resources. So where 450 people is sufficient now for Mercedes, Honda needs 700 so that we can catch up.”

So at this point it is just about throwing heads at problems? If you have a construction project that was estimated to have 100 hours of electrician time to complete, you would get nowhere by sending 100 electricians to the jobsite on the first day or even the 30th day. There is a GANTT chart and construction process and a series of things that have to happen prior to landing 480 to the building. It’s a phased project not unlike designing, building and running a F1 car.

You can place me in the camp of Ron Dennis and Ferrari and Red Bull. If you want a series where competition is king, then you have to let the teams who run at the front have a go at each other. F1 has never been a multi-class racing series but it has never had such a disparity between the Have’s and the Have Yacht’s from a resource and technology standpoint. The systems Mercedes bring to their operation are galactic in scope compared to Marussia, Force India or Sauber.

As it is, Mercedes has done a far superior job of getting on top of the current regulations and all hail the achievement but the regulations themselves prevent any real challenge during the season for any team to have a good chance of making up ground.

In many ways, no one wants to go back to the rampant testing days of the late 90’s with dedicated testing teams at work 24/7 but affording the top teams to test more during the season is terrific 411 and that can manifest in more meaningful upgrades that could tighten up a season. Is it fair to those teams who cannot afford to test regularly? Probably not but then F1 is expensive and the top teams have little interest in Marussia being able to be competitive.

Hat Tip: and James Allen on F1

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Richard Durishin

Well, Red Bull will want concession (or they will leave) and they are one of few routes Bernie has to folks under 50 so…

peter riva

You say, “As it is, Mercedes has done a far superior job of getting on top of the current regulations….” Well, I respectfully disagree. If you were the driving force of the regulations in the first place and the Autosport estimate that new engine design is a 3-5 year process… it seems to me that Mercedes forced the regulations it was ready or perhaps already adapting to (new small car engines), leaving everyone else in the dust. Except Renault who thought their small engine racing pedigree with turbo chargers put them ahead of Ferrari, etc.- what they didn’t know were… Read more »


While these regulations were being discussed, Renault threatened to leave if the small capacity turbos weren’t introduced. Ferrari threatened similar if the original in line four wasn’t changed for a V6. I don’t recall Mercedes doing anything so dramatic, they just built a power unit to comply with the regulations that the other manufacturers wanted to have. I’m sure that all the manufacturers will end up with similar performance figures if the regulations remain stable for long enough. However to catch Mercedes the manufacturers need to change their components, not hang on to development tokens for use later in the… Read more »

Junipero Mariano

The big teams will say “if we can spend money on X, then we’ll spend it on Y.” The small team’s can’t afford much of either. In the end, has limiting all the teams’ options made the smaller teams more competitive? No. Changing the regulations on spending may be a headache, but the current ones haven’t solved your problems yet.


I am tired of no testing in F1.
I am tired of all the cars being so similar without any innovative body work being allowed.
I am tired of the rules hampering the sport I love.
I am tired…. and going to bed.


Its probably just me, but don’t you think McLaren might be the ones who are confused about what competition is about. They seem to be saying only the teams with massive resources should be allowed to ‘compete’.
F1 has been many different things in its different era, from the times where there was very little money and innovative and often intuitive engineering made the difference between winners and losers, to the times of massive tobacco money