I'm sorry if this comes over as aggressive but thats horse poo. Are you really trying to convince me that Merc would be better off having Sam Bird do 3 days testing than Rosberg and Hamilton? Are you really suggesting both drivers won't have learnt more about the care they are driving from prolonged sessions that they can take and use driving in the actual GPs?
You seem very focused on data(do you work at the Mclaren control centre) and complety oblivious to the fact that more time driving the car for the drivers means they'll learn more about how to adapt their driving style too it.
Only just saw your reply to my earlier post so although it's a bit outdated now I'll reply.
I have to say what you have pointed out regarding me focusing on data is quite correct and it made me chuckle when you asked if I work at the McLaren control centre - I'm guessing you're referring to their mission control who would believe it wasn't raining if the radar said so even if Martin Whitmarsh had a brolly over his head. But anyway, I guess my point was primarily focusing on "data gathering" rather than driver influence and I am after all a software engineer by trade so maybe that is influential in my way of thinking.
I do however believe that the majority of testing these days, certainly for the purpose of car development, is largely a data gathering exercise. A lot of the drivers (including Webber who I can notably remember), have recently outlined the fact that their feedback is becoming less and less useful and they simply just drive round at a constant speed and all the sensors do the rest. Teams also do like to sometimes give their most regular reserve/test/simulator driver some running as they are after all the most frequent user of their simulator and so it ensures good correlation. I know Ferrari did this with Pedro de la Rosa and McLaren with Paffett not so long ago.
I still believe contrary to what you have said that if their primary goal was aero validation and development then they would get more out of a test using known tyres and being able to actually put on their own testing equipment, etc, compared to a test where they were primarily if not solely doing work for Pirelli. If the debate was about drivers learning to adapt to the car or improving their own techniques then obviously the Barcelona test would be more useful, although clearly it didn't help Hamilton's braking issues much, but maybe the Barca test was the reason Rosberg won in Monaco - although I quite obviously say this facetiously as drivers of their caliber have relatively little to learn compared to a young driver, that is after all why they are in the number 1 and 2 seats.
To conclude, I'm not arguing that Mercedes gained no advantage whatsoever from running their private test at Barca - quite the opposite, of course they did and some of those areas fall under what you've outlined. But what I was debating was whether for development purposes they would actually have been able to learn more at the young drivers test. The downside is clearly not using their main drivers but effectively everything else would be an advantage compared to their private test. I rest my case but realise you are still entitled to a different opinion.
than I for somehow, in their initial defense, missing the point of this clause in their contract:
