79 responses to “Daily #F1 News and Comment: Tue 2nd July 2013”

1. on the topic of state subsidies, what do you make of those? joe saward is constantly promoting those, arguing that they are a smart business decision, because they are much cheaper than an event like the olympics or the world championship in soccer while taking place every year and leading to similar or even much more tax income through the promotion of local business. recently be called for british government subsidies for silverstone, which is readers almost completely rebuffed (i suspect he got his feelings hurt in the process as he has since blocked comments on his blog) i never really bought his line of argument because i don’t think f1 is comparable to the olympics or the world championship in soccer. i think if you wanted to compare it to soccer in terms of impact, than f1 is the champions league. do governments subsidise champions league games to the same extent as f1 races and are costs comparable? i don’t think so. second, do you think the subsidy of f1 races is a smart business decision? there is constant controversy around the government support of races such as melbourne, valencia or the german grand prix, and, as you said, f1 races loose money, i don’t think this would be the case if they were earning the state or the region money. how do you assess for the economic impact of an f1 race on local business and tax returns?

   • A lot of good questions and issues raised. I don’t believe the numbers add up – put simply. Tax receipts fee’s.

     The FOM business plan requires a lot of private organisers to build infrastructure around the new venues and we’ve seen in Korea not 1 international hotel chain has bothered to play ball.

     F1 has to develop new ways to fund itself, and screwing the life out of race promoters/regional or national governments is not the way forward.

     China, Spa, Korea have all challenged the hosting fees and they’ve been reduced in less than 18 months.

     Others are in the process of similar conversations.

     The Eiffel region refused to cough up this year and got the Nurburgring/German GP for free.

     Canada has no public money for the incremental fee FOM is demanding for the next F1 contract and they with Silverstone regularly have the highest attendances of the year by far.

     Silverstone will be screwed as the compound 5% levy continues to rollup the fee year on year for 17 years – the GA there is already the most expensive in the world.

     The UK economy has more to lose in absolute terms £’s by losing the British GP than most other countries, yet the government does not see £20m of tax additional receipts and so refuse to cough up.

     As to why certain journalists may suddenly do enormous U-turns on a range of matters and support ‘the Empire’ – I’ll not comment on that if you don’t mind – but conclusions are not hard to come by 🙂

     • I think absolute terms would be the only way to argue for state investment. The state will lose money, but does it improve the bottom line of enough businesses to allow extra employees to be hired, does it help keep people off the dole, does it offer increased opportunity for entrepreneurs, and since I am truly well and incensed by this living over here in the states, is it part of the cultural heritage of the region and does it truly add to their quality of life.

       Folks might piss and moan, but see how many orchestras would go under the moment they stopped being subsidized. We tried that over here back in the 70’s, and in the NYC Metro area overnight the number of orchestra dropped by half. And I’m speaking of 40-50 engagements a year, not 3-4. This had (and continues to have as we rarely see arts funding increased)a knock on effect on employment for musicians, and at the local level for the most under served populations, a huge loss, as it’s the smallest local groups that lose out first, and they tend to be most effective in serving the actual needs of their communities. I’m talking about music because it’s what’s know, but it’s really the modern technocratic mindset that seems to ignore important intangible benefits for constituents (including affordable motor racing 😉 )that really sets me off.

       Korea was a bet by their government to increase economic activity in the region and it was a fail. Silverstone on the other hand is now part of the regions heritage (from my POV over here) and therefore should be considered differently. Frankly, it would make more sense for the government to loan the money to BRDA to buy out the loan under better terms than Bernie offers, then require either lower price tickets or take the money they get back and spend it on other needs in the region.

       Apologies for rant/ thread jacking.

       • I think there is a different case to be made for the arts and I agree they should receive public funding.

         According to Bernie 500m viewers watch F1.

         If they he/FOM are too incompetent to monetarise that properly and distribute the funds fairly, charging reasonable hosting fees – hence reasonably priced tickets – why should the state cough up?

         • The state should cough up if it feels it’s in the best interests of the citizens of the region that the race continue. Simple to put the question, complex to answer. And no, the state should not fund Bernie’s incompetence, unless he (and CVC) are paying their proper taxes in the countries where they operate, then it becomes a little more complicated. But generally, no, and the larger the company, the less incompetence should be tolerated. This is because I feel in the real world perfect efficiency is a myth and at a certain point you’re tilting at windmills.

           Looking at it, the escalating 5% is going to kill the race. So either BRDA renegotiates in the manner of a 3rd world nation with the IMF (or Iceland, take your pick) or the government bails them out of their position and extracts long term concessions in return, i.e. long term guaranteed revenue from the race plus lower ticket costs. And possibly they would have the leverage to extract a better deal from FOM, as I note that most of the other “renegotiated” fees were in countries with substantial government support for the race.

           Over here in ‘Murica we did that with the car companies, and the government actually made a bit of profit from the deal. I know we’re all “Capitalism” and “Freedom” etc., but that ‘s mostly marketing, reality is actually much more complicated (despite certain politicians inability to recognize it as such).

         • Banks have had all our cash – and as one of the outgoing Labour treasury ministers said in a note he left for his successor – “Good luck, all the money’s gone”

           Giving money to a sport owned by bankers would be pretty much political suicide.

         • Ah, then they’ve had all your money, too. There was an example of businesses incompetence that should not have been bailed out.

           Well, let’s hope the BRDA grow a pair and renegotiate before it’s too late. Because the last thing I’d want to do at this point is give any bankers more state funds.

         • Without wishing to get into the realms of new world order, Illuminati and other esoteric propaganda, I was sent a picture some months ago which summed up governments and bankers to a T.
           By all accounts, the World’s debt is valued at $47 trillion. But the question the protester was asking, who do we owe it to?

           My other point, regarding the “Capitalism and Freedom” of the USA, may be controversial too.
           Certain journalists have been writing in recent months of America being essentially a communist state. Especially to do with the taxes that the common man has to bear against the vast conglomerates that are protected by government officials.

         • And more children are born out of wedlock in the Bible Belt???

2. <>

   So was the construction changed for Barcelona?

3. Pirelli will use kevlar for the German GP and then revert to 2012 specs in Hungary.
   What puzzles me is this. Kevlar is 5 times stronger than steel and it started replacing steel in racing tyres back in the 70s. So why in the world Pirelli used steel? Does kevlar make a tyre degrade less? Not talking about durability or delamination here.

   • Using steel allowed the profile of the tyre to flex more and the tyre profile became less predictable from circuit to circuit and corner to corner.

     This meant aero solutions around the tyres were even more highly complex than before.

     I’m told it was designed to level the playing field for those with less aero resource.

     • Thank you McLaren78 and tj13, as this is a very good question and answer which touches upon the root of the tyre issues in 2013.

       To expand on the answer by tj13 above, Pirelli stated on their website ( http://bit.ly/iUZAcn ), “The new structures have been designed with a different philosophy and new materials that increase the footprint of the tyre, allowing more rubber to be in contact with the track and leading to better performance – particularly when it comes to combined traction and cornering. Secondly, it means that temperatures are more evenly distributed across the whole surface of the tyre, meaning that there is no localized heat build-up that can lead to blistering.”

       So when one combines Pirellie’s design goals for the 2013 structure with tj13’s insights above, we see:
       1) More sidewall flex to take away the advantage of clever (but very expensive) aero work to fine tune the aero flow around the tyres in the turns, because, as tj13 pointed out, different turns = different tyre flex.
       2) Pirelli statement above first mentions the footprint is larger. One could speculate that the steel belts are more stable and stay truer (more flat) to the road versus kevlar belts.
       3) The thermal conductivity of steel belts versus kevlar belts must be significant given that “…temperatures are more evenly distributed across the whole surface of the tyre, meaning that there is no localized heat build-up that can lead to blistering,” (a reference to localized blistering seen in prior seasons).

       So the goal was (in part) to even the field by reducing the advantage of the clever & expensive tweaks of the aero flow around tyres while turning. This alone explains high level of whining and tears from Red Bull about Pirelli’s 2013 tyre structure, as Newey’s team has been particularly good at mid-season development in this area.

       In addition, the bigger, more stable footprint helps to slightly emphasize mechanical grip in proportion to aero, which has enabled teams with lessor budgets who focused on tyre / mechanical grip (Lotus and Force India) to reap larger rewards. The famous FIA Friday Press Conference from the Spanish GP featuring some team’s technical leaders ( http://bit.ly/17RPuOd ) continues to be insightful on all of this, btw.

       While Horner’s incessant whining over the last few weeks has been obnoxious, in this context, RB’s overall goal is clear (to change the tyre structure back to a less flexible side-wall), and it now appears that Red Bull is likely to reach that goal.

       • I think Mercedes will benefit most from the kevlar base as the operating temperature will be reduced and this has been their nemesis.

         Their one lap pace will be unaffected.

         • You may be right…

           However, it’s interesting that Mercedes are guilty of abusing these Pirelli by running them outside of the recommended parameters. If Mercedes were to adhere to the tyre manufacturer’s recommendations going forward, then perhaps Mercedes (or any other team that has been blowing up their tyres) will suffer in performance more than others.

           Even though the 2013 tyres were designed to even the playing field, (partially successful given what we’ve seen from lessor budgeted teams like Lotus and Force India so far), the championships are not very close now, with Vettel and RB both comfortably leading them.

           No matter how advanced the driver or car, all of a car’s performance is determined by how well they together are able to get their four little tyre contact patches to perform. If the tyres are changed mid-season it will most likely upset the status quo for each team’s 2013 technical road maps. This will be expensive, and may have unforeseen repercussions for 2014.

           In addition, for F1’s sake, I’m hoping we don’t see Red Bull and SV walk away from the field each Sunday for the rest of the season.

         • I was discussing this with someone from Merc and they were of the opinion the Kevlar structure would remove the need for the other tricks they get up to.

           But you’re right, we shall see.

4. I’ve been waiting almost 48 hours now going round the various F1 websites and it strikes me that noone reported the fact fans were booing Vettel during the race and on Friday too. I was there and I know. Brundle mentions that fans were cheering when his car broke down, but noone mentions the booing. And the same thing happened when he was on the podium in Canada. I don’t recall Schumacher or Alonso in the last 10 years being on the receiving end of fans at Silverstone so much.

   • He appeared on the stage in the Village with Horner and Newey, and in front of 15-20,000 fans and was booed on arrival.

     Tony Jardine host bigged up the Englishness of Horner and Newey OBE’s to get some RB respect – it didn’t work.

     Horner was mildly amusing, Newey very dull but Vettel had some banter with Jardine and the crowd and was very funny and self deprecating.

     Whilst he didn’t leave to rapturous applause he definitely turned it around and was appreciated by most and cheered by some.

   • Don’t forget, he has won the last 3 years, (very easily in ’11), there are many feeling Alonso should have won it last year (myself included), and also vettel’s questionable race tactics sometimes, and the fact he is currently ahead and has been most of the season, really explains why many people, despite how fair, kind, etc they are, would be happy for vettel to retire from a race and not win the championship this year.

     An edited note of what Martin Brundle says on the SKY website says it all –

     “I was intrigued about the loud cheers round the circuit when Vettel retired. I asked fans on pit straight why this was so, and a very clear answer came back: Malaysia Multi-21.”

     Despite it beings always mentioned many times that us brits are true racing fans, knowledgeable etc etc, I think the reasons above prove why they were cheering.

     RE reaction to vettel at the village Judge was talking about – I think that this shows how many are wiling to support him off track – He does seem to have two very different sides to him – off track, very funny and witty, so his off track demeanour win back some fans, as judge said.

   • There are two reasons for the booing. First, he’s winning too much and isn’t British and second he’s German. That’s all there is to it.

     • Federer (Swiss) won Wimbledon a record number of times and didn’t get suffer booing

     • I think many people dislike Vettel not because he’s winning most of the time or because he’s from certain coountry but because of his behavior. Personally I dislike people that don’t want to take responsibility of their actions and that act immaturely and that’s exactly how Vettel behaves. Schumacher won everything and was German yet I don’t remember people expressing so much dislike towards him. There are good reasons to say that Schumacher in different stages of his career did questionable things yet when others did it he was sober enough to accept he wasn’t the only with the right to push boundaries; when he wasn’t winning he was sober enough to not show negative emotions; when he was caught doing questionable things he was sober enough to accept the punishment and stay silent. I respect those qualities and I guess other do too. But I find hard to like a person who doesn’t have problems pushing boundaries and making exagerated celebrations everytime he wins but throws a tantrum everytime others do.

       • I can’t quite agree with that Juan. Vettel’s behaviour in comparison to many drivers of the past is almost catholic. The only time where his behaviour really made me cringe was that half-arsed not-meant apology after he kicked Mark in the teeth at Malaysia.

         In fact Malaysia is a pretty good example. The team gave him a stupid order and just like Mark did at Silverstone 2011 he ignored it. But in 2011 Mark said after the race ‘I didn’t like the order, so I disregarded it’, while Vettel (probably after some bollocking from Marko) came up with that ridiculous half-apology.

         Vettel is quite an honest man and frankly, I’d prefer his conduct over the deviousness and mind-messing characters of people like Piquet (sr.) or Fernando Alonso.

         I’ve been in many forums and left most of them, because I got sick of the endless Vettel bashing. Not because I’m necessarily a Vettel fan – I’m an old fart, I’m still an Alex Zanardi and Nigel Mansell fanboi – but it lead to anti-German rants, which I don’t take kindly to. In the end it all boiled down to one reason. Many British (and to a lesser degree commonwealth) fans thought that after suffering through the Schumacher years they were entitled to a string of British drivers clinching the title and another German kid coming in and cleaning the fridge wasn’t in the menu.

         • Are you planning on leaving this forum as well…? 😉

5. BE often claims he is responsible for improvements in F1, but he is strangely silent over the tyre problem. To what extent is the current debacle down to his desire for a show rather than the display of a sport, in contributing to the specification of a tyre that is designed not to last a race distance? There is a safety problem now and the FIA need to get a grip and regardless of BE’s wishes and the teams reluctance to agree must sit with Pirelli and arrive at a solution and change of regs as necessary, based solely on safety and not on the desire for a pantomime show!

6. So engineers found carbon kevlar shards where the tyres exploded… What is the bodywork of a F1 car made of?

   • As TJ13 reported yesterday, Red Bull had cut open a Pirelli tyre in Spa 2011 following concerns over the wear.

     You would have to believe this would have been done again by at least one team on Sunday, and the evidence would be there for all to see.

7. I think we’re being a bit unfair on Lowe. Yes, he didn’t produce the fastest car out of the box, but let’s not forget that it was a brand new car. And then he walked away. So Macca were left without the man who designed their car and not a clear idea how to progress it through development. If Lowe had stayed on and the car carried on producing the woeful results it does, I’d be worried with Lowe’s appointment. But let’s wait and see. He can’t be that bad. He was in McLaren for 20-odd years and he was highly regarded.

   I blame Whitmarsh more for the mistakes the team made last year and cost Lewis the title and the decision to build a new car this year.

   • And how many constructors’ titles have they won in the last 15 years?

     • I think it’s more down to the fact that the philosophy at Macca is no team orders and always let the drivers race. Which is fun to watch, admittedly, but at a certain level to win the Constructors you have to function as a team, because that’s how your competitors are playing the game. Their unwillingness (inability) to change has and will continue to cost them titles.

       PS Your Blue and White is showing 😉

       • Their lack of titles cannot be laid at their team orders philosophy – that doesn’t explain the engineering inconsistencies, habitual mistakes, and ineffectual management. It’s like they have a similar, albeit less well developed, strain of whatever has infected Williams – unable to provide a car with which to mount a consistent challenge, more concerned with the business than the racing, mis-managing the talent, driving and engineering-wise.

         • Add the word solely to your first sentence and I would agree wholeheartedly.

           Still, at a certain level both sides of the garage will need to cooperate to win a constructors title and I wonder if, given the fact that F1 is made up of highly competitive individuals anyway, the emphasis on competition might deprive them of the collaboration that is needed to win.

       • McLaren’s team orders, or lack thereof, would appear to have very little to do with their finishing positions in the Constructors Championships.

         When would the lack of team orders at McLaren have effected their position in the Constructors Championship?

         • OK, I will try again. “No team orders” is a proxy for “No Team” in my argument. My thought was that at a certain point, you need everyone on both sides of the garage working together or else you won’t win a constructor’s title. If you are too busy competing with your teammate, it will affect the marginal performance of the overall team, which is where championships are won and lost at this level.

           Like it or not, everyone at Ferrari and Red Bull (with the possible exception of Seb, LOL) understands very clearly that they are there to win a Constructors Title for the team. Mclaren, on the other hand, sometimes gives the impression that their only job is to help “their” driver win that week. And yes, that is an impression, albeit one gained after watching the these last several years.

         • Cool! Thanks for explaining your meaning, mattpt55. I was genuinely curious about that, and now I understand.

           An interesting observation. I don’t follow McLaren too closely, but will now keep my eye open for the phenomenon you describe.

   • Ted Kravitz said in his post race notebook that Whitmarsh told him the problems they were having.

     “wake of the front suspension arms interfering with the rest of the car, which led them down the wrong development path, and this is also affecting the harmony of the car, arts not working with each other”.

     From 9 mins in the video:

     http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/formula-1/8799960/british-gp-ted

     [I sadly don’t fully understand everything that is being said, maybe someone more technical with more understanding and knowledge could explain further.]

     • It means they got their aero wrong with a fundamental structural part of the car that is difficult to change. IMHO

     • DWilD, well spotted! I watched that video just now. It’s significant.

       What he is saying is that McLaren’s CFD modeling was not accounting correctly for the wake coming off of their front suspension bits. That likely would have hampered the downforce generated by the rear of the car.

       The mid-season development is typically spent fine-tuning the aero wake that flows over the car. The front of the car is most significant of this equation because controlling the aero wake over the front will enable the team to generate more downforce at the rear.

       So apparently McLaren has lost some weeks of time before they realized their modeling was not correctly capturing the wake from their front suspension arms.

       • Ted’s notebooks are a must watch for me every race weekend. I wont miss anything important that is said in them.

8. OK, engine question here (if you can’t tell, Summer is generally slow here in the Tpt55 household). If Renault is able to sell a derivative of their F1 engine to other race series, isn’t that a good thing? Won’t it bring down costs for everyone if they have more clients? Or will they just be able to sell a cheaper engine to WES and still hit the F1 customers up for the full cost?

   Also, I realize only Honda has signed up to play the new engine game, but I’ve recently seen reports that the mileage estimates for the new road going turbo’s are way off from actual mileage. What are the chances that engine manufacturer’s will be able to spin off technology to road cars to bring real world mileage up without a loss of BHP? I’m thinking particularly of using the ERS to spool the turbos up prior to acceleration, itt seems feasible, but I’m not sure, again, whether that would help lower engine costs for teams or not.

   • No one knows what the ACO / WES engine regs will be in 2016, so any derivative F1 engine might well be uncompetitive or even illegal.

     Also, fixing the engine specification between 2014 & 2020 is just plain stupid …… or as it’s more commonly known – standard practice for the FIA !!!

     The FIA says changes will only be allowed “for installation, reliability or cost saving reasons” – so if you’ve got a fundamental design fault – it looks like you might well be stuck with it.

     Plus, it discourages other manufacturers entering F1 as an engine supplier.

     Honda’s decision to wait till 2015 looks extremely wise. It’ll give them time to see what the other manufacturers are doing before finalising their design. They’ll have a year of development that’s denied to Mercedes, Renault & Ferrari.

     Q. – is ” Le Presidente ” the love child of Jean-Marie Balestre ? 😉

9. That Todt is poised to destroy F1 and turn it to the ‘debacle’ of motorsport!

10. Surely with a ‘green’ tyre war ; as in two or more manufacturers battling to create turned that enhanced fuel efficiency rather than ultimate performance, then 2014 could be rescued from being completely dominated by 1 team.
    Given the huge impact that tyres can have on fuel consumption this would fit into the FIAs Eco-F1 model, and could possibly even allow them to be even more aggressive with their fuel tank reduction program.
    I would like to see the FIA open it up and bring back their favoured Michelin and pitch them against a Pirelli with a sensible mandate.

    But I guess I’m not going to get that..

    • Outrageous and preposterous suggestion!!!! ORDER!!!!

      Common sense and pragmatism….F1… same sentence… the man is insane 🙂

    • What about just having 6 teams with 4 cars each – 2 petrol, 2 electric.

      • yes, and maybe we should have sprinklers to spice up the races. Or has someone already suggested that?

11. With the rule stating that cars using a 6th power unit will start the race from pit lane I expect the sad sight of an odd race with only 5 or 6 cars in the grid.

    * * *

    So Pirelli says their tyres are perfect and failures are due to teams’ use of them and tracks. Why are they changing them in that case? Won’t an unknown variable introduce the chance of new and different problems? More Pirelli bullshit.

12. A couple of quick comments on the analysis of Pirelli’s statement…

    1) The problem of excessive negative camber is also on the rear tyres.

    2) The reason for lower tyre pressures is not only for faster warm-up time, but also for a slightly larger foot-print. The larger foot print enables more grip overall. The downside of lower tyre pressures is not only more time required to bring the tire temp up, but also more mechanical drag on the straights from the increased flexing in and around the tyre contact patch.

13. “This helps Mercedes the most during the race,………….”

    What else is new. “I’ve been passed by a Williams” Other than during the turbo era when a team got a new engine do I ever remember as big a gain by one team during one season in all the years I’ve watched F1. And I’m not saying that as a Ferrari fan. The teams that did their homework ( Ferrari, Lotus, F1 and Sauber) and got the engineering right are now being penalized. It’s too late to redesign their cars to meet the new tyre specs, while the Mercedes cheats get the title handed to them.

    • Some question the ethics of certain matters behind Ferraris string of titles with Schumacher.

      • And the relevance of those allegations in regards to Pirelli tyres is?

    • Could be their collective plethora of genius directors, criticised by others for having too many, is finally cogging and it’s combined brain power is like a super computer. You think Cav?.

      • Yeah that has to be it. At the rate of progress they are making they should be able to lap the whole field this week-end.

    • Have you forgotten to take your tablets again?? 😉

      • The comments section just isn’t a comments section until an Englishmen says that.

    • OK, I’m just going to risk saying it, but the Merc has generally been the fastest single lap car all year. 5 out of 8 poles. The only reason they weren’t also the fastest round the track on Sundays was down primarily to tires. They haven’t really added much in the way of performance (though they did bring a raft of updates to Silverstone), beyond keeping pace with the other top teams development.

      And I will also point out that although Lewis looked good, it was only 7 laps in before his tire blew, and we still really don’t know how the Merc will do over a proper race distance as the safety car laps and Rosbergs late tire change mean we still have seen them do a representative race on a proper circuit since their test with Pirelli.

      • I’m not going to deny Mercedes are quick over one lap as their pole record this year shows they are. What is intriguing is that up to Barcelona if they ran the same tyre strategy as Ferrari, Lotus or FI they immediately fell into the mid-field, and in a couple of occasions had to do an extra stop. After Barcelona their tyre wear is now better than everybody else. At Silverstone Mercedes were planning to do a 2 stopper while many of the others were talking about having to do three. So in the span of three races Mercedes have gone from usually needing an extra stop compared to the other leaders to today where they are now looking like they can do it with one less. As I previously mentioned in 40 years of watching F1 I’ve never seen a turn around like that, except during the turbo era where an engine was involved. Thejudge13 wants to pass off this turn round as an engineering feat. I don’t. I believe it’s the direct result of the test after Barcelona.

        • OK, now I see why you think Mercedes are cheating.

          It appears this strongly held belief is all based on the circumstantial evidence you’ve listed here.

          Interesting… perhaps you’re correct, but I strongly doubt it.

        • I start to see a pattern:
          1) Pirelli invite Merc for a tyre test that must have helped a lot, if not was solely responsible for the miraculeously quick solving of the Merc pre-Barcelona tyre issue;
          2) the FIA, after the IT’s under-punishment of Merc, alters the YDT into a tyre test which makes the IT’s “penalty” look a lot more harsh on Merc
          3) Pirelli reacts by announcing further changes that will benefit Merc (2012 tyres for Hungary!)

          So the pattern: Pirelli, which is eating out of Bernie’s hand, are favouring Merc while the FIA is doing everything to obstruct the Merc progress. So it is really Bernie against the FIA/Todt with Bernie on a mission to bring the WDC/WCC to Mercedes and with the FIA/Todt trying to avoid that….

          • Yeah, Help a German company and maybe they’ll help you with your bribery charges in a German court……………

        • Cav, who knows for sure. But if u look back in history you could make the argument a lot of teams have ‘cheated’ inc Ferrari and got away with it. I’ve lost count the amount of times I’ve thought that. In recent times red bull and in the 2000s Ferrari and other people prob could site a lot more cases of diff teams on the edge or blatantly breaking rules or the spirit of the rule. Ferrari are def not innocent nor others. There are arguments about why this occurs and reasons and ways to stop it. But for now perhaps you need to move on 🙂

    • cavallinorampantef1 – I’m confused by your post. I agree with you that changing the tyres mid-season may be an expensive mistake that costs some teams more than others. It’s not clear to me that the chosen path to solve the problem is the most fair solution to all the teams. I do wonder if a better solution is available.

      But your post is perplexing. Why would you say that this penalizes Sauber “who have done their homework”? What homework do you believe Sauber have done for 2013? (I ask this as a Sauber fan, btw…)

      Since you’ve include Ferrari as having done their “homework”, then your list must include Red Bull as well. Red Bull have outperformed Ferrari, and both teams have similar enough budgets and are 1 & 2 in both championships.

      Finally, you dismiss Mercedes as “cheats”. Why do you say that? What is your point?

      • Sauber while a mid-fielder have very good tyre wear characteristics, while Red Bull have been one of the most vocal critics of the tyres as they don’t have good tyre wear. Both are the result of engineering decisions both teams have made.

        “Finally, you dismiss Mercedes as “cheats”. Why do you say that?”

        Because they cheated, got caught and were found guilty. The judge13 doesn’t want to talk about as he hopes we’ll all forget about it but it’s pretty clear why he and most of the posters on this site want to dismiss it. Had Red Bull or Ferrari tested their 2013 cars with the race drivers they’d be howling for blood.

        • Cav – Ferrari in your words ‘cheated by using Massa to test 2013 tyres, a matter noted by the IT.

          Then, it was no surprise that following their ‘secret’ test they whipped everyone in Barcelona.

          After the furore over tyres and testing, they’ve escaped a protest because there is no appetite for another IT drama. Plus they don’t get a YTD ban.

          Further, testing with 2013 tyres and a known base line constant ie the 2011 car on a track where they have masses of data was far more advantageous than testing with prototype tyres and no opportunity to change car setup.

          • “Ferrari in your words ‘cheated by using Massa to test 2013 tyres,”

            Massa tested using a 2011 car, a car that uses push-rod suspension as opposed to pull-rod suspension which is used now. Pull-rod suspension completely changes the tyre wear and aero characteristics of a car. Just ask McLaren how easy the change has been.

            “Then, it was no surprise that following their ‘secret’ test they whipped everyone in Barcelona.”

            Hmm. Was Alonso’s victory in China before or after Massa’s test?

          • Irrelevant, it was tyre comparative work with the 2013 tyres. The baseline 2011 car was a constant for data analysis.

            According to Ferrari’s partner in protest. ‘You never run an F1 car without learning anything’.

        • You’ve described Sauber as “…a mid-fielder have very good tyre wear characteristics…”, and that they’ve done their “homework”.

          Sauber are 8th out of 11 in the CC. In eight races they have earned 6 total points. The only reason that Sauber earned any of these 6 points is because faster cars dropped out of the race. Sauber requires an average of four faster cars to drop out of the race before they can score a point. Sauber have failed to do their homework, and they’re back of the field, not mid-field. I’m a Sauber fan since the days of Wendlinger, so I say that with a broken heart, but it’s true.

          You are a mature adult who has followed F1 since the turbo era, and you’re calling one of the F1 teams “cheats”. Most every team in the paddock, past or present have been caught violating rules at some point.

          It would have been much more intelligent for you to have discussed what Mercedes may have possibly gained from the tyre test. I’ve seen plenty of wild and weird speculation by many fans, but little intelligent discussion of that. I don’t doubt that Pirelli’s May test at Barcelona was a proper tyre test controlled by Pirelli. But it is certainly possible that the drivers learned quite a bit while having to do three days worth of test laps on the 12 or so various tyre constructions. I’m not surprised that Michael Schumacher was rumored to be there, as he is modern F1’s most experienced tyre tester, so he may have offered some excellent mentoring advice on how to work with tyre engineers during a tyre test. And since the team apparently have the data, that will have some value to them, (however small). What the drivers, the team, and Pirelli learned during those three days is the story I look forward to seeing.

          • “You are a mature adult…” LOL 🙂

14. So the kerbs are the problems to the tyres according to the drivers. So how about not cutting across them then, lets put barriers around all the circuits so we dont have any kerbs, just barriers 🙂

    • There were very similar occurrences in last year’s Aussie V8 Supercars championship: under-inflated Dunlop high-side-walled 15inchers were interacting with high curbs, causing failures.

      The stewards’ and ruling body’s decision? “Drive within the track.” And while it may have been just their tone, I swear I could hear “You know, those big white lines…? Dickheads” as they trailed off.

      While I wouldn’t expect such sense in F1, it ought to be vociferously reported that teams deliberately went outside spec, as well as the track, to gain a sporting advantage, and then ignominiously threw mud at Pirelli to cover their own incompetence.

      The teams have known since Sunday they were outside recommendations, and not only left that to Pirelli to explain, but parroted on about the inadequacy of the current tyres makeup. As FI and Lotus showed: they work just fine if you use them as prescribed.

      Eat. Your. Cake.

      • CC for President!!!

      • NB: The green-painted concrete is on the OUTside of the curve… Therefore the tyres have crossed right over the ‘lip’ and beyond the actual curbs – and come back again… It seems no surprise to me that the tyres could be damaged.
        You wouldn’t do it with a road-car, why do it at such speeds with less robust tyres…? The drivers also have to take a major chunk of responsibility for this problem…
        Are there no CU shots of the tyres on this specific bend…?

        • They clearly knew what they were doing, because on the exit of Chappel before the hanger straight (same profile of kerb as T4 and also high speed exit) was treated differently following the blow outs.

          I watched back some footage last night and hardly a single car crosses beyond the kerb after lap 15, whereas before they were regularly ‘off the circuit’.

          “What me Gov???” (innocent look – turn around and grin)

          • Thank you… That was my suspicion but I didn’t have any footage to look back at…

15. Irrelevant – thejudge13

    Yeah sure. If a 2011 car was all that was needed to determine the operating characteristics of the tyres then why didn’t Pirelli ask Mercedes to use a 2011 car as well? I’ll answer that for you because Mercedes knew that a 1000K test would answer a lot of questions as to why they had excessive tyre wear. Case closed. Adios.

    • We all closed the case a while ago, Cav… As did the courts, and none of the players seem to be appealing it. There’s only one person here that keeps re-opening it…
      I just don’t get the *anger* about it. Sure, feel a sense of injustice or that the IT was lenient, but there’s nary a year goes by without a Major Scandal like this… Spygate, crashgate, double diffusers, flexi-wings, just to name a few from the recent past.
      If you can’t let it go, please, I’m imploring you, at least make a new point next time you feel like bringing it up, because its a little boring reading the same thing over and over, regardless of the thread/post. I mean that in a respectful way, I really do.

      • Last post on the subject and on this site. Arrivederci

        • ‘Thank the lord, from whom all blessings flow.’ 😉

      • Thank you CTP for saying what we all felt like saying and in an extremely polite way too. 🙂

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