Tyres “punish” Red Bull for being best – Marko

F1 Fanatic round-up

Helmut Marko, Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, Sepang, 2013In the round-up: Helmut Marko says Red Bull have to run less downforce to make the current generation of tyres work.

Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter and Go Ad-free

Help cover the cost of running and developing F1 Fanatic: Contribute ??1 per month and you can browse the site ad-free.

Your contribution will help cover the cost of hosting, developing and running the site. In return you will be able to browse the site free of external advertisements.

You can pay per month or per year. This offer is available in all regions and you can cancel your subscription at any time.

For more information and to sign up see here:

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Helmut Marko Q&A: ‘Extreme’ tyres costing Red Bull (F1)

“The tyres have these problems – not us. Other teams witness these kinds of problems in different shapes, but it cannot be that you have a car that has the best downforce and you have to reduce it to make the tyres work to some extent. [...] I always understood that the best and fastest should win – and not that the one who builds the best car is punished for it.”

Red Bull tyre woe ‘its own fault’ – Lotus (Autosport)

Eric Boullier: “They are fast on one lap but then struggle with tyre degradation, which is partially due to the way they designed the car.”

Here’s a relevant story from Pirelli’s return to F1 in 2011:

McLaren principal Martin Whitmarsh takes blame for uncompetitive car (The Guardian)

“Whitmarsh did not take the opportunity to dispel stories that the team may yet revert to last year’s car. ‘I can categorically kill it off ?ǣ for the time being. We’re making progress. We’re working hard to understand this car, to improve and develop it and turn it into a race winning car.’”

F1 driver Susie Wolff says disabled grandad helped her achieve motor racing dream (Daily Record)

“Racing driver Susie Wolff has revealed the inspiration behind her bid to make the Formula One starting grid ?ǣ her disabled grandad.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

Aled Davies looks forward to today’s race:

Bianchi has been incredible so far. You have to take into account how much more time Chilton had in the car pre season compared to him!

Great lap by Vettel (he said through gritted teeth) thought Hamilton had done it at one point! Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if it had stayed Dry looked close between Raikkonen, the Red Bulls and Mercedes with Ferrari not far behind.

Rosberg been quicker all weekend than Hamilton. I’m sure I heard or read somewhere before that someone said he is susceptible to not being able to pull out the last few tenths when it really matters – could be a sign of that again here.

Ahould be a great race, Ferrari are usually lightening off the line, Alonso will be desperate to get ahead of Massa and Vettel always likes to lead from the front and control the pace. Behind all that you have Hamilton who will be desperate to get in there and fight with them!
Aled Davies (@Aledinho)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Gman, Sam and BenH!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy birthday to McLaren test driver Gary Paffett who is 32 today!

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty

Advert | Go Ad-free

95 comments on Tyres “punish” Red Bull for being best – Marko

  1. Wallbreaker (@wallbreaker) said on 24th March 2013, 0:06

    If it wasn’t Helmut Marko I would be amazed by these words. By my understanding, the best car is an overall package that is competitive in every conditions. If they can’t get the tyres to work, they should not be claiming to have the best car when other teams clearly do a better job at race day.

    • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 24th March 2013, 0:32

      @wallbreaker

      If it wasn’t Helmut Marko I would be amazed by these words.

      +1 Gah! That guy is too much sometimes (all the time). Although he makes the perfect mentor-villain to Vettel, the über-villain!

    • Adam Tate (@adam-tate) said on 24th March 2013, 4:18

      +1,000

    • Klaas (@klaas) said on 24th March 2013, 6:32

      Now Marko sound like Luca di Montezemolo. If the rules of the game doesn’t allow them to use maximally their adavantage (engines) over other teams then they ask for the rules to be changed. They were all in the same situation in winter testing, they were given the same sets of tires, nobody stood in their way of making the car work with the tires. So for RedBull everything was OK when Seb was winning almost every race in 2011 while Ferrari couldn’t get the hard compound working. But the minute it affects them they claim it’s unfair. Pfffff….

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 24th March 2013, 7:17

      Yep, it seems Marko is there to be the one to say the bold words they might otherwise grumble at a late night in the pub or after packing up all the stuff from a disappointing race meeting.

      I really think Red Bull is doing theirselves no favour, its clear that currently only Lotus have really gotten a grip on the tyres, but on the other hand FI and Ferrari are doing well enough on them too, and Mercedes is not that far off.
      As Boellier notes, its the focus RBR have on taking pole with top qualli that now seems not to pay off anymore because it then destroys the tyres on the one side and because the car has to run in traffic on the other hand. Maybe going for a split strategy, or even focussing more on the race with both cars, could help get them on top of their problems.

  2. John H (@john-h) said on 24th March 2013, 0:06

    These stupid comments by Marko (again) are harming a sensible debate on tyres. Downforce should not always be king, who says so? I’m not in favour of these tyres either but please Marko we really don’t want you as our spokesman!

    • Mark (@marlarkey) said on 24th March 2013, 0:48

      It is better all round if the sheer downforce of the cars was a less significant factor in winning races.

      Otherwise why race at all ? Why not just stick models in a wind tunnel, measure which has the most downforce and give the world championship to that design ?

      • Jake (@jakehardyf1) said on 24th March 2013, 1:51

        +1

      • M Dickens (@sgt-pepper) said on 24th March 2013, 3:20

        (@marlarkey)

        Why not just stick models in a wind tunnel, measure which has the most downforce and give the world championship to that design ?

        Pretty sure that’s how the last three were decided anyway.

      • panache (@panache) said on 24th March 2013, 7:13

        It seems to me that people are disagreeing with Marko under the guise of their own agenda which is to have less aerodynamic significance in F1 (and perhaps also an eagerness to see Red Bull struggle).

        I actually agree with the notion that lowering the performance impact of aerodynamics substantially would be good for the sport, but this does not constitute reasonable grounds to lambast Helmut Marko and Red Bull for complaining about the tyres if it’s indeed true that Red Bull need to reduce their downforce to make them work effectively.

        The fact of the matter is that downforce is king in current era F1. Thus, naturally the teams design their cars with an onus on maximizing downforce whilst minimizing drag. They spend hundreds of millions doing so, relying on the expertise of a multitude of different people and a raft of technical resources. Tens of thousands of hours of work devoted to a painstakingly iterative process. It stands to reason that the team who manages to create the best aerodynamic package deserves to profit from that in this current formula, all other things being equal.

        The crux of what I’m saying; it’s a logical fallacy to argue that because the tyres respond negatively to higher levels of downforce, that means the tyres are good for F1.

        The teams spend all this resource and effort optimizing their aerodynamic capacity, only for the benefit to be potentially stripped away from them by virtue of tyre design? A factor which is completely out of their control – a subcontracted component. That is not fair. That is ARTIFICIAL and F1 fans LOATHE artificiality. Case and point the heated ongoing debate over DRS. Just because the artificial nature of the tyres suddenly suits your own agenda, doesn’t mean its a good thing by any stretch of the imagination.

        It would be an entirely different kettle of fish if the tyre issues stemmed from something like a standard tradeoff between mechanical suspension configuration and aerodynamic concepts, i.e. a suspension configuration which is optimized for aerodynamics but is non-optimal in terms of geometry and kinematics which impact on tyre usage. My interpretation is that Marko is not saying this. He’s saying that more downforce in and of itself makes these tyres degrade. That SUCKS.

        It goes without saying that the teams are partisan and have their own agenda’s too as @peartree observed, so this may become a big political issue for this season if Marko’s insinuations are actually correct and multiple other teams rally against the 2013 spec Pirelli’s whilst the likes of Lotus and Ferrari who are apparently kind on their tyres have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

        Formula 1 has always been about building the car which will gives you the best chances of winning a championship within the rules and regulations. Which is what, from just one race, Ferrari and Lotus seem to be doing quite well.

        Exactly! Emphasis on rules and regulations instead of tyre characteristics. Tyre characteristics which are intentionally poor by design, no less!

        I find this quote by Eric Boullier from the Autosport article particularly insightful:

        It is true that in the past years, the tyres were a little bit more consistent, but they were to some extent invisible to the car performance. Now they are part of the game.

        So perhaps the key question is; how much do we want the tyres to be “part of the game” with respect to ultimate performance? Hypothetically speaking, if the tyres impose an artificial limit on performance which is too low, then a car with midfield levels of downforce could be better optimized and more competitive than a Red Bull which has “too much” downforce. Do we really want this?

        According to my own agenda, the answer is NO.

        Now to watch the race and see how the tyres fare today.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 24th March 2013, 15:34

          @panache

          The teams spend all this resource and effort optimizing their aerodynamic capacity, only for the benefit to be potentially stripped away from them by virtue of tyre design? A factor which is completely out of their control – a subcontracted component. That is not fair. That is ARTIFICIAL and F1 fans LOATHE artificiality.

          Actually, the teams asked Pirelli to make tyres just like this. When Bridgestone announced that they were elaving at the end of the 2010 season, Pirelli put forward a proposal to supply tyres. A part of that proposal was to create tyres that handled differently to the Bridgestones, particularly in the way they lost grip, and also to change the compounds every year so as to prevent the sport from falling into a situation where one team dominated because they understood the tyres better than everyone else and build a car around them. The teams did not simply agree to this – they asked Pirelli to do it. On top of that, the teams conduct winter testing with the new year’s specification of tyres, so it’s not as if the first time they sample them is at the first race of the year.

          Furthermore, tyre management has always been a part of Formula 1. After all, the tyres are the only part of the car that remains in contact with the circuit. Regardless of who supplies the tyres, the drivers will always have to work to keep the tyres in the optimum condition.

          • panache (@panache) said on 25th March 2013, 7:59

            @prisoner-monkeys

            Actually, the teams asked Pirelli to make tyres just like this.

            I don’t think this is strictly true within the context of this discussion. I seriously doubt the teams asked Pirelli to design tyres which degrade more as downforce increases past a certain limit because that is counterintuitive in current era F1 where aero superiority translates to performance advantage.

            Several of the points you make are the same as I would in defence of Pirelli but here I am discussing Marko’s comments about the notion that the tyres degrade more with high downforce in and of itself.

            The paragraph following the quote you selected was an attempt to touch on this. Basically I’m saying that it is artificial and stupid if tyres degrade simply due to downforce within the current state of F1 which is so heavily aero focused, all else being equal.

            It is reasonable though when the tyres degrade as a consequence of a compromised design, for example when a team focuses so much on optimizing aero with their suspension setup that they sacrafice mechanical properties which would otherwise help to extend tyre life. The distinction is clear I think.

            I don’t buy into the “It’s the same for everyone” argument as a means to discredit any complaint against the tyres. As I affirmed in this comment, the tyres can be the same for everyone whilst disadvantaging cars with traits that otherwise would be beneficial to performance.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 25th March 2013, 8:34

            I seriously doubt the teams asked Pirelli to design tyres which degrade more as downforce increases past a certain limit because that is counterintuitive in current era F1 where aero superiority translates to performance advantage.

            The teams asked Pirelli to create tyres that put a renewed focus on mechanical grip.

            Furthermore, you should probably consider the possibility that Red Bull’s tyre problems may be down to the way downforce is applied to the car, rather than the amount of downforce that is applied.

          • panache (@panache) said on 25th March 2013, 17:17

            @prisoner-monkeys Good point about the way downforce is applied. I’m just playing devils advocate by assuming for the purpose of debate that what Marko said about the tyres is actually true.

    • McBride (@mcbride) said on 24th March 2013, 2:04

      If it was all about downforce, then the teams could all just bolt their cars to the track and we could watch them all sit there for 2 hours. How about that for “spectacle”?!

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 24th March 2013, 2:49

      @john-h, perhaps Marko can help us get wingsize reduced in the regulations if RBR have more downforce than they can use, I expect Newey could design more downforce than the opposition even without any wings allowed.

    • matt90 (@matt90) said on 24th March 2013, 3:12

      The worst thing is that he isn’t the only one whining. The whole of Red Bull seems to be. And as somebody said, if downforce causes your degradation, the solution is clearly removing downforce…

      When did Red Bull go from being the ‘fun’ team to the pathetic, complaining-about-everything team? Was it definitely 2009, when they started winning?

    • @john-h From the small time we have had this season there isn’t possibly enough scientific backing to Marko’s words. Marko’s objective is to annihilate Pirelli publicly forcing them to make the tyres to their RB liking. It’s clearly for their own purpose, I can’t recall Marko complaining in 2011 that his car was the only one that worked well enough with the hard compound.

  3. electrolite (@electrolite) said on 24th March 2013, 0:07

    Formula 1 has always been about building the car which will gives you the best chances of winning a championship within the rules and regulations. Which is what, from just one race, Ferrari and Lotus seem to be doing quite well.

    I also think that Marko’s comments are slightly disrespectful of Newey’s skills, because we all know, race by race, they’re going to get on top of it and chances are they’ll be stronger than anyone.

  4. evered7 (@evered7) said on 24th March 2013, 0:11

    Somebody tell Marko that the race isn’t over in one lap. Their car is not the best if they cannot make it last the whole race.

    And if another team has managed to do it (read Lotus), I don’t see a reason why they should change the tires to suit your design.

  5. Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 24th March 2013, 0:12

    I’m actually in slight agreeance with Marko here (although not entirely) – I do think the tyres are far too sensitive and that needs to be changed (as it is hurting the teams that have greater downforce) but of course that is all part of the package and they are the same for everyone. I think he’s right though – Red Bull’s downforce advantage which should be earning them wins is doing the opposite, so there is something fundamentally wrong there.

    • electrolite (@electrolite) said on 24th March 2013, 0:21

      The cars themselves have been way too dependant on downforce though. It’s one of the big factors in why overtaking is difficult, why getting too close to the car in front is difficult, why DRS has been introduced to prevent that…you can also argue it’s a factor in why poorer teams struggle for performance and I think it’s great that if the rules aren’t going to reduce that dependance, then Pirelli are going to step in and throw a cat amongst the pigeons. Just my two cents.

      • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 24th March 2013, 0:27

        @electrolite – I think there are better means of doing that though – I do agree aero dependency should be reduced, but it should be by the regulations and not because a team is forced into doing it because of the tyres. That is the part I am in dispute over, which is why I’m inclined to agree with Marko (wow, that’s a rare thing to be saying)!

        • electrolite (@electrolite) said on 24th March 2013, 0:30

          You’re brave for admitting agreement with the man, I’ll give you that much :P

        • SeaHorse (@seahorse) said on 24th March 2013, 4:10

          @vettel1

          I do agree aero dependency should be reduced, but it should be by the regulations and not because a team is forced into doing it because of the tyres.

          I think what Marko says is utter nonsense. Tyres are same for everyone on the grid. It is in a way similar to the track being the same for everyone on the grid. It’s upto the teams and drivers to decide how do they adapt to the nature and needs of different tracks around the world. If they can do that, why can’t they do that with the tyres? Just because one team has got too much of downforce, it does not mean they are supreme or the absolute winners. If that be the case, then there is no need for all these grands prix. As @marlarkay says in another post, the winner could perhaps be decided in the wind tunnel itself.

          Otherwise why race at all ? Why not just stick models in a wind tunnel, measure which has the most downforce and give the world championship to that design ?

          If RBR could not adapt to the new tyres, it is their mistake and not Pirelli’s. Period.

          • SeaHorse (@seahorse) said on 24th March 2013, 4:12

            Err it was mentioned by @marlarkey

          • @seahorse

            Tyres are same for everyone on the grid. It is in a way similar to the track being the same for everyone on the grid.

            Where have I disputed this? All I am suggesting is that having a superior package in terms of raw pace shouldn’t be to the detriment of you tyre conservation – of course it’s all part of the package, but I just think Pirelli have overstepped the mark.

            Of course a car that’s kind on it’s tyres should be allowed to exercise that advantage, but when it gets to the point that downforce is punishing the teams there is something wrong. @jonsan ‘s summarised my standpoint perfectly on the way to control aerodynamics.

        • panache (@panache) said on 24th March 2013, 7:25

          @vettel1 @electrolite @seahorse

          I think there are better means of doing that though – I do agree aero dependency should be reduced, but it should be by the regulations and not because a team is forced into doing it because of the tyres.

          I’m 100% in agreement with you on this. See my unintentionally huge wall of text above.

          Just because the tyres are the same for everyone, doesn’t necessarily mean that the tyres are fair within the current sporting environment.

          For example, the tyres could be the same for everyone but have a weak construction that can only tolerate a certain load, say 250kg per tyre before they flex to such an extent that the car will bottom out. Such a scenario would massively disadvantage cars which are able to create more downforce because the tyres would be outside of their working range in terms of load. It’s an extreme hypothetical example but it is not dissimilar to what Marko is insinuating.

          • electrolite (@electrolite) said on 24th March 2013, 7:32

            ‘Exactly! Emphasis on rules and regulations instead of tyre characteristics. Tyre characteristics which are intentionally poor by design, no less!’

            This is a subjective statement though. You call the tyres ‘poor by design’ because you’re evaluating them on the basis that a tyre should last forever. There is also more to car design than downforce alone.

      • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 24th March 2013, 1:23

        The proper solution there is to reduce the allowable wing area, not to make tyres out of mozzarella. Based on the first race, the new tyres make on-track overtaking more difficult.

    • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 24th March 2013, 1:11

      Red Bull’s downforce advantage which should be earning them wins is doing the opposite, so there is something fundamentally wrong there.

      I would assume that, from the FIA’s perspective, there is something fundamentally right there.

      • Aimal (@aimalkhan) said on 24th March 2013, 2:21

        The tyres are the same for everyone. As the some of the commenters pointed out.. F1 is not a contest of producing the most down force. its about developing the best over all package within the constraints of the rules and regulations. Redbull had plenty of time before the start of the season to adopt to the new tyres. why should the tyres be changed so they can dominate every race again? Lotus seems to be managing them well enough.

      • Mark (@marlarkey) said on 24th March 2013, 14:22

        Who says that downforce advantage should = wins ?

        F1 is about producing a total winning PACKAGE not just a car with more downforce than the others. They all have to fit with the regulations, conditions, tyres, etc… its a level playing field.

        If RBR have concentrated too much on downforce and not on other aspects of the total package then that’s their problem and they have to work out how to solve it.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 24th March 2013, 2:36

      @vettel1, agreed, generally that is, even Marko can make a fair argument now and then.
      This explains the smaller rear wing they are running, makes you think about how much downforce must be generated by the bodywork and exhaust wizardry but doesn’t explain why they have not gained a higher top speed.

      • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 24th March 2013, 3:46

        @vettel1

        Red Bull’s downforce advantage which should be earning them wins is doing the opposite, so there is something fundamentally wrong there.

        No, the tyres are a part of the car, just like the downforce package, teams sacrifice certain aspects of the car to improve others all the time, so why should this be any different? If RBR have too much downforce on their car to make the tyres work correctly, then the solution is unavoidable; reduce downforce.

        Besides, weren’t we all complaining about the fact on how F1 should be more about grip and less about downforce, to allow closer racing? Well, we get exactly what we want, and people are just whining more now!

        Red Bull are being sore losers as always.

        • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 24th March 2013, 7:53

          @kingshark

          Besides, weren’t we all complaining about the fact on how F1 should be more about grip and less about downforce, to allow closer racing?

          Absolutely, but this is covered by one of my earlier statements:

          I think there are better means of doing that though – I do agree aero dependency should be reduced, but it should be by the regulations and not because a team is forced into doing it because of the tyres.

          So we are in agreement in that respect, but we don’t agree on the current means. As you can by regulation bolt loads of downforce on they should be able to do so in my view irrespective of the tyres (usually actually downforce helps tyre conservation).

  6. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 24th March 2013, 0:24

    I’ve got to say, I have to agree with Lotus on this one. It’s not like Red Bull are only just getting the tyres for the first time now – they’ve had the same amount of time as everyone else to get used to them. If they feel they are struggling on the tyres, then perhaps they should look at their car development and testing programmes. Because from the looks of things, everyone else did it, and while they might have their own problems, they’re looking for solutions instead of criticising the tyres in the media.

  7. nackavich (@nackavich) said on 24th March 2013, 0:24

    After looking around for apps to provide me with live qualifying information on my iPhone yesterday, I ended up back with good old F1 Fanatic Live. That way I could help my friend move house and still be updated via the Twitter feed along with people’s running commentary in the comment sections.
    So instead of being ripped off $33 for the Official Formula 1 Timing App, I was able to follow qualifying easily.
    Not only that, but literally only a few minutes after quali had finished, there was already an article by Keith describing in detail how the events unfolded.
    This was ridiculously handy last weekend when I was at the Australian GP and the screen opposite our grandstand went blue!

    So although this may sound like a paid presentation, sometimes helpful little things like this remind me of how awesome this website is and how it truly is for fanatics, by fanatics.
    Thanks Keith!

  8. DVC (@dvc) said on 24th March 2013, 0:27

    I don’t mind looking at ads. What I can’t stand, and has lead to me frequenting the site less, is ads that disrupt the functionality of the site. These full page pop-up ads are really annoying.

    When I read a newspaper the ads don’t appear in the middle of the story, and they don’t appear instead of the lead story on the front page. They are there, they are read by the readers, and they pay for the paper, but they aren’t invasive like a lot of website ads are. Why don’t internet advertisers understand the basic principle that print advertisers do? Don’t compromise the functionality of the news site and tick off the reader – it leads to a smaller readership.

    • AlonsoMcLaren (@alonsomclaren) said on 24th March 2013, 0:39

      Indeed. On rare occasions these full page pop-ups can crash my browser.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 24th March 2013, 0:41

      What I can’t stand, and has lead to me frequenting the site less, is ads that disrupt the functionality of the site. These full page pop-up ads are really annoying.

      Ads pay for the site.

      • DVC (@dvc) said on 24th March 2013, 10:48

        Try being a little less disingenuous – read and reply to the whole post please.

        I clearly pointed out that ads, that pay for other forms of media, are not as invasive or disruptive.

        Smart advertisers associate themselves with the media that are best at communicating with people. By degrading the ability of that media to communicate its main message they damage it, and as a consequence their product’s advertising.

    • Ant (@ant) said on 24th March 2013, 3:09

      Agreed, I only view this website on my phone now as the desktop version has become unreadable due to these full screen pop up ads that you have to close each and every time you open a page. Is there anything that can be done to stop them Keith or anyone else! (And I do understand you need advertising to make the money to be able to provide us with this excellent site!)

    • matt90 (@matt90) said on 24th March 2013, 3:23

      I am finding that the frequency of the full page adverts and noisy adverts is because too often to report every time they happen. I would have moved to paid-subscription but wanted to wait, partly due to making a donation shortly before subscription became an option, and largely because in the second half of last year I consistently found that I could not access the site for an hour after a race. I want to make sure that doesn’t affect me this year first.

      • matt90 (@matt90) said on 24th March 2013, 3:25

        I am finding that the frequency of the full page adverts and noisy adverts is because too often to report every time they happen.

        That should read as ‘are becoming’ rather than ‘is because’.

  9. electrolite (@electrolite) said on 24th March 2013, 0:28

    It’s interesting to see that the teams that are being perceived as generally managing their tyres the best (Lotus, Force India, Ferrari) are also the fastest in the speed traps. Which I guess would match up with what Marko and Bouiller are saying in terms of the downforce levels’ relationship with the tyres.

  10. Harvs (@harvs) said on 24th March 2013, 0:35

    I hate Marko as much as the next guy but I find something quite interesting,

    Marko states that Red Bull are the best whilst, Kimi says winning in Australia was’nt very hard at all…

    we get these sorts of comments all the time, and both can be seen as very arrogant yet Kimi is loved, and Marko is loathed.

  11. Ilanin (@ilanin) said on 24th March 2013, 0:54

    I can only assume that Marko is auditioning to replace Eccelstone, and is proving to whoever is running the selection procedure for the job that he can come out with just as many outrageous statements as the original.

    Then again, he only really differs from di Montezemolo inasmuch as the latter opens his mouth less often these days.

  12. David-A (@david-a) said on 24th March 2013, 0:59

    God damnit Marko…

  13. mantresx (@mantresx) said on 24th March 2013, 1:04

    Wow, Marko must read this site because yesterday I pointed out exactly that, Red Bull are degrading the tyres more because they’re faster than everyone else, however I don’t understand Newey’s “obsession” with trying to run the faster setup even when the drivers have proved more than capable of fighting wheel to wheel (Vettel at least in Brazil and Abu Dhabi).
    From Marko’s comments we can assume they now have a more race oriented setup which means we’ll see more attacking/defending from the Red Bulls than in Melbourne and hopefully a more exciting race.

  14. Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 24th March 2013, 1:06

    Red Bull have to run less downforce to make the current generation of tyres work.

    Well, duh! I assume that was the specific design specification Pireli were handed.

    Whitmarsh did not take the opportunity to dispel stories that the team may yet revert to last year’s car.

    Signs of sanity at McLaren then.

  15. Brace (@brace) said on 24th March 2013, 1:38

    This one missed the roundup by an hour, but it sure is an interesting read.
    http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/03/ecclestone-reveals-attempts-to-broker-hamilton-move-to-red-bull/

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.