No changes to tyres until after Bahrain

F1 Fanatic round-up

Giedo van der Garde, Caterham, Sepang, 2013In the round-up: Pirelli say they will not consider any changes to the 2013 tyre compounds until after the Bahrain Grand Prix.

Links

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

Pirelli: no tyre review before Bahrain GP (Autosport)

“As for wheel to wheel stuff… it is something we will have to review after four races. It is still very early days.”

The truth about Ferrari’s power (ESPN)

“On page 179, in the section about the Team Agreements it states that ‘in respect of Ferrari only, Ferrari may terminate if the regulatory safeguards agreed between the FIA and Ferrari do not allow Ferrari to veto any change to the regulations already announced or introduced (subject to certain exceptions).'”

Hanging in the balance (Sky)

“Whilst it’s surprising that the powerful simulation tools of McLaren did not pick up on the aerodynamic problem before the car actually ran, the team is running absolutely flat-out in the break before China to have heavily upgraded cars in Shanghai for Button and Sergio Perez. Don’t bet against a total transformation of form.”

Vettel and Massa make biggest gains so far (NBC)

“Massa?s bright start to 2013 is in marked contrast to his troubled 2012 campaign. This time last year he was yet to score ?ǣ twelve months on he is ahead of team mate Alonso in the championship.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

Another view on the Official F1 Live Timing App from Knoxploration:

I paid for this app last year, and spent all year regretting that decision. It was absolutely riddled with bugs, many of which weren?t fixed after being reported to the developer.

It was, essentially, completely impossible to get through a full race without two crashes, and after each crash you have to adjust the time slip all over again to get it to match what?s on the TV.

The information shown is hopelessly inaccurate ? in particular, the track map is nonsensical, often showing things like cars driving backwards on track. Five seconds is an eternity in an F1 race; an app which updates so seldom and simply guesses what is happening in between (as this does) is effectively showing you a fictitious event.

And frankly, I compared it side-by-side with the Java app on F1.com and found the latter far more effective and accurate. The official app would frequently stop updating for 30-90 seconds, then suddenly playback at accelerated speed for the next 15-30 seconds until it had caught up.

Occasionally, it wouldn?t work at all. There were no such problems on the F1.com applet; these problems were specific to the app.
Knoxploration

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to MajorMilou, Nico Savidge and Ripping Silk!

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

And happy 50th birthday to former F1 racer Fabrizio Barbazza. He failed to qualify in 12 attempts for AGS in 1991, then returned with Minardi two years later.

Two sixth places at Donington and Imola were his peak before being replaced by Pierluigi Martini halfway through the year.

Two years later he was badly injured in a frightening crash at Road Atlanta in which his Ferrari 333SP sports car was T-boned and cut in half. He took a long time to recover from his injuries and did not return to racing after the accident:

Image ?? Caterham/LAT

Advert | Go Ad-free

110 comments on No changes to tyres until after Bahrain

  1. HCA said on 2nd April 2013, 0:13

    i do think they should make a change to the tyres in order to get rid of or at least limit all of this tyre conservation that goes on now.
    its sad watching drivers not pushing because there all having to run round well off the pace in order to watch the tyres.

    yes tyre management is something thats always been a part of f1 in one way or another but the past few years its just been way too big a factor & has detracted from the racing more than once.

    not advocating a return to the super durable bridgestones (although i didnt mind them having grew up in an era of even more durable rubber that could last a full gp), just feel that the tyres should allow drivers to push hard & race hard without falling off a cliff in 6-10 laps.

  2. karter22 (@karter22) said on 2nd April 2013, 1:51

    It´ll be utterly disgusting if now pirelli decide to make changes to the tyre compounds! It will not be fair for all the other teams that built their car with the same info that was available to all teams since Brasil 2012 over the winter!
    I´m totally frustrated by this news! If this happens, it is obvious which way Pirelli´s wind blows! Not good for the sport at all… How can they even consider this just because 2 teams had problems with the rubber… what about the other 9 teams?
    Lets just hope that this doesn´t happen!

    • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 2nd April 2013, 2:02

      +1 I totally agree

    • tmekt (@tmekt) said on 2nd April 2013, 2:25

      An interesting change of tune. After months of whining about how tyre conservation plays too big part in current F1, how it’s ruining the motorsport and when Pirelli finally says that they are considering to begin the considering of changes in compounds, the first comment is complaining about what they said.

    • DaveD (@daved) said on 2nd April 2013, 2:30

      I totally disagree with Karter and Kingshark. I have zero interest in watching F1 drivers roll around the track like old ladies taking care of their tires.

      I can’t imagine anyone telling Ayrton: “slow down and save your tires”. It just wouldn’t have gone over well and if it had, we’d be talking about him as just another “good” driver.

      No thanks, I want to see them DRIVE!

      • karter22 (@karter22) said on 2nd April 2013, 2:48

        @daved

        I have zero interest in watching F1 drivers roll around the track like old ladies taking care of their tires

        I agree. Nobody wants that. That is why 9 other teams got their design right over the winter with the information they obtained from testing the compound in Brasil. Why should the rest of the teams suffer because 2 teams got it wrong? Because one of the affected teams is the present WCC?
        That team should be ashamed of themselves for insisting that Pirelli revise their product!

        • DaveD (@daved) said on 2nd April 2013, 3:01

          Karter,
          I don’t believe the other 9 teams “got it right”. They simply were not in the news because they had no “team orders” controversies to deal with. This is just my *opinion*, but it felt to me like RB and Merc were the ones who had something to lose as their drivers were all in front so they were trying to be conservative and THAT is why they were the ones worried.

          Had Kimi and Grosjean been in front, then Lotus would have been complaining they had to look after their tires too. We’ll see what happens in the next race, but I bet you’ll find some other teams complaining when it hits them as well.

          • karter22 (@karter22) said on 2nd April 2013, 3:18

            Fair enough but, the rest of the grid have also ran these 2 races and none had issues; They all were racing with what they got. I just truly and sincerely hope Pirelli doesn´t buckle under their pressure! It would not be good for the sport and it would not be good publicity for them.

        • John H (@john-h) said on 2nd April 2013, 8:52

          They are all cruising around. End of 2012 was great, COTA and Abu Dhabi were great races, now we have this debate again in 2013 as I feared. It’s a shame.

        • dennis (@dennis) said on 2nd April 2013, 9:07

          @karter22

          From Malaysia (impressive when you consider the race started under wet conditions):
          Romain Grosjean: “but by the end my tyres were finished so it was best just to let him through.”

          Sergio Perez: “Unfortunately, towards the end of the race, my tyres began to degrade a bit too much, especially my front left…”

          Esteban Gutierrez: “At the end of the race we lost time because we stayed on the same set of tyres for too long.”

          Melbourne:
          Fernando Alonso: “I think the three stop strategy was the right one: with the degradation we had, it would have been impossible to manage on one less…”

          Adrian Sutil: “My final stint on the super–softs was much more difficult because the tyres started graining and I lost a few places.”

          Martin Whitmarsh: “As always, Jenson managed the very challenging tyre degradation issues he faced quite brilliantly…”

          Charles Pic: “…pace was ok for the first stint but the tyres dropped off very quickly.”

          Daniel Ricciardo: “At the start of the race, I struggled to find grip and it felt like I was driving on ice, as it took a very long time to warm up the tyres”

          That’s an aweful lot of tyre problems, seeing how the other 9 teams got it so right.

          • karter22 (@karter22) said on 2nd April 2013, 14:27

            @dennis
            Faur enough but, do you see any of the other teams lobbying Pirelli for them to change the rubber? None have publicly said anything about the rubber except for RBR and McLaren I think it was.

            That’s an aweful lot of tyre problems, seeing how the other 9 teams got it so right.

            Agreed but it seems that 9 other teams are ok with it since you don´t see or hear them knocking down Pirelli´s door like others have been doing.

            In the end, teams should basically deal with it. Ferrari had an aweful time in 2011 not being able to warm up tyres, etc. And did they talk to Pirelli? No they didn´t! They worked with what was thrown at them! The same should be done in this case.

          • dennis (@dennis) said on 2nd April 2013, 20:01

            @karter22

            There’s a difference in saying 9 teams have no problems, and only 2 teams actually complained to Pirelli. You made up the standpoints of all teams and use it as an argument.

            Literally all the teams have complained about the tyres during testing.

        • electrolite (@electrolite) said on 2nd April 2013, 12:28

          Errr…if if it’s RBR and Merc you’re on about, you do know they were the ones winning the race, right?

          • karter22 (@karter22) said on 2nd April 2013, 14:33

            @electrolite
            Yes I´m aware of this. Which makes it hard to understand why RBR are bent in wanting Pirelli to change their rubber.
            RBR has the best car on the grid if you take downforce as the only factor and now they want to have the rubber to go with it as well? F1 is not only about RBR, it´s about taking on a challenge with what is given to you! Wining WDC and WCC is not supposed to be easy for anyone.

          • electrolite (@electrolite) said on 2nd April 2013, 15:21

            @kart22 totally agree with you.

      • Mike (@mike) said on 2nd April 2013, 3:20

        slow down and save your tires

        Did they have car radios then? Even if they did, I doubt you’d have hear it on TV. In which case, How can you know?

      • Jayson D (@jdear33) said on 2nd April 2013, 7:32

        Completely agree with DaveD. The current compounds are the wrong direction for f1. Its becoming too much of a strategic game and it limits the drivers’ performance which ultimately isn’t as exciting for the fans. Although Malaysia had some wheel to wheel action, I think the sport could be so much more exciting with a compound that holds up better.

        • karter22 (@karter22) said on 2nd April 2013, 14:37

          @jdear33

          The current compounds are the wrong direction for f1. Its becoming too much of a strategic game and it limits the drivers’ performance

          This was also said about the Pirelli rubber since 2011 by other teams. Same thing in 2012 and many praised the degradation of the 2012 tyre so why should it be any different this year? I say, play the cards that you have been dealt and what ever will be, will be.

      • Ilanin (@ilanin) said on 2nd April 2013, 9:41

        It’s true. Senna would have been told to slow down and save fuel instead, that being the limiting factor for the turbocharged cars of the era.

    • TMF (@tmf42) said on 2nd April 2013, 7:15

      you got it wrong. All teams have problems with degradation – otherwise you would see more teams being able to make 1 or 2 stops less than RB and Merc. Only Lotus had an advantage in Melbourne but considering lap times it was non existent in Sepang.

      • Blackmamba (@blackmamba) said on 2nd April 2013, 8:47

        For me I can’t understand why they had to change from Last year’s tyres. The teams eventually got a handle on them and in the final races we had a few on the limit races, like the US GP where Vettel and Hamilton battled hard for the lead.
        This year the tyres are even more fragile and it actually pains me to watch drivers tip toeing around like thieves in the night. The most beautiful thing I heard during the last GP was an engineer telling Rosberg, ”Push Nico, there is no need to conserve these tyres”.

        • M Dickens (@sgt-pepper) said on 2nd April 2013, 12:41

          (@blackmamba)

          For me I can’t understand why they had to change from Last year’s tyres. The teams eventually got a handle on them and in the final races we had a few on the limit races, like the US GP where Vettel and Hamilton battled hard for the lead.

          My thoughts exactly, it seemed completely unnecessary to change them again when the teams had finally managed to deal with the bad hand Pirellia dealt them.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 2nd April 2013, 9:05

      @karter22 – I think you will find that the changes Pirelli make (if any) will take the form of specific adjustments to the compounds as they are, rather than abandoning the 2013 tyres altogether and returning to the 2012 compounds. They have done this before; they adjusted their compounds several times throughout 2012, so as to keep the teams working on understanding the tyres.

      • karter22 (@karter22) said on 2nd April 2013, 14:46

        @prisoner-monkeys

        I think you will find that the changes Pirelli make (if any) will take the form of specific adjustments to the compounds as they are, rather than abandoning the 2013 tyres altogether

        I understand but it is not fair! I totally dislike the fact that Pirelli might actually do something about the rubber just to please that team. Although it was stated in a comment above that most drivers expressed discomfort about the tyres, their teams certainly have not gone public.
        Remember when Schumi criticized Pirelli last year? Everybody ripped him apart for telling it as it is. Why should it be any different this year?
        There is a saying that goes: If life gives you lemmons… you probably know the rest!

        • GT_Racer said on 2nd April 2013, 18:20

          If Pirelli do make changes it will not be because of Red Bull, It will be because a majority of the teams asked them to.

          I’ve been saying since the testing that while Red Bull are the only team to come out publicly, at least 7 other teams have expressed the same opinions privately.

          As to the drivers. I gather only 3 have either spoke positively or simply not given any opinion on the tyres, All the rest hate having to drive round slowly conserving them & want Pirelli to move to something less sensitive which allows them to race harder than there currently been able to.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd April 2013, 6:07

          @karter22

          I understand but it is not fair! I totally dislike the fact that Pirelli might actually do something about the rubber just to please that team.

          But they’re not doing it to favour a single team. When Pirelli have made changes to the compounds in the past, they have collected all of the data from all of the teams and analysed it against their own findings from development. All they have done in the past is make minor adjustments to keep the tyres consistent with what they originally intended to do. They mostly just correct anomalies in the data, like those experienced at India last year; three drivers from three different teams – Perez, Ricciardo and Malondado – expereinced explosive punctures after making slight contact with another car. That is the sort of thing Pirelli are correcting when they update the compounds.

          They are certainly not going to adjust all of the compounds to suit Red Bull (because Red Bull demand it) and then expect every other team to make do with what they are given.

          • karter22 (@karter22) said on 3rd April 2013, 14:54

            @prisoner-monkeys
            Understood and I really hope you are right because it would definitely not be fair for all to change the rubber.
            Anyways, RBR´s problem is downforce (who would ever imagine this being a downside on a car). They genereate so much downforce that it eats up their tyres, the solution would be simple! Why not evolve the car so it can be easier on the rubber? They have overcome every other obstacle that they have faced, how should this one be any different?

  3. Adam Blocker (@blockwall2) said on 2nd April 2013, 2:17

    I understand that Ferrari have an immense value to the sport. I am okay with them having a minor stake in F1. However they should not be allowed a veto. They are a team competing just as the other ten teams are. They should be treated the same as everyone else when it comes to competition rules. Either everyone gets a veto or nobody gets a veto.

    • karter22 (@karter22) said on 2nd April 2013, 2:36

      @blockwall2

      they should not be allowed a veto

      Well if there was ever one time when Ferrari should use that power is now with the tyre issue! The other 9 teams would thank them for it!

      • dennis (@dennis) said on 2nd April 2013, 11:27

        Ferrari is one of those “other 9.”
        And as stated in numerous other posts, there are several teams with tyre degredation issues. And several drivers mentioned their concerns.

        It’s rather telling that you grant Ferrari the right to veto on technical changes, yet when other teams make valid points about recent developments (which might have influenced Ferrari’s performance positively) it’s all bad and should not happen.

    • Maksutov (@maksutov) said on 2nd April 2013, 4:34

      Well, if Ferrari have the Veto, they certainly haven’t been able to do anythig about the new 2014 engine regulations (which they utterly opposed). So I really doubt they have much power/influence with their so called Veto. Its all bs.

      • Marciare_o_Marcire (@marciare-o-marcire) said on 2nd April 2013, 11:42

        Actually Ferrari did use their veto power on the 2014 engine regulations, because originally everyone wanted to go with 4 cylinder engines, then it was changed to 6 after Ferrari complained (and they were right to do so, if it was up to me we’d still be using V10).

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 2nd April 2013, 9:40

      The veto was only really effective when it was secret, because it gave Ferrari the power to covertly influence the rules – which they could possibly do in a way designed to deprive other teams of their advantage. Now that the veto is public knowledge, it’s considerably less effective, because it will likely be possible to trace any unexplained change the the rules back to Ferrari.

    • Boomerang said on 2nd April 2013, 11:51

      Yeah, right.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 2nd April 2013, 13:59

      These little benefits to keep Ferarri on board are just an example of Bernies modus operandi, only Ferrari could spearhead an alternate series and sink CVC/Bernies money machine. Do the math, all the teams, ferarri included get to share $557million between themselves to design, build and race their cars, while FOM/CVC keep $887 million (including $330million costs!) to negotiate contracts with the track-owners and the TV networks.
      These figures explain why the F1 teams are in financial difficulties .

    • Marciare_o_Marcire (@marciare-o-marcire) said on 2nd April 2013, 16:30

      You’re being ungrateful, you should thank Ferrari for using their veto power to stop the 4-cylinder 2014 engine regulation. In so doing, Ferrari single-handedly saved Formula 1 from becoming the laughing stock of all motorsport. Of course Bernie couldn’t allow that to last so he gave Pirelli a phone call…

  4. Sankalp Sharma (@sankalp88) said on 2nd April 2013, 2:20

    Very interesting article about Ferrari there. I must add that as a Ferrari fan some of the “arrangements” mentioned in the article do make me squirm a bit.

  5. Traverse (@) said on 2nd April 2013, 2:40

    It claimed that Ferrari has a veto over any change to F1’s regulations and it added that Max Mosley, former president of motor sport’s governing body the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), awarded the privilege to the team in 2005 to prevent it leaving.

    So why don’t McLaren/Williams/RBR etc threaten to leave unless they get the same privileges?

    • Journeyer (@journeyer) said on 2nd April 2013, 3:02

      @hellotraverse Because FIA/FOM feel they can survive without them. They’re great teams, but they don’t have the same gravitas outside of the sport that Ferrari has.

      • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 2nd April 2013, 3:10

        I think McLaren can theat FI! with leaving. Ferrari has that legacy for battling against McLaren most of the time! Williams, on the other hand, may have loose the hand they had over F1 decisions. If only they were still winning races on a regular basis (and don’t tell me Spain 2012 is an exampleof “regular basis”

        • Journeyer (@journeyer) said on 2nd April 2013, 3:57

          @omarr-pepper I don’t think McLaren has that leverage. They exist to race, and if they’re not racing, they’re not selling cars. McLaren needs F1 more than F1 needs McLaren, IMO.

          • Maksutov (@maksutov) said on 2nd April 2013, 4:38

            that^

          • Jay Menon (@jaymenon10) said on 2nd April 2013, 5:09

            I agree with @journeyer.

            Same can be said about the other “biggies” like Williams and Red Bull. Without F1, they really cant justify an existence. Ok, Williams has a few side projects, but I cant see them sustaining their operations with out F1.

            Ferrari is too valuable a brand for F1 to lose, and it will do anything to keep its golden goose happy. Ferrari = F1 and vice versa to the common person, and you cant buy that kind of brand awareness.

            I think Ferrari have every right to their commercial entitlement, but the veto is not something I am fond off. Having said this, why didnt they exercise their veto for the 2014 engines?

          • Journeyer (@journeyer) said on 2nd April 2013, 7:24

            @jaymenon10 I suspect it’s because if there’s something Ferrari is good at, it’s making engines. And they’re not limited by road car relevancy or whatnot. They have the money and the expertise, and they know they can use it to get an edge.

          • Jay Menon (@jaymenon10) said on 2nd April 2013, 7:43

            @journeyer

            Yes they are good at making engines. Although LdM did voice his disagreement with the 2014 Formula, I suspected at the time that he may have realised at the back of his mind that a smaller turbo charge engine will eventually be a necessity in his road car fleet. I would not be surprised if a smaller turbo engine finds its way into say a FF in a few years?

    • IDR (@idr) said on 2nd April 2013, 6:21

      I think I remember Ferrari has this veto power since the first Concorde Agreement, generated many years ago. And, if I’m not wrong, the rest of the “Big” teams of F1 at that time, agreed Ferrari could have this kind of power, probably because they preferred somebody of them having some power over Max Mosley and his never-ending willing of “dictating” the future of Formula One.

      • Ilanin (@ilanin) said on 2nd April 2013, 9:46

        At the signing of the first Concorde agreement, the identity of the person who it would have been useful for someone, anyone, to have a veto over, would have been Jean-Marie Balestre, not Max Mosley.

        Which, if anything, strengthens the probability of this being true.

  6. William (@william) said on 2nd April 2013, 3:09

    Lets see and see what sort of strategies will come to play in Shanghai as it produces great racing especially last year but looking at the long range weather forecast at the moment for qualifying there will be patchy light drizzle around for qualifying and the race but it could change from now till Sunday

    • DaveD (@daved) said on 2nd April 2013, 3:13

      After spending a great deal of time in Shanghai, the only thing we can say for sure about the weather: it will be smoggy LOL

      Sorry, there are many things I love about China and particularly Shanghai….but I was blowing out blackened mucus for days after I left, every time I went.

  7. Robbie (@robbie) said on 2nd April 2013, 3:31

    It’ll come as no surprise to some of you who know my stance on MS/Ferrari, if i say that I believe the payola to Ferrari goes back to when Max and Bernie moved MS and crew from tainted Benetton where he was ‘winning’, to Ferrari who were on a 16 year drought and not winning. The mega deal unmatched before or since, perhaps not just in F1 but in all sports. Post-Senna, the end of an era, everything became about a new chapter in the story of F1, this time with the resurgence of Ferrari, and Max and Bernie were going to see to it and would spare no expense, nor rules manipulation it would seem.

    • Journeyer (@journeyer) said on 2nd April 2013, 4:02

      @robbie Wow, that is quite the conspiracy theory you have there. But I think you give Max and Bernie too much credit. LDM and the Agnellis are powerful enough on their own to get Schumi and co., thank you very much.

      And honestly, you probably have to look further back than that – back to the 80s, and Ferrari mediating the end to the FISA/FOCA War.

  8. raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 2nd April 2013, 3:56

    Taking a look at the 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix, Vettel did IOPPO for his strategy. New mediums saw him through for 17 laps (start of lap 6 – end of lap 22)

    Considering that the Malaysian GP is 56 laps, have we misread the RB9? It doesn’t look like it’s a car in much trouble. Only Bottas (Lap 23 – Lap 40, 18 laps) and Maldonado (Lap 14 – 32, 19 laps) did longer stints on the option tyre than Vettel – and crucially, both were later in the race, where the fuel was lighter. Both Lotuses had their longest option stint pegged at 15 laps – and even the somewhat competitively 3-stopping Button was doing 14 lap stints on his options.

    Say the whole race had been dry, and they started the race on options – of which Vettel had 2 new sets. Adjust the stint length slightly, thanks to having more fuel on board, and he could probably stretch to maybe 15 or 16. But let’s go conservative and say 15 – leaving 41 laps to do. I could definitely see Vettel (having done 17 laps on the option) do a stint of 20 and 21 laps respectively on the prime. Or if the option was that much better – he could have done three 15-lap stints on the options and still only had 11 laps on the prime.

    Have we misread this as a tyre carnivore?

    It’s looking increasingly like the car in Melbourne race trim was out of the window, rather than fundamentally being a tyre-eater.

    • dennis (@dennis) said on 2nd April 2013, 11:32

      Seeing how Kimi got it all right and Grosjean all wrong in Melbourne I was thinking the whole degradation issues were setup related and not being massively influenced by the car itself.

      On the other hand I also think both Vettel and Webber realized what they had to do to make the tyres last, as opposed to Melbourne concerning their driving style.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 2nd April 2013, 14:06

      There is much anecdotal evidence that suggests the “hard” tyres are less durable than the “Medium” tyres.

  9. prelvu (@prelvu) said on 2nd April 2013, 4:37

    Bahrain should be taken off the F1 Calendar permanently.
    Simply they have bigger problems for years in the row.

    • William (@william) said on 2nd April 2013, 6:32

      @prelvu – Bernie has insisted that we will return to Bahrain forever. “It’s not about political stuff it’s about sport and they wanted us to come there as we have a contract with them”. James Allen has said “every time I go here it hasn’t changed that much” but its up to FIA to give it the green light. More then likely it will give it. An overall last year it was a success despite about the minor petrol bomb that the Force India ran into and Bernie was pleased post Grand Prix

      • Blackmamba (@blackmamba) said on 2nd April 2013, 8:58

        What does motorsport have to do with politics. If Bernie took the decision to forgo Bahrain then he would have to review China as well. There are riots in Spain as well yet nobody bates an eyelid that we have 2 races there this year. What about Canada, they protested the GP held there last year. Should Bernie consider these as well?

        • William (@william) said on 2nd April 2013, 9:26

          @blackmamba – Bernie shouldn’t consider of these or even Bahrain as they should just go ahead and race and no matter what happens unless if a driver/crew member dies, bomb explosion about to happen which is unlikely to happen. There is only 1 race in Spain as Valencia is alternating with the Grand Prix that is hosting the Spanish in Circuit de Catalunya

        • Estesark (@estesark) said on 2nd April 2013, 13:25

          What does motorsport have to do with politics? Rather a lot. You only have to go back two days to find a round-up on F1Fanatic that starts with a politician’s comment. In this case, it was the Prime Minister of Malaysia, saying how good the Malaysian Grand Prix has been for his country.

          Politicians all over the world use F1 for political ends. They think it makes their country look good. Bernie Ecclestone knows that, and it’s one of the reasons he is able to charge race organisers so much. To suggest that racing in Bahrain has nothing to do with politics, when we can see that racing is connected to politics everywhere, is simply ridiculous.

          • d3v0 (@d3v0) said on 2nd April 2013, 14:20

            @estesark your argument tends to fail once you realize that you are attempting to convince us that F1 itself must change in order for it not to be used to political ends…wrongfully. To say that basically, F1 “ought to know better” and therefore not participate in Bahrain because it might be used politically – is essentially to blame the food on the overweight person stuffs himself with rather than blame the person himself.

            We can point fingers at Bahrain for how they are doing things “anti-democratically” and which are offensive to us westerners, but who are we really to judge how they run their society? F1 only becomes political if F1 itself makes itself political – and merely holding a race where it was scheduled is not political. We are F1 fans, and F1 has chosen to race at their circuit. End of story.

          • Estesark (@estesark) said on 2nd April 2013, 18:50

            @d3v0 – that would be a fair comment had I said that F1 should not go to Bahrain, but I didn’t say that. I didn’t express an opinion on the issue either way. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. All I’m saying is that F1 going to Bahrain is political.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 2nd April 2013, 22:57

            To say that basically, F1 “ought to know better” and therefore not participate in Bahrain because it might be used politically – is essentially to blame the food on the overweight person stuffs himself with rather than blame the person himself.

            I’m afraid that that analogy doesn’t work in the slightest.

  10. sumedh said on 2nd April 2013, 5:01

    Is it only me who thinks that the Ferrari veto article was nothing but an April Fools joke?

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 2nd April 2013, 8:47

      The veto was first revealed several years ago, sadly it’s not an April Fools joke.

      The giveaway should be the fact that there isn’t any comedy in the article, though given some of the appallingly unfunny efforts I saw yesterday I can understand the potential for confusion. April Fools’ day now seems to be taken to mean “write something negative and not at all funny about a driver you dislike” day.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 2nd April 2013, 9:51

        @keithcollantine

        April Fools’ day now seems to be taken to mean “write something negative and not at all funny about a driver you dislike” day.

        That doesn’t just apply to Formula 1 – a lot of people seem to think that the point of the day is to tell random, pointless lies or to start rumours, and all without any actual thought put into it.

        The best April Fools’ Day jokes are the ones that aren’t immediately ripped from the headlines, because they’ll be dissected and proven to be fakes in about two seconds.

        • q85 said on 2nd April 2013, 13:20

          Glad im not the only one that found some them not only unfunny but bizzarely long winded.

          Some were just things that werent true but neither funny or unbelieveable

    • Daniel (@oji) said on 2nd April 2013, 9:20

      post an article with “ferrari” and “veto” in title, everyone forgets it’s 1st of April…
      good job ESPN, good job !

  11. TMF (@tmf42) said on 2nd April 2013, 7:48

    I’m not completely opposed to the idea of making races more interesting by giving them a challenge on tires but if pushing no longer means to go as fast as possible but to be a bit less careful on tires , then there is something wrong.

  12. Scottie (@scottie) said on 2nd April 2013, 9:40

    I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned before, but that Barbazza crash is actually at Road Atlanta isn’t it?

    Incredible he survived that! Very frightening!

  13. matt (@f1supreme) said on 2nd April 2013, 10:44

    conserve tyres,conserve fuel,conserve engines,conserve gear boxes.

    its ridiculous!!bring back tyres that allow drivers to push 100%.bring back refuelling.drs will help with overtaking.

    that way we’ll have all out racing,strategy and overtaking.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 2nd April 2013, 11:07

      @f1supreme That way we’ll have drivers either blasting past each other on the straights making easy, uninteresting DRS passes, or we’ll have the same predictable refuelling strategies we endured for year after year which added nothing to F1.

      I’d take what we have now (ideally without DRS) over the tedium of the refuelling era any day. This is nothing more than rose-tinted spectacles.

      • M Dickens (@sgt-pepper) said on 2nd April 2013, 12:57

        (@f1supreme) Absolutely with (@keithcollantine) here, in the grand scheme of things the FIA has actually done a good job righting some of the wrongs that they stuck with for years – refuelling and (my personal bug bear) grooved tyres springs to mind. I think people may be prone to longing for the older, worse rules when analysing the current formula, but other than the joke that is DRS, and the melting Pirellis I actually really like the current set of rules.

      • q85 said on 2nd April 2013, 13:23

        2005 were best rules. tyres that lasted a whole race. We had countless races that went to the last lap many ending in terrific drama.

        and you still had the fuel stops for the strategy fans

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 2nd April 2013, 14:21

          You liked that? Hm, I am pretty sure that is hardly a majority view!

          • q85 said on 2nd April 2013, 22:57

            yes. I like great racing. The tyres actually had to be managed not just rubbish tyres that run out whatever you do to them. At the moment they are just poor tyres.

            Then it was skill, strategy and racing. We had countless classic races in 05.

            Melbourne, Imola, Monaco, Europe, Britain, Spa, Brazil and suzuka off the top of my head.

            It was a great season. Please explain to me why it wasnt??? was no fake overtakes then. It was real and very much in the hands of the driver. Imola and Europe were very tense races. And suzuka was perhaps the best race of our generation.

          • q85 said on 2nd April 2013, 23:02

            No one wanted the rules to be changed for 2005 except ferrari.

            And most people that watched that season or remember it rather than read a book about it will know it was by far the best season there had been for years up to that point.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 2nd April 2013, 23:16

            For me it felt just as fake as tyres that are made to degrade quickly @q85, because they were not allowed to pit even when they saw a dangerous situation arise, that was just plain stupid, and we had enough races decided by it too. Not to mention the repairable damage done by the obnoxious Indy GP which was also down to tyres and the championship having been rigged by a mid season change of rules on how the grooves were supposed to be measured. That was the second time Ferrari had been advantaged (BAR was benched for 2 races earlier that year, when Ferrari was not punished even though they had something not all that different). Wasn’t this also the year we got race fuel qualifying, combined with single lap runs, that took a lot of the action out of qualifying, and upset the grid several times.

            And as you highlight how much overtaking there was, that year had almost 1/3rd less overtakes per race than both the preceding season and the one following it. Sure maybe the overtakes we had were memorable, but that was because there weren’t all that many of them.

            All in all that year there was far to many questionable stewarding, the tyres were in many cases more bothersome than this season, and while there were many memorable moments, many of them were memorable for the wrong reasons.

          • Q85 said on 3rd April 2013, 7:26

            mate your clearly getting your seasons mixed up.

            Questionable stewarding and measuring of grooves, mid season change was not 2005 it was 2003.

            as per overtaking again its not a book stats its a race. The races were fantastic. If 2004 was better in someones view then im gobsmaked as that was a pretty tedius season. it was over by summer!

            BAR got banned because they cheated at imola

            Indy was a shame yes. but that was due to michelin getting wrong and then FIA/bridgestone/ferrari refusing to find a fix when there was many avaliable to them.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd April 2013, 8:35

            BAR got banned for using something Ferrari had as well. Sure the season was tense, but really for the wrong reasons.

            When Renault and Alonso won the title it really made me happy because it felt as if they did not only have to beat a rival on track, but also the FIA do do it. Sure, the stewarding has been questionable in far to many years, its only gotten better in the last 3-4 years with the driver stewards etc.

            The fiasco that was Indy (a big understatement to call that “a shame”) was not as much those tyres not being up to it, but the failure of the sport to find a solution so the fans could enjoy a race.

            I see we definitely disagree on how great a season 2005 for the on track action, so its not much use to carry this further.

          • q85 said on 3rd April 2013, 13:26

            I dont remember their being any call at the time that ferrari had a secret fuel tank but i will take your word for it.

            as for the racing yeah we must disagree. Races were decided by it and rightly so kimi on occasions thrashed them and paid the price. But unlike todays tyres they were not deisgned to be rubbish. There was a tyre war on so they were the best that could be made there was a ‘real’ balance between degredation and speed which IMO is how it should be.

            Just my opinion.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 2nd April 2013, 14:13

        @keithcollantine, totally agree with you about re-fuelling but still wish for tyres that allow a driver to drive aggressively.

        • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 2nd April 2013, 18:26

          @hohum

          totally agree with you about re-fuelling but still wish for tyres that allow a driver to drive aggressively.

          I don’t think it’s fair or correct to suggest that current F1 drivers are not driving “aggressively.” These are not processional races and they’re not driven at 7/10ths or pedestrian speed. The racing is plenty exciting and many are being confused by the politicking of RBR into thinking that what they’re viewing on the TV or watching live, in-person isn’t actually as exciting as it appears…

      • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 2nd April 2013, 18:24

        +1 @keithcollantine. I agree with you, though I’m fine w/ DRS. It’s ridiculous to hear people describing the era of processional races as something markedly better than the current racing. No way!

        The media has a responsibility here too, though, to educate the fans and drive home the fact that tires have ALWAYS been consumables to some degree, but that drivers have ALWAYS had to drive to the limit of their complete package, regardless of what the primary package-limitiing factor was (be it tires, fuel, engine-life/revs, whatever).

      • matt (@f1supreme) said on 18th April 2013, 19:20

        well right now we have drivers blasting past each other with ease.so we are seeing very boring and simple overtakes,and drivers cant even put up a fight or battle back to get their place back in fear of ruining their tyres.

    • colin grayson (@lebesset) said on 2nd April 2013, 19:52

      tyres that allowed drivers to push 100% never existed , and never will exist

  14. BasCB (@bascb) said on 2nd April 2013, 12:30

    So what does Bernie want to achieve by telling the world that Ferrari has veto power (and Luca has an option on shares) right now?
    I guess the fact that so far no Concorde Agreement was signed has to do for now – meaning negotiations are ongoing.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 2nd April 2013, 14:16

      @bascb, I think Bernie was hoping no-one would notice but a prospectus for a public offering has to cover all salient points.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 2nd April 2013, 14:20

        Hm, But why would he then have pet journo C. Sylt write about it @hohum?

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 2nd April 2013, 14:59

          @bascb, I no nothing about the journo but if as you say he is a favourite of Bernie then my guess would be it was an attempt to divert attention from how much money CVC take out of F1 and get them talking about how much more money and influence Ferrari have over the other teams instead. It seems to have worked despite the fact that in F1 terms the Ferrari bonus is small change.

  15. RB7 (@rb7) said on 2nd April 2013, 14:40

    Pirelli were given a mandate when they took over from Bridgestone to ensure that F1 is more than going round and round with no attention to strategy or pit stops. To this extent they have delivered and more. Drivers and teams may have forgotten how crucial strategy and pit stops are to a race but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t remember and adapt. Keep the tyre compounds as they are I say and let’s all enjoy the drama of pit stops and team strategies unfold before us. Dare I say we wouldn’t have had the team order drama of round 2 if it were not for the tyres – and no matter which side of the fence you sit on in respect to team orders – admit you all LOVED having something to talk about for 1 week and counting!

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.