Pirelli keen to avoid claim of Red Bull favouritism

2013 Spanish Grand Prix

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona, 2013Pirelli are wary of making too many changes to the current generation of tyres which might be seen as favouring Red Bull, who have persistently lobbied for more conservative compounds.

In the wake of yesterday’s Spanish Grand Prix Christian Horner said cars should not be making four pit stops per race.

Pirelli motorsport director Paul Hembery said that while Pirelli do not want to produce four-stop races, it did not want to be seen as favouring Red Bull either:

“You can imagine, though, if we make a change, that it might be seen that we’re making tyres for Red Bull in particular,” he said.

“That’s been the comment made in the media that Red Bull are pushing to make a change and if we do something that helps them you can understand that Lotus and Ferrari won’t be happy. So it’s a very difficult situation we sometimes find ourselves in.”

Hembery says this year’s tyres are degrading more quickly than they would like because of the increased performance of the cars:

“The cars are certainly pushing a lot harder than what we’ve seen in the past. The downforce levels are getting close to 2011 when the cars had blown diffusers. We also are seeing that with our new structure of tyre we’re pushing much harder the compounds. So combine those two together and we find that we really are working the compounds much more than we have done in the past.

“We don’t get to see the cars, of course, until we get racing with them. We don’t have any in-season testing, we don’t have access to those cars for testing so unfortunately we do have to learn sometimes when we’re actually at the race event.

“We will make changes, we want to bring something to Silverstone to make sure we are back on track, we’re at two or three stops. That could mean compound changes, structure changes, we’ll decide that within a week.”

2013 Spanish Grand Prix

Browse all 2013 Spanish Grand Prix articles

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty

Advert | Go Ad-free

146 comments on Pirelli keen to avoid claim of Red Bull favouritism

1 2 3
  1. victor (@genevene) said on 13th May 2013, 13:42

    Why criticize the tyre when team like Rbr and Merc never include tyre in the equation of PERFORMANCE??

    • jimscreechy (@) said on 14th May 2013, 11:43

      I don’t understand this comment.

    • AJ (@aj27) said on 14th May 2013, 15:02

      +1 I hope the revised tyres for Canada will prevent the delamination because tyres should withstand no matter how aggresisve they are BUT it is up to the teams to build a car that can handle and work the tyres efficiently not the other way around. I think the problem Pirelli and (some) teams have this year is:
      1. no pre-season testing in warm condtions.
      2. Pirelli using an outdated test car.

    • Pennyroyal tea (@peartree) said on 15th May 2013, 5:48

      Agreed, but apparently the consequences are much more important performance wise, which is perhaps not ideal.

  2. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 13th May 2013, 13:46

    I’m glad Hembery speaks like this, answers questions and doesn’t go with “the hell with the world, we’re doing what we were asked to”.

    It must be very tricky for the company to be in this situation. Not only it’s bad publicity, but it’s also hard to make changes as it’s seen as favouring one team or another. It’s understandable too that given the situation with no testing and all, it’s hard to develop the tyres and make they work better while still producing good races.

    That’s why we got to wait until later this year. It’s still early days and we’ll get more lineal races as the season goes on. As it’s always been the case.

    • Nick.UK (@) said on 13th May 2013, 18:24

      Surely if Red Bull are to gain an advantage by Pirelli changing the tyres, so are everyone else. If the Lotus and Ferrari are already easy on the tyres then making them more durable should serve to better their long run stints. Maybe they would even be able to do 1 stops whenever Red Bull appear to be able 2. This is turn would allow them greater flexibility in the races and allow them to get track position at circuits where it is important.

      Maybe I’m making things too simple, but I don’t see how a change in the tyres could benefit one team over all the others by a serious amount. As each team is so quick to say at the moment; “It’s the same for everyone.”

      • P R Biggs (@your-goose) said on 13th May 2013, 21:43

        It’s a bit of a political power-play (****-swinging) by Red Bull due to their prominence and success over recent years. It also smacks of poor form and “blame someone else.”
        I think their view is that the uplift in performance with a more durable tyre product would benefit cars such as theirs, more than other teams as they have a higher speed (down-force) cornering machine. Clearly they feel they are being compromised more than others for the direction Mr. Newey takes.
        That said when the main K.P.I. in Formula 1 is no longer headline performance you can see they have a point.
        Formula 1 needs spectators but not at the expense of the integrity of producing the fastest race cars.
        And with said it’s massively funny seeing R.B.R being told to “dry their eyes” by everybody!!

      • DASMAN (@dasman) said on 14th May 2013, 13:23

        err. No. The tyres operate within set operating temperatures which are directly linked to the compound. So amending the compound to make it more durable will affect its temperature operating window, which some cars find easier to achieve than others.

        Remember last year when Ferrari really struggled on the hard tyre? It was because they could not generate enough heat to make the tyre perform.

        So changing the compound (harder) will directly assist RB as they are able to find that temperature window quite easily, but get punished when the tyres won’t last

        This whole ridiculous situation is the fault of the FIA. No testing + crazy compounds = FAIL

        • P R Biggs (@your-goose) said on 14th May 2013, 19:40

          My point was a more durable (hard) tyre compound will benefit Red Bull.
          You appear to agree?
          What’s your point?
          Bad semantics on my behalf ? (hard v durable)
          I apologize unreservedly.
          You are the bestest xxx

      • chiliz00 (@chiliz00) said on 14th May 2013, 14:06

        Hmmm I don’t lotus or Ferrari would appreciate a reduction in their advantage. I mean they may not be doing as great as they are capable, and I’m not suggesting that they aren’t, but to know that Mercedes and red bull are struggling worse than them and this would mean, at least in theory, that red bull and Mercedes are not doing well which equates to advantage lotus and Ferrari. Boulier has already said it would be unfair to change the compounds mid season because lotus and Ferrari have put in the hard yards and got it sort of right with the tires so changing he rules mid season would punishing them for getting it right and rewarding everyone else who didn’t do their homework well enough.

        • P R Biggs (@your-goose) said on 14th May 2013, 19:54

          Totally agree but Red Bull can huff’n’puff a bit more than Mercedes these days due to their meteoric rise to the grown-ups table.
          No issue, they deserve to be there.
          However Lotus and Ferrari play what’s in front of them. Red Bull complain.
          And ..hey-ho Pirelli capitulate and we see another championship handed to the Mr. Vettel.

    • Jimbo Hull (@kartingjimbo) said on 14th May 2013, 10:02

      +1 to that! I always find myself getting riled up and bit devoid of the point after a race such as Spain. Hembrey always comes out with a cool head and doesn’t fall for any of the criticism, explaining the situation really well usually. The fact they don’t get to work with the cars before the season to test the tyres speaks heaps for what happened at Spain.

      The thing is though should the tyre manufacture really be trying to develop/understand their own product while teams are too? The constant evolution of the tyre throughout the season can’t make it easy on the teams…

  3. LifeW12 (@lifew12) said on 13th May 2013, 13:46

    Red Bull will win every race if they brought back the old tyres.

    • John H (@john-h) said on 13th May 2013, 14:47

      Well then it’s deserved. I think most people that are frustrated with drivers coasting around preserving their tyres so that they can only do 3 or 4 stops are not Red Bull fans, just fans of Formula One.

      If Pirelli had just stuck to the 2012 tyre then they wouldn’t have been favouring anyone and the engineers might have had a chance of designing a car with them in mind.

      • dkioe said on 13th May 2013, 15:50

        the engineers are working now to get used to the 2013 tyres, everyone is in the same boat, get over it.

      • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 13th May 2013, 16:02

        @john-h

        Well then it’s deserved.

        No it’s not. Red Bull build a car around the 2012 tyres, Ferrari and Lotus build them around the 2013 tyres. Therefore, Ferrari and Lotus should be awarded for doing the better job, and RBR should be punished for not doing the best job.

        • John H (@john-h) said on 13th May 2013, 16:54

          Fair point. I think it’s easier to make this argument if you’re a Ferrari fan for sure, but nevertheless I understand the point.

          It’s just a shame the drivers are not pushing, that’s my main gripe. I’ve had this problem with the tyres for the last 2 years now (I moan about it like a grumpy old man all the time, quite probably too much and I should be quiet). No one is going off the circuit, pushing anymore. Personally, I would like to see more DNFs but the car components are just not being tested to the limit anymore.

          The drivers are pretty much robots obeying the strategy best suited to the tyres. No one is sweating after a race, look at the podium after the race, it’s like they’ve been out for a Sunday drive.

          And I really don’t see how you can design a car around a tyre that was only made available in November. But there you go, I’ll try to cheer up now!

          I just want F1 back :)

          • Rooney (@rojov123) said on 13th May 2013, 18:05

            Did you see how alonso was pushing in the Spanish Grand Prix? He had to lead by 18 seconds to make his 4 stops work. He pushed and pushed hard with all his 4 tyres.. and he won. Now, if teams decide that they don’t want to push hard and want to save the 18 seconds of a pitstop, it is their unforced decision. Can’t blame Pirelli for this!

          • John H (@john-h) said on 14th May 2013, 8:57

            Alonso drove at 90%, he said so after the race. To be honest I’m not bothered about who benefits team wise, I just think F1 should be about going faster than GP2 cars and drivers looking like they’ve put in a shift at the end of the race. I can’t believe so many people like this new f1 but there you go, I should get over it I guess.

        • Lajo (@lajo) said on 14th May 2013, 10:19

          No it’s not.

          Yes, it is. Ferrari and Lotus didn’t “build” their cars around the 2013 tyres. That was impossible considering the teams had ZERO time to test the new tyres in the development phase of their new car. They had a glimpse at them with the old car, and then they could start testing them with the new car when the design was pretty much final.
          Neither the Ferrari nor the Lotus is something radically new compared to last year’s cars. It is Pirelli who designed the tyres to help Ferrari and Lotus (and everyone else) and to drag RBR down to their level. Which is understandable, the FIA wants to see competition rather than the dominance of one single team.
          But it kinda makes Ferrari and Lotus to look like sad losers who can’t compete without the regulations being bent in their favour.

          • jimscreechy (@) said on 14th May 2013, 12:19

            exactly, I wondered what he was on about then. How could they possibly develop a car around a tyre compound that hadn’t even been released. Even in testing some of the compounds hadn’t even been finalised.

          • DASMAN (@dasman) said on 14th May 2013, 13:27

            but surely you can strive to design a car which will be easier on its tyres at the expense of other performance areas? Even if you don’t have access to actual compound?

          • SeaHorse (@seahorse) said on 15th May 2013, 15:11

            So the teams do not develop their cars after winter testing. They just test how all the parts of the car works together on a circuit and send them straight to the first GP of the year.

      • Staffan Hansson said on 13th May 2013, 16:57

        Can’t say that it looked like Kimi, Massa or Alonso seemed to just coasting around..

        • Danilo Schoeneberg said on 13th May 2013, 19:01

          Drivers lapped 6 to 7 seconds slower than in qualifying. The “fastest” race lap was a 1:26.2 to 1:20.7 in qualifying. By F1 standards that’s a week! barcelona wasn’t a race. It was a pensioneers bus ride to Devon.

          • Fisha695 (@fisha695) said on 14th May 2013, 1:33

            In all forms of motorsports it’s universal that qualifying laps are faster then race laps.

          • Lajo (@lajo) said on 14th May 2013, 10:25

            @fisha695
            Really? Is it normal to drive 7% slower in the race than in qualifying? Is it normal that the fastest lap in the race would hardly be enough to qualify for the race (107% limit)?

          • @Lajo There is no point in the race at which you have the same combination fuel load and tire freshness as in qualifying so the point is not really valid.

            I don’t agree with tire nurturing but I also disagree with major title-interefering changes mid-season.

          • Lajo (@lajo) said on 15th May 2013, 14:39

            @poul
            True but who said there was? What I mean is the fastest lap in the race is run on low fuel levels so the times shouldn’t be that much off those in qualifying. The 7% difference shows pretty well how much faster these cars could go on decent tyres. After all a car qualifying outside the 107% is deemed too slow to even start the race so how come even the fastest car runs that slowly on the race day? Pirelli have clearly overshot their target this year.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th May 2013, 8:17

        Why on earth would it be deserved @john-h? Everyone knew the tyres would be changed. Some made the car fit the tyres great or at least good (Lotus, FI, Ferrari), while Red Bull and Mercedes got something right, but not completely and some teams missed the boat completely (Mclaren, Williams, to an extent Sauber).

        Just compare the reactions of Red Bull and Mercedes. Red Bull is “furious” and ask Bernie to intervene (sounds perfectly like the hated years of Ferrari crying foul each time they were not winning – see Michelin grooves and Mass-damper), while Mercedes call on their own team to improve the car. Who is right? Mercedes off course.

        • John H (@john-h) said on 14th May 2013, 9:04

          @BasCB I actually think you’re right and I’m wrong, Ferrari and Lotus deserve their success. See my reply to @kingshark above. I just want to see the cars on the ragged edge of breaking point, not the tyres. I guess most people aren’t that bothered about seeing that kind of racing series anymore.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th May 2013, 12:27

            Thanks for the update @john-h, and i agree that its hard to like a situation where people are doing their best to save the tyres and still end up with using them up to the canvas.

    • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 13th May 2013, 16:15

      If they have the fastest car then so be it. I’m obviously not the best one to be saying this as I am a Red Bull fan, but I’d trade slightly less competition up front if it means we had racing throughout the field (and in fact, I think we are more at risk of more boring Ferrari dominance currently).

      • Ben (@scuderia29) said on 13th May 2013, 17:33

        @vettel1 i’d say the fastest car out there right now is actually the Mercedes. We havent seen any ferrari dominance since 2004, any dominance is boring…but for the past 3 years vettel has come closer to being dominant than anyone else, even if it turns out ferrari do dominate (which i dont think they will) they havent done so for almost 10 years anyway.

      • Deurmat (@deurmat) said on 13th May 2013, 20:43

        @vettel1 if there is one thing I dont want its an other year off boring red bull dominance…

        • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 13th May 2013, 21:42

          @deurmat I actually wouldn’t think that would be the case: Lotus may fall back as they are pretty much winning because their lack of downforce now doesn’t matter because of these cheese-ball tyres but I reckon Ferrari and particularly Mercedes would still be right in contention: nobody would be walking away with it.

          Even then, was the racing really that bad the last three years? Even if the championship outcome has possibly become predictable I still think the racing has been really good and F1Fanatic members seem to agree on that one in general: most races have had an upward trajectory in the rankings since rate the race started and are now dipping down again since the tyres have gone too far.

          • karter22 (@karter22) said on 14th May 2013, 6:04

            @vettel1

            these cheese-ball tyres

            Hmm, that sounds like something that that bloke catracho504 used to say when he reffered to the tyres. ;)
            I doubt Lotus would fall back, they seem to take better care of the tyres than ferrari.

            was the racing really that bad the last three years?

            Max, the frustration you are transmitting about these “cheese-ball” tyres, is actually the sentiment of almost every Ferrari fan out there for those years, especially 2011 where they simply could not get them to work! It seems the show is the other foot now!

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 14th May 2013, 9:36

            @karter22 it’s not so much from a Red Bull fan’s perspective I dislike the, though, because after all they are still leading both championships. I just hate races like that – don’t get me wrong I actually like having tyres that require some nursing but not this much. The end of 2012 was a great balance and for most of 2011 I liked it also, because we still saw some legitimate racing.

            The start of this years wasn’t awful but nor was it great but the Spanish GP was just terrible – I’m sorry, I just can’t see it any other way. Nobody raced their after the first lap – it was exclusively tyres. That made me quite sad as a Formula 1 fan.

            @bascb the key difference their is that those regulations can be interpreted by other teams and adapted to suit their needs – the very fact everyone is supplied with exactly the same product partially negates that point.

            My view is more due to the fact that in theory, the higher downforce cars of the Mercedes and the Red Bull should help the tyres but it’s doing the exact opposite in reality. So in essence, teams with a weaker car in terms of outright pace are actually in a better position – do you not think their is something fundamentally wrong there?

            That’s not really my main gripe with these tyres though, it’s the fact that so far they haven’t exactly produced stellar racing. I found Australia to be rather a damp squib; Malaysia was only really good for the Red Bull fight (and the first lap drama); China was just an exercise in how terrible the soft tyres were; Bahrain I have found to be the best race so far this year, but even then there was a lack of a battle up front (which I believe was what these tyres were trying to prevent happening) then to Spain – I can truthfully say that was the worst race I have seen since Germany 2010. Not exactly great, is it? By no means also do I think I’m in the boat alone…

          • karter22 (@karter22) said on 14th May 2013, 11:44

            @vettel1

            for most of 2011 I liked it also, because we still saw some legitimate racing.

            Oh come on Max! 2011 saw racing? Maybe fights for second and third! As I remember 2011 was all about the SV show where he would get them to work instantly for him and he would drive off to the sunset! Of course you liked that! LOL
            I will agree though that 2012 was good. The main issue today is that it seems RBR basically carried over from 2012 and didn´t develop their car for the 2013 tyres as @bascb explained and therefore of course LOTUS and FERRARI deserve credit! They built their car for these tyres, although they might look similar to the 2012 cars… they are different so I also see it unfair for them to be punished for something they did right! This also goes for any other team that might moan about the tyres.
            My main problem is that! The moaning is making it a drag because look at MERC, they are definitely hating the tyres but what do they say as a team? They say they gotta work on their car! RBR is just asking for them to change the tyres! Why don´t they just shut up, man up, and develop their car?? It would at least save face a bit! And the sad thing is, they are leading both championships! There is a little food for thought for you Max!
            I will agree you´re not in the boat alne though! You and probably every other RBR fan are all for better tyres but that makes you and every other RBR fan just look like sour grapes! Sorry but it´s the truth and the thing is that the same show has been worn by SF and Lotus and man other team in recent years!

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 14th May 2013, 14:04

            @karter22 the reason Vettel dominated was not so much due to the tyres though as Red Bull’s superior use of the off-throttle EBD. Remember, Webber was nowhere near as good as him also! Honestly though, apart from at the head of the championship table the racing was actually really good – much better than in the early 2000′s.

            LOTUS and FERRARI deserve credit! They built their car for these tyres

            No, they really lucked into having a good car for the tyres. They both have the same chassis from last year and couldn’t possibly have developed the cars specifically around the tyre, as all they had to go on was the development tyres they received in Brazil for the winter. Bear in mind, these were not new cars.

            So really, it was pretty much luck-of-the-draw. Which is why we should’ve just stuck with the 2012 compounds: then that eliminates the variables, and may the best man win.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th May 2013, 8:21

        The problem is, they have the fastest car for a different type of tyres @vettel1. Thats as if you would say someone has the fastest car for a different set of aero-rules. Or for a different engine type.

        They made a misjudgment, and developed the car in a way that now proves to have been not the best way (maybe there was more to those Renault engine mapping rumors then they wanted to give away at the time). Why would the others, who did a better job for the current package on track be punished by adapting to RBR’s way? Instead we could ask what would make Williams, or McLaren world beaters and adapt them that way. Would that be fair?. I hope that analogy shows where your view does not add up.

    • Todd (@foxxx) said on 14th May 2013, 16:31

      possibly, but at least then every team would probably be able to engineer a car on a tyre that’s consistent.

      lets not forget Gutierrez set the fastest lap in spain. and in malaysia, with a car that’s apparently VERY slow, perez set the fastest lap? a ferrari dominated this race, a redbull the last, a mercedes gets all the pole positions but can’t keep within ~1 second per lap of the leaders and there’s up to 5 tyre changes in a race.

      ferrari couldn’t stay anywhere near rbr in bahrain but yet rbr dominated it, roles reversed last race. then reversed the race before, that, then reversed the race before that….

      there’s no way a team can engineer a car to work, when the tyres change dictate how the car can grip, and the tyres performance changes based on how the car works depending on temperature and track type.

      its not their job to worry about if rbr will win if they change tyres, its their job to produce a consistent tyre that will last 1-2 stops. they are clearly not doing that.

  4. tmax (@tmax) said on 13th May 2013, 13:56

    While I understand Pirelli is is in a hard spot balancing all. The Worrying thing here is the fact that came out in Paul’s interview yesterday.

    Pat Humphrey said the following

    So if I said we were going to make a change, I know I am going to have the podium people today not happy – then you [the media] will be here at Silverstone telling me we have given the championship to Red Bull. It will be damned if you, damned if you don’t.

    Unless you all want us to give Red Bull the tyres to win the championship. It’s pretty clear. If we did that, there would be one team that would benefit and it would be them.”

    Does that mean that Pat Humphrey is given the job of – “Do what you can to stop Red Bull from winning the championship this year” ? I believe Pierlli should be making Tires and Not deciding the Track order. It specifically means that Pirelli has designed tires to make Ferrari happy.

    It does not seem to me that Red Bull are the only folks who are unhappy. Mercedes is also having the issues. I think even for that matter Alonso had a slow puncture. Ferrari were driving the cars in 90% form. All in all I think if Pirelli starts thinking about who will will the race and start designing tires according to them then we have a bigger problem here.

    • Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh) said on 13th May 2013, 14:34

      Its not their job to design the tyres to suit a car, its the teams jobs to design the car to suit the tyres. Ferrari have so far done a good job, but Lotus have done an even better job.

      • Cyclops_PL (@cyclops_pl) said on 13th May 2013, 15:20

        +1. Spot on. Tires are the common factor for all teams, it’s not Pirelli’s fault someone messed up their design so the car devours tires. Red Bull built a car around the concept of regaining 2011 downforce level no matter the cost. It’s their fault it didn’t pay off.

      • Nick.UK (@) said on 13th May 2013, 18:37

        I find Red Bull such a cringe worthy team. All their moaning about getting the tyres changed and they aren’t even the ones who are having the most trouble with them. What’s worse is they do all this complaining while leading both championships! They should shut up and focus on developing the car to better suit the only constant for all teams.

        • karter22 (@karter22) said on 14th May 2013, 6:06

          @nick-uk
          You nailed it right there mate!! Gotta agree with you 100%

        • Deb Luhi (@debeluhi) said on 14th May 2013, 8:08

          The problem is that the tires are not “constant”. Lots of stops was expected but have they expected that many? The same compound performs differently on different circuits. To me it looks like the tire suits Ferrari and Lotus rather than they made their cars to suit the tire.

          • Nick.UK (@) said on 14th May 2013, 10:08

            @debeluhi Lotus team principle has specifically said in Australia that the car was developed with the intention to not abuse its tyres.

          • javlinsharp (@javlinsharp) said on 14th May 2013, 17:57

            …constant for all teams.

            That was the original quote. The tires are the same for everybody, including the venue-based performance differential.

            @debeluhi

    • “Does that mean that Pat Humphrey is given the job of – “Do what you can to stop Red Bull from winning the championship this year” ?”

      Stikes me as a little bit of a chicken-and-egg dilemma. They made 2013 spec tyres and provided samples to all the teams in Brazil. Some teams adapted to it better than others – how was Pirelli to know who would fall in which camp? After 5 races it may seem Ferrari and Lotus are in the former camp and Mercedes and Red Bull in latter. Hembry’s point is, methinks, – while the original construction was done “in good faith”, to change the spec now will ostensibly look like bending to pressure / nepotism. Hence the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dilemma.

      Alas as crunchy as the tyres may currently be, it is hard to see them changing them significantly without causing an all out fracas in the pit lane.

      • John H (@john-h) said on 13th May 2013, 14:54

        Isn’t November a bit late for the design teams to get the 2013 spec tyres? Most of the 2013 cars will have been quite advanced design wise by then.

        I’m worried that the tyre manufacturer has the power (in his own words) to decide the championship… it’s embarrassing for F1.

        • kubica2 said on 13th May 2013, 15:54

          not really, the teams had all of preseason testing to adapt, some did some didnt. merecedes worked on getting a fast car over 1 lap (as shown by th elast barcelona test times, and qualifying in races so far), but have failed over 60+ laps, teams like Ferrari and Lotus have adapted. these are million dollar budget teams, and it is all poletics, they are purposely pushing pirelli to change their tyres, because they cant make them work! – redbull and mercedes.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 14th May 2013, 9:42

            @dennis, @john-h +1 to each of you! Basically, it’s a lottery into who has the car which suits it’s tyres the best; the emphasis is not so much on who actually has built the “best” car currently.

        • Yes Nov is late. But its the same for everyone, no?

          • dennis (@dennis) said on 13th May 2013, 17:11

            Indeed it was the same for everyone. But when you say that it indeed was very late in the development of the car, you can’t really claim that Lotus and Ferrari specifically build a car around the new tyres and therefore did a ‘better job.’

          • I don’t think I ever claimed Lotus or Ferrari did a “better job”. For all I know they lucked out?! By the way, let’s not forget that all teams had pre-season testing time with these tyres too so it wasn’t a complete lottery either.

            My only point is somebody WILL be unhappy no matter what Pirelli choose to do. How do you decide who that should be?

          • dennis (@dennis) said on 14th May 2013, 8:44

            Sorry, I didn’t specifically meant “you” said it. But it was a bit of a point here on that topic. I, too think Lotus lucked out.
            I don’t really like changing rules or things like tyres during the season. But I’m not a fan of the racing at the moment. And I certainly don’t like it, that F1 is becoming a bit of a design-lottery.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th May 2013, 8:23

          As it was the teams asking for the change, and Pirelli reacting to that, its not as if it would have been a surprise. Pirelli had been informing about the way the tyres are going as early as mid-2012, but its hard to make a final compound available earlier than November @john-h

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 14th May 2013, 9:43

            @bascb why didn’t they just keep the 2012 compounds then?

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th May 2013, 12:21

            They softened the compounds because towards the second half of the year it was clear that teams were getting a grip on wear, so it was deemed a good idea to go a step softer for faster times and to bring wear back to where it was at the start of 2012 @vettel1.

            off course Pirelli has a tough job getting it exactly right, because their test car has far less downforce than the current crop has, and they cannot have learnt much from pre-season testing either.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 14th May 2013, 21:30

            @bascb did we really need that though? I’m guessing they are just assuming all we care about is unpredictable results, but we’re not really getting that currently. All the races have been won by Red Bull, Ferrari or Lotus – this isn’t like 2012 anyway, and the racing itself is worse.

            I’d happily have any team be more dominant (which I doubt would happen anyway if the tyres were changed) if it meant world champions weren’t giving away positions in order to “conserve the tyres”.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th May 2013, 6:56

            Good question, I am not sure overtaking and unpredictability is what people want to see @vettel1. But its sure that had they changed nothing at all, races would gradually have become one stoppers because teams find better and better ways to cope.
            And the softer compounds do help in getting these cars to go really fast in qualifying, more often than not the times from last year are beaten with them (the 2011 times when we had fully exploited exhaust blowing are not beaten, but the tyres are doing a good job of getting close enough)

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th May 2013, 11:08

            @bascb

            Good question, I am not sure overtaking and unpredictability is what people want to see

            If I’m assuming this is sarcasm, then you didn’t read what I said. Ferrari, Red Bull and Lotus are the only ones to win races and with three drivers – hardly unpredictable, is it? The “overtaking” we are seeing also is in general quite pathetic (case in point, Räikkönen on Vettel last race).

            If the teams could all manage one stoppers (I doubt they would at high deg tracks though) the so be it.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th May 2013, 16:53

            As your assumption is wrong, I guess it does not make much sense for me to react to the rest of this post @vettel1.
            I am sure that after years where we seldom saw much passing apart from changes of position due to pitstops, it was probably to be expected that people would answer “yes” in some form to a survey asking them whether they wanted to see more passing. But I am not at all sure, or even convinced, that it was really what people wanted to see. And even less about whether what we have now is what people had in mind. Therefore your question is genuinely a very good one that needs to be part of a discussion on what we want from F1.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th May 2013, 17:33

            @bascb ah well, sorry then!

            I would think most people, judging from the comments on this site at least, perfer quality over quantity. I haven’t seen many applauding soft overtakes like the one I have referred to or highway-style passes.

            I really think the FIA should actually respond to what the viewers want: I doubt it’s what we have now. I think the majority of us want to see racing, or how Martin Brundle put it “a 3-2 football match, not a 120-80 basketball game”.

  5. Estesark (@estesark) said on 13th May 2013, 14:04

    Sebastian Vettel is leading the Drivers’ Championship and Red Bull are leading the Constructors’ Championship. Why are they complaining so much? Do they really think it is their right to win every race? If they’re unsatisfied with the way their car uses up its tyres, they need to turn their attention inwards, not outwards.

    I’m not completely happy with the current situation either, but I don’t want Pirelli to make any major changes for the rest of this season. At most, Pirelli could provide the harder compounds more often. The teams knew what tyres they would be racing on this season, and it was up to them to design their cars accordingly; why penalise those who did the best job? Any debate over the tyres should be held in the context of 2014.

    • crr917 (@crr917) said on 13th May 2013, 14:10

      If one is the best its their right to claim the win. When third paries interfere it’s just a reality show.

      • crr917 (@crr917) said on 13th May 2013, 14:11

        *parties

      • Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh) said on 13th May 2013, 14:29

        Fastest does not equal best.

        • crr917 (@crr917) said on 13th May 2013, 14:52

          It does when the competition is about speed.

          • Jabosha (@jabosha) said on 13th May 2013, 17:45

            Speed doesn’t garauntee finishing.

          • 5150 (@) said on 13th May 2013, 19:30

            No it doesn’t. F1 never was, isn’t, hopefully never will be 100m sprint.

          • crr917 (@crr917) said on 13th May 2013, 20:02

            @jabosha, no but retirements these days are rare and that is beside the point anyway.

            @5150, suddenly racing is not about speed? What is F1 then? A popularity contest?

          • 5150 (@) said on 13th May 2013, 20:34

            It is, but not the way you understand it. It’s best AVERAGE speed. That doesn’t mean it is slow. In every form of racing winner is the one with best average speed over xxx laps or xxx km.

        • John H (@john-h) said on 13th May 2013, 14:59

          So did you enjoy watching the race in Barcelona, seeing most of the field driving to delta times, letting other cars through (like a time trial) and not pushing their cars? Take the Ferrari hat off for a minute and consider that this might not be what Formula 1 should be about, regardless of who wins.

          The engines, drivers and the gearboxes are not being stressed at all. Call me old fashioned, but I want to see drivers sweating after a race and cars full of battle wounds. This is meant to be Formula 1, where did my first love go!!??

          • beneboy (@beneboy) said on 13th May 2013, 21:39

            @john-h
            I am a Ferrari fan and other than getting both drivers on the podium I found very little else to get excited about after the first few laps on Sunday.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 14th May 2013, 9:46

            @beneboy thank you for not having clouded judgement. I think if we all try to be impartial about it – just paint all the cars grey and replace all the drivers with robots for the purposes of the thought experiment – who would prefer current F1 to F1 say last year, 2011 or 2010?

          • Peter (@oldearl) said on 14th May 2013, 10:52

            Where did your F1 go wel go ask Adrian Newey and his Aero tricks !

    • electrolite (@electrolite) said on 13th May 2013, 15:23

      Sebastian Vettel is leading the Drivers’ Championship and Red Bull are leading the Constructors’ Championship. Why are they complaining so much? Do they really think it is their right to win every race?

      I do think the tyres were too much this weekend – but great point.

    • dennis (@dennis) said on 13th May 2013, 17:22

      I think it’s terrible, that we can’t have this discussion without talking about how this will benefit Red Bull.

      The main question is… Is Formula 1 better with these tyres? Do we want tyres that fall apart so quickly and are so brittle? (Even Alonso apparently had trouble) Do we want drivers to nurse their cars around the track and ask the team if they’re allowed to push or not?
      Tyres will and have always been a factor, but they should not be THE factor in Formula 1. Pirelli should have made a tyre that gives teams the opportunity to think about different strategies. Not forcing them to run all of their tyres in a 4 stop race, because they couldn’t make the distance afterwards.

      It was painful to hear Lewis Hamilton saying he can’t drive any slower.

    • karter22 (@karter22) said on 14th May 2013, 6:11

      @estesark

      Sebastian Vettel is leading the Drivers’ Championship and Red Bull are leading the Constructors’ Championship. Why are they complaining so much? Do they really think it is their right to win every race? If they’re unsatisfied with the way their car uses up its tyres, they need to turn their attention inwards, not outwards.

      I have to agree with you mate! MERC is having a god aweful time with these lemos, yet they always talk about working harder to improve the car. They don´t talk about getting the tyres changed like RBR is doing. They really are turning out to be incredible sore losers! I hope RBR “fans” take notice!

      • Deb Luhi (@debeluhi) said on 14th May 2013, 8:25

        It’s not just Red Bull complaining but they are the obvious target to pick on. And when every change to the cars in the last few years has been implemented to specifically slow down the Red Bulls I understand their frustration, when all their hard work is undone by a tire designed for another team.

      • dennis (@dennis) said on 14th May 2013, 8:39

        @karter22

        I’m sorry, but I don’t know which F1 you are watching. It’s not the same as me. I can’t find any other person in the paddock moaning louder about the tyres than Niki Lauda. Then there’s Rosberg complaining, Lewis complaining, Toto Wolff mentioned that the tyres don’t make for good racing…

        You are seriously taking this stuff to a new level of bias.

      • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 14th May 2013, 21:42

        @karter22 I think that’s an incredibly unfair level of bias and the fact that it is constantly pointed out Red Bull are complaining about getting them changed whereas Mercedes instead are working on them is twisting the reality. Do you seriously think the same team who overcame the major problems they had last year to win the constructor’s championship yet again are just going to sit their and cry? I highly doubt that: I would bet the team members are working just as hard as everybody else at making the car faster, which if that means making it kinder on the tyres then that’s what they’ll do.

        Everybody seems to be forgetting that the PR talk is a separate entity from the team: of course they’d be lobbying for what they feel suits them, but it’s assuredly not all talk and no walk: they’ll be hard at work trying to solve the problem, from the political lobbying aspect and from the development aspect.

  6. crr917 (@crr917) said on 13th May 2013, 14:06

    So Dr. Helmut Marko was right when he said that RBR’s car had too much DF? And tyres are made such so RBR do not win. Great!

    • Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh) said on 13th May 2013, 14:32

      Keep dreaming. Its their suspension geometry.

    • tmekt (@tmekt) said on 13th May 2013, 18:25

      The tyres were designed to wear out quicker than last year as Pirelli was requested. All teams got the chance to try them out in Brazil and they had a few months of time to analyze the data and make changes. Red Bull more than anyone as they started working on their 2013 car later than some other teams because of their title bid that continued right to the last race. Since they apparently didn’t manage to do that they are now suffering the consequences in form of not being able to look after tyres as much as they would like.

      Maybe it’s because their technical director specializes mostly in aerodynamics they accidentally designed a car that has “too much” downforce? And now they can’t work on the strong points of the car as they aren’t strong points at all.

      What will be interesting though is how Lotus and Ferrari will react if they lose their advantage due to the changes. They’ve (especially Lotus) been saying that “it’s the same for everybody”. Will that change? I’m sure Kimi doesn’t care but nevertheless it will be interesting to see.

      • crr917 (@crr917) said on 13th May 2013, 19:02

        Teams had 2 sets of hard compound tyres in Brazil. If Ferrari and Lotus made their cars based on knowledge gathered by those runs and scientific method – hats off to them. But that compound wasn’t even used until yesterday. But what about the tyre construction? Was it changed between Brazil and Jerez? I don’t know but definately would like to.
        Since when is a bad thing for a modern racing car to have more DF?

        What irritates me the most is that the proposed quali tyres were declined by the teams. Or so news sites reported last year, right? Now we have 4 different types of quali tyres to be used in race. Even Pirreli labels option tyres as quali tyres. But primes a quali tyres too. What else to call tyres that last only for a lap?

        • tmekt (@tmekt) said on 13th May 2013, 23:57

          @crr917

          http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2012/11/14086.html

          They had two extra sets of tyres, in addition to the normal sets they have for Fridays, prototypes of what they’ve used this year. They may have not represented any exact compound of 2013 but gave the teams an idea of what to expect.

          Too much downforce became a problem as the current tyres were introduced. Not a bad thing necessarily though: should F1 merely be a downforce championship in your opinion? It’s not like downforce has no meaning at all though; the cars still have wings as I’m sure you’ve noticed.

          • crr917 (@crr917) said on 14th May 2013, 9:00

            They had two extra sets of tyres

            This is what I talked about. The topic was 2013 tyres afterall.

            Not a bad thing necessarily though: should F1 merely be a downforce championship in your opinion?

            There were cars that are fast on straights and fast in corners. And still achieved similar times over a lap most of the time. And now the cars meant to be fast in corners are nowhere, because someone either at Pirelli or above them said so. Could teams get this general idea from Brazil? Is a general idea sufficient when the margins are so slim? Aint’t this a downforce championship? Just the opposite one – more DF slower car.

  7. Alec Glen (@alec-glen) said on 13th May 2013, 14:08

    It’s a good job we’re not going to Turkey this year as Turn 8 would have made mincemeat out of this year’s compounds looking at the trouble teams had at Turn 3 yesterday.

  8. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 13th May 2013, 14:16

    Quite frankly, I’m losing interest in Formula 1 because all we hear about is the tyres – and it seems like the only people complaining are the people who think they should be winning, but aren’t. Dietrich Mateschitz has attacked Formula 1 for the emphasis on tyre management, and maybe he has a point, but do you know who I didn’t hear complaining about the tyres in Barcelona? Ferrari.

    If Red Bull spent all the time they waste moaning to the media and trying to bend the sport to their will on actually trying to solve the problem of tyre management the way Ferrari has, the problem would solve itself.

    But, no. “We’re not winning anymore, so the whole sport is obviously broken!” has always been the favourite excuse of teams who are too short-sighted to realise that the sport changes despite their best efforts, not because of them.

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 13th May 2013, 21:54

      @prisoner-monkeys I think the point is not “we are not winning anymore” is “we are not racing anymore”; Vettel let Kimi past, Hamilton was going backwards and Kimi didn´t even bother on chase Alonso, I don´t konow you but I turned my tv off after half the race.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 13th May 2013, 22:21

        I just have to wonder if Mateschitz would be criticising Pirelli if his team was winning …

      • obviously said on 13th May 2013, 23:05

        You never fight people who are on a different strategy from you, unless you are well clear from everyone else, because you will always lose time if you are fighting someone. It has nothing to do with these tires. We saw people fighting hard in the last few races without much care for tires.
        The thing is, thankfully, with Pirellis we are having strategies divided between 2 stoppers and 3 stoppers or 3 stoppers and 4 stoppers, which means there’s one more dimension to the race and I am very glad that the GPs are much less linear and much more dynamic with many more aspects coming into play. Especially when you take into account the fact that there’s much more of a feeling that it ain’t over ’till it’s over, unlike with less marginal tires where everything was pretty much decided after the first corner.
        And last, but most importantly, this IS the Formula 1 (emphasize on the word “formula” = set of rules) for this year and changing the tires mid-season means interfering with the competition and obviously at the benefit of Red Bull. There’s no argument about what is racing and what isn’t.

        Reason why Red Bull keeps complaining, even though they are leading, is because they know they are in the lead only courtesy of Ferrari’s failure to maximize their own potential in the first 4 races.

        • Deb Luhi (@debeluhi) said on 14th May 2013, 8:33

          So changing the rules mid season 2011 to slow down Red Bull was OK?

        • crr917 (@crr917) said on 14th May 2013, 9:06

          And last, but most importantly, this IS the Formula 1 (emphasize on the word “formula” = set of rules) for this year and changing the tires mid-season means interfering with the competition

          Good laugh. Like rules were never changed mid year. Ever. Though it is a bad practice so I am not supportive. Still, tyres do fail this year which is enough reason for change. Maybe.

    • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th May 2013, 14:11

      @prisoner-monkeys Mateschitz doesn’t build the car, nor does Marko or Horner. Their job is the political aspect of the sport, so of course all they are going to do is try and bargain a situation which suits them. The team itself will undoubtably be hard at work trying to solve the problem, and I really don’t understand why anybody thinks any different.

      People seem to be forgetting that key element: the PR department is a separate entity entirely from the people developing the car.

  9. Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 13th May 2013, 14:36

    I can see why Pirelli improving the tyres might come off as favoritism, but at the moment, no team is benefiting from these tyres, except for perhaps Lotus, and even they are still frustrated.

    I don’t think that improving the durability would improve Redbull’s chances of winning relative to how they are now. It’s not like RBR will benefit more than others if the tyres are the same.

  10. bull mello (@bullmello) said on 13th May 2013, 14:51

    Agree with the sentiment by Pirelli as not being seen to favor any one team. Here is a thought of wonderment though, as the teams make all the technical adjustments to their respective cars, which tires are they adjusting for? As Pirelli changes the tires for each race they are also now making other adjustments to the adjustments. How are the teams to know what tire target they should be shooting for as they try to fine tune their cars?

  11. trueracingfan said on 13th May 2013, 15:08

    For me F1 has seriously gone downhill since Perelli took over the tyre manufacturer, it is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport and everything about F1 has always been the best it can be FULL-STOP

    Obviously this should also be the case in respect of the tyres, if they can be made to last a whole race without losing performance then thats what should happen without question. Now I am no Redbull fan but if they end up winning every race because of this then so be it because all we have now is 11 1st class teams trying to preserve some stupid bl**dy rubber and quite frankly…who cares, what I want to see is who can make the quickest car and what driver can race the best

    I used to buy Pirelli tyres for my car, now I insist on Dunlop out of spite for them ruining my favourite sport

  12. MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th May 2013, 15:22

    It may be an impossible situation for them from a PR point of view, but I think they need to rise above it. The last thing they need to do is get bogged down in a discussion about the relative performance of individual teams. Because ultimately their remit is about supplying tyres for all teams, which the teams should then be making the best use of according to their requirements. The problem really being the lack of collaboration between the teams and the tyre supplier – teams are effectively developing the car for the following season based on guesses about the characteristics of the tyres which are yet to be developed. So you can understand then why a team would be a bit miffed when it turns out that their car doesn’t work well on the tyre.

    But the big issue here is that none of the cars work well on the tyre. Don’t confuse Ferrari winning with their car being suited to the tyre. It’s impossible to have a race without someone winning, after all. Ferrari being the least disadvantaged doesn’t necessarily mean that they have done the best job, or that they’re not suffering the same problems as everyone else. Of course, they may well prefer to struggle on while those conditions favour them, but that doesn’t mean that the tyres are fundamentally flawed.

    Hembery argues that he doesn’t want to be seen to favour Red Bull, but by doing so he implies that he doesn’t want to upset Ferrari and Lotus – effectively saying that he does favour them, because he’d rather maintain their advantage than potentially create tyres more suited to the Red Bull. This is the problem – as soon as you get into a debate about the relative performance of teams, you are effectively saying that the performance of those teams is a consideration in how you develop the tyre. That’s a very dangerous approach, and one which naturally leads to accusations of favouritism.

    The decision whether or not to change the tyres should be based on the tyres themselves and how they perform.

    Are they fast enough for the formula? Yes, the qually times are comparable to other manufacturers, and maintains F1’s position as the fastest circuit motorsport on the planet.

    Do they last long enough to give us the number of pitstops we expect? No – 4 stops should be a very exceptional maximum, not the norm as we’re currently seeing. Teams should be able to pick their strategy anywhere between 1 and 3 stops depending on the track.

    Are they reliable? No – we’ve seen several instances of delamination and tyre failures during the race, even when teams have been taking care to preserve the tyres and used geometry settings within the recommended tolerences.

    Do the drivers like driving on them? No – over half the grid have said publically that they don’t enjoy driving on these tyres. They don’t seem to give good feel to the driver, overheat very easily, are very difficult to keep in the operating temperature band, and don’t allow the driver the freedom to push hard at any point during the race.

    Do the spectators like them? Generally no, though not without exception. Fans don’t like seeing drivers in the pinnacle of motorsport being told over and over again to slow down, save the tyres, etc etc, above all other considerations. Nor do they like seeing drivers choose not to battle one another for position for fear of damaging the tyres.

    None of the considerations above have any real bearing on the performance of any individual team, and are universal to everyone. It seems that by their own definitions, the tyres produced this year are not fit for purpose. The high failure rate this year seems to be the biggest argument in favour of changing the construction of the tyre, and a more durable compound which can be raced on harder so we see less complaints from teams and drivers, and the fans get to see the best drivers in the world doing what they do best. Whether that means that certain teams benefit more than others should not factor into the decision at all.

  13. DaveW (@dmw) said on 13th May 2013, 15:23

    I heard Mateschitz gave Ecclestone a ration of crap about the tires yesterday. I’m not happy about high-level lobbying going on about the racing spec. However, now that the FIA and Hembry have put the design and compound choices in play from race to race, any team would be foolish not to press as much as they can for a change in their favor. Furthermore, I think its a good thing that Luca is not the only one with the ability to jaw-bone the sport into making changes. Let’s not forget how Ferrari got Williams tires outlawed in 2002, a move that changed the course of that season. Other teams should not just sit back and let the big dogs bark because the big dogs can bite.

  14. obviously said on 13th May 2013, 16:29

    One thing Pirelli and fans should keep in mind is that teams and their loud-mouths don’t really care whether they make 1 or 10 pitstop during the race. They just wanna be faster than the other teams, no matter how fast they are going relative to anything outside of F1. For all they care, they could be going two times faster than GP2 cars, or 2 times slower, it doesn’t matter to them, as long as they are going faster than their F1 opposition.

    When Horner says that 4 pitstops is too much for the fans, you can bet that he doesn’t give a damn about anything except trying to pressure Pirelli into bringing tires that will be better suited to Red Bull than the opposition.

    • Linda1 said on 13th May 2013, 17:18

      But its not just Christian Horner & Red Bull saying this, You have most the teams, Most the drivers & now most of the media, fans & even Pirelli themselfs saying that 4 stops was too much.

      Plus Don’t forget that Red Bull were just as critical of the tyres even when they won at Sepang .

      When you have a situation where drivers are told not to race & to just let another car past & where there lapping slower than GP2 cars, Something is wrong & its about time Pirelli were called on there stupidly artificial, gimmickey & unfit for purpose bubble-gum tyres.

      I’ve no interest in watching Formula Pirelli anymore, I’ll be finding other things to do with my Sunday afternoons.

  15. GT_Racer said on 13th May 2013, 17:12

    I think Pirelli are been stupid with some of the comments there making, Especially using Red Bull as the villain & the only one’s whining about the current tyres & suggesting that its only there current tyres stopping Red Bull from winning everything.

    A sole tyre supplier should not have the power to determine who wins & loses, You should not even be able to get the impression or thought that they could do & they certainly should never come out & suggest things like this in public.

    As I’ve detailed before pretty much every team & driver in F1 right now dislike the current tyres & the fact that your starting to hear more vocal criticism of the tyres from more people inside F1 suggests that frustrations are mounting.

    Pirelli should be focusing on doing whats best for F1 as a sport & whats best for all the teams, They should not be picking & choosing what there doing based on not wanting team x to win or doing things based on what they think fans do or don’t want to see & who they think fans do or don’t want to see win.

    The great thing about Bridgestone & GoodYear before them was that when they became the sole tyre supplier, They ensured they had tyres which worked on every car so that nobody was advantaged or disadvantaged by there tyres & this is a big part of why you rarely heard teams talk about tyres.

    • DaveW (@dmw) said on 13th May 2013, 19:14

      When you have a single tire supplier that supplier necessarily determines who wins and who loses. You accept that issue if the tire design choice is done “blind,” i.e., before the teams test their cars. The tires menu, like the schedule, should be set in stone at the beginnning of the schedule. Once you start fiddling with the tires, it’s game on and you better expect every team to be riding Pirellis back at all times either looking to change the tire spec by whatever increment they can or to keep it the same.

      This is bad, but, as you say, Hembry is making it worse by trying to play the teams off each other—or red bull off the other teams. If he keeps on talking this nonesense we are going to have a serious crisis and a wider image problem with F1.

      While Hembry is foolish to react to RBR bullying directly, I have to say, however, that RBR does have a point. If they have the fastest car, but they can only run 70-80% pace becase of the tires, the sport is being robbed of something. Yes, they should have designed their car better. But the people pay their money and endure ads, in part, to see people like Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso drifting an F1 car, on the limit, through a high speed corner like turn 9 at Catalunya. They want to see guts and precision. We do not want to see anybody literally coasting to save tires. As it is now, probably any clown from the lower ranks of GP2 or a NASCAR driver could keep up with these guys. On reflection, accordingly, I also now don’t agree that Alonso proved that you can “race” with the tires and that Ferrari just shut up and got on with it. Buxton was wrong. Ferrari was also running no more than 90% when pushing says Alonso. In fact, Alonso was running about THREE SECONDS off his fuel corrected ideal time in 3rd stint. That is not even “90%”. Ferrari just had a better set up car than others, but Alonso’ win with 4 stops didn’t prove anything. Yamamato could have probably won the race in that car.

      • kbdavies (@kbdavies) said on 13th May 2013, 22:51

        Agree with all the points above. I posted a riposte to Buxtons claims on JAF1. Buxtons claims that Ferrari were “pushing” has now been debunked on so many levels.

1 2 3

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.