Bungling the tyre row will give F1 a tainted title fight

CommentPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Vitaly Petrov, Renault, Istanbul, 2011Last week’s Spanish Grand Prix was the 44th race since Formula One switched tyre suppliers to Pirelli. That marked the start of the era of ‘designed to degrade’ tyres which has shaped the race ever since.

The brief given to Pirelli was strongly influenced by what the sport had seen the year before. With refuelling banned the number of pit stops per race in 2010 had fallen to one at almost every round.

But Canada was a significant exception: most drivers make two pit stops and some had to make three. Pirelli were instructed to design their tyres recreate the unpredictability seen in that race.

The opening races of 2011 ran according to plan. But concerns arose that the tyres would prove too fragile at the more punishing Istanbul and Circuit de Catalunya tracks. Pirelli used the practice sessions for the Turkish race to evaluate a new, harder compound, and duly introduced it at the next race in Spain.

Harder tyres were also provided for testing at the British Grand Prix last year. Pirelli’s stated objective of having two to three pit stops per driver in each race, and revising compounds towards that aim when necessary has been well established. Only in recent weeks has it been allowed to become a serious bone of contention between the teams.

Fernando Alonso’s win on Sunday was the first by a driver this year using a four-stop strategy in a fully dry race. After the race Pirelli did not hesitate to acknowledge that changes were needed to prevent it happening again.

“Our aim is to have between two and three stops at every race, so it?s clear that four is too many,” said motorsport director Paul Hembery, adding: “We?ll be looking to make some changes, in time for Silverstone, to make sure that we maintain our target and solve any issues rapidly.”

This was a reasonable response along well-established lines. If only the reaction had stopped there.

But after spending almost an hour in conversation with Bernie Ecclestone in the Barcelona paddock, Red Bull owner Dietrich Mateschitz told the media that F1 “has nothing to do with racing anymore – this is a competition in tyre management”.

This was retreading a well-worn area of complaint for Red Bull in the season so far. Although the team and one of its drivers are leading the two championships, they believe the aggressive nature of the current tyres is keeping them from exploiting the true potential of their RB9.

Bernie Ecclestone, Paul Hembery, Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona,Ecclestone sided with Mateschitz, telling the Daily Express: “The tyres are wrong, not what we intended when we asked Pirelli to produce something which did a half race.”

Predictably, soon after Ecclestone voiced his frustration a further press release from Pirelli appeared stating the planned changes to the tyres would be brought forward by one race to the Canadian Grand Prix. Hembery described the scope of the changes as being to reduce the number of pit stops – as was previously announced – and to combat the spate of tyre delaminations seen at recent races.

It does not require an excess of cynicism to link Mateschitz’s complaint, Ecclestone’s reaction and Pirelli’s decision to revise their plans. And this is where the problems begin, because now the revisions to the tyres can justifiably be seen as Pirelli not merely sticking to the ‘no more than three stops per race’ plan, but F1’s official tyre manufacturer being leant on to help F1’s top team.

It drew a predictably aggrieved response from Red Bull’s rivals. Lotus team principal Eric Boullier not unreasonably pointed out that “there aren?t many sports where there are such fundamental changes to an essential ingredient part-way through a season”.

And the Horse Whisperer, the anonymous troll of the official Ferrari website, saw its first action of 2013. “These are difficult times for people with poor memories,” it opined, before going on to point out they had won a race using a four-stop strategy as long ago as 2004.

Those with even better memories would point out that Ferrari have no objection to the tyres being changed when it is being done to favour them, as happened at a critical point in the title fight ten years ago. The FIA’s abrupt decision to effectively ban the Michelin tyres of their rivals led to Ferrari and Bridgestone winning the next eight races in a row, and harpooned the contest for the 2003 championships.

Then as now, F1 teams will invariably use all available means to tilt the playing field in their favour. But the integrity of the championship is tainted the moment anyone in a position of power is seen to have responded to their pressure.

On that count F1 has failed in the past week. First Ecclestone weighed in on the side of Red Bull. Now the FIA has struck a blow for Ferrari and Lotus by decreeing Pirelli can only make its changes on safety grounds – to cure the delaminations – and not for performance reasons, despite having been content to let them do so since 2011.

On Jean Todt’s watch the FIA has tended to steer clear of F1 controversies. If its intervention in this debate has come because of Ferrari and Lotus’s complaints then Red Bull only have themselves to blame. How ironic it would be if Mateschitz’s complaints ultimately prevent a change in the tyres that was going to happen anyway and could have been beneficial to Red Bull.

Start, 2013 Spanish Grand Prix, Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona,And while Lotus’s Alan Permane obviously has a side to take in this, it’s hard to disagree with his view that recent history has shown the dangers of overreacting to high tyre degradation races early in the season:

“If you look back at the past couple of years since the start of the Pirelli era, the opening five races have historically featured higher levels of degradation than those seen during the rest of the season; with the exception perhaps of Suzuka.

“With that in mind, any alterations to the tyres should certainly be viewed with a degree of caution, as there is a real possibility that we could end up returning to one stop races; something that frequently occurred towards the end of 2012 as harder allocations were introduced. That?s surely something that nobody wants to see.

“Of course, it?s understandable that a repeat of the four stop scenario in Barcelona is not desirable, but along with Bahrain this represented perhaps the toughest challenge of the year. As we encounter circuits with lower demands on the rubber, and as teams start to get on top of this year’s compounds, I?m certain that we would have naturally seen fewer stops anyway.”

F1’s response to the Spanish Grand Prix has been knee-jerk and risks tainting the battle for championships. The sport would be better off pretending the last week of reaction and over-reaction hadn’t happened, and telling Pirelli to go back to the measured and reasonable response they came up with on Sunday evening.


Browse all comment articles

Image ?? Renault/LAT, Pirelli/LAT

119 comments on “Bungling the tyre row will give F1 a tainted title fight”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3
  1. 23kennyboy23
    18th May 2013, 18:13

    I’m amazed at the defence of the current situation. to have supposedly pirelli’s hardest tyres degrade that fast is crazy. I think the best approach would have just been to introduce harder ones of the same style but to leave the situation as it was would be nuts. Favouring the fans over principles is something I don’t have a problem with.

  2. If I were Ferrari and Lotus I wouldn’t even bother showing up in Canada. See how that pans out, one across the bow Bernie. suck on that

    The Heart Attack inducing drink company shouldn’t be allowed to dictate nothing. Imagine Man Utd asking for a new referee at half time, do you think the opposing team would carry on the facade.

    Broke Bernie Out, Off to Jail you go, young blood

    1. They wouldn’t care particularly about Lotus I wouldn’t imagine, but Ferrari maybe.

    2. @liambo

      If I were Ferrari and Lotus I wouldn’t even bother showing up in Canada.

      Ordinarily I’d say they’d be in breach of contact by doing that and would have to pay Ecclestone but as the Concorde Agreement has expired and not been renewed I don’t know if that is still the case.

  3. I think that Pirelli, The Teams & the FIA need to change the regulations regarding tyres.

    Instead of 4 compounds with Pirelli selecting 2, They should expand to 6 dry compounds ranging from Super-Soft to Super-Hard & let each team pick which 2 compounds they wish to run a week or 2 before each Gp. Also ditch the mandatory stop to run both compounds.

    I’d also ditch the ‘we want 2-3 stops’ talk. Just let teams run whatever strategy they wish, If a team wants to try a non-stop strategy they should have this option.

    Teams should not be backed into a corner on strategy based solely off what tyres Pirelli decide to use each race. They should be able to run there own strategy based solely off what they feel is the best tyre compounds for there package.

  4. I suspect that, once again, the reality of the situation lies somewhere between the two extremes. Teams will naturally push for whatever outcome they think is best for them, and as we have seen in the past, they are not afraid to exaggerate or embellish their problems if they think they can get an advantage out of it. I personally find the whole thing frustrating, and I think it’s a pretty sorry state of affairs when it is easier for teams to make progress by applying pressure to the FIA and Pirelli, than it is for them to make progress by actually doing the work that will bring about an improvement on the track.

    1. +1

      It’s a cop out, one that makes the sport, teams and manufactures look bad.

      1. I’m not saying that Pirelli don’t have a case to answer for. I’d like them to make changes to the tyres, if only to shut everyone up about their durability for half an hour. But the problem is that when they start giving in to individual teams, it only enables those teams to throw their weight around and try to inflict more rule changes upon the sport. It was bad enough when Ferrari had their technical veto (which only really worked when it was secret), but I don’t want to see a sport where ten teams suffer simply because one is upset that their car isn’t as good as they expected.

  5. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of it all, Im getting really tyred of hearing about tyres!

  6. The fact that tyre management are dominating the discussion topics surely means that balance is totally wrong The problem is that the tyres can’t accept anywhere near 100% car performance for 1/3, or even 1/4 race distance, which should surely have been part of Pirelli’s remit.

    The problem is by rectifying the problem halfway thought the season inevitably results in farce so I agree that the minimum should be done so as not to disadvantage teams who have designed cars with current tyres in mind.

    After making some initial comments about the poor tyre performance, I’ve been a silent dissenter, begrudgingly watching from a afar now as people seemed to be blind to the fault. I actually feel that Bridgstone actually got closer to getting it right in their final year but in they left because people worked out how to make the tyres last an entire race distance and got criticised for the other extreme. There is a happy medium somewhere in the middle. We do not have it now. It won’t be fully redressed this year but hopefully the mistakes from this season won’t be repeated next year!

  7. Anele (@anele-mbethe)
    18th May 2013, 20:45

    Weren’t the hard tyres used at the Spanish GP new? there wasnt any major reactions to that.

  8. Thanks for putting this into perspective Keith: this whole situation is so confusing. Pirelli is pretty much trapped in a corner: no one likes the tyres, but changing them causes even more outrage. This is definitely a scandal, and for some reason the FIA is being very quiet, which pretty much sums up Jean Todt’s reign so far.

  9. Well played by mateschnitz!
    If Alonso becomes champion everybody will shout Ferrari International Assistance again.

  10. I agree with Mateschitz in that ” F1 has nothing to do with racing anymore – this is a competition in tyre management”.
    If drivers can’t push to the maximum the whole race,it ain’t racing!!
    In my opinion,3 Stops and more should be the exception and not the rule,and 2 stops the norm.
    And when teams can’t fully “Go for it” during quali because they have to conserve their stock of tyres,something needs be done.
    What’s the point of Q3 if some drivers only turn one lap and others don’t even put a lap on the board??
    Do i think that changes need to be made to the tyre compounds?Yes i do.
    In past seasons we have seen rule changes that have advantaged some teams and disadvantaged others,so why not now?

  11. I do feel sorry for Pirelli though.

  12. More nonsense about these Pirreli rubbers,I am amazed at how much support there still is for the status quo. It seems that a large proportion of current ‘F1’ fans are content with this low speed no contact entertainment, when one of the slowest cars sets “fastest lap ” it is a sad fiasco.

    1. its like what jenson button said, people think there seeing a lot of overtaking & think there seeing some good racing when in reality there not.

      cars are not racing anymore & there is no overtaking, just a series of boring highway passes.

      its like nascar, you have them side by side all day on the plate tracks (daytona & talladega) & then they brag about how exciting it was that there was 80 lead changes. in reality 99% of the lead changes were not even relevant because when your running side by side, nose to tail who leads each lap is simply down to what line (inside or outside) has the best momentum coming to the line.

      its all about quantity, nobody cares about quality anymore, as long as the end figure is high then its deemed an exciting race & thats sad!
      as long as you get 71 changes of position the current ‘fans’ are happy even if none of those 71 changes of position are even remotely interesting to watch.

      1. +1

        The unspeakable has been spoken. The emperor has no clothes!

    2. Between Kimi and Nando there are a lot of fans who will support anything that keeps Ferarri and Lotus on the podium.

      1. Couldn’t agree more.

  13. Mr. Mateschitz is right. This is not F1, this is a joke. A bad one.

    1. only when his team loses.

      1. They were saying it in Malaysia, you know, that race they got a 1-2 in. As I’ve said elsewhere, the fact they are saying these things even though they are leading both championships actually adds credence to their comments.

  14. SlackBladder1
    19th May 2013, 2:41

    Ideally the offerings of rubber should come in two flavours ‘Short and Sweet’ that is Fast but short lived, and equally a slow but long wearing rubber, designed to level the playing field.

  15. I agree. I think the worst part of the situation is that some teams used their limited resources to make the most of the tyre and just because the big outside investors in F1 are not very pleased, FIA is going most likely to negate the work some teams putted especially for the tyres.

  16. Well, I´m glad the FIA finally put it´s foot down! Maybe this´ll teach that tycoon that he can´t always get what he wants no matter how “boring” the racing may be to him. If they designed such a good car, they can surely make changes to work with the current rubber as others did over the winter.

    1. But Red Bull is winning both Championships right now, and he is right that the racing is boring. I don’t see why people are so upset with Red Bull’s position on this. When it comes right down to it, the racing is boring, pure and simple, there is no debating that. In my opinion, Red Bull is on the side of the fans in this one, and we as fans should be supporting anyone who promotes real racing. I have been a Red Bull fan since their team was considered a joke, and so of course I want them to win, but I also want to see real racing, not this artificial racing that we have been given by Pirelli.

      1. @irejag

        But Red Bull is winning both Championships right now

        That wouldn´t be the case if Ferrari wouldn´t of had the DRS failure in Bahrain and if Alonso wouldn´t of have crashed out in China. Right now RBR has been lucky. Barcelona just made obvious that for once, Ferrari might have a better package than RBR and that is why Mateschitz is moaning and groaning, he knows that they are wrong footed and have been lucky just as Ferrari was lucky last year when ALO won malasya and got some podiums. Same deal.

    2. @karter22

      agreed. They had all this time since Brazil last year to make the car suit to the tyres.

      Newey isn’t a genious anymore if he can’t figure that out.

      I bet you anything, it is a simple tweak to their suspension/bar arms geometry and it can be as good as the rest.

      1. Which part of the suspension, front or rear? Please let us know and we can email Red Bull and tell them where they have been going wrong, I’m sure they’d be delighted to hear.

  17. “But Canada was a significant exception: most drivers make two pit stops and some had to make three. Pirelli were instructed to design their tyres recreate the unpredictability seen in that race.”

    The Key word in that sentence is ‘unpredictability’. That race in Montreal was fun to watch because it was unpredictable, but now because of the way they are going about it, it is no longer predictable, it is just plain expected and boring.

    If you want unpredictable racing then the Pirelli should supply a predesignated set of tires for practice and qualifying but the tires used during the race should be completely different compounds so that neither the teams nor the fans will know what to expect.

  18. @keithcollantine Nice article, very informative. Although, not many knowledgeable F1 fans on this site are worried about the amount of pit stops that occur in the race.

    Pirelli would have been smart IMO to change the tyres for a valid reason, e.g. “To avoid future incidents occurring of the likes that happened to Hamilton in Bahrain and a few others in Spain, we’re needing to modify the compounds to reduce the risk of similar failures.”

    Short and sweet, and apolitical. Now, they lead with “we kinda want to change the tyres, but we really don’t want to upset ppl and favour RBR for doing so, because they’ve been ranting and raving about it.”

    The way that Pirelli handled this wasn’t ideal, it isn’t the worst way of dealing with it, but it does throw them smack bang into the middle of political stouche amongst all the teams. The minute they mentioned acknowledged that a decision they made about their own tyres will have an impact with any other team, is the moment they fall foul of being political.

    1. @dragoll Thanks, glad you liked it.

      I think changing the tyres because the number of pit stops had risen to four was a valid reason because it supported by two years’ worth of precedent. You may not agree with it (and I don’t particularly like setting a target for the number of pit stops per race) but they were clearly being consistent with how they’d operated in 2011 and 2012 (and the first part of 2013).

  19. I hope bridgestone like hard tyres come back. that way atleast this war of tyre degradation will stop and everyone can race flat-out. there is KERS n DRS for those who miss overtaking anyways.

  20. Richard Purves
    19th May 2013, 11:16

    I’ll repeat this till i’m blue in the face but, I think Frank Dernie had a good solution to all of this.


    1. I’ve never found Dernie’s view – that aerodynamics are not impeding overtaking – particularly persuasive. Partly because it’s an aerodynamicist defending aerodynamics. Partly because we know aerodynamicists purposefully design the rear portions of F1 cars to produce excessive turbulence specifically to hinder a following car. And partly because it doesn’t really tally with my experience of watching F1 races. Variance in tyre strategy has helped produce some great races, from Nurburgring 1957 to Silverstone 1987 to today.

      But I’m prepared to believe there’s something in his diagnosis of the problem I haven’t grasped – I’m not an expect in F1 aerodynamics after all. What is it about his argument that you find persuasive?

      1. I think both are right but are talking about different aspects of racing/overtaking

        Theres no doubt that aero effects the handling of a car following, which makes it difficult to keep up or keep close with a car infront and thus make it difficult to make a pass even a possibility, but even if we ‘got rid of aero’, would we see cars trying to make passes on corners where theres a shed load of tyre debris flung to the outside? But then ‘getting rid of aero’ would massivly increase braking zones and make passes more of a possibility there? Which type of passing do we want? :]

      2. Richard Purves
        19th May 2013, 15:31

        The persuasive part (for me) is where he mentions that between ’82 and ’83 there was an 80% drop in aero generated downforce and it had precisely zero effect on overtaking and racing. That and the comments about driver mistakes being heightened due to manual transmission vs. semi-auto.

        Racing to me is all about the drivers. The more you abstract them from the car, the less the racing.

        I also don’t believe Mr. Dernie has much of an axe to grind anymore as his linkedin profile clearly states he’s retired.

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3

Leave a Reply

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

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.