Lotus unhappy over ‘very conservative’ tyre choices

F1 Fanatic round-up

Romain Grosjean, Lotus, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal, 2013In the round-up: Lotus have criticised Pirelli’s tyre compound nominations for the British and Hungarian grands prix as ‘very conservative’.

F1 Fanatic Live: Milwaukee IndyFest

F1 Fanatic Live will be running on Saturday evening for the ninth round of the IndyCar series on the historic Milwaukee Mile oval. Will we get our eighth different winner of the year?

Join us to find out as the race starts at 9pm UK time and is live on ESPN UK.

Links

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

Lotus criticise Pirelli over ??very conservative? tyre choices (BBC)

Alan Permane: “It’s unusual to take the same tyres to Hungary as to Bahrain and Silverstone. We didn’t have those tyres last year. We had medium and soft last year and people did two stops. So it absolutely doesn’t make sense – they’re too hard for that track.”

Whitmarsh reckons in-season testing won’t mean huge hike in costs (Autosport)

Martin Whitmarsh: “It is a balance and a compromise that has been struck, which I hope a majority of the teams support. We have to, nonetheless, continue to find ways we can save costs for the small teams, and be mindful of the challenges that they have as a business.”

Abiteboul: Caterham confident of closing on midfield (F1.com)

Cyril Abiteboul: “I?m not going to make any predictions about where we?ll be after either the next six races or at the end of the year, but we have new parts coming for nearly every race this year so we?re doing what we can to keep fighting and keep learning about ourselves.”

Nico Hulkenberg patient over winning Formula 1 car (Autosport)

Nico Hulkenberg: “If you see other people it’s very few guys who come in and right away are in a winning car. Sometimes that is what happens but of course as a driver you always wish and love to have a car which allows you to show what you can do and perform really well but you have to be patient.”

Williams to provide battery system to FIA Formula E Championship (JAonF1)

Sir Frank Williams: “Electric vehicles are becoming an increasingly important part of the automotive industry and Formula E is the perfect opportunity for Williams to validate the latest developments in battery technology.”

Could the internet transform F1? (Autocar)

“If one employs some fairly rudimentary mathematics, the potential is obvious ?ǣ and rather enticing. If a third of the current 300 million live viewers of F1 were to switch to direct internet TV viewing, it would generate ??10 billion in the course of a 20-race Formula 1 season. In other words, about 10 times the current revenues from TV companies??”

VIDEO: James Hunt: Remembering F1’s ‘swashbuckling playboy’ (BBC)

“The golden mopped Hunt shone like a lighthouse amid the grey, wearing waves of austerity, an intoxicating throwback to apparently more care-free and less complicated times.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

F1Fanatic reader @John-H noticed something suspicious about the single-seater Usain Bolt drove at yesterday’s Diamond League event

Hmmm, I?m not sure about that?? it looks like a Mercedes to me??. now hang on a minute this is getting ridiculous!
@John-H

From the forum

Is Sebastian Vettel already destined to win his fourth world title in 2013?

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Mateuss, Vikas and David A!

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

Michael Schumacher won the Canadian Grand Prix ten years ago today under pressure from Williams pair Ralf Schumacher and Juan Pablo Montoya, plus Fernando Alonso’s Renault.

Here’s the start of the race plus the lap two spin by Montoya which significantly handed second place to the elder Schumacher, allowing him to attack the other Williams belonging to his brother and take the victory:

Advert | Go Ad-free

116 comments on Lotus unhappy over ‘very conservative’ tyre choices

  1. Calum (@calum) said on 15th June 2013, 0:07

    I see the 2003 Canadian Grand Prix had the Schumacher brothers both on the podium, as did the 2001 race. I prefer 2001 because Ralf got the upper hand on his more successful sibling, securing some bragging rights in his corner – the first time the pair of them finished 1-2 and it was Ralf Schumacher who came first.

    • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 15th June 2013, 3:40

      @calum and I also remember he had 2 wins in a row (can’t remember the other race), then he just spoiled it in Hungary with a DNF and that kept him away from a real Schum’s brother’s battle from the title

      • Neel Jani (@neelv27) said on 15th June 2013, 7:57

        He won in Nurburgring and then the French GP as back to back wins. Then came Hockenheim and it all went downhill and never looked the same again.

        @calum: Also in 2004 in Canada, RSC followed MSC home. It really was a successful track for the siblings.

    • Loved that era! But sometimes looking back you wonder if F1 was professionnal at this time. The sport evolves every time.

  2. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th June 2013, 0:08

    Man up, princess!

    Everybody else will have to deal with those tyre choices. The winner will be the person who handles them best. Not the person who complains the loudest.

    • Mike Dee (@mike-dee) said on 15th June 2013, 9:59

      It was bound to happen. Pirelli wanted to tweak the tyres (just like in previous years). They were stopped from doing so; so instead they are using more conservative tyres than they would have otherwise.

      Maybe the unwillingness of Lotus/Ferrari/Force India to let Pirelli tweak the tyres backfired? Because the softer compounds of the tweaked tyres would have probably suited them better than the harder compunds of the older tyres.

    • electrolite (@electrolite) said on 15th June 2013, 11:13

      @Prisoner-monkeys Which is exactly the attitude Red Bull/anyone else complaining should have taken in the first place!

    • ^Mo^ said on 15th June 2013, 12:06

      It’s just how Formula 1 works. If things go well, you don’t hear them complaining, if things aren’t going well, they’ll start complaining about random things.

  3. obviously said on 15th June 2013, 0:08

    Obviously, Pirelli is handing the advantage to Red Bull. Just as some teams find tires too soft, others like Ferrari and Lotus are finding them too hard and can’t even work them in qualifying. Pirelli should just announce compounds a whole year in advance and let the teams get on with it. It’s the only way we can really say there is no influence on championship. Having such a hard tires in Hungary is nonsense.

    P.S.
    Why is the site telling me I’m posting too fast? I haven’t posted anything in days.

  4. Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th June 2013, 0:10

    Lotus, my message to you is that you should not be relying on the tyres handicapping others to hide your deficiencies! I see exactly why they’ve said that and understand fully they’ll be working behind close doors, but it’s not right that you can “luck” into points because you can work the tyres better IMO.

    • Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 15th June 2013, 0:38

      you should not be relying on the tyres handicapping others to hide your deficiencies!

      This should be applied to all the teams not just Lotus
      When you see Pirelli’s tyre choice for the next 3 races you will notice that the same compounds are brought for 2 different circuits like Silverstone & Hungaroring
      The choice of Hard/Medium for Silverstone is justified by the huge lateral forces that the tyres face when travelling the high speed corners but the technical theme in Hungaroring has been always the search for traction when coming out from the low speed corners which could be achieved by bringing the softer compound which are more “grippy” but this is not the case this year & that means if the conditions will not be extreme hot in Hungary the teams like Ferrari & Lotus will suffer to bring temperature in these tyres

    • dragoll (@dragoll) said on 15th June 2013, 1:22

      @vettel1 Although I’m not in complete agreeance with your statement that Lotus are trying to rely upon tyre handicaps. I do however feel as thought Lotus is missing something. In the same way that Mercedes, whom have the missing something in their car where they seem to have 1 lap pace but then destroy their tyres in the race and fall back. However, I haven’t quite worked out what it is that Lotus is lacking, they seem to have a fast car, with a talented driver pairing, I just can’t seem to work out why they can’t put it together for more race wins?

      • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th June 2013, 1:27

        @dragoll obviously they aren’t solely reliant on aggressive tyre allocations but I think it’s been a major contributor to their early success! What’s hurting them I think is the loss of James Allison: they no longer have that solidity in the technical department and I think they’ll be suffering from it, particularly with regards to aerodynamic performance.

        So basically, they can’t keep up with the development sprint!

        • Manished said on 15th June 2013, 3:40

          Its weird to bring two hardest compound to Hungary seriously.

          They claim that they had no intention to affect the championship, however their tyre selection has been in favor of rbr and merc. the two moanest team

    • You can’t deny that those tires are extremely conservative for Hungary. They don’t seem natural for the track and it’s rather hard not to start thinking it’s a counter reaction of the recent FIA ruling.

      I don’t understand your argument about “lucking” into points when that is exactly what will happen for Red Bull and Mercedes at Hungary. Just hand them full advantage of best aero yet again.

      Why is it not Red Bull who “lucked” into 3½ championships so far by having a the best aero designer in an age when everybody talked about reducing aero but did nothing – except for introducing a bit of tire wear?

      • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 15th June 2013, 4:50

        Why is it not Red Bull who “lucked” into 3½ championships so far by having a the best aero designer

        Dear God, will people ever stop whining about this? Aerodynamics is not some arcane mystery which only Adrian Newey understands. It’s a well understood area of physics in the year 2013.

        • So by showing how Max’s argument against Lotus could indeed be used both ways I am the one whining??

          Grotesque! Talk about reading out of context !!!

          • crr917 (@crr917) said on 15th June 2013, 10:02

            @poul yes, you are :)
            Air does not change every year. The TD of Air does not arrange secret tests with some teams to show them new models of air. Is this context enough?

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th June 2013, 11:06

            @poul that’s a void argument though because a team cannot develop the tyres!

            However, @everyone I do agree that the tyre choices for Hungary are unnecessarily conservative, however that said it’s just one race!

          • @Max Jacobson so you are claiming that tire handling is not part of F1 design? Everybody just designed the fastest car could and wooops…. Lotus got lucky with the tires! Would you even believe that yourself? :-)

            @crr917 that’s just funny because the entire point of the discussion is that variation in tires changes the relevance of aero! :-)

            No matter how keen you all are to protect your favs this just reeks of corruption which is very, very sad.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th June 2013, 13:02

            @poul, no, you obviously didn’t read my point correctly. I said you cannot develop the tyres, very much unlike aero, or power trains, or composites, or electronics…

            That said though, what you are suggesting there equally isn’t very valid. The tyres artificially have a great effect on the races, so no I wouldn’t say it was a part of F1 to this extent.

          • crr917 (@crr917) said on 15th June 2013, 14:37

            @poul It turns out tyres are not the same for everybody. It’s not any team’s fault that Pirelli made tyres that can not handle the levels of DF of an F1 car :)

          • @crr917 wrong, it is not any teams fault that Pirelli made tires that requires car design to be a balance and not just a constant aero battle. It is not Pirelli’s fault either because it is exactly what FIA asked for.

          • crr917 (@crr917) said on 15th June 2013, 17:07

            @poul FOM might have asked such thing but then the teams should have had the tyres before they started designing their cars. Else it is not balancing, it’s lottery.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th June 2013, 19:26

            Agreed with @crr917, Pirelli should be making tyres which can cope with the downforce levels a modern F1 car generates – it is fundamentally not right that the tyres literally tear apart because of the aerodynamic grip of the car.

            I said a similar thing yesterday: as the tyre supplier, they should be producing products which can cope with the stresses in much the same way the circuit designers in the 80’s should have been making track surfaces which wouldn’t crumble under the forces going through them from the ground effect cars. It emphatically is not the duty of the teams to make the cars less stressful on the tyres/track @poul! Sure, it is the duty of the teams to play around with set-ups and such like to maximise the potential of the tyres but that is all!

            Also agreed on the point that Pirelli should be providing proper information to the teams before the end of the previous season (by that I mean giving the teams finalised tyres to run in FP with all compounds) to prevent this “lottery” we have currently; attempts to increase the excitement of “the show” shouldn’t come at the expense of the sport’s integrity.

      • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 15th June 2013, 18:10

        I don’t understand your argument about “lucking” into points when that is exactly what will happen for Red Bull and Mercedes at Hungary.

        You don’t have the foggiest idea what will happen for Red Bull and Mercedes at Hungary. Nobody does. As with so many races this season the results will be heavily influenced by the weather on the day. If it’s cooler than normal then Lotus will suffer, if it’s hot they can hope for a podium.

    • matt90 (@matt90) said on 15th June 2013, 2:00

      It’s not right that you can “luck” into points because a conservative tyre choice flatters the fact that you can’t work the tyres so well IMO.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 15th June 2013, 2:03

      This is always going to be a problem with this degree of tyre sensitivity, it is impossible to design a car that gets the maximum performance out of all 4 compounds, typically Lotus will take longer to bring tyres up to temperature so will be handicapped in qualifying but will get longer life out of the tyres during the race so for them the softer compounds give them an advantage, at the other end of the spectrum Mercedes get the tyres up to temperature quicker so have an advantage in qualifying but will get shorter life out of the tyres, for them the harder tyres will be less of a disadvantage, most other teams will fall between these two extremes. So not only can you not please all the people all of the time, sometimes you cant please any of the people.

    • elmaestro (@gamer7) said on 15th June 2013, 3:19

      i absolutely agree with you, and I think they should shut up and find more speed from the car

    • Manished said on 15th June 2013, 5:42

      just like how rbr and merc luck into point with dominant downforce. ROFL

    • electrolite (@electrolite) said on 15th June 2013, 11:18

      @vettel1 It was the minority who didn’t have a handle on the tyres in the first place. I think you’ll find the ones who are now going to suffer are the ones who got it right in the first place – it is hardly the former who were ‘handicapped’.

      Besides, the likes of Red Bull (who I assume you’re defending) were going to get a handle on the tyres sooner or later (Infact I think they already have!) but they complained so loudly in the first place that now, the likes of Kimi and Lotus with the lower budgets are going to struggle mounting any challenge. That’s my guess anyway.

      • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th June 2013, 11:25

        @electrolite I’m defending no-one, purely challenging Lotus’ viewpoint. Though I do agree that the tyres are very hard for Hungary, that’s one race in a 19 race season. They haven’t exactly been hard done by have Lotus! What I’m saying though is that they shouldn’t be so heavily reliant on big points because of the wear levels of the tyres – that shouldn’t even exist as a potential avenue to exploit IMO because you can’t actually develop the tyres.

        By “minority” though I think you are being far too polarised: it isn’t just Red Bull and Mercedes whom have been struggling with these tyres, they’ve just been the most vocal about it. Actually, I’d say it’s been only Force India, Lotus and Ferrari that haven’t been struggling with them!

        • @Max Jacobson it doesn’t have anything to do with exploiting the avenue of wear levels. It has to do with Pirelli changing the conditions DURING the season which is very suspicious while it clearly favors some teams.

          I don’t like the tires but certainly much more dislike that Pirelli (or whoever it reallyis?) is changing the course of the championship.

          The whole progression of events from Merc and Red Bulls complaints to Bernie stepping in, to Pirelli suddenly wishing to change, to FIA ruling against it, to these very obviously “not originally intended” tire selections…. all just smell so terribly bad that 2013 is starting to like another farce.

          Just one race? First of all it may well be the trend throughout the season and secondly; one race that can potentially flip the outcome of the championship.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th June 2013, 14:24

            @poul forgive me if I’m mistaken, but haven’t Pirelli just confirmed the tyre allocations? If so, they haven’t “changed” anything!

          • @Max Jacobson ok, I forgive you so forgive me too for asking: What is the difference between changing the compounds for the harder and using unnatural hard compounds for individual tracks?

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th June 2013, 15:30

            @poul well the chances are a changed copound would heat up quicker yet still provide greater durability. There’s also on the flip side though the fact all the teams know to a certain extent these current compounds , so there’s a few key differences. The intention is the same however I agree.

          • chiliz00 (@chiliz00) said on 17th June 2013, 6:06

            @Poul +1

    • paulista said on 15th June 2013, 11:53

      @vettel1
      If it was Red Bull Racing instead of Lotus or Ferrari who got it right with the tyres from race 1, would you still say they “lucked” into it?
      (don’t bother to answer, just a rethoric question)

      • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th June 2013, 12:02

        (don’t bother to answer, just a rethoric question)

        I interpret that as you being happy to start an argument but not continue it when you are challenged. I hate that.

        So I’ll return with simply why has anyone turned this into an argument about Red Bull? My point had absolutely nothing to do with Red Bull and I did not mention the words “Red Bull”. Please.

        • paulista said on 15th June 2013, 16:32

          OK, I’ll rephrase slightly my question whitout mentioning RBR (not that I am being challenged at all).

          In what kind of lottery or random allocation of events were Lotus (+Ferrari, FI) fortunate with the tyres? I take it that it was only a matter of blind luck, nothing to do with skill or dedication.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th June 2013, 16:48

            Exactly, which is fundamentally wrong if you ask me.

            @copersucar name another season with a sole tyre supplier where the effect has been this great (discounting 2011/12 for obvious reasons)? That’s my point – couple that with a lack of proper testing on the tyres and you cannot really justify saying that Lotus aren’t simply gaining from having “lucked into” a good car for these tyres.

          • paulista said on 16th June 2013, 8:50

            Which is about as credible as: Sebastian Vettel simply lucked into all his victories, nothing to do with any driving skill of his.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 16th June 2013, 15:51

            No – Canada proved that when degradation is minimal, Lotus are nowhere. That to me says exactly that Lotus don’t have an inherently fast car and are too heavily reliant on it being kind on the tyres. So yes, in a sense they have “lucked” into point by having a car that works with these tyres, considering all teams are basically taking a stab in the dark!

          • Agreed – assuming that you KNOW for fact that Lotus didn’t make any decisions about optimizing tire wear rather than aero or even move a bit of recourses from aero to tire balance.

            Do you?

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 16th June 2013, 17:41

            @poul no I don’t sadly, however it can be assumed they took that route due to their inferior budget.

          • @Max Jacobson ….so it essentially means that you cannot claim Lotus lucked into anything.

            All teams have dealt with degrading tires for a couple a seasons, all teams had the data for this season and all teams knew the degradation would be even higher than last season.

            At the end of the day the fact remains that the degrading tires were intentionally thrown into the puzzle in order to decrease the emphasis on aero and take away just a bit of the advantage of the teams with the biggest budgets and best wind tunnels.

            And here we are! The big guys didn’t like the challenge and complained until Bernie stepped in to change the game. Sure, FIA ruled against the sudden changes but selecting harder tires than originally intended for the individual tracks is essentially the same:
            The advantage is artificially shifted during the season and the integrity of the sport is even further decreased. Painfully sad!

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 16th June 2013, 20:17

            @poul I don’t think anyone foresaw downforce hurting the tyres. That is highly unusual, as in pretty much every case downforce prevents slip which helps the tyres! Also, in terms of their own data the teams only had one set of development hard tyres to go on for developing the cars over the winter which I’d say isn’t enough to go on! That coupled with the lack of testing and I’d say you can’t really proclaim anybody knowingly designed a good car for the tyres.

          • @ Max Jacobson

            …in pretty much every case downforce prevents slip which helps the tyres!

            Modern day F1 is not based on power-sliding so the more down force you provide; the faster you can corner without losing grip. The faster you take a specific corner; the more heat you heat up the tires. Heating the tires is fine – until you get them beyond the temperature window of operation; then they degrade.

            This was all very easy to foresee on top of the facts than everyone knew it from last year, everyone had the data to compare with the data from last year, and everyone had run the tires before the season started.

      • Copersucar (@copersucar) said on 15th June 2013, 16:37

        Well of course, what RBR does right is due to their uncanny awesomeness. If the rest of the teams happen to do something right, they just lucked into it.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 17th June 2013, 9:33

      That is much the same as saying Brawn should not have relied on a diffusor interpretation not everyone had @vettel1. Or saying Red Bull was wrong to assume that focusing on outright downforce would be good, or that them having their car optimized for maximum use of exhaust blowing.

      While it is true that it does not mean any of them have a “right” to the advantage they gained by using the information available and making the right choices when they started their car last year, there is no reason why they are not allowed to speak up when they feel that Pirelli is being too conservative. I am sure most of us remember how Pirelli suddenly went more conservative on the tyres last year, and its only understandable that Lotus try to keep them from doing the same this year.
      On the other hand there are other teams saying the opposite, welcoming a tad more conservative tyre choices. Everyone is trying to influence what happens with the tyres for their best interests.

      • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 17th June 2013, 15:54

        @bascb the only part I really agree with is the last sentence, otherwise I don’t agree. As I said, you cannot develop the tyres, so relying on that as an alleyway for a long-term performance advantage is never going to be fruitful. That is my point: with Brawn’s diffuser, that is an area for development. With Red Bull’s downforce, that is an area for development. The tyres are standard for the whole season and provided by a third party – so in a sense, they’ve taken short-term gain for long-term loss. That is what I mean by “lucking into”!

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 18th June 2013, 6:48

          What you say there does not make any sense at all @vettel1. The car is built for this year and to optimize the car for one of the things that will be stable during the season can be a viable strategy. Lets not forget that Lotus already was good in the same area the year before, so your “its not long term” is plain wrong.
          And the things like the DDD and the exhaust blowing were always going to be short lived. Just remember the F-duct. It was banned for the next year by mid season, but teams still invested in getting it right, and that certainly helped the then Renault team fight for positions.

          And to be honest, by saying that the tyres are fixed for a season, and then lament when Lotus complain about a possible change to the tyres (and to the approach to what compounds to supply) makes it go very close to hypocrisy as well.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 18th June 2013, 8:20

            @bascb changing the allocations is not changing the tyres. The compunction stay exactly the same. Besides, we’re they actually changing them at all because I’m pretty sure they confirmed the tyre allocation initially as being medium and hard?

            What I’m saying is, you’ve got a car that’s kind on its tyres. Therefore, you can rack up some points whilst those who have focused on aerodynamics are trying to get them t work with their potentially faster car. This now happens, and Lotus with their then inferior aerodynamics can’t keep up because they focused on tyre performance from the outset. As of course you cannot develop the tyres, they can’t get any more performance out of them.

            This is what I’m saying: instead of relying on traditional development, they’ve focused on suspension geometries etc. to get the tyres to work. When everybody else figures that out though (which comes naturally with more test miles) they’ll be left with an aerodynamically inferior machine as they have done in the past and lose out.

  5. beneboy (@beneboy) said on 15th June 2013, 0:53

    Christian Horner is to receive an OBE for services to motorsport in this years Queen’s Birthday Honours list:
    http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/news/12475/8776799/Christian-Horner-receives-OBE-in-Queen-s-Birthday-Honours

    • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 15th June 2013, 13:38

      funny how fernandes got a cbe for having a consistantly 10th placed team and reviving the lotus name for 1 year before selling it on to the very company that had been trying to steal it for the past decade. Where as horner gets an obe for 3 consecutive wdc’s n wcc’s. Not that i think either of them deserves a title but it seems a bit silly.

  6. JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 15th June 2013, 0:58

    Nothing about brazil? Police shooting tear gas and rubber bullets at civilians and journalists in a city that is soon to host a grandprix. Here’s some news

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_SnKe6TND58

    • The race is not very close so there is not much relevance and police violence is certainly not news in Brazil.

      However, the full picture is much more complex and I don’t think the political debate belongs in F1F at all. Currently the government is doing “clean-ups” ahead of the World Cup and the Olympics and though they are sometimes pure assassinations you have to consider what they are up against: The drug running gangs completely control some favelas and they are extremely well armed. Sometimes they go on cruise missions around town and simply take out the cops they can’t buy. Now the police have started doing something similar and though they are targeting true gangsters nothing is 100%.

      In some areas in Rio and São Paulo the danger (and hence replacement-level) of being a cop makes the academy a single week affair. “Here is your batch. Now go fight the gangs with zero seconds thoughts, wayyyyy better weapons and organization than you, located in the equivalent of battle forts and earning a thousand times your salary.”

      It is a losing battle and corruption is inevitable but I am not surprised about the “unconventional” methods or that they cause controversy. What would you really do?

      • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 15th June 2013, 15:52

        Just because the race isn’t for a few months doesn’t matter bahrain has been ongoing for 3 years? If these people being shot at by rubber bullets and tear gas are so well armed why are they running away screaming? If you had watched the video insted of assuming you know everything you would have seen the police shooting a whole group of reporters who according to you are also drug dealers lol? and continue shooting them whilst they also run away. So come november when the bbc sky autosport and various international journalists are weighing up if they want to step into another war zone where journalists are specificly targeted. I can promise you this and who will come 2nd behind seb in the championship will be almost the only f1 news around.

        These people are completely normal citizens who were protesting peacefully over a raise in bus fare prices whilst their government spends a hundred billion dollars on the world cup olympics and into their own back pockets through corruption. At the same time they have some of the biggest slums in the world and one of the largest numbers of homeless and uneducated children of any country.

        They are not drug runners and frankly what you have just said calling them all criminals is insulting to those who are having their freedom taken away right now.

        • I should have known better than getting into this one: Look, I am not defending those current actions at all and in no way did I ever refer to the protesters as criminals. I am only trying to reason why it has come to this in the first place and why it ends up affecting a lot of innocent people.

  7. Manter MBS (@sridharbhanu) said on 15th June 2013, 0:58

    Hulkenberg must be privately kicking himself why he had shifted from Force India to Sauber. It fetched him nothing except becoming a regular backmarker.

    • dragoll (@dragoll) said on 15th June 2013, 2:41

      @sridharbhanu You say that, however, Sauber and FI are having very similar seasons this year, with FI struggling early on, and now Sauber are struggling at this moment. However, the good think for the HULK is that he’s consistently ahead of his team mate. For HULK to make an impact he really needs to be in an RBR, Ferrari, Mercedes or a Lotus.

      • ssreeni said on 15th June 2013, 4:58

        hi dragoll, not only HULK, any of the other drivers will make an impact when they are driving the said four cars. DIR, BOT, MAL, SUT, VER, RIC, and others too.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th June 2013, 4:27

      At the end of last year, Sauber was considerably more competitive than Force India. The move certainly made sense at the time; how was Hulkenberg supposed to know that the C32 would be a dud? Plus, Sauber is a customer Ferrari team, and so moving there would pave the way to a potential Ferrari drive should it become available.

      • George (@george) said on 15th June 2013, 13:49

        Yeah I think what you hinted at at the end there was probably in his thinking process. A Ferrari seat is more likely to appear before a Mercedes seat, so he joined the Ferrari waiting room team.

  8. sato113 (@sato113) said on 15th June 2013, 1:03

    mercedes heat their tyres up very fast and they have good downforce. does this mean they have a great chance of winning the next 2 races? their heavy tyre wear wont be as much of an issue with harder compounds.

    typicaly pirelli going more conservative half way through the season… saying they dont want to affect the championship no doubt…

    • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 15th June 2013, 5:03

      Pirelli are bringing the same tyres to Silverstone this year as last year, given that this years hard is last years medium and this years medium is last years soft.

      In any case Merc’s problem seems to be not with the compound but with the tyre construction. Using harder compounds is not likely to help them much.

  9. OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 15th June 2013, 2:27

    I wouldn’t like to see my F1 turned into a pay-per-view show; I pay cable TV but it’s not only for F1 purposes. These people who make the calculations are probably wrong if they think every fan will pay (or have the capacity to afford) an internet stream. Sounds nice and it looks in harmony with modern times, but not everybody will pay for it, as not everybody can pay Sky TV down there in the UK. Anyway, they might have found a more profitable way to broadcast F1, because even if the third of current viewers get the F1 stream, they will make more money from it than what they are making now

    • Diego (@ironcito) said on 15th June 2013, 7:30

      If it’s a choice, it’d be great. Right now, I watch the races on regular satellite TV, which has commercial breaks (I find this outragous), spoken ads from the annoying commentators, and a single view. If I could opt-in to a pay-per-view stream with no commercial breaks, please-oh-please the chance to mute the commentators, the ability to select which camera I want to see (on-board or otherwise), watch my own replays, listen to any and all team radios, and things like that, it would be awesome. But they should keep the current broadcast available too.

    • nackavich (@nackavich) said on 15th June 2013, 8:54

      @omarr-pepper A choice would be fantastic. Countless times has my TV signal dropped out and I’ve been unable to watch or record the race (free-to-air here in Australia) and an online option would’ve been perfect. Even if it was a small fee – $5 or $10, with the option of streaming it anytime in say a 24 or 48 hour period. I know that it will annoy some satellite or terrestrial broadcasters but the fans are CRYING for better coverage with more flexibility and choice.
      It’s as if F1 is shrouded in secrecy to all but a small handful. I mean come on, it’s the 21st Century,
      they need to stop being tired old communicative dinosaurs and give the people what they want!!!

  10. OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 15th June 2013, 2:30

    I wouldn’t like to see my favorite sport turned into a pay-per-view show. I pay cable television but it’s not only for F1 purposes. These people who make the calculations are probably wrong if they think every fan will pay (or have the capacity to afford) a web pack. Sounds nice and it looks in harmony with modern times, but not everybody will pay for it, as not everybody can pay for the whole season on TV down there in the UK. Anyway, they might have found a more profitable way to broadcast it, because even if the third of current viewers get the F1 stream, they will make more money from it than what they are making now.

    • verstappen (@verstappen) said on 15th June 2013, 7:22

      I think they won’t get so much viewers for FIVE pound per race. I think paying is paying and people just watch some jabbering teen on YouTube and no F1 at all.
      To get new fans, it should be free, they seem to miss that.

  11. mantresx (@mantresx) said on 15th June 2013, 2:55

    Am I the only one who thinks F1 streaming managed by FOM is a bad idea?
    If I understand correctly F1 would have the exclusive rights to stream anywhere in the world, which means I’d have to pay extra for a service I already have thanks to my broadcaster.
    Not to mention that it would probably only have english commentators so right there half of the world wouldn’t use it.
    Some say it’s cheaper than paying cable but the only way it makes sense is if all you ever watch on tv is F1, but watching it on the internet is a big drop in quality anyway.

    I think a standard online streaming for F1 is a good idea but only if they let the broadcasters keep their own, that way the customer has the same experience no matter where he’s watching.

    • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 15th June 2013, 3:42

      Am I the only one who thinks F1 streaming managed by FOM is a bad idea?

      Just read above pal :P

      • mantresx (@mantresx) said on 15th June 2013, 5:45

        @omarr-pepper Yes hehe, your comment wasn’t there when I posted mine, but you make a good point in that F1 is heading the pay-per-view route, as if it wasn’t enough having to pay for high speed internet, cable TV and their apps to fully enjoy F1.
        Well at least where I live it is still free (not live though), but I don’t expect it to continue like that for long.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 15th June 2013, 4:18

      Bernie tried a similar thing in the 90’s with the F1 satellite channel, lots of good features for the time but Bernie being as greedy as he is and as far removed from the average persons spending budget it was hugely expensive and very few people subscribed.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th June 2013, 4:42

        @hohum – Was is greed that led to the high price, or was the high price necessary to cover the costs of establishing the channel? I know you like to think of Bernie as being Scrooge McDuck, swimming around in a vault full of gold coins, but satellite television is very expensive to broadcast even before you take into account other expenses, like the salaries of presenters and commentators and camera operators, of renting studio space and getting decent production values, of the costs of upgrades to broadcasting capabilities to actually reach the very expensive satellite you intend to use, of purchasing dedicated channel space with the satellite providers you want to have broadcast your race. And then you have to factor in the way Bernie wanted to add dozens of new features to the channel, and you’re looking at a very expensive start-up operation. One of the only ways you can recoup that cost is by charging subscribers, because if you cannot break even – much less make a profit – your brand new channel is going to have a life expectancy of just weeks.

      • Spinmastermic (@spinmastermic) said on 15th June 2013, 5:42

        And Bernie learned the number 1 rule in the entertainment business, Don’t invest your own money.

    • BS (@bs) said on 15th June 2013, 11:27

      @mantresx First of, provided you have a broadband internet connection, there is absolutely no reason for a drop in quality. You could be streaming the same 1080p feed your digital tv box receives. The winter Olympics did this a few years ago, it worked great.

      As for language options, video streaming makes it incredibly easy to pick your own commentary track, or turn it off altogether. FOM could even license commentary from other broadcasters to make sure you have choice. If they focus on only broadcasting the race, no preshow and analysis, just the race with optional commentary, this could be a great and affordable service.

      5 per race seems steep for what is essentially high speed advertising though, especially if they expect their margin per viewer to go up 30-fold, which is rather greedy. :)

      • mantresx (@mantresx) said on 15th June 2013, 16:21

        @bs

        Provided you have a broadband internet connection, there is absolutely no reason for a drop in quality.

        Actually, that’s true for most type of programming, but in fast moving F1 the 30 fps limit of current players makes it look inferior compared to TV even if they’re both 1080p.

        Like I said, I just hope they let the TV companies keep their own streams but maybe if you want HD, onboard cameras, team radio etc, then you can pay for F1’s premium service that would really be a step forward.

      • fangio85 (@fangio85) said on 16th June 2013, 12:22

        …and what if you don’t have access to broadband internet? Too bad?…

  12. Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 15th June 2013, 3:11

    I’m glad Pirelli are bringing the harder two compounds to Silverstone and Hungary.
    If it means the drivers get to push hard all race, then bring the hard compounds to EVERY race.

    We should be seeing 1 & 2 stop races. Not 3,4, & 5 stops.

    I can see Pirelli’s reasoning for bringing the medium and hard to Hungary because it, like Silverstone has serveral high speed corners that tough on the tyres. Pretty much the entire second sector is constant loading on the tyres.

    • wsrgo (@wsrgo) said on 15th June 2013, 3:31

      I’m not a fan of races where 1 stop is a possibility. I prefer 2 to 3 stop races. And Hungary has even loading like Korea, yet we get supersofts for Korea, but hards for Hungary. Hungary doesn’t have many high speed corners.

      • Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 15th June 2013, 3:54

        3 stops is the upper limit, after that it just gets too much.

        Most of hungary’s corners are medium speed. But it’s their length and angle that put loading on the tyres.

        Korea really only has 3 or 4 med-high speed corners. Super-Softs are warranted there. But, with this years tyre range, i wouldn’t be surprised if they chose the soft and medium.

        • wsrgo (@wsrgo) said on 15th June 2013, 4:23

          Agree mate. But 1 stop races should be a no-no as well. They’re just too boring, even the races we had back in the refueling era were way better than the vast majority of 1 stop races we’ve had since 2010. Also, 1 stop races hand too big an advantage to the polesitter….

          • Dizzy said on 15th June 2013, 14:09

            But 1 stop races should be a no-no as well. They’re just too boring,

            I thought the 1-stop races towards the end of 2012 were the best races of that year.

            I still think teams should have the option to do anything from no-stops to 1/2/3-stops, Thats how F1 worked for years & nobody complained & it gave teams/drivers full freedom on strategy which led to true unpredictability.

          • wsrgo (@wsrgo) said on 17th June 2013, 18:00

            Dizzy So last year’s Indian Grand Prix was a classic?

        • Since when did three stops become the upper limit?

          Oh…. I see…. when Horner said so. (Because before that it never was!)

          • Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 15th June 2013, 6:38

            3 stops in my opinion are the upper limit.

            Just makes the race a bit more confusing.

            2 stops are perfect.

    • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th June 2013, 15:36

      I don’t buy the confusion argument as I think it’s insulting to everyone to tell them what they can and can’t understand (I can follow 4-stop races just as capably as 2-stops) but I just don’t like watching them particularly, as in most cases it comes hand-in-hand with tedious tyre conservation. So I agree, 3 stops is the maximum with 1-2 being the ideal IMO.

      • Dizzy said on 15th June 2013, 16:13

        I think the ‘confusion’ argument tends to be aimed more at the fans at the track as they have a lot less information available than the TV viewer (Even when the FanVision thing was available).

        Watching on TV you have the commentators, Pit reporters, Paddock reporters & they all help get the various strategies across & keep the viewers informed of who’s doing what & what each team/drivers tyres are doing.
        When your in the stands you don’t have a lot of this data.

        I also think TV commercials play a role.
        I was in the US during the 2011 Turkish Gp which featured a lot of pit stops & with the commercials on speed channel it was very hard to follow what was going on as during an ad-break you miss a few pit stops & then don’t know how certain drivers have gained/lost positions (Commentators don’t always inform you of missed stops).

        In the UK on both Sky & BBC were lucky to have no ad-breaks during the races & having a constant flow to the broadcast & not missing anything thats broadcast helps keep us informed.

    • fangio85 (@fangio85) said on 16th June 2013, 12:38

      When did we have a 5 stop race?… I’ll tell you something for nothing. Regardless of the compound choice, teams will try to conserve tyres. The only exception is if the tyres hold up well enough to push flat out on a one stop strategy. If one team is planning 3 stops, another will conserve more to get to the end on 2. It’s the same when one team pushes all race on a 2 stopper, there will be some trying to do a 1 stopper, by conserving instead of pushing. The team work out a delta time that will enable the tyres to last without giving up more than an extra pit stop worth of time over the race distance. It will happen no matter what compounds are chosen.

  13. tigen (@tigen) said on 15th June 2013, 4:28

    Alan Permane made his bed and now he has to lie in it. They vetoed Pirelli’s request to fix the delamination issues. So Pirelli resorts to conservative choices and Lotus may suffer even more.

  14. HoHum (@hohum) said on 15th June 2013, 4:35

    No wonder Bernie wants testing and wants it in formal, all team, sessions, he (FOM) owns the rights so if the teams can work out a way to defray their costs Bernie can take his cut.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th June 2013, 5:00

      Except that testing wouldn’t be broadcast. It never has been, and as far as I’m aware, there are no plans to brodcast any in-season testing next year. So how does Bernie “take his cut” from something that earns no revenue?

      When Whitmarsh is talking about minimising costs, he’s talking about the way teams will need to pay for extra engines and gearboxes, rent the circuit, pay for accomodation and so on and so forth.

      • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 15th June 2013, 9:19

        Sky covered portions of the last Barcelona test live

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th June 2013, 14:56

          That doesn’t prove hohum’s point by any means. @hohum likes to portray Bernie Ecclestone as an evil vampire who feeds on money rather than blood, and whose fondest desire is to suck Formula 1 dry. He knows perfectly well that Bernie does not get any money from the teams holding testing events, so to claim that this is precisely what he is trying to do borders on slander.

          Perhaps hohum might like to consider the idea that his words might have consequences for other people. If what he says may be considered slanderous, then as the host of F1 Fanatic, Keith may be held liable. I don’t think anyone wants to see the blog taken offline because one person knowingly and intentionally claimed that a lie was, in fact, the truth for the sake of an unreasonable vendetta. If Bernie really was a money-vampire, then why hasn’t he sucked the sport dry yet? He’s had every opportunity to, and has ignored each and every single one.

          Take my word for it – there are people watching this website. It’s one of the largest and most popular fan sites on Formula 1, and it has an excellent reputation. No doubt FOM are aware of its existence, if not following along. I know I’d hate for the site to get referred to their expensive lawyers because of one person’s comments …

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 16th June 2013, 0:34

            @prisoner-monkeys, thank you for kindly pointing out how well I have been able to get my pov across , but as Oscar Wylde found out ” it ain’t slander if it’s true”, none of my comments about Bernie are untrue, they are my opinion of the truth, it may not be flattering but it is not untrue, unlike your totally unfounded assertions that Bernie “borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from CVC to spend on promoting F1 and opening up more venues”
            If Keith is concerned that my comments may negatively affect his access to F1, he can ask me not to express my point of view and I will respect his wishes but a one sided discussion is unlikely to attract and retain many readers.
            Regarding my above comment, whether it was the actual cost of broadcasting (the actual product was the same product TV broadcasters received) or an excessive profit margin, Bernie was demonstrably “out of touch” because the project failed due to a lack of viewers prepared to pay what was asked.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 16th June 2013, 1:54

            @hohum

            none of my comments about Bernie are untrue

            Except for the fact that they hinge on Bernie trying to suck the sport dry at every opportunity. If that was the case, why is Formula 1 stronger than ever? Shouldn’t it be a bloodless and bankrupt corpse by now? And if it isn’t, why do you think that might be? Bernie is so enmeshed into the commercial side of the sport that it couldn’t possibly succeed despite his presence.

            as Oscar Wylde found out ” it ain’t slander if it’s true”

            He also said that consistency is the last refuge of people with no imagination. You are clearly picking your facts (and I use the term loosely) to fit a theory that you have already decided to be true. The rest of us consider the facts and develop a theory from there.

            If Keith is concerned that my comments may negatively affect his access to F1, he can ask me not to express my point of view and I will respect his wishes but a one sided discussion is unlikely to attract and retain many readers.

            “My behaviour is not a problem until someone else has to deal with its consequences, and then it’s their responsibility to do something about it” is an attitude that many of my students have. It rarely ends well for them.

  15. Jason (@jason12) said on 15th June 2013, 7:55

    Lotus has gotta be smoking something.
    “Let’s use unsafe tyres, as long our car seems to benefit from it”……

    • Manished said on 15th June 2013, 8:00

      The only one constantly moaning about tyre being unsafe is vettel and horner.

      Pirelli has said many time the tyre this year is much safer than last year. The tire remain inflated after cutting damage allow driver to go back into pits.

      Pirelli is making changes to the tire to make it looks better during delamination. They have said many times that safety is never the concern.

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.