Ferrari and Lotus “got lucky” with 2013 tyres – Newey

2013 F1 season

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcdisiL4XDs

Ferrari and Lotus were lucky the Pirelli tyres introduced during the winter helped them become competitive, according to Red Bull’s chief technical officer Adrian Newey.

Speaking on the Sport und Talk programme on Red Bull’s television channel Servus TV yesterday, Newey disputed the claim the two teams had developed their cars to suit the original 2013 Pirelli tyres better.

“We had a big change over the winter, an unexpected change,” said Newey. “Pirelli introduced a new tyre which was much more sensitive, it was very easy to overload it and because our car, a lot of its lap time is under braking and in the high speed corners, where you’re putting a lot of load into the tyres, we couldn’t really exploit that without the tyres going off very quickly.”

Adrian Newey, Red Bull, 2013“So that tyre change hurt us and helped some other people, such as Lotus, Ferrari perhaps. For me that was purely luck.

“I think Lotus and Ferrari are making making big noises about how clever they were over the winter to read that far. But to be perfectly honest they were just plain lucky, we were a little bit unlucky, and of course the the politics take over. So it’s been a challenging year but a very rewarding one.”

Lotus and Ferrari won three of the first five races but haven’t taken any victories since. Pirelli revised its tyres following the British Grand Prix in which several drivers suffered high-speed tyre failures.

Red Bull felt “fragile” at mid-season

Newey said in addition to pressure from Ferrari, Red Bull were also worried about Mercedes’ form in the middle of the season.

“It’s been a difficult season at times for us,” he said. “We started off, strong result in Malaysia, one-two in the second race. And then kind of our competitiveness went up and down a little bit.”

“It was a very close fight, Ferrari were very strong early in the season, Mercedes came on strong sort of around Monaco time. So come that middle of the season point we were not… we were in the lead of the championship, but it felt fragile, it felt as if Mercedes particularly at that point were on a roll.”

Newey admitted their focus on developing a car for next year’s rules change may have been compromised by their focus on securing the 2013 titles:

“We kept pushing, we introduced quite a few changes to the car, updates some in Hungary just before the summer break, then more in Spa. And that seemed to give us momentum.

“I guess really we’ve kept pushing all the way to Singapore in terms of introducing new parts, even Japan, which you could look back on now and say perhaps we pushed harder than we needed to because in doing that of course it’s taken resource off next year’s car.

“It didn’t feel that way at the time, it felt as if we needed to keep pushing and it’s been tremendous to have this roll that we’ve had at the end of the season.”

2013 F1 season


Browse all 2013 F1 season articles

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty

Advert | Go Ad-free

176 comments on Ferrari and Lotus “got lucky” with 2013 tyres – Newey

1 2 3
  1. Hindsight is wonderful thing, why didn’t he say that mid-season?

    • Hotbottoms (@hotbottoms) said on 5th November 2013, 16:50

      @wombat1m
      Because he would’ve sounded like a sour whiner. Now RBR has secured both championships and they’ve won the last seven races, so it’s easier to believe he’s being honest and saying what he actually thinks about the start of the season.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 5th November 2013, 21:15

      He is not the only one to suggest that luck is a bigger factor than skill in getting results with these comedy tyres, many of us commenting on these pages have been making that point since last year.

      • many of us commenting on these pages have been making that point

        wow, congrats on being as much of a snide, boorish whiner as Adrian Newey… Next you’ll be designing GP-winning cars!

        • Mike (@mike) said on 6th November 2013, 3:05

          @hohum

          No. What he said was there was a big change that was unexpected that benefited Ferrari and Lotus. He did not say that luck is why they did well.

          You are completely misrepresenting what he said

          @joepa

          I think accuses Newey of being a whiner is plainly wrong. If something happens and it doesn’t favor you, given that it’s a competition, I think it is normal to comment on that. All the teams do so.

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 6th November 2013, 3:34

            @mike, there was a big change at the beginning of 2012 and the beginning of 2013 and the middle of 2013, none of the teams had sufficient data or experience with those tyres to predict with any certainty the ideal design for their cars using those tyres, some of the most successful teams got it wrong, some of the least successful got it right ,sometimes, I call that luck or chance if you prefer

          • Mike (@mike) said on 6th November 2013, 4:48

            @hohum

            But it’s not by chance. Lotus and Ferrari designed and built those cars. Everyone knew there would be new tyres. No one knew what they would actually be like. It is “lucky” for the teams that they suited their cars. But that’s very different from saying that chance was the cause of it.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 6th November 2013, 3:42

          @joepa, Obviously I’ll leave designing F1 cars to you as your knowledge is so great that you can confidently disagree with Adrian Newey.

    • So obviously Red Bull was “Lucky” they changed the tires after Silverstone then.

      • Dwight_js said on 6th November 2013, 17:51

        Yes, they were lucky that the tires were changed mid-season. More durable tires are better suited to their cars. I don’t think anyone at Redbull would dispute that.

  2. Erik Kennedy (@erikkennedy) said on 5th November 2013, 16:39

    Poor Red Bull. So unlucky.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 5th November 2013, 16:52

      I think key is

      we were a little bit unlucky, and of course the the politics take over.

      Note the second part.

      IMO at least FI were clearly working according to a planned thing they used the tyre switching, camber angles and preassures from very early on, I wouldn’t bet against them having relied on that up front. I would say that for Lotus its likely they as well made a gamble that did pay off initially. Ferrari – hard to tell, because they were never superb on the tyres, just not bad, so maybe luck was part of it. Before politics took over, as Newey says it.

      • dennis (@dennis) said on 5th November 2013, 17:02

        I think I have posted that on here a few weeks ago when Force India claimed they built their car specifically for these tyres… Back then (and still now) I think that’s quite ridicolous. Over the last years they were struggling to gain downforce… When Newey talks about putting load on the tyres, that partly comes from a consistent and solid amount of just that.
        It’s of course not quite that simple, but teams with aerodynamically weak cars got an advantage with the early Pirellis…

        • Well, Boullier said exactly the same and explained to some detail what they knew about the tires already. I think it is very simplistic to call it ridiculous as they would quite obviously put more efforts into balance rather than increasing down force.

          Instead of calling them aerodynamically weak cars (mind you; they were not built yet at this point) you could claim that the scale got tipped towards teams with better skills in balancing and setup rather than best aero engineers. I don’t for the life of me see how that can be considered even remotely unfair or ridiculous, sorry.

          • I don’t for the life of me see how that can be considered even remotely unfair or ridiculous, sorry.

            That’s b/c it can’t be considered unfair/ridiculous, @poul. So carry on.

            Cheers.

          • dennis (@dennis) said on 6th November 2013, 9:59

            Lotus was a bad example in my opinion, hence why I simply mentioned Force India, as they were being quite loud about it. I didn’t say ‘unfair’, not sure where that came from, I just thought it was ridicolous of them to claim that they built their car a certain way, when it was obvious that their weakness from the years before became the ace up their sleeves in the races due to the new tyres.

  3. This is bad taste! So you already won everything from getting the tires (illegally) changed on safety claims and it was the others that were lucky because they could actually compete with you for a couple of races?

    Nice! (NOT)

    • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 5th November 2013, 16:50

      getting the tires (illegally) changed on safety claims

      Claims also made by Ferrari, Lotus, Mercedes, McLaren, Sauber, Force India, Williams, Toro Rosso, Caterham, Marussia, and the FIA.

      • Juan Pablo Heidfeld (@juan-pablo-heidfeld-1) said on 5th November 2013, 17:07

        @raceprouk

        Pfft, did Hispania complain?

        :P

      • OH NO! I am guilty of starting this again! :-)

        Actually I think Ferrari must be in there by mistake.

        But if you will please recall the history; it started by Red Bull and Mercedes complaining about the tires strictly because of their poor performance on these. Then Bernie came in and said; “this is not what we asked for” (as he always sees the need to make the big spenders happy). But “unfortunately” the rules state that tire changes are not allowed during the season.

        Next they had the good fortune of some delaminations (due to improper tire pressure and side swapping) and all the under performing, tire eating teams started screaming safety while Pirelli strictly stated that there was no safety concern at all.

        But of course; that will all soon be forgotten….

        • Juzh (@juzh) said on 5th November 2013, 17:28

          Mclaren was going strictly by the rules regarding pressures and cambers and guess what happened to perez at silverstone? You fail on this one. Ferrari also had delaminations in silverstone but were very lucky to get them just as alonso came into the pits. Tyres were unsafe and had to be changed, end of it.

          • Actually I don’t. As Pirelli always stated; the delaminations were not a safety issue because they were just that; delaminations. The disintegrating tires on the other hand were due to improper handling of the tires. The two “funny” things about it however, is that they still happened after the change and that the switch to 2012 compounds had nothing to do with the integrity of the tire structure!

          • Juzh (@juzh) said on 5th November 2013, 17:38

            So how do you explain mclaren then? Please tell me. Simple, you can’t. Cambers and pressures had nothing to do with it and was just a cheap excuse by pirelli to shift the blame onto teams instead of them. If you brought 2013 spec tires to suzuka none of the cars would finish the race probably.

          • About Suzuka; that is your statement, nothing more.

            And as I said; there is a difference between disintegration and delamination. Are you saying that the tires should get changed mid-season because of one incident? I don’t recall any other seasons where that happened.

            Please explain why a poor tire structure caused a revert in compound? You can’t! (Well, you can, if you go into the fishy money and power realm but I don’t think you will :-) )

          • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 5th November 2013, 18:06

            @poul

            the switch to 2012 compounds

            You misspelt ‘construction’ – the compounds are, and always have been, the 2013 spec.

          • Juzh (@juzh) said on 5th November 2013, 18:57

            @poul
            One incident? elaborate.
            as dave said, compound has been the same entire year, only construction has been changed from cheap steal belts to 2012 spec kevlar.

          • Pablo vanTinkler said on 5th November 2013, 20:54

            But the tyre orientation was switched no? Or is that within the Pirelli spec now?

    • Chad (@chaddy) said on 5th November 2013, 17:11

      Did you watch Silverstone? Those tires were a time bomb and had to go.

      And as an aside, anything that makes the tires stronger is better, because everyone is sick of drivers managing their tires from lap 1 instead of actually racing.

      • Yes, and did you read what Pirelli’s post examination said? Those tires were all grossly mistreated strictly against recommendation.

        Lasting tires are an entirely different discussion in which I don’t disagree. I just think that clearly stated rules should be followed by everyone, including the rich and powerful. But I am probably just a hopeless romantic living in the wrong world :-)

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 6th November 2013, 4:49

          Pirelli tyre rules.
          1. Do not over-inflate
          2. Do not underinflate
          3. Do not exceed camber limits
          4. Do not drive fast

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 6th November 2013, 14:59

            More or less what you get with all tyres – limits to its usage. Off course the limits have to be a lot more free for an environment like F1, where its all about finding the edge where performance goes bust.
            Thats why Bridgestone worked wonders for Ferrari – they tested exactly what worked for that car (and updates)
            The biggest problem I see, is that Pirelli is hardly able to test what limits they should set, and in them saying yes to making the tyres fragile, and then not wanting to be a spoilsport (by stating up front that the limits were safetlylimits), they got exactly what RBR gets when they tell Vettel to slow down – he just goes on what he sees/feels from the car and goes faster still.

            I am sure that is what pirelli is now trying to establish for next year – give strict limits for how the tyres can be used. It will mean far less chance for a team to get things right when the others can’t find a way to make them work, because there is just far less scope for experimenting – looking for the edge of the tyres performance.

            Off course the tyres will still not enable drivers to use them to their maximum (because they would get to the edge between performance and risk), but they will be far less of a differentiating factor.

    • TMF (@tmf42) said on 5th November 2013, 19:07

      I agree with him – just like RBR was lucky that the 2013 specs proofed to be unsafe and had to be switched back to 2012 specs (like Newey also admitted).
      Ferrari and Lotus were known to be better on tires in 2012 – especially the softer range – they definitely used this knowledge to design their 2013 cars but it was the fundamental package that helped them aka. being lucky.

      • uan (@uan) said on 5th November 2013, 20:04

        @tmf42

        RBR wasn’t lucky – Vettel won 4 races prior to the change in compound (and should have been 5 if not for his mechanical at Silverstone). They were also leading the championship and Ferrari and Lotus were already slipping behind in the development of their cars over their season (which is Ferrari’s biggest weakness).

        You could say that without the change, Vettel may not have won 7 on the trot, but who knows. Hamilton won Hungary, after the tire change, so Merc didn’t do as well as RBR in developing their car as RB. Developing the car has nothing to do with luck.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 5th November 2013, 20:27

      The tyres were unsafe and it was bad seeing teams defending them just because they were winning but risking their drivers safety (Alonso on the brink of tyre failure at Silverstone as reported by Ferrari).

      Newey and his team have won this era ending this month and all I wish for next year is 3/4 teams with chances to win the championship.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 5th November 2013, 21:17

      There are none so blind as those that will not see.

  4. Wallbreaker (@wallbreaker) said on 5th November 2013, 16:41

    I’m very curious how he wants to know whether it was luck or not. He was not involved in the development of the F138 and the E21 so it seems a bit ignorant to make such a claim. It’s a bit like saying Vettel is lucky having by far the best car in the field and in another car he would be rubbish. And we all know what Vettel can do in comparison to his teammate…

  5. Dr. Jekyll (@dr-jekyll) said on 5th November 2013, 16:49

    people are gonna take this in all sorts of ways… we (well the absolute majority of us) have no idea what the contruction and development of an F1 car really consists of. And if one of the absolute major players in that field says that it is so, than it probably is so… at least partly.

    I just take this as a small insight to how Newey and Red Bull design their cars and what they have control over and not. I think it’s fascinating to actually hear Mr. Aero himself divulge his thoughts and conclussions, in a way that doesn’t seem overly censored in this day and age where every word is feels like it’s been spit out of a PR machine

    • Akshay (@hamilfan) said on 6th November 2013, 7:28

      @dr-jekyll While I agree with Newey on the fact that Fortune might have played a big role , I hate it when he makes it sound as if they were just given a bag of gold . We all know that Mr N is the best when it comes to downforce . But the tyres were meant to challenge just that , they were meant to impose that downforce is not the most vital thing , that tyre conservation need to be looked into from a design perspective right at the start . Pity , that this concept was not implemented well by FIA and Pirelli or we would have had a better season . I’d call Red Bull ‘lucky’ for the tyres being changed to 2012 spec because of dire circumstances.

  6. Jeevan (@jee1kimi) said on 5th November 2013, 16:56

    An unlucky team with a 4-time ‘unlucky’ champion…. :)

  7. Hairs (@hairs) said on 5th November 2013, 16:57

    Newey wasn’t so sure about “luck” when he missed the double diffuser, then it was all about unfair rule bending.

    As usual it’s amazing how childish and blinkered people at the top can be.

    • he is an odd one is Newey. The very best at his job by far, when Rory went home but its hard to like him really.

      As for this well, we had a good close championship then the tyres were changed at request of mostly 2 teams. And those 2 teams have won all the races since. Nothing more to say.

      Also not the first time there has been an unfair pirelli change that benefited RBR. Ferrari came out of blocks flying in testing in 2011, then come melbourne they were no where. Jarno Trulli said at the end of the season that the tyres were not the same but no one would admit it. Despite teams complaining how poor they were in 11 then come first few races all the teams going oh actually they seem ok.

      RBR are an incredible team, but some team members cant seem to win without taking a dig. I dont mean Seb or Christian those 2 are growing more likeable as years go by.

      • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 5th November 2013, 18:17

        All the teams wanted the tyres changed after Silverstone. There was even a threatened driver boycott at the following GP.

        • Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh) said on 5th November 2013, 18:52

          No they wanted the tyres fixed, not changed to 2012 spec. Pretty sure if you asked Ferrari if they wanted the tyres to maintain the same performance characteristics, but without what ever flaw it had in its construction, they would have most definitely picked that, instead of going back to the 2012 spec.

          • Mads (@mads) said on 5th November 2013, 19:06

            @joshua-mesh
            Probably, but that wasn’t an option.
            That would have taken way, way too long to be even remotely possible, and there would be no guarantee that, that would actually solve the problems. There was only one option. Ferrari and everyone else knew that when they said they wanted the tyres changed.

          • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 5th November 2013, 21:48

            The construction was changed, the compounds remained the same.

      • Juzh (@juzh) said on 5th November 2013, 19:01

        Ferrari only had problems on hard tires during 2011, they were fine on all others.

        • Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 5th November 2013, 19:04

          Ferrari only had problems on hard tires during 2011

          To be precise on the harder compound , soft & super soft were ok but Hard & Medium no, just for the history

          • Jay Menon (@jaymenon10) said on 5th November 2013, 23:44

            Yeap..in 2011, the hard tyre was kryptonite for Ferrari. Remember how Fernando was leading at the first corner at Barcelona that year? Only to be lapped by Vettel at the end when he was on hards?

            Anyways, I think it was a bit cheeky from Newey, how would he know eh? I guess Force India lucked out as well. What if it had been the other way around? The tyre may not have got changed perhaps? Or even if it did play out like this year, Newey would probably have been the only person who could have reacted fast enough?

  8. Ben (@scuderia29) said on 5th November 2013, 17:01

    so would he say that red bull were lucky when the revised tyres that were introduced mid-season suddenly made them the quickest and almost unstoppable? surely ferrari and lotus were very unlucky when the new tyres affected them so negatively, poor comments from Newey.

    • completely agree, well put

    • Juzh (@juzh) said on 5th November 2013, 17:32

      Look bro, if you had those tyres in 2010 when cars had miles more downforce and cornered much quicker than now they would fall apart in 1 lap probably, not 4 or 5 as they do now. Tires were effectively punishing you if you had better car which could corner quicker.

      • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 5th November 2013, 19:23

        @juzh But you should be designing your car according to the specifications that you have, which includes the tyres that are the same for everybody. You can’t pick and choose the bits you like, and then demand that the rest are changed.

        What you are saying is like a team whose car is very quick in a straight line but slow in corners demanding that F1 stop going to places like Monaco and the Hungaroring and only go to Monza, because it suits their car better.

        Red Bull’s approach of “downforce uber alles” was the best way to go in 2010 on durable Bridgestones, but on Pirellis in 2013 it was not (until the changes). That’s Red Bull’s problem to sort out, not anybody else’s.

        • @red-andy how else do you get performance these days? It’d be a sad state of affairs to see all the teams deliberately working around a handicap, hence preventing them from building the fastest car they are capable of IMO.

          • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 5th November 2013, 21:00

            @vettel1
            Teams sacrifice certain aspects of the car for other aspects all the time. Red Bull should have sacrificed downforce for better tyre wear, that simple.

            Do you think that teams having to sacrifice downforce for top speed is a “sad state of affairs”?

          • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 6th November 2013, 7:42

            @vettel1 Teams work around deliberate handicaps all the time. They’re called the Technical Regulations and without them, F1 cars would only be drivable in G suits. The whole ethos of F1 is about producing the best car you can within the restrictions you’re given.

            The fundamental aim of F1 is to be the fastest over the 305km race distance. If your car is extremely fast for, say, 50km but chews up its tyres in doing so, then that’s too bad. When Renault introduced their turbo engines in the 80s, they would very often set pole position and lead until their engines blew, usually around half distance. You wouldn’t respond to that by saying “the races are too long.”

            So why blame the tyres for this situation? Others can complete their 305km at a faster average speed because they handle their tyres better. That’s F1. And it always was.

          • Akshay (@hamilfan) said on 6th November 2013, 8:23

            @vettel1 Then the rules must be changed and tyres must not wear out . I am sure in those circumstances RBR would win every race rightfully so , but that is an entirely different matter .
            With the current rules, tyres are a big factor . I am even willing to bet that whatever Newey says is right . But he can’t just say they were ‘lucky’ . It’s like saying Sebastian was lucky all these years . Sure he has had the luck but he has probably worked his best .
            Newey , come on man , I admire you and all but that is sour grapes , after winning ,that too. I don’t like this kind of attitude .

          • Akshay (@hamilfan) said on 6th November 2013, 8:24

            @vettel1 Then the rules must be changed and tyres must not wear out . I am sure in those circumstances RBR would win every race rightfully so , but that is an entirely different matter .
            With the current rules, tyres are a big factor . I am even willing to bet that whatever Newey says is right . But he can’t just say they were ‘lucky’ . It’s like saying Sebastian was lucky all these years . Sure he has had the luck but he has probably worked his best .Newey , come on man , I admire you and all but that is poor sportsmanship , after winning ,that too. I don’t like this kind of attitude .

        • @kingshark but you aren’t sacrificing downforce for top speed, that’s entirely different as that is to suit track characteristics. By sacrificing downforce on a track like Catalunya though you are fundamentally reducing the performance potential of the car.

          Ideally, the tyres would do tyre-like things in their tyre world. That might be a bit too much to ask for these days though.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 6th November 2013, 3:55

          @red-andy, which is the regulation that says you should not design cars that are to fast for the tyres, surely the tyres should be designed to suit the cars potential performance, not the other way round.

          • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 6th November 2013, 7:23

            @HoHum I actually agree that in an ideal world, the tyres would be designed to suit the cars. But we’re not in an ideal world – we’re in one where we have a single tyre manufacturer who only brings two compounds to each race, and everyone has to use both.

            With that in mind, of course you have to build your car to suit the tyres you’re given. Whether that should be the case is a separate discussion.

        • The crucial difference for me @red-andy is that with the given technical regulations, you are still trying to design the fastest car you possibly can within those constraints. The tyres however are essentially preventing you from realising that potential: they wouldn’t even have to be bulletproof to allow for that, just strong enough to stay rigid under heavy loading and to not grain excessively. The 2011 Pirelli’s were absolutely fine – they generally worked quite well, didn’t just disintegrate yet still allowed for the “conservatives” to show their hand.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 8th November 2013, 15:17

            Thats complete nonsense @vettel1. Its as if you say its wrong that you have to build a car that lasts the race because you are always fastest in Qualifying. Or to argue that its not fair that you must run the race without refuelling because now you have to setup the car to run both with high fuel and with low fuel limiting where you can go with ride height.

            The tyres as they are are part of the regulation presented, and that is the scope wherein teams design their cars to be fastest overall and win.

          • @bascb obviously they are always important, but when they can’t actually cope with the downforce levels the cars are capable of producing, something is wrong.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 9th November 2013, 17:57

            Why @vettel1?

            If it really does that, then it’s just another way to put an effective limit on the amount of downforce that makes sense on an F1 car. I see nothing wrong with that, there is no “right to win because I can get the most downforce on the car” just as there is no prize for getting the highest HP out of an engine, the highest top speed or lowest fuel consumpion. All are limited in some way by the rules and force teams to make a car that is a compromise of all that.

            I do not mean to say that I like seeing tyres that start to go off halfway into a first hot qualifying lap, or that I like the way we either have tyres that are too fragile (forcing half the field to coast for large parts of the race) or that people cannot get heat in. But I see no problem with having tyres that have a limit to how much they can be pushed in the corners.

  9. Klaas (@klaas) said on 5th November 2013, 17:10

    This is the most classless statement coming from RedBull Racing ever and I’m really disappointed to hear it from Newey. I expected it from Marko not from him. That’s why it’s hard for many people to warm up to this team – they win a lot and they deserve it but always need to rub it their rivals faces. Looking for the source of Vettel’s booing – there it is – the open arrogance and disrespect of RBR towards their rivals (I’m not saying Sebastian should be booed). And now – they call other teams lucky because Ferrari, Lotus etc didn’t hang their balls in the pool during the winter and managed to make their cars actually suit the initial tire compound.

    • Juzh (@juzh) said on 5th November 2013, 17:34

      hahahahaha and you probably know more about the subject than 10 times WDC and WCC chief technical officer. Give me a break.

      • Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 5th November 2013, 19:12

        @juzh
        That’s exactly what RBR wanted to do from this statement, make you believe that they are telling the truth because Newey is genius well a 10 times WDC and WCC chief technical officer
        doesn’t have the right to bash people publicly when he has absolutely no knowledge on the Lotus/Ferrari cars unless he know someone like Stepney
        If the credibility or arrogance is determined by how many WDC and WCC you have won then Luca Di Montezemolo who has been involved in Ferrari’s success since the beginning of the 70′s has all the right to bash everyone on the paddock including Adrian Newey

        • Montezemolo oversaw Ferrari from a business view, he didn’t pen the cars like Newey does. If you watch videos of Gordon Murray, another great designer, he is very similar in what he says and until people have met Newey, how can they possibly judge his attitudes and personality?

      • Hyoko said on 5th November 2013, 23:52

        it’s not Newey technical expertise what is being discussed here. Being the best at his job does not give him the right to insult, abuse and disrespect everybody else. Same goes for Vettel and his poolside comment.

      • SeaHorse (@seahorse) said on 6th November 2013, 2:47

        @juzh How can someone who was weeping a few weeks ago stating that he couldn’t still decode the cause for that particular accident involving his creation in Imola in 1994 be so sure of other teams lucking into being competitive?

    • Mads (@mads) said on 5th November 2013, 19:16

      @klaas
      Newey says that the reason Ferrari and Lotus worked well on those tyres, was because the tyres were fragile and their cars didn’t work them too hard. And that Red Bull struggled because their advantage (downforce) was simply overworking the tyres.
      Whether that has something to do with luck or not is hard to know, but he does have a point.
      The Ferrari has been that way, since what? 2011? Back then, they couldn’t get the hard tyres to work because they couldn’t maintain heat in them. Red Bull didn’t have such issues because their car worked the tyres quite a lot, simply due to the sheer downforce. Those characteristics has remained largely unchanged, because the teams are developing a known concept. So when the tyres changes, there is only so much the teams can do.
      Especially when they first really know the tyres by the end of the season. At that point the overall car for next year is largely finished.

    • Hubris.

    • Looking for the source of Vettel’s booing – there it is – the open arrogance and disrespect of RBR towards their rivals

      @klaas – agreed 100%. This is just boorish, low-class, hubristic arrogance from Newey. The simple fact of the matter is that he had no known involvement in the development of any of his rivals’ cars, so he’s no more qualified to speak to their processes and the degree to which they designed “towards” the tires than anyone else outside those teams.

      Plus there’s the matter of his need to fit RBR’s dominance into a convenient narrative that minimizes the impact of the unjust, unfair, highly-irregular mid-season change in tires under a very dubious pretext…

  10. ME4ME (@me4me) said on 5th November 2013, 17:12

    I can totally see his point. If you have the best car, which produces the most downforce, but aren’t allowed to fully use it because of the tyres, than that’s bad for you, and lucky for the competition because it levels out the playing field a bit.

    • Juzh (@juzh) said on 5th November 2013, 17:40

      This basically. Tires rewarded you for now being good enough, and punished you if you were.

    • Juan (@gumbercules) said on 5th November 2013, 17:55

      so how come Ferrari was “lucky” rather than engineered to work with the rapidly wearing tires? Sounds like Wall St analysts: market goes up, they make money, then it must be their intelligence, BUT if market goes down and they lose money, then it was the market’s fault.

      Not that Newey is wrong or lying, but more info is needed to know if how much of his statement is true.

      • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 5th November 2013, 18:29

        @me4me

        I can totally see his point. If you have the best car, which produces the most downforce, but aren’t allowed to fully use it because of the tyres, than that’s bad for you, and lucky for the competition because it levels out the playing field a bit.

        Then Red Bull should have sacrificed downforce for better tyre wear, that simple. Teams sacrifice certain parts of the car for others all the time.

        • Juzh (@juzh) said on 5th November 2013, 18:40

          No, they shouldn’t. Not one bit. As they didn’t have to in the previous years.

          • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 5th November 2013, 20:58

            @juzh
            Then I guess that teams should not sacrifice top speed for downforce either.

          • Guilherme (@guilherme) said on 5th November 2013, 23:23

            @kingshark Drag and downforce go hand in hand. Using F1′s design philosophy, you’re almost certain to sacrifice top speed in order to increase downforce, as it is very hard to make the cars even more aero-efficient. However I don’t see how in the world a product from a third-party company should determine how much downforce every car in Formula 1 is able to carry at maximum. The TWG worked to reduce downforce in the cars by the regulations, leaving room for the best design to come out to the top, but if you limit a car’s capabilities by handicapping it with subpar tyres, then what’s the point? Why should teams even bother with aero development? Why not go all the way and turn F1 into a spec series then?

          • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 5th November 2013, 23:29

            @guilherme

            Drag and downforce go hand in hand. Using F1′s design philosophy, you’re almost certain to sacrifice top speed in order to increase downforce, as it is very hard to make the cars even more aero-efficient.

            And if Red Bull are correct, then tyre wear and downforce also go hand in hand. It’s an enormous challenge for F1 teams to get enough downforce on the car without overloading the tyres. Ferrari and Lotus got that spot-on early season.

        • Peter said on 6th November 2013, 9:54

          you don’t think that is precisely what red bull did around Spa/Monza time?
          First year ever they were near the top of the speed traps. Likely getting the same downforce as others with much less drag. Hence the 7 wins a row and second per lap lead they have now.

    • Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh) said on 5th November 2013, 19:02

      Not really. You see inside the car is a driver and that driver can decide how fast he wants to take the corner. He could very easily slow down to go around the corner at the same speed as Ferrari and Lotus to get the same benefit.

      The point is completely made null and void when you consider that almost all drivers were not pushing their cars 100% for most of the race, not just RBR.

  11. Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 5th November 2013, 17:14

    I always had Newey down as a man of class and grace, but this is very disappointing.

    How disrespectful to Ferrari and Lotus to say that their success with this year’s tyre was purely luck. They simply did a better job at managing the tyres (which were the same for everybody) than Red Bull. Red Bull chose to make a political and PR game out of it rather than improving the way their car handled the tyres, and they were successful. That’s unfortunate for those of us who consider sportsmanship to be important, but that’s the way it goes sometimes.

    It is below Newey’s level, as one of the most successful and respected individuals in F1, to go about casting aspersions on other teams like this. Just accept you did a bad job, you turned it around, and you won. That should be enough.

    • Oskar (@oskar) said on 5th November 2013, 17:21

      Agree. Well said.

    • Juzh (@juzh) said on 5th November 2013, 17:35

      Truth hurts I guess. Tires were unsafe and exploding. Change had to be made no matter you spin it.

      • Though this may be true, but will you accept that the change was not fair on a sporting level Juzh? and that teams did benefit and some did suffer.

        You surely must see that? even if you dont accept it was wrong to change them, thats fair enough changes needed to be made in some form. But the season went from having no repeat winners to only 1 team being able to win. There was only one reason for that and it was not RBR planning if anything they ‘lucked’ into it.

      • Wallbreaker (@wallbreaker) said on 5th November 2013, 18:22

        @juzh I don’t want to start another tyre discussion here but the only time the Pirellis were dangerous was in Silverstone. Pirelli gave a statement what exactly contributed to these failures and quite a few were out of Pirelli’s hands (teams using them incorrectly, kerbing at T4 or let’s say the way the drivers used it). Saying that the original 2013 tyre generation was completely unsafe und exploding everywhere (you didn’t say everywhere but your comment reads like that) is just wrong. Those who asked for the changes clearly had other intentions and then a far too good reason. Changing the tyres mid-season was utterly wrong from a sporting point of view. And I don’t believe we would have seen another blowout like Silverstone, not with the restrictions from Germany onwards.

        • Juzh (@juzh) said on 5th November 2013, 18:47

          You mean pressures and cambers right? That’s another plot by pirelli to shift the blame away from themselves. Mclaren always ran within recommended parameters set by pirelli but perez’s tires still disintegrated during the race in silverstone. Those kerbs were there for years now and there was never any problem with them so this is another scam on pirelli’s part. 2010 spec cars (RB in particular) had tons more DF than 2013 spec and there was never any problems with bridgestones. Germany had revised tires already, but not to the full extent.

          • Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh) said on 5th November 2013, 19:03

            How sure are you that they always ran within the limits?

          • Pablo vanTinkler said on 5th November 2013, 21:19

            Again another who mentions cambers and pressure and forgets orientation. Tyres were clearly labelled left and right yet they were never used as intended.

      • Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 5th November 2013, 18:38

        @juzh
        If the tyres are badly made then the change should not be in favor of one team or another
        The new tyres has proved that they are not safe either but since it suits RBR they are not going to moan about them

        • Juzh (@juzh) said on 5th November 2013, 18:51

          They are definitely more safe than original ones. Change was not meant to favour any team, it just turned out that RB could then their full potential. Another way of looking at it: original tires suited lotus and ferrari and FI, revised tires suit RB, merc and sauber. Even-stevens

    • When were the exact compounds for 2013 available to the teams though? I think the first time teams could properly test their cars running the new compounds was pre season testing, with a mere two months before the start of the season.

      I don’t think teams presently have access to 2014 spec tyres, yet all of them are already in full development mode for their 2014 cars. Whatever development path they’ve set out on will be incredibly hard to deviate from by the time they actually run their cars with next year’s production tyres.

      If that reasoning is correct, developing a car that’s easy on unknown tyres requires at least some luck and Newey would be justified in saying so.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 6th November 2013, 4:04

        and that’s not bs.

      • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 6th November 2013, 7:30

        Whether or not the teams physically had access to the tyre (and I’m sure they did at the end of 2012 in a practice session or young driver test), they had a lot of data about its characteristics, as Eric Boullier spelt out. Certainly enough to take it into account when designing the car, as evidenced by the good job Lotus and Ferrari did.

  12. crr917 (@crr917) said on 5th November 2013, 17:26

    F1 2013 Director’s Cut – not for the faint hearted
    :D

  13. caci99 (@caci99) said on 5th November 2013, 17:35

    Wasn’t expecting this from a man of his caliber, or at least I thought he was. On one hand you have Vettel claiming that the others are hanging their balls by the pool, and Newey saying the others just got plainly lucky. Well, at least it shows that even being on top, people can’t get around of their bad part of the character.

  14. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 5th November 2013, 17:52

    Just added the video from the interview to the article.

  15. He kept pushing even in the summer break, no FIA rules can stop that!

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.