Pirelli clear up Mercedes ‘tyre conspiracy’ rumours

38 comments on “Pirelli clear up Mercedes ‘tyre conspiracy’ rumours”

1. 

   sam3110 (@sam3110)
   25th September 2015, 0:08

   I wanted a change in the compound mix, either a more extreme step like soft and hard or supersoft and medium for a race, or teams having to nominate 4 weeks in advance what 2 compounds they wanted for a particular race, so a compromise of choosing between 2 option compounds to go with a mandatory prime compound makes looks good to me. It enables teams that are good on their tyres to go aggressive, taking the risk, but also allows teams to go for a long haul 1 stop race.
   1. 

      @HoHum (@hohum)
      25th September 2015, 1:03

      As I read it, nothing is going to change for the 10 fastest cars, they will have to use the “soft” in Q2/Q3 and start on it, then they will have to use the mandatory prime and the soft for the rest of the race. The only alternative scenario would be if 1 team was so much faster that they could advance to Q3 using the medium (or Hard) in Q2, thereby giving the fastest car a further advantage in the race. Is that what we want?
2. 

   Oletros
   25th September 2015, 0:14

   Alonso trying hard to downplay Ferrari and Vettel achievements, shocking
   1. 

      Dave (@)
      25th September 2015, 0:38

      And had anyone else said the same thing, would they also be playing down Ferrari’s victory? Of course not. But because it’s Alonso, it’s impossible for him to have an opinion without it somehow being about downplaying Ferrari.
   2. 

      Kingshark (@kingshark)
      25th September 2015, 4:10

      Complete and utter nonsense. Alonso said nothing about Ferrari or Vettel, just Mercedes’ mysterious lack of pace.
   3. 

      ColdFly F1 - @coldfly (@)
      25th September 2015, 7:49

      Olteros trying hard to badmouth Alonso without reading article, shocking
      1. 

         JCost (@jcost)
         25th September 2015, 8:01

         +1
3. 

   Philip (@philipgb)
   25th September 2015, 1:14

   First off I don’t believe there was a conspiracy. I put it down to a number of factors. I think Mercedes got their setup wrong and spent the weekend chasing their own tail. The heat and softer tyre compound has not been Mercedes strong point anyway. And finally I don’t think the gap was as extreme on race pace, Hamilton seemed comfortable keeping up.

   But that said they can quote as many control procedures as they like, that’s exactly why it would need a conspiracy to do it. Pirelli fit the tyres to the rims, so the choice from the batch may go through a random selection process, but they know who they are handing them back to, I’m sure creative engineers could think of a way of doing something to stop a tyre working to it’s peak.

   When there are billions of dollars at stake fair and sporting are no longer important, though I doubt there was any conspiracy in this case, I have no doubt the required parties would be willing if they had a sure way.
   1. 

      ben (@djdapimp)
      25th September 2015, 5:34

      They said tyres are sent to fia… it could be the fia that messed it up fr mercs….

      and so the plot thickens…
   2. 

      ColdFly F1 - @coldfly (@)
      25th September 2015, 7:55

      Bit stupid of Wolff to ignite those rumours – “For a moment I thought ‘Have Pirelli given us a different tyre to the others?'”
      and even more so to fuel them with his next statement – “I’m not saying that it happened, just that I thought it,”
4. 

   Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
   25th September 2015, 4:41

   To CotD
   I think Hulk was forced to say the crash is his fault, we’ve all seen what arguing with the FOM leads to, last year the Perez/Massa incident is proof of that SFI was brutally dismissed by the FOM for many rounds to come, not to mention cash flow issues. Hulk’s undoubtedly right that he could have given more space to Massa, but the fact is Hulk’s ahead and Massa is out of the pits. The driver out of the pits should be wary of the cars on track, as Massa didn’t have tyre temperature and as a result locked up. Massa could have also avoided the collision by leaving the track on the inside, somehow no one argued that, as Massa was the one behind. I get the feeling that Hulk gets the penalty because he didn’t need to take the corner as he would probably have maintained his position, that said that’s not an excuse. The stewards were bias, Donnelly and the other guys went to the rulebook to find some way to blame Hulk, it’s in this point that I agree with Peter Windsor, who is working for F1 at the moment, brave opinion by a journalist. It’s not an incident worth issuing a penalty, let alone to the wrong man.
   1. 

      skylien (@skylien)
      25th September 2015, 7:25

      Well I am not sure. But from my point of view, at this corner you are already on the track obviously and the argument that Hulk was in front and therefore can determine the racing line (= don’t care if someone else is on it partly) doesn’t hold up because (provided Hulk and Massa were aware of each other):

      1: Compare this to the Vettel Webber 2010 crash. Vettel was in front just as much as Hulk here, but obviously all (including me) think it was Vettel’s fault to move over and just hope that Webber would open up. (The only fault on Webber’s side is that I also think it wasn’t smart to play chicken with Vettel for the next turn in this situation, because even if Vettel wouldn’t have moved over, what did he expect to happen at the next hard left. I am quite sure they would have crashed just there then, at no point they could have stayed on the track the way they were approaching the turn). And in this case there wasn’t even the possibility for Massa to open up, because the remaining track was on Hulk’s side.

      2: And even if you grant that it is Hulk to determine the racing line, you should not ignore reality. And reality is that Massa is there and can’t go anywhere else anymore, period. So the only thing you can do is to leave enough room for Massa and demand a penalty from the stewards. Everything (at max losing one position) is better than crashing out, isn’t it?

      So for my point of view either people who think it wasn’t Hulks mistake start to think that it was also Webbers fault in 2010 or just because you are half a car length in front doesn’t mean you can take any line you want ignoring what is around you.
      1. 

         pH (@ph)
         25th September 2015, 12:13

         I also do not agree with the decision on this accident, but my reasoning is a bit different. If this happened during a race, then I’d say Hulk was obliged to leave room. But Massa was rejoining the track and he is therefore responsible for it happening safely. The same rule applies to us normal drivers, when we are entering road from our private drive, we are responsible for it to be done safely. And I do not buy for a second the argument that Massa was already over the line marking the end of the pit lane. When I enter road, I am still responsible for what happens even when the whole of my car is already away from my private drive. The accident was a direct consequence of the way Massa rejoined track, it was one uninterrupted sequence of events. Of course, one of the underlying causes is the position of the pit exit. It is so close to the next turn that there is no stretch of the track where the rejoining driver could actually safely merge with the traffic, he is forced to do so during the turn. So I would not be too harsh on Massa either, but in my books he shoulders more responsibility for what happened.
         1. 

            skylien (@skylien)
            25th September 2015, 14:34

            Ok so I guess you would still grant that my point 2 holds. Because even then it doesn’t make sense to cause a crash right? Like in real traffic you are not ignoring it if someone is taking away your right of way and just drive into him, if you can prevent it. And it seems Hulk agrees that he could have prevented it.

            I am not sure how comparable this is to real traffic regarding right of way and exiting safely out of the pit lane. Obviously it is not exactly the same. You will see it often enough that a drive gets out of the pit lane and makes it barely first into the next corner while he still causes the driver coming from the racing track behind to take a different line. In real traffic this isn’t allowed in F1 it is. And in this case it was quite close, and I think therefore Massa had the right to go for it as well, especially because there was enough room left for Hulk, so I would argue he actually did take enough care to safely exit the pit lane.

            Whatever the decision here, I agree that this is debatable.
         2. 

            skylien (@skylien)
            25th September 2015, 14:40

            Especially if it was necessary to punish Hulk with a grid penalty is debatable..
   2. 

      Matthijs (@matthijs)
      25th September 2015, 7:31

      @peartree To what point is someone ‘exiting the pits’? To me he was outside the pits, well past the pitline on the exit. To me, he was no longer exiting the pits, he was racing.

      I agree that it was not an incident worth issuing a penalty, but I don’t feel it was for the wrong man. Both drivers should accept some responsibility for the crash, if one of them had given some room nothing would have happened. Cudo’s for Hülkenberg for acknowledging his error.
   3. 

      Park
      25th September 2015, 9:43

      @peartree
      1. Massa was alongside, not behind, even hulk now admits this.
      What’s “behind”? 10cm? 99% length of the car? Massa’s front wheels were always ahead of Hulk’s rear wheels
      (http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/video/2015/9/Race_breaking_news__Massa_and_Hulkenberg_collide_at_pit_exit.html)

      2.”what arguing with the FOM leads to”
      Laughable. Disagreeing with stewards’ decisions has nothing to do with FOM.

      3.”The stewards were bias, Donnelly and the other guys went to the rulebook to find some way to blame Hulk, it’s in this point that I agree with Peter Windsor”
      Why you are not bias? Why Peter is slightly bias?
      Stewards always change, but Massa is found innocent every time, coincidence?
      1. 

         Park
         25th September 2015, 9:58

         4. ” I get the feeling that Hulk gets the penalty because he didn’t need to take the corner as he would probably have maintained his position”
         The decision said clearly that it was all about racing room, they were racing, 2 great racing drivers said same thing yesterday as well.
      2. 

         Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
         25th September 2015, 22:12

         @Park there’s a shot of Massa behind Hulk it’s right along the cotd.
         2. Last year SFI argued that the stewards were wrong and bias to penalize Perez. SFI at the moment we’re going through a tough period, Bernie was helping along. Bernie was not happy that SFI dared to devalue F1 with their bias accusation so SFI had many race penalties from that point onwards most these penalties were very harsh.
         3. twice is a coincidence, (Massa and Hamilton 2010 and Perez Massa 2014) 3 times…
         4. You have just agreed with me… Which is why I think it is no excuse.
         1. 

            Dave (@)
            26th September 2015, 16:45

            You have a really weird definition of ‘behind’; I recommend you get a new dictionary.
   4. 

      beneboy (@beneboy)
      25th September 2015, 11:29

      @peartree
      I couldn’t disagree more, if Nico had been ahead of Felipe then he wouldn’t have hit him. The fact is that Felipe was alongside Nico, who failed to give him enough room, caused an avoidable accident and ended his race.
      Nico was in the wrong and has been given an appropriate penalty.
      1. 

         Robbie (@robbie)
         25th September 2015, 12:01

         @beneboy Agree completely. NH didn’t leave FM the room he was entitled to coming out of the pit lane as he did. FM had only one place to be and to go and there was no need for him to back off as the appropriate thing at that spot on the track when someone is coming out of the pits like that at that track is to leave the bloke a car width. NH didn’t do that and hence the penalty. There is simply no option for any driver coming back on the track at that spot but to take the apex so for NH to try to insert himself as he did was wrong.
      2. 

         Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
         25th September 2015, 22:15

         @beneboy When you enter the motorway you don’t cut people off do you?! I hope not for your sake.
         1. 

            beneboy (@beneboy)
            26th September 2015, 1:07

            @peartree the race track isn’t a motorway, but even accepting the premise of your analogy, Felipe was well past the pit exit and the white lines which would be the equivelant of being in the left lane on a UK motorway, not the approach road. Nico would be in the middle lane, and in moving into Felipe he would be judged to have caused the accident.
            No matter how you look at it Nico hit Felipe, he may not have intended to do so, but he still did, and in doing so ended Felipe’s race.
   5. 

      Patrickl (@patrickl)
      25th September 2015, 11:44

      It’s absurd Hulkenberg got a penalty for someone coming out of the pitlane not sliding in behind him.

      Maldonado got his penalty for ramming Gutierrez in the same way.
      1. 

         Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
         25th September 2015, 12:21

         And how are you supposed to ‘slide in’ behind someone who is coming at pace from behind you?

         Teleport backwards 100m?
      2. 

         Philip (@philipgb)
         25th September 2015, 17:24

         Not the same accident. Massa was taking the corner when Hulkenberg clattered into him aiming for an apex that had a car on it. Maldonado straight forward t-boned Gutierrez throwing his car into the apex, Maldonado didn’t even have the correct angle to make the corner, even if Gutierrez had left a cars width Maldonado would still have t-boned him.

         I still think this one should be a straight racing incident, Hulkenberg had no way of seeing Massa, the team should have warned him I don’t think a penalty is warranted, wiping himself out of the race was punishment and he’s smart enough to take something away from it unlike Maldonado.
      3. 

         Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
         25th September 2015, 22:31

         I agree we @patrickl are the sensible minds. The gullible young fans are making up for the unsatisfactory reasoning for Hulk’s penalty or rather Massa’s favouritism. fullcoursecaution and Park are 2 good examples, both debating the meaning of the word behind.

         @raceprouk I don’t like Massa, you are right on the money there, do you know why? Massa is being favoured, again. I don’t like to feel discriminated and I don’t like to witness discrimination. Dave because you and many others love Massa that doesn’t give the Massa fans, the right to dismiss reality, reason and so forth. It’s as Patrickl and fortunately many others point out. Massa came out of the pits on cold tyres, and behind Hulkenberg, Massa locked up and hit Hulk. Hulk could have not take the apex of turn 2, predicting that Massa would make a mistake but it’s not for Hulk to act upon Massa’s shortcomings, it would be sensible, but not wrong, therefore no basis upon to give a penalty to Hulk. Now because Massa could have avoided the crash, Massa should have been investigated for causing an avoidable crash.
         1. 

            Dave (@)
            26th September 2015, 16:49

            When I look at the picture next to the COTD, you know what I see? Massa alongside Hulkenberg. And if you can’t see that, then you have no basis to pass any judgement whatsoever, as it proves you are unable to accept facts that don’t fit your extremely narrow worldview.
   6. 

      Dave (@)
      25th September 2015, 17:37

      Yes @Peartree , we get it. You hate Massa and love Hulkenberg. Good for you.
5. 

   kanan
   25th September 2015, 7:13

   It’s really weird, a team boss talking about conspiracy theories to press…
6. 

   Bookoi (@bookoi)
   25th September 2015, 9:17

   I was sat on the Paddock Hill grandstand for that A1GP race and remember that incident like it was yesterday. It still pains me that A1GP didn’t survive. A fantastic concept killed off by a poor business model. Clearly Bernie was taking notes…
   1. 

      Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
      25th September 2015, 13:18

      @Bookoi Apparently he wasn’t taking notes on how few people watch motor racing on Sky…
7. 

   Gigantor (@kbdavies)
   25th September 2015, 9:59

   It’s really weird, a team boss talking about conspiracy theories to press

   No it is not. What is really weird is that Hembery has said nothing until now. For a guy who usually mouths off very quickly, it is quite unusual that he has been strangely quiet on the issue. Even more bewildering is Toto saying he did consider it as the reason; a smart move to bring the issue out into the open, and dispel it quickly before it gained any traction

   I think Pirelli think we are all stupid; as there is nothing in their statement that dispel the conspiracy rumours. If indeed something did happen (and i think they did), it is quite possible the FIA, Bernie, Mercedes, and possibly Ferrari were all in on it. However, i do not think the Ferrari drivers are aware.

   The circumstances are just too unusual. Nowhere in the history of the sport has a team lost 1.5 secs, and another gained the same amount in a single weekend. Fernando Alonso said as much; and he has resigned himself to the issue being a”mystery” forever..

   And as for those going on about the “unusual” circumstances at Singapore, or the “dead end” excuses and perfect storm explanation trotted out by Mercedes, do you really belive a team of Mercedes caliber can suddenly lose the setup knowledge of a track they have been at, for over 4 years? This years car is an evolution of last year, the tires are more or less the same, and so were the conditions. So how on earth can Mercedes go down a “set up dead end” that cost them 1.5 – 2secs, and no other team did? Not even Manor claimed such sillyness.

   Also, as many people have noted, both drivers, Toto Wolff and even Lauda have been unusually calm about such a drubbing; despite claiming they do not know the reason. Again, for a team with over 1.5secs in hand in the previous race, this is mighty unusual. And as usual, Lauda keeps on praising and eulogising Ferrari; just as he did in Malaysia. It is almost as if he is happy Mercedes was beaten.

   Just as with Malaysia, i smell something quite off with Singapore. Mercedes went back to their massive margin after that, and i predict they will do the same again in Suzuka.

   I believe it was all engineered with Pirelli to give Mercedes different compound tires, with the “right” stickers to save the show, and make it look like the Mercs were not running away with the championship.

   And for anyone who thinks this is a crackpot theory, stranger things have indeed happened. At least someone is wiling to stick his head out of the parapet, and consider ALL options – no matter how improbable they may be.
   1. 

      markp
      25th September 2015, 11:56

      Or vice versa Singapore was the 1st race Ferrari and Red Bull were given the proper tyres as everyone else. Maybe Ferrari had not got the set up right most races and now have, it could work in either direction and for me is compete rubbish. Merc invested a lot in F1 so were given advantages for guaranteed championships…..no way.

      People complained when Merc win too much and when they don’t another lot of people complain it’s a conspiracy, typical F1 fans.
   2. 

      Patrickl (@patrickl)
      25th September 2015, 12:02

      The highest qualified Williams was 3 tenths down on the highest qualified Ferrari in Monza and in Singapore this was 1.8 seconds. So Williams also lost 1,5s …

      In 2014 Red Bull was already right behind Mercedes. So it stands to reason they would be strong there again this season. Alonso wasn’t that far behind either.

      Hamilton only had 2 tenths on Raikkonen in Q3 for Monza. So they already didn’t have that much of a gap anymore even on a track that perfectly suits the car. In Monza 2014 Hamilton had 1.2s on Alonso. So already in Monza they lost a full second on Ferrari.

      It seems to me that Mercedes lost a few tenths in Singapore by messing up their setup and Ferrari somehow took a big step for Monza. Red Bull also has found some gains obviously. Already in Spa they were much more competitive.

      I wouldn’t be too sure that Mercedes will have their lead back in Suzuka. Ferrari and Red Bull seem genuinely closer over the last two to three races.
8. 

   Park
   25th September 2015, 10:03

   @SatchelCharge, I agree with you on ‘almost-racing incident’
   However, in my opinion, racing accident means nobody is at fault. I hate current blame culture in F1.
   1. 

      Robbie (@robbie)
      25th September 2015, 12:55

      I agree that sometimes the ‘blame culture’ can get a bit out of hand, but there will always be a look and a review as to whether blame is needed to be placed when it comes to actual physical contact between two cars, even if sometimes it is immediately dismissed as ‘innocent’, all the way to the extreme case of blatancy ala MS on JV.

Comments are closed.