Nico Hulkenberg, Force India, Interlagos, 2015

Hulkenberg wants less tyre management in F1

F1 Fanatic Round-upPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

In the round-up: Nico Hulkenberg says he preferred not having to manage his tyres so much when he raced in the World Endurance Championship last year.

Social media

Comment of the day

Only one driver has been in every race over the last five years but hasn’t won our Driver of the Weekend poll yet: Felipe Massa.

I really can’t think of a single race in the past five years where he’s particularly stood out. He was excellent in some of the late-2012 races (Suzuka, Korea, USA, Brazil), but I’m not sure if he deserved Driver of the Weekend over the eventual winner in any of them.
@Kingshark

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Del Boy, Romulo Shortback and Leonardo Antunes!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy birthday to former F1 driver Pascal Fabre who is 56 today.

56 comments on “Hulkenberg wants less tyre management in F1”

  1. Makes sense that MAS hasn’t won DotW yet.

    1. didn’t he have a couple of eyebrow raising races soon after joining Williams?

    2. Like CotD says. Many eyebrow raising races, but always someone with more votes ahead.

    3. He had, but not in the last 5 years.

    4. Even considering that most of the people actually find ways to say MASSA isn’t any better even though he has given stellar performances.. He had beaten Alonso during the late 2012 races but noone actually cares, all they have to say is when he is involved in a crash.. Austria 2015 was not an easy podium mind you with a faster Ferrari behind him but all that came out about the podium was Ferrari made a slow pit-stop and Massa was lucky enough.. Even the 2 Monza podiums weren’t an easy affair or even the Brazilian podium in 2014 and the Abu Dhabi 2nd place in 2014 where he was just a second of a victory, if even these aren’t his best drives or standout performances,the thing is most readers pointing out good races as ‘lucky’ ones.

  2. I feel sorry for Hulkenberg (and the others) having to make excuses for the crap Pirelli tyres and the crap racing they create every time he has to speak about the joy of being able to drive at the limit. And no wonder the drivers with talent are frustrated by not being able to show what they can do with a car because the tyres can become uncompetitive in less than 1 lap when pushed beyond the limit of adhesion. You need to learn a lot to drive an F1 car but having learned how, any half decent driver should be able to circulate at tyre-saving pace but to get the ultimate speed out of the car requires more than knowledge, it requires talent, talent that must be kept in check lest the tyres “go off”, how frustrating for the talented driver, and how frustrating for us fans.

    1. Managing tyres is part of the skill one needs to be a driver in Formula 1. Whether it is right that it is the sort of skill expected is an entirely different matter. Whatever type of tyres are used a driver in F1 would need to manage them, and yes, some tyres are easier to manage than others. These are the tyres that are issued to teams, so getting used to them is an essential trait of being a current F1 driver. If a driver has difficulty adapting to them then maybe they shouldn’t be in F1 because it is one of the skills currently expected in F1, just like using the two levers to release the clutch is part of the starting sequence to get an F1 car rolling is a skill currently expected in F1, and appreciating how the turbo behaves is another skill that is currently expected in F1 (I think that is how Maria de Vollita got killed, but that is another matter). So tyres and clutches and the turbo and keeping your RPMs in the optimum band range are all part of the skills currently expected in F1.
      If a new driver has trouble with these then they will find it difficult to convince a team they need special treatment because there will be 10 drivers in waiting with those skills right behind them.
      The Pirelli tyres are built specifically to meet the requirements of F1. Someone put out a tender asking for tyres built to a certain specification, Pirelli put in the cheapest tender, and won. “The cheapest tender” is how a lot of things are done in business, even the men walking on the moon only got there on the cheapest tender. Maybe there is a flaw with the specification and the tendering process, but that is a matter for those running F1 to worry about. As far as I can tell Pirelli are being paid, so their tyres are built to contract, otherwise Pirelli wouldn’t get paid.

      1. @drycrust, As I said, learning not to use the full potential speed of the car is something any half decent driver can do, that is why there are so many pay to drive drivers lined up, exceptional talent is no longer of great value except to the very top teams.

        1. @hohum I disagree. A half decent driver wouldn’t make it in F1! Despite what most half decent drivers think, they simply don’t have the skills required. Now, with the new “points” system required before being given a Super Licence, many “half decent” drivers are simply excluded.
          The top teams have accountants that would love to cut costs, they would love to employ “half decent drivers”, but have to pay a lot of money for those that are a cut above the rest because those drivers have the skills cheaper drivers simply don’t have, and those “cut above the rest” drivers prove it by their results. Part of that skill is to get the best out of their car while at the same time minimising the degradation to the tyres. I have seen Hamilton cruise to victory using a lower straight line top speed than other drivers used, but won because he was better at going around corners. The tyres Hamilton, Rosberg, Vettel, used were exactly the same as every other driver had, yet they got most of the podiums for the 2015 season. The rest of the field combined were on the podium less times than any one of those three, proving they have a skill the rest don’t.
          According to the result table on the Wikipedia entry for the 2015 season, those three drivers had one retirement each, although two of them had places that indicate they failed to complete the race. There was only 1 other driver who completed a full season with the same or less “classified as retirement”, and that was Sergio Perez, who is renowned for his tyre management skills.
          The simple fact is no one can expect to get a decent result in F1 unless they have nearly the complete range of skills that Hamilton, Rosberg, and Vettel possess, and part of that is managing your tyres.
          I was going to do my WBC Heavy Weight Champion Lewis Lennox’s quote, but I found I’d misquoted him … bother, I better correct the record. What Lennox said was “If you come to war, you have to bring your whole arsenal, not just a left hook and a haircut.” The same applies to driving in F1, if you don’t have nearly the complete set of skills of Hamilton, then you shouldn’t be in F1!

          1. Unfortunately the examples of Kyvat and Verstappen don’t support the suggestion that a “half-decent” driver wouldn’t make it in F1. Neither of them were anywhere near being eligible for a Superlicence on any version of the 2016 Superlicence system (for a start, neither has the “80% of two international racing seasons” that is a cornerstone of the criteria…), yet both seriously impressed on debut, and in Verstappen’s case got considered one of the best non-veteran drivers, despite neither driving notably better than they had in the junior series – where Kyvat took 5 seasons to produce a top-3 championship finish and Verstappen only managed 3rd in European F3.|

            The new Superlicense system doesn’t exclude anyone not talented enough to get in under the previous system. All it does is force people to spend at least twice as much to get there – disadvantaging talented drivers who happen not to be very well-connected (one already had to be pretty well-connected to get to F1) enough to get massive sponsorship sustained over a long time.

            With the exception of Raikkonen, the only thing having 3 winners in a 20-race season proves is that there are only two teams with cars capable of winning a race. As these are also the two largest-budgeted teams (Mercedes made a bigger loss last year than the median team has budget access – including expected debt increase – so this in turn appears to be to do with talent at making money more than anything else). Anyone above a certain skill line will be better than others at going around corners if their car’s had five times the money thrown at it and the car development funds were sensibly balanced. Throw enough money at it and driver talent becomes far less relevant, both in developing drivers in the first place and in running the team that takes them to (potential) world championships.

            One would expect a complete range of driver skills to be necessary to win the F1 World Championship. It has been some time since that was necessarily the case (though Vettel and Hamilton came into F1 long enough ago that – for now – we can probably assume an almost-complete skillset on the part of the most recent champions). It’s reached the point where the most useful part of “the whole arsenal” Lennox had in mind, for a non-veteran driver, is the haircut (because that’s the most reliable part of the “package” he considered for getting sponsors). I for one am not convinced that this is a position the self-believed pinnacle of motorsport should be in.

          2. @alianora-la-canta Regarding the Lennox quote, the guy he was fighting was one David Tua, from New Zealand, which is where I live, and hence was of interest here. Tua had an unusual hair style, hence Lennox’s comment on it.

          3. @alianora-la-canta, I think that you have made a fairly large mistake with your analysis of Kvyat, as I believe he would pass the requirements for a superlicence if he’d had to apply under the 2016 regulations.

            His eligible results from the three years prior to entering into F1 were as follows (with the superlicence points value given in brackets):

            2011
            Formula Renault 2.0 NEC: 2nd (7)
            Formula Renault 2.0 Eurocup: 3rd (5)

            2012
            Formula Renault 2.0 NEC: 2nd (7)
            Formula Renault 2.0 Alps: 1st (10)

            2013
            GP3 Series: 1st (30)

            The points total from those three years would come to 59 points, comfortably exceeding the minimum requirement of 40 points.

            Furthermore, I am not sure I can see any evidence for your claim that Kvyat took “5 seasons to produce a top-3 championship finish” when he came 3rd in the Formula Renault Eurocup series in 2011, his second year as a professional racing driver.

          4. anon, for some reason I’d got it into my head that Kyvat had taken considerably longer than that to get that 3rd place in Formula Renault 2.0 (Winning on attempt #3, as Kyvat actually did, is rather better than winning on attempt #6, as I’d thought…) Apologies for the confusion caused, and thank you for helping me revise my opinion of pre-F1 Daniil upwards.

      2. As far as I can tell Pirelli are being paid, so their tyres are built to contract, otherwise Pirelli wouldn’t get paid.

        Never really understood why people bash Pirelly so much. As @drycrust says, they’re just making tyres they’ve been told to, it’s not like they’re forcing high-degradation tyres on F1 because they’re incompetent and can’t make better stuff.

        Though they should have seen it coming when they signed the contract – “Listen up guys, we’ll give you some money to make tyres that quickly become worthless and don’t allow you to go flat out for more than a couple of laps”. How can you turn that into positive marketing? They really must have needed the money back then.

        1. I’d be very surprised if anyone, let along Pirelli makes money out of F1.

          Apart from powerful individuals and CVC that is.

          1. RaceProUK (@)
            9th January 2016, 18:33

            I’d be very surprised if anyone, let along Pirelli makes money out of F1.

            Not directly, but indirectly through marketing and association they could make a huge amount.

        2. RaceProUK (@)
          9th January 2016, 18:34

          Never really understood why people bash Pirelly so much.

          Because it’s their name on the tyre and they’re an easy target. Plus people like to forget Pirelli are making what the FIA and FOM have asked them to make.

          1. Plus people like to forget Pirelli are making what the FIA and FOM have asked them to make.

            which they could have said no to, just as every other tyre supplier who were part of the 2011 tyre tender process did, nobody else wanted any part of designed to degrade tyres because everyone apart from pirelli could see how utterly absurd the entire concept was & still is!

            also the pirelli defenders like to ignore that pirelli were only asked to have races with 2-3 pit stops, how they make there tyres to achieve that is completely left upto pirelli. as such the thermal degredation nonsense that we have had to suffer through since 2011 which is the sole reason for the absurd levels of tyre management required is 1000% down to pirelli.

          2. RaceProUK (@)
            10th January 2016, 0:57

            If Pirelli had refused, then F1 would have been left without a tyre supplier. Unless you’re thinking that tyres would just magically appear?

            And all tyres have some degree of thermal degradation; vulcanised rubber only has so much heat tolerance. Unless you’re thinking that it’s possible to break the laws of physics?

      3. Michael Brown
        9th January 2016, 23:59

        Yes tire management has always been a part of F1, but with Pirelli’s tires it has become the most significant factor.

    2. @hohum – It’s pretty crazy isn’t it that a driver is saying “I preferred not having to manage my car as much whilst taking part in the World ENDURANCE Championship!!!!!!

  3. Hulkenberg is right, watching driving cruising around to a pre-determined delta time unable to push anywhere close to the limit of the car/driver has turned f1 into a dull, unspectacular joke which the drivers no longer find satisfying or challenging.

    since 2011 we have heard many drivers talk about how f1 has become easier because they drive so far off the limits now that they are not been pushed or challenged. we no longer see drivers step out of the car tired or exhausted because the tyre management has them so far off the pace that there not able to drive anywhere close to hard enough to really push them physically anymore.
    i think back to 2012 when martin brundle spoke about how drivers were telling him that they were unsatisfied with how they were been forced to cruise around managing tyres & how they were no longer been pushed and how driving a race was easier and less challenging.

    this whole crappy artificially generated tyre thermal degredation direction is the wrong way to go. have tyres that wear naturally over a stint which allow drivers to actually push throughout that stint. we had f1 tyres that worked like that in the past, michelin were confident they could make tyres like that so its something pirelli should do and if they feel they cannot then they should step aside and let someone who thinks they can have a go.

    to be perfectly honest i believe that if we had a tyre war and pirelli were going after the best tyres possible against there competition i think they would get destroyed by a company like michelin because i just don’t think there capable of doing it and as some reports from last year stated neither do a lot of the f1 teams or drivers!

    1. Fully agree, except part about Pirelli being unable to develop good tires. Their contract demands them to develop bad tires….

      And its totaly wrong. Blah.

    2. RaceProUK (@)
      9th January 2016, 18:35

      Pirelli supplies tyres to something like 50 motorsport series worldwide, so they must be doing something right.

      1. Yeh, marketing.

        1. RaceProUK (@)
          10th January 2016, 1:03

          So you ever have anything useful to say? Or do you just spend all your time hating things for the sake of it?

  4. I can’t help but imagine if this were a Mercedes driver speaking out about the tyres they’d be met with a wall of “quit moaning and whinging and get on with the job mate”.

    1. Or Christian Horner…

    2. Neither the Mercedes drivers nor Christian Horner has attempted both styles of racing to compare, and Nico Hulkenberg isn’t prone to complaining about every little thing that goes wrong in the press.

    3. They spoke out, and were quickly gaged.

  5. this whole crappy artificially generated tyre thermal degredation direction is the wrong way to go. have tyres that wear naturally over a stint which allow drivers to actually push throughout that stint. we had f1 tyres that worked like that in the past, michelin were confident they could make tyres like that so its something pirelli should do and if they feel they cannot then they should step aside and let someone who thinks they can have a go.

    to be perfectly honest i believe that if we had a tyre war and pirelli were going after the best tyres possible against there competition i think they would get destroyed by a company like michelin because i just don’t think there capable of doing it and as some reports from last year stated neither do a lot of the f1 teams or drivers!

    We see this sentiment echoed quite a lot. For the record, I’m not a fan of how the Pirelli tyres operate. However, there’s absolutely no evidence at all that Michelin can do a better job, other than Michelin saying so and internet forum users saying so.

    Pirelli were asked to create a certain situation through tyre degradation, and they’ve achieved it. Unfortunately they’ve achieved it in a way that’s never been popular with the majority of drivers or fans, despite largely fulfilling their contractual brief.

    It is fairly easy for the Michelins and Bridgestones of this world to sit on the sidelines and say that they can do a better job, but they haven’t attempted to demonstrate it. Perhaps it is because they can’t do a better job for the same price of the contract. Perhaps they can do it. But we don’t know.

    In an ideal world the tender process for the tyres would include full testing on cars no older than the previous season through a number of different scenarios and tracks. Then the decision could be made both on tyre performance and on cost. But that seems far too open for how F1 is run today. Bernie likes to keep things closer and probably the last thing he wants is another variable on which teams can lobby and look to seek a specific advantage.

    Of course, there’s nothing preventing Michelin doing their own set of tests to demonstrate their capability but they don’t appear to have been interested in doing so. There’d undoubtedly be a high cost involved, plus the risk that they don’t actually deliver anything better than Pirelli. Gaining cheap PR off people complaining about Pirelli’s wheels of cheese is probably a far better outcome for them.

    We may not be happy with Pirelli’s tyre solution for F1, but let’s not automatically assume that anyone can do better given the same requirements and contract.

    1. @gregkingston I don’t think it’s a matter of Pirelli not being able to do a better job, I’m sure they can. Except Formula 1 (Bernie? FIA?) is asking them to do it like this, for the “show”.

    2. Michelin attempted to prove it but wasn’t allowed to because Bernie opted to continue with Pirelli and the FIA is highly against tyre wars after the mid-2000s one-sidedness that tended to happen. What’s the use of doing tests to “prove” their tyres work better when truly representative testing would require access to F1 that Michelin is simply not allowed to obtain.

      The FIA brief itself is bad, and Pirelli have taken a decidedly strange approach to the situation. Both are contributing factors.

    3. there’s absolutely no evidence at all that Michelin can do a better job

      @gregkingston but there is because not only were michelin in f1 from 2001-2005 producing good quality tyres but they also have a record in the wec and many other racing categories around the world.

      what michelin were saying they were going to do if they won the next tyre contract was simply to go back to the way tyres were in f1 pre-pirelli and how tyres work in every other racing category around the world.

      have a tyre that drivers can push hard over a stint life of say 20 laps but that it then starts to gradually lose performance beyond that point as the compound wears down which requires a tyre change. thats how michelin’s last f1 tyres worked, its how there wec tyres work & how tyres in every other category work.

      to say there is no evidence michelin could do it when they have done it in f1 before & are still producing tyres like that in other categories is just plain incorrect.

      1. RaceProUK (@)
        9th January 2016, 18:37

        not only were michelin in f1 from 2001-2005 producing good quality tyres

        To very different requirements.

        they also have a record in the wec

        To very different requirements.

        and many other racing categories around the world

        To very different requirements.

        1. @raceprouk still proves that they can do what they were saying they were going to do, which was make good quality, high performance tyres that wear in a consistent way while been pushed flat out throughout there stint life.

          michelin made it clear they would never make tyres designed to degrade so had they won the f1 contract for 2017 they would have ignored any request they got from bernie who cares not a bit about the sport and his more interested in his wwe style show.

          these high degredation, thermal degredation tyres suck & the drivers as well as majority of fans hate them… end of debate!

          1. RaceProUK (@)
            10th January 2016, 1:08

            michelin made it clear they would never make tyres designed to degrade so had they won the f1 contract for 2017 they would have ignored any request they got from bernie

            Thereby breaking the terms of the contract, getting dropped as the supplier, and facing expensive legal action that could end in crippling financial penalties. But hey, why worry about a company having to fire thousands of employees because they got sued halfway to oblivion for breach of contract? So long as the racing is good, why worry about innocent people and the families they have to support?

          2. @raceprouk

            Thereby breaking the terms of the contract, getting dropped as the supplier, and facing expensive legal action that could end in crippling financial penalties.

            None of that would happen because it isn’t actually in the contract its simply a verbal understanding between Pirelli & Bernie.

            Incidentally the agreement was simply to produce tyres that ensure multiple pit stops to spice things up; How the tyre supplier goes about doing that is down to them. Pirelli opted for thermal degredation mainly because it was the easiest/cheapest way of going about it.

            Pirelli or whoever future tyre suppliers may be could at any time move away from making high-deg tyres & face no penalty, Pirelli just don’t want to because they are firm believers that people talking about there tyres (Positively or negatively) is good publicity.

          3. RaceProUK (@)
            10th January 2016, 21:07

            None of that would happen because it isn’t actually in the contract its simply a verbal understanding between Pirelli & Bernie.

            What do you realistically think would happen if Pirelli went against Ecclestone’s wishes? They’d lose the contract quicker than a 2015 McHonda breaks down.

  6. Haas’ entry into F1 continues to impress. Their achievements won’t be clear until the chequered flag in Melbourne but they appear to be delivering one of the most professional and well planned entries into F1 that has been seen for a long, long time.

    It would be marvellous if they could enter at a solid midfield level, or better, and in doing so demonstrate to other new entrants that it is possible for newcomers to compete effectively.

    1. Yeah good job Haas, probably most teams wont have crash tests done for long time.

    2. The only thing is that all the hype has set the bar pretty high for Haas and I just hope they can satisfy everyone. I mean we really need to think realistically here, just finishing the race is an achievement but with Perez saying that some people are probably expecting top-10s from the start, I’m not saying they can’t but in reality they surpossedly won’t.

  7. Hulkenberg says he wants less tyre management just days after Pirelli announce they’re bringing the ‘cliff’ back to F1 this year. F1 is awesome.

  8. “Maybe a little bit, it’s true to some extent. There you can just push all the time, but here sometimes with the high degradation managing tyres is a bit against the nature of an F1 driver, and against what I would like to do. That’s what the challenge is in F1 at the moment, you also have to overcome these challenges and take them up.

    Hulk says it well, and then he goes on to say, if he slides a little, then he has to worry breaking in to tgw next corner…. Geeeez! My road car has tires better suited for it than that.

    Then we see Webber smiling in WEC all smug, and joyful.

    Answer by Pirelli? We will bring back tge cliff in 2016. What a joke. Bernie or whoever invented this + DRS idea shouls be sacked.

    I am outraged really. All this gives us is less drama on the track and more passing. I encourage readers to go watch 2004 cars, how poised, and dramatic they were on the track.

    And for management I advise to watch viewership figures now and before artificial gimicks.

    Imagine the dramatic driving we would get to see if tyres could survive occasional slide, and not totaly ruin your lap for 3 next corners while temps go down. Imagine Hamilton could follow Rosberg, tires would get 5degs hotter and still provide same grip…

    Maybe then motosport seeking spectstators could tune in to see motosport and not motoshow.

    1. @jureo, well, Webber has good cause to smile when the ACO stands accused of having stood idle whilst Porsche might well have been breaking the regulations in 2015.

      There was a strong suspicion that Porsche ran with an illegal device on board to speed up the rate at which they could refuel in 2015 – although only gravity fed systems are permitted, Porsche were consistently able to refill the tank faster than anybody else, and by a noticeable margin (5s per stop), the ACO declined to investigate Porsche (though they quietly changed the regulations for 2016 to shut off what was alleged to be Porsche’s method for abusing the refuelling regulations, making some wonder if there was indeed substance behind the rumours).

  9. Not sure if my sums are right but if sky have 1.7 million viewers then financially they’re doing well. If sky sports f1 is £20 per month then they’re getting around 400 million a year total.

    Even if you assume that everyone pays £5 a month for something like now TV that’s still 8.5 million per race for 21 races.

    1. While sky may have got 1.7 million viewers this does not mean that all of their sports subscriptions goes towards the f1 channel. In fact most of the money from sky sports goes to pay for their rights to broadcast english premiership football (no objection from me i happen to enjoy footy).
      It would be interesting to know how many people took out/upgraded existing subscriptions when half the races went sky only live.
      Also i would guess this is there highest figure from the season (dont think sky would use these numbers if they had better ones elsewhere)
      With all that said im sure sky (and Rupert Murdoch) are not short a few quid

      1. Ah thanks, I thought formula 1 was on a separate sports package.

  10. My teammate did a better job managing the same bad tires and also got a podium while I still wait for one in my F1 career. So I will try and take out the one advantage he has over me although we both use the same tires for the race :)

    Well done Nic0.

    1. @evered7 On sky towards the end of last year (I think at either brazil or abu dhabi) sergio perez made pretty much the exact same comments!

      So given how he is apparently having an advantage from these tyres what was his excuse for wanting tyres that require less management?

  11. If we want to see exciting and close F1 races we need (1) less differences cars in total (no equaility, no unification), and (2) less turbulent air but the world’s fastest racing cars.
    Moreover (3) we are curious about the best drivers skills. So drivers should push more on the limit during races (or ‘sailing’ less). So we need (3.1) better tyres,(more grip, less degradation) (3.2) more fuel/race, (and maybe more PU/year maybe no) (3.3) less radio data from pit to drivers (maybe only safety reasons) (3.4) drivers manage ERS instead of a program (like they used KERS earlier) (3.5) (DRS time/race and drivers use it when they want). And what else…? I am curious about your opinions.

    1. The problems are like this…

      – The faster the cars go the more difficult overtaking becomes

      – More lasting tyres simply mean less pit stops or no pit stops at all. It used to be the refuelling made them to have coming in anyway, but a lot don’t want refuelling back because of the undercut and the overtaking beings being done mostly during pit stops. Many overtakes nowadays are also because of the difference in tyres, take that away and you will see even less overtaking. I heard Horner say at Hungarian GP, you needed to be 1.5 seconds a lap faster to be able to overtake during the race, but fans nowadays won’t accept F1 cars which have huge differences between any more (back in the 80s the nr. 3 driver got lapped many times over). The 90s with tyres with which they could push like crazy and refuelling saw also not a lot of overtaking

      – I know Verstappen was using ERS with overtaking (Perez Brazil he used all he got, or after overtaking Sainz at the Japanese GP he spared some in advance to pull away from him after the overtake)

      – And I agree, only safety radio messages and let the drivers manage their own races

  12. Please, please, please. If you can’t manage basic English spelling, nobody is going to give credence to your posts.

    ‘There’ as in ‘look over there’.

    ‘Their’ as in ‘belonging to them’

    ‘They’re’ as ‘they are’.

    ‘To’ as in ‘going to do’ something.

    ‘Too’ there is ‘too much’ of it.

    ‘Two’ as in there are ‘two of them’.

    I could go on, but I am sure that F1 fans should be at least basically literate!

    1. “I could go on, but I am sure that F1 fans should be at least basically literate!”

      Haha… I hope so.

    2. RaceProUK (@)
      10th January 2016, 1:26

      I could go on, but I am sure that F1 fans should be at least basically literate!

      Can we add ‘familiarity with the basics of contract law’ to that list?

    3. Given your “reply” isn’t actually attached to anyone I have no context for your post but I’m guessing when you say

      If you can’t manage basic English spelling

      You mean

      If you can’t manage basic English grammar

      If the word is spelt correctly, but is the wrong word to use given the message that is being conveyed it is a grammatical error not a spelling error.

      Also your example 2 is missing a full stop, example 3 is missing the word “in” and example 5 is missing the words “as in”.

Leave a Reply

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

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