Boullier criticises Pirelli tyre tweaks

2013 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Lotus team principal Eric Boullier has hit out at Pirelli’s planned changes to the 2013 tyre compounds from the Canadian Grand Prix.

“There aren’t many sports where there are such fundamental changes to an essential ingredient part-way through a season,” said Boullier.

“Just imagine for a moment that, because a football team can’t run as fast as its opponent, the dimensions of the pitch are changed at half time. That there are changes to come can be seen as somewhat frustrating, and I hope they are not too extreme.”

Pirelli came under criticism from several quarters following the Spanish Grand Prix, which saw a total of 77 pit stops with most drivers making four changes of tyre.

Red Bull have consistently criticised the tyres since the beginning of the season and Bernie Ecclestone added his voice to the complaints after the Spanish race.

“It’s clear that Pirelli have found themselves in a difficult situation and under pressure from different quarters,” Boullier acknowledged.

He added that Lotus had designed their car to make the most out of this year’s tyres and did not deserve to be penalised:

“Last year, when we were designing our 2013 car, each team received information from Pirelli and everyone did the best job they could to develop a chassis which would make best use of the tyre characteristics. We even ran with some experimental 2013 tyres at the end of last season, to assist us in confirming our development paths.

“As with every season, some teams do a better job than others with their designs, and some drivers are more adaptable than others to the changes of both car and tyre. It is frustrating when you’ve developed a car from a set of tyre specifications which are available to everyone – for tyres that are the same for everyone – to then be told that they are being changed mid-season.

“That said, we have a team of talented designers and engineers who will be working twice as hard to ensure we adapt to these changes in the most competitive manner.”

2013 F1 season


Browse all 2013 F1 season articles

Image © Renault/LAT

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

161 comments on “Boullier criticises Pirelli tyre tweaks”

  1. Well, Bernie seems to be afraid of Dietrich ‘s rage, he needs his backing particularly with recent Bribery charges.

    1. I have though about the situation and I’ve come to an interesting conclusion: article 12.6.3 bascially prevents any changes to the compounds unless all the teams consent to it, so Lotus must have also agreed to the changes if that is the case.

      The only other possibly is that the regulation has been circumvented, allowing changes with only a unanimous decision which can only really be made by Ecclestone.

      So the conclusion is, either Lotus themselves have agreed to the changes or Ecclestone has been the one to pressure the changes, by holding Pirelli by the throat. So why is all the criticism being directed at Red Bull? If anything, it should be at Ecclestone.

      1. @vettel1

        So why is all the criticism being directed at Red Bull?

        Because Red Bull were the ones crying the loudest and the most about these tyres.

        Though it’s funny, the teams had a chance to test the new tyres in Brazil, they used these very tyres in the first 4 races, in which Vettel won 2 of them; yet the European season has already started and Red Bull still can’t find a way to stop the car from eating tyres, even though Lotus and Ferrari can do this easily. You’d have thought that Newey being as good as he is should have come to a conclusion by now. But no, apparently he’s not good enough, nor as smart as Allison or Tombazis. :P

        That’s why Red Bull want tyre regulations to adapt to them, because they can’t adapt to the new tyres. Sad.

        1. @kingshark that still doesn’t justify it: Red Bull aren’t the ones changing the compounds!

          It’s emphatically not related to the fact Ferrari and Lotus have built a car around these tyres, they only got real data for them in Barcelona (which is too late IMO). It just so happens that’s a trait of their cars and so Red Bull are having to adapt.

          One thing I really don’t get though is why everyone is jumping to the conclusion that Red Bull are obviously going to be the main benefactors: if the Lotus is good on it’s tyres, they’d still be able to manage one stop less theoretically whatever the tyres were like!

          1. @vettel1 The Lotus is good with this configuration of tyre – we have no idea if it will be good on the 2012/2013 hybrid tyre that we’ll get from Canada onwards.

          2. Since RedBull and the other teams have cars that eat their tyres like candies, they can’t push their car to the speed that they want because the tyres will be destroyed in a few laps. By changing the tyres to be more durable, now their drivers can push faster to the speed they wanted to be.

            Lotus and Ferrari made their cars to be more gentle on its tyres compared to others. It’s the fault of the other teams that their cars are “tyre monsters”.
            The tyre allocation is the same for everybody. Why can’t they accept the fact that some teams did their homework better than others? Why can’t they focus their attention to make their car better instead of complaining?

            Race finish time:
            2012 Australian Grand Prix: 1:34:09.565
            2013 Australian Grand Prix: 1:30:03.225

            2012 Chinese Grand Prix: 1:36.26.929
            2013 Chinese Grand Prix: 1:36:26.945

            2012 Spanish Grand Prix : 1:39:09.145
            2013 Spanish Grand Prix: 1:39:16.596

            Is there a big, big difference worthy enough to decide to change the tyres mid-season? My opinion is NO.

            Formula 1 is the venue where the brightest engineers meet. I’m sure they can find a way to adapt to the tyres. It’s just a question on when.

          3. jimscreechy (@)
            16th May 2013, 20:43

            @Max Jacobson, very good points… with which I agree compeltely

          4. +1*100!

          5. that still doesn’t justify it: Red Bull aren’t the ones changing the compounds!

            @vettel1 They are not Pirelli to change it themselves. But they have brought Bernie into their bandwagon on their way to get what they wanted.

            It’s emphatically not related to the fact Ferrari and Lotus have built a car around these tyres, they only got real data for them in Barcelona (which is too late IMO).

            It is not as if they do not modify the car after the winter tests and bring the car as it was straight to Australia for race. It may be part of the traits, but to claim that alone is the cause makes the efforts the teams put in to make better use of the tyres belittled.

            One thing I really don’t get though is why everyone is jumping to the conclusion that Red Bull are obviously going to be the main benefactors: if the Lotus is good on it’s tyres, they’d still be able to manage one stop less theoretically whatever the tyres were like!

            No, I don’t think it is as simple as that. Especially if the operating temperature window gets changed, it is poised to benefit one or a few teams to the detriment of the other few, right?

      2. @vettel1
        They could be doing it on safety grounds; if that is the case, then they can go ahead and do it without the teams permission/agreement I believe.

        1. So why did Paul Hembery specifically state that the alteration was NOT due to safety issues since the delamination occurred solely at the surface and not in the structure of the tire?

          Something just smells REALLY bad here!

      3. I thought the compounds were staying the same and it was the structure that was being changed to prevent them from overheating so easily. The overheating was massively increasing the chance of the rubber stripping itself off the belt which we saw happening a few times.

        Did I read wrong?

        1. @spawinte – “I thought the compounds were staying the same and it was the structure that was being changed”

          If the tyre structure changes (internal cross-bracing and/or stiffer side walls for example) then the compounds will most likely have to change – the tyre characteristics are determined by the mechanical flexing and the way that it interacts with the carcass materials.
          If you stiffen the structure and keep the original rubber, likely it will experience very different heating/cooling cycles, probably outside its design specs. For example, the contact patch size will change and the heat generated by working the tyre will peak at different parts of a circuit.

          There are lots of useful articles and papers on tyres for motorsport – this one is quite good: Link or this one.

      4. I think Red Bull and Mercedes are the instigators but I certainly believe that Ecclestone is responsible.

        I very strongly doubt that Lotus and Ferrari have agreed to these changes and it is very interesting that Paul Hembery specifically stated that it wasn’t a safety concern if your paragraph is correct. In that case the change is illegal – exactly as it should be – and Ferrari/Lotus can take FIA to court.

        I will be very surprised if it will take more than a week before Ecclestone starts talking about safety concerns.

        Personally I hate the comedy tires but a mid-season shift in team balance is simply a disgrace.

    2. That argument that the race times aren’t drastically different is incredibly (there’s no other way of putting this) stupid also: the cars have been developed for a year, so should be significantly faster than last year. The fact they aren’t is worrying.

      @xjr15jaaag true, although that would still need the consultation of the FIA I believe. In which case, do we then assume the FIA is blatantly favouring Red Bull? I think that’s equally laughable.

      1. The more laughable is yet to coming, the teams who succeed to manage these aggressive tyres they will be able to push more on the new one , all this “moaning campaign” is a desperate attempt from the energy drink company to destabilize Ferrari because these tyres showed the obvious weakness of their spoiled driver of how to manage them properly , i’m imagining how they will look like “clowns” after the Canadian GP ,oh wait they are already looking like “clowns”

        1. @tifoso1989 what a fascinating contribution to the discussion.

          It’s nothing to do with the driver, in fact Vettel is very good at managing tyres – it’s a trait of the car and I think that’s backed up from the fact you are the first person to mention drivers instead of cars.

          I am fine if it turns out to be the case Ferrari and Lotus will then simply be able to go faster on them as hopefully we’ll have real overtaking and battles then. I honestly couldn’t care less who wins with my F1 fan’s hat on as long as it makes for good viewing, which the Spanish GP didn’t.

          1. Why can’t RedBull or other teams just focus their attention and be more productive in making their car better rather than complain, complain, complain? The playing field is even (in terms of tyres) since the same tyres are supplied to all the teams. They can’t accept the fact that some teams did a better job than them.

          2. Misteryoso, both your points are easily dismissed.

            Race finish time:
            2012 Australian Grand Prix: 1:34:09.565
            2013 Australian Grand Prix: 1:30:03.225

            2012 Chinese Grand Prix: 1:36.26.929
            2013 Chinese Grand Prix: 1:36:26.945

            2012 Spanish Grand Prix : 1:39:09.145
            2013 Spanish Grand Prix: 1:39:16.596

            Is there a big, big difference worthy enough to decide to change the tyres mid-season? My opinion is NO.

            In the 2012 Australian GP there was a safety car, so that one is irrelevant. The latter two are relevant and prove exactly the opposite of what your opinion is: the tyres are having a pronounced effect as the cars should be a second a lap faster in accordance with qualifying pace, which should mean they’d finish a minute sooner over a race distance in theory. The fact they are close to or slower is proving the opposite of what you state.

            Why can’t RedBull or other teams just focus their attention and be more productive in making their car better rather than complain, complain, complain?

            The politics of the sport are handled by different members of the team than those who develop the car. Do you really think the same team who developed their way to the world championship last year after having a poor start are going to sit there and do nothing about it? Laughable.

          3. The politics of the sport are handled by different members of the team than those who develop the car. Do you really think the same team who developed their way to the world championship last year after having a poor start are going to sit there and do nothing about it? Laughable.

            Not sure if they are sitting their hands folded and waiting for their political wing to lobby and come out winning. Assuming that RBR mechanics and engineers haven’t been doing that, it looks like their efforts have not borne fruit to say the least. Or perhaps they’re lost in their way akin to McLaren. But when the team/driver is not winning any fan (not just you Max) would not agree that the problem lies with their favorite team/driver, would they?

          4. @seahorse They will almost certainly be trying to work on it (I didn’t say they had to be successful in their efforts!) as it can gain them crucial world championship points while the politicians do their politics!

            would not agree that the problem lies with their favorite team/driver, would they?

            I don’t think that is necessarily true: for instance, I knew last year Red Bull just simply hadn’t designed the car as well as McLaren at the start of last year. I think this situation is entirely different though as they had a clear rulebook, whereas I don’t think Pirelli’s data was as accuarte as it could’ve been (as they have hinted at themselves by complaining rightfully about the lack of testing and the age of their test car).

        2. I’m not Ferrari fan but have no doubt that their car will be competitive with any rubber…

          1. I also personally think the tyres are too extreme as they are now.. However changing it mid season is not really a fair way of treating teams who did a better job in designing the car to be less aggressive on the tyres.. if safety is the only concern then the changes make sense .. but it is nt only about safety, is it? I find it more like the temporary ban of EBD in the middle of 2011… IMO any significant changes to the tyres (unless on the grounds of safety) should be made for next season..

            It is also very surprising that Redbull are the ones who are complaining the most(they are still very competitive) … and Mercedes who in IMO are struggling the most on these tyres are actually complaining less ( atleast in public)..
            Redbull are making it sound like their complaining is because the quality of the races are affected and the fans are not seeing great racing.. well I dont think so… Redbull are complaining because they know their chances are less for a 4th straight double championship if the tyres stay the same…

    3. I doubt Pirelli are changing their compounds just to appease Red Bull. Red Bull might believe that they have enough clout to make Pirelli buckle and cave under pressure to change the tyres, but they don’t have much more power than the other teams, if they have any additional power at all. Furthermore, Pirelli wouldn’t be stupid enough to change their tyres just to suit Red Bull. Doing so would take a huge hit to their credibility, and they would likely lose the contract to supply the teams from 2014 on.

  2. For those who complaint about the tyres, they also complaint F1 rely too much on AERO. Now that Pirelli brought the balance back on reliant to mechanical strength, team like Rbr were making sounds to get it changed.

    1. F1 is still way too reliant on aero no matter the tires, and I wouldn’t call Pirellis needing 4 stops ‘mechanical strength’ nor for having drivers afraid to pass or defend for fear of killing their tires or taking them out of their operating window.

      I see nothing wrong with Boullier’s comments and I think this points out the shame of it all that F1 has felt the need to resort to gadgetry to create the story of F1 rather than letting it be a driver vs. driver contest and letting the story create itself. Stable tires with predictable behaviour, much less aero and no DRS, and we’ll see seat of the pants passing by drivers able to push themselves and their cars to the limits.

      Frankly part of me is glad to see this scheme of gadgety Pirelli’s designed to degrade backfire on them. On F1 I mean. I do defend Pirelli in that they are in general doing what they have been asked, even if they have missed the mark this year. But I fully side with the teams that have had to design their cars based on certain tires only to now have that changed on them mid-season. I have full confidence that Pirelli would not change them to intentionally favour or penalize one or two teams, but nonetheless they obviously have to change them and so it makes the whole situation stink and will inevitably favour some and harm others relatively speaking. Nobody is running away with the WDC or WCC right now, so to argue the change in tires by Canada is meant to hold one team back does not hold water.

    2. That’s why is the aero genius from RB’s helpless ;-) Now, Dietrich has to play in!

  3. Couldn’t agree more with what Boulier has said here. You either develop a car to work within the regs and succeed, or you don’t and fail.
    Yes four pit stops is too many, but Barcelona is notoriously tough on tyres and I imagine by the time we reach races 8-9 most teams would have got a handle on two-three stop races, as they have done in every Pirelli year so far.
    I think there is no doubt whatsoever RBR’s lobbying regarding the tyres has had its desired effect. Let’s hope they cut out the “But we’re just a small team” line from now on, as this is an example of high pressure F1 politics in action.

    1. Agree with you and Boullier.

      Everyone had a level playing field when Pirrelli gave all teams the tyres. Some did a smarter job by adapting their car to find the optimum balance between speed and tyre wear… and some of them didn’t.

      Its amusing to see Red Bull crying when things aren’t going their way, especially Mateschitz, who seems to have moved into ‘Luca’ status.

      I remember a lot of teams complaining when Red Bull had their ride height, flexi wings and other tricks onboard in 2010, and Horner simply smiled and said that they had just done a better job than other teams within the given regulations.

      Now that the tables have turned, and other teams seem to have capitalised on the changes, Red Bull want to change the tyres (rules) to favour them?!?!

      I find it amusing to see Red Bull cry after three years of dominance.. and I hope Pirrelli keeps them moaning all year long

    2. Can’t agree that this is all about RBR, but agree with you otherwise. RBR may be perceived to have been the most vocal, but that doesn’t mean the other teams weren’t also vocal. It’s hard to quantify who has been the most vocal and I don’t know that it really matters. Any team can stand on the highest mountain and shout the loudest…doesn’t mean they necessarily are going to have a point that everyone agrees with nor that they will get their way. We aren’t flies on the walls of the meetings that Pirelli/F1/teams have had. And now Boullier is summing it up in this article and he’s not RBR. And BE has chimed in that Pirelli has got it wrong. And he certainly doesn’t like teams running away with the WDC and sealing it up with several races to go and making the season end in an anti-climactic way, in spite of him not minding when MS/Ferrari did it, so I doubt he is hoping the newer tires come Canada help SV run away with it again.

    3. @bleeps_and_tweaks

      I completely agree. Barcelona is notable in that we have had a similar situation every year. This year wasn’t out of the ordinary as Red Bull’s side are saying.

      @robbie
      I haven’t seen any other complaints other than those from Red Bull. Are you able to provide links?

      1. @mike I’m sure your point to me is that if I have no proof that others have complained then therefore it must just be RBR. I would say to you that since we are both (I’m assuming) armchair fans you also have no proof that I am wrong. I think it is highly likely, let’s put it that way, that others besides RBR are unhappy with tires that delaminate and tires that require a 4 stop strategy and tires that limit the drivers and their cars being pushed. There seems to be an overwhelming number of people who think the tires are a huge issue this year, and not a positive one. If you want to try to imply that only RBR are unhappy, then knock yourself out. I highly doubt that is the case. I also highly doubt that if it is only RBR that are unhappy, Pirelli would feel compelled to make changes. I would think we would be hearing an uproar from all the teams if only RBR was complaining and was also going to get their way. Like I said before, we aren’t flies on the wall, so you have imho fewer legs to stand on than I do in terms of ‘links’ to other complaints than RBR’s. At least I have a good argument as to why I think there must be. Do you think, whether we’ve been privy their words or not, the teams that have experienced delamination have simply said nothing and shrugged their shoulders and said ‘oh well… that happens all the time…good tires Mr. Hembrey…keep up the good work.’

        1. @robbie

          1. Delamination and tire wear are two separate problems. Don’t confuse them.

          2. What the teams say is good for the sport isn’t necessarily what’s good for the sport.

          3. Neither of us can know anything, other than what we have seen in the media.

          At this time, it appears to me to be a typical case of the team that’s doing badly, trying to change things to help themselves, and the teams that are doing well, trying to keep things as they are.

          In my opinion, I don’t think F1 should be changing rules mid season.

  4. Agree with Boullier. Run what they brung and adapt. They can tweak in 2014.

  5. I think this whole tire saga is too much, last year we had the same thing happening and eventually teams got on top of things, Pirelli need only to address 2 problems, delamination becuase it’s very dangerous, and their tyre allocations because the allocations from the previous season aren’t compatible now. Deg should remain the same as teams have already harvested a lot of info and tweaked their cars accordingly

  6. when I was against Pirelli making changes, all u people were against me. Now that Boullier says smething similar I see so many ‘I agree’ comments.

    1. Some people just don’t stick to their guns: I like Pirelli’s approach but I think this season in particular they have gone too far, which is why I support the changes.

      1. In fact, I reckon that’s due to fan favouritism more than anything (and this is coming form me, who has “vettel1” as his @mention) @malleshmagdum!

  7. Just imagine for a moment that, because a football team can’t run as fast as its opponent, the dimensions of the pitch are changed at half time.

    That’s a terrible example as far as I’m concerned: in football, that is written in the rules that the pitch has to be a certain size, it’s not written in the rules how durable the tyres have to be and rules are in place to cover changes to the compounds.

    I’d say it’d be more like changing the ball during a contest, like the World Cup: the Jabulani proved to be a very problematic ball in the 2010 World Cup with how unpredictable it’s flight path was, so I think Pirelli changing the tyres would be akin to them changing the ball. Sure it may cap some player’s advantage as they have mastered how to tame the ball, but it was just luck of the draw. It would have improved the competition to change the ball to give it a more predictable flight path, which is similar to what Pirelli are doing to make the degredation more predictable.

    Frankly if it benefits the sport as a whole, I don’t care about indicidual team’s opinions (as long as it is with justification).

    1. It doesn’t benefit the sport as a whole, it just benefits the sports whiniest team.

    2. In 2011 they did 4 stops at Barcelona and by the end of the season they were doing two stops. If RBR start dominating the races after Canada then I’m not even going to bother watching the rest of the season.

      1. @joshua-mesh

        If RBR start dominating the races after Canada then I’m not even going to bother watching the rest of the season.

        It benefits the “Show”. Cant call this a sport.

        Is it just me, or are these two comments a massive contradiction? If you wanted it to be a “sport” surely you would be supporting the changes towards a less gimmicky F1?

        1. @vettel1 what you consider a gimmick is just a matter of opinion. I dont believe the rate the tyres wear out at can be considered a gimmick. In motorsports the rubber wears out faster the harder you push and I think its good that drivers look after their rubber, because its an important aspect of motorsport! The point is that they are making a very drastic change to the most important part of the car, because some cars are not designed to look after their rubber.

          1. @joshua-mesh if the majority of teams feel that this is an issue that needs addressed, who are we to criticise there judgement? It’s not exactly as if it’s something the general population of us don’t want, because as much as there are claims of favouritism the rate the race results speak for themselves: fans aren’t enjoying this season as much as the previous two.

            Also, who has said the changes will be drastic? I do believe Pirelli said they want two to three stops maximum, which isn’t far off 4.

          2. @vettel1 the teams are willing to make unsports-like choices in order to improve the _show_.

            A huge chunk of the fans on this site support Lewis and Button and both of them are in poor cars. Lewis specifically tends to qualify well and then the car’s lack of race pace leaves his fans with a big anti-climax. The result of the race tends to often have an effect on the ratings.

          3. @vettel1

            if the majority of teams feel that this is an issue that needs addressed, who are we to criticise there judgement?

            Please back that one up with links.

          4. @mike well we know Mercedes have been very vocal with their complaints, but what I can do is the opposite: only two teams have actually oposed the changes. By logical deduction it is therefore safe to assume the other teams are not against the changes and indeed for them to go ahead in the first place there will have to have been a unanimous agreement at the very least.

            The two teams are of course Ferrari and Lotus: https://www.racefans.net/2013/05/17/ferrari-join-lotus-criticising-tyre-rules-change/

          5. only two teams have actually oposed the changes. By logical deduction it is therefore safe to assume the other teams are not against the changes and indeed for them to go ahead in the first place there will have to have been a unanimous agreement at the very least.

            @vettel1 I think it is unfair to assume so. There is always a 0 between a negative and a positive. The logical conclusion should either be that they are not bothered with what is happening with the tyres or that they feel ‘what are we supposed to do?’ and are in the no opinion category.

          6. @vettel1

            By logical deduction it is therefore safe to assume

            that they have not given the media an opinion yet, therefore we can not know what side they are on.

          7. @mike what I’m saying is the changes would’ve been vetoed by the teams if the majority of them felt the changes weren’t going to benefit them. Red Bull and Mercedes don’t have enough power on their own to overthrow Ferrari.

        2. Max, I normally agree quite welk with you, but this time I think you are way off.

          As many have pointed out there is no serious issue with the current tires compared to last year. I personally don’t support the artificial comedy tires at all, but now we have them, the teams have designed according to the data they recieved, and clearly the teams who are supperior in aero design are now less superior at some tracks. Is that a reason to change the playing field mid season?

          I support the return of race tires but obviously not balance changing alterations mid season.

          As I think you pointed out your self; the change is not even legal and the argument that Lotus and Ferrari will do just as well after the change is silly at best: the more durable the tires get, the better downforce can be utilized. How much it will alter the balance is yet to be seen the mid-season changeis simply a disgrace that will hurt the credcredibility of the sport tremendously!

      2. “In 2011 they did 4 stops at Barcelona”

        Yeah, with the Soft and Hard compounds.

        1. Yeah, with the Soft and Hard compounds.

          In 2013, with Medium and Hard tyres – both with more degradation.

        2. 2013 – Raikonnen 4 stops with 3 stints on mediums

    3. Frankly if it benefits the sport as a whole

      But who decides if it benefits the sport as a whole. The drivers? The team principles? The fans?

      Everyone has a different perceptions of what is benefiting the sport and what isn’t.

      1. It benefits the “Show”. Cant call this a sport.

        1. @joshua-mesh It’s still officially called a sport though :P

          As for your point on 2011 though, as far as I recall I can’t remember the degradation curve being this bad: you literally were unable to push on the tyres last Sunday, which I don’t recall being the case in 2011. Even so, I still didn’t think that was a good balance: I think races like Abu Dhabi 2012 were good – where drivers could push but tyre strategies were still important.

          @davef1 the fans definitely: if it weren’t for the fans quite simply there would be no F1 – sponsors wouldn’t buy into the sport, it wouldn’t be televised and it would crumble without the viewing public. I get there is also a divide between them, but that is purely because of the mistaken assumption this change is being made solely for RBR’s persistent whining: in fact, I do believe the announcement that changes were being made happened after Paul Hembery had talks with Bernie Ecclestone. Besides, changes can’t be made for one team’s interests:

          Article 12.6.3: Tyre specifications will be determined by the FIA no later than 1 September of the previous season. Once determined in this way, the specification of the tyres will not be changed during the Championship season without the agreement of all competing teams.”

          So these changes are assuredly not being made based on the complaints of “the sports whiniest team” @losd. That is a mistaken assumption on fan’s part looking to portray Red Bull as the evil antagonists.

          1. But how do you explain that Ferrari and Lotus officially protest against the changes? To say they have previously agreed to the same changes doesn’t make any sense. It makes no sense they would both do the opposite of what they say and it makes no sense they would everhave agreed at all. I just don’t believe they have and I believe the changes are against the rules. There is no reason the teams should accept balance altering changes based on a silly “four stops are too much” statement.

        2. Hembery himself said 4 stops was too much. When you have drivers too scared to defend position because of damaging their tyres then I think its right to make changes. This has less to do with ‘the show’ and more to do with ‘motor racing’. I know you’re a Ferrari fan, but surely you can recognise what was wrong at Barcelona, or do you disagree with Hembery?

          The new tyres they bring will still be soft enough to benefit Lotus and Ferrari anyway.

          1. 4 stops was kind of expected on the track that is the toughest on tyres.

          2. @joshua-mesh
            No, it wasn’t, at least Pirelli did not expect it and if anyone, they should know what to expect form their tyres. 4 stops on the 2 hardest compounds is far from OK. Pirelli says the aim is 2-3 stops which means there must be appropriate compounds for all kind of tracks (for example, 2-3 stops on soft/supersoft in Monaco, 2-3 stops on hard/medium in Barcelona).

          3. @lajo With the increased degradation compared to the two previous seasons, the compounds have become softer and hence you cannot compare this season’s hard blindly with 2011’s hard. I doubt if Pirelli did not expect this to be a 4 stopper. Prove me wrong. This is all part of the F1 politics and it has nothing to do with what the fans feel. In fact the majority of the fans have been influenced by the media to raise their voices against these tyres.

    4. Carlos Furtado das Neves
      16th May 2013, 20:50

      Hello to all F1Fanatic fans.
      Great analogy with the Jabulani !
      If you don’t mind, I’ll add another issue.
      And what about if the ball explode during the trajectory to the goal…
      That’s not the true nature of the sport. That’s an ACCIDENT !
      And nowadays this unpredictable compound tires burst into pieces when nobody is expecting.
      Not one, but 4 or 5 Teams suffer with this situation.
      And more to come until somebody is going to the seriously injured.
      Can you imagine what will happen if a tyre explode when the car is running at 200+ mph ???

    5. Sure it may cap some player’s advantage as they have mastered how to tame the [Jabulani] ball, but it was just luck of the draw

      Right, if some players managed to master the Jabulani it had nothing to do with their skills and dedication, it was pure dumb luck. Just like Lotus and Ferrari with the tyres. Of course if RBR had managed it, it would have emanated of their uncanny awesomeness.

      1. emanated from

    6. @Max which way did you vote at the beginning of the year when Brawn looked like they would run away with it. I also have to ask you honestly, would you be this strongly opinionated about the change had this change been working against RBR? I’m just curious to now whether your comments are really objective or it’s RBR fan in you speaking?

      I personally don’t think that it’s fair to change the tires in the middle of the season as some have commented Lotus might lose the slight advantage they had where they might have been able to get through a race doing 1 less stop.

      Has this been done before?

      Slightly off the topic has there been a change to the rules in F1 mid way through a season? The reason I ask is if not then, apart from safety reasons, why would it be acceptable to change a specification mid way through a season?

  8. 100% agree with him. Everyone knew what the tyres were going to be like. Ferrari and Lotus got it right, Mercedes and Red Bull got it wrong and it’s their own bloody fault. Simple as that. Red Bull and Mercedes have big enough budgets to invest some time in improving their current problems but they’ve failed to do so which is tough for them. Is it really fair for Ferrari and especially Lotus (who probably don’t have the budget to keep up) to be punished for getting something right?

    It’s like getting an A in a exam but then being told it won’t count because your classmates complained that you’re too clever.

    1. Awesome example!

    2. Ferrari don’t have the budget? What?!

      I don’t agree with comments like this as Pirelli themselves have admitted that due to the age of their test car the data they are giving the teams isn’t perfect and one set of development tyres isn’t exactly much to go on over the winter, especially since they’ll have started development of the cars by then! You could maybe argue Ferrari and Lotus gave themselves more leeway in anticipation of this type of situation arising which I will accept but I say this to that claim: essentially, you are supporting teams who don’t push the boundaries?

      1. The teams had more than enough information. Thats a real weak excuse Max.

        1. @joshua-mesh from a three year old car? If they had more than enough information they’d all have maximised the potential of the tyres before the season even started and that’d make Pirelli’s role redundant. Really weak criticism.

      2. Read again:

        Ferrari and especially Lotus (who probably don’t have the budget to keep up)

        I meant just Lotus, not Ferrari. My bad.

        But please. Not supporting teams that don’t push the boundaries?

        Ferrari pushed the boundaries last season and ended up with a donkey for the first couple of races. Contrary to that Red Bull pushed the boundaries in 2011 and ended up dominating with an excellent car being driven by an excellent driver.

        Sometimes you must play it safe and sometimes you must take a risk. Red Bull and Mercedes took a risk and it didn’t work. It’s not like Red Bull have been massively affected by this but their sense of entitlement is getting ridiculous. You can’t win every race. Just glance over at the drivers and constructors championship and tell me Red Bull are suffering massively due to the tires.

        1. @davef1 right I see, my mistake (I thought it was referring to both the aforementioned teams)!

          I think the very fact Red Bull aren’t suffering all that much is telling of how bad these tyres really are: I’ve never seen such vocal complaints before from the title leaders, so really I think we should take notice, not dismiss them as “whinging”.

          I’ll let @robbie ‘s comments finish off my point.

          1. Red Bull is whinging all day and night, because they know they only lead due to Ferrari’s misfortunes. Massa is a bit fluctuating as always, but they know Alonso would have won both Malaysia and Bahrain if it weren’t for those two errors and misfortunes.

      3. Pirelli themselves have admitted that due to the age of their test car the data they are giving the teams isn’t perfect and one set of development tyres isn’t exactly much to go on over the winter, especially since they’ll have started development of the cars by then

        @vettel1, I fear you have let your Vettel coloured glasses let you read only what you wanted to there, I’m sorry to say.

        What Pirelli HAS been saying is, that THEY have very little information about how the teams are developping the cars for the next season, as well as not having any realistic option to test the tyre during the season and therefore can only develop using simulator data. And when the new season’s cars finally hit the tracks, Pirelli learns hardly anything usefull from testing on which to base their choice of compounds.
        From what Boullier mentions, its pretty clear that Pirelli has been supplying the teams with data of what they were working on as early as possible to make teams use in their car development.

        1. @bascb inaccurate data is as useless as no data. Obviously the teams haven’t found the data to be prefect, otherwise the majority of them wouldn’t have been having issues with the tyres! I’m not blaming Pirelli here, I just think they need better methods of giving data to the teams as clearly for the majority it’s not working…

          1. But the Data given from Pirelli to the teams is accurate @vettel1. The inaccurate data is that what the teams and pirelli gather when they can finally put it on the cars on a cold track in Spain!

            The only way to do what you say is if either the compound and construction would be set in stone more a whole season up front, and were run in sessions during the previous year, or if teams would have to stop developing half a year up front and Pirelli could then go and test the tyres on those cars!

          2. @bascb what I think they should do is pretty much as you suggest in the first instance: actually have all the compounds for the next season finalised by say September 1st, hence allowing the teams time to test them during free practice should they so chose. That way, the reassign that the teams were simply taking a stab in the dark couldn’t be used but I think that is very legitimate reasoning for the time being!

          3. A couple of points there @vettel1, first of all september 1 or November 10 is not all that different for development of the car, the basics of it have been laid down by about april anyway, so September would be too late too.
            And the thing is, it doesn’t change the anything really. The teams that do not get it exactly right will still blame the tyres instead of flaws in their design, just like they do now.
            And it does not give any solution to the delamination thing. Because we still would only find out about that after the first couple of races with these tyres, but unlike now, the supplier couldn’t even react to id during the seson even if they wanted, they would have to wait for the next year. But they still would not even know whether the issue would actually occur (or be worse) with next years cars.

          4. @bascb fair point on the foundations of the cars, but them finalising all compounds by September would make a huge difference, as then the teams have ample time to test them at a variety of circuits and give feedback on them if any changes need to be made imminently and still then have time to test the changes.

    3. Alonso was right when he said F1 is no longer a sport.

      1. It never has been!!

    4. And it’s not like Red Bull are totally failing on these tires either. I think they are sitting with very strong odds of another WDC/WCC. I think they, like most of the teams, simply think these tires suck. I’m guessing they feel that the way they have to manage the races these days has nothing to do with the F1 they’re familiar with or would like to be involved in…one where cars and drivers can push to the limit in what is supposed to be the pinnacle of racing. I think Ferrari and Lotus, while they appear to have a better handle on these tires for now, and at some tracks, would also agree these tires are not their favourites, and would be just as vocal as RBR if they were struggling even just a little bit more than they have been. They may appear to be less vocal for now, but that could change. And it is also very possible that the new tires come Canada help everyone equally, but we also all know that different tracks treat different cars and different drivers differently no matter the tires.

    5. @davef1 Now that I reread your post above I have to disagree that ‘everyone knew what the tires were going to be like.’ If that was the case the teams would be on top of the tires and we wouldn’t be having this discussion and the likes of BE wouldn’t be chiming in to say they got it wrong. I know you are not suggesting that everyone knew the tires would be delaminating, would require 4 stop races, and would require swapping out by Canada, and were fine with that, didn’t say a word when they allegedly ‘knew’ what they were in for.

  9. It’s so hard not to agree with Boullier. Just because some teams are having a bad time at it, doesn’t mean they can improve and do it better.

    Some teams found themselves struggling to put heat on the tyres in previous seasons. So would that mean that Pirelli needs to make a change on the compounds to make it easier for them? of course not !

    Lotus and Ferrari have been going faster and longer than Red Bull and Mercedes. It’s up to Red Bull and Mercedes to make a better job and catch them up !

    This is all regardless of your ideology towards racing. It’s fundamental that F1 doesn’t change this drastically in the middle of a season. It’s very dangerous…

    1. Agree 100% – see Gary Anderson’s analysis on BBC website – basically when Vettel won with four stops and 77 total pitstops in race, no RBR whining then. Lotus and Ferrari should be applauded for designing the cars to suit the tyres, not penalised.

    2. It’s fundamental that F1 doesn’t change this drastically in the middle of a season. It’s very dangerous…

      I don’t entirely disagree with that but then, so is delamination of tires dangerous. And so is audience viewership in danger. And…nobody has said the change to the tires will be drastic.

      Just want to add here my observation of Spain. Did we really see much in the way of passing in general, let alone from DRS useage or having a tire advantage over the driver in front. That race was almost as processional and dependant on pit strategy as the MS/Ferrari processional era. So what is the point again of gadgety tires and DRS? To shake things up? Might as well have not had either in Spain.

      1. That race was almost as processional and dependant on pit strategy as the MS/Ferrari processional era. So what is the point again of gadgety tires and DRS? To shake things up? Might as well have not had either in Spain.

        +1! I think even worse actually, because at least in the Schumacher era we had drivers pushing and making mistakes.

        1. Alonso, Kimi, Massa, Gutierrez, Ricciardo, di Resta, Maldonado all appeared to be pushing to some extent.

          Just cause Vettel and Perez were told to hold back doesn’t mean everyone was running to the delta and conserving tires.

          1. @davef1 no they weren’t: Alonso himself has said he was at 90%. He was 7 seconds slower than Maldonado’s race-winning time despite the cars being around a second a lap faster: that doesn’t sound like “pushing” to me…

          2. It is also a slight problem when most of the race leader’s laps were slower than the GP2 pole time (don’t quote me on that, I read it in a comment on one of the other articles).

          3. @vettel1 Oops wasn’t aware of that and looking at the race times I do kind of see your point. I really should do my research before making a tit of myself :P

      2. @robbie delamination is a problem that can be fixed. But the compounds? midway through the season?

        As for your observation about the Spain GP, I agree with most of it. But so what if there are teams that could push for longer and faster? is it up to them? no it’s not. So changing the “rules” basically it’s beyond unfair. Just like Silverstone 2011.

        1. @fer-no65 Silverstone 2011 holds little parallels: that was a deliberate attempt at capping Red Bull’s advantage by prohibiting a technology they had maximised. This is changing something which is exactly the same for all cars and which is not something produced by the teams.

          @davef1 it’s alright, I just have been getting really frustrated at that statistic getting thrown around proclaiming it proves the tyres are doing little to the amount drivers are pushing when in actual fact it proves the exact opposite! ;)

          1. Silverstone 2011 holds little parallels: that was a deliberate attempt at capping Red Bull’s advantage by prohibiting a technology they had maximised. This is changing something which is exactly the same for all cars and which is not something produced by the teams.

            @vettel1 depends how you look at it. Yes, they supply the same tyres to all the teams, but two teams did a much better job. So changing the characteristics of the tyres is holding back those teams and making the whole field levelled, with “easier” tyres.

            You could say that Lotus and Ferrari developed their car better in that aspect: tyre usage. Whereas in 2011 Red Bull maximized the blown diffuser, better than others.

          2. @vettel1 “Silverstone 2011 holds little parallels: that was a deliberate attempt at capping Red Bull’s advantage by prohibiting a technology they had maximised.”

            First of all, it was not aimed at Red Bull, it was aimed at removing the insane and dangerous downforce levels that the Mercedes and Renault-based teams had (and McLaren had maximized the tech much more than RBR, as their hit from the rule change showed).

            Second, there is no difference in how it hits: All were barred from blowing diffusers, the few who gained a big advantage from it were hit. Same now: All have to follow the tyre change, only the few who has a car that use the current tyre properly will be hit.

            – And this is clearly a deliberate attempt to cater to the whiny team.

          3. @losd I don’t agree: they are trying to both address the delamination problems and the fact which Pirelli themselves have pointed out in that 4 stops is too much.

            @fer-no65 I can see where you’re coming from, but what I’m trying to say is that the blown diffusers of different teams were not the same (some were also better than others) but the tyres are exactly the same for everyone and will remain so.

  10. Liam McShane (@)
    16th May 2013, 18:04

    I just want the Bridgestones back.

    1. No way mate, they should bring back Goodyear !

  11. …..and seriously, who (apart from rampant tifosi :-)) wants a return to Ferrari / Bridgestone situation?

  12. To be fair, I agree with Boullier on this, you can’t move the goal post every time something goes wrong. I have never understood banning Aero parts that are not illegal based on the regulations, but more so due to their outright strength and working too well for the team that created them. Or because there may be some irregularity with said part and banning it the following season via “regulation update/changes”. I didn’t like when EBD was banned or DDD (double decker diffusers) and a slew of other changes based on innovative thinking from engineers.

    Now, I will say that I can’t fully agree with Boullier because of the principle of the sport at hand. In other words, Pirelli have made an extreme with this tire, too many drivers are having to nurse a car from stint 1 forward, and those that push the cars like we’ve seen Ferrari and Merc do to get a win or podium finish know full well that the tires are going to burn out quickly and know they will be making several pit stops and must keep pushing to make up the deficit. The issue here is Pirelli had a functioning tire before this season, they are the ones that changed the goal post and the teams are now asking for a rational tire and not the one currently given. Yes one or two teams will not reap the benefits of the current formula, but if anything I think Lotus will benefit even more.

    Let’s stop and think about this, the current tire works well with Lotus and we’ve heard from Kimi that the car allows it to have life even when everyone else think it should be roasted. However, if the new formula gives tires 3-5 laps life or even 6-7, that could potentially put lotus in a spot where they only need one stop. We saw them carry a tire several laps further than many people thought it could go in Spain, with a hot track in the final stint. So I feel that the tires cant be changed so much to benefit one team to the point they are extremely fast (i.e. Merc or RBR) but rather they will help everyone last longer and cut down stops and add length to each stint. Thus Lotus will only benefit further and keep reaping benefits on a great current chassis.

    It’s troubling that people can’t see that, but this is subjective to some degree. Also I feel Pirelli will not make the tires change so much that Merc GP (which people seem to think will benefit) will be leading the championship five races or so from now, due to a better compound that last a couple laps extra, or takes slightly more time to come to peak temperatures. I think in all the tires will just be made to last a bit longer and work in those optimum temperatures a little longer which will overall decrease the need for say an extra pit stop unless the teams push the cars to the point they need it. I feel the tires may be 3-5 laps more life and thus that would overall take out the need for another stop, but at the same time making teams have a strategy and still manage tires just to a lesser extent.

    1. @magillagorilla Your theory about Lotus is good, and I sincerely hope that it is indeed the case. However, nothing is guaranteed, of course, we cannot say for sure until the race in Canada.

      1. @pielighter this is very true, but one only has to look at last year and see that even Lotus were good then with tires then, but now have a faster car as well.

  13. If Boullier doesn’t like the tyre changes surely he can block them as per the regs that ScarbsF1 tweeted a few days back: “Tyre specifications will be determined by the FIA no later than 1 September of the previous season. Once determined in this way, the specification of the tyres will not be changed during the Championship season without the agreement of all competing teams”… all competing teams. Now I agree with Boullier, I think it is wrong for the tyre compounds or indeed any regulations to be changed during the season, but if the rules state that all teams need to be in agreement for the changes to go ahead what’s stopping him blocking them? Back in 2005 we had a similar – all teams need to be in agreement to make sure this Grand Prix isn’t a joke – situation, the team who had safe tyres blocked the changes and got a ton of points. Boullier should do the same now, block the changes and make good on the car they’ve built.

  14. There is no good reason to significantly change the tyres half way through a season unless its purely for reasons of safety. Red Bull’s argument that racing is now a lot more confusing doesn’t seem to make much sense when you consider that Vettel made four pit stops (with a total of 77 pit stops in the entire race) in the 2011 Spanish Grand Prix. The argument that driver’s can’t push is also silly. There has always been an element of tyre management in F1 and it has always been the case that cars which can manage their tyres better are able to push harder. Teams have to design their car with this in mind; if they don’t then they deserve to lose out.

    Lotus and Ferrari have designed cars that can manage the tyres well and should be reaping the rewards. I’m not even sure why Red Bull are complaining given that they are still doing well and are championship contenders. And Mercedes have no grounds for complaint given that they have been affected by the issue of tyre degradation for 3 seasons now and seem incapable of fixing it. This whole affair smacks of political interference by Red Bull in particular which amounts nothing more than the whining of a team who can’t get everything their own way.

    1. I’m not even sure why Red Bull are complaining given that they are still doing well and are championship contenders.

      I agree with a lot of the anti-RBR comments on here, but I really don’t like these ones. I mean, if RBR were complaining because they weren’t leading the championships then people would be saying “oh, they’re only saying it because change would benefit them”.

      The very fact they are doing so well actually adds more credence to their comments.

      1. Well they are only doing it because it benefits them. They aren’t doing as well as they could be doing on different compounds and you could argue that Vettel is only ahead in the Driver’s Championship because Ferrari have made some silly mistakes over the last few races. But if we regard that as a blip, then it looks like Alonso is in a very strong position to capitalize in the next few races on his car’s pace. Unless we get new tyres, of course…

  15. Well he has a point, changing the tyres now will probably give some help to some teams, but others, like Lotus, would suffer from that, and that is a bit unfair. To me there are to options, stick to the current tyres, trying to fix the delamination issue though, and have some boring races like the last one in Spain, or they could change the tyres and spice things a bit for the sake of the sport and the fans. It’s not an easy one.

  16. Completed agree with what Boullier has said here: As much as I’m not too keen on the current tyres, I’m much more opposed to moving the goal posts mid-season. I am not saying it will, but if it does favour one team during the rest of the season, it will leave a much sourer taste than the current tyre problems will.

    It obvious from that amount of criticism from many teams and fans that Pirelli have failed to produce the type of tyre that the sport wanted. This is their problem – for teams that have created a car that works particularly well on these tyres, as Lotus have intentionally done, then it is unfair to alter the compounds just to please some struggling teams and upset fans.

    I would also like to know how Pirelli got around the rule against changing tyre compounds mid-season without consent of all the teams (as Scarbs pointed out the other day).

  17. To me this reads more as Lotus doing their part to influence how much Pirelli changes the tyres, urging them to make as little change as possible.

    I do agree that its not great to change the equipment in the middle of the season, but its for sure that Pirelli cannot do nothing when people are seeing delaminating tyres several times during the weekend. Its clear that there is not much scope for explaining that actually its safer to have the tyre delaminate than having them deflate and be shredded to pieces. And off course it does seem like there were far more of these problems with the current tyres than we have seen for a very long time.

    1. @bascb Couldn’t the overall wear structure just changed, keeping the softness intact? Or are those two factors related?

      1. Indeed the can, and I have seen some reports that that is what Pirelli is planning to do @wsrgo.

        That still changes the way the tyres behave, but not as much as going back to 2012 spec per se.

    2. 6 delaminations out of aprox 3000 tires used so far (Gary Anderson, BBC) and strong structure of tires that hasn’t caused any incidentes even when delaminating.
      I don’t see safety issues

  18. Im actually kind of split on this as while I agree that changing things Mid-season isn’t good & that perhaps it isn’t fair on the 2 teams that got the tyres right, However on the other side I have hated every race so far in 2013 purely because of the effect the tyres have had on the ‘racing’ so I am glad to see them changed.

    The problem for me in Spain wasn’t so much the fact we saw a 4-stop strategy, It was the fact that they were having to do a 4-stop strategy on the hardest 2 compounds & still having to conserve the tyres as much as they were.
    Yes we had 4-stops in the past but the difference between 4-stops in 2013 & the 4-stops of 2011/2012 is that in 2011/2012 there was nowhere near the same level of tyre management & you still saw drivers able to push hard & race the cars around them.

    While I would prefer as few pit stops as possible (The 1-stoppers of late 2011/2012 were not boring afterall), I don’t mind 2/3 or even 4-stop races as long as you see drivers pushing hard & racing one another. What we have seen in every race this year is drivers been told to slow down, To hit a pre-determined lap delta, To not race the cars around them & as Button pointed out there lapping slower than GP2 cars & are only a few seconds faster than the GP3 cars. Thats the absurd part of F1 2013 in my view.

    The thing which irritates me about the way Pirelli go on about the tyres is that they say there’s 2 options, The extreme deg we have seen so far or so called boring 1-stoppers in which Red Bull win.
    Why not mention the ground in between, Tyres which allow drivers to push but which still suffer from a sensible level of wear?

    I also think that talking as if anything other than the current tyres would see Red Bull win amounts to nothing more than trying to scare or at least concern fans who don’t want to see Red Bull/Vettel win a 4th championship into supporting the current tyres. Its pure PR nonsense.

    Also why is it acceptable that the sole tyre supplier can even suggest that they have the power to determine who wins & who loses? Pirelli should not be thinking in terms of who fans do or don’t want to see win, They should be thinking about whats best for F1 as a sport.
    If they are making decisions based around fans not wanting Red Bull to win then they should not be in F1.

    1. @stefmeister +1!

      Also, I don’t really know where this mistaken assumption that it will benefit Red Bull is coming from: if it’s going to benefit the faster cars which are harder on their tyres at all, surely Merc would be the ones getting a helping hand?

      I don’t even agree with that though: if we are reduced to 2 stops, Lotus will simply try a one stop. The situation won’t change, just that the racing will improve!

      1. The difference is Red Bull will be more competitive on 2 stopper than Lotus on 1 stopper, while at the moment Lotus is faster on 2 stops than Red Bull on 3 stops.
        That’s what’s wrong and I’m sure you are aware of it too.

        1. I can understand that, but they still have an advantage nonetheless. It’s not like Red Bull will suddenly run away with it is all I’m saying, and the racing will probably be better for the changes.

          1. But are you not agreeing in this comment that RBR will benefit hugely if the tires allowed them to stop twice over a race distance. As you have agreed that RBR is faster than Lotus when stopping twice which they cannot do currently and I think this is exactly what is wrong with this change during the season. This is exactly why people see RBR as the biggest beneficiary of this change in tires at least that’s how I see it.

  19. Guys can you please explain how did Pirelli got to change the tires mid-season? From what I know, in order to change the tires, the tyre supplier has to obtain the agreement form ALL teams. How the heck they got Lotus to sign the deal if Boullier is not OK with it, and I think neither Ferrari is.
    I think it’s better for the sport’s credibility to bear a couple of 4-stop races than to change the rules in the middle of the game and conciously swing the balance towards teams who couldn’t do a proper job under the initial rules. I follow other motorsport series where you also hear a lot about ‘saving tires’ in the drivers’ post-race interviews but I haven’t heard any team boss complaining that ‘this is not racing anymore’ once they’re not dominating every event.
    As Kimi Raikkonen said: that’s how F1 is at the moment and it’s the same for everybody. Let the ones who did a proper job rip the fruits of succes this season. Next season it will be a new formula and people will complain about new things because they’re never happy: they had extra-durable tires that made cars going to the limit in processional races, now they have less durable tires and oh, poor fans have to watch 82 pit stops (it’s like they are getting to change those tires). They had a team and driver dominating the entire season – too boring, next season starts with 7 different winners – too unpredictable. It’s difficult to overtake in F1 – booring, processional racing. Introduce DRS – booring, artificial/too much overtaking. Drivers speaking their mind – childish, cry-baby, whiner. Drivers strictly following the PR lines – corporate robots and the list can go on.
    P.S. I think the media also have their share of fault as they tend to make a lot of ado from nothing. Many times I watch and enjoy a F1 race and reading afterwards that the race actually s*cked. Same thing is about F1’s issues, most fans would’n mind about tires, pit-stops, DRS before some pundits come pointing to them as such BIG DEALS and ruin any pleasure of following motorsports.

    1. @klaas I’ve discussed that in an earlier comment.

      About the fan complaints though, that is because F1’s changes are far too polarised: there is plenty of middle ground, like 1/2 stop races and a DRS which doesn’t allow drivers to cruise by halfway down a straight. We can also have close competition without it being so unpredictable I might as well spin the wheel and pick one team to win the next race. Drivers also don’t have to be rude with their speech but can say what they like (within reason).

      I do think you are also not taking into consideration different fans have different opinions – that’s why we try to find a compromise that most like, which clearly isn’t what it is now judging from the rate the race results on this site.

      1. We had 1/2 stop races in the previous seasons after which teams asked Pirelli do make less durable tires and it was logical to expect 2/3 stop races and maybe 4 on tyre-eating circuits – a situation that we have today. I can’t imagine a ‘weaker’ DRS allowing to do any overtakings at all so one must stick to what we got at the moment or invent a different overtaking-aid system. Last year’s so many different teams winning didn’t have anything to do with blind luck as they proved to be competitive throughout the whole season, the fans simply weren’t accustomed to such a small gap between the teams’ performances.
        But most important I think everyone would agree, that is against the spirit of any competition to change the rules the middle of the game even if they are imperfect. Any feeling that the balance of power was purpousely swinged towards some teams would turn away fans from F1 more that any extra pit-stops.

        1. @klaas we didn’t have any 4 stop races if I recall correctly last season, and the ones in 2011 were excusable because Pirelli didn’t have any data for the tracks as they were new to them obviously. Besides, in 2011 when we had 4 stops the racing wasn’t this bad.

          I could imagine a weaker DRS working perfectly: drivers don’t have to pass under DRS, it only has to make up for the ground lost due to dirty air. What I would do though is just use it at places where it is needed, like Spain or Hungary. If we have to have it at all races though, use an Indycar-type solution as a stop-gap to reducing downforce levels (what DRS was supposed to be anyway).

          Last year was all due to who got the tyres in the right window: the grid was very close I agree (that undeniable) but we definitely saw a form guide arising as the season progressed, so the opening races said to me only that it was all down to who hit “the sweet spot” with the tyres.

          About the last part though, I partially agree expect for the fact this eventuality is written in the regulations which I’m not going to explain again as I’ve already discussed that.

          1. I was clearly talking about the current season with 4-stop races not 2012. As I said with less durable tires for 2013 it was obvious that there would be a need for more pit-stops so most races would be 2-3 stoppers, 4 on some very abrasive surfaces.
            About the DRS, I think teams are considering far more options than we are talking about on this forum and if they didn’t come up with the ones you proposed it’s probably because they’re not worth it.
            Sweet spot for tires. Aren’t the tires included in the list of factors that are supposed to improve the show? They were meant to be that way from the beginning as with heavy-duty, all purpouse tires the cars would finish mostly in the same position as they qualified and we wouldn’t have to wait about 2 hours on Sunday to find out who the winner is.

        2. @klaas I’ve misread it – I interpreted it as you were saying that was the situation in 2012 also – excuse my incompetence!

          Sweet spot for tires. Aren’t the tires included in the list of factors that are supposed to improve the show? They were meant to be that way from the beginning as with heavy-duty, all purpouse tires the cars would finish mostly in the same position as they qualified and we wouldn’t have to wait about 2 hours on Sunday to find out who the winner is.

          I like that brief and agree with it, don’t get me wrong, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of good racing which it wasn’t I believe in 2012 and 2011. That’s why I’m not advocating a change to no-stopping Bridgestones, but two-stopping Pirelli’s. That gives opportunity still for alternative strategies which is what gives us changes of position on Sundays yet still allows for good racing. “Sweet spot” ;)

          1. @vettel1 Apparently the teams didn’t share your vision about 2 stop races when they decided to go for more brittle tires this year. I don’t understand why people strated to complain now and not back when the decision to race on jelly tires was first published and one could already assume that this would be the season of the rubber-whisperers.

  20. This change of tires is extremely unfair towards the teams that got it right. In F1 only thing that matters is bettering the opposition and this change obviously penalizes those who did better job, in order to please those who didn’t do that good a job.

    Especially to keep in mind now, is that Red Bull might have been pushing their development down the route that will suddenly give gains, while those who invested their time and money in the previously better development path will find their updates not working, which will bring further injustice.

    There’s no point arguing about 4 stops being too much, because Barcelona was the only race with 4 stops this season, so that argument doesn’t stand. And more importantly, there’s no too many or too few stops in F1; there’s only the faster and the slower strategy, and that’s only thing that matters.

    Also, all that whinging about tires wasn’t representing majority, it was just the case that those who didn’t mind them, didn’t voice their approval as much, obviously.

    Teams that pursued the wrong development paths don’t deserve this free helping hand, because in F1 everything is about relative performance, and that means that Pirelli is penalizing those who did better job, just as much as they are helping those who did poor job.

    I can honestly say that I’ve never been so dismayed by F1 in the last 20 years I’ve been following it. I don’t think it ever even crossed my mind to complain about rules or hope for them to be changed midseason just because Alonso didn’t have the best car, and he didn’t have the best or equal-best car since 2007.

    It’s rather irritating and ill informed to suggest that something is racing while something isn’t, because we will all support the view that benefits the driver we support. So the only fair thing is to simply leave the rules as they are and not interfere for the rest of the season.

    Unfortunately, in the world of politics, it is never about being right or being fair, it’s a bout being loud and being influential.
    My personal view that I’ve voiced before, is that Bernie needs strong Red Bull, because Horner is his only ally among the team principals (might be Totto Wollf now too), and he needs them to be competitive in order for their words and votes to carry more weight.

    It’s all politics and I just hope Alonso finally wins his 3rd title this year, so that I can say good buy to F1. I’ve never felt that new or strange rules or dominant driver were spoiling my enjoyment. It was always lobbying and politics ruining the racing. No tires, no rules, no supremacy. Just politics.

  21. He sort of has a point. The Lotus guys designed their car to try and look after their tyres and it seems there losing an advantage they fairly gained. But if Merc and RBR can do two stops surely Lorus will try a 1 stopper. But to be fair Pirelli had to change the construction. The delaminations are a joke for Formula 1.

  22. Paul Hembrey explained the delimitation issue last weekend and it’s not due to the compound.
    It’s because they made the supporting structure stronger “less penetrable” so debris damages the tyre and the tread falls apart while the tyre stays inflated.
    Last year the same debris would have caused a puncture.

    This is a separate issue to the amount of pit stops needed during a race.

    Personally I think the compound(s) should remain unchanged, but I am a Kimi fan…

  23. “Just imagine for a moment that, because a football team can’t run as fast as its opponent, the dimensions of the pitch are changed at half time. That there are changes to come can be seen as somewhat frustrating, and I hope they are not too extreme.”

    No, but in football they don’t have different size pitches for different matches. If they did, I’m sure that once in a while they might get it wrong, and it gets changed. I don’t really see how his quote is applicable here.
    At the end of the day, no matter what Pirelli do, there are gonna be loads of people moaning. If they don’t do anything, people will moan that there are too many pit stops. If they do change, people will moan that they’re being unfair.

    The way I see it, the bridgestone tyres could easily last the whole race distance on one set of options (e.g Vettel at Monza, among others). Pirelli were asked to produce tyres that demanded more pit stops. Which is what they have done.

    You can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

    1. @minnis

      No, but in football they don’t have different size pitches for different matches. If they did, I’m sure that once in a while they might get it wrong, and it gets changed.

      They do have different size pitches in football, the Football Association regulations state:

      The length of a pitch must be between 100 yards (90m) and 130 yards (120m) and the width not less than 50 yards (45m) and not more than 100 yards (90m).

      Smaller clubs in the Premiership regularly change the size of their pitches throughout the season, most often making it narrower when they’re playing against the top clubs. They do this to allow them to have a more condensed formation (generally with 5 players in mid-field) to make it easier to defend.

      Obviously they can’t change the pitch once the game has started but they regularly change them between matches.

  24. “In 2011, Vettel won the Spanish Grand Prix. He also made four pit stops and there were 77 pit stops in the entire race. There were no complaints from Red Bull then.” – Gary Anderson

    1. @aimalkhan there were also no complaints from many other members of the grid if I recall correctly or Ecclestone himself, so that argument is void.

      1. Oh wait, the energy drink company’s boss didn’t have a 45 minutes discussion with Ecclestone after that race so that he complains
        Remember no one was able to heat up the harder compound except Red Bull & McLaren, Alonso was leading that race but when he put the hard compound he was lapped by Vettel & the 2 Mclarens
        So according to you there be someone complaining so the rules get changed !!!
        Not surprised since the Energy drinks moaning campaign is very popular this days

        1. @tifoso1989 the energy drinks company argument is pathetic: they’ve beaten Ferrari the last four years – suck it up! They are a better formula 1 team currently.

          As has been pointed out by @celeste (great comment by the way) the issues weren’t anywhere near as bad and they weren’t making the racing bad because drivers were still pushing: that is the only issue here, the fact it is making “the show” worse. I couldn’t give a toss who wins if the racing is good enough.

    2. @aimalkhan people already answer to this. In 2011 there was the soft and hard compound, and they were actually racing. This year were the two hardest compounds and 90% of the drivers were giving instructions to not fight and let people pass.

      1. drivers were giving instructions to not fight and let people pass

        The team who chose a better strategy was telling their driver to push and build a gap enough for the 4th pit-stop. Coincidentally they ended up winning the race. Teams who don’t like the current tires should change their approach and try to do better strategies as they are in equal conditions with their rivals instead of crying and asking for tyre changes.
        @aimalkhan was obviously pointing to RedBull’s yet another piece of hypocrisy. They didn’t mind about 4 stops when they collected the silverware. Back then drivers were saving tires too, the difference is that now some teams are significantly better at this than others.

        1. @klaas Drivers in 4 stops were saving tyres. And they were saving tyres since the start of the race. So, we hace 66 laps of “sunday driving” in the Barcelona sun.

          So you didn´t feel robed to see if Vettel could hold Kimi like he did with Hamilton back in 2011. Or you didn´t want to see Kimi to fight for first instead of let Alonso pass. Or the second part of Perez vrs. Button fight.

          Second since people seen to have forgotten. The 2011 Barcelona GP, was won by 0.6 seconds by Vettel after a last pit stop on lap 48, so tyres lasted 18 laps and racing Hamilton to the very end, not waving him by.

          Back in 2011 people did at least 10 laps in the soft tyre. Not lasting 9 laps on the medium.

          As everybody I like that my driver wins, but I like a good race more. I don´t like Hamilton and Rosberg much, but I feel sorry listening to Hamilton saying he couldn´t drive more slowly, and Rosberg lossing 2 races starting from pole and finishing nowhere near podium. In 2012 tyres made a close fight between the big teams and the middles ones. Now there isn´t even a fight.

          If F1 is going to be a competition to drive slow is not F1 anymore.

          1. I don’t feel robbed at all because I’m used to ‘save tires’, ‘save fuel’, ‘save your engine’ it’s not like this season drivers started to preserve parts of their car for the first time in the history of the sport and until then we only witnessed driver pushing for 110% everytime. With the constant rule change, we’re kind of getting a new formula every season. This season is more about tires (and for a couple of seasons it’s still more about aerodynamics), teams agreed to race in these conditions and they all started from nil with the new rubber so you expect the most powerful technical team (as RedBull used to call themselves) to suck it up and solve their issues but not to hold private discussions with Ecclestone and get the rules bent for them.

          2. @klaas sorry, but it has never been this amount of “save tyres”, and it doesn´t made sense in sport thats it´s legendary for dirvers “fighting” on the track not to be able to do so.

          3. @celeste F1 is what it is at the moment, everybody knows that. As I said, all the players knew what they were getting into before the start of this season. Some teams made those tires work for them and now they are being unfairly penalized. But it’s such a convenient thing to bring out the ‘for the sake of hard racing’ and ask to change the rules your way once you’re out of aces in the sleeves. Those Pirelli tires are so black, not a single grey area to exploit – what an outrage!

  25. BS, BS and BS, Ferrari and Lotus didn’t “get” it at all, the truth is that they are not by any means fast, merely able to cruise less slowly than the rest of the pack.

    Get rid of that rubbish rubber…

    1. @tvm

      the truth is that they are not by any means fast, merely able to cruise less slowly than the rest of the pack.

      Yes.

  26. I´ve been saying this for a while now and I´ve been called heavily biased. Eric Boulliere says it and a bunch of people now agree. Ironic.
    RBR should just man up. MERC has criticized but they are concentrating on their car, not trying to get the tyres changed. The lobying done by RBR is outright shameful.

    1. @karter22 well tellme where did Red Bull asked for tyres to be changed? They, the same as every driver in Barcelona, Mercedes, lots of the fans and the media pointed out that they didnt like the tyres.
      Pirelli was the one that decided to change them because they knew they have screw on the sporting side and on the safety side. Actually I´m sure that Pirelli is not shy when it comes to fighting Red Bull as they did in Bélgica 2011.

      Pirelli gave up and decided to change the tyres because of the media and the fans outrage, surely they know they got horrible PR specially when every big newspaper in Europe talked very Little about Alonso winning the race and attacked the tyres int the sport section in the monday.

  27. Anyone tyred of talking tires? … sorry, tired of talking tyres? Ecclestone wanted a minor “spice up”, Pirelli blew it to 4/5 tyre changes and a few delaminations. Drivers, engines, tracks, the weather, even DRS and team orders, hardly get a mention any more — it’s all tyres, tyres, tyres. Motor racing in general, and F1 specifically, have always had a tyre engineering, management and strategic component, but this has become omnipotent, the only thing that counts, the word everyone uses, the “be all and end all” of F1.

    Bouiller is right about not changing mid-season (even the rules are clear, bar Hembrey fixing the delamination safety issue.) Just give all the teams the mediums and hards at every race left on the calendar, and get back to a good old tyre war next year.

    Everyone’s happy to see Honda bring back “engine competition” so what’s wrong with bringing back Michelin, Goodyear, whoever, so we can see drivers actually race each other rather than pussyfoot?

  28. It does seem insane to me. Yes, insane.

    Instead of encouraging the teams that have allegedly been suffering (among this minority, Red Bull, the WDC and WCC leaders, I’ll remind you) to adjust their cars to closer meet the demands of the tyres, the supplier has instead adjusted their tyres to closer to the demands of said teams. This is quite clearly unfair. Or at least, more unfair than leaving this supposedly fixed variable (same for ALL teams) alone.

  29. i don’t believe it’s going to matter too much for lotus, they will manage the new tires just as well.
    on the other hand, it’s unfair that as soon as the two teams with probably the highest budget out there start to complain and pirelli actually follow up to it. it is concerning to see how much power these two teams alone have, simply because “they can afford it”. makes me dislike them even more…

  30. it works out well for mercedes no?

  31. Boullier makes some good points and some lousy points. In general, the comments are not smart. I disagree with the approach of trying to accuse Pirelli of trying to balance out the competition rather than changing the characteristic of the racing. Renault may find themselves wanting or needing a compound change to favor them, and when that happens, the other teams will be throwing these comments in their faces. It’s not good advocacy.

    The more important aspect of the change is the construction, not the compounds, that is what really mucks up design assumptions. Renault could well come out ahead on this basis. So the should really keep their mouths shut until we see the results of the change.

  32. It isn’t about what Boullier feels is a penalty to his team. The tires suck and that is all there is too it. The racing is boring and not worth watching (yet I watch anyway). F1 like every other sport is meant to entertain, and this season has not been entertaining because of the tires. With that said, the only opinion that matters is that of the fans, and we want this change, it doesn’t matter what Boullier or the other teams want.

  33. Wouldn’t it be awesome if new tires make Red Bull even less competitive relative to Ferrari, Lotus and Mercedes. :)
    God, that would be some poetic justice. :)

  34. Lets say that you play a familiar board game with your friends. To make the game more interesting you and your friends invent some new special rules that you all agree on. During the game you notice that one of the new rules is actually quite bad and decreases the enjoyment of the game (not necessarily for all players). However, the game is still fully playable even if some of the players seem to have an advantage due to the bad rule. What to do?

    1. Finnish the game with the AGREED rules and change the rules for the next game.
    2. Change the bad rule and continue.
    3. Declare a winner and start again with changed rules.
    4. Nullify the game, change the rules, and start again.

    In my opinion points 2, 3 and 4 can only be applied if ALL players agrees. Also, changing the rules in mid season sets a bad example for future seasons.
    Obviously, if there is a clear safety issues special veto could and should be used. But I also think that all teams would agree if that was the case.

    In my opinion the current tyres are not a safety issue as long as the teams have the brains to follow tyre wear during the race.

  35. I agree boomerang, as long as pirelli don’t change the sidewall hardness. Clearly the ferrari is no better than the red bull as far as tyre deg goes, both Massa and Alonso had to stop four times to kimis three, so lotus has best deg. Massa even struggled arguably more than vettel with graining. I think the problem with the rb9 lies with exhaust and diffuser design. The softer side wall in these tyres means more tyre squirt into the diffuser, which I think makes coanda exhausts less effective at sealing the diffuser sides. If I’m right, this would mean getting air through the side pod undercut to the top of the diffuser, making the centre section stronger, would be more useful. Red bull use the ramp design, which is great for directing the exhaust to the diffuser sides. The downside being the undercut air only has a small channel to flow through under the ramp. Sacrificing flow to the top middle diffuser for big gains in sealing the sides, to run a larger rake angle, worked brilliantly last year, but more tyre squirt from this years tyres would counter this. Ferrari has a big undercut in their sidepods this year, and keeps the chimney style (for lack of better name) exhausts. This would provide much better flow to the top centre of diffuser, especially as they have tightened the bodywork considerably there. I honestly think red bulls design would work much better with last years tyres, not because of deg, but sidewall stiffness. Ferrari seem to have changed almost every piece of rear bodywork this year, and I think they have a car with more room for development. Red bull have taken an if it aint broke, dont fix it approach, and I don’t think their rest bodywork design is as good with these tyres, they complain because they know this I think. I know lotus has the same ramp exhaust design, but as I said, their advantage is in deg, not performance, and seeing how their car performs so differently in different conditions tells me the ramp is not the way to go, it doesn’t provide consistent downforce this year, and I’m willing to bet tyre squirt is the big reason. Just my opinion, call it educated speculation :)

  36. Chris (@tophercheese21)
    17th May 2013, 3:31

    I just dont know who to side with anymore.

    On the one side, I feel that the changes to the tyres are necessary because what we saw in Barcelona was a disgrace. Drivers should be driving flat out. Not going for a pedestrian stroll on a Sunday arvo. I’d be okay with a 3-4 stop race if the drivers were pushing 100%. But because they were go so slowly, and still had to pit 4 times just made for a waste of a Sunday afternoon.

    And on the other side of things, Barcelona is probably the highest deg track Formula 1 visits all season, and from here on out the tracks get drastically less tyre-hungry.

    All in all, i think this change will benfit Formula 1 as a whole in the long run of this season from a viewer’s standpoint, because it means better qualifying (I.e. All drivers going out in Q3), and better racing because the drivers will be able to push the way they should.

  37. I absolutely agree with Lotus’ argument here. This affair has distasteful echoes of the changes the FIA made to off-throttle exhaust blowing 2011 for the British GP which at the time seemed to be an effort just to stop Red Bull from dominating the season. It seems that making races entertaining is becoming more important that F1 being an actual sport. Shame we can’t see a bit more integrity.
    Red Bulls argument that the tires are holding back their car doesn’t hold any weight. They knew what the tires were going to be like when they designed the car just as Lotus did, and yet pressed on with their high performance design regardless. They should adapt and stop whining because pressing for changes mid-season is not what sport is about

  38. Yusha (@freebird78)
    17th May 2013, 7:11

    I completely agree with Eric Boullier. Michael Schumacher stopped 4 times in Magny Cours in 2004. Very famous incident. I don’t remember what the discussions were around that time and why Schumacher stopped four times but to exert pressure on the tyre supplier to change the compounds because a couple of teams cannot get their heads around the tyres? Didn’t Vettel stop 4 times in the Spanish GP in 2011? What happened now? Why such a hue and cry about a 4 stop race in 2013? Pirelli is using a 2010 Renault to develop 2013 tyres. They are not allowed to test in season to limit cost. The FIA does not allow them to use a 2012 or 2013 chassis. The teams do not agree on anything and the status quo remains. They have not supplied Pirelli the tools to do such a precise job which is required to design and develop tyres which work on all the tracks in differing conditions.

    1. The Magny Cours thing is completely immaterial. For one thing, there was refueling back then, which meant that more stops meant running lighter/faster when you were running, which was the key to Schumacher’s win. The fact that Ferrari are bringing this up as a basis to keep current tires is really bizarre.
      Thus posted Keith: https://www.racefans.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/michaelschumacher_ferrari_magnycours_2004_1024.jpg

      More generally, Ferrari and Lotus are making a mistake by trying to scandalize Pirelli for helping Red Bull. The time may come very soon where they want to go to Pirelli with clean hands and ask for reasonable, ostensibly competitor-neutral changes to tires, and they will not want Pirelli, and other teams on the sidelines, to tell them to go pound sand.

  39. He added that Lotus had designed their car to make the most out of this year’s tyres and did not deserve to be penalised

    I think that’s a definite overstatement by Boullier on two counts:

    First of all, the teams did not get to sample the final compounds for 2013 until testing began. Since Lotus designed and built the E21 before they got their hands on the 2013 tyres, it’s a little difficult to have built the car to be gentle on those tyres when they had no idea how those tyres might perform.

    Secondly, if they built the E21 to be gentle on its tyres based on what they experienced in 2012, it’s unlikely that they will be penalised much, if at all. Pirelli are simply altering the exact make-up of the rubber, but the tyres are likely to retain many of their characteristics, particularly in how they gain their heat and lose their grip.

Comments are closed.