Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

Ferrari and Lotus would veto Pirelli compound changes


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 BackOnTop

BackOnTop
  • Member

  • 870 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:43

Ferrari and Lotus would veto Pirelli compound changes

It has emerged that Ferrari and Lotus would quickly veto any move to have Pirelli change the compounds of its 2013 tyres.

Red Bull and Mercedes had reportedly complained to Pirelli that, according to their data, the new tyres are wearing out faster when fitted to the very best cars.
“I think Pirelli has realised (the situation) and we have been promised that other compounds will come to Bahrain at the latest,” Marko said in Malaysia.

Anyway, changing the Pirelli tyres on grounds other than safety would require the unanimous agreement of the teams. Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport reported that Lotus, whose Kimi Raikkonen won in Australia, would “veto” any such move. And Ferrari principal Stefano Domenicali is quoted as saying: “Pirelli cannot change something without the agreement of the teams unless there is an imminent safety risk. “It makes no sense to panic after two races,” he added.

http://www.yallaf1.c.....8YallaF1.com)

If only Kimi Raikkonen-Lotus & Fernando Alonso- Ferrari are able to positively strategies and setup their cars to go fast on these Pirelli's over other top teams who are behaving like they have no brains to master what's equal for everyone.... then it's not Pirelli's fault. Just because RBR got a beating in Melbourne by these 2 experienced drivers, they think Pirelli's are bad?? It's not like they got beaten by a Torro Rosso. They themselves got the best out of it in the very next race.

Also, if RedBull and Mercedes think their designers should only be focused on making their cars fast while ignoring the common Pirelli compounds, then it's also their own shortcomings. Lotus and Ferrari are not bitching about the tyres, in fact, they see it as an opportunity to Maximize their results with a combination of pace & strategy.... just like how teams need to mazimize the limitations set by the FIA over Engine, Aero etc.

In any case, RBR and Mercedes can be assured if they still don't believe is that both Kimi & Alonso can go as fast as their drivers with better Pirelli's as well. This way, the intelligence of a driver comes into play as well while the race is being run... maybe Mercedes & RBR think their drivers/strategists aren't intelligent enough to maximize their package?

Great to see that Lotus, Ferrari & Mclaren as well are positive about the Regulations and are only concerned about how to get the best result out of it, instead of wasting their time & energy by complaining the first instance that they get beaten.

Edited by BackOnTop, 27 March 2013 - 09:59.


Advertisement

#2 Jovanotti

Jovanotti
  • Member

  • 8,255 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:46

Very good to hear :up:

#3 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:54

Whilst I agree that tyres should not be changed to appease one or two teams, it's equally true that this is not Formula Pirelli; there's potentential here for Pirelli to totally take over the sport - making tyres to suit their own fancies, their own whims, the teams they currently like, etc, potentially renderending the best car(s), engine(s), desingner(s) and driver(s) helpless. There is, as usual, a happy medium to be found.

#4 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 27,385 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:55

the new tyres are wearing out faster when fitted to the very best cars.

So are they the very best cars? :drunk:

If the greater tyre wear outweighs the speed, they may be the fastest cars but they are surely not the very best cars?

#5 BackOnTop

BackOnTop
  • Member

  • 870 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:06

So are they the very best cars? :drunk:

If the greater tyre wear outweighs the speed, they may be the fastest cars but they are surely not the very best cars?

Nope, they aren't... maybe the fastest, but not the best!

A lot to do with setup & driver inputs now then mindless fastest laps... so maybe the fastest driver-car combo but not the best driver-car combo on racecraft over race distance.

Edited by BackOnTop, 27 March 2013 - 10:07.


#6 JeanClaude

JeanClaude
  • Member

  • 73 posts
  • Joined: February 13

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:17

In fact nothing would be easier than for Pirelli to make -small- changes to the tyres without the teams even knowing it.
The tyres are produced in batches for a specific race and are returned to Pirelli used or not after which they all are destroyed.

There's absolutely no guarantee that the supersoft used in Australia is exactly the same as a supersoft used later in the season.

That said I don't think the tyres need changing at all, maybe a few quiet tweaks here and there so that they suit a larger proportion of the teams. That can be done without a lot of fuss.

In the end all teams will figure out the tyres and adapt car and setup accordingly anyway.

Here's an article about how Pirelli go about producing, logistically and how the allocation is done for those interested
http://www.nextgen-a...eams,55258.html

JC

#7 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,393 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:40

I'm not convinced its the compounds that are the problem and not the construction. That has a bigger impact on how the tyre gets worked and it seems in Red Bulls case they feel they cant run as much downforce as they'd like.

#8 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,759 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:42

There is, as usual, a happy medium to be found.

Yes, although I don't see what Russell Grant could possibly add to the sport.

#9 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:43

good to hear that game rule remains stable for 2013!

#10 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:46

Thankfully there are some safeguards build into the system to prevent ad hoc changes and political interference.

#11 DaddyCool

DaddyCool
  • Member

  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:53

And people thought tyre wars were over :)

#12 BackOnTop

BackOnTop
  • Member

  • 870 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:08

Whilst I agree that tyres should not be changed to appease one or two teams, it's equally true that this is not Formula Pirelli; there's potentential here for Pirelli to totally take over the sport - making tyres to suit their own fancies, their own whims, the teams they currently like, etc, potentially renderending the best car(s), engine(s), desingner(s) and driver(s) helpless. There is, as usual, a happy medium to be found.

Really??

Posted Image

Posted Image

All I see is that RedBull & Mercedes have panicked in the second race & screwed their own team camaraderie by getting sucked into applying team orders to protect tyres.... unnecessarily! This can be directly attributed by the outcome of what one team-driver combo did in Melbourne.

If this carries on, Ferrari & to some extent Lotus will keep looking at ways to screwing them with strategy over the season and hope to win the mental war. They have had a good start already in that regard.

Edited by BackOnTop, 27 March 2013 - 12:16.


#13 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,182 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:16

This just in, headline news: F1 teams shockingly try to protect their own interests.

I don't think the tyres dominating F1 like they are the moment is 100% right - although it IS producing interesting races -, there is too much degradation, drivers are driving the cars too far from the limit, but you don't change the rules in the middle of the game. Well, rules have been changed in the middle of seasons before, that's a **** precedent that's been set a few times before, but it's a precedent that should have never been set because it's not fair.

I'm also a bit skeptical about the claim "the tyres work against the best cars". The Caterham isn't winning races is it? And it's not saving tyres more than the front-runners neither. That proves, in an empirical half-arsed way, admitedly, that there's not a direct inverse relationship between downforce and tyre preservation. Let's instead assume that there's a tradeoff between downforce and tyre preservation, and from a certain level onwards it's not beneficial to have more downforce anymore with these tyres. It'd be a giant coincidence if the Red Bull is beyond the point of tradeoff, and Ferrari and Lotus are before.

Besides, just because F1 in the modern era has been all about getting more and more downforce doesn't mean it has to stay that way forever. Up until the mid-70s aero wasn't what won races. Even as late as the 2000s, engine BHP advantage and tyre manufacturer advantage could offset a downforce disadvantage. It's only been since the end of tyre wars then the equalizing of engines a few years ago, that the only area you can win an engineering advantage over other teams is aero. That may have changed now - so what?

And no my opinion isn't based on the fact Kimi has a good car and won a race. Red Bull were just as worthy winners in Malaysia because they were the quickest over the race distance, end of.

#14 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 8,288 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:18

I dont quite understand why Merc are in bed with RB on this. I think Merc may be playing lip service on this one and if so, why? :confused:

Edited by femi, 27 March 2013 - 12:19.


#15 Freung

Freung
  • Member

  • 147 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:18

Nope, they aren't... maybe the fastest, but not the best!

A lot to do with setup & driver inputs now then mindless fastest laps... so maybe the fastest driver-car combo but not the best driver-car combo on racecraft over race distance.



hahaha...hilarious.. :down:

#16 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:23

:up:

finally, cool heads prevailing. along with LotusF1 and ferrari, i also expect Force India and SauberF1 to support pirelli.

I dont quite understand why Merc are in bed with RB on this. I think Merc may be playing lip service on this one and if so, why? :confused:


merc is doing this for fear of Lotusf1, not for actual tire deg.

Edited by eronrules, 27 March 2013 - 12:24.


#17 BackOnTop

BackOnTop
  • Member

  • 870 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:23

hahaha...hilarious.. :down:

They can still do their Fastest laps if they want to... they just need to pit more often. Nobody is stopping them to build a strategy on Fastest laps with a four stop strategy, compared to what other driver-team combo might prefer to do with a 3 stop strategy!!

It's not like the winner of Melbourne didn't set the fastest lap on lap 56 of 58 on 23 laps old Pirelli Tyres. :rolleyes:

Edited by BackOnTop, 27 March 2013 - 12:24.


#18 Gemini

Gemini
  • Member

  • 3,815 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 27 March 2013 - 18:25

Red Bull and Mercedes had reportedly complained to Pirelli that, according to their data, the new tyres are wearing out faster when fitted to the very best cars.


maybe Mercedes should also complain to its fuel provider, that the faster they go the more fuel they burn :wave:

#19 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 28 March 2013 - 16:17

I don't know about Lotus, but Ferrari has been pushing for a while for less aero-dependence. This is probably because lately they haven't been competitive vs. teams that have done a better job in the aerodynamics department (problems with their wind tunnel come to mind). RBR has been beating their rivals in the aero field, probably largely due to the good work of AN and they have won 3 straight championships. So, it's nothing new in F1 that teams, especially powerful ones, try to manipulate anything possible in their favor. On top of that, BE knows what one team constantly winning can do to the viewing figures and $$ of F1. So yeah, this constant "re-shuffling" of rules and tyres and engines and...is largely, if not purely, influenced by the large players in F1. After all, if Ferrari or anyone different from Red Bull are WCs this season, fans are happier, BE has fuller pockets and the champion team can vent some pressure from their fans and sponsors.

Advertisement

#20 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 28 March 2013 - 16:25

Really??

Posted Image

Posted Image

All I see is that RedBull & Mercedes have panicked in the second race & screwed their own team camaraderie by getting sucked into applying team orders to protect tyres.... unnecessarily! This can be directly attributed by the outcome of what one team-driver combo did in Melbourne.

If this carries on, Ferrari & to some extent Lotus will keep looking at ways to screwing them with strategy over the season and hope to win the mental war. They have had a good start already in that regard.

If a picture is worth thousands words, than this is the one I would choose.

#21 Gyno

Gyno
  • Member

  • 657 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 28 March 2013 - 18:57

It's time that they change the Rules so that the TEAMS decide what tires they wanna use at each GP.
Not Pirelli.
Pirelli is there to supply tires Nothing else, just make tires and shut up.




#22 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 28 March 2013 - 19:07

It's time that they change the Rules so that the TEAMS decide what tires they wanna use at each GP.
Not Pirelli.
Pirelli is there to supply tires Nothing else, just make tires and shut up.


the teams will choose the most durable tires, i.e hard and medium for every race then, and we'll have the borefest as usual. it won't work. and pirelli always chooses 2 compounds that they know will give performance, but will be a little on the edge. they don't choose randomly.

#23 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 28 March 2013 - 19:09

I don't know about Lotus, but Ferrari has been pushing for a while for less aero-dependence. This is probably because lately they haven't been competitive vs. teams that have done a better job in the aerodynamics department (problems with their wind tunnel come to mind). RBR has been beating their rivals in the aero field, probably largely due to the good work of AN and they have won 3 straight championships. So, it's nothing new in F1 that teams, especially powerful ones, try to manipulate anything possible in their favor. On top of that, BE knows what one team constantly winning can do to the viewing figures and $$ of F1. So yeah, this constant "re-shuffling" of rules and tyres and engines and...is largely, if not purely, influenced by the large players in F1. After all, if Ferrari or anyone different from Red Bull are WCs this season, fans are happier, BE has fuller pockets and the champion team can vent some pressure from their fans and sponsors.


i have a solution for that,


MOVE TO ENGLAND WHERE THE ENGINEERS ARE.



#24 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 28 March 2013 - 19:12


It is their good right. I still agree with Mazzola that Pirelli went a bit too far. The teams will catch up and manage the tyres better but it is still painful to see such fragility.

Un’ultima considerazione: vorrei fare un appello alla Pirelli perché possa rivedere la strategia della scelte delle gomme fatta per il 2013. Dopo i test invernali ed i primi due gran premi mi sembra abbastanza chiaro che le gomme siano troppo fragili per delle vetture di F1. L’anno scorso la situazione era più gestibile da parte dei piloti e abbiamo visto delle gare molto belle. Ora mi sembra incredibile che i piloti non possano spingere durante il Q1 – vedi Red Bull in Malesia – per preservarsi quel set anche in Q2, così da avere più gomme per la gara.

Lascio a voi, adesso, ogni pensiero e considerazione sugli argomenti trattati oggi. Nelle prossime settimane, tornerò qui a trattare argomenti molto tecnici: la vostra competenza e curiosità certamente lo merita.



#25 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 28 March 2013 - 19:28

I dont quite understand why Merc are in bed with RB on this. I think Merc may be playing lip service on this one and if so, why? :confused:


There's a youtube clip of Paul Hembery saying that Mercedes weren't really complaining that's a media invention, somehow.

Edited by undersquare, 28 March 2013 - 20:08.


#26 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 28 March 2013 - 19:32

It's time that they change the Rules so that the TEAMS decide what tires they wanna use at each GP.
Not Pirelli.
Pirelli is there to supply tires Nothing else, just make tires and shut up.


Mostly agreed. Pirelli should provide 2 or 3 compounds per race and teams choose their strategy according to what works best with their cars and drivers. If they want to do many stops on softs, one or none on hards or even if they want to mix compounds should be their problem. Pirelli: produce the tyres, bring them to the GPs, get paid, shut up.


#27 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 28 March 2013 - 19:38

:up:

finally, cool heads prevailing. along with LotusF1 and ferrari, i also expect Force India and SauberF1 to support pirelli.

merc is doing this for fear of Lotusf1, not for actual tire deg.

Given the way Sutil's tyres fell apart and ruined an excellent result in Oz I can't see why they'd that enamoured. But then, god forbid, they did try to be really radical and get more than 5 laps out of them :eek:

#28 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 28 March 2013 - 19:39

It's time that they change the Rules so that the TEAMS decide what tires they wanna use at each GP.
Not Pirelli.
Pirelli is there to supply tires Nothing else, just make tires and shut up.

:up:

#29 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 28 March 2013 - 20:03

TC actually thinks the driver plays a big part with tire conservation of these Pirellis. :rotfl:

#30 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 28 March 2013 - 20:13

Given the way Sutil's tyres fell apart and ruined an excellent result in Oz I can't see why they'd that enamoured. But then, god forbid, they did try to be really radical and get more than 5 laps out of them :eek:


it was the problem of the Super soft on that particular circuit, and they didn't fell off, they grained for the first 2/3 laps, but they came back to him. you can check the lap times for that. certain teams made them work at the beginning of the race with full fuel load.


#31 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 28 March 2013 - 20:59

Whilst I agree that tyres should not be changed to appease one or two teams, it's equally true that this is not Formula Pirelli; there's potentential here for Pirelli to totally take over the sport - making tyres to suit their own fancies, their own whims, the teams they currently like, etc, potentially renderending the best car(s), engine(s), desingner(s) and driver(s) helpless. There is, as usual, a happy medium to be found.


If your idea of the perfect F1 is a driver´s contest, this is the closest you´ll ever seen. Check 2012 WDC. :wave: No doubt cream emerges to the top in the closest grid ever.

But don´t let facts get in the middle of the endless moaning of the magnificent group of the "I can´t cope with change" F1 fans. Go argue on youtube which year was "the last year of real F1" (whatever that is). :rolleyes:

#32 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 28 March 2013 - 21:13

If your idea of the perfect F1 is a driver´s contest, this is the closest you´ll ever seen. Check 2012 WDC. :wave: No doubt cream emerges to the top in the closest grid ever.

But don´t let facts get in the middle of the endless moaning of the magnificent group of the "I can´t cope with change" F1 fans. Go argue on youtube which year was "the last year of real F1" (whatever that is). :rolleyes:

Cope with change? If change means much less driving on the edge and much less 'racing', then no, I can't cope with change. The fact that the 'right' people still end up in front in no way whatsoever proves that the new format isn't massively compromising the sport. If you made the premier league use a foam ball and play in mud with their shoes tied together it's highly likely that the same teams would be at the top after 36 games, but that doesn't prove it's a good or justified change.

#33 Trust

Trust
  • Member

  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 28 March 2013 - 21:18

TC actually thinks the driver plays a big part with tire conservation of these Pirellis. :rotfl:

Rosberg had much better tyres than Hamilton in Malaysia last week. So a driver can play a big part there.

#34 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 28 March 2013 - 21:28

Cope with change? If change means much less driving on the edge and much less 'racing', then no, I can't cope with change.


Luckily we have way more racing, so I guess you can´t complain, unless you´re one of these guys crying for every change: "new qualifying format will kill F1, V8 will kill F1, DRS is the end of F1". If you are -looks like that to me-, keep entertaining people with fail prophecies.

The fact that the 'right' people still end up in front in no way whatsoever proves that the new format isn't massively compromising the sport. If you made the premier league use a foam ball and play in mud with their shoes tied together it's highly likely that the same teams would be at the top after 36 games, but that doesn't prove it's a good or justified change.


What it does is proving wrong those trying to argue best drivers and cars get disadvantaged. They do not.

#35 skid solo

skid solo
  • Member

  • 2,439 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 28 March 2013 - 21:28

Cope with change? If change means much less driving on the edge and much less 'racing', then no, I can't cope with change. The fact that the 'right' people still end up in front in no way whatsoever proves that the new format isn't massively compromising the sport. If you made the premier league use a foam ball and play in mud with their shoes tied together it's highly likely that the same teams would be at the top after 36 games, but that doesn't prove it's a good or justified change.


Also if every match they were scoring 15-20 goals, to some it would be entertaining but to me, I would still prefer the matches when we would have to wait a full 90 minutes in a closely contested battle till finally someone scored the winning goal. Racing on Pirellis is like going straight to a penalty shoot out..

#36 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,790 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 28 March 2013 - 21:29

Mostly agreed. Pirelli should provide 2 or 3 compounds per race and teams choose their strategy according to what works best with their cars and drivers. If they want to do many stops on softs, one or none on hards or even if they want to mix compounds should be their problem. Pirelli: produce the tyres, bring them to the GPs, get paid, shut up.


They already do provide two :confused: The two-compound rule is not Pirelli's invention.


#37 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 28 March 2013 - 21:38

Mostly agreed. Pirelli should provide 2 or 3 compounds per race and teams choose their strategy according to what works best with their cars and drivers. If they want to do many stops on softs, one or none on hards or even if they want to mix compounds should be their problem. Pirelli: produce the tyres, bring them to the GPs, get paid, shut up.


Do you somehow believe that Pirelli have written the rules regarding tyres?


#38 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 28 March 2013 - 21:41

Rosberg had much better tyres than Hamilton in Malaysia last week. So a driver can play a big part there.


Did he?

He had more fuel.

#39 GVera

GVera
  • Member

  • 555 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 28 March 2013 - 22:12

The best car is the one able to do the entire race quickest, not the one with more downforce or the quickest in one lap.

Advertisement

#40 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 28 March 2013 - 22:22

The best car is the one able to do the entire race quickest, not the one with more downforce or the quickest in one lap.


:up:



#41 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 28 March 2013 - 22:26

If they really have been able to nobble Red Bull with a tyre carcass then that's genius :lol:

Waiting to see tho...

#42 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 28 March 2013 - 23:15

They already do provide two :confused: The two-compound rule is not Pirelli's invention.


Of course it's not. What I meant is that the tyre supplier should provide whatever the teams need for a particular race with its conditions of weather, surface, etc., etc. (and of course, what FIA allows: if FIA now says a maximum of two compounds should be brought, that's the way it has to go). But don't mess with the tyres. They should help drivers get the most out of their cars and allow for different strategies. It seems that these days they play too much of a central role. Just make compounds that can be pushed at 100% for the window they were designed for and don't come apart when cars are fighting on track.

#43 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 28 March 2013 - 23:16

Do you somehow believe that Pirelli have written the rules regarding tyres?


No, I have explained what I meant in a later post.


#44 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,790 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 28 March 2013 - 23:29

@RealRacer: got it