Will rules change slow Red Bull in Valencia?

2011 European GP preview

Posted on

| Written by

Start, Valencia, 2010

Will the change in the rules on engine mappings in qualifying allow Red Bull’s rivals to break their strangehold on pole position in the European Grand Prix?

Or are we set for a repeat of last year’s lights-to-flag victory by Sebastian Vettel?

Red Bull and the rules

In Formula 1 you only catch your rivals by finding new advantages or getting theirs taken away. The new restrictions on engine mappings (explained in greater detail here and here) are likely to help some teams and hurt others – but which?

Naturally, suspicion has fallen upon pace-setters Red Bull, who have the most to lose.

They have tended to find more time between Q2 and Q3 in qualifying, suggesting they are doing something to enhance their one-lap pace, and a well-optimised exhaust-blowing system could well be part of that advantage. But in all likelihood it’s not the only trick up their sleeve.

Even so, Valencia offers little in the way of the high-speed turns the RB7 thrives on, apart from the corners at the end of the lap. As in Canada traction from slow corners is important here.

The chasing pack

While Canada winner Jenson Button comes into the race on a high, his team mate is under a cloud after a pair of wild races.

Lewis Hamilton has a consistent record at Valencia – finishing second in every appearance here so far – and could badly do with a trouble-free weekend and a solid result.

He sailed close to the wind here last year as well – remember the first-corner contact with Vettel, and his enormous stroke of fortune after being penalised for overtaking the safety car.

Ferrari had their best qualifying performance of the year so far in Canada before slipping back in the race.

There are signs the team are getting to grips with the 150?é?? Italia, but the results need to start coming thick and fast for Fernando Alonso if he is to stay within reach of the championship front-runners. Surprisingly, he has never finished in the top five at his second home race.

But it’s unlikely we’ll see three Spanish drivers on the grid as Sergio Perez is expected to return for Sauber after pulling out of the Canadian round.

DRS and tyres

Valencia’s faux street circuit is more of a purpose-built facility laid out in an urban area than a proper Monaco-style street track.

Its three previous races were lifeless affairs on the whole, though Mark Webber’s terrifying flight after hitting Heikki Kovalainen during last year’s race was a significant exception.

But with two DRS zones planned as was used in Canada, overtaking should prove considerably easier than it has in the past in Valencia.

In an attempt to get away from drivers making up to four pit stops per race, Pirelli have changed their original tyre allocation for this race and will bring the soft tyre instead of the super-soft.

The other tyre available is the medium, which has also been tweaked for longevity since it was last used in pre-season testing.

What do you expect to see in this weekend’s European Grand Prix? Have your say in the comments.

Driver form in 2011

Q avgR avgR bestR worstClassifiedForm guide
Sebastian Vettel1.141.29127/7Form guide
Mark Webber4.863.57257/7Form guide
Lewis Hamilton43.83186/7Form guide
Jenson Button4.293.57167/7Form guide
Fernando Alonso4.294.5276/7Form guide
Felipe Massa6.8675115/7Form guide
Michael Schumacher9.577.84125/7Form guide
Nico Rosberg6.148.55126/7Form guide
Nick Heidfeld13.868.333126/7Form guide
Vitaly Petrov8.148.833176/7Form guide
Rubens Barrichello14.8612.69175/7Form guide
Pastor Maldonado13.291715184/7Form guide
Adrian Sutil14.4311.337156/7Form guide
Paul di Resta12.7112.1710186/7Form guide
Kamui Kobayashi13.438.175106/7Form guide
Sergio Perez13.613.339173/5Form guide
Sebastien Buemi12.7111.148147/7Form guide
Jaime Alguersuari14.14138165/7Form guide
Heikki Kovalainen18.141614194/7Form guide
Jarno Trulli19.1416.1713196/7Form guide
Narain Karthikeyan22.8319.817235/6Form guide
Vitantonio Liuzzi21.8318.2513224/6Form guide
Timo Glock2117.7515214/7Form guide
Jerome D’Ambrosio22.4317.1714206/7Form guide
Pedro de la Rosa171212121/1Form guide

2011 European Grand Prix

    Browse all 2011 European Grand Prix articles

    Image © Red Bull/Getty images

    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.

    79 comments on “Will rules change slow Red Bull in Valencia?”

    1. Shame, I’d like to see a 4-stop around Valencia, might help liven things up.

      After being too strong in Turkey and Canada and little use in Spain and Monaco it’ll be interesting to see if DRS starts working again.

      1. I think it’s going to be effective on the first straight – I have my doubt regarding the second. It does not seems like a proper ‘straight’ to me, it’s just so that the ideal racing line goes more or less straight among little left and right curves. I think there isn’t enough place for to cars. Much like the uphill towards Massenet in Monaco.

        But the first straight could serve well as an overtaking spot.

        1. I meant ‘for two cars.’

          *Crying out for an ‘Edit’ button.*

        2. That might be why it could be effective, because the un-straightness ruins slipstreaming even on the first straight.

      2. I’m getting a bit bored of these races with ridiculous ammounts of tyre stops, I would much prefer multiple tyre suppliers and proper tyres, not deliberately bad tyres.

        1. For deliberatley bad tyres see designed wit a purpose in mind, that it, a set number of laps.

          The basic problem of having a single tyre supplier is there isn’t a need to be competative, Brigestone were supplying tyres based on the 05 rubber that was ment to last a whole race distance, for corporate image.

          Basically you have to choose between rubbish controll rubber that last for ever, the excess and favouritism of the tyre war, or tyre’s with a life span and a possible sense of contrivance.

        2. Have you not enjoyed this year’s racing?

          If you have, at least a substantial amount of that is due to the tyres.

    2. Is it just me or are Pirelli putting effort into making tyres last longer? It seems the gap between a Pirelli and a Bridgestone tyre is getting smaller.

      In an attempt to get away from drivers making up to four pit stops per race

      I don’t see a problem with drivers making four or more pit stops. I would suggest that it makes for a more interesting race.

      1. i disagree, i think more stops just puts more focus on the pit lane which takes focus off the track.

        when we had 3-4 stops earlier in the year we seemed to be looking at a car trundling down the pit lane almost as much as we were watching cars out on the racetrack.

        2-stops is what pirelli said they were after pre-season and everything they have done to the compounds since has been to hit that target they set themselfs.

        1. HounslowBusGarage
          22nd June 2011, 14:59

          Yes, I agree about the predominance of pit-stops in TV coverage. what seemed to make it even more silly at Turkey (I think) was that pit-stops of relatively lowly placed cars seemed to be shown while there was action happening out on the track. I know that’s not the fault of FIA or FOTA, but if there’s less time cars visiting the pits, the TV Director will be forced to concentrate more on the track.

          1. My favourite was at Barcelona when the TV director cut away to the pit lane (for a Toro Rosso, I think) just as Alonso was about to be overtaken, and cut back when it was all over. :D

            1. HounslowBusGarage
              22nd June 2011, 16:43

              That was one of the prime examples, wasn’t it? I still have the bite marks where I was gnawing my knuckles in frustration!

            2. They had cut away to show Vettel leaving the pits after his stop (As he was race leader at the time) but they cut to the wrong camera.

              I guess they meant to cut to a camera in the pits but cut to the camera at turn 1 showing the pit exit.

              The thing with that was that the director showed Webber passing Alonso & then planned to cover Vettel’s stop but just as he made the switch Alonso started to re-pass Webber & it was this 2nd move which was missed.

            3. It was not a simple overtake. Alonso, the two times champion, was being laped and, of course, Spanish TV didn’t want you to see that :)

            4. Jaja, soon youll be watching the races on spanish TV when BBC stops broadcasting

      2. I don’t think that’s it. Remember that the teams will be getting used to the tyres more and more.

        1. It was not a simple overtake. Alonso, the two times champion, was being laped and, of course, Spanish TV didn’t want you to see that :)

          spanish tv had nothing to do with it as its now fom who handle the broadcast’s for all races apart from monaco & japan.

    3. Well hopefully for the championship the change in rules will see the Red Bull hauled back. If so, we could do with a Button 2009-esq decline in form after the first 6 races and it could be game-on for the championship again…

    4. I must state again my disapproval of rule changes mid season and for the first time agree with Helmut Marko. The dbl diffuser and f-duct were not banned until the end of season and engine mapping has in no way any effect on safety, so therefore there is no reason to implement this change immediately. Teams have designed their cars to incorporate unique exhaust systems that work best with the engine mapping they set, a change in this system will most likely require further design and mechanical changes to be made. Hardly a cost cutting exercise is it now FIA!

      1. Double diffuser and F-duct used loop holes int he current regulations though. To close those the rules had to be re-written which is why they were not banned mid-season. The OTBD falls foul of the movable areodynamic device. Note that they are not banning blown diffusers, that happens in 2012. What they are banning here is the use of an automated (when the driver is off throttle) device that through movement (opening of the throttle) causes a change in aerodynamic flow through the rear of the car. The primary purpose of this engine mapping is to affect aerodynamic flow so falls foul of the rule banning such devices. It is being banned mid season as there is no loop hole to allow it.

        1. The OTBD falls foul of the movable areodynamic device.

          That is very debatable, if it does so does the throttle pedal, you accelerate and get more down-force, so the throttle must be a moveable aero device, so lets ban it too.
          It’s wrong, the FIA want it banned so they’ve thumbed through the rule book to find something most won’t think about and will just accept as breaking the rules. If I was in the RBR in particular I would be pretty mad. However in the interest of mixing things up a bit I’m glad it has been banned.

          1. I disagree. The normal operation of the throttle has a primary purpose of controlling the engine, the by-product of routing the exhaust gasses through the diffuser has the effect of improving down force. Under normal operation there is no change to the amount or flow of exhaust gasses compared to periscope exhausts from a couple of years ago. The OTBD can be considered a separate device whos sole purpose is to affect the flow through the diffuser using movable parts. This device just happens to double as the engine throttle. It is this separate dedicated usage that is against the rules.

            1. I would agree if they had banned the exhausts blowing the diffuser in any guise, and insisted that the periscope exhausts had to be once more adopted. It doesn’t matter if the blown diffuser is ‘by-product’ of normal operation of the engine, the fact is the moving engine parts increase the down-force, so the logic follows that if the engine is a moveable aero device for hot blowing it is for normal operation as well.
              Its a way of banning the system without changing the rules, however logically it doesn’t make sense, you can’t draw the line there and ignore ‘normal’ blown diffusers. They have got this one wrong.

            2. @BBT

              The OTBD falls foul of the movable areodynamic device.

              First of all I don’t see how thats debatable, the pistons move, the exhaust they create changes the aerodynamics of the car.

              What the FIA are banning is using the engine outside of it’s primary function. If you feed your exhausts into the diffuser thn let them run as normal, although you are changing the characteristics of your car, it’s just a matter of exploiting a primary function. However, the retarded engine maps essentially make the engines downforce fans. It’s also hellishly inefficient, an as it is against the rules, not a bad move by the FIA.

              Still not voting approve for Todt, that man is going to have to be spectacular before he looks competant again.

            3. The front wheels are clearly moveable aerodynamic devices and should be banned as well? The fact that they’re still allowed in F1 is an outrage!!!

            4. US_Peter said what I thought :)

              You have to look at the primary purpose for a device. If a device moves and its primary purpose is nothing to do with aerodynamics then if it affects aerodynamics through its movement that is allowed, an example being the wheels on the car.
              As soon as you use the device to do something that is not covered by its primary purpose with the intention of affecting the aerodynamics, this is illegal.
              If you added some clever vanes that lets say cool the brakes when not in use but are connected to the brakes somehow so when depressed they move and affect airflow to create more downforce or stability, this would be illegal.
              It is the primary purpose and method of operation that makes the OTBD illegal and the EBD a loophole in the rules.
              The FIA are moving to clarify the current illegality and are closing the loophole for next year.

    5. Does anybody know what happened to McLarens Octopuss Exhaust system. Was it designed for hot blowing? If not then surely they should be looking at it again for Silverstone?

      1. I think it was scrapped because they couldn’t stop it melting.

      2. If it existed it would of most certainly used hot blowing to get the max benefit (maybe that is one of the reasons in melted the rear of the car).

        1. I suspect it was. They wanted to make it from heat resistant material, but it was deemed an exhaust, so can be only made from steel.

          1. http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9697

            Rather good post on it in F1technical. Same things would be a problem now.

            Was looking the sytem up and found some hilarious simularities between this and a post on our forum. Oh the wonders of google.

            1. It also looks strikingly similar to things I read about from ScarbsF1.

    6. Come on T1 hero Lewis :D Take someone out again!! Go go go go

    7. While the Pirelli tyres have certainly made this season more exciting and eventful, 4 stops in an era of no refueling in a tad excessive. Racing is for the drivers on the track, not for teams in the pits.

      1. William Wilgus
        22nd June 2011, 13:58

        Agreed. Let’s go back to 1 set of tires for the entire race; no pit stops. That‘s racing!

        1. We said refuelling took racing out of the track and into the pit lane – but 4 stops do the exact same.

    8. I’ts weird how Jenson Button and Mark Webber both have the same average finishing position, but they don’t have the same number of points in the championship

      1. If you finish first and twenty first you will have 25 points but an averge position of 11th. If you finish 11th twice you will have an average position of 11th but… nil points

        The wonders of a non-linear points system ;-)

        1. superb post

    9. im not sure i like the rule changes happening mid-season.

      you could say it will make the championship more exciting if red bull/vettel lose a big part of there advantage, however you could also argue that the championship is been unfairly manipulated as a result.

      rules should not simply be altered just because fans, the fia or whoever want a closer championship battle, thats not what f1 or any world championship should be about.

      1. The rules have not changed, the enforcement of them has. Although I don’t agree the engine mapping is a moveable aero-device.

        1. Bernie has been trying to nobble the early leader for years so as to make the WDC decided at the last race, expect him to launch a tirade against the points system favouring the winner to much if SV wraps up the title mid season.

          1. The same Bernie who wanted to give medals to the racers. 6 medals and u become WDC. 1 more to go Seb :)

          2. Bernie is a keen supporter of Vettel though, I’m surprised he hasn’t brought up the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system yet!

            1. There was nothing wrong with that system (until everyone got bored with Schumacher winning the title all the time) and I’ve never understood why they didn’t go back to it. Massa would have won under it in ’09. FYI, if applied this year, it would leave Vettel on 62, Button on 29 and Hamilton on 26.

      2. Totally agree with you Steve.

    10. But in all likelihood it’s not the only trick up their sleeve.

      My thoughts exactly. RBR are always quick to say that it is the car as a whole that brings them their superior performance, not so much a specific part (though I guess some parts more than others).

      I don’t expect anything less than pole from an RB7, the race i’m not so sure.

      Webber could be dreading having to pit and ensuring he doesn’t come out behind Kovalainen ;)

      1. I am with you there Andrew.

        I hope to see Webber up front this time, but not holding up my hopes too much.

    11. JamieFranklinF1
      22nd June 2011, 14:01

      It’s not being altered for a more exciting Championship. The fact is that the off-throttle blown diffuser is technically an illegal device, and therefore should be banned.

      It also consumes a lot more fuel, which is not economical, something which F1 is trying its best to move towards.

      I agree that innovation should be rewarded, and really shouldn’t always be banned, but a lot of them are either on the border line of the rules, or going against the grain of modern/future F1.

      1. so you believe that if red bull were not running away with the championship the fia would still be banning it?

        red bull have had this system for 2+ years now & the fia have had full knowledge of how it worked so why not ban it as soon as they found out about the system or at the end of 2009 or 2010?

        if the fia felt it was a moveable aero device then why allow it to begin with? why did no teams protest the system?
        why no outrage over the system untill now when the team that have the best system look like they could potentially walk away with the championship.

        im not a red bull or vettel fan so im not coming at this from the perspective of the team/driver im rooting for been disadvantaged or anything, im just looking at it from the perspective that this is supposed to be a world championship and this makes it seem as if things are been manipulated to get a closer fight for the championship.

        if they want to ban this system then why not wait untill 2012, why does it have to be mid-2011? i dont see any reason why it had to be now.

        1. if the fia felt it was a moveable aero device then why allow it to begin with? why did no teams protest the system?

          Exactly, and it was on car since mid last year and nearly everyone knew it. The simple answer is they have now decided to call it something (‘moveable aero’) very debatable to get the ban through. Why they want it banned we can only speculate.

          1. After the next 3 races you will probably see the front wing tests altered again…

            1. LOL, hope not.

            2. …and so we should, the front wings are another joke.

          2. It’s all too reminiscent of mass dampers to me… Mid-season changes in *ahem* the way rules are implemented *ahem* which happen to target a dominant player, and afford a very short runway for any kind of effective redesign.

            Either it’s a MAD or it isn’t.

            If it is a MAD, then you have to ban it NOW, AND take away results that were scored using it, AND explain why you didn’t ban it ages ago when you already knew all about it. MADs have been illegal in F1 for many, many years (except when they’re not…read DRS) so this should be simple. If hot blown diffusers are demonstrably MADs, as Charlie says they are, then on what basis can anyone using them be allowed to keep the points they gained while using them? (It’s also too “flexi floor”, which is another illegal MAD that wasn’t until it was, and has a WDC to its credit, too). We all got used to this rolling brief thing, didn’t we? Sauber is leading the WDC and WCC, in other words, and good for them – they read the rules correctly and didn’t invest in a blind alley.

            On the other hand, if it’s not a MAD, or you’re not really sure Mr. Whiting, let the teams that have spent their millions keep them and then WRITE THE RULE PROPERLY at the end of the year. You can change the rules between seasons, you know. There’s no suggestion that this is a safety issue so it can only be intended to alter the form book, after all. My personal hope is that someone does catch Vettel (and hopefully it will be my favourite team and driver that catches him) but Vettel and RBR are already WDCs elect, so short of an injury, only a 2006-style intervention by the likes of Whiting can change the story of this season. I think that would be wrong.

            Consuming more fuel is immaterial, by the way, where the question of legality is concerned. It might be undesirable, but so was Alonso’s moustache, and that wasn’t banned (and I’ll bet it moved in the breeze, too, a lot more than a damper that never saw air flow ever would).

            RBR is making light of the potential impact. They might be right. But Renault made light of the effect of the damper change and immediately spent several races flailing around with a slow car, and Michelin made light of their tyres being outlawed in the middle of a season, and even said their narrow version might be quicker, prior to losing championships they should have won.

            Bottom line is, I haven’t heard a compelling argument for changing the rule now (and yes, it’s a rule change, not a subtle inflection or a certain look in Charlie’s eye) rather than a year ago when it was already known about, or at the end of 2011.

    12. Sorry Keith – I don’t want to turn in ‘Mr. Typo’ today, but you’ve missed an ‘h’ in ‘Naturally, suspicion as fallen upon pace-setters Red Bull’!

      1. Got it, thanks!

    13. Sorry to go of subject but can’t we lobby Pirelli to change the name of the tyres to avoid confusion ” X is on softs so expect his tyres to last longer than Ys” Perhaps they can go like pencils, H1, H2, etc.

      1. Hard, medium, soft, super-soft – seems pretty simple to me. The names say what they are.

        1. Yes, but if you don’t know which 2 tyres are supplied for the race then you can have the softs being the hard tyre that race or it could be the soft. Only the hard and super-soft are definitive.

          1. I remember having this discussion with someone else a while ago. It’s not as if it’s hard to find out which tyres are being used at a given race – it’s mentioned here plenty of times in the run-up to each Grand Prix (in this article, for example) and the race commentators usually point it out during the event too.

            The current system makes it easier to keep track of which tyres are being used for different races, and which teams are strong/weak on particular tyres – e.g. Ferrari’s problems with the hards.

            1. Maybe, but when I get up early on a Sunday morning to watch it seems easy to be confused by the soft or softer tyre.

          2. Race commentators almost always say “prime” and “option”, though – at least the BBC’s do – which is definitive. The prime is always the harder tyre, the option is always the softer tyre.

            1. Wish I was watching the beeb,sometimes I’m in a bar with the race being broadcast in a foreign language that I only have a vague understanding of.

    14. Statistics says no one can match Vettel in this year’s championship…unless new rule stop Red Bull. I think even if they would be slower than before they would be still fast enough.

    15. My understanding of the rule change for Valencia is that they must start the race with the same engine setting as in qualifying. However, they may change it once the race has started. I believe this is how scarbs saw it on his twitter feed – so please correct me if i’m wrong.

      If this is the case, the rules won’t change anything this race in all likelihood.

      1. Looking at the original specs for the 2008-2010 FIA standard ECU it looks as though there is one fuel map with multiple modifiers and two ignition maps (with multiple modifiers) selectable by the driver when the car is stationary for 3 or more seconds

        2.4.7 FIA Configuration and Limitations
        Two base spark maps, selectable by driver when car stationary for 3 seconds.

        I havent found anything saying this has changed recently so this is probably still in force. So whilst the base maps can be modified slightly to help with traction or economy, it doesn’t look like it will be possible to run an extreme map for qualification and for the first lap of the race before changing it on the fly.

        1. Good spot. So this seems to suggest they would need to run the same map as qualifying until the 1st pitstop?

          Or if they stop for 3 seconds after there quick qualifying run (before Quali ends) they can flick to race mode, so start the race with a different map? Would that be a loop hole?

          1. That is the loophole being closed for this weekend’s GP – cars will have to start the race with the same maps used for qualifying.
            But it is even worse than that for the teams as there is only one fuel map and only two ignition maps. (The modifiers are multipliers of the values in the fuel map and most are due to changes in air temp, oil temp, or other sensor inputs so not useful for this type of change.)
            When you consider that the teams run a start map to maximise traction off the line and then switch to the race map when allowed, there is no space for special qualification maps. Teams will be forced to run their race maps in qualification essentially.

            1. I see – but, theoretically the loophole isn’t closed, its there but unlikely to be used.

              It wouldn’t surprise me if some teams do use the qualy map in order to maximise their grid position – or at least, modify the qualy map so that it has some the required traction for a start? Then switch to a full race mode at the first pitstop?

              Either way, it looks like a bodge job this weekend

    16. Keith, Sergio Perez is not spanish, he’s Mexican.

      1. No but Pedro de la Rosa is.

    17. I thought the rule change was from Silverstone onwards?

    18. I am quite surprised nobody seems to realize how self-contradictory it is that FIA are supposedly not happy with teams wasting fuel on hot blown diffusers while at the same time they re over the moon with how the new tyres have worked out for them. So they re claiming a tiny extra % of carbon emissions compared to what the whole F1 business produces (that is if you believe that CO2 causes global warming in which case i have a bridge for sale) is hurting the environment and use that argument to justify trying to change the power balance or at least reshuffle the deck in order to produce a closer title battle.

      At the same time they are bragging about how brilliant the new tyres are for not lasting long enough and producing exciting racing. You see i thought tyres were made of oil, and you re happy with burning out 3 or 4 sets instead of 2 (or less, supposedly F1 is trying to get greener, right?) ? Do you realize what a huge waste of oil that is compared to keeping the throttle open a little longer ?

      Seriously, who’s buying that?

      I don’t want F1 to degrade into professional wrestling, that’s all.

      1. Do you really think they are interested in carbon emissions? We have night races introduced in last couple of seasons.
        F1 racing at night under zillion of spotlights! Environmental awareness at it’s lowest…
        What’s wrong with the Sun anyway?!

    19. Another Vettel’s day until Button or Alonso fight hard.

    20. mid season rule changes are a bad thing. the spec for 2011 was set well in advance, changing it mid season is not on. if red bull are compromised by these sudden changes, it’s deffo a case of “FIA clips your wings”.

    21. Kiril Varbanov
      23rd June 2011, 9:01

      The short and simple answer is: I hope so.

    22. “his enormous stroke of fortune”!!! C’mon

    Comments are closed.