Teams not concerned by lack of qualifying running – Pirelli

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Pirelli say teams are blocking a move to qualifying tyres to increase the amount of running in qualifying.


Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

Pirelli ready to supply Q3-only tyres (Autosport)

Pirelli motorsport director Paul Hembery: “If a fan on the grandstands doesn’t see much running in Q3, then that fan casts the blame on Pirelli thinking that we don’t want to spend any more money in order to supply more tyres.”

Waddell & Reed, Norges Bank and BlackRock invest in Formula 1 (CVC)

“Mr. Donald Mackenzie, Managing Partner of CVC Capital Partners, said: ‘This is great news for Formula 1 and an important step in its development. CVC became the controlling shareholder of Formula 1 in 2006. Since that date we have supported the company and its management as they have grown the company with great success. The addition of these three highly regarded investors to our share register is validation of this success, and we look forward to working with our new partners over the coming years.'”

F1 draws $1.6bn from investors (FT, registration required)

“The deals by Waddell & Reed, BlackRock and Norges Bank Investment Management, which each invested separately earlier this year, put the total price of the company at $7.2bn, or $9.1bn including debt.”

Investors buy into F1 for $1.6bn as Bernie Ecclestone confirms float (The Telegraph)

“I wouldn’t appoint somebody to do my job because nobody would run the business the way I do. You might as well have asked Frank Sinatra who he would appoint to replace him. Somebody can sing but can they sing like Sinatra? No. Will somebody run the business the way I run it? No. They might run it better but they wouldn’t run it the same.”

Monaco GP – A challenge for seventy years (Ferrari)

Pat Fry: “Apart from this sensitivity to temperature, [the tyres] are also quite sensitive to the way the drivers use them. In a race where three pit stops would be considered the norm, if the driver is very very careful on the rear tyres, you might be able to keep them in good enough shape to do just two stops. But if you push hard on the tyres they degrade and a driver can damage them a little bit by pushing.”

Pointless (for now) (ESPN)

Caterham technical director Mark Smith: “There is a cost implication [of building a wind tunnel] but equally we’re aware that, at the moment in some of the discussion forums within F1, the idea of cost saving is being discussed, and it’s important that we set ourselves up going forward to be optimum in that respect. At the moment, the Williams wind tunnel is a very good tunnel for us, it works well, and when we’re in Leafield it will be quite convenient.”

Williams’ secret ingredient (MotorSport)

“I sense that, in no particular order, we can point to the arrival of Mike Coughlan, vastly improved aerodynamics, some new and very clever personnel in key positions, a vigorous desire to recover and, of course, that Renault engine that has served Red Bull so well these past few seasons.”

F1: ‘Rush’ Wraps After Three-Month Shoot (Speed)

“The Rush crew has visited the Brands Hatch, Crystal Palace, Snetterton and Cadwell Park circuits, as well as spending a large chunk of time at its own specially created pit/paddock facility at Blackbushe airfield.”

F1 innovations rule out reprise of Nigel Mansell’s Monaco thriller (The Guardian)

“It was an epic climax to a race that all hard-core Formula One fans cite as a classic. But it could never happen today, thanks to the introduction of KERS – the system that stores energy from braking which can then be used to provide a power boost – and DRS, the drag reduction system, in which the rear wing can be adjusted on certain parts of the circuit to increase the car’s top speed.”

Williams F1 car topiary exhibit wins Chelsea gold (BBC)

“Team founder, Sir Frank Williams, whose team won the most recent Grand Prix in Spain, attended the show on Monday.”

Comment of the day

Raymondu999 on Paul di Resta’s prospects:

To be honest I find di Resta to be a bit of a Button. This isn’t to say he’s good, nor does it say he’s bad. I’m saying he’s in the same category as Button. His strength has generally been his consistency in my opinion, and his highest high is never too far from his lowest low.

Most of his better drives, for example, have come from tyre saving and just choosing his fights, and being smart about his race management. I don’t think we’ve seen a race from him that has become amazing thanks to prodigious pace. This isn’t to say he doesn’t have it – I’m just saying he hasn’t shown it.

From the forum

Site updates

As you’ll have seen yesterday you can now sign up to become an F1 Fanatic Supporter and browse the site ad-free. Several users have taken advantage of this already – find out more and sign up here:

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Emmet!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

One of the most remarkable conclusions ever seen to a race in any series unfolded in the final laps of the Monaco Grand Prix, 30 years ago today.

Alain Prost was leading when he crashed his Renault as rain began to fall. Brabham’s Riccardo Patrese took over the lead but spun at the hairpin.

Didier Pironi was next to lead for Ferrari but stopped in the tunnel with an electrical problem.

Meanwhile Andrea de Cesaris, who would have inherited the lead from Pironi, was parking his Alfa Romeo having also run out of fuel. Next Derek Daly came to a halt with no rear wing, front-left damage and a broken gearbox having clouted the barrier at Tabac a few laps earlier.

Finally Patrese got his Brabham going again and crawled home to win. He stopped to pick up Pironi on the way home – the Ferrari driver classified second despite retiring – while de Cesaris was given third.

Here’s the drama as it unfolded, complete with commentary from the BBC’s Murray Walker and James Hunt:

Also, happy 40th birthday to Rubens Barrichello!

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.

70 comments on “Teams not concerned by lack of qualifying running – Pirelli”

  1. Paul Hembery is right, the cars do have less grip ((downforce) and they are much closer in performance so I ask why we need to have such shortlived tyres and why can’t we have more durable tyres to allow these cars to to race car on car.

  2. Is it just me, or does it look like Patrese has no front wing at 0:36?

    1. @mole In the era of ‘ground effect’ it wasn’t uncommon for cars to run without front wings. The teams were generating so much downforce with the underbody of the car they didn’t necessarily need them, and they were often included or omitted according to the driver’s preference.

      Have a look at this pictures of the Ferraris during the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix in this article – you can see Villeneuve running without a front wing, Pironi with one:

      30 years ago today: Villeneuve and Pironi’s fatal feud at Ferrari

      However Daly’s lack of a rear wing the video above was definitely not by design!

      1. I was surprised at first cause I watched the video without paying attention to what you wrote. A turbo on that Williams would’ve created chaos. Still, respect for Derek Daly, running Monaco without wings is a bit of a challenge!

      2. I always thought an extra bit of downforce wouldn’t have been bad! Not having driven those ground effect cars, I only know that in F1 games when you lose your wing you’re a dozen seconds slower per lap (depending on the track).
        Certainly in Monaco if you can drive wihout front wing it’s better, so in case you hit the wall you don’t risk puncturing a tyre with the debris, or it can’t get under the car.

        1. @fixy Given how many suspension failures there were back then a lot of teams were probably already at or beyond the limit of what the cars could handle (and the drivers could endure).

    2. xeroxpt (@)
      23rd May 2012, 3:05

      It’s not like aerodynamicists were completely oblivious, they already knew that adding wings was benefitial and they also knew that “Ground effect” downforce was very efficient with very low drag unlike the wings which creat loads of drag so some drivers according to preference would run front wingless, just like Keith said.

      1. And I think those big slicks were providing loads of mechanical grip for the corners, too.

  3. I don’t mind the fact that some drivers choose not to run in Q3. Even if some don’t go out in these sessions we’ve seen some great ends to qualifying this year so far, in Bahrain, China and Barcelona in particular. It brings an extra flavour to the races as well. For example:
    “Sure, Driver X got pole, but Driver Y is in 6th with an extra set of soft tyres, how will that play out in the race?”
    I’m enjoying it. If quali is a little bit less exciting but the race more so as a result that’s a fair trade in my opinion.

    1. I completely agree. Formula 1 has been about finding the right balance between outright speed, strategy and luck, and that’s how it should remain to be!

    2. Yeah, me too. Someone will always get pole. I don’t think its anything to go getting all upset over.

      1. You might feel a bit differently if you’ve paid for a seat at the track. Sure, they have to play their tactics but it’s pretty boring looking at an empty track.

        1. Exactly. That was the point of removing the friday qualifying back in the 90’s. If it rained on saturday no one would go out, even with as many tyres as they wanted.

          The rules should be in a way not to promote non-running.

          1. They already do – those that do run will start the race ahead of those that don’t.

            What can they reasonably do apart from unfairly penalise those that don’t run, which will create interesting grey areas such as hurting drivers with technical problems & those that do slow ‘recon’ laps with no intention of setting a genuine competitive time.

            I suppose they could introduce the 107% rule for all sessions, but again, what penalty could they reasonably infer?

        2. @thecollaroyboys I was at Monza last year and I hardly noticed to be honest. Senna didn’t run and I’m sure Mercedes were very quiet in Q3 (I had to Google it to be reminded). Fundamentally, it’s only 10 minutes out of an entire weekend so it didn’t bother me.

    3. Yeah, I enjoy it at home. However, qualy-tyres would rid us of the ‘you have to use the same tyres’-rule. That is something I would really enjoy!
      Imagine every driver able to push as hard as possible, no race strategy affecting Qualy, it would truly bring proper qualifying back!

    4. I disagree that drivers not running in Q3 already receive the penalty of starting behind those that do – while technically correct, I don’t believe they are acting within the spirit of qualifying. If they choose not not to run in Q3 in order to save their tires – it indicates a change to either the qualifying rules or tire rules is needed.

      As usual, the real problem is to sort out how to fix this.

  4. I liked it better when pole was more meaningful

    1. @d3d0 Well, four of this year’s five races have been won from the front row, and three of them from pole position…

        1. @guilherme someone needs to tell the teams, this, though!

  5. I know a lot of people were bored by qualifying last season, as well, with so many pole positions being won by Vettel. Me, though? I was waking up the neighbors on a biweekly basis! (Quali usually happens on Saturday morning here.)

    To say I was surprised when Vettel didn’t set a time in Q3 in Barcelona wouldn’t be quite adequate. I certainly don’t blame him or the team; they were doing what they thought was going to give them their best chance of doing well in the race. Like most people, though, I’d really rather see an edge-of-my-seat, wake-up-the-neighbors battle for pole, instead of a strategy where Seb or Kimi might decide to settle for something less in order to save tires.

    Why are the teams against the idea of qualifying tires…?

    1. Another change, risk of upsetting a balance?

  6. To me the biggest problem is not cars sitting out of Q3, but that qualifying 11th is better than qualifying 8th, 9th or 10th (and that’s another reason drivers who know they aren’t going to qualify higher than that simply don’t bother to set a time in Q3).

    To me it makes no sense that a driver who makes it to the top 10 must give up on his qualifying lap to avoid being in a disadvantage to the guy who qualifyied 11th or 12th.

    1. And that is the result of the outdated rule where the top 10 have to start on the tyres they qualified with.
      If that rule is scrapped drivers not setting a time in q3 wouldn’t occur as often.

      1. @julian

        That may be part of it, but the rule is not the only cause. Even if they could change the tyres after qualifying, there would still be an advantage in saving a set of tyres for a middle or for a last stint.

    2. +1.

      F1 must get rid of that “best time tyre” rule. All drivers should have the change to start the race on fresh set of tyres.

    3. As has been said pole has won 3 of the 5 races this year and is still important, but Q3 is compromised by 7,8,9,10 not running as they can’t get pole and worry if they use an extra set of tyres they give 11,12,13 an advantage

      All they need to do is issue Q3 runners with 1 extra set of the option tyre which will be taken from them if they do not run in Q3 or set a time say a 105% time of pole.

      Leave the start on the qualifying tyre rule in place as this still means teams further down the grid can have different tyre strategies and gain an advantage.

  7. Wahey! My 2nd (I think?) COTD. Slow comment day I guess :P

  8. A short trip down memory lane:

    Bahrain GP, 2010: One of the dullest races in recent memory. New fuel regulations heavily criticized. Where they the problem? No.

    Canadian GP, 2010: One of the most exciting races in recent memory. Tires that suffered severe degradation lauded as being the primary reason. Pirelli given mandate to produce tires that produced similar racing for 2011.

    Italian GP, 2010: Vettel drives the entire race, bar the final lap, on a single set of bridgestones with barely any degradation at all.

    Pre-season 2011: Teams try Pirelli tires for the first time. The tires wouldn’t last more than 10 laps, simulations were suggesting 4 and 5 stop races and the entire pitlane was going to fall off a ‘cliff’ in Australia.

    Australian GP 2011: The world did not end and some great racing was had involving 1, 2 and 3 stop strategies.

    2011 generally: The Pirelli tires create some incredible races, most notably in China. Tire strategies range from 1 stop to 4 stops, but generally 2 or 3. By the end of the season the teams are on top of the tires and races are typically 2 stop and more conventional than the earlier races. Pirelli is commended for producing great tires and getting more people to switch the telly over to F1.

    2012 so far: With the banning of the EBD and generally softer compounds, tire wear is again the hot topic for F1 fans. There is some great racing and the number of pit stops is in-line with what was seen in 2011. Qualifying, however, has been hindered (mostly due to the out-dated regs) and Schumi is un-happy.

    I say: Pirelli should be commended for both the tires they have produced for F1, and for the way in which they have handled the criticism that has been levelled at them. You can’t please everyone (especially a 7-time world champ who can’t get on the podium) but you can please a lot of people. I think a lot of people are happy with what Pirelli have done.

    I would take 2012 Formula 1 over the 2010 Bridgestone version any day.

    1. I think a lot of people are happy with what Pirelli have done.

      Fan polling & comments elsewhere suggest that the majority of fans are not happy with the way the tyres are working this season.

      1. The poll here is still open:

        Should F1 change its tyre strategy?

        At the time of writing 45% say ‘keep them as they are’, 32% say ‘make them slightly more conservative’.

        1. poll here may say most like the tyres, however its a relatively small opinion pool (528 people voted).

          I could link to 10+ websites in which the polling & comments (with a much larger pool of people) are vast majority against the current tyres.

          the poll on james allens website got 4,208 votes & there was a couple hundred comments, 85% of the comments are negative towards pirelli.
          also pirelli felt the need to defend themselfs against the fan reaction on james allens site.

          id also suggest that the fact pirelli are having to be defensive against critisism every week suggest’s that there isn’t the universal & overwhelming praise & love of there tyres that they & there supporters suggest.
          if most people were praising them & if most people were loving what the tyres were doing then there would be no need to be as defensive as they have been this season.

        2. Rohan (@neobrainless)
          23rd May 2012, 13:51

          I think that poll is asking the wrong question! It should be ‘should the RULES change’, that’s what needs to change, not the compounds…

        3. Obviously the poll here is still running so the tally may increase. That said over 500 votes is a decent sample given that they are all coming from registered, signed-in users (of which we have slightly more than 8,000 active at present).

          Other sites often allow the ‘vote’ button to be pushed without any restrictions – that used to be the case here and we typically got six to eight times more responses in polls of this type. The restrictions that are in place now help prevent the responses being manipulated, reduce the chance of the outcome being rigged, and give a more accurate result.

          With no disrespect to James Allen, I think putting the question to people in terms of whether they agree with Michael Schumacher (the poll you’re referring to) is much too ambiguous, offers far too much leeway in interpreting both the question and the results, and leads people towards voting a certain way.

          My concern is to find out what people actually think and reflect it as accurately as possible. That’s why the question I posed asks people about the tyres and attempts to gauge how strongly they feel about the subject.

          Anyone can put up an open poll and get a knee-jerk response. That’s why I ran a poll several days after the quote, put the cases for and against, and invited people to express their view using a five-point scale poll option (much more/slightly more/no change/slightly less/much less). Inevitably this approach will receive fewer votes because it’s not a headline-grabber. But I believe it gives people more opportunity to reflect and express their view in a more considered fashion.

          Having been discussing this subject area with people on F1 Fanatic (and other sites) for eight years, I’m not at all surprised that, when the subject is put to them without a leading question, the majority express a preference for keeping the tyres as they are or making them slightly more conservative.

          This outcome is certainly consistent with the comments I’ve read here. Consider, for example, the Rate the Race results, which were the highest yet in 2011 and have continued to rise this year.

      2. Maybe you’re right Dizzy, I guess the polls speak for themselves.

        Consider this though:
        – what would the polls of said about no refuelling after Bahrain 2010?
        – what wold the polls of said about tires after the 2010 Canadian GP? Or the 2010 Italian GP?
        – what was the general consensus about Pirelli tires after 2011?

        Memory can be short and polls often represent the flavour of the month.

        Keith, I’d be very interested in the results of another poll on tires taken at the end of the season, (when the teams will most likely be much more on top of the tires) and see what it says compared to now.

    2. I would take 2012 Formula 1 over the 2010 Bridgestone version any day.

      Really 2010 was the best session of the last decade.

      First half of 2011 rubbish…. 2nd half less of a lottery decent.

      I think I’ve spotted the opposite trend.

  9. I could not entirely agree with the COTD. Paul Di Resta might have had Button type performances on Sunday, but on Saturday Paul seems to be a strong qualifier. Paul had the better of Sutil on several Saturdays and has the better of Hulkenberg on quali as well. Button on the other hand, is a poor qualifier.

    1. Button’s an above average qualifier IMO. He’s good at qualifying – it’s just that Lewis is better. Lewis is very fast, let’s not forget.

  10. I’m surprised Jean-Eric Vergne didn’t get questioned for doing this:

    1. @alexf1man Part of the marking was rubbed off his left-rear in contact with another car – he didn’t have different compounds fitted.

      1. A possible loophole there for anyone who does want to run one hard tyre with three others…”it’s not a hard tyre – the marking’s rubbed off it!”

  11. I think Norges Bank buying into F1 says a lot about CVC’s delight. The bank is famous for its cautious investments but I‘m yet to understand whether F1 is such a safe bet or Norge Bank’s investment policy has changed dramatically.

    1. The deals are Pre IPO “positioning” the eventual offer. These deals are highly conditional. An extreme (and very simplistic) example of a clause in the deal may be – “If a capital value of $8bn is not established by the float, CVC agrees to buy back all pre IPO shares at the price paid plus costs”.

      Blackrock are a big deal in the US and to have their name associated is an attempt to lend credibility.

      However, these are “mates” deals and “mates” rates. These people all do business in a range of international assets, and the announcement yesterday helps out CVC who are in a tight spot.

      CVC have possible huge losses in Channel 9 (Australia Media Emnpire A$5.3bn) accruing and are desperate to realise a positive exit from F1.

      Of course, the uncertainty around the Concorde Agreement, Mercedes Benz, France saying yesterday they will probably not have a GP in 2013, NJ too possibly not being ready for 2013 if at all – Barcelona wanting to go bi-annual – as does Valencia, 1 of the German GP alternate promoters is practically bust, Korea losing $50m a year and want to renegotiate like the Chinese did, Australia suggesting renewal fees are too high…..

      There are those who feel F1 has reached a high water mark in terms of revenue – particularly revenue available to the commercial rights holders – currently c. 53% of all F1 commercial revenue.

      1. So has the so called agreement guarantees Norge Bank and Black Rock are getting into a win-win situation? I don’t think so. Like you said, many current race holders are likely to push for lower fees in the new future and revenues will be hammered, leaving Bernie with a very bad solution: increase the number of races per season to counter-balance lower fees in the existing 20…

  12. I was discussing on another forum the possibility of a PLANNED one stopper for some teams, and given Pirelli’s recent comments I dipped back in my notes to see how the supersoft (identical tyres) fared last year, and to my surprise (I must’ve missed it at the time) Liuzzi and Kobayashi actually were on planned one-stoppers.

    According to my notes, no one ran supersofts in FP1. FP2, Vettel did a 23-lap stint on the supersofts (outlap, 21 fliers, inlap). I must’ve missed FP3 – I’m drawing a blank on my notes.

    The longest “used supersoft” opening stint was Massa with 26 laps.
    The longest “new supersoft” opening stint was Barrichello with 32 laps.
    The single longest “used supersoft” stint was Sutil – 34 laps (L34 to L68)
    The single longest “new supersoft” stint was Liuzzi – 40 laps (L32 to L72).
    If you want data from someone other than a backmarker, single longest “new supersoft” goes to Kobayashi with 38 laps (34-72)

    Just in case anyone is interested :D

    With the prospect of rain this weekend things could change as the rain would wash the rubber away. I hope the race itself is dry. The FIA was already pretty gung ho with the safety car in Malaysia with massive runoffs. – who knows what they’ll do with the walls of Monaco?

    1. Has to be noted though that L72 is the red flag – I think Liuzzi and Kobayashi probably would’ve tried to hold on, giving Liuzzi 46 laps and Kobayashi 44.

  13. “It was an epic climax to a race that all hard-core Formula One fans cite as a classic. But it could never happen today, thanks to the introduction of KERS – the system that stores energy from braking which can then be used to provide a power boost – and DRS, the drag reduction system, in which the rear wing can be adjusted on certain parts of the circuit to increase the car’s top speed.”

    I read this article, and what a load of nonsense! Not the stuff about Senna’s win, but comparisons to this era. Monaco last year was a thriller, with Button & Alonso mounting huge pressure on Vettel, with DRS and KERS, and Vettel defending well on worn tires. Until the red flag bought things to a halt, it was the most exciting Monaco GP I’ve ever watched. Lots of other great battles have happened in this era where superb defensive driving won the day – think Vet/Ham in Spain ’11, Ham/Msc in Monza, or Web/Ham in Korea ’11. Even this year has seen some good stuff – Mal/Alo have had some good scraps, or Kimi keeping that train of cars behind him in China until the tyres went.
    I can’t understand all these F1 fans stuck in the past.

    1. You pull out a few examples of good defensive driving, however 95% of the time now defending is impossible as DRS is too effective, KERS can be too effective at times & there are many examples of the pirelli tyres harming rather than helping.

      its not about been stuck in the past or comparissons to past era’s been incorrect, Its about wanting to watch actual racing & not the current artificial ‘show’ that were currently stuck with.

      I love watching good racing, Its what got me hooked on F1 about 35 years ago & whats kept me hooked thoughout that time.
      I feel that what we have now is not good racing, Its nothing but an artificial show with very little actual racing to get really excited over.

      drs generated passing is boring, kers generated passing is boring & a fair bit of the pirelli generated passing is boring. its all passing & not overtaking.

    2. i largely agree with the article.

      i’ve been following formula 1 since 1959, However i don’t enjoy it as much anymore because of stupid gimmicks like drs & kers which take away rather than add to the racing.

      watching cars actually racing & battling for position used to be what f1 was all about, watching one car defending with another desperatly trying to find a way past was exciting & any eventual overtake was truly exciting.
      now you get boring, unexciting & easy passes (there not overtakes) in the middle of straghts in which the car been passed is most of the time totally defenceless.

      people go on about how 80+ passes in a race is exciting, however i disagree as in most cases those 80+ passes were all incredibly dull to watch & actually involved very little real racing.

      f1 is now catering to the casual viewer that doesn’t understand racing, doesn’t care about racing & doesn’t give a damn is a pass is real or not, they just want constant action.
      for the real, more hardcore, long-term RACING fan im afraid that f1 is no longer about racing, its about a show & there ain’t much there for us anymore :(

      id also suggest a better anti-drs argument is that we all remember webber’s great pass on alonso at eau rouge last year, however its often forgot/ignored that the very next lap alonso easily DRS-ed his way back past webber thus rendering webber great pass meaningless.
      an example of the artificial show coming at the expence of real, hard fought racing!

      DRS = Dumb Racing Solution!

      1. If you feel so strongly about it, stop watching it.

        1. Maybe the people who did nothing but whine that it was too boring before should have stopped watching instead?

          As to me not watching it, I no longer watch every race live & dont plan on attending any races this year for the 1st year since i started watching.

        2. Don’t you get it? He’s a formula one fan and desperately WANTS to watch F1. What a ridiculous reply.

        3. @Prisoner Monkeys
          Don’t you get it? He’s a formula one fan and desperately WANTS to watch F1. What a ridiculous reply.

      2. Glad there are still long term followers of F1 out there…. I find not matter how bad it gets its difficult to stop watching, you just want it to get better, the last 2 years are my least favourite of about the last 30 yrs. 2004 comes close though ;-)

        The ‘goldfish – attention span’ (no disrespect to people on here) will hopefully soon go away (it has infested many other sports and gone away), it seems a trait on the modern day age sadly so we have gimmicks. Maybe we can watch some ‘real’ racing again soon

      3. And the vocal Anti-DRS Army hits a new low. It’s shocking how low you people will go, trying to ruin the Monaco GP for us by trying to spread your Anti-DRS propaganda.

        1. Its not very hard to be Anti-DRS when you see a driver push a button & easily cruise straght past half way down the straght.

          I frankly can’t see how anyone who claims to be a racing fan can actually defend the DRS.
          Maybe those who like DRS would be better off watching oval nascar racing where the DRS style uncontested highway pass is commonplace on some of the bigger tracks.

  14. I don’t know how genuine this article is, but it’s an interesting read – Pastor Maldonado was once banned for life from racing at Monaco.

    1. @prisoner-monkeys MSN need to do their research. Maldonado’s ban was later reduced, though he missed a good chunk of that year’s races.

      It’s described in his biography here: Pastor Maldonado

      I’ve been trying to find footage of the incident but without any success.

      1. @keithcollantine – Given the descriptions of the accident and the marshall’s injuries, it’s probably a good thing that there is no known footage of it. Once upon a time, I accidentally stumbled onto footage of Tom Pryce hitting Fredrik van Vuuren at the 1977 South African Grand Prix, and it was the most horrifying thing I have ever seen. I’m in no rush to see footage of Maldonado’s collision with the marshall in 2005.

        1. @prisoner-monkeys Obviously what I want to see is how Maldonado came to lose control under yellow flags, rather than actually watch him hit the poor guy.

          As you may know Maldonado also had a shunt at the scene of a crash at Zolder once, while marshals were on the track:

  15. Can’t say I’m a fan of the idea of qualifying tyres either. It doesn’t make much sense to me to not have some continuity into the race. The cars go to Parc Ferme after the session and remain pretty much the same until race day (except tyre changes for those outside the top 10). I believe that they should only be able to use the two allocated compounds (prime and option). This game is meant to be about not only pace, but strategy. There is an argument at the moment that perhaps there is too much emphasis on the tyre strategy but I don’t think may will disagree when I say that there should at least be some strategic element to how you use your tyres over the weekend and having some banzai tyres for Saturday just doesn’t sit well with me.

  16. Pirelli would sing a different tune if the FIA gave a single point for P1 in Q3 which they should be doing anyway. Outside of the race itself, qualifying is the most important part of the Grand Prix weekend.

    1. I think the problem wit points for qualifying is that you then risk a championship been decided on a Saturday which would then take away some of the intrest in the race.

      In Indycar a few years back the title was decided off the points for pole & it took away from what could have been an exciting race to decide the championship the next day.

      Also recall in I think it was 2005 or 2006 again In Indycar where the championship was decided Mid-Race based off bonus points for leading the most laps & getting fastest lap.

    2. Pirelli would sing a different tune if the FIA gave a single point for P1 in Q3

      Why, what do Pirelli care about who gets P1, it makes no difference to them who gets P1 or if a point is awarded. The more people talk about their putty rubber and close racing (that is a result of relatively stable regulations not the tyres, but that is a whole different discussion) the more PR they get, its win win. If they change the tyres its ‘look we can do anything you ask’, it seems they can’t lose, whoever signed to enter F1 must be getting rather larger OTE and laughing all the way to the bank.

  17. I completely agree with qualifying tyres, they would increase the excitement of qualifying and the race in my opinion and make the races less focused on tyre conservation as the teams would be running fresher rubber.

  18. Only thing with qualifying tyres would be how many sets they give them.
    If they only get 1 set then we will likely see less action in Q3 with everyone only doing 1 run rather than the current 2 runs.

    also something to consider is that when we last had qualifying tyres they usually needed a different car setup than the regular tyres because of the extra grip they gave.
    However now you can not only not change the car setup after qualifying but you also need a setup that works on standard tyres for Q1/2.

    1. That is an easy one, just give them one more set of the options for Q3 (not a unique qualifying tyre as such).

      The teams that run twice will continue to do so and the teams that don’t run or run once will run twice or run at least run once (if they have to give the extra set back). It is not hard to workout a better solution.

Comments are closed.