F1 scrambles for solution to tyre crisis

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Reverting to 2012 tyre compounds and opening the Young Driver Test to race drivers are mooted as F1 searches for a solution to Sunday’s spate of tyre failures.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

British Grand Prix blowouts hit Lewis Hamilton and spark boycott threat (The Guardian)

Adrian Newey: “From what I understand had we gone for a new construction we would not have had the catastrophic failures we had today. The nature of the circuit aggravates – the combination of kerbs and high speed corners. Whether that is a problem in Germany I wouldn’t like to say.”

Drivers threaten boycott after GP tyre chaos (The Telegraph)

Felipe Massa: “I am 100 per cent sure that every driver is complaining about today. I don’t want to say that [we will boycott] because I don’t want to create loads of problems but this is something that for our safety we can do.”

Urgent solution needed for F1 ‘crisis’ (BBC)

Christian Horner: “Make no mistake about it. Fernando Alonso is a very lucky boy today to be going home.”

Horner: Someone will get hurt (Sky)

“The most logical thing would be to go back to the tyres that have worked for them well previously. Certainly last year, we didn’t have these failures.”

Teams call for full tyre test (ESPN)

Stefano Domenicali: “I had an idea that we need to discuss over the next days that we have a test here in Silverstone with the young drivers that, with Silverstone being a track that is very demanding with the tyres in terms of stress, should be ready to do something to try to solve this issue and I would also say we should do it with the racing drivers. It is something that is very important so I can guarantee to you that from a team point of view we are very open to find a solution. We will all benefit from a solution.”

FIA invites Pirelli to SWC meeting (Autosport)

Jean Todt: “I had a meeting with officials from Pirelli, who will obviously investigate all the incidents that occurred in recent days. They will come up with proposals for the important meeting with all the teams on Wednesday. This [issue] will be part of the priority agenda.”

2013 British Grand Prix – Post Race Press Conference (FIA)

Nico Rosberg: “We shouldn’t get into that situation [of having further tyre failures in Germany]. We need to do what needs to be done to sort it out and make the tyres last.”

British GP ‘was Russian Roulette’: Webber (The Age)

“I was praying for the Safety Car, but not with the way they were coming. It was Russian Roulette. I made the most of them though, the strategy was one of our best, and yeah I thought: ‘Here is Nico, the one car left. It would have been nice to have a few more laps, but that is the way it goes.”

Sebastian Vettel Q&A: I did everything to win (F1)

“Everything was looking really good and we had a good gap to Nico (Rosberg) behind – then suddenly, coming out of Stowe, I wanted to change from fifth into sixth gear and that was the moment that I lost fifth gear. Then the others subsequently passed out. Why? I have no idea.”

Webber tips Ricciardo to replace him at Red Bull (Reuters)

“I think he’s in the box seat… he deserves it and he’s done the yards over here in Europe early doors. He’s been on the canvas a few times and got back up and that’s part of the rules.”

Straight to Germany to try again (Toro Rosso)

“[Ricciardo] was lying a handy fourth, having started fifth and clearly a pit stop would have dropped him back, but maybe not as far as his eventual eighth place at the flag. However, if we had called him in and those immediately behind him had not stopped, who knows if he would have even made it into the points.”


Comment of the day

After yesterday’s British Grand Prix @Scratt asks if the FIA have been lax in some areas relating to safety:

I am torn by a bunch of things in this race.

I don???t really want to see either Alonso or Rosberg penalised, or the result of this (or any race for that matter) changed.

However, at the last race we had a race marshal die. And at this race we have one or two very obvious unsafe releases, and people ignoring yellow flags. And the stewards do effectively nothing.

All of this in a race where we had multiple tyre delaminations, which in themselves also could have caused injury to the drivers in the cars that had the issue and others around them.

A race where an awareness of safety should have been on people???s minds as a matter of course.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Tom Moloney and Pj!

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

Following the disappointment of losing a potential victory in his home race on the last lap two weeks previously, Ronnie Peterson made amends by finally scoring his first F1 win in the French Grand Prix 40 years ago today.

Team mate Emerson Fittipaldi retired after colliding with Jody Scheckter, who was substituting for Peter Revson at McLaren. Francois Cevert was second for Tyrrell ahead of Carlos Reutemann’s Brabham.

Here’s highlights from the race:

Image © Ferrari/Ercole Colombo

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.

108 comments on “F1 scrambles for solution to tyre crisis”

  1. How Rosberg escaped with only a reprimand is an absolute JOKE. The stewards/FIA should have a long, hard look at themselves.

    1. @timi I had not thought about from @Scratt‘s point of view, but it’s quite worrying.

      They probably took the latest incident of the same kind and applied the same penalty. But you look at the wider picture and in 2012, both Vettel and Massa were given drive-through penalties at Barcelona because of the very same reason.

      And that probably was different to previous penalties. Cuz that’s the FIA’s way… they go one way and inmediately they go to the other…

      1. @fer-no65

        both Vettel and Massa were given drive-through penalties at Barcelona because of the very same reason.

        A similar reason though not exactly the same – they were penalised for using DRS in a yellow flag zone.

        Still it seems like an inconsistency to me and rather lax of the stewards not to properly punish a driver for gaining a time advantage by going too quickly under yellow flags which, as you rightly say, is a safety issue.

    2. and to think there was a big uproar last year about Vettel driving under yellows (when it wasn’t)

      1. It was an overtake under assumed yellows stiuation which is different.

        1. @shrieker “Assumed” yellows… people just jumped on the bandwagon of a badly-made video and a general misunderstanding of the flag rules because, you know, it was Vettel. Call me cynical, but the fact that was it was Vettel was the only reason why that was even a story.

          1. I don’t know folks…I’m not one who remembers all the fine details, but isn’t it fairly common for a driver to be given only a reprimand for such an infraction, particularly if it is a first offence?

          2. The reason it was a story was that it was possibly illegal move (albeit hastily assumed) that would have changed the outcome of the WDC if true. It wasn’t true, fine, but there’s definitely a story in that.

            As for the reprimand for Rosberg, like some others I was of the understanding that a reprimand for a first offence was standard. Of course, I don’t have any actual evidence for this…

    3. I really agree with that: even though I personally prefer that Rosberg won to prevent Alonso from getting second you cannot ignore the fact that especially considering the dangers posed by these tyres failing under stress that setting a purple sector time under double waved yellows is unacceptable. He should at least be given a 20 second penalty.

  2. I don’t want anyone saying “it won’t happen in Germany because it’s not as extreme as Silverstone”

    Who cares? it can happen again, because it’s there… you cannot avoid it unless they change the tyres. THe risk of a blow out is there, and it can have serious consequences in places where safety isn’t as good as Silverstone.

    They were lucky that nothing happened. Everyone behind Perez are immensely lucky to avoid every potential bullet at the start of the Hangar straight… and thank god we’re not at Spa, imagine such a shock at the Kemmel straight. Well, JB probably knows how it feels.

    It can’t be all debris or kerbs. F1 tyres should be able to withstand extreme conditions…

    To some point, it’s sad the British GP ended so well and exciting, because it overshadowed what was a very sad and worrying race.

    1. You’re right even if Germany is easier on the tyres there would still be blowouts, maybe not 5 but 1 or 2 which of course is still not acceptable.
      At least Turkey isn’t in the calendar anymore, imagine what turn 8 would do to this tyres.

    2. Totally agree. Safety first. I would not have been surprised to see the race red flagged and Charlie Whiting said later he almost did. The cause or remedy of the exploding tires was not likely to have been discovered during the race and they still kept racing. There needs to be a safe solution before the next race.

    3. This is what we get when we artificially engineer a component to be less good than technology allows. Surely by now it should be apparent to even the newest fans of F1 that the best racing we see happens when the drivers are no longer trying to conserve their tyres, as happened at the end of this race courtesy of the safety car and last year in Texas due to a very smooth surface and a conservative tyre choice, I want to see the drivers unleashed, as they were for the last 7 laps of Silverstone, for a full race distance and the only way to see that is to take the tyres out of the equation by supplying a tyre that lasts a full race length with minimal degradation.

      1. That’s dead on about the racing. I enjoyed the short sprint race they put on, even if it was an artificial one thanks to a convenient safety car after Vettel stopped.

        If the teams ordered drivers to respect yellow flags, instead of reminding them to drink and breathe, we wouldn’t need all these safety cars anyway.

      2. Difficult to disagree with that @hohum. The tyre farce would seem to be the result of tinkering around with the longevity of the tyres – and that has to be responsibility of the FIA and Pirelli.
        Saying that Germany is ‘less stressful’ on the tyres is not good enough. If something isn’t done about it *now*, the teams will arrive at Spa or Monza with the same uncertainty.

      3. Simplest solution is to allow the teams to choose their tyres. No more stupid rules
        about FIA selecting the tyre for everyone as this is supposed to be a competition.

        Fix the dominance by requiring any tyre vendor who supplies an F1 tyre to a team to sell the same tyre to any team who requests it. Otherwise, let them compete.

        1. I really do not see how that would solve anything @boylep6. What would they choose from?

          With no testing, its clearly proven too hard a job to make the tyres structurally good enough. If you mean having several suppliers – that would not help, as the suppliers would still not be allowed to test their tyres.

          1. I mean the long term solution.

            Clearly nothing by next week, but in future years there
            should be freedom of choice for the teams. If they pick rotten tyres
            it is then their fault, and not the FIA.

            Problem of a tyre vendor picking a special team (Ferrari?) and producing a period of dominance would be avoided by giving every access at some reasonable price to the same product.

          2. @boylep6, I think you seriously underestimate the cost and resources involved in actually making an F1 tyre. Its not as if they are stock order from a webshop!

            I doubt any tyre manufacturer would be interested in supplying just one team (unless the likes of Ferrari would be willing to pay the cost). Currently there is no one available.
            Michelin insists on going to 18″ rims to be closer to their real world tyres. Hankook mentioned that they are not interested for the time being, Bridgestone already made clear that they have had enough of F1 for the forseeable future. Goodyear, Dunlop, Continental, Nokian? Why would they want to really

      4. This is what we get when we artificially engineer a component to be less good than technology allows.

        – especially if you then do not allow it to be intensively tested @hohum!

    4. Finally consensus. Some teams and commentators here were quick to call Red Bull whiners on tyres issues.
      The poor all-around quality of those tyres has been exposed in spectacular fashion.
      I guess we don’t have to wait until someone gets hurt badly, do we?

      1. For me, delaminations were enough all along. What must Michelin be thinking as they watch this debacle unfold? They bravely pulled the safety card mid-weekend and were villified for it and their failure to handle one corner of one far-away venue.

        1. Sadly, I think Michelin got as much negative press as they did because of Ferrari being solely opposite Michelin that weekend in 2005 and because of typical anti-French sentiment seen worldwide.

          Obviously Michelin wasn’t the sole recipient of blame for Indianapolis 2005, but they received the brunt of it and this past weekend shows just how disproportionate the reaction the at-large motorsport community gave them was.

    5. After all, the 2012 tyres avoided exploding throughout the 2012 German GP at, that’s right, Hockenheim!

      So last year’s tyres would be just as unproven next weekend. It’s unlikely to be 25 degrees there (could happen though) but there could easily be something the teams are doing differently with tyre pressures or suspension set-up, that would cause 2012 tyres to fail too.

    6. Were the failures on both the “Hard” and “Medium” tyres or just the Hard? For Nurburgring Pirellii planned on using the Medium and Soft.

  3. regarding the Ryan Williams tweet of Vettel’s tyre: what exactly is his point? that it was the circuit’s fault and “nothing to do with Pirelli construction?”


    Vettel just ran through a sea of debris off of Hamilton’s car, containing both rubber and metal. Hardly surprising that it got a cut in it.
    That image does nothing to disprove the theory that it’s Pirelli’s bad manufacturing at fault, it’s a cut in a tyre that did not blow up.

    1. It’s easy to say that Pirelli have poorly manufactured a tyre when this kind of thing happens, and the tyres don’t last the race. But seriously, of course this type of thing is going to happen when a company who makes high performance quality tyres is forced by the FIA to make tyres that don’t last. All of a sudden they are having to make a product that is totally opposite to what all their experience and knowledge has produced in the past. People are quick to rubbish Pirelli, when it is totally the FIA who are at fault. Could you imagine Ferrari and McLaren told to build an F1 car that at full speed had to lap a circuit like a family sedan!? Total joke!

      1. @ivz
        but that’s a separate issue. the physical wear and thermal degradation of the tyres – ie. tyres only lasting a few laps, for which indeed the FIA is to blame – is a different topic, the situation we’ve had this weekend is a construction and manufacturing issue. Pirelli have changed the structure of the tyres compared to previous years and it has led to this chaos.

        previously we had delaminating tyres, wherein the rubber sheet would detach from the steel/kevlar belt underneath it, now we have both the rubber and the belt underneath it literally exploding. this is a construction and bonding issue, nothing to do with the degradation characteristics of the rubber compound.

      2. I agree. What the FIA requests is not prime quality, but a blurry quest for a certain limit of the rubber, and that is what Pirelli does. Drivers who are aggressive on a not so smooth track will have that risk, if that is what Pirelli is asked to do…

        1. @flig


          I would understand if people blamed FIA for not allowing more testing on current cars with current tyres but not because they asked for high-deg tyres.

          Sure they did not ask for rock-hard tyres but I doubt they suggested tyre that blow-up occasionally!

      3. @ivz

        2012 tyres were good, they just decided to keep making it less durable every single year and they’re paying the price of excessive ambition.

    2. Do you honestly believe tyres made by another manufacturer would survive running through that debris?

      1. Carbon fibre debris has been around for 30 years and we have never seen this rate of failure before.

        1. Romain Grosjean wasn’t around thirty years ago.

        2. We have seen tyre failures due to debris before.

          The point is specifically that Vettels tyre had cuts in it while other tyres delaminated. Completely different issue.

      2. @prisoner-monkeys
        Would have thought HoHum’s point would be quite obvious to anyone, really.
        How long has Silverstone been around?

        1. In its current form, Silverstone has only been around for about four years. The kerb suspected of wreaking havoc is at The Loop, a corner that was only created when the circuit was reconfigured.

      3. @prisoner-monkeys when was the last time a tyre exploded after running over a kerb not once but 4 or 5 times? 10 years ago? 20? How many times also have we had such failures at Silverstone in its 60-odd year history?

        Open your eyes: these tyres are unsafe and those types of failures shouldn’t occur. I can agree that it isn’t the problem of the manufacturer as such but other tyres in general would absolutely survive.

        1. Is it true that there were minor modifications to silverstone to allow for better drainage? Sky sports mentioned that casually on their broadcast, but (for the political reason that the british gp must not be criticized) it wasn’t mentioned again. Were there new drain covers on any left-handed corners? It seems that the number of failures and their specific nature warrants all manner of conspiracy theories.

    3. I place no blame on Pirelli for this actually: it’s teams like Lotus that have prevented them from changing them, it’s the FIA that forced their hand into making these **** tyres in the first place and it’s due to cost cutting that they haven’t properly tested them. Everything is against Pirelli here so I have some sympathy for them.

      Right now though I think Red Bull have the last “laugh” – they originally expressed concern over the safety of these tyres and low and behold they were right all along.

      1. Delaminations were enough, for me. I think it is clear now that the Pirelli tire test was necessary (hence the relatively minor penalty to Mercedes) and everything else is politics. Had they pulled the safety card 6 or 8 weeks ago like they should have, a lot of this could have been avoided.

  4. On the subject of the 2014 Red Bull seat, I honestly hope it goes to Ricciardo.

    Looking back over the past 2 years, he’s always been one driver who has got the job done and kept his nose clean while still being quick.
    I can’t remember any little spins/spills that he’s had, except when they’ve been caused by other drivers (Grosjean, I’m looking at you.)
    He’s had the measure of Vergne for a while, consistently being 4-5 tenths quicker in practise, and more importantly, qualifying which is an area I’m sure Red Bull will want a driver who can deliver.

    Had it not have been for a few unfortunate strategy calls or tyre/car reliability issues, he would’ve had more consistent and higher points finishes than Vergne – who himself has driven quite well.
    Watching Daniel defend from Alonso early in the race at Silverstone was impressive yesterday, and it seems that any pressure subjected onto him is like water off a duck’s back – a trait that I think would serve him well at Red Bull.

    1. While part of me would love to see what Kimi could do with a RBR car, there’s a good chance that he wouldn’t match Vettel in Qually and that would be frustrating to see. So I do agree that Daniel does deserve the seat.
      I just listened to the Autosport podcast with james allison et al on the changes to rules, regs and hardware for 2014 and they are HUGE. As history shows it’s the younger drivers who adapt best/quickest to change, so a younger driver like Ricciardo would be the most logical choice anyway.

      1. Funny thing, is, he’s barely a year younger than Vettel.

    2. He’s been driving well this season and he was not bad last season either and seems that Webber’s retirement announcement is pushing him.

      RIC 1 – 0 JEV

  5. Nice picture from Vettel’s tyre, very interesting instructions.

    1. @peartree tyres don’t get cut from running over kerbs usually: it certainly didn’t happen last year. So the fact there is a cut at all is a cause for concern, so that tweet makes little sense.

      1. @vettel1 Well I was looking at the picture and what someone from Red Bull wrote on it. I think the person that tweeted that was trying to say that this problem was different to the previous.

      2. I think its a very good observation. Its clear that the tyre was cut, so in that sense Pirelli is right when they mention the failures ware caused by damage (from Kerbs or debris).
        But the real issue is why these tyres suffer such severe damage from things that are not that exceptional in F1 @vettel1, and that will likely be a combination of the pressures they use, camber angles and the specific, more flexible, sidewall construction used for this year.

  6. On tyres: if they can produce them quickly enough, Pirelli should bring the revised tyres they tested with Mercedes in May. This time, they can cite safety reasons for the introduction of the new tyres. They should also not await the outcome of their analysis; to go racing again with the current tyres is asking for trouble.

    On STR: it looks like James Key is starting to have a real impact there. At the start of the season, people scoffed at their ambition of finishing sixth in the constructors’, but they are currently not so far off McLaren in sixth, and the Woking-based outfit seems to be going nowhere at the moment.

    On the second Red Bull seat: if I were Raikkonen, I would be pushing hard to get into Red Bull. Nobody can predict the competitive order of next season, but who would you put your money on: Adrian Newey and the team that has been dominant since the middle of 2009, or whoever is designing the Lotus next season? Also, the Red Bull car would be a much better fit with Raikkonen’s driving style. Kimi is a very smooth operator, so he doesn’t need a car that has troubles warming up its tyres. In a Red Bull, he could qualify at the front, and then take on Vettel with his race management skills.

    I’m thinking the seat will go to one of the Red Bull juniors, though. Vergne and Ricciardo have both shown this season that they deserve the drive, and that they are ready for it. Of course, in two years at Toro Rosso they have not been able to demonstrate that they will be able to reach the highs that Kimi has reached in career, but then outright talent has not been the sole factor in Red Bull’s driver choice so far. Otherwise, they would not have dismissed Hamilton’s overtures towards a Red Bull seat so lightly.

    1. Kimi is a very smooth operator


    2. I think Ricciardo might be a strong contender for the seat, but as a Kimi fan I hope he’ll get it. I think there’s more politics and PR at Red bull, but the possibility of having the best car on the grid should outweigh that, even for Kimi. I think Vettel would have the upper hand in qualifying but it’d be exciting to watch them race each other.

      1. @metallion
        With Ricciardo Vettel will have the upper hand in BOTH quali and the race.
        Where’s the fun in that?
        Kimi is the obvious choice.

        1. @jason12
          Sure, but they might want to take a long term approach with Ricciardo, he’s still new in F1. But like I said, I hope Kimi gets the seat. They have been expressing interest in him for a while now so hopefully that’s an indicator of who their first choice is.

    3. Pirelli should bring the revised tyres they tested with Mercedes in May.

      They can’t. Pirelli claim they’re 2014 tyres, which would likely be of a fundamentally different design/construction to allow them to cope with high-energy/high-torque situations.

      1. @optimaximal, they mainly tested 2014 tyres, but they also tested the adapted 2013 tyres, in which the steel belt was replaced with a kevlar belt, just like the 2012 tyres had. These were originally to be raced in Canada, but with teams rumbling that they did not want to see the competitive order changed (even though the compounds would remain unchanged), they were first brought to Canada, and then to Britain for testing on Fridays, in the hope of gaining the teams’ acceptance, but rain on Fridays meant these were hardly run.

        1. @AdrianMorse Is there anything more than anecdotal evidence to say they were testing 2013 tyres?

          1. @optimaximal, it was no secret that they tested tyres that were designed to prevent the delaminations from happening. I’m too lazy to look up the articles from a few weeks ago, but Hamilton said as much just yesterday:

            I think we had that tyre test to develop and improve the tyre and stop that from happening. And after the tyre test they didn’t do anything about it.

  7. Amazing little video from the 1973 French GP. Nice to see and hear the interactions between Chapman, Fittipaldi and Peterson. Quite unthinkable in today’s F1.

  8. How long does it take to manufacture F1 tyres? Do they have to ‘cure’ or anything like that?
    Only, practice begins in Germany in four days. Do Pirelli actually have the capacity to make multiple sets of new tyres for 22 cars in four days?

  9. Everyone seems to be forgetting – amid all the teams finger pointing – that Pirelli WANTED to change the tyres earlier, and the team vetoed it.

    1. Safety should not be left to concensus between the teams.
      Pirelli should have just done the right thing. Tyre safety is their responsibility and noone else’s.

      1. Yes, but someone gave the team rights of vetoe, so Pirelli weren’t allowed to chan ge the tyres. people can point the finger in Pirelli’s idrection all they want, but they were legally barred from changing the construction.

        1. The veto only occurred because Pirelli refused to admit changes were needed for safety reasons – had they done so, the approval of the teams would not have been needed.

          Whilst the FIA / teams have to share some of the responsibility, it seems Pirelli made a rod for their own backs by not separating the safety issue from the durability issue. They are responsible for this situation.

      2. @jason12 Agreed. They should have taken a page out of Michelin’s book, who bravely pulled the safety card mid-weekend in the U.S., knowing they would be castigated for it, and were. The circumstances are different in that Pirelli is the sole supplier and have been asked to make degrady tires that they took too far this season. But I think that is all the more reason that they have been able to go to F1 for help, which is what the tire test was about. So whereas Michelin was on their own with a competitor within F1, and probably not nearly the restrictive instructions from F1, not to mention far more testing ie. less excuses for tire failure, , you’d think Pirelli would have needed less bravery or fear of backlash to pull the safety card, and in fact to this day have not really been villified for anything other than following instructions. What was their penalty from the Tribunal? A reprimand?

        FIA and Pirelli let the safety card slide, in spite of delaminations, and hoped they could do a test and smooth their way over the problem without causing too much ruckus. And as of Sunday, they’ve failed.

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        1st July 2013, 15:02

        @vettel1 – no as @simon999 said, the rules are simple. If the tyres need to be changed for safety reasons, there is no veto. If Pirelli admitted that their tyres were dangerous, they could have changed them regardless of what the teams, the FIA or anyone else felt. Instead, they said that these new tyres were an improvement which gave the teams an option. On that basis, teams that aren’t as fast but are very good on their tyres aren’t going to agree.

        Obviously it’s not great for Pirelli’s reputation to say that their tyres are dangerous but if they are, it’s their duty to say so. Regardless of what people thought at the time, atleast Michelin had the balls to say that there was a problem at Indianapolis rather risk driver’s lives.

        For me, Pirelli aren’t doing their brand image any favours

        1. petebaldwin (@)
          1st July 2013, 15:43

          Didn’t finish that last sentence there for some reason… They haven’t done their image any favours by trying to pretend everything is ok. They need to admit that this poses a risk to safety

        2. I agree with that much: they should be admitting the safety flaws @petebaldwin. However, the press really is not helping matters as it is being portrayed in terms of Red Bull gaining an advantage and Lotus losing one. Frankly that’s completely irrelevant as if there’s a problem it should be addressed but Pirelli are under intense media pressure which Michelin never felt.

  10. Rui (@ruicaridade)
    1st July 2013, 10:17

    How the tall have fallen.If what we saw yesterday is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport F1 is more bloated with past pride than i had consider it to be. For the first time during a family lunch i did not have the urge to watch the race. I have recorded several seasons of F1, however this race not sure…

    1. @ruicaridade

      How the tall have fallen

      I’m 6’3″, last time I fell over was a few months ago..

      However, on a more serious note.

      For the first time during a family lunch i did not have the urge to watch the race

      Then you missed out on a lot. The tyres at several points were described by the teams as having cuts in them. The teams, FIA, stewards and marshalls made all the logical decisions in this race, Pirelli were also working flat out to try and work out what was going on whilst the cars went round. However, the drivers still went all out, with plenty of overtakes both on DRS and without DRS, a shock retirement from the race leader (I won’t spoil it for you as you haven’t watched it yet :P ) And a grandstand finish between some of the best drivers on the grid.
      Yes, the tyre failures put a big black cloud over the future of Pirelli in F1, and the near-future of F1, but the decisions taken were logical, and the drivers still went ‘flat-out’ and made the race spectacular for good reasons aswell…

      1. Rui (@ruicaridade)
        1st July 2013, 12:26

        I did watch the end of the race. I just didn’t feel that urge to finish lunch and go watch it..And i’m the kinda of person who took the 23th of May from work to watch Monaco FP1/FP2.

  11. Surprise to see no comments yet regarding Mark Webber calling Vettel “Michael” yet. Do nobody else pick this up? I found it rather amusing myself, along with his comments regarding winning the next race.

    1. Did Lotus “order” Romain to let Kimi pass on the hangar straight just before Vergne’s tyre blew?

      1. Yes they did

  12. Surprised to see no comments yet regarding Mark Webber calling Vettel “Michael” yet in the post race gathering. Do nobody else pick this up? I found it rather amusing myself, along with his comments regarding winning the next race.

    1. @funkyf1 when did this happen? it’s not in the post race confrence or podium interview

      1. Drop Valencia!!!
        1st July 2013, 16:24

        It was on the broadcast chat before the podium, classic!

      2. was it on Brundle’s gridwalk?

      3. @Mnm101 It was after the race prior to the podium, where the drivers chat with each other, apply their watches and towel down. If you think of “multi 21 seb” you’ll know the scenario I’m talking about.

        1. @funkyf1 yeah I just saw it, funny but pretty lousy of him

  13. Think this weekend we saw everything that is wrong with F1 at the moment. It’s a ludicrous situation that the solution to this problem has been long established, and yet Pirelli are powerless to implement the fix because a couple of teams take an “I’m alright Jack” attitude. If I was in Pirelli’s shoes I’d be furious. being forced to develop tyres based on a limited data set, then not being allowed to even bolt a tyre onto a car to check that it works without being hauled in front of a tribunal. The entire situation with regards to testing is an absolute farce, created as part of a knee-jerk response to certain teams allowing their costs to spiral out of control. Well, F1 has really just had to face the consequences of its complete lack of foresight, and all of the internal politics which continually drag the sport down. And as another example of the short sightedness of those in charge, we now have this ridiculous suggestion about canning the young drivers’ test in favour of a tyre test. What happened to development, what happened to protecting the future of the sport?

    This is a very dark moment for F1 and all those involved should be frankly ashamed of themselves for creating this situation.

    1. Probably COTD material @mazdachris

  14. Still appalled that Charlie Whiting didn’t red flag that race. You had a flurry of sudden, dangerous and unexplained tyre failures, with no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. Drivers were told to avoid certain kerbs, without any assurance that was causing the problem. They increased the pressure, without any assurance that low pressure was causing the problem. They took the lives of the people that trusted them to keep them safe, and guessed. Charlie has declined to say how many tyre failures were needed to stop the race, but will he say how many serious injuries it would take? Or deaths?

    All the talk has been about the mistakes made in tyre choices leading up to the race. For me, they all grossly overshadowed by the appalling disregard for human life during the race. So much for the claim that safety is paramount.

    1. Agreed entirely: my first thought after the first spat of tyre failures was “stop the race”. If they could subsequently re-start it once the problem was diagnosed and remedied then fine but I watched that race in fear of somebody having another tyre failure, not in anticipation of on-track action.

      In that sense, I didn’t actually care that Vettel retired: at least he was safe. The fact I have just said that is very bad indeed.

    2. +1
      Those dramatic explosions at such high speeds were just too dangerous.

      Kimi could easily have ended up like Massa.
      On the 3rd/4th expolsion the race should have been red-flagged pending a proper investigation.

      British fans were also robbed of a proper race.
      Unusual amounts of tyre debris at the end of some of the previous races was a hint (that something is horribly wrong with these tyres) that many just chose to ignore.

  15. So if the young driver test is replaced by a tyre test for the teams, I assume Mercedes will still be banned from the test? that will finally even things up.

    1. At least it evens it out for Sam Bird. Now he is not the only young driver who hoped to be racing there but is left out in the cold!

  16. Lot of comments around the web talking about how the problems seen this year are not Pirelli’s fault because of what they were asked to do & no testing etc…

    Its true they were asked to make tyres that suffered from wear, However its 100% upto Pirelli how they go about doing that & the compounds & construction of the tyres is also 100% Pirelli’s decision.

    This year Pirelli decided to make all the compounds significantly softer, Significantly change the sidewall construction & shape & introduce the steel belt as well as a new bonding process.
    All the issue with tyres through 2013 stem solely from these changes, Changes that Pirelli & Pirelli alone decided to introduce.

    With regards to testing, Its not ideal but Bridgestone didn’t have testing in 2009/2010 & Pirelli didn’t in 2011/2012 & we never saw the problems we have seen this year.
    Plus Pirelli can test there tyres on Friday of race weekends, Something they hardly did until recently.
    One of the problems is that Pirelli totally change the tyres every year, If they did an evolution as Bridgestone always did I doubt we would see problems as they would be working with a largely known product rather than something completely new.

    With regards to the kurb, The kurb at turn 4 is identical to how its been since 2010 & the drivers are taking the same line over it they have been doing since 2010.
    Also if it was solely a kurb, We would have seen a lot of cuts through the weekend, Not just in F1 but also GP2/GP3 & the porsche’s.
    Tyres been cut by kurbs would have been something which would have been obvious earlier in the weekend & would be something happening in every category.

    I understand that many of the problems seen with the 2013 tyres have been caused by the steel belt design, That was something Pirelli themselfs decided to change.
    The steel belt means the tyres run hotter, There more prone to overheating, Suffer from delaminations & give less warning before they totally fail as the temperature rises very suddenly & immediately fails when it reaches a certain temperature point.

    1. They weren’t asked to make tyres that suffered from wear, they suggested this themselves. It’s after the fact that the whole thing started to backfire (people complain that your tyres are crappy is never a good advertisement) that FIA and teams tried to help Pirelli a little to shift the blame away from them.

      Still, it was what they said they were going to do before they even got the deal.

    2. Didn’t Silverstone do work to the track to improve drainage this year? The way a track changes over a dry weekend means that traction and therefore cornering speed become greater. If cars are going faster over the curbs and drains (as they were doing on Sunday afternoon), then there is more chance of damage to the track. The FIA should now make a closer inspection at any of the left-handed corners for irregularities as part of their tire post-mortems. On the surface it looks like a Perelli problem, but let’s look closer at the surface.

  17. Ben (@scuderia29)
    1st July 2013, 16:06

    the solution? get rid of pirelli and find a new tyre supplier, this is ridiculous now..tyre failures and illegal tests, im tired of pirelli taking up all the news in formula 1

    1. @scuderia29 I think the sport has to share at least some of the blame: I’m sure if Pirelli had it their way they’d have changed these tyres or even better made indestructible ones. I don’t think they are the ones who should be getting shot down even if it is easy to lay the blame wholy on them.

      1. Ben (@scuderia29)
        2nd July 2013, 3:12

        Well the sport asked pirelli to make tyres that would create exciting racing, i.e 2-3 pitstops preferably. Im sure they could make tyres that would last an entire grand prix, but theyre designing them to a specification, but this doesnt mean they can’t be safe, the sport never asked for unsafe tyres.

  18. Marca (Spain sport magazine) is reporting that Pirelli changed the tyres with out consulting the teams.

    It is reporting that McLaren and Sauber had launched their engineers in a reconstructions of the tyres and both teams will send the evidence to FIA today (01/07/2013)

    1. Interesting. They’re reporting that kevlar was added between the steel belt and the tread, in order to reduce high tread temperatures, and suggesting that this was why both Lotus and Ferrari saw a drop in performance. If this is confirmed, it adds a new, rather nasty, turn to “tyre-gate.”

      1. I don´t think it is true, but after yesterday Pirelli is really taking a beating… their Facebook is really full of negative commetns, and fater Mercedes test people is really questioning their integrity…

      2. Actually I would say its rather a show that Pirelli were doing their best to solve the issues instead of anything bad @paul-a

  19. I just read the article by Gary Anderson regarding this saga on the BBC website. And with this article, he has lost every shred of respect I had for him. I feel he should no longer has any place in this sport. And it’s all from one short paragraph.

    There has to be a grand prix. And there will be. Pirelli will take the best tyres they have for the situation and if some of the teams don’t like them they can sit in the garage.

    It’s clear from that – and from the rest of that article – that Gary Anderson isn’t thinking about the safety of the drivers. After all the hard work by Jackie Stewart, and all the improvements since 1994, surely this kind of attitude simply cannot be tolerated? He may now just be a commentator, but if this belief is repeated elsewhere in the paddock, how long before we see a driver death again?

    This is sport. Death is not part of the game.

    1. Death is part of everyone’s game — you can sit at home watching TV and eating potato chips (crisps) and die of a heart attack. I raced motorcycles and cars back in the 1950s and 60s, knew Jackie Stewart more than casually, and have the greatest of respect for all he and others have done for safety; I lost some good friends and was very lucky myself on more than one occasion, so truly understand advances in safety. But to pretend that motor racing is not dangerous is a fantasy reserved for computer games.

      As Bill McKenna once said: “…Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece, but to slide across the finish line broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out, leaking oil, and shouting GERONIMO!!!”

      1. While I have huge respect for any racer – especially back in the days when the safety record was far worse – these kind of views no longer have a place in any sport. While there will always be an element of risk in any activity, it is the responsibility of everyone involved to ensure that everything that can practically be done do improve safety has been done. If not, then the race should not happen.

        I have worked in a pretty dangerous operating environment myself, and I promise you that such lax consideration for human life simply isn’t tolerated.

        It’s time we put this kind of attitude in the same box as racism and sexism – it has no place in a modern society.

        1. Then we ban all sports? Excitement, challenge, pushing the envelope, winning are all part of immutable human nature and all involve increased physical danger (which racism and sexism rarely do.) Think of boxing, climbing Everest, college athletes succumbing to heart attacks. On of my grandsons recently broke a leg playing soccer (he coaches a youth team) and had to have his tibia pinned — after twenty years of extreme dedication to his sport of choice.

          My point is only that driving a three quarter ton, 200 mph car in which any one of ten thousand pieces can fail is not as safe as sitting at home watching it on TV. That is perhaps what Gary Anderson was suggesting and which started this thread.

          You mention “everything can practically be done do improve safety” and I do not disagree. But accidents happen, many unpredictable, some never seen before. Jet fighters have windscreens that would have prevented Massa’s injury, but that is not F1. I could go on, but I’m sure you’ve got my point.

          P.S. I’m not at all happy with “tyre-gate”, it’s a fiasco. Just very glad that (so far) nobody has been hurt. Something is being done now, in hindsight, and I fear that it will “hurt” the sport by introducing revised technology in mid season.

          1. I agree with much more of your second reply than your first. I fully accept that the sport will never be entirely safe – much like everything else in life (albeit to a larger degree). But accepting then inherent risks that make motorsport the exciting activity it is, is very different to seeing a new, unexplained and highly dangerous (particularly thinking about the proximity of Alonso’s head to most of a tyre) event the correct response is not to effectively say “pfft, stop moaning and get on with it”.

            Those ten thousand potential failure points you mentioned? There have been great efforts to measure, understand, and where possible mitigate their risk. That same effort has not gone into preventing these incidents, and until it has, then the teams, FIA and Pirelli have not taken reasonable steps to keep drivers safe.

            You mentioned jet fighters, albeit in passing. When a jet has a “new” incident, and where there is a reasonable suspicion that it is something that could affect the whole fleet, the fleet are usually grounded until the problem is better understood. No ifs, no buts. When that doesn’t happen, there is understandable uproar, and the possibility of criminal liability. And getting those aircraft airborne again is far more important than anything that’s ever happened in every motor race combined.

Comments are closed.