Lotus scrap plan to run Raikkonen at test

2013 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Lotus have decided not to run Kimi Raikkonen at this week’s Young Driver Test as originally planned.

Instead of running Raikkonen on Friday Nicolas Prost will have another run in the car.

Trackside operations director Alan Permane said: “Once details of what race drivers were allowed to do here became apparent, we would have only been able to conduct a very limited programme with Kimi.

“If we were to run him, it would compromise the other development work we want to do with the car here.

“By running Nico again we’ll be able to build on the work already carried out and hopefully be in the best position to develop the E21 ahead of Budapest, whilst also conducting the necessary tyre testing for Pirelli.”

Red Bull have also scaled back the programme for their race drivers and will not run Mark Webber at the test.

2013 F1 season

Browse all 2013 F1 season articles

Image © Lotus/LAT

Author information

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

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

29 comments on “Lotus scrap plan to run Raikkonen at test”

  1. Probably it wasn’t worth it, but why give more time to Prost rather than Valsecchi?

    1. The same reason why Ferrari gave Rigon that whole chunk of practice instead of Marciello or why McLaren keep running Paffett and Turvey everytime. These are probably the guys who know exactly what the programme is and what needs to be done in terms of car development exclusively. They’ve been prepped.

      If I had to give someone more time in that car I would have chosen Prost as well. He has more miles behind the wheel of an F1 car than Valsecchi, he’s more experienced, he’s the driver who does the small work and knows all the insights, and most importantly he has nothing to prove. He’s there to do exactly the job that’s assigned to him.

      1. “If I had to give someone more time in that car I would have chosen Prost as well. He has more miles behind the wheel of an F1 car than Valsecchi, he’s more experienced, he’s the driver who does the small work and knows all the insights, and most importantly he has nothing to prove. He’s there to do exactly the job that’s assigned to him”.

        Then why not give him all three day’s in the car?

        1. First of all because it’s a Young Drivers test, as the name suggests. Besides the car development work and trying to understand the new tyres, it’s fair to assume a large part of the teams efforts focus on giving these guys (Valsecchi, Magnussen, Juncadella, Ellinas, Gonzales, Calado, Frinjs etc.) some track time and evaluating their performances as well. Let alone the fact that all these drivers bar Magnussen paid huge amounts of money for driving those cars, not for the oportunity to sit around in the garage and watch.

          It’s simply different drivers doing different jobs.

  2. another flop by FIA that only “clarify” the rules for race driver on the day of testing instead of stating it earlier.

    1. This has nothing to do with that rule clarification.

    2. I do not think this was unexpected though. Otherwise the likes of Alonso and Button would have been there as well, but Button already mentioned last week that it would not make much sense to just go around and rake in the km to test tyres.

    3. It shows again how little the FIA and teams care about the tyre tests, they have less trust in eachother then they have in the silverstone tyres.

  3. For Mercedes, it looked not so bad, then pretty bad… and now it’s back to not so bad again.

    1. That sounds about right.

    2. petebaldwin (@)
      17th July 2013, 14:39

      I don’t understand that – for me it shows what Mercedes are missing out on. They got to run a Pirelli test which the teams are essentially turning down in order to run rookies. The tyre tests involve no new parts and are simply laps to test tyres.

      Instead, the teams will be bolting on all sorts of new parts whereas Mercedes don’t get the chance to do that. They got 3 days of tyre testing that the other teams appear to not want.

      1. Until it was just announced today by Hemberey that ALL teams would be given data from this weeks testing, my stance was that the pendulum had swing to Mercedes being the sole disadvantaged team. Now I think the playing field is levelled out. The teams seem now more interested in running new components vs. tire testing but that is because they are allowed to compile tire data while running young drivers and new components. And data will be shared with all teams by Pirelli after the fact. It would not have been fair that Mercedes didn’t get to share tire data in May, wouldn’t get time on the new tires until Hungary, AND wouldn’t get data from this weeks test.

        1. So when can the other teams expect to see the data Mercedes gathered during their private/secret test with Pirelli?

          1. Mercedes didn’t gather data. Pirelli did. It was their test. The tires were coded. Pirelli didn’t share data with Mercedes so why would they with everyone else.

  4. hello kitty is sick and tired of the sons of drivers, ie prost, sainz etc getting these opportunities to test.
    why not give a few unknowns a chance, talent is not always in the genes!

    1. Zantkiller (@)
      17th July 2013, 14:23

      I’d say it has never really been in the genes.
      I can’t think of a driver son who has been better or maybe even equal with their dad.

      1. I think you’re being a bit harsh there. Off the top of my head both Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve are world champions. Although they may have got to F1 because of their fathers, becoming a world champion is a certainly a respectable achievement. Not to mention Nico Rosberg who is also doing a very good job at the moment.

        1. Zantkiller (@)
          17th July 2013, 15:00

          Oh they are very talented drivers and I would never disagree with that but are they as talented as their dads?
          Personally I don’t think so.

          1. So what? Half the drivers on the grid today aren’t as good as Gilles or Graham. Doesn’t mean they’re not good drivers in their own right, and certainly deserving of their place on the grid on merit.

            Getting to F1 requires three things – money, opportunity, and talent. If your Dad is a former F1 driver, especially a relatively successful one, then you’ll almost certainly have access to the first two. As for the third; if your entire life is centred around the goal of getting into F1, then it’s almost guaranteed that you’ll be able to generate plenty of ability.

            You say talent isn’t in the genes. Where is it then? Nature vs nurture, so if we rule out nature (genes) then we’re left with nurture; upbringing, training, practice, and so on. Well what better environment for that to flourish than in the household of a famous racing driver?

            There are plenty of examples of racing families where there has been success at multiple generations, especially outside of F1.

          2. JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III
            17th July 2013, 17:30

            Impossible to say one way or the other personally i feel nico has shown time and again how good he is and is clearly on a par if not better than Snr.

            The hills this is going to be contentious but graham was never on the limit no drivers were in those days or they died he was good he was consistant. But damon showed speed hill snr never did if only because it wasn’t sensible. Again at the very least on par with his old man he’s probably the most under rated world champion ever, granted there has to be one most underrated champ but damon? no that’s absolutely ludicrous.

            Jacques well…2 out of 3 aint bad.

          3. Zantkiller (@)
            17th July 2013, 18:19

            I’m not saying they don’t deserve a place on the grid and I’m not saying that talent isn’t in the genes. Drivers can be naturally talented.

            All i’m saying is that for whatever reason there seems to be a trend of successfulness dropping throughout a family.

            Now whether that drop is due to pressure to perform to the name or from naturally talent just being lost I don’t know and I don’t want to find out by doing selective breeding with racing drivers.

        2. Not sure about Damon (I wasn’t watching during his first year in the sport, before going to Williams as a tester), but Jaques might have gotten an early chance over in the USA, but his drive for Williams was because at the time CART was a highly rated championship, and he was storming it amazingly, similar to what Montoya did a couple of years later.

          It was never about signing him to the team because of his father, but because they saw a super fast and consistent champion in him. Sure his later career went down the drain, but coming in 2nd to Hill in his first year was as stunning a debut year as Hamilton had in 2007.

      2. petebaldwin (@)
        17th July 2013, 14:47

        I’d agree to an extent. Obviously Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve were very talented drivers – it’d be wrong to take that away from them. Having said that, I don’t think anyone would argue that they were better than Graham or Gilles.

        The only one I can think of who is arguably an equal of his father (although many would disagree) would be Nico and Keke. Nico is still a bit unproven but he is holding his own against Hamilton and did so previously against Schumacher.

        1. Being a huge JV fan and therefore having followed his career very closely, one thing among many stands out. As the son of a famous racing figure, they get put under a microscope and the pressure is on right off the bat as soon as they start racing, that they are expected to win. All JV ever wanted to do was be his own person. Earlier on in his career he had to try to distance himself from his Dad because those shoes could not be realistically filled in spite of the media hounding him at all times with comparisons and expectations.

        2. JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III
          17th July 2013, 17:40

          webber wurz schumacher and hamilton the later 2 are considered 2 of the most talented drivers ever in f1 and rosberg is still unproven? Who does he have to beat godzilla? If hamilton is considered excellent a worthy world champion and deserving of a 3 year 60 million contract I can’t think of a single arguement to suggest nico is not equally deserving.

          1. JV earned the WDC his Dad wasn’t able to, in one of the two years he had a worthy car. And almost won one in his first year in F1. Nothing to hang his head about, in spite of his detractors opinions.

          2. petebaldwin (@)
            17th July 2013, 23:56

            He did better than Schumacher who didn’t ever quite see himself following his return and is currently competing with Hamilton in a team he has much more experience of working with. Hamilton has already said he’s still getting used to the new brakes etc. I’m not saying Hamilton isn’t just making an excuse but at the moment, he’s not proven as one of the top few drivers to me.

            I’m not saying he isn’t one of the top few drivers, just that he hasn’t proven he is yet.

    2. Sainz Jnr. is actually a fairly promising driver in the junior categories. And Nicolas Prost has been with Lotus for s while now, so he knows the team.

      As for the “unknown” drivers you’re promoting, first of all, if they’re completely unknown, then it makes no sense to put them in a car. They have to make some kind of impression in other racing series.

      Secondly, the teams aren’t giving drivers the chance to test out of the goodness of their heart’s. It’s very expensive to test, so drivers have to pay for the privilege. No money, no test.

  5. This is getting silly and I don’t get it. It’s baking at Silverstone atm, 30c + and i’d have thought perfect conditions to test the tyres in preparation for Hungary.

Comments are closed.