Adrian Newey, Red Bull, 2013

Ferrari and Lotus “got lucky” with 2013 tyres – Newey

2013 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Ferrari and Lotus were lucky the Pirelli tyres introduced during the winter helped them become competitive, according to Red Bull’s chief technical officer Adrian Newey.

Speaking on the Sport und Talk programme on Red Bull’s television channel Servus TV yesterday, Newey disputed the claim the two teams had developed their cars to suit the original 2013 Pirelli tyres better.

“We had a big change over the winter, an unexpected change,” said Newey. “Pirelli introduced a new tyre which was much more sensitive, it was very easy to overload it and because our car, a lot of its lap time is under braking and in the high speed corners, where you’re putting a lot of load into the tyres, we couldn’t really exploit that without the tyres going off very quickly.”

Adrian Newey, Red Bull, 2013“So that tyre change hurt us and helped some other people, such as Lotus, Ferrari perhaps. For me that was purely luck.

“I think Lotus and Ferrari are making making big noises about how clever they were over the winter to read that far. But to be perfectly honest they were just plain lucky, we were a little bit unlucky, and of course the the politics take over. So it’s been a challenging year but a very rewarding one.”

Lotus and Ferrari won three of the first five races but haven’t taken any victories since. Pirelli revised its tyres following the British Grand Prix in which several drivers suffered high-speed tyre failures.

Red Bull felt “fragile” at mid-season

Newey said in addition to pressure from Ferrari, Red Bull were also worried about Mercedes’ form in the middle of the season.

“It’s been a difficult season at times for us,” he said. “We started off, strong result in Malaysia, one-two in the second race. And then kind of our competitiveness went up and down a little bit.”

“It was a very close fight, Ferrari were very strong early in the season, Mercedes came on strong sort of around Monaco time. So come that middle of the season point we were not… we were in the lead of the championship, but it felt fragile, it felt as if Mercedes particularly at that point were on a roll.”

Newey admitted their focus on developing a car for next year’s rules change may have been compromised by their focus on securing the 2013 titles:

“We kept pushing, we introduced quite a few changes to the car, updates some in Hungary just before the summer break, then more in Spa. And that seemed to give us momentum.

“I guess really we’ve kept pushing all the way to Singapore in terms of introducing new parts, even Japan, which you could look back on now and say perhaps we pushed harder than we needed to because in doing that of course it’s taken resource off next year’s car.

“It didn’t feel that way at the time, it felt as if we needed to keep pushing and it’s been tremendous to have this roll that we’ve had at the end of the season.”

2013 F1 season

Browse all 2013 F1 season articles

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty

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.

176 comments on “Ferrari and Lotus “got lucky” with 2013 tyres – Newey”

  1. Hindsight is wonderful thing, why didn’t he say that mid-season?

    1. @wombat1m
      Because he would’ve sounded like a sour whiner. Now RBR has secured both championships and they’ve won the last seven races, so it’s easier to believe he’s being honest and saying what he actually thinks about the start of the season.

    2. He is not the only one to suggest that luck is a bigger factor than skill in getting results with these comedy tyres, many of us commenting on these pages have been making that point since last year.

      1. many of us commenting on these pages have been making that point

        wow, congrats on being as much of a snide, boorish whiner as Adrian Newey… Next you’ll be designing GP-winning cars!

        1. @hohum

          No. What he said was there was a big change that was unexpected that benefited Ferrari and Lotus. He did not say that luck is why they did well.

          You are completely misrepresenting what he said


          I think accuses Newey of being a whiner is plainly wrong. If something happens and it doesn’t favor you, given that it’s a competition, I think it is normal to comment on that. All the teams do so.

          1. @mike, there was a big change at the beginning of 2012 and the beginning of 2013 and the middle of 2013, none of the teams had sufficient data or experience with those tyres to predict with any certainty the ideal design for their cars using those tyres, some of the most successful teams got it wrong, some of the least successful got it right ,sometimes, I call that luck or chance if you prefer

          2. @hohum

            But it’s not by chance. Lotus and Ferrari designed and built those cars. Everyone knew there would be new tyres. No one knew what they would actually be like. It is “lucky” for the teams that they suited their cars. But that’s very different from saying that chance was the cause of it.

        2. @joepa, Obviously I’ll leave designing F1 cars to you as your knowledge is so great that you can confidently disagree with Adrian Newey.

    3. So obviously Red Bull was “Lucky” they changed the tires after Silverstone then.

      1. Yes, they were lucky that the tires were changed mid-season. More durable tires are better suited to their cars. I don’t think anyone at Redbull would dispute that.

  2. Poor Red Bull. So unlucky.

    1. I think key is

      we were a little bit unlucky, and of course the the politics take over.

      Note the second part.

      IMO at least FI were clearly working according to a planned thing they used the tyre switching, camber angles and preassures from very early on, I wouldn’t bet against them having relied on that up front. I would say that for Lotus its likely they as well made a gamble that did pay off initially. Ferrari – hard to tell, because they were never superb on the tyres, just not bad, so maybe luck was part of it. Before politics took over, as Newey says it.

      1. I think I have posted that on here a few weeks ago when Force India claimed they built their car specifically for these tyres… Back then (and still now) I think that’s quite ridicolous. Over the last years they were struggling to gain downforce… When Newey talks about putting load on the tyres, that partly comes from a consistent and solid amount of just that.
        It’s of course not quite that simple, but teams with aerodynamically weak cars got an advantage with the early Pirellis…

        1. Well, Boullier said exactly the same and explained to some detail what they knew about the tires already. I think it is very simplistic to call it ridiculous as they would quite obviously put more efforts into balance rather than increasing down force.

          Instead of calling them aerodynamically weak cars (mind you; they were not built yet at this point) you could claim that the scale got tipped towards teams with better skills in balancing and setup rather than best aero engineers. I don’t for the life of me see how that can be considered even remotely unfair or ridiculous, sorry.

          1. I don’t for the life of me see how that can be considered even remotely unfair or ridiculous, sorry.

            That’s b/c it can’t be considered unfair/ridiculous, @poul. So carry on.


          2. Lotus was a bad example in my opinion, hence why I simply mentioned Force India, as they were being quite loud about it. I didn’t say ‘unfair’, not sure where that came from, I just thought it was ridicolous of them to claim that they built their car a certain way, when it was obvious that their weakness from the years before became the ace up their sleeves in the races due to the new tyres.

  3. This is bad taste! So you already won everything from getting the tires (illegally) changed on safety claims and it was the others that were lucky because they could actually compete with you for a couple of races?

    Nice! (NOT)

    1. getting the tires (illegally) changed on safety claims

      Claims also made by Ferrari, Lotus, Mercedes, McLaren, Sauber, Force India, Williams, Toro Rosso, Caterham, Marussia, and the FIA.

      1. @raceprouk

        Pfft, did Hispania complain?


      2. OH NO! I am guilty of starting this again! :-)

        Actually I think Ferrari must be in there by mistake.

        But if you will please recall the history; it started by Red Bull and Mercedes complaining about the tires strictly because of their poor performance on these. Then Bernie came in and said; “this is not what we asked for” (as he always sees the need to make the big spenders happy). But “unfortunately” the rules state that tire changes are not allowed during the season.

        Next they had the good fortune of some delaminations (due to improper tire pressure and side swapping) and all the under performing, tire eating teams started screaming safety while Pirelli strictly stated that there was no safety concern at all.

        But of course; that will all soon be forgotten….

        1. Mclaren was going strictly by the rules regarding pressures and cambers and guess what happened to perez at silverstone? You fail on this one. Ferrari also had delaminations in silverstone but were very lucky to get them just as alonso came into the pits. Tyres were unsafe and had to be changed, end of it.

          1. Actually I don’t. As Pirelli always stated; the delaminations were not a safety issue because they were just that; delaminations. The disintegrating tires on the other hand were due to improper handling of the tires. The two “funny” things about it however, is that they still happened after the change and that the switch to 2012 compounds had nothing to do with the integrity of the tire structure!

          2. So how do you explain mclaren then? Please tell me. Simple, you can’t. Cambers and pressures had nothing to do with it and was just a cheap excuse by pirelli to shift the blame onto teams instead of them. If you brought 2013 spec tires to suzuka none of the cars would finish the race probably.

          3. About Suzuka; that is your statement, nothing more.

            And as I said; there is a difference between disintegration and delamination. Are you saying that the tires should get changed mid-season because of one incident? I don’t recall any other seasons where that happened.

            Please explain why a poor tire structure caused a revert in compound? You can’t! (Well, you can, if you go into the fishy money and power realm but I don’t think you will :-) )

          4. @poul

            the switch to 2012 compounds

            You misspelt ‘construction’ – the compounds are, and always have been, the 2013 spec.

          5. @poul
            One incident? elaborate.
            as dave said, compound has been the same entire year, only construction has been changed from cheap steal belts to 2012 spec kevlar.

          6. Pablo vanTinkler
            5th November 2013, 20:54

            But the tyre orientation was switched no? Or is that within the Pirelli spec now?

    2. Did you watch Silverstone? Those tires were a time bomb and had to go.

      And as an aside, anything that makes the tires stronger is better, because everyone is sick of drivers managing their tires from lap 1 instead of actually racing.

      1. Yes, and did you read what Pirelli’s post examination said? Those tires were all grossly mistreated strictly against recommendation.

        Lasting tires are an entirely different discussion in which I don’t disagree. I just think that clearly stated rules should be followed by everyone, including the rich and powerful. But I am probably just a hopeless romantic living in the wrong world :-)

        1. Pirelli tyre rules.
          1. Do not over-inflate
          2. Do not underinflate
          3. Do not exceed camber limits
          4. Do not drive fast

          1. More or less what you get with all tyres – limits to its usage. Off course the limits have to be a lot more free for an environment like F1, where its all about finding the edge where performance goes bust.
            Thats why Bridgestone worked wonders for Ferrari – they tested exactly what worked for that car (and updates)
            The biggest problem I see, is that Pirelli is hardly able to test what limits they should set, and in them saying yes to making the tyres fragile, and then not wanting to be a spoilsport (by stating up front that the limits were safetlylimits), they got exactly what RBR gets when they tell Vettel to slow down – he just goes on what he sees/feels from the car and goes faster still.

            I am sure that is what pirelli is now trying to establish for next year – give strict limits for how the tyres can be used. It will mean far less chance for a team to get things right when the others can’t find a way to make them work, because there is just far less scope for experimenting – looking for the edge of the tyres performance.

            Off course the tyres will still not enable drivers to use them to their maximum (because they would get to the edge between performance and risk), but they will be far less of a differentiating factor.

    3. I agree with him – just like RBR was lucky that the 2013 specs proofed to be unsafe and had to be switched back to 2012 specs (like Newey also admitted).
      Ferrari and Lotus were known to be better on tires in 2012 – especially the softer range – they definitely used this knowledge to design their 2013 cars but it was the fundamental package that helped them aka. being lucky.

      1. @tmf42

        RBR wasn’t lucky – Vettel won 4 races prior to the change in compound (and should have been 5 if not for his mechanical at Silverstone). They were also leading the championship and Ferrari and Lotus were already slipping behind in the development of their cars over their season (which is Ferrari’s biggest weakness).

        You could say that without the change, Vettel may not have won 7 on the trot, but who knows. Hamilton won Hungary, after the tire change, so Merc didn’t do as well as RBR in developing their car as RB. Developing the car has nothing to do with luck.

    4. The tyres were unsafe and it was bad seeing teams defending them just because they were winning but risking their drivers safety (Alonso on the brink of tyre failure at Silverstone as reported by Ferrari).

      Newey and his team have won this era ending this month and all I wish for next year is 3/4 teams with chances to win the championship.

    5. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

  4. I’m very curious how he wants to know whether it was luck or not. He was not involved in the development of the F138 and the E21 so it seems a bit ignorant to make such a claim. It’s a bit like saying Vettel is lucky having by far the best car in the field and in another car he would be rubbish. And we all know what Vettel can do in comparison to his teammate…

    1. … qualify 2nd

        1. haha :P but you get the idea…

  5. people are gonna take this in all sorts of ways… we (well the absolute majority of us) have no idea what the contruction and development of an F1 car really consists of. And if one of the absolute major players in that field says that it is so, than it probably is so… at least partly.

    I just take this as a small insight to how Newey and Red Bull design their cars and what they have control over and not. I think it’s fascinating to actually hear Mr. Aero himself divulge his thoughts and conclussions, in a way that doesn’t seem overly censored in this day and age where every word is feels like it’s been spit out of a PR machine

    1. @dr-jekyll While I agree with Newey on the fact that Fortune might have played a big role , I hate it when he makes it sound as if they were just given a bag of gold . We all know that Mr N is the best when it comes to downforce . But the tyres were meant to challenge just that , they were meant to impose that downforce is not the most vital thing , that tyre conservation need to be looked into from a design perspective right at the start . Pity , that this concept was not implemented well by FIA and Pirelli or we would have had a better season . I’d call Red Bull ‘lucky’ for the tyres being changed to 2012 spec because of dire circumstances.

  6. An unlucky team with a 4-time ‘unlucky’ champion…. :)

    1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
      5th November 2013, 17:49

      @jee1kimi he’s talking about the winter change, not the mid-season change.

  7. Newey wasn’t so sure about “luck” when he missed the double diffuser, then it was all about unfair rule bending.

    As usual it’s amazing how childish and blinkered people at the top can be.

    1. he is an odd one is Newey. The very best at his job by far, when Rory went home but its hard to like him really.

      As for this well, we had a good close championship then the tyres were changed at request of mostly 2 teams. And those 2 teams have won all the races since. Nothing more to say.

      Also not the first time there has been an unfair pirelli change that benefited RBR. Ferrari came out of blocks flying in testing in 2011, then come melbourne they were no where. Jarno Trulli said at the end of the season that the tyres were not the same but no one would admit it. Despite teams complaining how poor they were in 11 then come first few races all the teams going oh actually they seem ok.

      RBR are an incredible team, but some team members cant seem to win without taking a dig. I dont mean Seb or Christian those 2 are growing more likeable as years go by.

      1. All the teams wanted the tyres changed after Silverstone. There was even a threatened driver boycott at the following GP.

        1. No they wanted the tyres fixed, not changed to 2012 spec. Pretty sure if you asked Ferrari if they wanted the tyres to maintain the same performance characteristics, but without what ever flaw it had in its construction, they would have most definitely picked that, instead of going back to the 2012 spec.

          1. @joshua-mesh
            Probably, but that wasn’t an option.
            That would have taken way, way too long to be even remotely possible, and there would be no guarantee that, that would actually solve the problems. There was only one option. Ferrari and everyone else knew that when they said they wanted the tyres changed.

          2. The construction was changed, the compounds remained the same.

      2. Ferrari only had problems on hard tires during 2011, they were fine on all others.

        1. Ferrari only had problems on hard tires during 2011

          To be precise on the harder compound , soft & super soft were ok but Hard & Medium no, just for the history

          1. 2011, the hard tyre was kryptonite for Ferrari. Remember how Fernando was leading at the first corner at Barcelona that year? Only to be lapped by Vettel at the end when he was on hards?

            Anyways, I think it was a bit cheeky from Newey, how would he know eh? I guess Force India lucked out as well. What if it had been the other way around? The tyre may not have got changed perhaps? Or even if it did play out like this year, Newey would probably have been the only person who could have reacted fast enough?

  8. so would he say that red bull were lucky when the revised tyres that were introduced mid-season suddenly made them the quickest and almost unstoppable? surely ferrari and lotus were very unlucky when the new tyres affected them so negatively, poor comments from Newey.

    1. completely agree, well put

    2. Look bro, if you had those tyres in 2010 when cars had miles more downforce and cornered much quicker than now they would fall apart in 1 lap probably, not 4 or 5 as they do now. Tires were effectively punishing you if you had better car which could corner quicker.

      1. @juzh But you should be designing your car according to the specifications that you have, which includes the tyres that are the same for everybody. You can’t pick and choose the bits you like, and then demand that the rest are changed.

        What you are saying is like a team whose car is very quick in a straight line but slow in corners demanding that F1 stop going to places like Monaco and the Hungaroring and only go to Monza, because it suits their car better.

        Red Bull’s approach of “downforce uber alles” was the best way to go in 2010 on durable Bridgestones, but on Pirellis in 2013 it was not (until the changes). That’s Red Bull’s problem to sort out, not anybody else’s.

        1. @red-andy how else do you get performance these days? It’d be a sad state of affairs to see all the teams deliberately working around a handicap, hence preventing them from building the fastest car they are capable of IMO.

          1. @vettel1
            Teams sacrifice certain aspects of the car for other aspects all the time. Red Bull should have sacrificed downforce for better tyre wear, that simple.

            Do you think that teams having to sacrifice downforce for top speed is a “sad state of affairs”?

          2. @vettel1 Teams work around deliberate handicaps all the time. They’re called the Technical Regulations and without them, F1 cars would only be drivable in G suits. The whole ethos of F1 is about producing the best car you can within the restrictions you’re given.

            The fundamental aim of F1 is to be the fastest over the 305km race distance. If your car is extremely fast for, say, 50km but chews up its tyres in doing so, then that’s too bad. When Renault introduced their turbo engines in the 80s, they would very often set pole position and lead until their engines blew, usually around half distance. You wouldn’t respond to that by saying “the races are too long.”

            So why blame the tyres for this situation? Others can complete their 305km at a faster average speed because they handle their tyres better. That’s F1. And it always was.

          3. @vettel1 Then the rules must be changed and tyres must not wear out . I am sure in those circumstances RBR would win every race rightfully so , but that is an entirely different matter .
            With the current rules, tyres are a big factor . I am even willing to bet that whatever Newey says is right . But he can’t just say they were ‘lucky’ . It’s like saying Sebastian was lucky all these years . Sure he has had the luck but he has probably worked his best .
            Newey , come on man , I admire you and all but that is sour grapes , after winning ,that too. I don’t like this kind of attitude .

          4. @vettel1 Then the rules must be changed and tyres must not wear out . I am sure in those circumstances RBR would win every race rightfully so , but that is an entirely different matter .
            With the current rules, tyres are a big factor . I am even willing to bet that whatever Newey says is right . But he can’t just say they were ‘lucky’ . It’s like saying Sebastian was lucky all these years . Sure he has had the luck but he has probably worked his best .Newey , come on man , I admire you and all but that is poor sportsmanship , after winning ,that too. I don’t like this kind of attitude .

        2. @kingshark but you aren’t sacrificing downforce for top speed, that’s entirely different as that is to suit track characteristics. By sacrificing downforce on a track like Catalunya though you are fundamentally reducing the performance potential of the car.

          Ideally, the tyres would do tyre-like things in their tyre world. That might be a bit too much to ask for these days though.

        3. @red-andy, which is the regulation that says you should not design cars that are to fast for the tyres, surely the tyres should be designed to suit the cars potential performance, not the other way round.

          1. @HoHum I actually agree that in an ideal world, the tyres would be designed to suit the cars. But we’re not in an ideal world – we’re in one where we have a single tyre manufacturer who only brings two compounds to each race, and everyone has to use both.

            With that in mind, of course you have to build your car to suit the tyres you’re given. Whether that should be the case is a separate discussion.

        4. The crucial difference for me @red-andy is that with the given technical regulations, you are still trying to design the fastest car you possibly can within those constraints. The tyres however are essentially preventing you from realising that potential: they wouldn’t even have to be bulletproof to allow for that, just strong enough to stay rigid under heavy loading and to not grain excessively. The 2011 Pirelli’s were absolutely fine – they generally worked quite well, didn’t just disintegrate yet still allowed for the “conservatives” to show their hand.

          1. Thats complete nonsense @vettel1. Its as if you say its wrong that you have to build a car that lasts the race because you are always fastest in Qualifying. Or to argue that its not fair that you must run the race without refuelling because now you have to setup the car to run both with high fuel and with low fuel limiting where you can go with ride height.

            The tyres as they are are part of the regulation presented, and that is the scope wherein teams design their cars to be fastest overall and win.

          2. @bascb obviously they are always important, but when they can’t actually cope with the downforce levels the cars are capable of producing, something is wrong.

          3. Why @vettel1?

            If it really does that, then it’s just another way to put an effective limit on the amount of downforce that makes sense on an F1 car. I see nothing wrong with that, there is no “right to win because I can get the most downforce on the car” just as there is no prize for getting the highest HP out of an engine, the highest top speed or lowest fuel consumpion. All are limited in some way by the rules and force teams to make a car that is a compromise of all that.

            I do not mean to say that I like seeing tyres that start to go off halfway into a first hot qualifying lap, or that I like the way we either have tyres that are too fragile (forcing half the field to coast for large parts of the race) or that people cannot get heat in. But I see no problem with having tyres that have a limit to how much they can be pushed in the corners.

  9. This is the most classless statement coming from RedBull Racing ever and I’m really disappointed to hear it from Newey. I expected it from Marko not from him. That’s why it’s hard for many people to warm up to this team – they win a lot and they deserve it but always need to rub it their rivals faces. Looking for the source of Vettel’s booing – there it is – the open arrogance and disrespect of RBR towards their rivals (I’m not saying Sebastian should be booed). And now – they call other teams lucky because Ferrari, Lotus etc didn’t hang their balls in the pool during the winter and managed to make their cars actually suit the initial tire compound.

    1. hahahahaha and you probably know more about the subject than 10 times WDC and WCC chief technical officer. Give me a break.

      1. @juzh
        That’s exactly what RBR wanted to do from this statement, make you believe that they are telling the truth because Newey is genius well a 10 times WDC and WCC chief technical officer
        doesn’t have the right to bash people publicly when he has absolutely no knowledge on the Lotus/Ferrari cars unless he know someone like Stepney
        If the credibility or arrogance is determined by how many WDC and WCC you have won then Luca Di Montezemolo who has been involved in Ferrari’s success since the beginning of the 70’s has all the right to bash everyone on the paddock including Adrian Newey

        1. Montezemolo oversaw Ferrari from a business view, he didn’t pen the cars like Newey does. If you watch videos of Gordon Murray, another great designer, he is very similar in what he says and until people have met Newey, how can they possibly judge his attitudes and personality?

      2. it’s not Newey technical expertise what is being discussed here. Being the best at his job does not give him the right to insult, abuse and disrespect everybody else. Same goes for Vettel and his poolside comment.

      3. @juzh How can someone who was weeping a few weeks ago stating that he couldn’t still decode the cause for that particular accident involving his creation in Imola in 1994 be so sure of other teams lucking into being competitive?

    2. @klaas
      Newey says that the reason Ferrari and Lotus worked well on those tyres, was because the tyres were fragile and their cars didn’t work them too hard. And that Red Bull struggled because their advantage (downforce) was simply overworking the tyres.
      Whether that has something to do with luck or not is hard to know, but he does have a point.
      The Ferrari has been that way, since what? 2011? Back then, they couldn’t get the hard tyres to work because they couldn’t maintain heat in them. Red Bull didn’t have such issues because their car worked the tyres quite a lot, simply due to the sheer downforce. Those characteristics has remained largely unchanged, because the teams are developing a known concept. So when the tyres changes, there is only so much the teams can do.
      Especially when they first really know the tyres by the end of the season. At that point the overall car for next year is largely finished.

    3. Looking for the source of Vettel’s booing – there it is – the open arrogance and disrespect of RBR towards their rivals

      @klaas – agreed 100%. This is just boorish, low-class, hubristic arrogance from Newey. The simple fact of the matter is that he had no known involvement in the development of any of his rivals’ cars, so he’s no more qualified to speak to their processes and the degree to which they designed “towards” the tires than anyone else outside those teams.

      Plus there’s the matter of his need to fit RBR’s dominance into a convenient narrative that minimizes the impact of the unjust, unfair, highly-irregular mid-season change in tires under a very dubious pretext…

  10. I can totally see his point. If you have the best car, which produces the most downforce, but aren’t allowed to fully use it because of the tyres, than that’s bad for you, and lucky for the competition because it levels out the playing field a bit.

    1. This basically. Tires rewarded you for now being good enough, and punished you if you were.

    2. so how come Ferrari was “lucky” rather than engineered to work with the rapidly wearing tires? Sounds like Wall St analysts: market goes up, they make money, then it must be their intelligence, BUT if market goes down and they lose money, then it was the market’s fault.

      Not that Newey is wrong or lying, but more info is needed to know if how much of his statement is true.

      1. @me4me

        I can totally see his point. If you have the best car, which produces the most downforce, but aren’t allowed to fully use it because of the tyres, than that’s bad for you, and lucky for the competition because it levels out the playing field a bit.

        Then Red Bull should have sacrificed downforce for better tyre wear, that simple. Teams sacrifice certain parts of the car for others all the time.

        1. No, they shouldn’t. Not one bit. As they didn’t have to in the previous years.

          1. @juzh
            Then I guess that teams should not sacrifice top speed for downforce either.

          2. @kingshark Drag and downforce go hand in hand. Using F1’s design philosophy, you’re almost certain to sacrifice top speed in order to increase downforce, as it is very hard to make the cars even more aero-efficient. However I don’t see how in the world a product from a third-party company should determine how much downforce every car in Formula 1 is able to carry at maximum. The TWG worked to reduce downforce in the cars by the regulations, leaving room for the best design to come out to the top, but if you limit a car’s capabilities by handicapping it with subpar tyres, then what’s the point? Why should teams even bother with aero development? Why not go all the way and turn F1 into a spec series then?

          3. @guilherme

            Drag and downforce go hand in hand. Using F1′s design philosophy, you’re almost certain to sacrifice top speed in order to increase downforce, as it is very hard to make the cars even more aero-efficient.

            And if Red Bull are correct, then tyre wear and downforce also go hand in hand. It’s an enormous challenge for F1 teams to get enough downforce on the car without overloading the tyres. Ferrari and Lotus got that spot-on early season.

        2. you don’t think that is precisely what red bull did around Spa/Monza time?
          First year ever they were near the top of the speed traps. Likely getting the same downforce as others with much less drag. Hence the 7 wins a row and second per lap lead they have now.

    3. Not really. You see inside the car is a driver and that driver can decide how fast he wants to take the corner. He could very easily slow down to go around the corner at the same speed as Ferrari and Lotus to get the same benefit.

      The point is completely made null and void when you consider that almost all drivers were not pushing their cars 100% for most of the race, not just RBR.

      1. Driving at a safe speed for the tyres was the FIAs suggestion at the Indy FIAsco, we know how that worked out for F1.

  11. I always had Newey down as a man of class and grace, but this is very disappointing.

    How disrespectful to Ferrari and Lotus to say that their success with this year’s tyre was purely luck. They simply did a better job at managing the tyres (which were the same for everybody) than Red Bull. Red Bull chose to make a political and PR game out of it rather than improving the way their car handled the tyres, and they were successful. That’s unfortunate for those of us who consider sportsmanship to be important, but that’s the way it goes sometimes.

    It is below Newey’s level, as one of the most successful and respected individuals in F1, to go about casting aspersions on other teams like this. Just accept you did a bad job, you turned it around, and you won. That should be enough.

    1. Agree. Well said.

    2. Truth hurts I guess. Tires were unsafe and exploding. Change had to be made no matter you spin it.

      1. Though this may be true, but will you accept that the change was not fair on a sporting level Juzh? and that teams did benefit and some did suffer.

        You surely must see that? even if you dont accept it was wrong to change them, thats fair enough changes needed to be made in some form. But the season went from having no repeat winners to only 1 team being able to win. There was only one reason for that and it was not RBR planning if anything they ‘lucked’ into it.

      2. @juzh I don’t want to start another tyre discussion here but the only time the Pirellis were dangerous was in Silverstone. Pirelli gave a statement what exactly contributed to these failures and quite a few were out of Pirelli’s hands (teams using them incorrectly, kerbing at T4 or let’s say the way the drivers used it). Saying that the original 2013 tyre generation was completely unsafe und exploding everywhere (you didn’t say everywhere but your comment reads like that) is just wrong. Those who asked for the changes clearly had other intentions and then a far too good reason. Changing the tyres mid-season was utterly wrong from a sporting point of view. And I don’t believe we would have seen another blowout like Silverstone, not with the restrictions from Germany onwards.

        1. You mean pressures and cambers right? That’s another plot by pirelli to shift the blame away from themselves. Mclaren always ran within recommended parameters set by pirelli but perez’s tires still disintegrated during the race in silverstone. Those kerbs were there for years now and there was never any problem with them so this is another scam on pirelli’s part. 2010 spec cars (RB in particular) had tons more DF than 2013 spec and there was never any problems with bridgestones. Germany had revised tires already, but not to the full extent.

          1. How sure are you that they always ran within the limits?

          2. Pablo vanTinkler
            5th November 2013, 21:19

            Again another who mentions cambers and pressure and forgets orientation. Tyres were clearly labelled left and right yet they were never used as intended.

      3. @juzh
        If the tyres are badly made then the change should not be in favor of one team or another
        The new tyres has proved that they are not safe either but since it suits RBR they are not going to moan about them

        1. They are definitely more safe than original ones. Change was not meant to favour any team, it just turned out that RB could then their full potential. Another way of looking at it: original tires suited lotus and ferrari and FI, revised tires suit RB, merc and sauber. Even-stevens

    3. When were the exact compounds for 2013 available to the teams though? I think the first time teams could properly test their cars running the new compounds was pre season testing, with a mere two months before the start of the season.

      I don’t think teams presently have access to 2014 spec tyres, yet all of them are already in full development mode for their 2014 cars. Whatever development path they’ve set out on will be incredibly hard to deviate from by the time they actually run their cars with next year’s production tyres.

      If that reasoning is correct, developing a car that’s easy on unknown tyres requires at least some luck and Newey would be justified in saying so.

      1. and that’s not bs.

      2. Whether or not the teams physically had access to the tyre (and I’m sure they did at the end of 2012 in a practice session or young driver test), they had a lot of data about its characteristics, as Eric Boullier spelt out. Certainly enough to take it into account when designing the car, as evidenced by the good job Lotus and Ferrari did.

  12. F1 2013 Director’s Cut – not for the faint hearted

  13. Wasn’t expecting this from a man of his caliber, or at least I thought he was. On one hand you have Vettel claiming that the others are hanging their balls by the pool, and Newey saying the others just got plainly lucky. Well, at least it shows that even being on top, people can’t get around of their bad part of the character.

  14. Just added the video from the interview to the article.

  15. He kept pushing even in the summer break, no FIA rules can stop that!

  16. I actually realized, that whenever other team besides RB won, it was down to mechanical failure, tyre problems, traffic problems. Which means, that Mercedes, Lotus and Ferrari can’t beat RB in a fair fight. Look:

    -Australia: Kimi won because Vettel had tyre wear quite high.
    -Malaysia: RB one-two but Mercedes were there. However, Alonso was on 3rd place in the first lap, so had he not had the front wing damage, we wouldn’t have known the outcome of the race, most likely Alonso could have challenged Vettel and Webber.
    -China: Alonso, Kimi and Hamilton finished ahead of Vettel only because Vettel started at 9th place.
    -Bahrain: Vettel won there.. Yeah. A track he wins a lot. No need to explain.
    -Spain: Alonso won because RB had tyre problems. *Start of politics*
    -Monaco: Rosberg won just because of the track’s nature, by qualifying on pole, don’t forget the safety car and red flag.
    -Canada: Vettel won. First race of the season wherein drivers were able to maximize performance of the car without tyre wear issues.
    -Silverstone: Hamilton would have won this race and Vettel would have finished 2nd. Change tyres starting Hungary forward announced. Rosberg won this race by Hamilton and Vettel having bad luck.
    -Germany: RB won. However, the safety car might have helped Vettel won this race. Lotus said that the safety car might have cost Romain or Kimi a chance to win.
    -Hungary: Hamilton won this race because Vettel was stuck in traffic. But, Hamilton is a master of the Hungaroring so no surprises here.
    -Belgium-Abu Dhabi: Nothing to say with tyre wear.

    Conclusion: Red Bull are only beaten if they encounter problems like tyre wear, mechanical failure etc. Without these occurring, RB is still the fastest car out there. But, Lotus and Ferrari used RB’s weakness to win.
    Look closely, almost all the races Vettel didn’t win were only because problems occurred that time and that Lotus, Ferrari and Mercedes used their own car’s strength to beat them. Still, however, RB is the fastest car out there if in a fair battle, negating tyre wear, mechanical failures etc.

    1. I actually realized, that whenever other team besides RB won, it was down to mechanical failure, tyre problems, traffic problems. Which means, that Mercedes, Lotus and Ferrari can’t beat RB in a fair fight. Look

      That’s a total PR politic from Red Bull, everyone in the team from Marko, Horner, Vettel & Newey are following it

    2. OK, but being “stuck” in the traffic and having mechanical problems is not part of the game or what ?!?! You’re talking like Vettel was supposed to win every race from the start, but those other drivers bothered his “journey” ! Wonder what would have happened if Ferrari would have been luckier too and switched to Bridgestones in 98 (which was a better tyre than Goodyear), if they would have switched to Michelin too (which was a better tyre than Bridgestone) !

    3. you explained what happened in the race, but didnt explain your point about teams not being able to beat them in a fair fight, every race this season has been a fair fight, no one was given an unfair advantage at any point in the season. If Red Bull lost via anything but a DNF then they were beaten fair and square.

      1. (@corrado-dub (@scuderia29 (@tifoso1989

        When I say fair fight, I meant if you take out tyre management, mechanical failures, traffic problems, that on pace. Out of all the top 4 teams: Ferrari, Lotus, Mercedes and Red Bull, Red Bull will win because of the overall pace. Just take an example Canada where that was the first race of the season where drivers were able to push like crazy, and not just go to the tyres limit. Vettel still won by a large margin. This is what Newey was saying earlier in the season that the tyres are slowing down the RB9’s performance. If there was no tyre management, or simply said tyres lasting like in the early part of the season, and instead tyres like last year or Bridgestones, Red Bull is still fastest car out there.

        1. @krichelle nobodies doubting that vettel and red bull are the fastest package out there, but the fastest car doesnt always win, theres a huge list of reasons why the fastest car might not win, take Alonso’s wins last year, at no point was the ferrari the quickest car but down to tactics or great race craft alonso won races. We also saw Nico Rosberg win..and even maldonado in the williams! when red bull dont win..its not just because they were unlucky

  17. I think it’s a bit unfair to read the headline, jump in the comment section and whine about Newey being arrogant, disrespectful etc.

    Newey’s comment is interesting, actually. He said that they didn’t know too much about how the new tyres when developing the 2013 car. Of course Ferrari and Lotus will say that they knew everything about the tyres and they built the car around them.

    I don’t know what to believe. To be honest, I don’t find difficult to believe that the tyres were a question mark before the first test in Spain, after having seen how badly Pirelli has handled some situations in the past few years.

    So, yes, everyone is going to take sides on this, but I don’t think that Newey’s statement was that bad.

    1. I just posted something along these lines as a response, that’s exactly how I felt.

      Every single team is currently working on their 2014 car yet nobody has even smelled the new Pirelli tires. The ink on their new contract hasn’t even dried yet. I don’t see how you can end up with a car that’s good on unknown tyres without a good amount of luck.

  18. How can you say it was luck for Lotus when they’ve been able to make the 2nd tire work as well?

  19. I don’t know how many of you saw the Adrian Newey interview on Sky post their WCC win in India, when asked about Sebastian Vettel mistakes (if he commited) any in the season, Newey pointed out the Malaysia incident. He specifically said that Vettel also considered that as a mistake.

    Newey repeated the same thing post Abu Dhabi race. Now I know this topic is out of context, but so many people are hell-bent on denying that it was not a right thing to do, pains me. One less win would not have made a dent in Vettel’s greatness, but that win did make a dent in his image. I know many people would say it is easier to say now that Malaysia win didn’t matter, but the fact is we have learnt from Michael Schumacher’s career that winning is not everything. As Martin Brundle said, if Michael had not won a couple of races, he would have not only been hailed a great but also would have been adored by everyone.

    I don’t know if many would understand what I am trying to say here, because I am not sure I have been able to put it properly. Also because I am not sure if this post will see the light of the day,as several of my posts were deleted by F1F for no obvious reasons.

    1. Why do fans say they hate team orders and then get upset when Vettel ignores them and gives us some entertainment from the front of the field for once? My guess at an answer: Webber is more popular than Vettel.

      1. Ask yourself why Webber is more popular.

        1. Webber is popular because everyone loves an underdog, but I personally prefer Vettel as a person, I thought what Vettel did in Malaysia was the right thing to do, personally it hasn’t made me change my view on Vettel because if he had let Webber win what would that have achieved, it would have been a waste of points if they went to Webber, no offense to Mark but he cant start an F1 car, he cracks under pressure and he defends too aggressively for someone trying to win a championship (Italy 2009).

    2. I get your point & completely agree with it. Goijng back a bit now, Ayrton Senna would have been a far less divisive (and more sympathetic) figure had he kept the moral high ground after Suzuka ’89, and not got his revenge by ramming Prost out the following year. (This is assuming we interpret Prost as being in the wrong in Suzuka ’89, which is debatable.) Also, watching that interview, posted in today’s round-up, which Senna did after punching out Eddie Irvine in 1993 reminded me why I disliked him so much, despite his obvious abilities.

      1. @mda72
        It surprising that most of us here measure the greatness of a driver with the same yardstick. A driver has to be ruthless, unforgiving etc. If somebody is doing that, its taken for granted. As you rightly mentioned keeping the moral high should be appreciated and encouraged.

        I would take this opportunity to highlight the moral high of Ayrton, when he jumped out of his car to save a driver from his crashed sorry (pardon for my being not able to give proper reference), that was the greatness of Ayrton. If you have seen the movie Senna, you will know that what Ayrton did in Suzuka, was due to the politics in F1, that how he felt F1 drivers need to be to survive, but I feel he rose above that.

        1. his crashed sorry

          * his crashed car

  20. they were just plain lucky

    Come on boy stop showing off.

    1. And to you Sir, I say bravo!

  21. Shreyas Mohanty (@)
    5th November 2013, 18:48

    @noob Vettel is a racing driver, he is there to race, and race hard. I don’t see why he should go around gifting people wins. Plus, it was the second race of the season and RBR were having serious tyre issues that time, nor was the RBR dominant like it is now. Vettel wanted every point he could muster, considering the margin of his WDC win in 2012!

    1. <@shreyasf1fan>

      Vettel is a racing driver, he is there to race

      All are there to race. Move on.

      I don’t see why he should go around gifting people wins

      Well Webber might have gifted him that win, by following team strategy

      RBR were having serious tyre issues that time

      That is exactly the reason why the ‘team’ asked Vettel to maintain his position.

      Vettel wanted every point he could muster

      This is the essence, Vettel thought only about himself, not the team. What if his tyres gave away, no body knew when they would hit the cliff, and with that aggressive driving he put the team at risk.

      Anyways, my post was to show what Adrian Newey, being such an integral part of the team, thought about the incident, and deemed it proper to mention it as one of Vettel’s mistake. We are all race fanatics, and trust me the battle between Webber and Vettel was the best I saw this season, but sometimes we need to see the larger picture. I for one, am a fan of the team first, then the driver. I love RBR, and support both its drivers.

      One more thing. After the race, the body language of Vettel and his words did convey that he felt he had done a mistake. I personally was ok with that, but when he re-tracted his apology, that’s when I lost a bit of respect for him.

  22. Shreyas Mohanty (@)
    5th November 2013, 18:52

    RBR probably has the most arrogant people on the paddock. Vettel’s “balls” comment, and now this. Yep, they are doing a great job. Real class would be putting your head down and work on 2014, because you are getting their behind kicked by Merc and Ferrari next season! ;)

  23. Some one give him lessons please… He has lost his mind.. After the winter break , there has been no car as quik as Red Bull(to a least extent MERCEDES), Ferrari and Lotus by far have been out of contention..!! there is a limit for sarcasm Mr.NEWEy….!!!

  24. Newey (the genius) saying that Lotus being adapted to the tyres is pure Luck !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well the baby of James Allison has proved to be the best car that handles every kind of tyre since last year, maybe Ferrari was pure luck (which i don’t believe because there is no luck in F1, design,simulation,wind tunnels, CFD, testing….., if you get all of these right then it’s not up to luck) but Lotus has worked also the new tyres
    so Newey is following the RBR PR politics which i’m not surprised (i know how much love he has for Ferrari), after all they are paying him millions but why he didn’t left that for Marko (the specialist) or even Horner……….. I think this time RBR are trying to add some credibility to this claim being pronounced by Newey (which i already saw on the forum), he is the genius and everyone who will criticize his opinion will look like an idiot

  25. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    5th November 2013, 19:06

    What I take out of that is that Mark Webber is not there and Marko is there. I think that shows the key players at Red Bull.

    What, who said Vettel is #1 at Red Bull? Shame on you, you cucumber!

    1. Very insightful and I fully agree. The fact that Mark Webber was not there for this interview when H. Marko, the “undercover’ team handler was, just shows how this whole team has been setup and managed to make Vettel a hero/legend/superstar. And, kudos to them, they have succeeded.
      I feel a little sorry for Mark because he deserved better than that.

      1. Or maybe Webber had other commitments, and couldn’t make it.

        But please, don’t let that get in the way of the conspiracy theory. I wouldn’t want to spoil your fun.

        1. If people are incapable of assessing plentiful objective evidence, they are biased and their ability to discern, compromised. Assuming that Mark had another commitment, why HM was at the interview? People are willfully blind when they don’t want to admit that HM conveys mastritch’s orders to the team, including the underlying policy that Vettel must come ahead of Webber, at all costs.

          1. @svianna

            the underlying policy that Vettel must come ahead of Webber, at all costs

            Is that why Vettel was ordered not to overtake Webber in Malaysia?

          2. Assuming that Mark had another commitment, why HM was at the interview?

            Because Marko didn’t have another commitment.

            I can’t believe I had to type that.

  26. Clearly he doesn’t undertstand the definition of ‘luck’, because teams like Lotus, Ferrari and Force India designed their cars to be easier on tyres that somehow makes them ‘lucky’, to be honest Red Bull were ‘lucky’ to have the tyre change mid season, so I think Newey is pushing his luck, his team benefited from the mid season tyre change and now he says other teams were ‘lucky’ because their cars worked the tyres better. Maybe if the Red Bull design their car to work well with the tyres next year and win the championship all the other teams and the media should say they were lucky, then Newey will understand that what he’s saying now is nonsense.

    1. Those teams were easier on the tires because they had no downforce to talk about compared to RB. Hardly an overwhelming achievement.
      Oh look, we failed to design a car that could match RB (or merc) on outright pace. Good thing we got tires which will fall apart after 4 corners so we can keep up.

      1. Having more downforce isn’t the only factor that affects tyre degradation, if having less downforce decreases tyre degradation then why do Marussia do pit stops? They do pit stops because low downforce doesn’t make them easier on tyres, many other factors come into play. Also if you think the point of F1 is to design a car that is fastest in outright pace then you don’t understand the sport, if outright pace was all that mattered then they would only do qualifying as that establishes the cars outright pace, no tyre degradation involved, sounds like that is what your idea of F1 is.

        1. @speedking84, your point re qualifying made me think, but on reflection I think you are only part right, F1 unlike other series is about the ability to build the fastest car that can race for 300km, not the fastest car over 1 lap.

        2. Force india openly admitted they don’t want new tires because their car is not producing enough DF to make them go pop. That was after silverstone. On the other hand, pirelli said numerous times how RB9 puts the most vertical load of all cars on the tires by a large amount (aka most DF). Hembrey confirmed this again during FP2 in india when he had a guest appearance on BBC. And newey says exactly the same thing in this interview. sorry, but I am inclined to believe those guys over some keyboard warriors.

  27. I don’t understand how understanding how the tyres work and how your car responds to them can be any less technically challenging than designing the front wing or setting up a DDRS system. If anything adding tyres into the equation only makes the whole process tougher, so if a team can understand them and then design a car or strategy around them, it should count as practical engineering. At the same time, I have always maintained that being easy on the tyres was as much of a skill that a driver should have as raw pace. Otherwise, would it mean that Di Resta or Sutil doing a one stop was less commendable than Maldonado or Perez blitzing away?

    I can’t see how you could just get “lucky” in Formula 1. It isn’t like someone rolled a die and called out design strategies. If anything Red Bull can count themselves “lucky” to have Vettel in their team. Maybe they can count themselves “lucky” because the owner isn’t shy of spending those extra dollars required for development.

    1. toyota had the biggest budget ever in F1 and achieved exactly nothing with it.

    2. The reality is that there was insufficient data on the tyres when the cars were designed and built to know exactly what was required to get the best out of them.

  28. Even if RB didnt benefit from the new tyres (which they did), two of their rivals, and Vettel’s two biggest rivals this year, lost a bit of an advantage. RB was having trouble keeping the tyres alive, while Lotus did that amazingly (and still do), and Ferrari was better than most.

  29. Someone said that a tyre change mid season never happened before but if my memory is right, something similar happened in 2003. I was very young at that time, can someone confirm?

    1. 2005 indianapolis. michelins couldn’t take the oval sweeper because of new tarmac which was ripping their tires open. Bridgestone were aware of this new tarmac and brought harder compounds to cope with it. All michelin runners withdrew from the race on the formation lap as the tires had been deemed unsafe to race.

  30. Well, with a designer of his calibre, I’d be afraid to question his judgment…

    1. @electrolite

      Well, with a designer of his calibre, I’d be afraid to question his judgment

      Why? He’s a fallible human just like everyone else, plus one of his high”calibre” designs killed Ayrton Senna.
      He’s also politically-motivated to deliver a narrative that minimizes the impact of an unfair, unjust mid-season tire change.

      1. Still going on with senna :S His design didn’t kill him as much as bad welding did. How is that newey’s fault?

  31. Seb looked like he was about to doze off in that video.

  32. He basically said that, already in 2012, Red Bull’s speciality was high speed in the corners, which is demanding on the tires. Other teams, like Ferrari and Lotus, relied on other things, like higher speed on the straights or whatever, which are not so demanding on the tires. When Pirelli introduced very sensitive tires for 2013, it naturally hurt Red Bull and helped those other teams. I don’t see that as a criticism of Ferrari or Lotus, it just happened that way.

  33. You forgot your “sarcasm font” Adrian.

  34. Todd (@braketurnaccelerate)
    6th November 2013, 0:59

    Just lost what respect I had for Newey…

    1. Wow — didn’t take much, did it?

      1. Todd (@braketurnaccelerate)
        6th November 2013, 1:26

        Nope. Just a gratuitous comment that lacked class, IMHO. Whether right or wrong, it was simply unnecessary, and honestly gives you a pretty good look into how Newey views other competitors.

        1. I really don’t think it’s the insult some people are making it out to be, but I equally don’t think there will be any convincing those people of that — so hate away!

          1. Todd (@braketurnaccelerate)
            6th November 2013, 2:04

            I don’t think he meant it as an insult either.

          2. Being condescending to others can be pretty insulting by itself, intentional or not.

  35. Finally the cat is out of the bag. Newey and RedBull go hand in hand.

    Arrogant words that I didn’t expect from a man whose has conducted himself with dignity till now.

  36. You don’t need to be Adrian Newey to understand that the other guys have no idea of what they are doing. The 2013 tyres handicapped the cars, they had a massive flaw, but fortunately the Ferrari was good on its tyres and the Lotus aswell. I would argue though that Allison may have had a hand on Lotus good tyre management, Lotus does run an intricate suspension system. In the end its a question of philosophy. Adrian designs his cars with all the fundamentals and then his team programs the simulation machines from the tests they do and only then the computer tell the math right, the other teams do the opposite they tell their computers to make the car and then start whining when things go wrong, it’s all about fundamentals, I would say Adrian has also learned that lesson a while back.

    1. @peartree

      Adrian designs his cars with all the fundamentals and then his team programs the simulation machines from the tests they do and only then the computer tell the math right, the other teams do the opposite they tell their computers to make the car and then start whining when things go wrong, it’s all about fundamentals, I would say Adrian has also learned that lesson a while back.

      Now , you seriously think Ferrari don’t use fundamentals and just plug things into the computer do you ?
      Tyres are a part of the equation , If Newey did not pay heed to that , then you can’t just say there is no equation , can you ? Maybe luck is involved a lot but to say that “Ferrari got lucky” undermines their work a lot and is too childish a remark for his stature. why can’t you just use less insulting words . I believe all this is PR . RBR have got poor PR actually . That is the one thing they desperately need now .

      1. @hamilfan RBR PR tend to look bad to me. When I said that other teams forgot the fundamentals and went instead for the cpu route, it was just an hyperbola.
        For instances with the F12, Ferrari tried to gain a large chunk of time with the re-arrangement of the front suspension, revolution to instead of evolution. Why? because the computer told them that it would benefit the car aero wise.
        In the end things weren’t so clear, in parallel McLaren have done the same thing, McLaren has recently admitted that their version of the front pull-rod has had an effect on the rear aero compromising it. Both McLaren and Ferrari have blamed their simulation tools and air tunnels which are the same for their respective failures, reality is that they are desperately trying to find a way to surpass RBR, the only thing they are doing is to look stupid but brave. Adrian remarks are ballsy yet true. Tyre are a very important part of the equation but that doesn’t mean Ferraris car in particular hasn’t got aero problems, or does it?

  37. Sorry Adrian, they just did a better job than you, the same way that since Silverstone you have done a better job than everyone else. To say anything else is to be disingenuous. I find this sort of comment to be totally out of character for one of the sports true gentlemen.

  38. Well Well Well ……. I am surprised that he said that ( I must admit that the first thing I thought after I looked at the headline is typical media spin but I was wrong . He used the exact words ! ) . Isn’t there even a faint possibility that Ferrari and Lotus could have actually done some homework . That is too arrogant for my liking .
    For people who want me to take what ever he says as the gospel truth because he is the greatest ( A view which I condemn . you can be the greatest and be an annoying dash at the same time ), Where was he during the Schumacher dominance ?
    There will be a time Adrian……. and I will be waiting for it .
    Such a shame after watching that beautiful interview of his son and him in Indian GP ( and now ,
    to be treated with these remarks . I actually liked his demeanor a lot . :-(

    1. Homework based on what exactly?? 100 km of free-practice running with 2013 spec tires on 2012 spec cars? hahahaha. They lucked into it, end of story.
      Based on your criteria to dislike someone you probably don’t like anyone at all. Did you take di montezemolo as arrogant when he said for the press that ferrari will not be beaten “by some drinks” company. How about hamilton when he admitted he ignored team order to let alonso trough in hungary 08?

      1. @juzh

        Homework based on what exactly?? 100 km of free-practice running with 2013 spec tires on 2012 spec cars? hahahaha. They lucked into it, end of story.

        What do you expect 90s type free testing in maranello ? If it is insignificant then why run FP3 in Brazil with new tyres at all .

        Based on your criteria to dislike someone you probably don’t like anyone at all.

        Maybe I lucked into liking people who don’t think that way.Then judging by similar comments here on F1F , I am not so lonely after all .

        Did you take di montezemolo as arrogant when he said for the press that ferrari will not be beaten “by some drinks” company.

        Yes I did . LDM is arrogant .

        How about hamilton when he admitted he ignored team order to let alonso trough in hungary 08?

        I did not follow f1 very closely in 2008 , but I believe Alonso and Hamilton were teammates then and you are referring to 2007 .
        Yes Hamilton was a bit arrogant when he was younger in Mclaren maybe . But he has come a long way since 2011 . Even now I hate it once in a while when he talks about vettel out of desperation of not being able to challenge him.
        I am not saying Newey is wrong . He may be right for all it’s worth . But there is a way of saying things and this is not the way.

      2. You Sir, are not helping your own image by mockery of factual statements.

        As Boullier said:
        “Last year, when we were designing our 2013 car, each team received information from Pirelli and everyone did the best job they could to develop a chassis which would make best use of the tyre characteristics.”

        “We even ran with some experimental 2013 tyres at the end of last season, to assist us in confirming our development paths.”
        Full artcile:

        Kimi was just four points behind Seb at the time and how did that turn out? To basically state that everybody else are clueless about what they are doing just because the single skill of designing high cornering speed is no longer highest priority is beyond arrogant. Especially when in the meantime you have lobbied your way into changing that priority back!

        Regardless of safety argument, with which I totally disagree, it would suit the 2013 winners with A LOT of humbleness considering how that victory was obtained. Please imagine the opposite scenario for a second: RB is dominant for the first half of the season but Lotus and Ferrari have accidents because they can’t heat up the tires. They are complaining about safety and FIA forces Pirelli to change the compounds mid season. Lotus wins the rest of the races and takes the title. How do you think Newey and Horner would feel about that?

        This is seriously ugly!

  39. This is naturally going to cause a bit of a stir, coming from someone from “the hated team” at the moment. He might be right, he might be wrong, it would be dependent on how much information the teams receive about the next seasons tyres, and whether that information is sufficient to design a car that hits such a tiny sweet spot so well.

    I’m inclined to fall in with Newey’s line of thought, I don’t think anyone knows these tyres well enough in advance to rely on anything more than luck for the early success they had. We’ve seen it each year with Pirelli, it takes the majority of teams many months AFTER having tested and raced on them to get them under control. Yet we expect some teams were on top of them when they finalised their designs in December the previous year? Hrmph.

    Maldonado’s win in Spain last year sums it up well enough for me, there’s a window of performance with the Pirelli’s that you can just stumble into and look like a genius for short periods of time, and I know they work hard, but there has to be some luck involved if you just plop straight into that window from the get go. I think that is all Adrian is saying.

    IF Newey is right, then Lotus/Ferrari’s claims of having been smarter than the rest are just as bad as Newey asserting that it’s luck if he’s wrong. RBR don’t have the fanbase and are winning everything, so they’re always going to cop a lot of crap in these kind of situations, so I don’t expect a lot of people to think like that.

  40. I don’t think Adrian is arrogant. He doesn’t talk Dr. Marko or Mateschitz style. He is saying that because of the “unexpected” tyre change shortly before the start of this season Ferrari and Lotus could not have developed a car to suit the “unexpected” change in specs. I would say it’s a coincidence, not luck. And I fully agree.
    If Ferrari and Lotus (and some others too) knew exactly how to switch on the tyres they would just do it. History shows that it’s not as simple as that! I am still surprised that nobody had something to say about the fact that it was Ecclestone who influenced tyre tweaks. It is like Sky TV changing the size of the goal posts in football to spruce up the show!

  41. So Ferrari and Lotus were “lucky” and the way RB responded to that has been to go “politics”
    On a general note I think RB is replicating what Benetton has been doing during the 90s. Extremely maximizing their presence in F1 in terms of wins and records in order to promote the Red Bull brand globally and disappear in a few year.

    So RB fans: enjoy the stay and be prepared to change your supporting team in a while (as Benetton ones did before you)

  42. Disappointing to see Newey being so arrogant. I personally think that Red Bull were even luckier to have the FIA give them their preferred tyre construction back when it appeared the season wasn’t going to be a complete walkover for them.

  43. David not Coulthard (@)
    6th November 2013, 15:00

    I don’t think the comments really deserve so much hate. All Adrian was trying to say was that the pre-season was a bit of a lottery. Sure, he should’ve use more words like “slightly” or “a bit”, but he made an otherwise valid point.

    1. otherwise called “politics”

  44. @keithcollantine any chance you could upload the whole interview? I realize it was a 90min show, but english parts of AN/CH would be nice?

    1. @rcrc I’m afraid not, I don’t have rights to the whole thing.

  45. I didn’t know he was such a bad winner.

Comments are closed.