Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Silverstone, 2014

Hamilton hoping for proper Silverstone trophy

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Silverstone, 2014In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton says he hopes he gets a proper trophy if he wins the British Grand Prix and not the “plastic thing” he received last year.

Links

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

Hamilton hoping for a pot of gold at Silverstone (Reuters)

"Last year they gave me this plastic thing and I'm like, 'This is not the trophy, it's like a GP2 trophy not the Formula One trophy'"

F1 changes could be fast-tracked for 2016 (Motorsport)

"This includes a ban on 'driver aids', such as computer-influenced starts and too much radio information – and the possibility of ensuring that teams have a wider choice of tyre compounds."

F1 cautious on fan survey results (Autosport)

"I think a bit of amnesia has crept in from the fans with regard to those two things."

Horner warns against tyre war despite fan views (F1i)

"I don’t think we should open to competition because then that comes out with two predominant teams and the other teams just get what the others don’t want."

Jenson Button denies Richard Branson’s claim that Formula E will overtake F1 (The Guardian)

"I think it is good that it is in cities and it attracts people who are not motorsport fans because it is easy to walk down to Battersea Park and see a car go round."

British Grand Prix Betting: Hamilton All Set For Silverstone Hat-Trick (Unibet)

My British Grand Prix preview for Unibet.

Tweets

Comment of the day

A return of tyre wars and refuelling was one of the most popular points in the GPDA’s recent survey of fans. But would turning the clock back really make F1 better?

I remember the days of tyre wars and refuelling. Did it make the races exciting? Not in the slightest. They were the most boring years for F1, dominated by the teams with the best tyre contracts, with no overtaking. People get into this mindset of “everything that went before was better” but it absolutely wasn’t.

The reason we have the ugly cars, Pirelli tyres, DRS, is all because of how boring everyone said F1 was. Do people really not remember all the years of Trulli trains, and genuine processions from lights to flag?
@Mazdachris

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Avegaille and Andy2286!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Michael Schumacher won the French Grand Prix at Magny-Cours 20 years ago today, pursued by the two Williams drivers who completed a Renault-powered podium at the engine manufacturer’s home race. Not for the first time Hill led early on but Schumacher jumped far ahead in via the refuelling stops.

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 89 comments on “Hamilton hoping for proper Silverstone trophy”

    1. Well, IMHO Hamilton should hope for a win first and foremost – and then comes the trophy ‘issue.’

      (Probably I just took the title out of context though.)

      1. Yes, it was edited, but I totally agree, poor Lewis, for years he had to give his trophies to Ron then when he finally got to take them home he gets a plastic company logo as a trophy. Austria could have been worse (just), it could have been a giant Red Bull can.

        1. I laughed when I read the round-up title, but after reading the Reuters article, I’m actually a little bit sad. IMHO the problem with last year’s trophy has not the material content, but the marketing content. The Santander swirly is really only truely tacky because of it’s corporate context. Maybe Hamilton is referring to this obliquely, and we are supposed to read between his lines, but I wish that he would take a little bit more of a stand. By the time I read his “not enough gold” comment, he kinda lost me. I fully respect him as a driver, but as an artist? Not quite yet.

          1. Sorry, typo. The line should read: By the time I read his “enough gold” comment, etc.

      2. Sorry I ask does the winer get some money, from the organizers of a particular race?

        1. Yes I believe so but the amounts are quite small when put in the general F1 context.

          1. @tonyyeb I thought they did not. I believe you don’t get a single euro for winning the drivers. It’s all in the team standings.

        2. Lewisham Milton
          2nd July 2015, 11:51

          Winner or whiner?

    2. I have an idea Bernie and the steering group haven’t thought of that’s guaranteed to spice things up. And isn’t in the least false. (Possibly some sarcasm in there)

      All drivers hav to qualify on the tyres they were using when they finished the last race!

      Or even better. Let’s make them use one set of tyres for the whole season!

      No no no I got it now

      Le Mans starts sponsored by facebook….. cars on the grid, drivers in the pit lane. The drivers with the most likes start at the front. Those without a Facebook account have to wear flip flops.

      1. Good ideas, a 5 place grid penalty for every tyre change, good thing Jenson can run long distances.

        1. At lease Jenson has a Facebook account, some of the others, i.e. Sebastian, Kimi don’t. HEHEHE LOVE IT!!

    3. Maybe HAM could donate his bling chains etc to be reworked into a magnificent trophy for the British GP? At least then no one could ever accuse him of not giving back to the sport :-)

      1. He did have a point with last years British GP trophy though, they were falling apart on the podium.

        I think this years are the track layout judging from the pictures silverstone released, Nothing will be better than the original though.

      2. Indeed, maybe Lewis should melt down some of his bling to improve the situation for GP2 winners and their less-than-desirable trophies.

        1. The GP2 trophies tend to have more of a traditional look: 2-handled metal cup on a cylindrical base. I expect Hamilton would approve of that.

      3. Why not put the trophy on display where lots of people can see it, like one of the main train stations on the London Underground? Then people can have a good look and decide for themselves whether it has artistic merit or not.

      4. Whats Lewis’ personal wealth got anything to do with the lack of creativity in the podium trophies? Oh, yeah. Nothing, just another reason to bash Hamilton.

        1. Actually, Hamilton brought it up near the end of the above Reuters article.

      5. The British GP already has a magnificent trophy though! That’s his point.

      6. Yes, why can’t they use the original trophy any more? I agree with his sentiment, these plastic trophies that look like they were made on a 3d printer or out of perspex by a schoolkid really aren’t up to snuff. They don’t all have to look the same, but at least some investment and effort should be put in.

    4. I think that survey was very badly composed and the results seem suspect. I particularly remember the question on overtaking, was it something I wanted, yes or no, well dah, of course I wanted overtaking, but there were no questions about how I wanted overtaking to happen, was I voting for even crappier tyres, more pit-stops, sprinklers, or maybe fanboost ? hell no, I just want the drivers to be able to try to pass, I don’t want them to get a magic bullet to let them fly by, and tyre wars ??? probably a vote for tyre wars was the only way to vote for a change from what we have.

      1. The survey asked some questions in several different ways which could lead to questionable data mining. Pick the most desirable answer set for the differently asked same question. While taking the test I kind of wondered why they would do that. The answer seems obvious now.

        The entire F1 situation of future racing decisions is being manipulated on all sides now from all different angles. And the result? We’ll, we don’t have one yet. I’m sure it will be a doozy though.

        1. My COTD vote is yours.
          Imagine, for instance, if petrochemical interests wanted to show refueling in front of the cameras again? Statistics are a malleable commodity. Sinister stuff, if true. I can’t actually believe that real fans of the sport would want refueling reintroduced. It’s Insanity. I cringe during every Indycar pit stop when the announcer inevitably reports that the cars are being topping up with the Brand Name Sponsor’s brand name effing fuel. At the last race at Fontana, I watched a nightmare refueling situation unfold in the most auspicious way possible: no fire, no damage from thrown debris, no penalty for the team. I was watching the North American broadcast that had Steve Matchett doing commentary, and I reckon that his tongue must still hurt from how hard he bit it to keep himself from going off on the subject of refueling. No matter if 100% of fans think refueling is a good thing, they are wrong. F1 doesn’t deserve to take such a backwards step.

          1. F1 do not have as many safety cars so F1 use refueling differently to Indy Cars,
            they only partly full the tank at the start, then go like the clappers for 7 or 10 laps they are way out in front by now, they pit, they refuel again to finish the race, if you have more fuel to do another 3 or 4 laps than the guy that just refueled then your likely to jump that guy, no passing on track its all done via the pit stops, that is the problem the Fans have not been around long enough to know the history.

          2. @ferrox-glideh – As a racing fan for 50 years I too cringe at refueling incidents. I’ll never forget the incident in IndyCar with Rick Mears and his crew being burned by an invisible flame (methanol) during what should have been a routine pit stop. Too many such incidents made me nearly celebrate when refueling was banned in F1. Bringing it back now would be ludicrous when there are so many other safer ways to improve the show.

            The Rahal incident at Fontana is a shameful show of disregard of safety by the IndyCar officials. The team was handed down a paltry $5000 fine and the gasman given a several race probation. They should be ashamed for such nonchalance toward an extremely dangerous incident that could have lit the pit lane afire potentially endangering peoples lives. Also equipment from the fuel rig was strewn through the pits and onto a live track causing a full course caution. IndyCar officials have totally lost any respect they may have had. I shudder to think what it could take for them to realize how important safety really is.

    5. Agree with COTD. Many of the changes being asked for are delusional. To me, the only way a new tire war would work is if teams could use any authorized* tires they wanted at any time. It was devastating for teams to have the main deciding factor of their competitiveness being whether they had chosen the right or wrong brand of tire and then being locked into that choice. How is that a good thing?

      *By authorized I mean any brand or compound of tires sanctioned by the FIA for use in F1. Teams would not be locked in to one tire supplier or the other. Let them choose the best tires for their cars.

      1. elegantly said

      2. I couldn’t agree more @bullmello

        People have short memories…

      3. Isn’t 2006-2008 or even 2010 season exciting? The point of the discuss is not who to blame, but how to change the fact that races are boring now.

    6. Dear F1,

      As a fan of F1, i beg you, please do not listen to fans needs. Seriously. Nothing good will come of this as fans don’t actually know what they want. Fans must be told, and what they must be told, must be good. How to make this happen? CZAR, Ross Brawn! Let Ross put his final stamp on the sport by setting up regulations that take F1 into the future and ensure healthy competition. Let no teams partake in this regulation change, let no F1 ownership partake in this regulation, and please, don’t let the FIA anywhere near. Have everyone who wants to be involved in F1 sign a pre-regulation contract that they accept all of Ross’s rules or they are dismissed without appeal.

      Thanks,
      Layercake

      PS – if you think you could set up rules that would ensure future relevancy, technical interest, and healthy competition better than Ross Brawn could (as an independent). You’re wrong.

    7. I took the survey and a lot of the questions didn’t give a lot of room for freedom, Yes/No generally isn’t a good answer to give, and when the non of the options match what I wanted to answer they didn’t always give you the option to say “other” or skip.

      Having said all that I’m pretty sure that’s all we will be hearing about this weekend.

      1. There was actually 5-6-7 different options from yes to no. And there was “no idea” option most of the time too.

        1. That’s strange because that wasn’t the options I remember having. I certainly don’t remember a “no idea” option.

    8. 1, Vastly increase horsepower
      2, Vastly increase grip
      3, Decrease downforce generated by clean air only
      4, Make DRS available to everyone everywhere
      5, no refuelling, it puts all the passing in the pits
      6, Tyre war, but every car must use each of the 2 brands in each race, much like they must use the 2 compounds now. Think of the competitive drive if everyone is favouring/avoiding one brand! it will be very competitive in terms of performance, but not favour any one team.

      1. This is why they shouldn’t ask the fans what they want. Have you ever taken any physics class in high school?

      2. If DRS is available to everybody, everywhere, they should just scrap it instead. Same result with less gimmicks.

    9. After careful consideration, I believe that Lewis Hamilton must be joking about the whole trophy thing. What kind of a (double) world champion would actually care about such mundane matters? Surely the fact of a victory is the real reward, not some silly pot. (Or he’s making a dig at Santander?)

      1. This picture shows him with the real BRDC trophy after the race. This one shows both with the plastic trophy getting its proper level of respect.

        1. Why give a fake one in the podium ceremony instrad of the real one, then?

            1. Santander paid for the plastic crap version, so it had to be shown around the world.

          1. Neither he nor Ron are allowed to keep the BRDC trophy: they have to furnish the trophy cabinet with the plastic tat from Santander.

      2. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
        2nd July 2015, 8:26

        Doubt it, he always opens his mouth and says stupid stuff. He’s like a mix of Rubens Barrichello, Eddie Irvine and J Villeneuve, but worse. The new motor mouth.

        1. I think he has a dash of Webber in him. Manages to be maliciously honest with playing on perception. He probably learnt that from Alonso though.

        2. I’m really not sure how questioning the quality of the winning trophy is saying “stupid stuff” , Last years British GP trophy was shameful, something you win at a schools sports day, not to mention it was failing apart on the podium. Should also remember that Hamilton isn’t the only driver on the grid to have criticised the trophies either.

          However it doesn’t really matter what Hamilton says, he will always get pounded on by some people. It’s a shame their seems to so much hate in the F1 community now.

      3. Perhaps if he spent a few years moving over for people while driving a back marker car he would better appreciate winning. And yes I like Lewis so I’m not a hater.

    10. Kinda funny all the team-principals can only imagine a tyre-war being a two-manufacterer thing with two teams at the top. Would we like a situation with only two engine-manufacterers? No. But that doesn´t mean we want a single-make-series. Problem is, how to get multiple tyre-manufacterers into F1 when tyres are almost exclusively talked about in negative ways? And how to make them go for the edge of performance when a tyre-failure gives reactions as they do today (e.g. Silverstone 2013)? Cause tyres build to the edge would occasionally fail, such as they did back in the day (without any much fuzz about that), and the same way engines did fail when they were built for maximum performance over 300 kilometer distance.

      1. @crammond, it is not surprising that the teams would expect a tyre war to lead to two manufacturers with two teams being favoured, since that it what they have experienced in the past whenever they have had multiple tyre manufacturers.

        Even recently, when Michelin submitted their bid for the tyre supply contracts in F1, Michelin made no promises that it would treat its customers equally if there was a tyre war – and given that they were accused of favouritism in the past, I can see why some teams would be wary of the same thing happening again.

    11. I have to agree with the views of the team bosses on the way forward. They have the data to prove that all in the past wasn’t good racing. DRS is necessary to offset the lost of downforce when following near. It doesn’t always work but gives a chance overtake. My view remains the same as I’ve always been advocating.
      1) Make the tires more durable so that they last about 80% of the race with gradual and small lost in performance throughout their life.
      2) Mandate a minimum 2 pit-stops and a minimum of 3 laps running on a tire set unless tire has failed and unsafe to run.

      This will open up endless strategies and not teams running similar strategies which is so common in F1 today. Since there will be enough tire performance throughout the race, overtaking will not be discouraged and no need to consider destroying tires while following closely.

      1. Mandating pit stops may be the problem. The rules are restrictive so everyone basically has the same car, then everyone is forced to use the same strategy. I think it would be better to reintroduce re-fueling but not mandate it’s use. Then allow the teams to use any tire without restrictions (so even mixing compounds would be allowed) and let them go. Then teams can truly tailor their strategy to the strengths of their car.
        I’d imagine if the FIA changed the rules right now to say if you qualify out of the top ten you can use any tire compound you want without being forced to use any one compound we’d see more action in the mid field.

    12. Interesting read here about another “hybrid” technology – “electric motor assisted bikes” where the engine is hidden in the tubular frame.

      Its got Gary Anderson working on it, EJ being interested in the project and DC has already ordered one of them. Oh, and the pro’s are starting to fear that things like these might already be used by some in the field …

    13. Lets have a look at the last thing Rosberg did in that chassis offered for sale…

    14. Formule E car could overtake a F1 car in the future when the powerpack has the same endurance as a full fuel tank as a electric engine has the potential of unlimited poweroutput as long the powerpack can supply it. So Jenson could be suprised in the near future… :)

      1. José Bruna
        2nd July 2015, 8:33

        Maybe as long as there quick and race on proper tracks, not the rubbish they have been racing on

      2. Well, it is possible, but I’m not so sure about the near future part. With the current technology, they could make a FE car that lasts maybe 5-10 Km and as fast as a F1 car. But for long distance, for the huge power output you need to have a lot of energy in store. To store that energy, you would need a big battery array. And every time you add another component to that array to store more energy, you add a lot of weight to the car. So there is a limit. Maybe in 10 years with CNT batteries it will be possible, because you can have higher power density in the components. But we have to wait and see if the series lives long enough.

    15. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
      2nd July 2015, 8:21

      Hammy:

      A multiple winner, and multiple whiner.

      No class.

      1. “Class” is subjective

      2. What is classless is giving a GrandPrix race winner a flimsy plastic logo of your brand.

        1. Agreed. Sponsors have been allowed to cheapen the sport for too long. Much like with the horrid virtual ads the ad to the coverage these days.

    16. I don’t think that telling fans that they have “amnesia” or that they “need to think about what they’re saying” is really helping here, the decision makers should focus on understanding why fans are not satisfied with the current tyre situation and offer them alternative solutions. Right now it sounds a bit like “Yeah the fans have had their say but so what? I don’t like what they’re saying and it doesn’t suit my own interests anyway so I’m just going to ignore their opinion.”

      1. Funny enough one of the points were about 80% of the fans agreed that it does not need much change did get changed (weekend format, qualifying etc). Tells you all really @girts

    17. I find it interesting that people are always blaming refuelling for lack of overtaking back in 1994-2009 period, when in fact cars aerodynamics were the main problem.

      The reason we have the ugly cars, Pirelli tyres, DRS, is all because of how boring everyone said F1 was.
      Why blaming fans? They are not the ones who are writing the rules, or making lousy tyres.

      1. Aerodynamics were (And still are a problem), But refueling also played a role by shifting focus from the on-track racing & more towards the pit lane & fuel strategy. That shift in focus saw most of the ‘racing’ been done in the pits & not on-track which is why the levels of close racing, overtaking etc… declined sharply.

        Also remember that the aerodynamics were the same from 2009>2010 with the only change been the refueling ban for 2010 & overtaking doubled & went back to the levels seen before refueling was introduced, Not just over the year but also at each individual race.

        1. If you wanted to make your strategy work, you had to overtake, especially if you carried less fuel than the car in front.

          Good point regarding the difference between 2009 and 2010. Aero rules for 2009 failed massively, because there was maybe even less overtaking than year before. Now, why was there more overtaking in 2010 than in 2009, even if aero rules were pretty much the same. First thing, there were six more cars weak on the grid, there was greater difference in speed between teams, and of course, after pitstops new tyre vs old tyre made more difference than more fuel vs less fuel, meaning a bit easier overtaking.

          A lot of drivers would like to see return of refuelling and proper tyres. Even if that would mean less overtaking, at lest we would see proper racing again, 300+ kilometres of flat out driving like it used to be, and like it should be. Remember races like Suzuka 2000 or 2005, great MSC vs Alonso battles in Imola and Magny-Cours, and so on. None of the races in recent years come close.

          1. yes, well 2009 was because of the double diffusor adding heaps of downforce (and dirty air) CTLC

          2. at lest we would see proper racing again, 300+ kilometres of flat out driving like it used to be

            Except that isn’t how it used to be.

            Sure there were races where drivers would drive flat out for a stint or more, But in 90% of the races drivers were not driving flat out because they were still having to manage the car, tyres or indeed fuel.

            The only reason people remember races like Suzuka 2000 etc… above all the rest is because they were the few races where they were flat out for a lot of it.

            Its the same today, There are still some races where some drivers are driving flat out (Brazil last year for instance) battling over a position, But just like when we had refueling there the exception & not the rule.

    18. Any changes that do not guarantee that we will have close racing between 3 to 4 teams are pointless IMO and unfortunately those are unlikely to happen unless something is done about engines or token systems.

    19. The 2009 Sporting Regulations required that ‘must be in the form of traditional cups’. When did the FIA change this to allow circuit maps (Austria 2015) or Company logos (Silverstone 2014)?

      1. trophies … ‘must be in the form of traditional cups’

      2. OK, I have it now. The regulations have not changed.

        2015 Sporting Regulations, Appendix 3, section 4:

        Only 4 trophies will be presented during the podium ceremony :
        a) Winning driver.
        b) A representative of the winning constructor.
        c) Second driver.
        d) Third driver.
        The trophies, which must be in the form of traditional cups, will be provided by the ASN and must show:
        a) The FIA Formula 1 World Championship official logo.
        b) The official name of the event.
        c) The driver’s position.

        The height of the trophies shall be :
        a) Winner’s and constructor’s trophies – no less than 50cm and no more than 65cm high.
        b) Second and third drivers’ trophies – no less than 35cm and no more than 45cm high.
        The maximum weight per trophy must not exceed 5kg. Trophies must be of a design that is capable of being handled and transported without damage.

        1. I think Lewis should lodge a protest and demand a replacement that complies with the rules, imagine such a flagrant disregard for the rules being attempted by a team on their car.

    20. This is ridiculous. First they asked the fans, what do they want and now they tell fans that they are wrong. How can anything good ever come out of this fan survey, when all the F1 bosses and leaders (ie Christian Horner, Toto Wolff, Jean Todt) are telling that the fans got it wrong. Why ask them in the first place then…

      1. @andone89 The teams were not the one’s that asked the fans & I’d guess that they would rather the survey not have been done.

      2. @andone89 Teams did not conduct this survey but their drivers (GPDA) did. I also believe that their attitude is not right.

        While it is obvious that not everything that fans want can be or should be implemented for various reasons, the results of the poll should still be taken seriously.

        When I was filling in the GPDA’s survey, I often had to stop and think for a moment: “Wait, should I take into account the real situation in F1 in 2015 or be guided by my vision of how F1 should look like?” For instance, I want budget caps to be implemented but I do not believe it is realistic. Also, I would like to see relaxing of technical regulations but I do not see how it could be done today without a dramatic increase in costs. After all, I decided to answer the questions, keeping in mind the harsh realities of F1 today but most fans probably just explained their vision of F1 in a perfect world.

        Indeed, there is nothing wrong about a tyre war per se. Several racing series in the world have many tyre suppliers and some of those championships are really good and exciting to watch. But it did not really work in F1 from 2001 until 2006 and I also doubt that it would work now. Why? That is one of the questions that the ill-famed Strategy Group should answer and then either “adjust” F1 to a competition between several tyre suppliers or offer alternative solutions to a tyre war.

    21. I’m still struggling with the concept that a tire competition (not a war, as I said yesterday, anymore than the engine makers or chassis makers are in a war) has to automatically mean a return to the past. Back then under the conditions of unlimited testing and spending, sure the two manufacturers gravitated toward making tires for the teams they thought had the best chance of winning the WDC, but that meant the other teams under contract with each tire maker got the same tires meant for the leading team, not the throw-aways as is being implied. They still got tires that would put today’s tires to shame.

      Now we don’t have unlimited testing, Pirelli has been given parameters and a mandate so another maker could too, and surely, my goodness, F1 can learn from the past and figure out a way such that they move past the way it was toward a better time. What is so good about today’s tires that a tire competition, amongst what is already a driver, chassis, engine, fuel competition, is so dire a concept? Unless they were to completely return back to the regs as they were when more than one tire maker was in F1, surely they can find a way to alter the regs to accommodate a way toward much better tires than they have today.

      If the fans are now being accused of having short memories, I in turn accuse F1 of being incapable of learning from the past and adapting. Case in point, the mess they’re in now with fake everything, the integrity of the sport questioned, and still the dreaded processions so feared by a tire competition.

      1. but that meant the other teams under contract with each tire maker got the same tires meant for the leading team

        @robbie They actually didn’t.

        Gary Anderson wrote a piece a year or 2 ago where he said that when they had Bridgestone’s at Jordan they were nearly always a couple steps behind the ‘new’ tyres Ferrari were running which was putting them at a big disadvantage as sometimes the newest compounds were significantly better.

        I also seem to recall Minardi were forced to use year old tyres for the start of 2003.

        1. Easily fixed. Pirelli, Michelin, whoever, bring a couple of hundred tyres of each type, and the serial numbers are pulled at random (out of a hat or a computer) for each team.

        2. I think its two things @robbie. First of all, as @stefmeister points out, teams did NOT get the same spec as the “lead team” did (exactly what happended this year with engine development, it also went against the manufacturer supplying equal spec to all their customers).

          Another issue is that when the tyres were custom made to best work with Ferrari (Bridgestone) and Renault (Michelin) that does not mean that they will be also best fit for the McLaren, Toyota, Williams etc. as every car would need a slightly different tyre to be “best possible”.

          That is why in reality it would mean that only the one team “preffered” team got a tyre that was perfect for them, and the others had to improvise a bit.
          One of the reasons why McLaren, Toyota etc switched to Michelins was that this was a bit less of a disadvantage with the Michelins, who were not quite as tailor made for just one car as the Bridgestones, but it was still an issue.

          On the other hand, with all the testing restrictions in place currently its likely that a supplier would only use one set of compounds and constructions through the year anyway and probably would not tailor it to one team to such an extent as a result of that.

        3. @stefmeister et al…fair points everyone, however as I pointed out, that was then, this is now. Yes Ferrari had tires a few steps ahead because there was unlimited money and testing put toward Ferrari winning. Michelin with Renault. That doesn’t mean what was implied by Horner, that the likes of Jordan got ‘the dregs’…just not the latest iteration…the tires were still better than today’s.

          Now we have teams and Pirelli barely able to test tires and the tires are consistent throughout the season. Another maker would have the same circumstances. Ie. much less opportunity for tires to be tailor made to one team leaving the rest out. If Pirelli can be mandated to not change the tires for the most part throughout the season, so can another maker. Perhaps just as we have engine tokens to control the rate of development and therefore money spent, so could a well run system be applied to incremental tire upgrades throughout the season, which would be far far away from what went on in the past with the unlimited testing and spending that simply does not exist now.

          One way or another they’ve GOT to get off these bad tires. The only way to do that is introduce another maker so that more stable tires still get talked about and provide marketing impact for the makers, while allowing the drivers to push themselves and their cars to some sort of limit. I’d rather see an attempt at a much more restricted tire competition which would not possibly be a duplicate of the past, than what they have now. This is simply not F1 right now.

      2. But @robbie do we have an open competition between tyre manufacturers or do we have another set of restrictive regulations trying to force them to perform equally?

        It’s another opaque differentiator where one is faster than the other but we fans have no idea how or why. Meanwhile 2 stops will disappear and it seems to me that gives the most interesting races on the whole.

        One brand will be better than the other, otherwise why bother. So the better ones might offset the engine disparity, or they might make it worse. Mercedes will be able to pick which to go with, and they’ll analyse the heck out them before they make their choice. Same with Ferrari.

        FIA/FOM will insist that a minimum of say 4 teams choose each brand, so some lesser teams will be forced to have the inferior tyre.

        1. @lockup, simple ; No exclusive contracts, teams choose which tyre they wish to use at any race from any maker whose tyres are certified compliant by the FIA .

          1. hm, but how will they know what tyre fits their car at a given event? Given the lack of testing time that is @hohum

            1. @bascb, observation, guesswork, salespitch from maker ? Pretty much the same as they choose an engine I suppose, the main thing is they are not stuck with a Turkey.

          2. But then @hohum how do they prevent all the teams choosing Michelins? How do they prevent Michelin luring all the teams with a 0 or 1-stop tyre?

            1. @lockup, we don’t, the ultimate racing series should use the ultimate tyres, the tyre maker gets the bragging rights and F1 teams get the best possible tyre, until another company produces a better one, it’s what F1 is supposed to be about, racing improving the breed.

            2. I get that philosophy @hohum but once the cars are in speed order the race is over. So if (say) Michelin drive out (say) Pirelli then there’s no interest in the tyre contest any more and what we’re left with is Michelin making sure that, like Bridgestone, they don’t take any flak; and giving us 1 stop at best, with the accompanying 1 strategy.

    22. Hamilton has good chance for this.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.