In the round-up: Pirelli want more pit stops and faster tyre degradation this year.
Links
Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.
Pirelli wary of impact of aero gains (F1i)
"We are trying to recreate a cliff … the concept is there to try and create a cliff that will come in at 15-18 laps and will get us back to the two and three stops that we’ve moved away a little bit from."
Ferrari delayed work on 2016 car (Autosport)
"It is incredibly unlikely that the car will not offer Mercedes a proper challenge."
Fiat Merger Mastermind Says Next Deal Could Be After He's Gone (Bloomberg)
"After publicly campaigning for a merger with General Motors Co. for most of last year, Marchionne has changed his tune as he prepares to retire at the end of 2018."
Renault: F1 engine rules not 'fit for purpose' (Motorsport)
"Do we need to write this off completely or improve what needs to be improved and fix what needs to be fixed rather than trying to come up with something completely new? I'm not quite sure."
Toro Rosso 2016 potential not derailed by engine delays, says James Key (Sky)
"In Barcelona where we qualified fifth and sixth we were second to only one of the Mercedes' in the high-speed corners. So that gives a good indication of how much aero we've got."
Illien optimistic of swift Renault progress (Crash)
"The improvements will be increased gradually. I hope that will already show early season progress."
Column: Want a glimpse of sports' future in 2016? (The Charlotte Observer)
"Hamilton's jet-setting, party lifestyle will blunt his edge this year, opening the door for teammate Rosberg to be crowned world champion."
Comment of the day
The track I really miss the most is the old Osterreichring. The Red Bull Ring as it now is OK but is a pale shadow of its former self.
I was lucky enough to go there for the Grand Prix in 1976 and couple of times in the eighties.
Watching F1 cars hurtle through the ’76 version of Hella Licht and the Bosch Kurve is forever imprinted on my mind. The closest we have to it today is Spa.
Sean Newman
From the forum
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday to Raginginferno, Akshay.It and Mole!
If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.
ColdFly F1 (@)
7th January 2016, 0:26
Cyril Abiteboul was actually quoted as: “I am not completely convinced that we have the engine regulations that are completely fit for purpose”.
Not as dramatic as Motorsport makes it out to be.
Mike
7th January 2016, 0:37
Changes the meaning entirely too.
RaceProUK (@)
7th January 2016, 0:40
But that’s what modern journalism (mostly) is, clickbait headlines designed to make people angry; it’s the only guaranteed way to get readers :sigh:
Kingshark (@kingshark)
7th January 2016, 0:26
Mercedes were largely catastrophic on their tyres in 2012 and also in some races early 2013. I wonder if Pirelli were asked to bring the cliff back, not only to improve the racing, but also to end Mercedes dominance.
We saw what happened in Singapore. We all know that a tyre supplier can play god among teams. Pirelli could end Mercedes dominance tomorrow simply bringing tyres which do not suit their car.
Mike
7th January 2016, 0:41
By the same token, Mercedes works well on last years tyres. By staying with them they are helping them right?
To be honest, if it does bring the gap down I’m all for it. When there’s 7 winners in 7 races, honestly, It’s more exciting to watch I think.
RogerA
7th January 2016, 1:40
Not really, I thought when we had that in 2012 it was a complete & utter joke because who won those 7 races came purely down to who lucked into the tiny tyre operating window that weekend & none of them knew why they were quick 1 weekend & nowhere the next, That was a lottery & not racing.
Add to that the fact that the drivers were having to drive to delta’s that were only 70% of the ultimate pace managing those pathetically fragile tyres & the whole thing just ended up looking like an artificial unspectacular lottery.
Of the 40 years i’ve been an F1 fan that was by far the worst i’ve ever sat through.
anon
7th January 2016, 7:33
RogerA, and yet, for all the cries of “randomness”, was it actually quite as variable as we think it was? After the first seven races had gone by, the championship was still dominated by exactly the sort of drivers you would expect to be leading it – Hamilton, followed by Alonso, Vettel and Webber, then Rosberg, Kimi and Grosjean.
Only Button was lower than you’d expect, mainly due to a higher than usual retirement rate. Victories were still predominantly shared amongst the same teams and several drivers still had fairly consistent runs of form in those opening races (Webber’s four consecutive 4th place finishes, for example), and in some instances the variations in performance were more down to errors by the team (for example, McLaren having persistent pit crew issues in Bahrain) or by the driver (say, Vettel clashing with Karthikeyan in Malaysia).
To a certain extent, I think that some people were quick to ascribe variations in performance to the tyres when they were perhaps more inherent to the cars themselves.
The F2012 had consistent issues with the front suspension layout, which was designed to enhance aerodynamic performance over mechanical performance and therefore resulted in an abnormal pattern of wear on the tyres. Red Bull’s RB8 had issues with airflow reattachment around the exhaust area as their Coanda style exhaust hadn’t been fully developed by this stage, resulting in inconsistent rear handling that Vettel hated and struggled to adapt to (hence why Vettel reverted to the pre-season aero package in China). The MP4/27, meanwhile, had issues with a highly pitch sensitive aero package that necessitated running an extremely stiff front suspension set up, whilst part of McLaren’s variation in form also occurred due to McLaren altering the rear suspension layout in the opening races.
Even if you took the tyres out of the equation, I think that you’d still have seen more variation than normal in those opening races due to the characteristics of many of the cars in question. Really, the only truly unexpected result was that of Maldonado in Spain – and I can’t help wondering if the cries of “lottery” are as much about trying to downplay that achievement as anything else.
Patrick (@paeschli)
7th January 2016, 11:53
Exactly, Williams winning was the only unexpected thing that happened in 2012.
And people are always downplaying Maldonado’s achievements.
Michael Brown
8th January 2016, 16:51
So the shake-up of 2012 was due to the banning of the exhaust blown diffuser, causing teams to rethink their rear aero.
People often called 2012’s tires a lottery, but a better analogy is poker. There’s some luck, but the best still managed to rise to the top.
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
7th January 2016, 4:14
@kingshark I honestly believe Pirelli got spooked by the turbo V6’s and as a result built sturdier tyres than it meant. Pirelli were from the onset extremely fragile.
Kibblesworth (@kibblesworth)
7th January 2016, 0:39
I cannot shake the feeling that higher tire degradation and more aero is the wrong way for Formula 1 to go. It seems to discourage overtaking firstly because aero dependence means that the following car is affected by turbulent air flow which affects lap times and secondly because fragile tires means that the following car cannot push for long before their tires drop off thus making them vulnerable to attacks from behind.
Surely less aero and more mechanical grip is the way forwards? With cars that are truly hard to drive, the opportunity to overtake would then depend on a driver’s ability to skillfully exploit either the track or other driver’s mistakes.
@HoHum (@hohum)
7th January 2016, 3:01
@kibblesworth, stop talking sense, there is no room for it in modern F1.
Jeanrien (@jeanrien)
7th January 2016, 8:37
@kibblesworth That would make race engineer at ease as it is what they expect. Now they have the chance to deal with the unexpected and try to find the best in that unknown world of non sense.
The cliff can actually be okay IF it does not imply tyres with a very narrow operating temperature windows AND the cliff is somehow progressive (not +5 sec the lap you hit the cliff compares to the previous one). Given how difficult it is to master these, I am rather against it as there is high risk it will provides gimmicks rather than good and fair racing.
Apex Assassin
7th January 2016, 21:31
Agree 100%.
Pirelli already making excuses for tyres that suck and that NO ONE ASKED FOR.
RaceProUK (@)
8th January 2016, 0:37
Except the people setting the regulations and writing the contract with Pirelli, who have requested exactly what Pirelli are giving them.
John H (@john-h)
7th January 2016, 1:08
yay we can all talk about tyres again all season.
Just reduce aero and increase mechanical grip for the love of God as @kibblesworth states and as we have all been saying on this website for the last who knows how long.
Seriously. What’s going on?
Mike
7th January 2016, 1:30
Reduce aero how? No wings?
RogerA
7th January 2016, 1:51
less complicated wings, the biggest problem with these modern cars is that the overly complex front wings & all there 1,000 elements are far too sensitive to any sort disturbed air. even something as simple as a small bit of tyre mables getting lodged in them is enough to disrupt the airflow enough to cost drivers several tenths a lap.
go back to the more simple wings we had in 2009 with more mechanical grip from ground effects, larger tyres & wider cars and the racing would be a lot better than what it is & we wouldn’t need stupidly absurd gimmicks like drs or crappy tyres.
the fans know it, the media know it & recently even the drivers have been saying it… but the teams are addicted to aero so there’s no chance of them ever actually doing it!
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
7th January 2016, 4:18
I think it’s simpler and more open to rather than make 50 more rules to make the wings simpler but just to make the 2 main aero surfaces smaller.
pH (@ph)
7th January 2016, 7:20
@peartree I actually think that it is no so bad. Just one rule is enough: “The front wing should consist of one horizontal plate of given size with constant longitudenal crossection and flat endplates not exceeding given dimensions.”
In short, you are given a rectangle and you are allowed to bend it, but only in the direction of travel, there should be no curving in the left-to-right direction. It would remove many variables, leaving essentially just the shape of cross-section to play with, meaning that the car could not rely on optimized air flow any more. Also the analysis would be simpler, teams would save loads of money on computer CFD time (and spend it elsewhere).
anon
7th January 2016, 7:36
RogerA, ground effect is an aerodynamic effect, not a mechanical one.
pxcmerc (@)
7th January 2016, 2:54
oh yeah, then Williams will start beating Ferrari and Mercedes will be completely untouchable.
There is no such thing as mechanical grip, there is such a thing called static friction, and that has to do with the contact patch of the ‘rubber’ and the (normal force?) weight applied to the rubber/wheels along with the track, and the chemical composition of the tires and how they react to varying temperatures/forces.
The ironic bit in F1, is how the fans are used to promote utter domination and the lack of competition, under the guise of false romantic notions and ‘equality’. It’s ‘so bizarre’.
pxcmerc (@)
7th January 2016, 2:55
… or rather, “How Bizarre”.
RaceProUK (@)
7th January 2016, 19:53
You do know they’re the same thing, right?
Dan (@dan1124)
7th January 2016, 16:51
They can’t just ‘reduce aero’, tired of reading it. The cars are already too slow, hence to 2017 rule changed to gain ~ 5 seconds. What they can and should have done with the 2017 rules is increase the downforce from under body aero. They are significantly increasing tyre width (mechanical grip).
RogerA
7th January 2016, 1:46
So lets expect drivers having to drive below 70% again next year with all the talk been about tyres at all times during every weekend with drivers who go even half a lap too long suddenly 5-6-7 seconds a lap slower unable to do anything to prevent cars passing him in passes that are even more pathetic to watch than any of the boringly easy drs highway passes.
if there going to go full artificial show then why not decide the starting grid by a lottery, why not say that once a car gets with 1 tenth of you you have to pull over and let him past uncontested, why not make a rule saying that every driver has to drive to a delta & if they go over it they get a penalty.
this sport is turning into a pathetically artificial joke, drs that provides crap highway passing, crap tyres that take away the thrill of watching the drivers drive at the limit & turn races into tyre management borefest’s… Its no wonder everyone is turning off & watching series that actually let the drivers race flat out without any stupid gimmicks!
one of the most enjoyable fully dry races of 2015 was sochi, you know why because the tyres were a non issue & we got to see drivers able to race flat out without having to cruise round managing them all day & that shoudl be what they aim for, but because this is f1 they always want to do the opposite so we get stuck with more crappy tyre management cliff crap that will just lead to more crap lottery’s & more non-racing.
pxcmerc (@)
7th January 2016, 3:52
don’t forget fan controlled sprinklers :)
The sport is a joke because the real sport has nothing to do with the teams or guys doing the racing, the real sport is in the back rooms, with the shareholders, with the big wigs at the auto manufacturers. Monopolies promote economic distortions, make stuff too expensive and drive out competition. Why do people think it’s fair to promote disparity and push away competition? I have no idea.
zimkazimka (@zimkazimka)
7th January 2016, 5:06
So if everyone is driving below 70% does that make it a new 100% benchmark for the entire grid? You know, as we kinda expect true champs to somehow drive over 100% compared to competition right now? Also, everyone gets to use exactly same tires, right? So in the end this changes absolutely nothing, except for the number of pit stops.
StefMeister (@stefmeister)
7th January 2016, 14:11
Technically yes but that still doesn’t make it right because if drivers are having to drive that far off the ultimate pace there been challenged a lot less & the cars become easier & less physically demanding to drive with less chance of then making mistakes etc…
We have heard pretty much since 2011/2012 that the drivers are unhappy with how they feel the driving has become easier, less physical & less demanding/challenging & a big part of the reason for that is because of how far within themselves they have been having to drive.
Gabriel (@rethla)
7th January 2016, 15:37
@zimkazimka It changes everything becouse the challenge becomes to drive a car carefully to save tyres instead of driving a car as fast as possible. Driving a car carefully to save tyres is what i do when i go to the grocery store and not what i want to see the top 20 drivers in the world with the worlds most awesome cars do.
lockup (@)
7th January 2016, 8:43
I think the thing about drivers driving on the limit in the good olde days of yore is a bit of a myth. What could we actually see? They used to go round on rails, stuck to the track, with not enough torque to do anything but make an irritating high-pitched screech that hardly varied, heard through earplugs that made it, er, quieter and muffled.
Driving cars that can’t carry anything on a tarmac surface ending up where they started is fundamentally artificial, so I don’t thing the ‘artificial’ argument flies at all, personally. It’s about measuring human qualities. FOM could do a much better job of that. Managing resources while being fast is interesting, as far as that goes, and racing has always been about that really.
SatchelCharge (@satchelcharge)
7th January 2016, 14:21
+1
Robbie (@robbie)
9th January 2016, 14:21
@lockup For me it’s not so much about what we could see, it’s about knowing, while watching, that the drivers are being taxed or not. Are they physically on an edge and are they able to push their cars to the limit? When it is all about fuel and tire conservation the answer is no, the drivers are held back from performing feats that should awe us. The cars are not faster and the ever present need to at least conserve somewhat has been taken to an overwhelming extreme making the show unspectacular.
lockup (@)
9th January 2016, 16:11
Well they do push their cars to the limit don’t they @robbie and are being taxed more than ever in many ways? It’s true their necks aren’t as taxed these days but they can still fall off as we saw with Grosjean at Sochi and some other times. They have an excess of torque over traction, which was part of the plan with this spec. A lot of passes happen because the victim overdid the power exiting the previous corner.
The thing is, for me, FOM don’t bother to show us a lot of what’s going on. We don’t even see battery use. We don’t see the diff settings, fuel use, tyre and brake temperatures. Crucial things to understand the skill being deployed.
In the old days they just went fast, as far as we knew, but still they had to change tyres and sometimes they ran short of fuel and brakes. What we could see and hear was all we knew, but now we know a tantalising bit more about the resources side of it.
Plus of course, in the olden days we were younger :)
Robbie (@robbie)
10th January 2016, 14:32
@lockup No I don’t think they are pushing their cars to the limit because excess conservation doesn’t allow for that in their computer model. There is a limit for sure, but it is a ‘lesser’ limit than needs be.
I wouldn’t expect them to show us data that other teams would also be interested in knowing so I would expect excitement from that aspect to remain limited, so I think all we are left with is to imagine, as we watch, what it is like for these drivers, and by all accounts they themselves want faster closer racing ie. more challenge than they are currently getting.
Perhaps all the bells and whistles on their steering wheels presents some challenge compared to the past but I don’t think people tune in to watch drivers monitoring systems…I know I don’t anyway. They should be too busy racing to monitor systems.
MarkM
7th January 2016, 2:51
Pirelli:”the concept is there to try and create a cliff that will come in at 15-18 laps and will get us back to the two and three stops that we’ve moved away a little bit from.”
I have officially lost all hope on modern F1, we have idiots in charge!
yes, as we can see from a couple of years ago that that was a very smart idea (insert sarcasm face). SO much for listening to the drivers, fans, technical F1 writers, that the answer is “BRING BACK MECHANICAL GRIP”, “MAKE TIRES LAST SO DRIVERS CAN PUSH” the heck with your pit stops.
cartwheel
8th January 2016, 16:31
100% agree, although I have only lost 99.9% of hope. Pirelli’s meddling has to be the worst aspect of F1 in this decade. We’ll be back to the drivers driving taxis around the circuit to not damage their tires again, no close following and no close racing. Genius. It boggles the mind to attempt to understand this reasoning.
How about this: Separate the tires by 1s intervals, so a stupid soft tire would be 1s faster a lap than a very soft tire. Make a range of tires- probably 7-8 compounds that will cover the season. Make the tire as fast as possible until it wears out. Make the tire as durable to heat as possible (allows sliding and closer racing if the drivers are not always ultra concerned about tire temp/thermal deg). Take away all aspects of tire temperature monitoring/tracking/sensing. Let them go racing. If a team thinks they can no-stop a race on a certain tire then let them try. If a team thinks they can 4-stop a race using stupid-soft tires and be the fastest, go for it! Varied strategies is the way to spice racing and make it interesting. Varied strategies means the teams need freedoms. The current formula is equivalent to NASCAR except that engine performance in NASCAR is more equalized.
ngwe23 (@realstig)
7th January 2016, 4:42
When is Pirelli going to learn that they have one job i.e. make tires? It is not their business to try and interfere with racing and “spice up the show”. The last time they did this is backfired in 2013.
Matthijs (@matthijs)
7th January 2016, 7:52
Actually, that is exactly their business, as they were asked to do it.
David Not Coulthard (@davidnotcoulthard)
7th January 2016, 9:38
@realstig It wasn’t supposed to be, but IT IS their business to do so.
A preventable semi-tragedy of sorts?
David Not Coulthard (@davidnotcoulthard)
7th January 2016, 9:40
@realstig Actually never mind the it wasn’t supposed to be part.
John Doe (@watertank)
7th January 2016, 7:22
*picard facepalm*
cartwheel
8th January 2016, 16:31
Is it April 1st already?
Nick Wyatt (@nickwyatt)
7th January 2016, 9:50
Look at that marvellous photo of the Austrian GP in 1982. As far as I can see, only one car has a front wing; they all seem to have massive ground effect boxes and very simple, single plane rear wings.
I don’t know if these cars refuelled or not, or if they changed tyres in the race, but to me, it looks better and simpler. I think the sport has lost a lot with its mania for preventative rule making.
Sven (@crammond)
7th January 2016, 10:12
@nickwyatt
That´s quite an interesting aspect of the 1982-season, though. You may want to google “Brabham refuelling 1982” or something along those lines, as it was the year when this kinda go invented.
Mashiat
8th January 2016, 5:21
To me, the pre-1998 cars were hideous.
phil9079 (@phil9079)
7th January 2016, 11:18
and FIA is as guilty as spirelli!
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
7th January 2016, 13:13
I know it’s been said 1,000 times on this website and will no doubt be said again but F1’s problem is that it implement solutions that work in an ideal world but can’t possibly work in the real one! Ideas like preventing massive developments in engine performance throughout the season does make sense if all the teams bring a comparable engine to begin with. But, if one competitor gets a jump on the rest then we may as well switch off until a new regulation set is introduced. DRS is an idea I hate, not because I don’t think it can work, but because there are far too many variables to make it “fair”. The length of straight, the angle of previous and approaching corners and wind speed massively change the effectiveness of DRS between identical cars never mind a field of 22 unique ones each with differing downforce and fuel levels. If DRS was developed to close when the driver pulled alongside his rival then perhaps the move would seem fairer, as every fan recognises the problem of dirty air in motor racing in general.
This train of thought naturally leads to tyres and Pirelli’s mandate on how to use them. Canada 2010 was brilliant because it was rare. If we look at great football matches we don’t want to see every game finish 5-5 if we know its coming. The tyres at the start of 2012 and 2013 were ridiculous to me. Of course arguments can be made that the best drivers still won but if we assume the best teams still produce the best cars and attract the best drivers then of course the results weren’t going to change massively. The problem is subjecting the drivers to racing in a limited capacity which is not F1. The tyres should be made so that if one driver ie Perez feels he can make best use of them by not stopping then his pace should be comparable to a driver racing at full speed on a one stop. If you look back at many great Senna races his ability to retain performance of the tyre throughout a race was magnificent. Racing should be a spectacle because of the cars being on the edge and the drivers thinking though the best strategy for them on that day. In the Pirelli era unfortunately, the driver who can stretch his tyres only gets a couple of laps further than his rival which is not right. Once again, a good idea in principle from the FIA but not reliable enough to base a sport on.
StefMeister (@stefmeister)
7th January 2016, 13:47
Agree, Good post.
I’m also glad you brought up Canada 2010 as what you say about that is correct, It was an interesting race more because it was a unique situation that came about just because of the circumstances of that weekend & not because they were artificially engineered to happen in that way.
Something else that is usually overlooked about that race is that while the tyres were wearing at a faster rate than normal they were doing so in a predictable way & so the drivers were still able to drive flat out through the race until they began to feel the tyres reaching the point where a pit stop was required.
Unlike what we have seen with the Pirelli’s since 2011 there was no pre-determined laptime that drivers were aiming to drive at, There was no big incentive to manage the tyres because the tyres were as I say wearing in a predictable way & giving the drivers good feedback/feel for when they were reaching the end of there performance window.
The biggest problems with the Pirelli-era is that since everyone knows that the tyres are going to act a certain way the teams know how to approach the races, They know that if they have the drivers drive to a delta & aim to keep the tyres within a certain temperature window they will hold off the thermal degredation process & extend the tyre stint by a few laps.
Additionally the Pirelli’s primarily because of the thermal degredation do not give the drivers the same level of feedback/feel which is why they are now so much more reliant on data (Specifically temperature data) than they were with the tyres of Pre-2011.
There was a quote from Button last year where he mentioned this & said that the thing he liked about the Michelins/Bridgestones was that as a driver you could feel how much grip you had & could feel the tyre wearing so knew when you could push hard & when you were reaching the point you needed to pit without needing any data. But that with the Pirelli’s you don’t get that same level of feel as a driver so are far more reliant on the data & thats why over the past few years its been so easy to get surprised by a sudden/dramatic loss of performance (The cliff) as one lap the tyres may feel fine but the next they have lost a second with no warning.
Michael Brown
7th January 2016, 14:04
COTD
cartwheel
8th January 2016, 16:41
I was in the stands at Canada 2010. I can tell you that we had no idea what the heck was going on. Everyone kept heading into the pits every 10 laps… we kept thinking “oh- look, Lewis is pitting again- he must have a problem. Oh- look, Jenson is going in too. Wait- now Alonso is going in? Is everyone having problems? Oh- just tires, back at it” and then 10 laps later all over again. It was very confusing for us who are die-hards and watch every race. Watching the race from home afterward it made more sense because you had the additional commentary and lap times and could understand what was happening. And poor Schumi was just out of tires at the end and got mugged left and right- is that really what we want to see in an F1 race?
The Pirelli/hybrid era will go down as the worst period in F1 history. Mostly because of Pirelli tires, much less because of the hybrids. It is so bad that the comedy of the situation has been replaced with horror.
Michael Brown
7th January 2016, 14:00
So the solution is to go back to 2012 and 2013 type tires. I know the counter argument: saving tires is always a part of racing. True. But it was not the biggest factor, which is what Pirelli have done.
nickilism
7th January 2016, 14:28
I’m sorry, but… could somebody please explain what the ‘cliff’ is?!?
It might be that the only thing that comes to my mind is something geographically related (for instance, the ‘white cliffs of Dover’ :) ), but I seem not to fully understand what the hell it would be and what it might do within a car-related context.
Thanks in advice!
Michael Brown
7th January 2016, 15:38
The “cliff” refers to how suddenly Pirelli tires lose their grip. As they do more and more laps, they approach a point where they lose a substantial amount of grip. It’s called the cliff because of how drastically and quickly the tires lose grip.
Compared to the Bridgestone tires, which wore out gradually. It could be described as going down a slope.
phil9079 (@phil9079)
7th January 2016, 15:18
I cannot describe how unbelievable this is. A cliff? What cliff? THE cliff where drivers would actually have serious accidents from? GG spirelli and FIA, gg! It wouldn’t surprise me at all now if someone died from this.
@HoHum (@hohum)
7th January 2016, 21:55
Next you’ll want a speed limit on the track for “safety”.
Selbbin (@selbbin)
7th January 2016, 22:33
Actually, that’s part of the reason they keep heavily restricted what can be done to the car, to slow them down. Engineering wise the cars could be much, much faster.
RaceProUK (@)
8th January 2016, 0:41
It’s more likely that a driver will be killed by a meteorite exactly 4.73 inches by 1.88 inches by 0.29 inches striking them in the left nostril.
phil9079 (@phil9079)
9th January 2016, 12:07
Fine you can all have a good laugh. We’ll see what happens when someone crashes in eau rouge or some other corner. It’s a shame how you all have forgotten what happend to Jules Bianchi…
phil9079 (@phil9079)
9th January 2016, 12:13
And yeah I do realise how the crash has happend and that it’s diffrent from blowing up tyres. Just saying that this tyre thing ain’t a good bussiness for F1 imo…
jabbadap
7th January 2016, 16:17
Is there upcoming article about new style and regulations changes from 2016 to 2017 formula 1 car. There is article on official formula 1 site(kind of like what I’m seeing, lower but larger back wing etc.). I would like to see some superb technology review what can these regulations bring to us in future(I really appreciate thorough reviews from Collantine et al).
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
7th January 2016, 18:30
It’s definitely something that’s going to be covered, though as a rule I don’t like to make promises about exactly what’s going to appear in case for some reason it doesn’t happen. But it’s definitely a topic which deserves attention and I intend to give it some.
skynet
7th January 2016, 18:53
great, looking forward to another lame season in 16′.
Selbbin (@selbbin)
7th January 2016, 22:40
Lame? Really? With Renault back, HAAS on the grid, Manor with a good engine, Red Bull doing their own thing with the base Renault, the great ‘will McLaren Honda be competitive’ mystery, Ferrari on the upsurge, and Rosberg on a roll, you think it’ll be lame just because of ‘the cliff’?
markp
8th January 2016, 0:18
Cliff Richard is doing all the podium interviews next year?
cartwheel
8th January 2016, 16:48
Yes. At least I do. The cliff means that drivers will drive much slower to conserve tires. they will not battle each other and they will not follow closely as this uses more tire life and puts them closer to the cliff. The racing will be as before- after the first couple of corners the cars will string out into 2s gaps for the remainder of the race. We have seen this before- why will it be different this time?
Robbie (@robbie)
9th January 2016, 14:34
Not a great fan of the cliff either but in fairness I think we need to wait and see just how cliffy the tires are. I’d be fine with this if the cliff occurs over 2 or 3 laps as opposed to 1/2 a lap, and if the drivers can actually push these tires more than in 2015, until said cliff makes itself apparent. I also know that after a number of races the teams will have a fair handle on how the tires behave and they will be less likely to be caught out by them. Hopefully the main result of the cliff will simply be that drivers hands are forced to pit and they’ll have less tendency to think they can stay out because their tires are ‘fine’.
SauberS1 (@saubers1)
7th January 2016, 22:30
For Pirelli like nothing, engine, track, aero…
Blakk
8th January 2016, 11:17
F1 pushed tyres competition out of F1 and now trying to achieve some of the drama by artificially reducing tires life, but this will not bring anything but one team`s chassis suiting those tires better than others, remember `13 nine in the row by Red Bull after tyre rules change? get ready for a repeat…
MarkM
8th January 2016, 14:56
I think its fair to say you can’t blame Pirelli, you blame the people in charge who had the option to choose another supplier, or use both and tell the suppliers to build durable tires. Pirelli can do it, that is just not what they were asked to do. THEY (the people running F1) are the ones to blame.
THEY (the people in charge)
-have seen decline in viewing numbers, steadily heading the wrong way
-have seen great circuits in Europe you surely would thought never to disappear leave the calendar
-have decided that controlling the results of what it is they want to see happen (overtaking) with passing gimmicks
-have seen that forcing teams to pit stop only makes the drivers/teams manage their tires based on the situation
don’t make me mention the silly front nose season and its protruding designs based on what THEY in charge gave as a rule.
and yet 5-6 years of these people in charge and their visions, they STILL do not see or comprehend what it is they are doing wrong. They must agree they are wrong based on the endless rule changes and vision year after year, and major changes again for 2017. You only make changes when something isn’t working right? Its sad that history is in front of them. Are they ignoring to look at history to see what worked and what didn’t like we all talk about here? it seems they are turning a blind eye.
I have to laugh at the strategy group, I just can’t understand how people in charge for any length of time cant fine tune the mistakes they made, yet they repeat the same ones and cross their fingers. Yes everyone makes mistakes but what they are proposing for 2017 is utterly wrong. Why don’t they see this? why are they so blind to the general public of race enthusiasts who seem to know more then the people in charge? This just puzzles the heck out of me.
Change the way you run F1 and brighter days will happen, get rid of this strategy group. I believe so many missed opportunities to bring back the real F1 and grow the fan base once again will never happen with the current vision and brains of F1.