Tyres will determine if 2017 rules succeed – Sainz

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Carlos Sainz Jnr says Pirelli’s new, wider tyres will play a greater role in determining the success of the changes to F1 in 2017 than the revised aerodynamic rules and increased fuel allocation.

Comment of the day

Sainz’s criticism of the Virtual Safety Car did not win much support:

Is the Virtual Safety Car fairer than the real one?

Sainz’s comments on Virtual Safety Car are just nonsense.

He is claiming that the leaders gain an advantage because they get to keep the lead they have worked to build up under Virtual Safety Car and that it would be better for that to be wiped out by deploying a full Safety Car. That’s not gaining an advantage, it’s just not getting the disadvantage which you used to have with Safety Car periods.

It’s another example of how drivers (and more often teams) opinion is often too focused on what suits them and not on whether something is actually the right thing to do. Suggesting the full Safety Car is deployed solely to bunch up the field and not because it is required for safety is equivalent to suggesting weight penalties to level up the field – it might look better but it certainly isn’t a fair way to contest anything.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Gaston_Pdu!

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

Keke Rosberg and Yannick Dalmas shared victory for Peugeot in the World Sports-Prototype Championship round at Mexico City on this day 25 years ago.

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.

41 comments on “Tyres will determine if 2017 rules succeed – Sainz”

  1. Why is it still being reported that Lewis accused his team of sabotage and he’s now back tracking?

    The F1 media has a mandate to take straightforward Lewis Hamilton words and spin them in a manner that creates content.

    He says “something or someone doesn’t want to him win” – it’s immediately summarise to mean he’s accusing his team of foul play, even though his comment had no singular point of focus. Come on man.

    1. because that is the reality of things, Kng11.

      1. And because he has talked this kind of talk before, with his crew swap ‘for no apparent reason’ comment that caused Merc to issue a public letter defending the staff. Nobody is making up the tone LH used. He seems to now be very wordy in his admiration for his team, obviously trying to make up for his wording that was at best poor, and certainly came across as accusatory.

        1. Sorry mate, but i disagree. Mercedes issued that letter because the fans were angry with the spate of reliability issues that befell him, had nothing to do with what he said.

          And in case you’ve missed it, his praise of the team didn’t just start recently, go back and listen to his comments last year, watch his interview with Nigel Mansell i believe it was in Austin.

          The only reason why he seems to be trying to make up for it (which i don’t think he needed to), is because of exactly what i wrote. It was the press and everyone quickly insinuating that he was talking about the team.

    2. Agreed. It’s as if Hamilton is not allowed to have emotions. Most people in his position would act irrationally if a sure win was snatched away for no good reason. People need to take what he says with ‘when’ he said it and the circumstances around it. No just quote sound bites.

      His outburst of ‘Oh Nooo, Nooo.’ will live with me forever.

  2. Loud and lairy? How about just lairy, they are loud enough, but look tame and processional because of the marshmallow tyres they have been saddled with. Sacrifice a couple of seconds of lap time (or maybe get Michelin or Bridgestone back) drop mandatory pit stops and give them tyres they can thrash without loss of performance ( and possibly get stickier the more heat is put into them ) the whole race long, and then we might see these PUs in a different, more entertaining and awe inspiring, light.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      6th October 2016, 11:16

      I think they are fine volume-wise, it’s just the actual noise they make that is disappointing to me. F1 used to sound extreme and unique but it’s lost that now.

    2. I was pleasantly surprised by the noise last Belgian Grand Prix. There was a huge difference between manufacturers, expecially the Honda-engine springs to mind. Much more depth than the V8’s. The V10’s obviously were brutal.

      I agree with HoHum on the tires. A pushing car is way more appealing.

  3. Mark Hughes’s Column in Motorsport Magazine makes so much sense! fantastic to maybe think that F1 could go back to being ‘Loud and Lairy’. It won’t happen but its food for thought

    1. @johns23 Why wouldn’t it happen? By 2020 surely the bosses of F1 will realize that this is not a train they’ll ever be able to catch, and hop off to move to another train, so to speak. They’re not too stupid to understand that with the direction the car industry is going, it’s pointless to try to continue with what they do now. At least I hope they not that stupid

      1. I think that by 2020, if we manage to create a world where most daily traffic runs on electricity in highly populated areas, expect to see that no one but the likes of Abu Dhabi, Baku, Sochi will be able to host weekends of super loud @jons23, @montreal95.

        Already tracks like Melbourne, Silverstone, Monza, Spa, Hockenheim, Austin, the Red Bull Ring, Interlagos and possibly Montral too, have issues with getting a permit for having a weekend of loud cars. People will only get more used to NOT having that and demands for silencing race tracks are going to gain ground.

        I admit that the feeling we got with a full pack of V10s firing up and getting off while at the track was epic. But honestly, to me the sound levels when seen live are perfect with F1 (sitting close to the track the GP2 and even GP3 cars want me to put earplugs back in). Sound is just thrown away energy. And it only matters at the track. For the rest of the world, it would help to just have better Audio feeds that highlight the different tones of the engines and the other noises that one can hear to have fun with.

        The lairy part, well I do think that having less extreme tyre saving would help, and I would love to see cars that rely less on aero devices (but the 2017 rules go to more of that instead), so that drivers will be able to race closer more often.

        1. sorry, misspelled that @johns23

          1. @bascb We will most definitely not get to a world you describe by 2020. By 2020 F1 could and should make a decision to split itself completely from the direction the automotive world is going, as it’s a direction that leads to the death of all motorsport, unless it re-invents itself as an escapism from the boring and pathetic automotive day to day life that the auto companies currently envisage. Read the article carefully, Mark Hughes describes perfectly they way it should be done and the economic justification for such a thing(meaning, why car companies and sponsors would want to get involved)

            Now when you speak about the sound as “wasted energy” you speak precisely in the terms Mark Hughes fights in his article. That’s the car industry speaking. That’s what MH wants F1 to forget if it’s to survive long into the 21st century. And I agree. To you the sound might not matter all that much but to a vast majority it does. In order to re-invent itself F1 must be seen as an exciting, romantic retreat from the cold and boring world of pseudo-eco silent cars of tomorrow(pseudo, since making them damages more environment than it saves, and as long as the majority of the electricity they use comes from “dirty” sources, it’s not pollution friendly either. Sorry for the OT)

            So, no, sound is not wasted energy. It’s the energy of fun, of excitement, and in the future, the energy of being a rebel of being different to the boring everyday life. Just the thing F1 needs to survive

            And if the survival of F1 means losing some of the venues you mentioned then so be it. A lot of good venues have been lost for far more stupid reasons. Call me naive, but I want F1 to still be here when they’re racing pods like in Star Wars or spaceships like in Roger Zelazny’s Alien Speedway( a tribute to F1 by the way). Sorry for Sci-fi references but they’re relevant since the idea is that even in the far, sanitized, future human passion for speed and excitement will endure. The way F1’s going right now(and you’re 100% right about stupid downforce increase in 2017) it’ll soon become history

          2. It only matters because we have been made to think it matters. In reality, the sound is completely irrelevant. If wanted, you could even make it by using speakers (like quite a few car manufacturers already do) @montreal95.

            What you mention as the only way forward/out, following Mark Hughes, I see as making F1 an entertainment show / freakshow that will soon lose relevance to any technology companies. The pull for all companies getting into Formula E is that it is a relatively cheap way to be part of something new and seen to be “the place to be” for the future.

            The only reason no one is interested in the hybrid engines is because of exactly the same reasons why we can have a GP somewhere and hardly anyone notices – F1 does not do any marketing. The first things we heard about the engines was Bernie saying they shounded horrible – and that was before he even heard them at all. And that set the tone for Bernies marketing, for marketing giant Red Bull to chip in and then for Sky to jump on the bandwagon. It is a lack of marketing that F1 is missing. The formula could do with a cost cap to limit crazy spending, it should better balance between the whole field to even it out and call it quits for changes to the cars.

  4. I agree with Felipe. It’s just one of those things. Anyone remember Schumacher’s engine failure at Suzuka in 2006? the guy was on his way to an 8th championship before retirement and he suffered his FIRST engine failure in 6 years.

    Things like that happen all the time. And he’s right, others had it worse. Massa was so good that year, and it must hurt like hell that he missed on that opportunity because Piquet crashed on purpose. And that was his only chance… Lewis is a 3 time WDC.

    1. People always mention about Schumacher’s engine failure in 2006.. they fail to mention alonso had his fair share of bad luck as well.. hungry and Monza especially

    2. Ok, so it was Schumacher”s first failure in 6 years, how many failures/issues has Lewis suffered in this year alone? & if you really want to compare, how many has he suffered in the same 6 year period as Michael?

      I’ve also noticed people saying Massa lost the championship because of Singapore, so what about Spa?

      1. In Spa Hamilton gave the position back to Raikonnen, but in the way he did it he still maintained an advantage after going out of track. He would not have been as close to Raikonnen as he was if he had not left the track in the first place. At least that is the way the stewards interpreted the situation (I agree with them by the way).

        1. The rule at the time said to give the place back, which he did. There were no further reason beyond that. Also lets not forget, that it was after that incident that they further rectified the rules.

          So going by the letter of the law, he did do what it said.

          1. Sorry for the late reply.

            He did what the rule said by the letter of the law, but it was still interpreted as a violation. The thing is that Hamilton would not have made the pass if he had not left the track. It was a marginal situation so it could go either way. It was in no way comparable to what happened in Singapore.

            By the way, I do not agree with those that say that it was because of Piquet’s crash that Massa lost the championship in 2008. All it took was having a clean pit stop, which thay failed to do..

      2. What about Hungary?

    3. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
      6th October 2016, 8:04

      I remember that well. Was gutted for schumi.

  5. I feel Derek Warwick should have withheld comment on Coulthard’s tweet about the Rosberg-Kimi overtake. This blurs the line between a professional decision made as the drivers’ steward of the weekend, and his personal opinion.

    Moreover, Derek’s tweet implies that Rosberg isn’t as good a driver as the others named hence his penalty. While there might be much to debate on that aspect, I think penalties should be awarded based on errors made, and not on whether a certain calibre of driver would have avoided such error.

    1. I disagree. How that blurs the line? It’s his professional opinion and he’s expressing it. Also you’ve got your cause and effect wrong. If anything ,the implication could be that it’s not the fact that Rosberg is a lesser driver that his overtake was wrong, but vice versa. The fact of his stupid clumsy overtake could prove that he’s a lesser driver than the aforementioned ones. I see nothing wrong with this reasoning

      1. I thought it was a ballsy move that surprised Kimi and there’s no way of claiming other drivers wouldn’t have hit him. Kimi didn’t even seem to have a problem with it. I can understand the penalty but I’m also glad it was as ineffectual as it was.

        1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
          6th October 2016, 8:05

          It was a great move, and hammy hamster would’ve been applauded for it rather than penalised..

          1. So how do you compare Rosberg’s move on Kimi to his move on Hamilton at the first corner in Spain? You may also have to tell us how Rosberg’s Malaysia move differs from his Austria move.

    2. I agree, Warwick’s comment seems to suggest a bias. In an ideal world, the stewards would see only anonymous data and blurred video images. It looks like the “Rosberg can’t fight wheel to wheel” meme (not completely without substance of course) has really caught in the stewards room.

    3. “I feel Derek Warwick should have withheld comment on Coulthard’s tweet about the Rosberg-Kimi overtake. This blurs the line between a professional decision made as the drivers’ steward of the weekend, and his personal opinion.”

      I would have agreed with you had the press not had such a field day with it criticising him. I had the same thought as Warwick initially and if I had to make a snap decision I would have penalised him too. Given the chance to watch replays ad nauseam I changed my mind…but I also don’t feel that the reaction of the press has been justified.

  6. Funny how papers report things differently, here in Australia the front page has Daniel Ricciardo calling for the release of those budgie nine.

  7. I really enjoyed reading the Guardian article about the Lauda/Hunt relationship. Nice to hear the positive things they said about one another. Also, with Lauda claiming that Rush was 80% correct albeit peppered with ”creative license”, I feel it gives more credence to an already enjoyable film.

    1. +1

      And, as Lauda was a consultant for “Rush” it’s unsurprising that it’s mostly correct

      1. And unsurprising that the Lauda character is pretty much spot on, while the Hunt character seems a little bit off (OK Bruehl is also a better actor).

  8. Interesting to see the Italian media lashing out at the glorious, hopeful, supreme German-Italian combination that was going to change the sport forever. Last year a lot of people were praising the influence of Vettel on the Ferrari squad, while simultaneously making statements about how bad Alonso was for Ferrari. This year, it seems that the honeymoon period is over for Seb and Ferrari, and it’s back to the usual disappointing atmosphere.

    I doubt Vettel can manage to lift the team, or even perform that way Alonso did in sub par machinery. If Vettel can achieve what Alonso did at Ferrari, he should give himself a massive pat on the back.

    1. Ferrari’s problems seem to be largely internal, expecting wonders within moments rather then trying to build something (not too dissimilar to Premier League Football, what with managers frequently getting replaced after a handful or even 1 bad game)

  9. When I first looked at today’s F1fanatic, I thought it said that F1 should become “loud and hairy”. Then I saw it’s lairy, but it got me thinking, perhaps I was not so wrong the first time. Yes, we need some real men in F1 :-).

    1. Rosberg did have lengthy hair at one point, when he was called Britney. Oh, you mean arms and chests.

      That said, I did have to check the meaning of “lairy” as its a term I’ve not seen prior to the article.

  10. On the subject of VSC and full SC it comes down to what F1 is aiming to be. If it is trying to be a sport then the VSC is the choice, it maintains the gaps of the race and tries to continue on as if nothing happened. Teams really shouldn’t be allowed to pit either if you want to keep it fair but then teams working a better strategy is part of sport in general.
    If however F1 is trying to be entertainment then a full SC will make things more interesting, but this is a dangerous route for me as an F1 fan. It means that Bernie’s ideas of joker laps (like RallyX) or success ballast would be more acceptable as it would probably lead to more “exciting” races.
    Personally I think F1 should try to be a sport and let the best team win. A change in regulations every so often will continue to give other teams a chance to steal the march on the champions and a fairer distribution of the F1 money pot would give the lesser teams more resources to try to get closer to the leaders.
    On a side note I think the reason why we see periods of dominance like Mercedes current run is that they are so far ahead that they can switch development to next year’s car at the same time as everyone else. If they were in a battle with Ferrari say right up to the last race (like McLaren and Ferrari in 2008), then they would have to keep pushing right to the end. And what happened the year later in my example… The top two teams in Melbourne were Brawn and Toyota and ultimately Brawn and Red Bull.

  11. Derek Warwick shouldn’t have said that. I’m all for freedom of speech, but above all it’s unwise to publicly undermine your people. He’s questioning the stewards and himself, and he’s showcasing bias. Unfortunately for him his comments lead you to check his tweeter account and doing so further suggests a lack of transparency and professionalism from the stewards in f1.

Comments are closed.