In the round-up: The drivers involved in Pirelli’s tyre testing programme for 2017 will have an unfair advantage, according to Fernando Alonso.
Become a RaceFans Supporter and go ad-free
RaceFans operates thanks in part to the support of its readers. In order to help fund the development and growth of the site please consider becoming a RaceFans Supporter.
For just £1 per month/£12 per year you will also be upgraded to an ad-free account. Sign up and find out more below:
Links
Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more from hundreds of sites across the web:
Fernando Alonso: Drivers testing 2017 tyres have an advantage (ESPN)
"At that time it was the same for everybody, but this time it's only a few drivers and few teams having that possibility (to test). That's the thing that seems a little bit unfair this year."
F1 'back to square one' in 2017 - Wolff (Autosport)
"In terms of our performances, it's not as dominant a season like it was last year, and for me it's just a fact of diminishing returns with the stable regulations."
Ron Dennis gives McLaren 'five out of ten' (Sky)
"Our new engine is running on the dyno now and that's several months earlier than our engine last year."
Max Mosley speaks out (Racecar Engineering)
"If they lost the manufacturers, it would affect the engines, but if every manufacturer took their engines away tomorrow, Cosworth would be there very quickly."
Damon Hill: depression does not have to spell the end for a sportsperson (The Guardian)
"I didn’t know why I should be feeling that when I apparently should be one of the happiest men alive."
Analysis: How F1 has spurned the eSports digital revolution (Motorsport)
"Thus far, F1 has been somewhat hostile to eSports, with the commercial rights holder going so far as to begin legal action against gamers applying accurate skins to their race cars on digital platforms, citing copyright violation of liveries and sponsorship logos."
Got a tip for a link to feature in the next F1 Fanatic round-up? Send it in here:
Social media
Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:
- Find more official F1 accounts to follow in the F1 Twitter Directory
Comment of the day
This weekend’s Caption Competition winner is Serkankster:
“One screw at a time… Not thinking about the title, not at all. Just focus on this screw, then the next one.”
Serkankster
Thanks to everyone who joined in this weekend especially Calum, Dean Stewart, Scott Bailey, Caci99, OmarRoncal, Charliesx and Thedonz who all came up with really funny captions too.
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday to Harris and Evan!
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
Nelson Piquet won his first world championship title on this day 35 years ago at Las Vegas.
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...Read more about Keith Collantine, find all their articles and get in touch with them
Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.
41 comments on ““Unfair” advantage for 2017 tyre testers – Alonso”
Comments are closed.
Wallbreaker (@wallbreaker)
17th October 2016, 0:08
Can’t see how this is an unfair advantage when only three teams provided mule cars when Pirelli asked for as many as possible. McLaren could’ve done that as well. They didn’t. End of.
GT Racer (@gt-racer)
17th October 2016, 0:41
@wallbreaker The 3 teams that are doing the testing are the only 3 teams that had the resources to modify an old car for the testing, Offer the car/driver/staff to run the car during those test’s while maintaining development not just on the 2016 car but also on the actual 2017 program.
Despite what many still like to think; McLaren no longer have the resources to be able to tick all of those boxes so while they would have liked to do the testing, It was simply never an option as it would have led to a compromised 2017 development program.
For the rest of the teams it was a non-starter as nobody else has the resources to even think about it.
Believe me every team & driver out there wants to be doing these test’s because despite what will be said in public, They all know that the 3 teams & the drivers who are testing the 2017 tyres will get an advantage from it that will give them a significant head start in not just understanding the tyres but also when it comes to designing the car around them & the way the wider tyres are going to completely change the dynamics of the car & how they along with the increased downforce are going to change the way the drivers are going to need to drive the cars.
Patrick (@paeschli)
17th October 2016, 7:03
Well, it would be easier to pay for the test if McLaren didn’t pay Alonso 35 million a year to drive in the midfield…
Joy
17th October 2016, 7:56
Handa pays ALL his salary. Not a penny from McLaren.
Tony Mansell
17th October 2016, 11:32
That’s a big Hond out !
Phylyp (@phylyp)
17th October 2016, 12:08
@Tony Mansell – groan! 😂
Mick Harrold (@mickharrold)
17th October 2016, 7:52
@gt-racer I think you are actually making Alonso’s point for him. The teams with resources are the winners. They are also the saviours as well, because without them, we would have no data on these new tyres and we may have a calamity next year. Given the current situation, you can say bad luck to the poorer teams, but it shouldn’t be that simple.
From what I have read, everyone seems to be missing the main point of the argument here. The question seems to be around whether the teams should fund this or Pirelli. I think that is the whole problem here. Neither should. It is true that Pirelli get paid for supplying tyres, but they obviously don’t have enough in the kitty to pay the likes of Merc and Red Bull to test. This was an FIA/FOM decision and it should be up to them to fund the testing. It shouldn’t have been left up to the teams and Pirelli to fund this.
The FIA are used to making changes to the rules for chassis’ and engines and expecting the teams to fund the development costs and so they should. But the situation is very different for the tyres as the FIA are mandating a control tyre. All teams can do is understand them better, but they can’t develop them, so why spend money. Pirelli aren’t even in a position where they can dictate how the tyres are made. They are told how to make them to suit the FIA. The FIA alone control the development and specifications of the tyres and should be expected to fund it.
The FIA and FOM make heaps of money and they should have paid for all teams to go racing here and test these tyres. Well, they could have part paid and called it an additional testing session at least. As it is now, we face 2 problems next year. Firstly we may not get the data we need to ensure these tyres aren’t a disaster. Secondly, the season is set up next year to aid the teams with the money to go racing. That is unfair and a wasted opportunity for the lower budgeted teams to do a Williams or a Brawn next year and level the playing field for a while.
Robbie (@robbie)
17th October 2016, 13:06
@mickharrold I hear what you are saying but I just don’t think it is reasonable to expect all teams to be funded to build 2015 cars with 2017 downforce to go testing. The lesser teams are still not going to be able to be good conduits for Pirelli to glean necessary data. It’s only the top teams that can come closest to 2017 type conditions and can help Pirelli get the data, so I think the advantage is inevitable, but small, and it’s simply the best way for them to do this given such drastic changes to the car. Alonso cites how it was in the past but this is not the past, this is now and the changes are huge.
So to your two points I think Pirelli will get sufficient data, especially if a hot-weather test happens, and secondly it is inevitable and not new whatsoever that the ‘have’ teams are advantaged. Perhaps Liberty will do something about that once they have the power to, but for now this is the way it is.
Martin
17th October 2016, 15:04
Maybe it should have worked like this:
– Merc, RB, Fer work together to come up with some downforce/performance estimates for 2017
-Pirelli produce a car which to those specs (they have a single seater knocking around somewhere and it should be easy to get the downforce level up when you dont have to follow f1’s regs)
-Pirelli run the car over a number of sessions and teams can supply drivers to drive if they wish to participate.
That way:
-costs are reduced (1 car is produced not the 3 we did)
-Teams can participate without making their own mule car
-Pirelli run the car and so keep all the data, no one else gets anything (fairer?)
-drivers get experience with the new tyres
Robbie (@robbie)
17th October 2016, 16:48
@Martin I don’t think Pirelli are in the business of building F1 mule cars, nor do you highlight that engineers are needed to suss out the data during the testing, not just drivers. I think the least expensive route to take is the one they are doing, using teams that can quite easily make these mule cars, and have everything in place already to convey accurate info to Pirelli, albeit for tires they know little about.
I think the advantage to the teams doing the testing is being overplayed, but is also inevitable and the way Pirelli and F1 is going about things is the best they can do with the limited testing time available. It’s only the top teams that can help them glean the necessary info with respect to being able to tax the tires the most, and as far as drivers getting experience on the tires, these are necessarily blind tests anyway so a driver wouldn’t know what tires he is on let alone whether they would be used next year or it would be some derivation of what they tried.
Martin
17th October 2016, 17:22
“I don’t think Pirelli are in the business of building F1 mule cars”
They are in the business of making tyres though. I dont think it is entirely unreasonable to expect a company to be in a position to test the product they develop :)
Anyway they own and run their own test car, or at least used to. I also don’t think it would be beyond the realm of believability for them to modify it to increase the downforce, even if that required some help from outside.
“nor do you highlight that engineers are needed to suss out the data during the testing, not just drivers”
To be flippant I also didn’t highlight the need for nitrogen and oxygen so everyone doesn’t suffocate to death. I assumed the need for engineers would have been obvious given that the whole thing is very much an engineering exercise. I only mentioned the drivers because unlike engineering staff I don’t believe Pirelli employ any drivers.
“I think the advantage to the teams doing the testing is being overplayed”
I agree, but it is just another thing for the teams to bicker about and I feel like it would have worked better if Pirelli had ran a car themselves (possibly funded by the FIA). That way there would be no argument about who does or doesn’t get any benefit as it would be equal across the teams.
“limited testing time available”
This is the crux of the issue and it is F1 to blame. Everything for 2017 should have been locked down much earlier so that the teams and Pirelli could have ample time to prepare.
Robbie (@robbie)
17th October 2016, 20:26
@Martin Can’t say I know anything about the car Pirelli owns and runs but I would suggest that since they are using top F1 teams’ 2015 cars modified, that is a better way to go for them than what they have, or they’d use it. Is it reasonable to ask them to build a car strictly for this unique big change in regs when others have already done it and the atmosphere is about scarce testing days anyway? I mean, they can’t even seem to get much consensus on a crucial hot-weather test…how interested should they be at spending millions to make a mule car and hardly get a chance to use it?
My point about engineers was that since Pirelli seems to not want to do this in house with their own car, they’d be far better off with engineers that know the car that is being used as opposed to Pirelli engineers. Of course Pirelli engineers would be present too, but they wouldn’t know anything about the particular car’s setups etc.
And since testing days are scarce I can’t see how all the drivers would get a chance in a Pirelli mule car, for fairness for all.
It’s not so much that I’m trying to shoot down your ideas as that I’m trying to take from why they are doing it the way they are. And I just think that they’d do it your way if that is what made sense for them, all things considered. As it is I think the blind testing is a great way to limit any advantages, as they would still have to do for the relative handful of drivers that would even get a chance to drive an unfamiliar Pirelli mule car. Better some top drivers in cars they are relatively familiar with, in blind tests for the most consistent and accurate data possible, until more can be done once actual 2017 cars are available. Drivers that know their cars can much more quickly and concisely report on how much different tires affect the car from what they know intimately.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
17th October 2016, 1:09
@wallbreaker Manor could’ve done that too. If they had the money.
The system is broken when only the most powerful teams can test next year’s tyres. Even in prototype form, they are always learning something.
Phylyp (@phylyp)
17th October 2016, 5:22
@wallbreaker – I echo your view with respect to McLaren.
@gt-racer & @fer-no65 – And yes, I support the notion that ideally it should be all drivers/constructors participating in all tyre tests.
McLaren and Renault are the two other manufacturer* teams on the grid. Renault have made it clear that their return to form will take a few years, so I can understand why they aren’t rushing to test the 2017 tyres, since their funds are probably best spent in rebuilding and recruiting drivers and staff.
On the other hand, McLaren have been constantly telling us about just how great and competitive their car is/will be. Why, there’s even an article in today’s roundup about their 2017 competitiveness (along with an admission of lack thereof in 2016). I’d really have expected McLaren to have aimed for the competitive advantage by participating in the tyre test. They also have three very capable drivers, so deputing at least one of them for the tyre test should have been possible. Furthermore, I don’t see McLaren as hurting for money, not when they’ve got not one but two companies backing the team and affording top talent like Alonso and Button.
I’d be curious to see what are Ron’s views on McLaren’s absence from the tyre tests, he didn’t allude to it in either article.
* Yeah, McLaren aren’t a manufacturer team in the conventional sense, but as the Honda partnership is exclusive for 2017 I’d view them as a manufacturer-constructor.
bosyber (@bosyber)
18th October 2016, 5:38
@phylyp the problem for McLaren is that their 2014 car was using a Mercedes engine; their mule honda test car barely ran, remember?
Kansas
17th October 2016, 0:12
yea its unfair, just like mass damper in 2005 & 2006
x303 (@x303)
17th October 2016, 16:46
Mass damper, that illegal aero device…
Todfod (@todfod)
18th October 2016, 7:00
Oh yeah.. the damper. Which was deemed legal in 2005 but suddenly illegal in 2006 when Ferrari was lagging behind
NeoGalaxy (@neogalaxy)
18th October 2016, 7:13
Blame the McLaren guys for the ban.
The duke
17th October 2016, 0:33
Alonso the great! Except when he’s crying!
Thought this guy could drive around any set-back and was worth 6/10ths just for waking up that day?
Robbie (@robbie)
17th October 2016, 13:09
I don’t think FA is ‘crying’ but rather pointing out a fact, but I think the advantage is minimal and they are doing this the best way they can.
SundarF1 (@sundarf1)
17th October 2016, 15:20
Still stuck in 2007 eh?
beneboy (@beneboy)
17th October 2016, 0:57
I wonder how much money could be made from an official F1 esports game ?
Racing games are very popular, and the graphics have got to the point that the viewing experience isn’t that different from real world racing, so it’d be relatively easy to cross sell the sport with the esport. Get the established fans into esport, and the gamer kids into F1.
I’m surprised they’re not offering freemium games for phones and tablets. How many hundreds of thousands of people would be willing to pay for an official team livery for their car ? Or a copy of their favourite driver’s helmet, or the dozens of other little add-ons you find on freemium games ?
An official F1 manager game that runs along side the championship should be a no-brainer too.
SteveR
17th October 2016, 15:24
Surely the teams each own their own copyright to their livery and advertising logos, not CVC. Why can’t a team decide to allow an F1 epsort to use their cars?
CVC is so dense in the way they control their content. My understanding is that track promoters can’t even use any content from F1, including pictures or video, to promote their races. And the way they shut down every small internet clip of a race…… stupid.
Chris (@tophercheese21)
17th October 2016, 1:11
If F1 can embrace SimRacing, rather than spurning it in favour of the arcadey Codemasters Games, then it could finally bring SimRacing out of it’s niche and into the mainstream. Right now, it’s such a small group that really only something like a big motorsport body could rescue, such as F1 or WEC.
The partnership between Gran Turismo and the FIA is a fantastic first step, even though Gran Turismo is not even close to being a “sim”, because it’s getting more eye balls on the premise of virtual motorsport. Heck, even Formula E are embracing it with their drivers (despite the fact they’re using the utterly rubbish MAK Corp mod).
If you go on Youtube and look at some of the league racing that takes place, there is some brilliant racing action! The broadcasts are becoming more and more professional, the cars and tracks are (mostly) all based on real life data (i.e. laserscanning) and sometimes you really have to double check that you are in fact watching a virtual replication of the real thing.
Ronald (@mosquito)
17th October 2016, 18:56
I don’t agree Chris. In my opinion the reaon voor SimRacing is a niche is quite simple: Not very many people are able to complete more than a view laps without damage, even after extensive playing. It’s just to realistic for the mainstream public and an official F1 license would not change a thing about that.
spafrancorchamps
17th October 2016, 23:53
It isn’t realistic at all. Most of the time, those “sims” are harder than driving an actual car.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
17th October 2016, 1:11
@beneboy well, iRacing gives 10000 dollars in cash to the winner of their annual iRacing Grand Prix championship, running the McLaren F1 car. It must be good for them in terms of marketing or whatever to give such amount of money… they also do it for NASCAR and Blancpain endurance championship, but they get sponsorship from NASCAR and Blancpain GT themselves too.
mfreire
17th October 2016, 4:58
BMW built 600 engines in one year- 300 for racing, and 300 for research???? Wow. Talk about commitment.
mfreire
17th October 2016, 4:59
*600 F1 engines
t3x (@t3x)
17th October 2016, 6:37
Where is the prediction championship for last round?
John H (@john-h)
17th October 2016, 7:45
If anyone hasn’t read it yet, I highly recommend Damon Hill’s autobiography (see Keith’s review too). Very complex account of his struggles and successes, not least the battle with his own mind as per the guardian article.
DB-C90 (@dbradock)
17th October 2016, 9:51
To be honest, I doubt testing of the 2017 tyres will make all that much difference.
The drivers will get used to them after about 5 laps in the first “real” testing in 2017 and the cars aero packages will be so different from the mock ups being stuck on the test cars their behaviour will be completely different to any that have been tested at the moment.
Jerejj
17th October 2016, 10:10
All the teams have access to the data from these tyre tests, and yet some still think the participating teams get an advantage.
Lolita
17th October 2016, 10:55
How curious…
When Alonso was indicated for such tests years ago, he never claimed that as an unfair advantage…
Robbie (@robbie)
17th October 2016, 13:14
No of course not, no driver would, but that is probably why he is only calling this ‘a little bit unfair.’ I think he knows this little unfairness is unavoidable.
Phylyp (@phylyp)
17th October 2016, 11:13
Kimi turns 37 today, so FOM compiled this video of various classic radio transmissions by the Iceman: https://www.facebook.com/Formula1/videos/681335578690094/
Me: “Happy birthday, K-”
Kimi: “Leave me alone, I know what I’m doing“
Balue (@balue)
17th October 2016, 14:48
Stefan Johanson: “Pirelli will love the input that Vettel gives them because engineers want as much input as you can possibly provide. And without a shadow of doubt, those tires will be based largely on his input.“
Seems logical and even more of a point when it’s likely that Pirelli knows it’s good for both them and F1 to have Ferrari back at the front..
Robbie (@robbie)
17th October 2016, 16:31
While I don’t doubt some inside F1 would like a change from Mercedes dominating, I don’t see how SV’s input based on blind tire tests would be more helpful than the other drivers’ input from Mercedes and RBR, also blind.
Overall I would think that it would be in Pirelli’s and everyone else’s best interest to have close racing and each race with potentially any one of 6 or 8 drivers who could win on any given weekend, rather than once again it coming down to 2 drivers always, even if they aren’t Mercedes ones.
But who knows. F1 has shown itself in the past as being capable of throwing everything behind Ferrari for MS to compile massive numbers. Just not convinced they need to do that again. Are they going to squelch Max for example, by favouring Ferrari? Like I say, I hope and have been expecting that these big changes for next year are about making people believe again that driving F1 cars is hard and they are performing great feats, and that there is unpredictability as to which team or driver might win with each weekend.
Balue (@balue)
17th October 2016, 14:55
Reading the Mosley interview just gives a sense of relief he is not here anymore. Still out for the manufacturers, and still the ridiculous argument about cost capping without a word about distribution.
Drg
18th October 2016, 12:54
@balue
I so absolutely agree with you.
The man simply cannot get over that he lost that battle, and lost it huge. If he was so clever then pretty much giving them absolute control through the creation of the current regs that meant only they could develop any of the engines was not the smart move of someone that must be listened to before its all too late, was it?
If he thinks Cosworth can pick up that ball and run happily, he must have completely failed to notice how Honda, the company that’s actual defining ethos is engines, have been doing.
His ego is such that he continues to repeat his mantra while failing to realise that
A. No one is listening. No one at all. Ever!
B. He simply and completely fails to understand the nature, size, might and workings of any of the ‘manufacturers’
I am convinced he thinks they are all the size of Ferrari (pre Fiat) and must therefore be in awe of his ‘ big fish – little pond’ demure.
Failing to realise even at his best, he was a microscopic maggot in relation to the political and legal abilities of those in charge at any of the car companies.
What a guy…