Lando Norris, McLaren, Shanghai International Circuit, 2019

Hard to judge how much tyre-saving to do in F1 – Norris

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Lando Norris says judging how much tyre-saving to do is harder in practice than it is in races.

What they say

RaceFans asked Norris how different real F1 races are to simulations:

I think the hard thing in the practice and pre-season testing and everything is knowing how much to push and not to push. Especially for my first time doing a race sim in Barcelona, knowing how hard to push with a full tank of fuel, tyres that drop off a lot both in wear but also thermally, it’s always hard to judge. Sometimes you have loads of tyre deg and you think ‘oh no, this is going to be terrible’.

When you’re in a race you obviously gauge yourself much more of others drivers around and it’s easier to know what they’re doing and what you have to do to make changes and save the tyres more, save they tyres less. So it is very different.

As a whole experience the pressure is on a lot more. It’s what counts on the Sunday, rather than pre-season testing [where] you can do a lock-up, a little mistake, it’s like ‘that’s nothing’. But if you do it on Sunday you lose a place or you have to box for a flat-spot or something like that, then it’s a much bigger problem. So altogether it’s a lot more pressure, you have to think about a lot more things when it comes to the race itself rather than in pre-season when it’s a bit more relaxed.

Quotes: Dieter Rencken

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

Instead of making either combustion or electric engines mandatory, should F1 try to find parity between different power units?

I have an idea… maybe a dream. Why not open the regulations and that the teams could decide which type of power unit they want?.

Like formerly when you can try between aspirated 3.0-litre engines and 1.5-litre turbos. That formula was very advantageous for the aspirated engines in the beginning, but when some teams set out to investigate and develop the turbos, they managed to surpass the performance of the aspirates.

I think to try to replicate that formula, making a regulation that is advantageous for the petrol engines but leaving a space for electric innovation is a (expensive) good idea.
Dani B Molina (@Esmiz)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Fixy, Kaylee911, Tracy Brockman, Tracy and Thomas Krol!

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

  • 30 years ago today Ayrton Senna beat McLaren team mate Alain Prost to pole position at Imola by 0.2 seconds, the next-closest car 1.4s adrift.

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 RaceFans Round-upTags , , ,

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

  • 9 comments on “Hard to judge how much tyre-saving to do in F1 – Norris”

    1. I can’t help but disagree with Scarbs. When the majority of transport is based on Electric drive maybe, but currently if you want to watch FE the option is there, I respect the technology but there is nothing like explosion powered motion.

    2. On COTD, it would be great for engineers, but we would end up with a situation that is far worse than what we had in 2014. One manufacturer is likely to get things right more so than the others, and it wouldn’t surprise me if we had a team that was 2-3 seconds clear of everyone else, and the field will be massively spread out. Perhaps some people who enjoyed the 60s and 70s may enjoy that spectacle, but I personally say “no thanks” to that.

    3. Regarding the COTD: An interesting idea, which mightn’t be too bad if it were applied although how easy would it be to achieve in reality vs., in theory, that’s a different story.

    4. COTD….

      The reason they don’t do that is because recent history shows that one configuration always proves the best & that while you initially get different approaches once the best one becomes clear everyone moves towards that.
      For example with the 3.5/3.0ltr N/A format from 1989-2005 you initially had a good mix of V8/V10/V12’s but eventually the V10 become the obvious best balance so everyone moved towards that by the end of the 90’s.

      In locking down the formula the hope was/is that it avoids the expense of engine suppliers spending millions going down the wrong direction & then having to spend further millions shifting to the right one & then catching up.
      The other aim was to try & have some level of performance parity without having to resort to any sort of performance balancing. Remember that in the 90’s it wasn’t uncommon to see the likes of Minardi running V8’s that were as much as 100hp (At times more) down on the V10’s.

    5. We can only hope that Formula E is not going to race in the traditional track too soon.
      When they did, F1 would be obsolete.

      1. @ruliemaulana How so? Performance wise, Formula E is more comparable to Formula 3.

        1. And thats in free fall.

    6. That hillclimb looks great!

      1. Yeah, @rethla! Pretty dangerous, eh. If he clipped any one of those corners…

    Comments are closed.