Daniil Kvyat, Toro Rosso, Silverstone, 2020

AlphaTauri discover failure which caused Kvyat’s crash

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: AlphaTauri technical director Jody Egginton reveals what led to Daniil Kvyat’s tyre failure and crash in last weekend’s British Grand Prix.

What they say

Kvyat’s right-rear tyre failed before his lap 12 crash. Egginton explained what caused it:

The reason that we were not quick to come forward and say exactly what we thought the issue was, was that Pirelli were doing their analysis in Milan and we were doing our analysis. We’ve come to our conclusion, Pirelli have come to their conclusion, and it fits.

[It was] a rear brake duct we had a problem with. It was degrading and damaged and we had heat migrating to the wrong parts of the brake duct, which then affect heated the rim and that tyre. That got hot and then ultimately that’s what led to the tyre failure.

It took us a few days to arrive at that conclusion because, as you can imagine, there wasn’t much left to look at. Unfortunately is a component degradation which has led to a tyre failure.

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

If Racing Point have had a points deduction, their drivers should too, says @Robbie:

I agree with Zak Brown on the conundrum that the team has been docked 15 points but the drivers not.

I get that the drivers aren’t the ones to be blamed for breaching the sporting regulation on the brake ducts, but still, the constructor points are identical to the combination of both the team’s drivers points, so it seems like it takes a bit of gymnastics to take from one but not the other.

And it would seem the drivers benefitted from brake ducts that should have been designed otherwise.

Happy birthday!

No RaceFans birthdays today

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

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

  • 25 comments on “AlphaTauri discover failure which caused Kvyat’s crash”

    1. Have to agree with @robbie COTD, I accept it is harsh but there is precedence, DanRic’s 2nd in AGP was not allowed to stand due to microseconds of possible excess fuel flow in the first race with such a regulation, due to the teams insistence that the 1st meter supplied (2nd ?) was faulty.
      Of course last year both team and drivers from Ferrari were unsanctioned for a similar but greater violation for many races.

      1. Weren’t both Renault AND Dan Ricciardo disqualified from the Japanese GP over their braking system?

        I can’t see any difference in this case.

        1. in both cases those were technical infringements, meaning the car wasn’t running according to the technical rules, which means DSQ. Here the car is legal, thus no technical infringement, but a sporting one for how the read break ducts were designed – basically, there the FIA is free to choose punishment @hohum @dbradock, which means those comparisons are, technically, invalid.

          Given the verdict seems to credit RP with being open and cooperative in the investigation, but ultimately disagrees with what the team did in designing them, it is less surprising. But, not sure how it will stand when appeals are done.

          1. @bosyber Not both. The Japanese GP-case wasn’t considered a breach in the technical regulations, only sporting.

            1. Oh, must have misremembered that one @jerejj, that does make it more interesting!

      2. @hohum Ricciardo wasn’t disqualified “due to microseconds of possible excess fuel flow” in the 2014 Australian GP – he was disqualified because his peak fuel flow was consistently above that level for the entire race distance.

        Even the data that Red Bull tried to submit in their defence – that of the fuel injection system – only served to confirm that Ricciardo’s car was consistently breaking the fuel flow rules for the whole race.

        1. I’m going to pic this nit, maximum fuel flow is not used for the entire race and I’m not mounting a defence, Dan lost points because the team gave him an illegal car to race. At no stage was the renault power plant the most powerful in the race.

          1. @hohum it would have been any time that Ricciardo’s engine was above 10,500rpm, so it would be any time that he was applying the throttle for an extended period of time – that’s a lot more than “microseconds”. It was also a definite measured excess fuel flow, not just “possibly” exceeding the fuel flow as claimed in your original post.

      3. @hohum Ferrari were never found to have cheated, fia and paddock was certain they had an “interpretation”. the rule is written in such way the fia does not want tricks or “interpretations” on fuel flow.
        renault’s was harsh as brake bias adjustement is pretty much automatic anyway.
        rp’s penalty is not harsh, the reason we are talking about the rear ducts is because they got caught, beyond any doubt. Nobody wanted this to have happened, the fia, rp, merc, no way out of this one, rp didn’t do their homework.
        the team said they designed the car based on photos only to later get caught with a merc rear brake CAD several months after that part became listed. they went a step too far. Haas never claimed what rp claims, tauri goes under the radar, tauri is owned by redbull. Haas and Tauri have had brake duct problems. Haas loses pieces of carbon every corner. With RP you can still see bits of original silver paint on the chassis.

        1. @peartree, Would it have been an “interpretation” if it had been by “Haas” or would it have been cheating ?

          1. @hohum haas? cheating, and banned and clarified. though to me it is the same hence the quotes. there are more “interpretations” out there, not cheating, no clarification just an addedum for future times.

    2. COTD, couldnt have been any more wrong… I am expecting RP to fully appeal, and maybe Mercedes will be dragged into it as well. If Merc testify and confirm it was given in 2018, there is nothing anyone can do! What FIA can only do to be fair, disallow any secondary beneficiaries of the same infringement. If Merc confirm/tesity parts exchanged in 2018, it will be deemed 1000% legal, if they accept the confirmation but still uphold renault’s protest, then everyone who are beneficiaries from previous years with the same logic automatically should be penalized! No ifs and buts… Laws dont apply backwards for crimes today that were not crimes yesterday! Stewards’ decision is wrong, and wont hold waters in a real court, and i expect that will what happen in the near future… If not, Red bull (esp, since their sensor was deemed illegal) and everyone else should apply for banning ferrari’s 17-18-19 results! and force fia to reveal the secret (which at this point not!, as the result speaks for itself)

      1. @mysticus the problem is that RP bought cad drawings from Mercedes but didn’t use those brake ducts in 2019 (when buying brake ducts was legal). Therefore they built brake ducts based on intellectual property of another team in 2020 when the rules say they must be designed by the team or a 3rd party that is not an F1 team.

        The component is technically legal as it fits the technical rules. But using brake ducts designed by anothe F1 team is illegal according to the 2020 sporting regulations.

        The only thing that will/might change is the severity of the punishment.

      2. @mysticus there is nothing to appeal against. they have multiple merc rear brake cads and their rear brake is “based” on the november 2019 cad, several months past the deadline. They had the way out you suggested on the front brake ducts but there was nothing they could concoct in order to throw any doubt on the rears.

        1. You are so sure you are forgetting that cars designs take years and don’t change overnight! They had everything they needed already, stewards confirm, fia didn’t deny them either clearly there were conflicting messages! If they started everything before, how do you make them unlearn everything? Also doesn’t this also apply to all other beneficiaries that were having a sweet time in this area? Since their cars’ brake ducts were coming from partner teams?how do you apply this rule without applying it to whole field… Like haas-ferrari, RB-AT? None of these designed their ducts and the principle of the rule is obvious… It is even more obvious in the ruling: how do you make someone unlearn what they already know?

      3. @woody they didn’t built them in 2020, they used them in 2020. They already had the plans and know-how way before rules applied. That’s what you are maybe confused! The rule is sketchy and fia is clueless at best. It should have said no car can use another f1 racing manufacturer’s designed listed part, from any years… Or stated no sharing is allowed from 2020 from cars designed for 2020! Simple problem solved… It can’t a or b at the same time, it has to either a or b! if a, all beneficiaries has to prove they have designed their own thing and nothing absolutely nothing came from any partner from XYZ year car… If you don’t apply this, you are literally causing a chaos by saying everyone has to u learn what they already know.

        1. u learn->unlearn

    3. But neither did Hamilton and Alonso lose their driver-specific points achieved in 2007 due to the infamous Spygate. Only Mclaren as a team lost their points.

    4. Brake ducts getting some bad press at the moment. Let’s hope they can bounce back for the rest of the season.

      1. Whilst on the topic of break ducks, check these out.

        1. @coldfly, My argument was not about ducks but the goose and the gander, as in what’s good for….

    5. Disagree with CotD, as long as the cars are technically correct then the points should be valid. Also when a driver swaps teams mid season we will not be able to add driver points to get the team points.
      For all I care Toto gives Max a third Mercedes for a few races to keep the pressure on Hamilton in the WDC.
      I’ve always found that notwithstanding the popularity of the drivers championship, it is heavily influenced by the differences in car potential even more so than driver performance. Maybe the smart guys at Amazon Data can find a way to award points on pure driver performance, and create a championship based on that.

    6. Re. the Wolff pic. I think Mercedes were having a laugh yesterday during P2. Senior management left their posts and were wandering round the track and having some fun on scooters amongst other things


    7. Yada Yada Yada, forget all this ^ nonsense. Let’s talk about HHFs rugs, where can I get some of those bad boys?

    8. Perhaps Alpha Tauri should have used the Mercedes brake ducts as well…

    Comments are closed.