Magny-Cours, Pirelli wet weather tyre test, 2024

“Too much rain” scuppers Schumacher’s wet weather tyre test at Magny-Cours

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Pirelli curtailed its planned wet weather tyre test at Magny-Cours due to excessive rain.

In brief

Rain stops test at Magny-Cours

Pirelli’s two-day test at the former French Grand Prix venue began yesterday, but Mick Schumacher was only able to complete 29 laps as rain made conditions too treacherous even for the planned wet weather tyre test. The test is due to continue today with George Russell taking over behind the wheel.

End of Renault’s engine operation “sad” – Grosjean

Former Renault F1 driver Romain Grosjean described the team’s decision to stop producing its own Formula 1 power units as “just sad.” Grosjean made his F1 debut for the team in 2009, then returned to drive for them in 2012, by which time they had been rebranded as Lotus but continued to use Renault engines. He left the team at the end of 2015, by which time they had switched to using Mercedes power units, following which Renault returned to F1 as a full constructor.

McLaren’s Ugochukwu graduates to F3

McLaren development driver Ugo Ugochukwu will graduate to the FIA Formula 3 championship with Prema next year. The 17-year-old from New York, USA won the Euro 4 championship with the team last year but hasn’t taken a race victory so far this year across his appearances in GB3 and the Formula Regional Middle East and European series.

Among his F3 rivals next year will be Mari Boya, who will return to drive for Campos. “Next year will be a tough challenge for everyone, considering the introduction of the new F3 2025 car,” said team principal Adrian Campos. “Therefore, it will be crucial to have talented and experienced drivers who can help understand and develop the car to achieve results as quickly as possible.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from X (formerly Twitter), TikTok and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

Red Bull have faced a lot of criticism for how they handled Daniel Ricciardo’s departure. Michael offers a defence:

Oddly, I am with Horner on this. Red Bull has a driver problem. They have Verstappen and while he’s won three championships, they can’t depend on a single driver who, at any point, could leave. They were hoping to improve their driver line-up by replacing Checo with Daniel and clearly that was not going to happen.

McLaren has two great young drivers, Mercedes has two great drivers and we’ll have to see how Kimi performs. Ferrari has two great drivers.

Red Bull has tried out more drivers than anyone over the past few years and let’s be honest – should they kept Daniel in the RB seat for four to five years like Checo? What’s next? Mazepin replacing Verstappen as the top driver at Red Bull with a 10-year contract alongside Checo?

As for the proper farewell, Horner tried to buy Daniel as much time as he could. You can’t have both – the proper send-off and maximum time.

Sadly, Daniel only has himself to blame. He could have been alongside Max at Austin – Red Bull would have made that happen had he proved to be faster and more consistent than Checo.

Horner gave him a second chance that most drivers would never have gotten, including Vettel.
Michael (@Freelittlebirds)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Scribe, Stacy and Silfen!

On this day in motorsport

  • 70 years ago today Stirling Moss won the non-championship ‘Daily Telegraph’ Trophy race at Aintree in a Maserati 250F ahead of Mike Hawthorn in a Vanwall.

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.

32 comments on ““Too much rain” scuppers Schumacher’s wet weather tyre test at Magny-Cours”

  1. Re: COTD

    You can’t have both – the proper send-off and maximum time.

    Not that I am personally that bothered about this scenario, but I am unsure how making this statement makes it true?

    1. Agree. Nobody is really saying he should have had the rest of the year in the car. It’s that they knew it was his last race before it but didn’t make it public/let him know before it

    2. Yup. The statement makes no sense. COTD choices have been pretty weak lately with most of them seeing to have been selected for whether they align with RF narratives.

      The move to give Lawson races this season makes sense if a) they’re taking the idea of gauging him as a replacement for Perez, which I highly doubt or b) they’re seeing if he fails big time and should put in one of their much better junior prospects in the team next year, which I find a lot more likely. But, in either case, they could have done both while also giving DR a proper send off (IE, it being clear it was his last race).

      It’ll have proven to be an especially poor decision if it ends up costing them 6th place in the WCC and based on their TP constantly complaining about lack of budget, $ from prize results is an important factor for RB.

  2. Red Bull would have made that happen had he proved to be faster and more consistent than Checo

    Come now, I think both Torro Rosso drivers proved they are more consistent and faster than Checo. It’s politics, marketing, finances, whatever… But this decision isn’t based on merit, in the slightest.

    Horner can paint it that way all he wants, but if you’re believing anything that guys saying, you’re not paying attention.

    Helmut was trying to get Horner himself out of the team, let’s not forget. It’s really not that stretch of an imagination to think he would axe Horner’s favourite driver out of spite.

    1. The decision is definitely merit-based, given this matter is about a big organization, even if Red Bull mightn’t be as free with cash as they used to be in the Mateschitz days.
      Red Bull’s apparent reluctance to promote Tsunoda is clearly about Honda’s future departure as their PU supplier, even if his height might also have an impact from what I’ve been told.
      Lawson’s inexperience, on the other hand, makes him a risky option, & Ricciardo has been unable to show he’d be an improvement on Checo, which makes his previously committed drive beyond this season safe.

      1. The decision is definitely merit-based

        Red Bull’s apparent reluctance to promote Tsunoda is clearly about Honda’s future departure as their PU supplier

        Pick one.

        1. 100%, Tristan. The only reason Perez wasn’t replaced by either is because he brings sooooo much money. Otherwise, he’s gone. And there’s obviously a sweet spot they’re looking for, which = not as good as Sainz, but not as awful as Perez. So, this isn’t purely about merit at all.

      2. Tsunoda did better than ricciardo at toro rosso (“torro” is not a word in italian), so in my view they couldn’t promote ricciardo cause there was a driver who did a better job in the same car that they also deemed not good enough to go to red bull.

        Now, the relative performance of at least tsunoda was surely better than perez, considering the car they had, however many drivers did fine in toro rorro, and then were unable to perform at red bull, such as albon and gasly.

        Maybe ricciardo, given his past performances at red bull, would’ve done better if they had given him a chance, but they considered it too risky, given his performance level ever since leaving renault.

        1. @esploratore1 Fully agreed.
          Giving Ricciardo a chance over Tsunoda would be contradictory based on relative performance levels, while the former’s apparent difficulty of getting used to modern GE-cars makes him a risky option for Red Bull Racing.

      3. ops, rosso* was what I meant in the 2nd paragraph.

  3. Well, that is a clear test result of those wet weather tires if you can’t use them in the wet. And why are we still dealing with Mick? I think it is better to be clear towards him and not create false hope.

    1. I agree as he doesn’t stand a realistic full-time return chance anymore.

      1. notagrumpyfan
        2nd October 2024, 8:55

        What’s wrong with sending a reserve/test driver to a test??
        He is not the first, and won’t be the last, reserve/test driver who will never start in an F1 race (again).

    2. Where does it say the test was stopped because of the wet weather tires? Formula 1 cars themselves do not work with too much water on track.

      Weird comment about Schumacher. Should it not have been mentioned who was driving at the test?

      1. There is indeed nothing wrong with mentioning him. I am questioning whether it is a good idea to have Mick perform the testing.

        1. Being a test/reserve driver is a normal, traditional job in F1; even if the role changed with times (more simulator, less on-track experience).
          What you maybe not know is that is it a very well paid job (with top teams for sure), and sought after. Maybe there is hope in his mind (and why not, you never know, really), but he also needs a job and purpose in life. Maybe he prefers this over whatever comes next, like driving in Formula E, or having some regular career (without any diploma, I assume, only name).

          1. Dex Even if being a test/reserve driver is a well-paid & sought-after job, drivers should still know better than to stick doing such a role forever when they clearly aren’t going to receive another full-time chance anymore, which is even more applicable to Vandoorne in comparison.
            He especially would be better off focusing 100% on other active racing instead of keeping any link to F1 via his reserve role at Aston Martin.
            At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if he were still in that role in 2030.

      2. Surely that’s implied? Mick has the track alone for himself, perfect visibility since there is no spray from other cars, and still it’s too treacherous on those Pirelli’s to cruise around the track at half speed.

    3. Clearly those test were Inters as this was great for F1 to test real wet tyres…. So if it’s too Wet those tyres fail instant if you can’t drive with it.

      1. Yes, they should’ve swapped to the full wets since conditions are rarely suitable for those tyres.

    4. Well, that is a clear test result of those wet weather tires if you can’t use them in the wet.

      While it’s a pretty akward headline, it’s also not that bad.

      One of the problems Pirelli has had is the big gap between their wet tyres and intermediate tyres, whereas the intermediate tyres can be run quite competitively until conditions are suitable for slicks. The F1 teams, in their infinite wisdom, are prone to ditch the wet tyres because they “too slow”, and drivers then spin out because the conditions are not actually suitable for intermediate tyres. Then they complain. That’s why we get all these endless SC periods that end in drivers switching to intermediate tyres the second the SC comes in.

      By bringing the wet tyres closer to the intermediate tyres, Pirelli necessarily sacrifices some of the wet weather performance, and the tyres can no longer be used in really wet conditions. Every tyre design is a compromise, after all.

      1. F1 used to have monsoon tyres.
        No use making them nowadays though since the stewards would never allow the race to start.

        1. True enough, and Pirelli’s wets have tended to be closer to those.

          The main issue with wet weather racing is the spray, and the inability of F1 teams to tough it out on wet tyres until it’s ‘dry’ enough for intermediates. Instead they change early, cause problems, and then the FIA feels it has to intervene because for whatever reason F1 has gotten the idea that having 10 cars retire from a race must never happen.

    5. Him driving is almost certainly down to Lewis and George likely not wanting to be there rather than stringing Mick along. As long as his technical feedback is good, that is all they will care about. Testing tires doesn’t require great speed.

  4. Perhaps Circuit Nevers Magny-Cours isn’t the best option even for wet-weather testing at this time of year.

  5. News at 11: people who lose their job due to underperforming think that they should keep their jobs.

    Seriously: while having more engine manufacturers would be nice, Renault has underperformed with their engines, so it’s understandable that they switch to another manufacturer.

  6. Results of the wet weather tyre test: Our wet tyres dont work in the wet. We need to develop better ones.

  7. Was the wet weather test sponsored by MSC Cruises?

    1. Wow, I never knew that was Mick’s cruise liner company. That kid is a dynamo.

  8. Pretty embarrassing that F1 can’t even run wet tires on empty track where spray isn’t an issue. I really fear for F1’s future. Maybe MBS can F1. After all, he’s done a heroic job “running F1” as he’s told us himself.

    1. Jonathan Parkin
      2nd October 2024, 19:34

      Although to be fair, the only time it rained substantially at Magny Cours in F1 was in 1999. The SC was out for 11 laps which would remain the record for a SC period until the 2007 Japanese GP

  9. That headline reads like one from The Onion.

Comments are closed.