Alonso slams 'ridiculous' tyre choice

[John S]

Ferd may just have a point, I know I was suprised by the choice of super soft for the China track. Could have a big affect on Quali as some boys may run very light to try to get track position after a big sprint and an early pit stop.

Oh and from Ferd's remark right at the end I think he has been looking at the Wiz's thread on ideas to help Max cripple F1, I wonder what name he logs on under?

Double world champion Fernando Alonso is 'very worried' about Bridgestone's decision to bring super-soft compounds as the option tyre for this weekend's Chinese Grand Prix, the Spaniard saying it is entirely unsuited to the abrasive nature of the Shanghai circuit.

The Renault driver claims that the use of the tyre makes the drivers 'look ridiculous' because of the time differential between the option and prime rubber - which was as much as six seconds when the super-soft and hard tyres were used in Australia.

"I think it is the worst decision they made in a long time, because it is a ridiculous tyre for here, for Shanghai," he said.

"I don't know if Bridgestone made the decision or the FIA, but they have to reconsider this type of decision because we look ridiculous on television and we look ridiculous for the spectators, and it is a joke to be in front of TV six seconds slower.

"We will need to change the tyres after five or six laps, is our calculation, because this track is harder than Melbourne and there we only did eight or nine laps.

"And if they want to be funny and mix the results and have overtaking, they can do a better job – a funny solution, maybe they can put us on the wet tyres or something. Like this it looks more spectacular – the difference in the speed. I don't know...

"I'm very worried about this and I'm very sad about this, because we look strange in front of people."

Alonso also revealed that the drivers have not been consulted on which tyres should be used, and added that the Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA) expressed their fears over safety on the issue following the Australian Grand Prix, when Robert Kubica and Sebastian Vettel collided while contesting second place.

"We expressed our concerns after Australia, after the accident of Robert Kubica and Sebastian Vettel – it was due to the difference of the speed," he said.

"He (Kubica) tried to overtake, Vettel was not in control of the car with that tyre, you cannot brake, you cannot turn-in, you cannot do anything. And then Robert had a big crash after that because he damaged the car.

"Then we expressed our concerns and now in the third race we have the same tyre at a worse circuit. This is something that we need to change immediately."

Alonso added that he considered both the super-soft and the hard tyres to be unsuited to Shanghai.

"I think the super-soft on this type of circuit with long, high-speed corners... in Turn 1 it will be destroyed and in Turn 10 there will be no more left tyre.

"One will be too hard and one will be too soft. The right tyre is at home! The soft tyre is at home, and this happened in Australia as well. And the understanding that this is for a better show, for overtaking...

"As I said, for a better show, maybe we can pick up our number and then whoever picks up number 15 can put on wet tyres, or whatever, and it is a better show and it's funny. Like this it is not funny."

By Jonathan Noble and Simon Strang, today Autosport.com

[Jericoke]

Maybe I'm not following the right news, this is the first I've heard of the Kubica/Vettel crash being caused by tire selection.

If Alonso's right though (it could happen...), then they really do need to rethink the 2 level tire selection.

[Number 38]

For Jericoke: I was watching live timing at the time of the Vettel / Kucica incident. Vettel was loosing .5 secs per lap to Button, Kubica was gaining 2 sec per lap on Vettel ..... there was little doubt Vettel's tyres were giving up and after the incident he apologized to this team (via radio) "I lost it, I'm sorry."  He tried his best but the two tyre options are a farce and this is the result. A bigger farce is why he got a penalty for what was nothing but a mere racing incident. If this were Sutil and Beumi on lap 16 do you really think there
would have been a penalty? 

[Jericoke]

For Jericoke: I was watching live timing at the time of the Vettel / Kucica incident. Vettel was loosing .5 secs per lap to Button, Kubica was gaining 2 sec per lap on Vettel ..... there was little doubt Vettel's tyres were giving up and after the incident he apologized to this team (via radio) "I lost it, I'm sorry."  He tried his best but the two tyre options are a farce and this is the result. A bigger farce is why he got a penalty for what was nothing but a mere racing incident. If this were Sutil and Beumi on lap 16 do you really think there
would have been a penalty? 

I knew that the tires were slowing Vettel down, I didn't realise there were such severe control issues. 

I was under the impression that the penalty was for running with only three wheels and body work falling off.  (Although isn't that what a black flag is for?)  I don't blame him for doing that, Schumacher got away with it.

[Ian]

For once I find myself actually agreeing with Fernando, hmmm, must make an appointment with the shrink.

[SennaMan]

the real problem to me is having ONE supplier of tyres

b stoooopid idea

[cosworth151]

For once I find myself actually agreeing with Fernando, hmmm, must make an appointment with the shrink.

No worries, Ian. Ferd mouths off so much that he's bound to say something correct evey so often. Even a clock that has stopped is right twice a day! 

[John S]

the real problem to me is having ONE supplier of tyres

b stoooopid idea

I agree in principal SennaMan, but it does make the grid game a little easier for us.

[Jericoke]

the real problem to me is having ONE supplier of tyres

b stoooopid idea

I don't really remember the tire war creating better racing.  One supplier was better than the other, or would focus on one particular scarlet team and the racing became secondary to having the right tire contract.

I would like to see the teams choosing the two compounds, rather than the tire company.  Sure, 9 times out of 10 they'll all pick the same, but sometimes a team will get it right where everyone else is wrong.

[lkjohnson1950]

I say bring all 4 and let the teams decide which 2 work for them. Interestingly, the Brawn seems to be very easy on it's tires. Button seemed to lose the least time on the supersofts in OZ.

Lonny

[Scott]

I say bring all 4 and let the teams decide which 2 work for them. Interestingly, the Brawn seems to be very easy on it's tires. Button seemed to lose the least time on the supersofts in OZ.

The whole point in having only two to choose from was to save transportation costs.  Most teams would be happy being able to choose weeks ahead.

I don't really remember the tire war creating better racing.  One supplier was better than the other, or would focus on one particular scarlet team and the racing became secondary to having the right tire contract.

I would like to see the teams choosing the two compounds, rather than the tire company.  Sure, 9 times out of 10 they'll all pick the same, but sometimes a team will get it right where everyone else is wrong.

No kidding.  I remember one team being able to make a tire that can take a banked curve, another that couldn't, resulting in 6 cars toodling around Indy for a couple of hours, one driver so bored he thought he might change the outcome of the race just for fun.

I remember entire seasons dominated by one tire supplier.  It didn't seem to matter what the engineers did to the cars, if they were on the wrong tires, they may as well call it a day.

Seriously though, I also think the teams should be able to choose the compounds they want to.  Bridgestone's just going to bring what they have the most of in the warehouse. They've already complained that in practice the super-softs are graining badly.

[Dare]

Remember the 60's tires would last several
races.

[Steven Roy]

Forcing cars to run two different compounds was a stupid idea in the first place and the latest modification just made it worse.

You would think someone would point out to Bridgestone that it would be slightly more sensible to put the green lines on the harder tyre instead of the one that is trashed in 5 laps.  I laugh every time we see the cars go into the pits or at the end of the session.  Cars with trashed tyres with green lines to show how environmentally friendly they are and next to the tyre is a basket of solid carbon dioxide to cool the brakes. 

Only in F1 could people be dumb enough to put green stripes on soft tyres to highlight environmental concerns while pouring CO2 into the atmosphere.

[johnbull]

I would have thought that the whole point of having one tyre supplier would be that he produces a cheap, reliable, control tyre that's the same for everyone, and lasts at least one whole race.

The fact that there are multiple tyres defeats the object of having one supplier completely.

If Bridgestone produced one hard compound dry weather slick for everyone and guaranteed that it wouldn't change throughout the season then costs would go down, reliability would go up, we would see more close racing, and everybody would know what's happening.

But that would be too much like common sense.

[lkjohnson1950]

I don't think they can make a tire hard enough to last a whole race without the drivers all whining that they have no grip, and it's dangerous to run slipping and sliding around.

Lonny