2013 tires: about 1.5 seconds per race lap

[mnmracer]

There's a lot of debate about the effect of the more fragile 2013 Pirelli tires on the races. Drivers say they aren't able to really drive flat-out, much to their frustration, instead having to drive to lap delta's. When watching the races, it was also visibly apparent that drivers are not really pushing.

Up to now, making a good time comparison with last year has been difficult because the races were so different. For instance, in Australia and China last year, the race was won from pole -not so this year. The Monaco Grand Prix provided the first real race under somewhat similar circumstances, that would give us a chance to make a possible comparison. Both Mark Webber (2012) and Nico Rosberg (2013) won from pole, looking after their tires for most of the race, with a small gap to the drivers following.

Taking out the safety car laps, the average lap time of Mark Webber in 2012 was 1:20.823, or 108.7% of the pole time.
So in 2012, the average race lap in Monaco could be 108.7% of the pole time.

Taking out the safety car laps, the average lap time of Nico Rosberg in 2013 was 1:21.702, or 110.6% of the pole time.
Rather than being able to race, on average, to 108.7% of the pole time -which would make for an average lap of 1:20.274-, Nico Rosberg was on average 1.5 seconds per lap slower, which doesn't even take into account the free set of fresh tires the drivers got after the red flag, which might work out to possible another tenth or two/three.

This is not meant as a statement about the tires one way or the other, but I thought it was very interesting to be able to quantify the impact of the tire wear.

[bhall]

I'd be interested to see the splits from drivers whose teams have managed to make better use of the tires.

[Richard]

Surely Monaco is the worst place to gather meaningful data?

As Button said, the cars up front were running slow so nobody had a chance to go fast. We saw that with Vettel setting a fastest lap 2 seconds faster than the previous fastest lap.

What happened was that a car famous for destroying its tyres sat at the front and drove slowly to preserve those tyres so they could have a 2 stop strategy. On any normal circuit they would have been passed by the cars that could go faster. The safety cars and red flag further distorted the data.

If you want meaningful data then Barcelona is probably the best race so far. Cars were able to race to their best strategy, some chose 3 stops, some chose 4. Cars passed on track and in the pits. Cars were able to find their optimum pace, we didn't see a slow train stuck behind one car.

[WhiteBlue]

What happened was that a car famous for destroying its tyres sat at the front and drove slowly to preserve those tyres so they could have a 2 stop strategy.

I must have seen a different race then. The window for a 2 stopper was between lap 16 and 25 I have been informed. So it became very clear in lap 25 that both Merc cars were on a 1 stop strategy. The red flag turned that into one more stop using options for the rest of the race. But without the red flag the Mercs would have run from lap 30 or 32 when they pitted on primes to the chequered flag.

[Ral]

What happened was that a car famous for destroying its tyres sat at the front and drove slowly to preserve those tyres so they could have a 2 stop strategy.

I must have seen a different race then. The window for a 2 stopper was between lap 16 and 25 I have been informed. So it became very clear in lap 25 that both Merc cars were on a 1 stop strategy. The red flag turned that into one more stop using options for the rest of the race. But without the red flag the Mercs would have run from lap 30 or 32 when they pitted on primes to the chequered flag.

Same difference. Regardless, they were going slow enough that they could do their chosen strategy.

True their chosen strategy was 1 stop, betting on the fact that if they went slow enough the whole field would bunch up enough that none of the chasing cars would be able to get the undercut. And it worked, too.

But yeah, that makes the data completely useless to compare to last year's race.

[scotty86]

This extract is relevant to this topic, should you agree with the writer or not:

BBC F1 technical analyst Gary Anderson has worked out the winners' average race lap time and the difference between that and his qualifying time, to establish how much slower the driver is going in the race.

The numbers look like this:

2013: 7.57secs

2012: 7.03secs

2011: 8.24secs

2010: 6.67secs

The first thing that strikes you is that the margins between the Pirelli and Bridgestone eras are much smaller than you might imagine from the current complaints.

But then you have to take into account the introduction of the DRS overtaking aid in 2011, and the modifications to its usage for this year. That means subtracting a second from the numbers in 2011-12 and 0.5secs this season, to account for the advantage DRS gives in qualifying.

Do that and the numbers look like this:

2013: 7.07secs

2012: 6.03secs

2011: 7.24secs

2010: 6.67secs

Full article.

Note - i don't necessarily agree with this analysis myself (i do not believe DRS has the stated effect), but it does at least demonstrate within a reasonable window that the deltas from quali to race pace aren't some massive new factor that has suddenly appeared from nowhere.

My personal opinion is that this tyre furore is nothing new, yet it is the focal point for a reason i cannot really understand. Perhaps it is the tyre delaminations - but this is hardly a phenomenon itself, wasn't the 1986 Australian GP (and subsequent WDC) decided in a large part due to that? Plus many more incidents before my lifetime, no doubt.

More points, directly on topic - why are Australia and China deemed irrelevant for comparison based purely on the winner not being on pole? In terms of actual race pace, that is a largely irrelevant factor in pure race pace these days, save for special circumstances, incidentally such as Monaco where overtaking on track is largely impossible.

[raymondu999]

What IMO it DOES show... is that if you give the drivers harder tyres, they'll just stop less, driving at the same "flat out percentage," rather than "stop equal times, but have more pushing"

[Pierce89]

What IMO it DOES show... is that if you give the drivers harder tyres, they'll just stop less, driving at the same "flat out percentage," rather than "stop equal times, but have more pushing"

I have to agree. So it seems that even though the Pirelli's wear out faster and you have to stop more, the drivers are using a very similar proportion of the cars performance since 2010. These figures do seem to contradict those who claim that the drivers pushed a lot harder when they were on the Bridgestones.

[raymondu999]

The obvious caveat here being that if you gave the drivers tyres that were hard enough to last the entire race at that set percentage - then any increase in durability will lead to more pushing.

[amouzouris]

Well...I don't know how Gary came up with those numbers...I did some calculations myself.
In 2010 the average race lap was 6% slower than the qualifying lap. In 2011 and 2013, it is around 9% slower..and in 2012 it was around 10% slower. So, as far as I'm concerned, no one should moan this year if they weren't moaning last year

Edit: I'm talking about the race winners of each race

[amouzouris]

For me, this table summarizes the season so far and why some teams are not happy with the Pirellis while others are...It is quite self-explanatory, I don't think I need to comment further.