Viva F1

How Much Did Mercedes Really Learn Testing for Pirelli?

Mav — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:57:43 +0000

How much could Mercedes really have learned from their day testing with Pirelli at the Circuit de Catalunya? Nico Rosberg today reiterated that Mercedes learned nothing from the test and that Pirelli had complete control of the running. Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber, on the other hand, insist that the test will have been a “big help.” So what’s the truth?

The argument would seem to revolve on the conditions of the test. Under normal testing conditions, Mercedes would be free to try whatever components they wished, changing the set-up to optimise performance and run whatever sensors they deemed necessary to maximise what they learn from the test – vis-flow paint, air rakes, the works. However, at the opposite end of the scale is a situation akin to a race – the car can only undergo minimal changes from how it lines up on the grid, the sensors are stripped back to the bear minimum. Accordingly, the data that can be derived is minimised.

However, Pirelli and Mercedes insist that the test went even further than that, namely that Pirelli dictated how the test was run and what tyres were fitted at any time, tyres which Mercedes could not identify. 1000 km of testing sounds a lot, especially when expressed in terms of “just over three race distances” but with two cars running, Mercedes had already done a similar distance over the Spanish Grand Prix weekend. If, and it is an if, the conditions had been controlled by Pirelli as they suggest, would Mercedes have actually learned far more in the three days prior to the test?

Of course, Red Bull’s drivers may be right. It’ll probably be hard for the FIA investigation to prove but Mercedes could have been running a full test programme within Pirelli’s. In which case, it may have been a much more productive day. They might have tested aerodynamic updates, they might have tried set-up changes in order to try to iron out their tyre wear issues – and victory in Monaco of all places is far from a sign that they have done just that – and they might have been able to test new mechanical components. They might even have been able to test ideas focussed entirely on their 2014 car and moreover, Pirelli could have been oblivious to it happening.

However, after last year’s in-season test at Mugello, Red Bull’s Christian Horner said of the three days, “It’s very beautiful and the food is very good, but we are spending a lot of money and honestly we didn’t feel the need to come here.” Lotus boss Eric Boullier described the test at which the 11 teams covered a distance equivalent to 43 races distances as “money spent needlessly” while a senior Mercedes engineer told Gazzetta dello Sport, “I wonder about the sense of having just one test session during the season. Either we do more tests or we forget it.” Jenson Button even dismissed the value of the test before it took place with McLaren sending their test drivers.

Admittedly, the Mugello circuit was not entirely representative of the calendar. However, consider that the teams, able to run whatever testing programme they wished, deemed the benefits to be so minimal that they decided not to have an in-season test this year. A year which has been shorted by a race, freeing up space for just such a test. So how much would Mercedes really have learned from a test out of their control, using tyres that may, or may not, be used next year? Based on Horner’s assessment of last year’s test, the answer would seem to be a lot less than Red Bull would now like to suggest.

Whether Mercedes and Pirelli should have been using a current car for testing is likely to come down to a battle of semantics between themselves and the FIA but as for the question of whether Mercedes benefited, it would seem that the International Tribunal could have its work cut out in proving guilt.

Image: Mercedes AMG

Monaco GP: Tyre and Pit Stop Strategy

saltire — Mon, 27 May 2013 14:24:31 +0000

Mercedes finally made good on their qualifying promise to claim the teams’ maiden win of the season. A flawless drive from pole to chequered flag saw Nico Rosberg take the second win of his career, finishing ahead of Vettel and Webber who took the remaining podium positions. This was a race where safety car intervention and tyre strategy played an equal role in the final result.

As always, there are winners and losers when a safety car is deployed; the timing the the first, just after the initial round of planned stops, was crucial in determining the final result. Indeed, with overtaking proving difficult at this circuit, Hamilton’s drop from second to fourth saw the top four order fixed until the end.

In terms of durability, there seemed little to choose between the compounds on offer with most opting for a one stopper; Vergne managed a 38 lap stint with the supersoft whilst Di Resta drove one lap less on the softs.

Click image to enlarge

Consequences of Pirelli Backing Down

Mav — Tue, 14 May 2013 21:46:35 +0000

Criticism from certain teams plus growing complaints from some sections of the media and fans have led Pirelli to announce that they will change the tyres from the Canadian Grand Prix onwards. The new range is set to combine elements from the 2012 and 2013 tyres with the aim of having both durability and performance but what will the real consequences of the change be?

The fear (or hope depending on whose side you take) is that those teams that have best mastered the delicate balancing act of managing their tyres, notably Lotus and Ferrari, will lose their advantage. It’s precisely what Red Bull, and to a certain extent Mercedes, have been lobbying for. There is also potential to mix up the midfield too while also tipping the balance in the private battle between Caterham and Marussia towards one or the other.

Red Bull have been particularly vocal about how they haven’t been able to fully exploit the potential of their aerodynamic prowess and the big worry is that the Austrian outfit could disappear into the sunset. It’s almost ironic that after years of fans complaining that F1 should have less reliance on aerodynamic grip and lean more towards mechanical grip that having made a step in that direction, Pirelli could be being pressured in to back tracking by the very same people.

At Mercedes, the effect may not be so obvious and mixed messages have been coming out of the Silver Arrows. Niki Lauda was highly critical of the tyre situation but other members of the team have been more circumspect. It could be that the team has been quietly lobbying in the background, however, I suggest that not for the first time this year, Lauda and the rest of Mercedes have been on completely different wavelengths. Consider that in Spain, Nico Rosberg only three-stopped – hardly the sign of a team struggling to look after its tyres. It seems that Mercedes’ problems are much more complex than simply a tyre issue, as illustrated by their strong qualifying and late race pace. Consequently, tyre changes may not be any benefit to Mercedes – the recent tweak to the hard tyre probably played against them. This is because they have one of the most underdeveloped coanda exhausts of the front runners and therefore Mercedes’ qualifying performance has been based more on improved mechanical grip rather than aerodynamic.

On the other hand, there is a good argument that having adapted to the 2013 tyres the quickest, Lotus and Ferrari may adapt to the new range just as quickly and Red Bull may get more than they bargained for. After all, it wasn’t until half-way through 2012 that Red Bull started to show their form.

“With limited testing time, it’s clear now that our original 2013 tyre range was probably too performance-orientated for the current regulations. However, having identified this issue, we’re determined to rapidly resolve it. We developed the 2013 tyres on the basis of careful simulations that were, however, not sufficient, taking into account the improved speed of cars (up to 3 seconds per lap).”

Paul Hembery, Pirelli

However, modifying the tyres will not be straightforward – for starters it is far from simple as going back to the 2012 tyres. Pirelli increased the weight of the tyres for this season, with the cars undergoing a corresponding increase in the minimum weight – those weights are now locked into Formula One’s regulations. Moreover, changing the shape of the tyre is problematic as all the teams have designed their aerodynamics around the current tyres.

Spain provided a particularly telling example of the challenge faced in changing the tyres when a new development hard tyre proved to be almost 2.5 seconds off the pace, with very poor warm up. Now Pirelli are being expected to turn up in Canada with new tyres that will do the job straight off with no testing, even free practice in the next race isn’t an option given the peculiar demands of Monaco. Two weeks later, they’ll be at Silverstone – an entirely different circuit in terms of tyre demands. If some people think the current tyres are bad, it’s nothing compared to what could potentially turn up at a Grand Prix near you this June.

The ultimate consequence may yet concern the continued participation of Pirelli in Formula One as, having delivered what Formula One asked for and then being berated for it, you couldn’t blame them for considering whether they really want to refresh their contract with the sport. It’s a big issue because if there is one thing Formula One could do with in 2014 as it introduces new powertrains, it is continuity in tyre supplier in order to provide as smooth a transfer as possible.

Whatever the consequences though, it is clear that fundamental changes part way through a season should have been avoided.

In a season were teams are weighing up when to switch focus to next year’s car and the major rule changes it will face, we may just find 2013 written off sooner than we ever imagined.

Credit: Pirelli Tyres

Red Bull Gives You Whines

Mav — Mon, 13 May 2013 11:45:39 +0000

Red Bull owner, Dietrich Mateschitz is the latest to wade into the Pirelli discussion after watching Sebastian Vettel struggle to a fourth place finish in Spain. According to Autosport, the Red Bull boss was locked in a 45 minute private discussion with Bernie Ecclestone and then followed this up with scathing comments about Pirelli’s tyres.

“This has nothing to do with racing anymore,” complained Mateschitz. “This is a competition in tyre management…. Under the given circumstances, we can neither get the best out of our car nor our drivers.”

Helmut Marko even played the safety card: “I wonder when tyre failures will result in severe accidents.”

However, let’s get this right. Red Bull is NOT being hindered by high degrading tyres. What it is being hindered by is by THEIR CAR degrading its own tyres. There is a distinct difference.

Indeed, there is little truth to the teams “having to tiptoe” around the track. Fernando Alonso’s winning race time was only 7 seconds off last year’s winning time. Sebastian Vettel’s race time was 20 seconds QUICKER that in 2012! He was quicker in China too. The way Red Bull have been telling it, you would have thought we’d been running foul of the two-hour race limit. Funnily enough, the race that was slower was Bahrain – Vettel’s winning time was around one minute slower than the time he won the race in in 2012, or some one second a lap, and yet Red Bull were not complaining after Bahrain. I wonder why?

Go back further to 2011 and Vettel was the victor in that year’s Spanish Grand Prix. The winning strategy? A four-stopper. Yet where were the Red Bull complaints about having to make so many pit stops that time around?

Anyway, if all these teams are really so intent to drive flat-out, how come we keep seeing them fuel saving because they have not put enough juice in to get to end of the race at full throttle? Just a few races ago Red Bull were demanding that Vettel hold station behind a fuel-saving Mark Webber – talk about not being able to drive to their full potential!

Lotus are using the exact same tyres but they’re not complaining. Nor are Ferrari. Mercedes, who you might think would have more to complain about, are busy putting their heads down and trying to work out what they’re doing differently from the others.

Red Bull, however, are intent on changing the sport to suit them, rather than adapting to the sport. All they’re achieving is sounding like bad losers.

And Formula One cannot give in to their demands without losing all credibility, so give it rest will you boys.

Credit: Pirelli Tyres

Spanish GP: Tyre and Pit Stop Strategy

Mav — Sun, 12 May 2013 20:23:03 +0000

Another strategy driven race, this time it was Ferrari and Fernando Alonso who surprised many with a four-stop race which allowed them to push the tyres to their limits and comfortably hold-off the three-stopping Lotus of Kimi Raikkonen.

In the end, most adopted a four-stopper, although it didn’t look like all planned to do so at the start of the day, partly as the first set of tyres went off so quickly. Alonso’s first stint set the tone for the rest of his race but Sebastian Vettel appeared to be caught between trying to switch to a 4-stopper and not having done the early laps to really make it work and compete with Raikkonen.

The question now is how Ferrari’s victory will impact on strategies for the rest of the season and whether other teams will look to take a more aggressive approach to the challenge posed by Pirelli.

Click image to enlarge

Falling Out of Love with Pirelli?

Mav — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:34:30 +0000

Go back to 2011 and everyone seemed to be in love with Pirelli. It was a season that featured entertaining race after entertaining race, for the first half of the year at least, even if the championship itself failed to live up to their heights. Now, four races into their third season since returning to Formula One, the relationship seems to have cooled, with a growing group criticising the tyre supplier. So what has changed?

The main change in the past three years has been a shift from a pair of tyre compounds where one offered a distinct pace advantage to a situation where one presents a distinct disadvantage in terms of degradation. It’s a subtle difference because the prime tyre has always (for the most part) been the slower but more durable of the two compounds supplied each weekend.

Think back to 2011 – a season dominated by the use of the softer of the two compounds to the point where it felt the terms “prime” and “option” were allocated the wrong way round. The reason was that the advantage in pace of the softer, option tyre outweighed the shorter lifetime, which was occasionally negligible. At any rate, it was not enough to dissuade teams from making an additional pit stop for fresh, fast tyres. The racing was often spectacular, occasional chaotic but there were mumblings that a closer balance between and pace and durability was needed, in order to present a true choice of strategy rather than simply trying to reduce the impact of having to run the slower, prime tyre.

2012, however, probably saw that balance swing too far as the prime tyre now became the de facto compound of choice. With much more rapid tyre degradation, accompanied by a steep drop off in performance at the end of a tyre’s useful life, preserving tyres became more crucial than outright pace. Indeed, in the race there was often little difference in pace between compounds as drivers fought to extend their stint on the softer, option compound as far into the race as possible.

This year, that situation, for the first three races at least, seems to have been pushed even further. In China in particular, the allocated soft compound was little more than a qualifying tyre – Lewis Hamilton switched to the harder tyre after just five laps of the race, Mark Webber made a tactical decision to ditch his brand new set at the end of the first lap!

That prompted a late change of mind by Pirelli for Bahrain. Originally announcing that the soft and hard compounds in their range would be available, the Italian company switched to a combination of medium and hard. It was a move that was widely criticised, with conspiracies flying around that they’d been pressured in to the switch by one team or another, depending on who you listened to.

However, in the end, Pirelli’s decision was probably borne out by the result: a predomination of three-stop strategies, punctuated by some careful drives via two trips to the pit lane and some unplanned fourth stops for others. Moreover, there was notably variation in how the two compounds were used, which performed much more closely. It was approaching the scenario we wanted – note Romain Grosjean overhauling Paul di Resta late in the race thanks to the option tyre – but also suggested that the soft compound would have once again been too soft. It wasn’t perfect but from a tyre perspective an improvement on the situation in Shanghai, especially bearing in mind that Bahrain isn’t exactly famed for its thrilling races anyway.

So what can Pirelli do to improve things? From an entertainment point of view, Pirelli should have nothing to answer for, it’s certainly less artificial than DRS which has generally been accepted. However, Pirelli need to close the gap between being held back by a slow tyre, as in 2011, and the more recent need to tiptoe around the track, in order to open up both strategies as an option, or at least make it less clear which is the optimum route. However, one key hurdle, as Pirelli likes point out, is that they only have four compounds to play with.

However, the main thing to remember is that whatever the behaviour of the tyres, the racing has been vastly improved since Bridgestone’s monopoly of the sport. Perhaps we should be more grateful for what we have.

Credit: Pirelli Tyres

Bahrain GP: Tyre and Pit Stop Strategy

Mav — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:46:16 +0000

A fairly straight forward win for Sebastian Vettel saw all the interesting stuff happening behind him – sound familiar? Adopting the favoured strategy of three stops for hard tyres after starting out on the medium compound, it was interesting to note that the next four finishers all deviated from this approach…

Kimi Raikkonen’s run to second was by way of a controlled drive of just two stops as the Lotus driver stayed out on his initial stint on the medium tyres for an impressive 16 laps. Force India’s Paul di Resta followed suit to nearly clinch the final podium spot but was pipped at the end by Romain Grosjean. Raikkonen’s underfire team mate made the most gains of the day, 8 places from his grid position, in a race of two halves – the first two stints on the hard before switching to the pacier mediums for the last two, a decision which allowed him to chase and pass di Resta. Meanwhile, Lewis Hamilton went the opposite way around – two stints on the options before finishing with two stops for the prime compound on the way to fifth.

That said, despite the mix of strategic approaches, the finishing order owed plenty to the more routine blend of misfortune, unreliability and careless driving.

Click image to enlarge

So what to make of Pirelli’s decision to supply their medium compound after originally scheduling the soft tyre as partner to the hard tyre? It was certainly a contentious move, with some thinking it would favour particular teams, but in the end it probably proved justified given the mix of strategies it resulted in. Three-stops as the norm was a sensible target, suggesting that Pirelli may have originally overestimated the suitability of the current soft tyre for Bahrain. Moreover, Lotus and Force India probably gained from the switch by being able to make one less pit stop – an option denied them in Malaysia where the soft tyre suffered so badly.

Chinese GP: Tyre and Pit Stop Strategy

Mav — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:49:35 +0000

A masterful victory from Fernando Alonso kept him out of the strategic battles going on behind and, at points in the race, around him. Taking the projected approach to the race of a three-stopper after starting on the soft tyre compound, the Ferrari driver took control of the race after coming out ahead of pole-sitter Lewis Hamilton in the first round of pit stops.

Meanwhile, Sebastian Vettel was one of a small group of drivers who kept the soft compound back to the end of the race, when the car was at its lightest. The world champion made up five places from the start, although given he sacrificed grid position by qualifying on the slower, medium tyre it is questionable how effective the tactic was in reality, even if it produced a dramatic finale. That said, Paul di Resta and Valtteri Bottas also made up places while taking the same approach.

McLaren, however, turned to a two-stop strategy, with Jenson Button converting it to a fifth-place finish, an improvement of three-places from the start. That was probably a better finish than McLaren would have hoped for although he certainly gained from the timing of Nico Rosberg and Felipe Massa’s first pitstops – the former having to queue behind his team mate and the latter waiting one more lap because of his but the result in both cases being a exit down the field, in traffic. The fact that Rosberg subsequently retired was irrelevant to Button.

Click image to enlarge

Tough At The Top

Mav — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:30:04 +0000

Much has been written about the Malaysian Grand Prix but really, one man’s unchivalrous pass is simply other man’s ruthless desire to win. In many ways what bothered me more about Sebastian Vettel’s weekend was his performance after the race – Oscar winning it was not. However, it was events on the pitwall that most fascinated me – all-in-all, it was not a great week to be a team principal.

The week started with Martin Whitmarsh underfire for McLaren’s poor start to the season, allied to a general sense of underachievement since he took over the reigns. However, as Red Bull threatened to go into melt down, the focus quickly shifted elsewhere.

Despite Red Bull’s undoubted success, Christian Horner has often looked weak when push-comes-to-shove. Vettel and Webber’s tangle in Turkey in 2010 was embarrassing enough for the team but what stood out most from that weekend was how badly Horner handled it – initially blaming the Australian, later apportioning equal(ish) blame but never pointing the finger at Vettel for doing exactly what Horner was anxious to avoid in Malaysia.

However, this time, Horner completely lost control. Not only did Vettel ignore his orders to hold station – and telling the three-time champion not to be silly was a pitiful enforcement of his power – but Horner then opted not to order the German to give the position back because, as Horner said: “do you honestly think that if we had told him ’slow down and give the place back’, he would have given it back?” So who is in charge of the team? Horner or Vettel?

Contrast Horner with Ross Brawn. After Lewis Hamilton suggested to the Mercedes team boss that he should have let team mate Nico Rosberg past, Brawn reportedly said “absolutely not. When I tell you this is what I want you to do, you have to stick by it.” Of course, that all sounds a little too much like a carefully crafted dig at their Red Bull rivals. It’s also probable that Vettel would have not held position if he’d been in Rosberg’s seat but, and this is the main difference, Brawn’s reaction could be expected to have been tougher. On Sunday, Brawn made it abundantly clear that he is charge and what he says, goes.

Except the saga didn’t end there. Other parts of the Mercedes management didn’t agree with Brawn – Niki Lauda, ever the combative racer, told German television channel RTL that “they should have let him (Rosberg) go. We need to talk to Ross, if this is the strategy to be used from now on.” Yes Niki, you should talk to Ross if that’s the way you feel, only don’t do it via the press. Toto Wolff was also critical although he at least had the good grace to backtrack on his public comments.

Really, Mercedes and Red Bull find themselves in a similar situation. Horner and Brawn are the team principals in name but with Wolff, Lauda and Helmut Marko constantly hovering around the fringes, the reality is not so clear cut. Ron Dennis’ unique mark remains on McLaren but Martin Whitmarsh is clearly his own man. At Williams, the buck stops firmly with Sir Frank. Red Bull, meanwhile, have constantly fallen foul of Marko’s pronouncements. Mercedes are already showing signs, as feared, of following suit…

Credit: Red Bull Racing/Vladimir Rys

Malaysian GP: Tyre and Pit Stop Strategy

Mav — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:54:33 +0000

A controversial race in Malaysia saw the drivers start out on the intermediate compound. However, once the track started to dry out and the teams switched to slicks after a few laps, it produced a wide range of strategies with a further three stops the preferred route to the chequered flag.

However, how the drivers used their allocation of medium and hard tyre compounds over those four stints varied considerably. That said, in Malaysia at least, the tyre compounds proved disappointingly similar, both for durability and pace. The medium tyre was only slightly quicker but perhaps quick enough to wonder if a lot of grief may have been avoided if Mark Webber only hadn’t finished the race on the hard compound.

Lotus were once again the prime adopters of a “two” stop-strategy (setting aside the brief intermediate stint.) Both drivers’ long final stint, however, proved no more effective than Felipe Massa’s equivalent run on two sets of tyres.

Click image to enlarge

Hamilton versus Rosberg and Seatbelts

Viva F1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:03:01 +0000

In the first of a series of Grand Prix Insights, Mercedes AMG engineer Aldo Costa demonstrates seatbelt technology. Meanwhile, Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg go head-to-head in a friendly competition to settle the question: “who really is faster?” although a stewards inquiry may be in order.

After The Dust Has Settled Down Under

Mav — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:09:56 +0000

In the end, the Australian Grand Prix didn’t turn into the Red Bull dominated affair that many feared after being the runaway stars of Sunday’s delayed qualifying shoot-out. Kimi Raikkonen and Lotus F1 took firm control of the race while Ferrari possibly should have had both drivers ahead of Sebastian Vettel rather than just Fernando Alonso. But what does this mean for the season ahead?

A closer look at second free practice shows that the race pace of Lotus and Ferrari shouldn’t have come as a complete surprise. While Vettel was stealing the headlines with some blisteringly quick laps, others around him were quietly putting in some long stints. Allowing for traffic interrupting their track time, Ferrari and Lotus looked like the pick of the teams on long runs – not only fast but putting in notably long stints to boot, hinting at better tyre preservation. The proviso to that assessment was that Vettel was largely content to focus on short, one- or two-lap runs for the most part, making Red Bull’s pace hard to predict, although team mate Mark Webber wasn’t showing signs of maintaining his pace. Meanwhile, there were already hints that McLaren would not be keeping up with their rivals come the race.

However, how that picture feeds into the next few races is harder to predict. The twisty Albert Park circuit isn’t that similar to the subsequent tracks at the best of times – throw in low temperatures, heavy rain clearing away what rubber had been put down and gusting winds adding a nice scattering of leaves and it was a recipe for poor grip. Red Bull appeared to be the best at getting their tyres up to temperature, which certainly paid off in qualifying but manifested itself as high tyre degradation in the race, particularly on the supersofts. A different track, and with the harder compounds, however, and the RB9 could prove to be an entirely different beast.

Mercedes were a harder act to assess. Red Bull’s nearest challengers in qualifying, they didn’t suffer the same problems with the supersofts – in fact they put together the longest opening stints on those tyres. Other races may suit them better – it’ll be particularly interesting to see them in Shanghai where they dominated last year and where Lewis Hamilton has often run well.

Surprise package of the weekend was undoubtedly Force India. Two points finishes sees them level with Mercedes and came on the back of low tyre wear. With seemingly some daylight between them and the rest of the midfield, the outfit will probably now have their eye on a top six finish in the constructors’ standings if not better.

That cause will be helped by McLaren’s predicament. Their qualifying pace is perhaps not as bad as suggested by this weekend where a series of bad strategy calls hampered both drivers. However, the team’s race pace was nothing to shout about either. McLaren appear to have accidentally fooled many during testing, where an eye-catching lap time in Jerez that seemed to even surprise Jenson Button gave pause to think. Button’s surprise now seems to be explained by a mistake by McLaren which led to them running the car much lower than they could get away with without excessive wear to the underbody – in short, fast but unable to stay within the rules. There have been suggestions in some sections of the media that McLaren may resort to digging out last year’s car but that seems unlikely – better to figure out the current car than turn to a car that Woking felt was an evolutionary dead end. However, the question is at what point do they switch focus to next year’s car and the big changes awaiting Formula One? McLaren are notoriously competitive but they may have to accept there is only so much they can learn with the current chassis. No wonder Lewis Hamilton has sported a big smile all weekend!

With McLaren’s misfortunes this weekend, the struggles of Williams were perhaps overlooked. Further down the grid, their decision to focus on the 2014 car will probably come easier but the one issue at their back of their mind may be the changing political situation in Venezuela. Pastor Maldonado’s victory in Spain last year silenced a lot of critics back at home but a poor 2013 could provide fresh ammunition.

There isn’t enough information to accurately predict how the championship will unfold over the next few races but there are echoes of last season with the teams struggling to understand the new tyres. Once again, it could produce an ebb and flow in fortunes with a similar mix of results. It promises to be a fun ride.

Credit: Lotus F1/Andrew Ferraro/LAT Photographic