This forum as well as most motorsport forums is still in a state of flux, after the reality of the Pirelli tyres had to be spelt out to the 99%. Only then did it dawn on them and become apparent, that racing in 2012 was fake/racing to a delta/contrived/tyres cant be push for more than 2-3 laps at most, post Schumacher and Rosberg comments. Really? Really? In the world of the blind, it really is true that the one-eyed man is king. What I find tragic is they are basically the same characteristics of the 2011 Pirelli. The only difference is for 2012 Pirelli, went softer on the compounds and incorporated the ultra small peak tyre performance window.
Why the "EUREKA" moment post Schumacher/Rosberg comment for the 99%? Couldn't people see the glaringly obvious for themselves? The sad thing is, even I questioned my sanity at times, due to the amount of people denying the obvious. There is no real racing, this year or last year, bar a few laps at any given circuits. I mentioned incessantly that lap times do not come down commensurate with fuel load, but it must be the comprehensive school system, churning out young adults where their synaptic pathways don't actually connect in high numbers, why this passed over the heads of most. This one simple fact should have set off alarm bells. Alas it confirmed to me, why the plebs are the plebs.
I said after the first race of this season, chasing down large time gaps with these tyres(if the tyres are in the same condition) is impossible and got derided by the usual suspects, telling me I had it wrong. There has been no racing bar a tyre management exercise and it clearly favours some drivers over others. This year in particular, it has manifested itself in making good drivers look great, and great drivers looking good. After winning the 2012 Australian GP, John Button gave an interview and the crux of what he said was that his son acknowledged he was really good on these tyres. Yet hardly anybody deciphered what he actually meant, but to me it was obvious.. All future discussion about each respective drivers race pace, is null and void, because it is not a true representation due to the limiting factors of the tyres.
I pretty much agree with this
even after Bahrain where Lewis looked quicker in the race and a Lewis fan should be pleased, the whole thing just seems so hollow and contrived. You know their pace is all very much tire limited. Much more than I can ever remember...
the pace is either determinant on who gets clear air all stint, who lucks into the perfect setup for the race day temps, who copes better with a wrong setup (because of temps and unpredictable tires), who conserves tires better etc etc.
It's all tire dependent this and that....sure some of those skills are nice to have and should be utilized in normal GP racing but should it really be the end-all be-all to differentiate top drivers?
It's like having Yohan Blake, Usain Bolt and co to run 1500m or forcing them to jog 150m in a 200m race and using those results to determine the fastest man in the world. Or like another analogy someone wrote in this whole Pirelli silly business, giving tennis players degradable rackets so that the harder you hit the worse the rackets get and you gotta be gentle with them to last the whole match. Sure it will make the results of Grand Slams etc more fun and Djokovic and co probably won't dominate as much but really, isn't that bullsh*t?
That's exactly what we have in F1 now, having sprint drivers become some form of endurance racers, pancake-Pirelli whisperers to reduce the chances of one team/driver dominating and to improve the show. Sure more casual fans may enjoy this but comeon this is no real F1. I mean, when 24 hour cars are driven more flatout than 2-hour F1 cars, it is clear we got a serious issue.
As far as these two are concerned, both are top drivers...for those that doubted b4 the pairing, it was confirmed in 2010. They are both good enough racers that, unlike the Massas and such, their race performances and speed exceed the artificial limit given by these tires. This thread is supposed to be an argument about the final extra, buts its apparent alot of that final extra will never be displayed or be of use in this formula. Their race pace will continue to be very close and see-saw up and down all based on what is going on with the tires at any given point. Its become clear alot of the argument about this and that has become moot.
Whoever wins this scorecard will be down to consistency, luck (reliability, pitstops, strategy etc) and qualifying performance. Ham has the slight advantage because he seems to have one of those well covered and his head in the right place (which gives consistency, mind you its not that hard when you arent been pushed to the limit in races - chances of a Monza 2009 are greatly reduced so as a matter of fact, even "consistency" in the new formula is hollow) but any victory by him will still be hollow because it is not determined by what should be the primary factor in grand prix racing - Drivers racing and battling at the speed and limit of their abilities and cars.
Not some lower artificial limit imposed by tires engineered to do just that - bunch everyone together, create unpredictability and "improve the show". The sport itself suffers greatly for this.
Edited by bauss, 26 April 2012 - 15:59.