Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

How Do Pirelli Benefit, Reputation-wise?


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 alan

alan
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:23

First, let me say i am an F1 fanatic, although very unhappy with the too artificial racing we are seeing these days. I understand the ins and outs of F1 cars (or so i think) and i am not your average typical TV viewer who may watch it occasionally or read the over-exaggerated story in the newspaper. I believe this is true of most readers in these columns. However as a man with a bit of background in advertizing, i cannot for the life of me, see what Pirelli are gaining by their tires being described in the way they are these days. Don't get me wrong, i know there is absolutely no relationship between an f1 race tire and a road tire except they are made of rubber. I have some Pirellis and are some of the best road tires around. However, image is paramount in advertizing and i just can't see the rationale of what Pirelli is doing. Does anyone have an idea?

Advertisement

#2 Gene and Tonic

Gene and Tonic
  • Member

  • 555 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:26

I suppose there is the old-adage that any exposure is good exposure. The fact that the tyres are constantly talked about gets Pirelli's name out there for sure.

#3 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:28

From watching the BBC coverage, the angle being pushed is that Pirelli are the 'saviours' of F1 and are to be thanked for bringing us all of this 'exciting' action.

Overall I think you raise an interesting question. As you say, those who understand the sport know not to relate the tyres Pirelli are making for the series with the road tyres. The casuals here the word 'Pirelli' a lot, which is probably good marketing exposure. I think the situation would be different if we were hearing 'and yet again Pirelli have bought stupid tyres that only last 5 laps which buggers up the racing' because that isn't the line being sold.

Essentially - we are meant to be enjoying this, and thanking Pirelli for doing it.

#4 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:30

Essentially - we are meant to be enjoying this, and thanking Pirelli for doing it.


Sorry, whose idea was it to have higher deg tyres?

#5 jesee

jesee
  • Member

  • 1,674 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:31

It is strange. I laughed last year when my sister in law commented after seeing all the marbles...mind you she doesn't watch f1 that those tires are no good for a car. I had to explain the difference. I don't know what they gain, but there must be some clever advert boffins in their company who thinks it is worth it.

#6 SunnyENTP

SunnyENTP
  • Member

  • 717 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:32

When I think of reliability I think Bridgestones
When I think of unreliable I think of Pirellis

Pirelli dont seem to understand the word 'unreliable' is regularly associated with their brand. It does not matter how they spin it but they are clearly showing a lack of knowledge in the psychology of consumer buying.



#7 goldenboy

goldenboy
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:33

People like us are the minority. The casual viewers will hear and see Pirelli often and not know the other issues.

Something that always makes me realises how many dumb sheeple are out there is when they release figures for top rating tv "shows."

#8 Gene and Tonic

Gene and Tonic
  • Member

  • 555 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:33

What I would say to them is fair play for sticking with it, as it was the route the FIA wanted to go down at the time. That shows willingness to take risks and dedication. It's not Pirelli's fault that a lot of people are unhappy with the current situation; direct any protests to the FIA. It is their rules, and reluctance to implement radical changes such as ground-effect, that have led to the need for such artificial 'fudges' to try and create entertainment.

Edited by Gene and Tonic, 14 April 2013 - 12:44.


#9 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,431 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:39

I wish people wouldn't use the word "artificial" as it doesn't help the argument.

The racing is no less "real" (i.e deliberately manufactured by the customer, Bernie) than with tyres that are more durable.

The main problem is that it dilutes overtaking as the showpiece in F1. It's happening more often but at the cost of quality.

DRS is a bigger issue for me because it totally removes any remaining quality. It has destroyed the art of defence.

Edited by Disgrace, 14 April 2013 - 12:39.


#10 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:39

Sorry, whose idea was it to have higher deg tyres?


I'm not sure that I understand your question in relation to my post.

I thought the FIA wanted to have tyres that degrade at a higher rate, as that produces 'races' that look more 'exciting'.

We aren't meant to watch what I used to consider F1 racing, just lots of changes for position and cars going past each other. Thats very exciting to watch, and we have Pirelli (and DRS) to thank.

I for one am grateful as actually I find I watch very little F1 now - this was the first full race I've watched this year (have barely missed a race in the previous 20+ years) - and it really has freed up a lot of my time over the weekends. Thanks Pirelli!

#11 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:40

I wish people wouldn't use the word "artificial" as it doesn't help the argument.

The racing is no less "real" (i.e deliberately manufactured by the customer, Bernie) than with tyres that are more durable.

The main problem is that it dilutes overtaking as the showpiece in F1. It's happening more often but at the cost of quality.

DRS is a bigger issue for me because it totally removes any remaining quality. It has destroyed the art of defence.


If I am reading you correctly Disgrace, are you now saying that we now have a product that is very shallow?

As that it certainly how I feel about F1 now.

#12 alan

alan
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:41

What I would say to them is fair play for sticking with it, as it was the route the FIA wanted to go down at the time. That shows willingness to take risks and dedication. It's not Pirelli's fault that a lot of people are unhappy with the current situation; direct any protests to the FIA. It is their rules, and reluctance to implement radical changes such as ground-effect, that have led to the need for such articificial 'fudges' to try and create entertainment.


I am not blaming Pirelli and of course they make excellent road tires. I know that is what they have been asked to do. However, their "brand is durable road tires". From a philosophical point of view, how then does that fit with what they are doing? It does not make sense to me.

#13 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:44

New specification of the tire undoubtedly added extra cost to run each team as trade of for performance loss by some teams, mixing fortunes of have and have not, whilst creating illusion of general increased competitiveness. Is it worth it?
The answer is not very simple, and it all might depends how much loot end of the year you get for potentially attracting a new fan of this style of racing, and as determined by TV viewing audience numbers.
On the long run, garden variety commuter who doesn't follow F1, wouldn't know probably a second thing about "Pirelli's disgrace" discussed on these pages. In my mind problem (competitiveness, loss of audiences) is not defined well enough to make sensible claims that a finicky tire is a correct solution. In fact I think on this path F1 uniqueness has taken beating through perception that it is becoming more of an expensive circus show, than a serious automotive sport. Professional wrestling has come to town.

#14 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:45

I wish people wouldn't use the word "artificial" as it doesn't help the argument.

The racing is no less "real" (i.e deliberately manufactured by the customer, Bernie) than with tyres that are more durable.

The main problem is that it dilutes overtaking as the showpiece in F1. It's happening more often but at the cost of quality.

DRS is a bigger issue for me because it totally removes any remaining quality. It has destroyed the art of defence.


That i can agree with. I think the Pirelli's without DRS would be a much better prospect, Pirelli have made overtaking more of a possibility, DRS is unnecessary IMHO. It was in response to the processional Bridgestone races of 2010, its now a defunct aid. I wish they'd scrap it.

#15 alan

alan
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:55

I think people ( with respect), are deviating from what this topic is about. It is not about what they are doing to improve the "show". It is about their image. Whenever i have seen a headline in a newspaper about their role it is like..."Drivers critical of Pirelli tires". 'Driver x unhappy with tires" etc etc. That is not a positive image about a product. I don't see how they are benefiting but i could be wrong.

Edited by alan, 14 April 2013 - 12:56.


#16 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 April 2013 - 13:03

I would say Pirelli is getting all the credit for changing F1 from a snorefest into a watchable and entertaining show. So for me they are getting the job done.

I never had the need to purchase Formula 1 tires for any of my cars. So it is irrelevant to Pirelli's image as a tire manufacturing.

Edited by fabr68, 14 April 2013 - 13:07.


#17 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 14 April 2013 - 13:07

I think people ( with respect), are deviating from what this topic is about. It is not about what they are doing to improve the "show". It is about their image. Whenever i have seen a headline in a newspaper about their role it is like..."Drivers critical of Pirelli tires". 'Driver x unhappy with tires" etc etc. That is not a positive image about a product. I don't see how they are benefiting but i could be wrong.

Ask an average commuter on the road who is not following F1, whether he or she is aware of topics discuss in here. I would rather suspect that they do not, and they might add, that there is hardly any product in existence which satisfy everyone (thus not end of the world for them). This begs a question, whether more apt survey would be among paying fans who do follow show, and what they think about this tire.

Edited by Sakae, 14 April 2013 - 13:08.


#18 Shiroo

Shiroo
  • Member

  • 4,012 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 14 April 2013 - 13:08

Higher deg is fine but for god's sake, Option tyre that is unraceable because it is gone after 4-5 laps?...
I expected something like 12laps on option 20 on prime. And here we got durable prime tyre that could even go as much as 25, and option tyre that 5 laps is an overkill for them.
Fix that and it should be OK. No bulletproof tyres as in Bridgestone, and tyres that are used to racing (though you should be able to push like crazy during these 12/20 laps).

On marketing side, well I wouldn't be too happy if I'd be running company that is producing tyres and is well-known that some tyre compound lose a lot of performance after 30KM

#19 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,431 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 April 2013 - 13:09

If I am reading you correctly Disgrace, are you now saying that we now have a product that is very shallow?

As that it certainly how I feel about F1 now.


It can be shallow, especially today's race because it just two sets of processions (soft/hard/hard vs. hard/hard/soft runners) that overlapped to create overtaking.

It's good that the teams now have strategic freedom but drivers breezing past others "not in their race" is dull to watch when it's so easy.

That's why I think the real problem is DRS. Overtaking overall would not be consigned to DRS zones (i.e on the longest straight).

We've had some great races with Pirelli tyres and the "run both compounds rule" when DRS was ineffective (Nurburgring 2011, USA 2012).

That i can agree with. I think the Pirelli's without DRS would be a much better prospect, Pirelli have made overtaking more of a possibility, DRS is unnecessary IMHO. It was in response to the processional Bridgestone races of 2010, its now a defunct aid. I wish they'd scrap it.


That is exactly it.

Edited by Disgrace, 14 April 2013 - 13:10.


Advertisement

#20 caso

caso
  • Member

  • 169 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 14 April 2013 - 13:15

First, let me say i am an F1 fanatic, although very unhappy with the too artificial racing we are seeing these days. I understand the ins and outs of F1 cars (or so i think) and i am not your average typical TV viewer who may watch it occasionally or read the over-exaggerated story in the newspaper. I believe this is true of most readers in these columns. However as a man with a bit of background in advertizing, i cannot for the life of me, see what Pirelli are gaining by their tires being described in the way they are these days. Don't get me wrong, i know there is absolutely no relationship between an f1 race tire and a road tire except they are made of rubber. I have some Pirellis and are some of the best road tires around. However, image is paramount in advertizing and i just can't see the rationale of what Pirelli is doing. Does anyone have an idea?


They get exposure. Formula 1 is one of the very few sports with a global audience. I highly doubt the tire-discussion in F1 will damage their brand. As far as I can see it there is a consens among the fans when it comes to Pirellis involvement: They are only doing what is expected of them, nothing more and nothing less.

And for non-fans quality is not really an issue since they don't know how long a tire in F1 is supposed to last.

Edited by caso, 14 April 2013 - 13:21.


#21 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 April 2013 - 13:22

First, let me say i am an F1 fanatic, although very unhappy with the too artificial racing we are seeing these days. I understand the ins and outs of F1 cars (or so i think) and i am not your average typical TV viewer who may watch it occasionally or read the over-exaggerated story in the newspaper. I believe this is true of most readers in these columns. However as a man with a bit of background in advertizing, i cannot for the life of me, see what Pirelli are gaining by their tires being described in the way they are these days. Don't get me wrong, i know there is absolutely no relationship between an f1 race tire and a road tire except they are made of rubber. I have some Pirellis and are some of the best road tires around. However, image is paramount in advertizing and i just can't see the rationale of what Pirelli is doing. Does anyone have an idea?


Well, I don't understand the claim that it is Pirelli's fault that Formula 1 is "too artificial". Motor racing is an "artificial" sport by itself and there are many examples on how not always the best drivers win. However, tires are the same for everyone so you cannot blame Pirelli.

Also, durability of tires in Formula 1 is totally irrelevant to their reliability on passenger vehicle tires. I don't see people claim Mercedez Benz engines are crap because they only last 8 uses in Formula 1.


#22 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,013 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 14 April 2013 - 13:23

I think people ( with respect), are deviating from what this topic is about. It is not about what they are doing to improve the "show". It is about their image. Whenever i have seen a headline in a newspaper about their role it is like..."Drivers critical of Pirelli tires". 'Driver x unhappy with tires" etc etc. That is not a positive image about a product. I don't see how they are benefiting but i could be wrong.


The average spectator (the kind of person that flips the channel and sees a race on or reads about in the paper) probably doesn't know that there is a tyre contract in F1. They would just see big name F1 teams using Pirelli tyres and think "they must be good tyres. Why else would Ferrari/McLaren/Mercedes/etc use them?" Thats because to the average spectator when they see pirelli win a race many of them will just assume that it must be because Pirelli are the best tyres, otherwise the teams would use Good Year/Bridgestone/Michelin etc (when real F1 fans who follow the sport know that this is not the case). For Pirelli, being associated with F1 would be enough to give them a good reputation in the mind of the general public.

#23 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 2,516 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 14 April 2013 - 13:23

It's tough to say. On the one hand, there's a large group of people who don't much care for the details of the races, might not watch all the races, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a sizeable part of the audience. On the other hand, there's the people who visit sites and forums like this, who understand that Pirelli are making these dreadful tyres because that's what they've been contracted to do. The group in the middle, who understands that Pirelli is making the tyres, and understands the relation between performance and the degradation of the tyres - but thinks that this is the best Pirelli can do - is the one they'd be worried about in terms of PR and reputation. However, I have absolutely no clue how big that roughly described group is.

#24 2ms

2ms
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 14 April 2013 - 13:29

I agree that Pirelli is being screwed. They are making the tires F1 wanted from them. But then every team who doesn't do as well with the tires as the best 1 or 2 teams then bitches that Pirelli tires don't last long enough.

I expect next season Pirelli will have decided they have no option but to do what Bridgestone used to do -- make tires that don't even need to be changed once in the race. Then everyone will bitch that Pirelli tires are too good. Problem solved.

Edited by 2ms, 14 April 2013 - 13:33.


#25 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 722 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 14 April 2013 - 13:44

I agree that Pirelli is being screwed. They are making the tires F1 wanted from them.

And what tyres are they? Tyres that don't allow drivers to lock a wheel (and by definition find the limit of grip) for fear of delamination? Tyres that leave a sea of rubber balls offline that prevent racing? My other big gripe with these pirellis is the way they drop so quickly. It punishes anyone who is close to their teammate in the pit window (see Massa, Grosjean today and many otherexamples over the pirelli years).

I'd take the single-tyred DRS-less 2005 season over this shit any day.

#26 Sennasational

Sennasational
  • Member

  • 211 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 14 April 2013 - 13:49

I agree that Pirelli is being screwed. They are making the tires F1 wanted from them. But then every team who doesn't do as well with the tires as the best 1 or 2 teams then bitches that Pirelli tires don't last long enough.

I expect next season Pirelli will have decided they have no option but to do what Bridgestone used to do -- make tires that don't even need to be changed once in the race. Then everyone will bitch that Pirelli tires are too good. Problem solved.


That's not the response they're giving though. If they were saying, 'sorry, the FIA asked us to make tyres like this' then fine. But what they're actually saying is 'you're welcome for all this exciting, brilliant racing courtesy of Pirelli' which is absolute head-in-the-sand BS. They think they're doing a service to the sport, when actually they're spoiling it.

Imagine todays race without DRS. It would be processional stuff. Drivers are punished massively for attempting to race hard. We need lock ups, we need sliding, we need mistakes. When they try that with these tyres they find themselves 2 seconds off the pace needing a pit stop. Drivers of this calibre only make errors when they are right on the limit, the current racing isn't testing any driver's skill.

An argument could be made that tyre management is a skill, but everyone is managing tyres, that's the only choice given to them. If they didn't manage the tyres they would simply run out of tyres before the end of a GP. Prime tyres should go off after 15-20 laps of pushing hard, with extreme management maybe eeking out an extra 5 laps of decent pace. At the moment tyres go off after 15 laps of EXTREME tyre management. It's not exciting to watch, I imagine it's even less exciting to drive.

The briefing they were given by the FIA will have outlined the issue they wanted Pirelli to address (more pit stops), they will not have given the solution. The solution Pirelli have come up with is a crap one and they're acting like they're the saviours of the sport - and saying the drivers don't know what they're talking about when their tyres get criticised is a new level of ignorance, and it's anything but bliss for the fans.

Edited by Sennasational, 14 April 2013 - 13:53.


#27 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,757 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 14 April 2013 - 14:07

They benefited hugely as a brand from being an F1 tyre supplier. No question about it. Even if they don't generate profit from F1 tires - which I think is not true, I am sure they do - they don't lose on it, and the worldwide brand exposure is tremendous. It is one of the most effective old-school marketing exercise I've ever seen. That some of us don't like what we see on Sundays, basically counts for nothing. All of my friends who are following F1 - most of them since many years - only watch the races. They do not even understand if I express my displeasure. So - and this is NOT an IMHO - pirelli benefit from this in every way possible, and not the other way around, whatever the 'naives' may think about it.

#28 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,077 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 14 April 2013 - 14:23

There must be plenty of Edd Straws selling Pirelli as the F1 saviours and, probably, most people dont really know whats what.

I definitely admire Bridgestone more than ever, but I dont have or need a car since I moved in January.

#29 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,143 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 April 2013 - 15:24

They benefited hugely as a brand from being an F1 tyre supplier. No question about it. Even if they don't generate profit from F1 tires - which I think is not true, I am sure they do - they don't lose on it, and the worldwide brand exposure is tremendous. It is one of the most effective old-school marketing exercise I've ever seen. That some of us don't like what we see on Sundays, basically counts for nothing. All of my friends who are following F1 - most of them since many years - only watch the races. They do not even understand if I express my displeasure. So - and this is NOT an IMHO - pirelli benefit from this in every way possible, and not the other way around, whatever the 'naives' may think about it.


A while ago I googled for info about how much F1 paid, and didn't come up with anything reliable. One or two articles with unknown sources mentioned 10 mil USD a year. And I found one article that stated (I think it was a Hemberey quote) that Pirelli has 600 staff in the F1 project (and I don't know how old the article was and whether this has changed since). For 600 people, 10 mil would not even cover personnel costs, so Pirelli would pay half of that plus development, manufacturing, and possible freight.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 14 April 2013 - 15:25.


#30 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,881 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 14 April 2013 - 15:38

pirelli have moved into single make supplying because they mostly got beat vs other tyre makes in compertion.
imo.



#31 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 2,113 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 14 April 2013 - 15:39

IMHO Joe Public doesnt give a shite what make boots are on his/her car..so long as they are cheap,he/she doesn't give a toss.Years ago i used to be a MOT tester and the mind boggles was the different makes tyres coming through our test station...wasnt a fail point either mixing different manufactures so long as widths and profiles where roughly identical! :D
Eh..so no.Pirellis reputation will hardly be affected by what happens in the rarified atmosphere that is F1

Edited by Fatgadget, 14 April 2013 - 15:44.


#32 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 14 April 2013 - 15:43

Too early to say. The bosses at Pirelli will be evaluating this as we speak. These days everything is measured and they'll pull out if they don't think the rubber is doing the job ;) (from a marketing perspective).

#33 george1981

george1981
  • Member

  • 848 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 14 April 2013 - 15:56

I think that the Pirelli tyres are not what the FIA really wanted. Yes on one level there is more degradation but that comes with very narrow operating windows, cars that are hard to set up, small changes in temperature from Saturday to Sunday having a huge impact on competitiveness, 'the cliff' etc. This is not what the FIA asked for.
Before Pirelli supplied tyres the car with the most efficient downforce and good engine would do well, now it is much more of a gamble.
I think this does hurt Pirelli's reputation. When drivers can only use a set of tyres for 5 laps and can't race each other then it is not good.

#34 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,956 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 14 April 2013 - 16:07

I think they are providing what the sport asked them to provide and in terms of their reputation, I don't see how it is being damaged in any way.

#35 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 14 April 2013 - 16:10

Sorry, whose idea was it to have higher deg tyres?

I doubt anybody 'asked' for this. You can have higher degredation than in the past without moving all the way to comedy blancmange that prohibits driving fast or racing.

#36 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 14 April 2013 - 16:11

I think that the Pirelli tyres are not what the FIA really wanted. Yes on one level there is more degradation but that comes with very narrow operating windows, cars that are hard to set up, small changes in temperature from Saturday to Sunday having a huge impact on competitiveness, 'the cliff' etc. This is not what the FIA asked for.
Before Pirelli supplied tyres the car with the most efficient downforce and good engine would do well, now it is much more of a gamble.
I think this does hurt Pirelli's reputation. When drivers can only use a set of tyres for 5 laps and can't race each other then it is not good.

:up:

#37 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,757 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 14 April 2013 - 16:51

A while ago I googled for info about how much F1 paid, and didn't come up with anything reliable. One or two articles with unknown sources mentioned 10 mil USD a year. And I found one article that stated (I think it was a Hemberey quote) that Pirelli has 600 staff in the F1 project (and I don't know how old the article was and whether this has changed since). For 600 people, 10 mil would not even cover personnel costs, so Pirelli would pay half of that plus development, manufacturing, and possible freight.


? I thought it was 1m EUR/team/season. I do not believe they have 600 people working for the F1 project. That is around the personnel count of the whole sporting division of Pirelli. As to development, I hardly think they have invested heavily in that area. This season there was a change in construction, and 2 new compounds. As I said before, they have virtually done nothing for two years, but speak about themselves and the show. This is old, but still relevant, I believe. All-inall, F1 is highly profitoble for them. Bridgstone supplied for free, btw?

http://adamcooperf1....s-pirelli-boss/

#38 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 14 April 2013 - 17:20

That i can agree with. I think the Pirelli's without DRS would be a much better prospect, Pirelli have made overtaking more of a possibility, DRS is unnecessary IMHO. It was in response to the processional Bridgestone races of 2010, its now a defunct aid. I wish they'd scrap it.

Well, imho I feel that DRS is a stick behind the door to keep pushing. If you don't push, you will be slipstreamed and DRS'd. Problem is, when everybody goes into conservation mode, nothing will happen anyway. It's the wrong motivator. We need either Pirellis as they are now minus DRS, or get rid of the tyre two compound rule and introduce tyres which will stay intact and allow teams to push more on.

#39 BlackCat

BlackCat
  • Member

  • 808 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 14 April 2013 - 17:25

sure, i'll never buy Pirelli tyres. but it's not a big deal as i've also never used 'em before.

Advertisement

#40 Jamiednm

Jamiednm
  • Member

  • 1,761 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 14 April 2013 - 17:38


I can't imagine anyone seriously discounting Pirelli for their road going tyres because of their high degradation in F1. If some people think that's at all relevant, then they are deluded.

Pirelli have their logo plastered all over F1 cars and circuits. That's what they get out of it.

#41 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,143 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 April 2013 - 17:44

? I thought it was 1m EUR/team/season. I do not believe they have 600 people working for the F1 project. That is around the personnel count of the whole sporting division of Pirelli. As to development, I hardly think they have invested heavily in that area. This season there was a change in construction, and 2 new compounds. As I said before, they have virtually done nothing for two years, but speak about themselves and the show. This is old, but still relevant, I believe. All-inall, F1 is highly profitoble for them. Bridgstone supplied for free, btw?

http://adamcooperf1....s-pirelli-boss/


Thanks. I am too lazy to look up the quotes again, they are in the Pirelli/DRS thread and not too hard to find on google (I did it). Maybe I remember wrongly. So we meet in the middle i guess, you were sure that they make a profit, your own link says they do not make losses.

While taking a quick look for the "600" number, I found this which is more on topic in the thread:

Market research conducted by the GFK Institute at the end of 2012 highlighted the impact that its presence in FORMULA 1 has had on Pirelli Brand Equity. Indeed, the study shows that Pirelli’s performance in the eyes of Grand Prix™ followers is continually improving in terms of both brand KPIs and perceived image, compared to those who do not follow FORMULA 1. For example Pirelli Brand Consideration doubles amongst Grand Prix™ followers, whilst attributes such as technology, innovation, quality and propensity to buy are between 30 and 50% higher amongst racing fans.

http://f1junkie.com/...ium-strategy-3/

And this (May 2011)

On the back of an exciting start to the season, Pirelli's chairman Marco Tronchetti Provera says he is satisfied with the job his Italian company has done so far, and he sees every reason for his company to remain in F1 if it continues to make financial sense.

"We have a three-year contract, and we want to learn together with the teams how to do anything that helps to have more attractive and fascinating races," he said during a visit to the Turkish Grand Prix. "We have achieved our targets until now and we want to continue.

"F1 is a long term project if it is affordable. If it is a formula that is not too costly, then we are ready to continue."

Provera says that what Pirelli has done this year - in producing tyres to ensure multiple pitstops in the race - was something that was harder to achieve that designing tyres that could last a full race distance.

"We were asked to help create more emotions and we did it, with safe tyres lasting enough but not too much – which is really very, very difficult," he said.

"I think we helped having more attractiveness, uncertainties and more show. That was the target they gave us, so we had to build tyres lasting no more than 23-25 laps in order to guarantee two pitstops.

"We reached a target that is much more difficult than building tyres that last for the entire grand prix. The tyres perform well, we pit twice for the highest speed in different circuits so our tyres are performing, the structure is okay and the formula is such that they last as the circus wants."

With F1 teams paying 1.25 million Euros each for tyres, Provera said that his company's involvement was good value – as its only real cost was in advertising its involvement

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/91196

Edit: and maybe I was confused by this, so disregard what I said:

It’s not just the driver as there are 600 or 700 people behind all the top teams.

http://www.gpupdate....s-paul-hembery/

Edit: Now I found this, from Jan 2013:

The on-track Pirelli team will once more be made up of around 55 people this year, including fitters, logistics personnel, hospitality staff, and engineers.

http://www.motorspor...ormula-1-tyres/
I don't know how many to add for design, manufacturing et al.

And I don't know if Bridgestone supplied for free, but they weren't asked to put their reputation at stake either. IIRC in 2010 Pirelli was described as the cheapest option available after Bridgestone left.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 14 April 2013 - 18:10.


#42 The Soul Stealer

The Soul Stealer
  • Member

  • 5,038 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 06 June 2013 - 13:08

This question has been bugging me for a while now.

I was half considering starting a thread on it myself, but I figured most of the people here would know or at least presume to know a thing or two about tyres...

You would really need to post this question on a board for shooting turkey's, skinning goats or some other manly exercise where the members wouldn't know the front end of an f1 car from the rear.

That would let you know quite quickly.

That being said, some Tool would Google it and come back at you with tyre divisions, F1 tyre's not being road car tyre's and think he was Gods' gift to the turkey shooting world :rolleyes:

The real question for me is how often can the word "Pirelli" and the word "dirt" appear in close proximity to each other without a regular Joe at some subconscious level associating the two together...
Reports from 2011 and 2012 mean little if PR giants like Red Bull throw the toys out of the pram because they are not winning every race and decide (as they have) to come out against Pirelli. Now Joe Public will start hearing more and more about how bad Pirelli tyres are and how they don't last. Alas poor Joe doesn't know the difference between a monkey seat and a monkey nut, he'll just put 2 and 2 together and get anything other than Pirelli.

In any case, it won't bother me as my tyres are usually produced by Chinese children at competitive prices! :D


On an aside, I love the way the Pirelli dudes state that's it's much harder to produce a tyre that doesn't last!
NO IT ISN'T! Shift production to China and negotiate the price DOWN! That'll do it for ya! :p

#43 amppatel

amppatel
  • Member

  • 506 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 06 June 2013 - 13:37

Posted Image


An image like this wont help the Pirelli image. People associate things quickly. They dont stop and think:

wait a sec...
surely this is what Pirelli were asked to do...
this is what Bernie asked them to do....
two/three stops per race...
oooo...
wow...
actually that means Pirelli are doing a really good job...
well done Pirelli...
I'm going to get these tyres...

NO - they will just look at an image like this and not think twice.

I have a feeling Pirelli are regretting this. And if they are not they are just plain dumb.

#44 The Soul Stealer

The Soul Stealer
  • Member

  • 5,038 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 06 June 2013 - 15:59

I don't know that many non F1 people will see that image.
It's more the sound bites I keep hearing on sky sports news and other sports programs naming Pirelli and following up with some description of how they are falling apart.
It's not an issue for a F1 fan who knows the score with the job Pirelli are doing; but, say a cricket fan or whatever watching the same program hearing "Pirelli" and "crap" in the same sentence is going to make a connection at some subconscious level.

I mean 2011/2012 is all cool coz Ferrari are keeping stum, Red bull are winning everything and the Mercs are moaning a bit.
Now Red Bull have their toys on the floor and are/were throwing a fit and people are taking notice.
Maybe it's a storm in a tea cup but I suspect that if Red Bull don't return to dominance soon then the anti tyre PR will increase and it will at some point become too much for Pirelli.

#45 chrisj

chrisj
  • Member

  • 604 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 06 June 2013 - 16:30

I think the next tire company that supplies Formula One won't agree to the things Pirelli agreed to.

#46 hogstar

hogstar
  • Member

  • 186 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 06 June 2013 - 17:14

I think the next tire company that supplies Formula One won't agree to the things Pirelli agreed to.


Oh so true. If I were Pirelli, unless the rules are changed for next year so they are allowed to make durable, credible tyres, they should not continue. Pirelli have been rather naive and seemed to have jumped to the chance of getting back into F1 at any cost.

You never, ever devalue your brand. Pirelli has.



#47 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 06 June 2013 - 17:43

Having the most premier brand as tyre supplier is not paramount to F1. For F1, the most important thing is to have exciting races and show. They would get whichever tyre company is ready for it, even if it is not one of the first-tier companies.

More pertinent to the topic: What is in it for Pirelli? Until this year (even this year has had only 6 races), Pirelli was credited with bringing excitement and action back to F1. They did not really get any negative publicity. They were the entity that brought excitement back to F1. That means a lot to get your name up there along with being the chosen sole supplier of the pinnacle of motorsport. It did not have to directly correlate to durable tyres in road and durable tyres in F1. But their name was up there and that was great for reputation.

So, in the future teams and top tyre manufacturers may not want degrading tyres. But that is exactly what FIA and FOM want. Since there is no Concorde agreement, teams don't have much of a say. They can either take it or leave it. But as we saw from 2009, breakaway series is very unlikely. There would be much tighter gags on speaking out against tyres.

#48 The Soul Stealer

The Soul Stealer
  • Member

  • 5,038 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 06 June 2013 - 17:58

Oh so true. If I were Pirelli, unless the rules are changed for next year so they are allowed to make durable, credible tyres, they should not continue.


I don't know, bringing back refueling might help with the current format with the same tyre. It would certainly make for interesting strategies.

#49 Garagiste

Garagiste
  • Member

  • 3,796 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 06 June 2013 - 18:08

...And I don't know if Bridgestone supplied for free, but they weren't asked to put their reputation at stake either. IIRC in 2010 Pirelli was described as the cheapest option available after Bridgestone left.


Ah, but they were - as soon as the utterly stupid "both compounds" rule came in, then there were "the wrong Bridgestones", "the bad tyres" etc.
But, as with Pirelli now, they get massive exposure and association with the percieved glamour of F1. Durex managed to survive the photos of the Surtees with a puncture, so any publicity is good it seems!

#50 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 06 June 2013 - 18:09

Having the most premier brand as tyre supplier is not paramount to F1. For F1, the most important thing is to have exciting races and show. They would get whichever tyre company is ready for it, even if it is not one of the first-tier companies.

More pertinent to the topic: What is in it for Pirelli? Until this year (even this year has had only 6 races), Pirelli was credited with bringing excitement and action back to F1. They did not really get any negative publicity. They were the entity that brought excitement back to F1. That means a lot to get your name up there along with being the chosen sole supplier of the pinnacle of motorsport. It did not have to directly correlate to durable tyres in road and durable tyres in F1. But their name was up there and that was great for reputation.

So, in the future teams and top tyre manufacturers may not want degrading tyres. But that is exactly what FIA and FOM want. Since there is no Concorde agreement, teams don't have much of a say. They can either take it or leave it. But as we saw from 2009, breakaway series is very unlikely. There would be much tighter gags on speaking out against tyres.

All teams have their CA, but Marrussia. FiA doesn't (or didn't have last time I checked). BTW, I think questions are "wrong". It is not all about one or another image of Pirelli, it is not about one or two badly managed test events, but it is about how FOM is (mis?)managing F1. F1 is going sideways for a while, with do this, don't do this, yet one day they run out of "don't do this", thus I am not entirely convinced that we will have the same F1 in 2020. When first (some) fans, and then quite a few drivers, and now even some media adding voices that this is not quite fun anymore, than something is really fundamentally wrong. FOM can ignore it for a while, but not forever.

Edited by Sakae, 06 June 2013 - 18:11.