Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

How Do Pirelli Benefit, Reputation-wise?


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#51 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 06 June 2013 - 18:27

Not just Marussia, no team has Concorde Agreement. Right now, there is no Concorde Agreement in F1.

Not quite fun anymore? It is just 6 races. For all you know the latter half of 2013 may be like 2012. There are lot of serious issues that concern F1 - spending, revenue sharing, manufacturer/constructor model, technical regulations - but tyres are not one of them. It could be easily be plugged in with an earlier version. Tyres not even a concern one could say since the other half of the fans are in favour of it right now and the general feeling was a deep malaise of the past decade or so were solved by these tyres. In that sense they have been a solution.

Advertisement

#52 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 06 June 2013 - 18:31

Not just Marussia, no team has Concorde Agreement. Right now, there is no Concorde Agreement in F1.

Could you elaborate on this?


#53 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 06 June 2013 - 19:02

^ The last Concorde Agreement expired a few years back. Since then Ecclestone has been trying to get all teams agree to a new one, but he hasn't been able to make one. There has been some agreements on how to share FIA money and lately few other teams have got their own deal of how much they would get if they are part of F1. But all these are just give and take i.e. if you are in F1, we would give you this. But there is nothing demanding teams to be part of F1 for a stipulated number of years like Concorde Agreement and of course, Concorde Agreement is not just that. There are so many things between F1 teams, FOM and FIA that are governed in CA. There simply isn't one now. Teams can leave F1 if they want.

Edited by SpaMaster, 06 June 2013 - 19:03.


#54 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,644 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 June 2013 - 13:10

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.


Maybe in the eyes of some die hard fans, but the casual fan just sits back and enjoys the racing. The sales figures would suggest that the brand has not been hurt in the least.

#55 HPT

HPT
  • Member

  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 08 June 2013 - 00:52

From a fan's point of view, I know Pirelli's tires in F1 has nothing to do with their tires for road cars so it has done nothing for me (positively or negatively) in terms of their reputation.

Talking to my friends who watch F1 casually (the odd race here and there) and don't chase after F1 news like most of us here do, they don't really pay attention to all the tire talk that much. All they hear is Pirelli this and Pirelli that, and they see tons of trackside advertising for Pirelli. If anything I'd say they are more aware of the brand because of Pirelli's involvement in F1. None of them have told me they think Pirelli is sh*t tires.

To my wife who doesn't watch F1 (even though sometimes she pretends she does), I asked her what does she think of Pirelli and she answers, "what is that?"

:D

#56 fololo

fololo
  • Member

  • 960 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 08 June 2013 - 00:57

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.


Look autosporr is only 0.1% of TV watcher.


RTL made a Poll if 2013 tyres are better than 2012.


Guess what 87% said 2013 pirelli are great

#57 Eff One 2002

Eff One 2002
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 08 June 2013 - 01:20

How do Pirelli benefit? They don't. Nor should they. They have provided shit tyres that have resulted in shit, restrictive racing. Plain and simple.

#58 corf

corf
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 08 June 2013 - 01:52

Pirelli have been great for F1 and well done to them, they have provided the customer with what they asked for which is a commendable quality. There is enough press coverage stating that The FIA and FOTA asked them to go aggressive that everyone should understand its f1's choice about the lifetime of the tyres.

Previously I wasn't a fan of Pirelli but after this I am definitely changing my tune, I tend to put premium tyres on my car and ultimately the brand I choose is dictated by price if I can save a tenner a corner choosing Michelin or Bridgestone I will do, so whether they actually gain anything is unclear in this cost conscience world.

Edited by corf, 08 June 2013 - 01:53.


#59 Eff One 2002

Eff One 2002
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 08 June 2013 - 03:40

Pirelli have been great for F1 and well done to them


You really think drivers cruising around at 7/10ths because the tyres will go to shit if they push any harder is great for F1?

Advertisement

#60 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,309 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 June 2013 - 03:43

I have some Pirellis and are some of the best road tires around.

It's been a long time since P zeros out performed competitors. See this 2012 review where it placed 9th against other brands, including Michelin (1st) and Bridgestone (2nd) - http://www.caranddri...comparison-test

Pirelli relies not on a strong performing tyre for their marketing but brand awareness, via oem relationships with Lamborghini and Ferrari, prestige sports cars etc. and now with F1 sponsorship. They simply can not make as good a piece of rubber as their competitors, and we are seeing the results of that in this sport we love.

#61 HPT

HPT
  • Member

  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 08 June 2013 - 03:49

How do Pirelli benefit? They don't. Nor should they. They have provided shit tyres that have resulted in shit, restrictive racing. Plain and simple.


It's uninformed posts like this one that makes Pirelli's job such a thankless one. They were asked to produce rapidly degrading tires by the teams and the FIA. They did so without having the proper equipment to carry out tests and have done a good job overall. Your comment shows how little you know about F1.

#62 Eff One 2002

Eff One 2002
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 08 June 2013 - 04:06

It's uninformed posts like this one that makes Pirelli's job such a thankless one. They were asked to produce rapidly degrading tires by the teams and the FIA. They did so without having the proper equipment to carry out tests and have done a good job overall. Your comment shows how little you know about F1.


Oh, I know enough about F1 to get by. I also know what Pirelli were asked to do, and it has proven to be a BAD IDEA and the reality of the situation is, no matter what spin you want to put on it, is drivers cruising around and not being able to push. It wouldn't matter which tyre supplier it was, but because it happens to be Pirelli their time in F1 will probably for the most part be remembered and have the reputation as the supplier who supplied shit tyres that resulted in shit racing, just like I said.

Martin Brundle even mentioned during the Spanish GP coverage that F1 has always been about looking after certain components to a certain extent, but the result of having tyres that degrade as rapidly as these Pirellis do result in drivers cruising around and not being able to push. He also said it's not good for F1 and he was dead right.

Edited by Eff One 2002, 08 June 2013 - 04:14.


#63 HPT

HPT
  • Member

  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 08 June 2013 - 04:44

Oh, I know enough about F1 to get by. I also know what Pirelli were asked to do, and it has proven to be a BAD IDEA and the reality of the situation is, no matter what spin you want to put on it, is drivers cruising around and not being able to push. It wouldn't matter which tyre supplier it was, but because it happens to be Pirelli their time in F1 will probably for the most part be remembered and have the reputation as the supplier who supplied shit tyres that resulted in shit racing, just like I said.

Martin Brundle even mentioned during the Spanish GP coverage that F1 has always been about looking after certain components to a certain extent, but the result of having tyres that degrade as rapidly as these Pirellis do result in drivers cruising around and not being able to push. He also said it's not good for F1 and he was dead right.


Whether it is good for F1 or not is a whole other debate. Your statement made it seem as though the blame is on Pirelli, which is totally unfair. I read it that way and if that isn't what you meant, then apologies.

#64 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 08 June 2013 - 05:50

...They (Pirelli) were asked to produce rapidly degrading tires by the teams and the FIA. They did so without having the proper equipment to carry out tests and have done a good job overall...

In this dissenting opinion, I'm going to approach this discussion from two vectors: the commercial world, and the commercial world; it's the assertion that "they have done a good job overall" that needs to be explored.

Firstly, lets talk common sense; in racing environment safety is paramount, and therefore a prudent businessman words his contract accordingly, not haphazardly with areas that can be explored contrary to your interest, and leave you hanging on the hook.

Secondly, if there is a contractual breach by your partners, looking at it from Pirelli's perspective, the same prudent businessman, concerned about point one, can withhold on any further work until correction is established. Force his hand, so to speak, if did not receive support - a car, or whatever else was in their contract. Well-reasoned a letter submitted in timely manner to FiA explaining potential safety concern with copies to teams and commercial rights holder would suffice. Not to dance about it, Pirelli should have step down from the contract, and let their partners know, there will be no tires for them, because of lack of pre-agreed support. I doubt that this was a case however, and instead, we now hear moaning and excuses over dubious results, which finds very little sympathy in my heart, because Pirelli, for whatever reasons rather produced product as we see on Hamilton's car, than fully developed one, and it’s today Pirelli who has to take responsibility for that, because it didn't have to end up at that way. They are expert on the matter, and they should exercise their duty, and rights per their mutual agreement.

Have Pirelli done a good job overall? It depends on your taste, rather than on some hard facts, but based on various feedbacks, one can doubt it. It can be rationalized, that useable life cycle restriction (< 100 km) set by their partners as a parameter of contractual performance, and as difficult as it is from production point of view, can be however achieved by several tire design approaches to tire degradation rate, including one in which car can reach its full racing potential, despite that being short lived. I don't think we see it. There are some specs on tire physical size, rim size, loading data, etc., all good, but the compounds alchemy and tire construction is all "Made at Pirelli", and not everyone likes it. It takes mighty ego for anyone, including you, to tell rest of us all, yes us, as I am in that opposing camp as well, that we are all wrong, because what we have is satisfactory, disregarding possibility that there are more than one way how to circle around on the track. I hope it will change going forward in 2014 based on lessons learned of today.

There are no winners in finger pointing, as mistakes on both sides were made, but hopefully we can agree that this issue needs to be fixed, as current volatility is non-sustainable progression of F1 as an entertainment business.

Edited by Sakae, 08 June 2013 - 06:06.


#65 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,309 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:32

They haven't delivered the heat range or degradation curve that everyone wants.

OK they have less testing, but a few years of stablity. Bridgestone & Michelin had to put up with Mosley changing the aero rules or quali or pitstop formats every season.

#66 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,871 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 June 2013 - 13:30

I'm sure they get some oem deals.

and making tyres that last and are fast is hard.
more simple than how shit is right shittyness, but still...

pirelli couldn't make a competative tyre in lmp2 a few years back. And the tyres with issues in f1 have been on the harder end...