Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 9 votes

Why is Pirelli making such crap tyres?


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#1 Jackmancer

Jackmancer
  • Member

  • 3,158 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 03 March 2013 - 18:49

I wonder - are there regulations for the tyre as well, apart from dimensions and sizes? Is Pirelli forced to make such tyres? And if so, why?

I was just watching this documentary, and of course today's cars are different, but the whole movement through corners looks different to me. Click here;
http://www.youtube.c...A...be&t=13m45s

We don't see this a lot anymore, do we?
Posted Image
Except in last corner Monaco, maybe.

Advertisement

#2 Massa

Massa
  • Member

  • 7,481 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 18:51

Today cars are much more advanced, much more aero grip.

#3 ApexMouse

ApexMouse
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 03 March 2013 - 18:52

Becuase they were asked to.

#4 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 28,470 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 March 2013 - 18:54

Bias-ply vs. radials?

#5 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 18:55

Because that's what Bernie told them to do.

-thread closed.

#6 Jackmancer

Jackmancer
  • Member

  • 3,158 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 03 March 2013 - 18:57

Because that's what Bernie told them to do.

-thread closed.


Bernie has this power? I doubt it.
And I don't understand how such floppy tyres improve racing or why he would want it.

#7 ApexMouse

ApexMouse
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 03 March 2013 - 18:58

Becuase they degrade and provide different strategies and grip levels for different cars thus better 'show*

And bernie certainly has that lobbying power.
If they'd just solved the dirty air issue you wouldn't ned any of this crap but you know... It's F1.

Edited by ApexMouse, 03 March 2013 - 19:00.


#8 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,822 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 03 March 2013 - 19:01

How many threads do we need whinging about the same thing?

#9 SunnyENTP

SunnyENTP
  • Member

  • 717 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 19:04

Because that's what Bernie told them to do.

-thread closed.



Bernie also wanted artificial rain, the medal point system. The point is it's really down to Pirelli.


Pirelli became a law unto themselves are obsessed with the tyres dictating the outcome of the race and. Paul Humbreys sounds like a man who has lost his marbles. And I don't mean the trash their tyres leave on the track



#10 GSiebert

GSiebert
  • Member

  • 2,205 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 March 2013 - 19:05

Bias-ply vs. radials?

Villeneuve had radials Michelin in 1979 :kiss:

#11 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 1,517 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 03 March 2013 - 19:06

I think the request came from the FIA, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ecclestone had a part to play too. Pirelli were asked to make a tyre that replicated the Canadian GP a few years ago where the track surface started breaking up. I think Bridgestone were asked if they could do that, instead of their highly durable tyres from 2010, but they said no because they have some self respect.

#12 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 19:06

How many threads do we need whinging about the same thing?


:up: Especially because the other threads already contain the information the OP is too lazy to look for.
Edit: As for the drifting, this amount of drift is not the quickest way. The cars are simply better now. Little to do with Pirelli, or did you see such angles on Bridgestones?

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 03 March 2013 - 19:13.


#13 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 28,470 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 March 2013 - 19:07

Villeneuve had radials Michelin in 1979 :kiss:


Aha. For some reason I thought they came in around 1984 or so. Maybe because that's when they started coming into competition in MotoGP and CART.

Er, stiff carbon fibre chassis vs. flexy metal ones?

Edited by Risil, 03 March 2013 - 19:08.


#14 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 15,103 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 03 March 2013 - 19:22

I think the request came from the FIA, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ecclestone had a part to play too. Pirelli were asked to make a tyre that replicated the Canadian GP a few years ago where the track surface started breaking up. I think Bridgestone were asked if they could do that, instead of their highly durable tyres from 2010, but they said no because they have some self respect.

Wrong. The Canadian GP where the track broke up was in 2006. We had the Bridgestone vs. Michelin tyre war back then so they couldn't replicate the tyres that where used then - because they simply weren't the same for everybody!

AFAIK Pirelli were more or less asked to make tyre compounds that corresponded in a way with the vast differences between the (Bridgestone!) compounds that were experienced during the 2010 Canadian GP.

#15 SR388

SR388
  • Member

  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 03 March 2013 - 19:25

That's what the FIA wanted. They wanted to make the racing unpredictable.

#16 motorhead

motorhead
  • Member

  • 1,354 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 03 March 2013 - 19:29

That's what the FIA wanted. They wanted to make the racing unpredictable.


This, PirelliĀ“s doing what client wants

#17 SR388

SR388
  • Member

  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 03 March 2013 - 19:33

F1 has a history of doing dumb stuff with tires.

2005. One set of tires per race. So dumb.

#18 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,050 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 19:37

If they'd just solved the dirty air issue you wouldn't ned any of this crap but you know... It's F1.


All we need is a way to defy the laws physics then.



Pirelli were asked by the teams to make tyres with high levels of degradation to produce 2/3 pitstop races, in 2011 the average number of stop was 2.25 and in 2012 it was 1.9, i'd be surprised if come the end of the season the number is high than 3 to be honest.

But hey, why get in the way of some good old fashion fear mongering.

#19 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 5,372 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 03 March 2013 - 19:39

Thank god. I was worried we would have to start the season without a tyrewhiner thread.

Advertisement

#20 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 20:25

Bernie also wanted artificial rain, the medal point system. The point is it's really down to Pirelli.


Pirelli became a law unto themselves are obsessed with the tyres dictating the outcome of the race and. Paul Humbreys sounds like a man who has lost his marbles. And I don't mean the trash their tyres leave on the track


Yes, because Pirelli is just a company completely dictated by a madman out to ruin F1 and his own tyre business for no reason whatsoever, and they're so powerful and unstoppable that no one can stop them making crappy tyres and ruining F1 for us intentionall...oh wait that's all bollocks.

#21 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 3,094 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 03 March 2013 - 21:08

Because someone somehow seems to think that the Americans with their money orientated show based sports know how to make more money by creating manufactured drama. Well this is a sport, it's not an investment or a theatrical performance or a film. It is F1 and it's fast become something else.

#22 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,373 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 21:22

1 pit stop ... bore-fest ... crap tire .... change manufacturer

3 pit stops ... unpredictability .... crap tire ... change manufacturer


it's the so-called racing purists that should shut thier pie hole and stop whining at any change that makes the sport more fun. unpredictability and fun is what majority of the fans want. also, by introducing delicate tires, it sorts out gun-totting yahoos from cold minded masters. it's what we want. DRS has made racing more strategic than before, no more trains. so FFS, Stop whining. tires are fine, and by mid season, most of these so called purist will cry for more deg, like last season.

#23 Diderlo

Diderlo
  • Member

  • 170 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 21:27

Because someone somehow seems to think that the Americans with their money orientated show based sports know how to make more money by creating manufactured drama. Well this is a sport, it's not an investment or a theatrical performance or a film. It is F1 and it's fast become something else.


They might not be always right, but trust me, they need drama. If we ditched these degrading tyres it would be 0 stop race. It might be what F1 fanatics want, but it surely would reduce the amount of watchers. You don't want that. If F1 loses its drama, it will eventually lose sponsors, teams, tracks.. because F1 IS an investment no matter what you say. Huge investment. I won't blame them for trying to generate drama and still the best team should win.

#24 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 03 March 2013 - 21:36

I can't see that it's great PR, having the world's finest drivers saying Pirelli tires are shite every time they're interviewed. We fans know it's 'intentional', but millions of casual viewers won't be too impressed.

#25 Diderlo

Diderlo
  • Member

  • 170 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 21:39

I can't see that it's great PR, having the world's finest drivers saying Pirelli tires are shite every time they're interviewed. We fans know it's 'intentional', but millions of casual viewers won't be too impressed.


Pirellis are ****? Every time? I have missed that, but I haven't read that much interviews. I'm curious who have said that and when.

#26 MrFondue

MrFondue
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 March 2013 - 21:40

1 pit stop ... bore-fest ... crap tire .... change manufacturer

3 pit stops ... unpredictability .... crap tire ... change manufacturer


it's the so-called racing purists that should shut thier pie hole and stop whining at any change that makes the sport more fun. unpredictability and fun is what majority of the fans want. also, by introducing delicate tires, it sorts out gun-totting yahoos from cold minded masters. it's what we want. DRS has made racing more strategic than before, no more trains. so FFS, Stop whining. tires are fine, and by mid season, most of these so called purist will cry for more deg, like last season.


Also, selective memory. I can remember the same fans complaining about the 2010 Bridgestones, because they "destroyed racing" by lasting too long and being too predictable.

Edited by MrFondue, 03 March 2013 - 21:41.


#27 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 3,094 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 03 March 2013 - 21:52

They might not be always right, but trust me, they need drama. If we ditched these degrading tyres it would be 0 stop race. It might be what F1 fanatics want, but it surely would reduce the amount of watchers. You don't want that. If F1 loses its drama, it will eventually lose sponsors, teams, tracks.. because F1 IS an investment no matter what you say. Huge investment. I won't blame them for trying to generate drama and still the best team should win.

Let the people go somewhere else then the real F1 fans will build up slowly regardless, they will be forced to reduce cost but that's what they want anyway! There will always be a way of racing modern racing cars and demonstrating 200 mph driving skills. Let the people who think Hamilton is better than Vettel because he's British or Sutil better than Alonso because he's German or is a nice bloke go somewhere else with their money. Have no pit stops, force the drivers to over take each other and not with kids toys. The natural ebbs and flows of popularity will always be there but lets find the world drivers F1 champion and champion team the right way. Ever since they've been trying to spend less money all they do is hire pay drivers, none of the ideas ever work because no-one wants to keep within the spirit of the reason for doing it. It's a false sense of gain, we will end up with a totally manufactured sport where the winners are decide at the start of the season.

#28 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 3,378 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 03 March 2013 - 21:53

Michael Schumacher said it was like driving on raw eggs, if I recall.

#29 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 14,507 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 03 March 2013 - 22:01

You recall correctly;

http://www.guardian....irelli-tyres-f1

They just need to apply some common sense and find a happy medium; not have one set lasting 100 laps flat out, but equally not have them melting on the out lap.

#30 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 5,756 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 03 March 2013 - 22:04

You recall correctly;

http://www.guardian....irelli-tyres-f1

They just need to apply some common sense and find a happy medium; not have one set lasting 100 laps flat out, but equally not have them melting on the out lap.


It would be good to have tyres for which pushing hard doesn't lead to significantly/absurdly higher deg. That's the core problem - and not easy to solve.

Edited by apoka, 03 March 2013 - 22:04.


#31 HPT

HPT
  • Member

  • 1,545 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 22:06

How many threads do we need whinging about the same thing?


+1

I think human beings just have an innate need to complain. First the Bridgestones was too damn lasting and racing was boring and now Pirelli is too fragile and racing is unpredictable so it's 'fake'. Can't we just enjoy the bloody racing? Everyone gets the same tire so whether they're hard as rock or soft as butter it's still a level playing field.

#32 Longtimefan

Longtimefan
  • Member

  • 3,170 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 03 March 2013 - 22:10

The tyres are horrible but you cannot blame Pirelli, they are only doing as instructed.

But its a great shame that the drivers have to 'nurse' their tyres all the time, I long for the days when a driver could push hard when he wanted to.
Whoever decided on this fiasco, be it Bernie or the FIA, its a joke and really takes away what F1 should be. RACING!


#33 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,262 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 22:47

The answer to the question is that this is what everyone involved in putting on the show wants.

#34 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,373 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 22:52

The tyres are horrible but you cannot blame Pirelli, they are only doing as instructed.

But its a great shame that the drivers have to 'nurse' their tyres all the time, I long for the days when a driver could push hard when he wanted to.
Whoever decided on this fiasco, be it Bernie or the FIA, its a joke and really takes away what F1 should be. RACING!


2009 and 2010 should show that a good durable racing tire doesn't really mean good racing, the word 'Pushing' doesn't work in F1 as do in other sports, all the times. a good car will have higher chance of winning whatever the talent of the driver, we saw what happened in 2010 abu dhabi, all the pushing of Alonso counted for jack **** against petrov.

#35 DaddyCool

DaddyCool
  • Member

  • 1,286 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 23:24

F1 has undergone way too many knee-jerk changes since the mid 2000s.

Hell just look from 2008 on:

-Totally revamped bodywork + wings
-DDD/ban
-KERS
-EBD/ban
-Pirelli
-DRS/qualy DRS ban
-F-duct/ban
-DDRS/ban

With mandatory 2-compund rule, rev limits, point system tinkering, Tilke tracks, etc.

At this rate I've given up guessing which change was helpful and which wasn't. It is unfair to pin everything on Pirelli.


#36 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 18,261 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 03 March 2013 - 23:36

You recall correctly;

http://www.guardian....irelli-tyres-f1

They just need to apply some common sense and find a happy medium; not have one set lasting 100 laps flat out, but equally not have them melting on the out lap.

Common sense?

F1 tries to look environmental friendly by introducing KERS. But then with the tires they go the opposite way. (Not to mention that current KERS isn't environmental friendly either, if you include manufacturing and resources used)

F1 and common sense just don't get together, since long, long time ago.

#37 Mox

Mox
  • Member

  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 03 March 2013 - 23:50

Pirelli is doing one hell of a job in very difficult circumstances.

They were hired to deliver tyres that were "less efficient" (not at all "crap") than the previous tyres.

Why?

Because the tyre war had created tyres that were SO good, that it effectively took any strategy out of the tyre choice.
All teams had to use both sets, and so the strategy was pretty much pre-selected:

Were you a front-running team, you would qualify on the softer compound, and start the race on soft, race them hard, and when they began to go off, you'd pit, switch to the harder compound, and stay there for the rest of the race.
Midfield, there was a slight amount of speculation, that comprimising qualifying by running the harder compound, might not cost too many positions, and you could then go for a longer, slower first stint, hope to gain a few places due to crashes or failures, and maybe a few more as the opponents took to the pits for the early stop, and then hope to retain that position because of the usual difficulties overtaking under modern regulations.

A few tracks demanded a different strategy, but that would be the same for all teams and make little difference.

The result? Boring procession races!


When Michelin left F1, there was no need to further evolve the tyres competetively. But Bridgestone was unwilling (perhaps quite reasonably) to begin producing a tyre that would appear to have a lower quality than the tyres already developed.

The result? Even more boring procession races, and eventually the introduction of "artificially race-enhancing devices" like KERS and DRS. That did bring more passing ... or at least more "drive-bys" ... but not really a lot more "racing".


Enter Pirelli

With no recent involvement in F1, Pirelli hadn't already developed their tyres to a certain level. They did not suffer from the "pride" that Bridgestone did, and the F1 management was able to ask Pirelli to develop from a clean slate, to the specifications preferred by F1; A specification, that was supposed to re-introduce the strategic element to the matter of tyre choice.

Mission #1: Create a tyre that REALLY goes off, when it goes off, so that you can't just go balls out, and then have a 10 lap pit-window, with a minimal loss of time.

I'd say that is accomplished (for good or bad).


Mission #2: Create a tyre range, that makes it possible to select 2 compounds, so that EVERY RACE will force EVERY TEAM to make a decision based on a COMPROMISE. It shouldn't be possible to go all out for the entire race, UNLESS you have a stop more than your opposition.

Pirelli is not quite there yet, but it does look like they're trying. This is what make the drivers claim the Pirelli tyres are crap. They will not keep sticking like the Bridgestones, and the driver will have to compromise his speed for endurance at some point of the race, or suffer the time loss of the extra stop.


Mission #3: Balance the tyres in the range, so that they at every race can supply 2 compounds, so that the time lost due to excessive wear is a close to equal, but not quite, to the time of the added pit-stop, so that the strategy will have a marginal, but real, impact, and so that the team will have to spend time during practice, finding the right strategy for their car and setup.

This is what we can hope they succeed at. Ideally, it would pit a variety of 2-stop strategies against the agressive 3-stopper, and effectilvely eliminate the 1-stop strategy (while the "both sets mandatory" rule exists, anyway).

That would generate races where drivers would have to consider, whether to risk additional wear trying to attack an opponent or defend a position, or whether to hang back, conserve tyres and perhaps have a better shot at a later time. At the same time, they'll have to consider the strategies of their opponents, and can no longer trust that if the pit at the same time in the race, things stay equal.



Force drivers and teams to do things differently, and not just all develop and setup to the same tyre strategy.

It may look like "crap", but if Pirelli succeeds, it will bring back the strategic element that was lost when refueling was banned.
Sounds good to me!

Edited by Mox, 03 March 2013 - 23:52.


#38 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 18,261 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 03 March 2013 - 23:52

It would be good to have tyres for which pushing hard doesn't lead to significantly/absurdly higher deg. That's the core problem - and not easy to solve.

It'd be easy to solve, had the teams a few years agreed to cut downforce by 90%.

Also, before the current Pirelli era, tire companies developed their tires during a season. And that was important too. Teams improved their cars, and so the tires needed to adapt as well.

Thing is, that after that infamous Indy race, the FIA took control of the tire supply. While before tire companies would work for teams, they do work now for the teams through the FIA. Like it or not, because of that switch and the nature of F1, there never will be a perfect tire for any team anymore.

#39 tjkoyen

tjkoyen
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:18

Bernie has this power? I doubt it.
And I don't understand how such floppy tyres improve racing or why he would want it.


So you think Pirelli would still be the supplier for the series if they ignored their client's request and made tires that lasted the whole race?

Like others have said, if Pirelli wanted to, they could make tires that last the whole race, requiring no stops. Which would make the races a long drawn out parade again. The degrading tires brings some of the strategy back into play.

Personally, I'd prefer if they made more robust tires and allowed refueling again. Then we'd have faster cars, the drivers could push more, and we'd still have to pit and the need for strategy would be there.

Advertisement

#40 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:33

Pirelli is doing one hell of a job in very difficult circumstances.

They were hired to deliver tyres that were "less efficient" (not at all "crap") than the previous tyres.

Why?

Because the tyre war had created tyres that were SO good, that it effectively took any strategy out of the tyre choice.
All teams had to use both sets, and so the strategy was pretty much pre-selected:

Were you a front-running team, you would qualify on the softer compound, and start the race on soft, race them hard, and when they began to go off, you'd pit, switch to the harder compound, and stay there for the rest of the race.
Midfield, there was a slight amount of speculation, that comprimising qualifying by running the harder compound, might not cost too many positions, and you could then go for a longer, slower first stint, hope to gain a few places due to crashes or failures, and maybe a few more as the opponents took to the pits for the early stop, and then hope to retain that position because of the usual difficulties overtaking under modern regulations.

A few tracks demanded a different strategy, but that would be the same for all teams and make little difference.

The result? Boring procession races!


When Michelin left F1, there was no need to further evolve the tyres competetively. But Bridgestone was unwilling (perhaps quite reasonably) to begin producing a tyre that would appear to have a lower quality than the tyres already developed.

The result? Even more boring procession races, and eventually the introduction of "artificially race-enhancing devices" like KERS and DRS. That did bring more passing ... or at least more "drive-bys" ... but not really a lot more "racing".


Enter Pirelli

With no recent involvement in F1, Pirelli hadn't already developed their tyres to a certain level. They did not suffer from the "pride" that Bridgestone did, and the F1 management was able to ask Pirelli to develop from a clean slate, to the specifications preferred by F1; A specification, that was supposed to re-introduce the strategic element to the matter of tyre choice.

Mission #1: Create a tyre that REALLY goes off, when it goes off, so that you can't just go balls out, and then have a 10 lap pit-window, with a minimal loss of time.

I'd say that is accomplished (for good or bad).


Mission #2: Create a tyre range, that makes it possible to select 2 compounds, so that EVERY RACE will force EVERY TEAM to make a decision based on a COMPROMISE. It shouldn't be possible to go all out for the entire race, UNLESS you have a stop more than your opposition.

Pirelli is not quite there yet, but it does look like they're trying. This is what make the drivers claim the Pirelli tyres are crap. They will not keep sticking like the Bridgestones, and the driver will have to compromise his speed for endurance at some point of the race, or suffer the time loss of the extra stop.


Mission #3: Balance the tyres in the range, so that they at every race can supply 2 compounds, so that the time lost due to excessive wear is a close to equal, but not quite, to the time of the added pit-stop, so that the strategy will have a marginal, but real, impact, and so that the team will have to spend time during practice, finding the right strategy for their car and setup.

This is what we can hope they succeed at. Ideally, it would pit a variety of 2-stop strategies against the agressive 3-stopper, and effectilvely eliminate the 1-stop strategy (while the "both sets mandatory" rule exists, anyway).

That would generate races where drivers would have to consider, whether to risk additional wear trying to attack an opponent or defend a position, or whether to hang back, conserve tyres and perhaps have a better shot at a later time. At the same time, they'll have to consider the strategies of their opponents, and can no longer trust that if the pit at the same time in the race, things stay equal.



Force drivers and teams to do things differently, and not just all develop and setup to the same tyre strategy.

It may look like "crap", but if Pirelli succeeds, it will bring back the strategic element that was lost when refueling was banned.
Sounds good to me!


Paul?


#41 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:43

When Michelin left F1, there was no need to further evolve the tyres competetively. But Bridgestone was unwilling (perhaps quite reasonably) to begin producing a tyre that would appear to have a lower quality than the tyres already developed.

The result? Even more boring procession races, and eventually the introduction of "artificially race-enhancing devices" like KERS and DRS. That did bring more passing ... or at least more "drive-bys" ... but not really a lot more "racing".


Enter Pirelli


This entire post is entirely wrong, because it works on the entirely wrong assumption that KERS and DRS came before the Pirelli tires... Both came in/back in 2011! "Oops"

#42 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 674 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 04 March 2013 - 06:39

Because someone somehow seems to think that the Americans with their money orientated show based sports know how to make more money by creating manufactured drama. Well this is a sport, it's not an investment or a theatrical performance or a film. It is F1 and it's fast become something else.

Americans?

#43 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 14,944 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 06:53

Somehow and somewhere they must have been convinced their marketing value goes up if the races are more unpredictable. Maybe even as a mean to get more people to tune in and be exposed to their brand, or whatever.

It might even be true, but to see how poor they have been finding a balance between durability and performance illustrates how far off the mark they are as being able to supply proper f1 tyres.

Id bet a hundred bucks Bridgestone could come back with a days notice and still lap them at race distance.

#44 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:01

Common sense?

F1 tries to look environmental friendly by introducing KERS. But then with the tires they go the opposite way. (Not to mention that current KERS isn't environmental friendly either, if you include manufacturing and resources used)

F1 and common sense just don't get together, since long, long time ago.

That is a valid point. They introduced so many changes, that the idea of saving-money went out of the window almost immediately due to research that had to be invested to keep up with regulations at F1 level. This will be probably first season in a while which remains quiet, although based on what Vettel was saying about tires, there could be a new spending race again to deal with those.

#45 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:29

Somehow and somewhere they must have been convinced their marketing value goes up if the races are more unpredictable. Maybe even as a mean to get more people to tune in and be exposed to their brand, or whatever.

It might even be true, but to see how poor they have been finding a balance between durability and performance illustrates how far off the mark they are as being able to supply proper f1 tyres.


Actually they found a balance really well, and those who think poorly are just a very small and very vocal minority.

Id bet a hundred bucks Bridgestone could come back with a days notice and still lap them at race distance.


Which is not even the question. Obviously they would, because Pirelli did not only go after performance.


#46 Mox

Mox
  • Member

  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:36

This entire post is entirely wrong, because it works on the entirely wrong assumption that KERS and DRS came before the Pirelli tires... Both came in/back in 2011! "Oops"


Ehh ... KERS came in 2009. "Oops" ;)
http://www.formula1....sport/8763.html

But thanks for your constructive input! ;)

Edited by Mox, 04 March 2013 - 08:42.


#47 Mox

Mox
  • Member

  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:42

Paul?


No, but I will take that as a compliment.  ;)

#48 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 18:22

No, but I will take that as a compliment.  ;)


Bernie?

#49 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,050 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 18:25

Ehh ... KERS came in 2009. "Oops" ;)
http://www.formula1....sport/8763.html

But thanks for your constructive input! ;)


He clearly stated KERs came back in 2011, which it did.

Oops.

#50 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 18:39

He clearly stated KERs came back in 2011, which it did.

Oops.


Yeah, but it had only gone because of cost and questionable gain for the teams that had used it. It was introduced in the Bridgestone era to combat processions. (Edit: and arguably FIA didn't anticipate that Pirelli's tyres would make it superfluous for that purpose). No question that attempt to dismiss the post based on "because it works on the entirely wrong assumption that KERS and DRS came before the Pirelli tires" is incorrect, because KERS did come before Pirellis.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 04 March 2013 - 18:42.