Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 9 votes

Why is Pirelli making such crap tyres?


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#51 PretentiousBread

PretentiousBread
  • Member

  • 2,906 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 19:10

Pirelli were instructed to produce tyres that degrade more than the Bridgestones did in order to produce multi-stop races, however, they were not instructed to produce tyres which don't reward being pushed on that must be nursed constantly. That's the sad byproduct of F1's objective and their cheapskate tyre supplier's approach to designing the rubber.

As I understand it, the reason Pirelli's 'cheese' P-Zeros are so useless when pushed, is primarily that there is far less chemical grip between the tyre and track as there was with the Bridgestones for example. The bulk of its grip is derived from the mechanical bending and flexing of the tyre clawing at the surface, resulting in it simply shearing away into giant marbles rather than being rubbered into the track like a more typical race tyre. This means the more you push, simply the more they degrade, whereas before, pushing also resulted in more chemical bonding with the track surface so that it gave some grip back and didn't rely so much on the mechanical grip of the tyre. Effectively, the huge build up of marbles that we see so commonly in the Pirelli era, is rubber that would have been woven into the track with Bridgestone/Michelins through the hysteresis of the tyre and track.

It must be possible to produce a more dynamic tyre than what Pirelli make, one that can either be pushed on for a sustained amount of time so that the art of driving a car to its limit is no longer an obsolete one, or nursed for a longer stint time to promote varied strategies. Think of a half way house between 2010 Bridgestones and what we have now, like if the softer compounds in 2010 were the medium and hard, and create a new soft and supersoft, that is more durable and doesn't degrade in such a linear and irreversible fashion as what the current tyres do. Remember how Button nursed his option tyres for almost 40 laps at Abu Dhabi in 2010, when most pitted around the 18 lap point, yet he finished just a second behind Hamilton. If that type of tyre was like the prime, and a softer, but more dynamic tyre than what we have now was made the option, then it would hopefully promote both types of racing, instead of this farce of an entire field of elite drivers, non-stop tippy-toeing around the track without alternative, far, far within their own capabilities, in order to go faster?


Advertisement

#52 Alolnso

Alolnso
  • Member

  • 34 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 19:14

I don't get what all the fuss is about. People want to see racing action, not processions.

Even the arm chair experts, post FP1 fuel weight calculators and eye aerodynamicists here must admit that the most memorable races were the ones with a lot of uncertainty. It wasn't that one race when Schumacher won by 16 seconds over Barichello and it wasn't the ones where Vettel turned his engine down with 20 laps to go.

The Pirelli tires are giving us uncertainty. The teams and drivers have to deal with this uncertainty. Some of them chose the right strategy and some of them chose the wrong strategy. Some of them will rewarded for taking risks and others will be punished. That's racing and it sure as hell is a lot better than having one team crushing the opposition race after race.


#53 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,229 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 20:15

we want to see excellence, thatll be why we watch f1 rather than f3 or gp2. its also abit uneasy feelling that its not real, and somehow fake or contrived.

the races are better than 2010, on average, but not up to the intensity of your average gt2 race :)

#54 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,229 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 20:28

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

Hell just look from 2008 on:

-Totally revamped bodywork + wings yes abit
-DDD/ban abit probably
-KERS helped
-EBD/ban not sure
-Pirelli helped
-DRS/qualy DRS ban helped but ghey
-F-duct/ban not sure
-DDRS/ban didnt seem to help merc alot

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.


2 compound rule reduced stratigic verience, im sure before it some people started the race on hard tyres, rev limit probably didnt help


#55 Dzeidzei

Dzeidzei
  • Member

  • 233 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 20:40

I don't get what all the fuss is about. People want to see racing action, not processions.

Even the arm chair experts, post FP1 fuel weight calculators and eye aerodynamicists here must admit that the most memorable races were the ones with a lot of uncertainty. It wasn't that one race when Schumacher won by 16 seconds over Barichello and it wasn't the ones where Vettel turned his engine down with 20 laps to go.

The Pirelli tires are giving us uncertainty. The teams and drivers have to deal with this uncertainty. Some of them chose the right strategy and some of them chose the wrong strategy. Some of them will rewarded for taking risks and others will be punished. That's racing and it sure as hell is a lot better than having one team crushing the opposition race after race.


This is spot on. The whole thread is pointless. Pirelli´s job is to give f1 what the organisers want. Now they want uncertainty. Pirelli is doing a great job at that.

And dont forget: for ANY tyre manufacturer f1 is just a huge marketing campaign really.

#56 Massa

Massa
  • Member

  • 7,481 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 20:46

Pirelli job is to give some decent tyres. It's not Pirelli championship, it's not at Pirelli to spice up the race. We need to get rid of rev limit and 2 compound rule like Pingu666 said, and we will see some fantastic battle. Even with superhard tyres like Bridgestone 2010 one, we would see some great battle, without the rev limit and 2 compound rules.

#57 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 20:53

Pirelli is doing what was asked of them, and it was asked of them because the same whining fans think F1 can't possibly be enjoyable if it is processional in nature, which it always has been.

The whole point of one tire supplier is to try and take out the focus on tire suppliers, so people can't argue that one team is screwed because they went with the wrong manufacturer.

Yet, Pirelli has decided to go along with doing something, that will result in no upside to their image overall.

But hey I suppose with headlines like "7 different winners in the first 7 races" that's all that matters.

If F1 wants to increase overtaking, start banning cascading front wings, and eliminate carbon brakes for a start.

#58 schumimercamg

schumimercamg
  • Member

  • 415 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 21:12

Pirelli is doing what was asked of them, and it was asked of them because the same whining fans think F1 can't possibly be enjoyable if it is processional in nature, which it always has been.

The whole point of one tire supplier is to try and take out the focus on tire suppliers, so people can't argue that one team is screwed because they went with the wrong manufacturer.

Yet, Pirelli has decided to go along with doing something, that will result in no upside to their image overall.

But hey I suppose with headlines like "7 different winners in the first 7 races" that's all that matters.

If F1 wants to increase overtaking, start banning cascading front wings, and eliminate carbon brakes for a start.



No because then F1 is no longer F1. I appreciate the that the F1's are the fastest cars out there and therefore an overtake, when it happens is special and something to be appreciated, not expected.

Trust me there is too much of a good thing. A million overtakes a race would mean they were no longer exciting so when you do get that awesome, ballsy move it's no longer awesome and ballsy.

#59 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,373 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 21:18

No because then F1 is no longer F1. I appreciate the that the F1's are the fastest cars out there and therefore an overtake, when it happens is special and something to be appreciated, not expected.

Trust me there is too much of a good thing. A million overtakes a race would mean they were no longer exciting so when you do get that awesome, ballsy move it's no longer awesome and ballsy.


i'd say introducing the DRS has required the drivers to be more balsy in tight batlles, last year, drive by overtakings were reduced significantly , tracks like china and korea didn't really aided DRS application, it was mostly due to tire+DRS that produced most of the overtakes. also, using DRS ads certain variable, specially speed difference in braking zone, for example in abu dhabi, we saw more lunging to the inside than ever before. in the pre DRS era, cars were so aero-dependent that they couldn't follow one another in close-quarter, which has changed in DRS era. Granted the first year wasn't that great due to the fine tuning of the mechanism and determination of DRS zone length, but i believe it's now sorted out and makes the race more enjoyable.

Advertisement

#60 Alolnso

Alolnso
  • Member

  • 34 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 21:23

Pirelli is doing what was asked of them, and it was asked of them because the same whining fans think F1 can't possibly be enjoyable if it is processional in nature, which it always has been.

Was 2002, 2011 or even 2009 enjoyable?

I don't think so. The only reason you'll watch the next race is because you don't know who is going to win. And even if everything points towards a sure winner, you want something unexpected to happen. Just look at what happens here when someone's engine blows up...

Trust me there is too much of a good thing. A million overtakes a race would mean they were no longer exciting so when you do get that awesome, ballsy move it's no longer awesome and ballsy.

Yeah, but I also don't want to see 24 replays from 12 different camera angles (including the girlfriend's reactions) of the pass for 12th position. This usually happens when nothing is happening at the front.

Edited by Alolnso, 04 March 2013 - 21:28.


#61 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 21:31

Pirelli were instructed to produce tyres that degrade more than the Bridgestones did in order to produce multi-stop races, however, they were not instructed to produce tyres which don't reward being pushed on that must be nursed constantly. That's the sad byproduct of F1's objective and their cheapskate tyre supplier's approach to designing the rubber.

As I understand it, the reason Pirelli's 'cheese' P-Zeros are so useless when pushed, is primarily that there is far less chemical grip between the tyre and track as there was with the Bridgestones for example. The bulk of its grip is derived from the mechanical bending and flexing of the tyre clawing at the surface, resulting in it simply shearing away into giant marbles rather than being rubbered into the track like a more typical race tyre. This means the more you push, simply the more they degrade, whereas before, pushing also resulted in more chemical bonding with the track surface so that it gave some grip back and didn't rely so much on the mechanical grip of the tyre. Effectively, the huge build up of marbles that we see so commonly in the Pirelli era, is rubber that would have been woven into the track with Bridgestone/Michelins through the hysteresis of the tyre and track.

It must be possible to produce a more dynamic tyre than what Pirelli make, one that can either be pushed on for a sustained amount of time so that the art of driving a car to its limit is no longer an obsolete one, or nursed for a longer stint time to promote varied strategies. Think of a half way house between 2010 Bridgestones and what we have now, like if the softer compounds in 2010 were the medium and hard, and create a new soft and supersoft, that is more durable and doesn't degrade in such a linear and irreversible fashion as what the current tyres do. Remember how Button nursed his option tyres for almost 40 laps at Abu Dhabi in 2010, when most pitted around the 18 lap point, yet he finished just a second behind Hamilton. If that type of tyre was like the prime, and a softer, but more dynamic tyre than what we have now was made the option, then it would hopefully promote both types of racing, instead of this farce of an entire field of elite drivers, non-stop tippy-toeing around the track without alternative, far, far within their own capabilities, in order to go faster?


Good post, but I think it commits a fallacy: it assumes that it is indeed possible to achieve Pirelli-type degradation according to the specifications, while maintaining high performance at the same time. Maybe it is, but maybe it isn't - Bridgestone was too chicken to try. Pirelli is on record, from the time they received their brief and several times later, that building tyres with the requested parameters is very difficult, and it would have been easier to build Bridgestone-type tyres (not saying that their performance would be the same, but the behavior pattern).

The amount of marbles is also not (not only?) the result of lesser chemical bonding, or at least the less bonding may not be a result of Pirelli incompetence, but of what they had to do to meet the specs. The specs include fast deg, but also complete safety in the degraded state. They achieve this by having two compound layers, the outer one being grippy and degrading quickly until it is removed. The car then runs on the inner layer, which is hard and safe, but not grippy. Now, this outer layer has to go somewhere when it degrades, and ends up as marbles. Again, maybe some other company would have achieved the specs in other ways, but F1 did not meet Michelin's demands, Bridgestone did not want to, and Pirelli went ahead, got the contract and provided an implementation. (And others like Dunlop, Hankook or Schwalbe :drunk: were not in the running)

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 04 March 2013 - 21:39.


#62 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,882 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 March 2013 - 21:33

Yeah, but I also don't want to see 24 replays from 12 different camera angles (including the girlfriend's reactions) of the pass for 12th position. This usually happens when nothing something is happening at the front.


Just had to correct that. ;)

#63 schumimercamg

schumimercamg
  • Member

  • 415 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 22:42

i'd say introducing the DRS has required the drivers to be more balsy in tight batlles, last year, drive by overtakings were reduced significantly , tracks like china and korea didn't really aided DRS application, it was mostly due to tire+DRS that produced most of the overtakes. also, using DRS ads certain variable, specially speed difference in braking zone, for example in abu dhabi, we saw more lunging to the inside than ever before. in the pre DRS era, cars were so aero-dependent that they couldn't follow one another in close-quarter, which has changed in DRS era. Granted the first year wasn't that great due to the fine tuning of the mechanism and determination of DRS zone length, but i believe it's now sorted out and makes the race more enjoyable.



Good points but I actually wasn't talking about the DRS but the quoted posters mention of non carbon brakes to increase overtaking further.

#64 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 3,111 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 March 2013 - 23:28

i'd say introducing the DRS has required the drivers to be more balsy in tight batlles, last year, drive by overtakings were reduced significantly , tracks like china and korea didn't really aided DRS application, it was mostly due to tire+DRS that produced most of the overtakes. also, using DRS ads certain variable, specially speed difference in braking zone, for example in abu dhabi, we saw more lunging to the inside than ever before. in the pre DRS era, cars were so aero-dependent that they couldn't follow one another in close-quarter, which has changed in DRS era. Granted the first year wasn't that great due to the fine tuning of the mechanism and determination of DRS zone length, but i believe it's now sorted out and makes the race more enjoyable.

You're posting under the wrong assumption that tyre + DRS means no drive-by overtake. It is. Everybody waits for the straight to get by and in most of the cases it will work out. Drivers aren't tempted to take risks on other places of the track anymore. You saw what happened with Alonso in Canada? That's drive-by overtaking.

#65 Celloman

Celloman
  • Member

  • 845 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 04 March 2013 - 23:35

You're posting under the wrong assumption that tyre + DRS means no drive-by overtake. It is. Everybody waits for the straight to get by and in most of the cases it will work out. Drivers aren't tempted to take risks on other places of the track anymore. You saw what happened with Alonso in Canada? That's drive-by overtaking.


Tell me then in which season we last time saw as many good overtakes as this



#66 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 23:44

Was 2002, 2011 or even 2009 enjoyable?

I don't think so. The only reason you'll watch the next race is because you don't know who is going to win. And even if everything points towards a sure winner, you want something unexpected to happen. Just look at what happens here when someone's engine blows up...


I have no problem with any of those seasons. While I didn't care for the teams winning in a couple of them, if you build a better car than anyone else, then you deserve to win the title however boring it may be for fans of other teams. People in England certainly weren't complaining when Nigel Mansell was running away with the championship in 1992. That's F1 for you. Not all years are equal, nor they should be. The problem is because a bunch of whiny babies felt it was unfair for a better designed car to win, we've got what we have currently.

I do not like gimmicks designed to bunch the field up and keep guys from truly driving on the limit. That's best saved for NASCAR.

#67 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 23:45

Tell me then in which season we last time saw as many good overtakes as this


There's more to racing than overtakes.

If your measure of enjoyment is based on overtaking, NASCAR is the place to go.

#68 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 23:48

There's more to racing than overtakes.

If your measure of enjoyment is based on overtaking, NASCAR is the place to go.


And in many of those other aspects 2012 was also a great season.

#69 Longtimefan

Longtimefan
  • Member

  • 3,170 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 05 March 2013 - 00:17

Can we go back to the Goodyear Eagles please?




#70 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 00:40

Was 2002, 2011 or even 2009 enjoyable?

I don't think so. The only reason you'll watch the next race is because you don't know who is going to win. And even if everything points towards a sure winner, you want something unexpected to happen. Just look at what happens here when someone's engine blows up...


Yeah, but I also don't want to see 24 replays from 12 different camera angles (including the girlfriend's reactions) of the pass for 12th position. This usually happens when nothing is happening at the front.


Two teams coming out of nowhere from the midfield, one of which nearly didn't make it into the season, goes on to eventually win the championship? The top two teams from last year struggling hilariously? THIS WAS THE BEST SEASON!

I HATE races where 'anyone can win'. The first few races of this year were a joke - I enjoyed it at first but when all it came down to was temperatures and guessing at the tires, winning an F1 race became, dare I say it, ordinary.

I also hate races where a driver gets loads of praise for coming from the back randomly... when most of their overtakes were due to botched pitstops and cars engines failing. That isn't interesting! I want to see car-on-car overtakes, like Button in 2011! Not a bye-bye wave as the other driver's standing by the wall screaming at his engineer, or as your front gunner struggles with the wheel nut.

Top races this year have to be Spa, Abu Dhabi and Brazil. Complete chaos, and yes cars did fail/DNF, but some beautiful, truly skilled driver overtakes there, cream rising to the top. None of this randomness from the beginning of the season.

Edited by mattferg, 05 March 2013 - 00:42.


#71 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:10

And in many of those other aspects 2012 was also a great season.


No it was not.

2012 was the biggest fraud of a season solely because of the tires. The single tire supplier was supposed to do away with focus on the tires, yet it did nothing of the sort.

The fact is, these tires no matter how anyone tries to spin it, are the biggest pieces of **** ever. Pirelli's answer is to come back with tires for 2013 that increase the likelihood of another lottery due to increased degradation. The so called pinnacle of motorsport is reduced to ensuring the drivers won't actually drive on the limit, much if ever for the very real fear of keeping their tires from falling off a cliff. As it relates to F1, Pirelli has always been a shitty tire manufacturer. One has to just look at their previous efforts. They fear having any competition from another tire manufacturer because it will expose them as being a joke.

#72 pliskinrob

pliskinrob
  • Member

  • 85 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:31

No it was not.

2012 was the biggest fraud of a season solely because of the tires. The single tire supplier was supposed to do away with focus on the tires, yet it did nothing of the sort.

The fact is, these tires no matter how anyone tries to spin it, are the biggest pieces of **** ever. Pirelli's answer is to come back with tires for 2013 that increase the likelihood of another lottery due to increased degradation. The so called pinnacle of motorsport is reduced to ensuring the drivers won't actually drive on the limit, much if ever for the very real fear of keeping their tires from falling off a cliff. As it relates to F1, Pirelli has always been a shitty tire manufacturer. One has to just look at their previous efforts. They fear having any competition from another tire manufacturer because it will expose them as being a joke.


This perfectly sums up the situation since 2011

#73 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 6,451 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:43

Agreed, the Pirellis, DRS, KERS suck but they make F1 entertaining. Thats what everyone is looking for. Can't blame anyone really.

#74 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:48

No it was not.

2012 was the biggest fraud of a season solely because of the tires. The single tire supplier was supposed to do away with focus on the tires, yet it did nothing of the sort.

The fact is, these tires no matter how anyone tries to spin it, are the biggest pieces of **** ever. Pirelli's answer is to come back with tires for 2013 that increase the likelihood of another lottery due to increased degradation. The so called pinnacle of motorsport is reduced to ensuring the drivers won't actually drive on the limit, much if ever for the very real fear of keeping their tires from falling off a cliff. As it relates to F1, Pirelli has always been a shitty tire manufacturer. One has to just look at their previous efforts. They fear having any competition from another tire manufacturer because it will expose them as being a joke.


Whitmarsh, January 2013

Speaking at the launch of the McLaren MP4-28 Whitmarsh admitted his desire for challenging tyres stemmed from more than just a wish to see exciting races.

“We’re heading into our third year with Pirelli and they’ve contributed to some exciting dilemmas for teams in the first few years,” said Whitmarsh.

“But in truth they probably got a little bit conservative at the end of the year. We became a bit more comfortable, we understood the tyres a little bit more, one stop was possible.

“So I think it’s a good thing they’ve changed the construction and the compound. I think they’ll be a little bit less conservative with the compounds they allocate to each race. So I think that’ll be good and I think it will be good for the sport.


Whitmarsh in May 2012:

'If Pirelli make tyres which give drivers and teams a real challenge and add to the spectacle the driver, understandably if he's had a bad race, will complain about them,' said Whitmarsh, speaking at a Vodafone McLaren Mercedes phone-in.
'But on the other hand if they make tyres that are very robust, not challenging in terms of management from either the team or the drivers' perspective, then I'm sure that the spectators will be critical of those tyres because they haven't created the right spectacle.'
He admitted McLaren had not always got the most out of the tyres this year: 'The tyres are undoubtedly challenging, there have been times when they've given us a significant challenge.
'And I think, frankly, the last race in Bahrain was one of those where we weren't in the right window of operation and that affected our performance in the race quite dramatically.
'But I think it's probably wrong to criticise the tyre, I think you've got to look at what you as a team and what the drivers are doing and how you manage the situation. That's part of motor racing.'


Whitmarsh, Dec 2011:

McLaren team boss Martin Whitmarsh has urged Pirelli to go back to high degradation tyres in order to spice up F1 grands prix.
Pirelli returned to Formula One this season with a bang as the Italian tyre manufacturer added much-needed excitement to the sport thanks to their tyres, which often suffered heavy degradation.
But, as the season progressed, Pirelli's rubber did as well as the high wear was soon a thing of the past.
However, Whitmarsh has urged the Italian company to choose degradation over durability for next season as it makes for more exciting races.
"I think they unwittingly or otherwise made a great contribution to the show at the beginning," Whitmarsh told Autosport. "It gave us a lot of headaches.
"I think the tyres in terms of durability and degradation they got disturbingly better as the year has gone on, and I think we would like to give them the challenge of making high degradation tyres and give us a bit more headache.
"While drivers will always feel uncomfortable in those situations, I think they made quite a big contribution to the season, so I think KERS and DRS made an impact but you have to keep working to make sure we have a spectacle and show."



#75 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 02:36

No it was not.

2012 was the biggest fraud of a season solely because of the tires. The single tire supplier was supposed to do away with focus on the tires, yet it did nothing of the sort.

The fact is, these tires no matter how anyone tries to spin it, are the biggest pieces of **** ever. Pirelli's answer is to come back with tires for 2013 that increase the likelihood of another lottery due to increased degradation. The so called pinnacle of motorsport is reduced to ensuring the drivers won't actually drive on the limit, much if ever for the very real fear of keeping their tires from falling off a cliff. As it relates to F1, Pirelli has always been a shitty tire manufacturer. One has to just look at their previous efforts. They fear having any competition from another tire manufacturer because it will expose them as being a joke.


Failure to understand F1 + failure to understand Motorsport in general = this post.

The single tire manufacturer thing wasn't to remove focus on the tires, it was to make it more equal between the teams, as it's clearly seen in various seasons that one tire has had an unfair advantage over the other, and this leads to championships being decided from race 1.

Tires are part of F1, and how teams deal with them is part of the game, just like the top speed vs cornering speed decisions made, gearing etc. If you don't like it go watch some other formula. F1 has always been about having the best strategies and it was only in the refuelling era that F1 became about ALWAYS 100% driving at the limit. If you did that in a Lotus in the 60s, you were gonna die. But, if you prefer a time trial to a race, that's your decision.

Also, I'd like to remind you, as it's been discussed in this thread earlier, Pirelli is doing a job for the FIA. If they didn't lime the job they were doing, or were doing something different to what they'd ask, they'd stop them, or get someone else (bring back Bridgestone, Michelin or Goodyear, maybe even give Conti a try).

Bernie/the FIA want the tires this way, it makes the drivers think more and makes races more exciting. After all, two of the best drivers, Senna and Proust, were well known for using their brains to win races.






#76 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 03:51

Failure to understand F1 + failure to understand Motorsport in general = this post.

The single tire manufacturer thing wasn't to remove focus on the tires, it was to make it more equal between the teams, as it's clearly seen in various seasons that one tire has had an unfair advantage over the other, and this leads to championships being decided from race 1.

Tires are part of F1, and how teams deal with them is part of the game, just like the top speed vs cornering speed decisions made, gearing etc. If you don't like it go watch some other formula. F1 has always been about having the best strategies and it was only in the refuelling era that F1 became about ALWAYS 100% driving at the limit. If you did that in a Lotus in the 60s, you were gonna die. But, if you prefer a time trial to a race, that's your decision.

Also, I'd like to remind you, as it's been discussed in this thread earlier, Pirelli is doing a job for the FIA. If they didn't lime the job they were doing, or were doing something different to what they'd ask, they'd stop them, or get someone else (bring back Bridgestone, Michelin or Goodyear, maybe even give Conti a try).

Bernie/the FIA want the tires this way, it makes the drivers think more and makes races more exciting. After all, two of the best drivers, Senna and Proust, were well known for using their brains to win races.


The bolded portion, that's actually pretty important since it exhibits a genuine lack of any awareness on your part. Maybe instead of trying to claim I had some sort of failure to understand, you might want to get your own posts in order.

Yes, because guys openly admitting they don't even push the cars is really something to be in awe of. This is the only formula where tire performance drops off a cliff based on design.

P.S. I already mentioned Pirelli is doing what they were asked to in this topic...more of your superior knowledge showing itself?

P.P.S. Senna and Prost would have been complaining about these tires if they were being used in the 80s.


#77 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:16

The bolded portion, that's actually pretty important since it exhibits a genuine lack of any awareness on your part. Maybe instead of trying to claim I had some sort of failure to understand, you might want to get your own posts in order.

Yes, because guys openly admitting they don't even push the cars is really something to be in awe of. This is the only formula where tire performance drops off a cliff based on design.

P.S. I already mentioned Pirelli is doing what they were asked to in this topic...more of your superior knowledge showing itself?

P.P.S. Senna and Prost would have been complaining about these tires if they were being used in the 80s.


Oh don't worry, I didn't expect you to reply to any of my post with anything intelligent.

#78 Juggles

Juggles
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:24

I have no problem with any of those seasons. While I didn't care for the teams winning in a couple of them, if you build a better car than anyone else, then you deserve to win the title however boring it may be for fans of other teams. People in England certainly weren't complaining when Nigel Mansell was running away with the championship in 1992. That's F1 for you. Not all years are equal, nor they should be. The problem is because a bunch of whiny babies felt it was unfair for a better designed car to win, we've got what we have currently.

I do not like gimmicks designed to bunch the field up and keep guys from truly driving on the limit. That's best saved for NASCAR.


The meritocracy argument doesn't work because the teams are on different budgets. I'm assuming you wouldn't agree that "if you build a more expensive car than anyone else then you deserve to win the title however boring it may be for fans of other teams," but the more variables you eliminate the more likely it is that money can buy you a championship.

That doesn't mean Pirelli being asked to create tyres that break down faster than the average X Factor contestant is the right variable, but I do think it's good to throw a curveball at the teams every now and then. You're only going to stall the progress of the best teams (has the championship table at the end of the season been unpredictable in the slightest in either 2011 or 2012?) but you might have a few less snoozefests along the way.

#79 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 05 March 2013 - 06:20

Failure to understand F1 + failure to understand Motorsport in general = this post.

The single tire manufacturer thing wasn't to remove focus on the tires, it was to make it more equal between the teams, as it's clearly seen in various seasons that one tire has had an unfair advantage over the other, and this leads to championships being decided from race 1.

Tires are part of F1, and how teams deal with them is part of the game, just like the top speed vs cornering speed decisions made, gearing etc. If you don't like it go watch some other formula. F1 has always been about having the best strategies and it was only in the refuelling era that F1 became about ALWAYS 100% driving at the limit. If you did that in a Lotus in the 60s, you were gonna die. But, if you prefer a time trial to a race, that's your decision.

Also, I'd like to remind you, as it's been discussed in this thread earlier, Pirelli is doing a job for the FIA. If they didn't lime the job they were doing, or were doing something different to what they'd ask, they'd stop them, or get someone else (bring back Bridgestone, Michelin or Goodyear, maybe even give Conti a try).

Bernie/the FIA want the tires this way, it makes the drivers think more and makes races more exciting. After all, two of the best drivers, Senna and Proust, were well known for using their brains to win races.

Substantively there is not much wrong with your post, but what some of us are complaining about is something to the effect as buying a commuter car which is capable to reach 180 km/hr on your way to the office, definitely 100 km under a speed zone restriction, but its tires let you to reach only 65 km one day, 40 next day, and so on. They are an important part of the car, but one doesn't know when you should get on the road, because if you drive too fast, you might need to make occasionally an emergency stop, pull spare ones out of trunk, and change them to make a trip. I think you get my point, because that’s what Pirelli is doing to F1.

Edited by Sakae, 05 March 2013 - 06:21.


Advertisement

#80 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 06:40

Substantively there is not much wrong with your post, but what some of us are complaining about is something to the effect as buying a commuter car which is capable to reach 180 km/hr on your way to the office, definitely 100 km under a speed zone restriction, but its tires let you to reach only 65 km one day, 40 next day, and so on. They are an important part of the car, but one doesn't know when you should get on the road, because if you drive too fast, you might need to make occasionally an emergency stop, pull spare ones out of trunk, and change them to make a trip. I think you get my point, because that’s what Pirelli is doing to F1.


Errr no not really, as you've blown it way out of proportion. There's only so fast a human can react, so driving round these circuits at faster speeds than what was done by the F2004/5 and it's colleagues is simply madness, part of the reason why they used grooved tires. So your point "easily 100km below speed restrictions" is ridiculous. As is referring to the difference between what they do now to what they did under bridgestones the same as 180 bus 65/40. Are you seriously implying drivers only put in 1/3 of the effort or drive 1/3 as fast as 2010?!

#81 Juggles

Juggles
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:48

Errr no not really, as you've blown it way out of proportion. There's only so fast a human can react, so driving round these circuits at faster speeds than what was done by the F2004/5 and it's colleagues is simply madness, part of the reason why they used grooved tires. So your point "easily 100km below speed restrictions" is ridiculous. As is referring to the difference between what they do now to what they did under bridgestones the same as 180 bus 65/40. Are you seriously implying drivers only put in 1/3 of the effort or drive 1/3 as fast as 2010?!


It's slightly disconcerting when you see the drivers step out of the cars after a two hour race at Singapore looking like they've just been for a gentle afternoon stroll. It gives you an idea of how easy it is for them now, and it isn't just different fitness levels; compare it to the drivers after Singapore just two years ago in 2010.

#82 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:55

It's slightly disconcerting when you see the drivers step out of the cars after a two hour race at Singapore looking like they've just been for a gentle afternoon stroll. It gives you an idea of how easy it is for them now, and it isn't just different fitness levels; compare it to the drivers after Singapore just two years ago in 2010.


They could try harder, Alonso looked hammered after every race.

#83 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:03

Errr no not really, as you've blown it way out of proportion. There's only so fast a human can react, so driving round these circuits at faster speeds than what was done by the F2004/5 and it's colleagues is simply madness, part of the reason why they used grooved tires. So your point "easily 100km below speed restrictions" is ridiculous. As is referring to the difference between what they do now to what they did under bridgestones the same as 180 bus 65/40. Are you seriously implying drivers only put in 1/3 of the effort or drive 1/3 as fast as 2010?!

I am not sure that my point has been understood. Returning to my commuter analogy, I am not advocating that we should drive 180 km/hr on public roads, but I do insist in my role as a fan of the F1 sport, that Pirelli will allow drivers to "drive 100 km/hr, instead 60". Put it differently, if people in charge of competetivness sought to achieve balance among teams through tire regulation, make sure that it is also in balance with rest of the regulations, and car capabilities, but don't built F16 fighter jet, and put tires on them that are suited for a wheel barrow.

Edited by Sakae, 05 March 2013 - 09:05.


#84 PretentiousBread

PretentiousBread
  • Member

  • 2,906 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 10:45

Errr no not really, as you've blown it way out of proportion. There's only so fast a human can react, so driving round these circuits at faster speeds than what was done by the F2004/5 and it's colleagues is simply madness, part of the reason why they used grooved tires. So your point "easily 100km below speed restrictions" is ridiculous. As is referring to the difference between what they do now to what they did under bridgestones the same as 180 bus 65/40. Are you seriously implying drivers only put in 1/3 of the effort or drive 1/3 as fast as 2010?!


1/3 is an exaggeration, but it's not as outter worldly as you imply:

Lewis Hamilton's first impressions of Pirelli tyres in 2011:

"It's very strange.....even compared to last year, when we had heavy fuel and you had to drive it a little easier at the beginning of the race to preserve the tyres. The tyres just go away so fast and there's nothing you can do about it. I didn't feel like I was really racing the car." and in a separate interview "it's not racing, it's just driving around."

Martin Brundle, post Bahrain 2012:

"On the journey home I was talking with two F1 drivers, a world champion and a multiple race winner, and they had very similar concerns to Michael in that they can't push the cars anywhere near their limits. 'Physically my granny could drive the race' quipped one to underline how far away from the limits they are."




#85 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:35

Kimi never holds back, right?

"I don't think the nature [of F1] is different because of that," Raikkonen told Finnish newspaper Turun Sanomat about the impact of Pirelli.

"It's because of the amount of the fuel on board. I don't think there would be that much problem with these tyres, if we would race with 50 or 60 kilos, when we start.

"Previously the pitstops were made usually after every 20 laps, while we had less fuel. I think it would have been the same situation with Michelins and Bridgestones if we would have this much fuel as we have now.

"These tyres are good in qualifying: they have a good grip and all in all they are good tyres."



#86 Juggles

Juggles
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 12:16

They could try harder, Alonso looked hammered after every race.


You're thinking of Raikkonen

#87 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 13:36

You're thinking of Raikkonen


No I don't, it was a frequent cause of comments.

#88 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 14:02

Oh don't worry, I didn't expect you to reply to any of my post with anything intelligent.


If you truly had anything intelligent to say, you would realize this is a subjective matter as is.

Guys were driving 10/10ths in the 60s in a Lotus, not the entire race, but more than they do now. And really, the hyperbole from you is disgusting....they would die driving on the limit?

Yes F1 has always been about managing the race, but when it's gotten to a point where drivers are all admitting openly or privately these tires leave a lot to be desired since there is no upside to even driving 10/10ths. In your haste to disagree and resort to juvenile behavior, you missed that completely, and actually still do for that matter. Maybe you enjoy things like watching Alonso's tires fall off a cliff in Canada, or Kimi hitting marbles and having his tires shredded. That's fine, but don't expect everyone to like it, or to even find any of this to be a good thing just because you think it is.

This is F1, not NASCAR, GP2, or whatever other series you want to throw in there. Drivers should not be penalized for driving on the limit. Nor should they be puttering around a circuit waiting for the next pit stop so they can drive at maybe 9/10ths at best for a small window of time.

#89 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 14:04

I am not sure that my point has been understood. Returning to my commuter analogy, I am not advocating that we should drive 180 km/hr on public roads, but I do insist in my role as a fan of the F1 sport, that Pirelli will allow drivers to "drive 100 km/hr, instead 60". Put it differently, if people in charge of competetivness sought to achieve balance among teams through tire regulation, make sure that it is also in balance with rest of the regulations, and car capabilities, but don't built F16 fighter jet, and put tires on them that are suited for a wheel barrow.


Well said Sakae.

There's a way to have pit stops without having the cause for pit stops being tires that fell off a cliff.

#90 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 18:27

If you truly had anything intelligent to say, you would realize this is a subjective matter as is.

Guys were driving 10/10ths in the 60s in a Lotus, not the entire race, but more than they do now. And really, the hyperbole from you is disgusting....they would die driving on the limit?

Yes F1 has always been about managing the race, but when it's gotten to a point where drivers are all admitting openly or privately these tires leave a lot to be desired since there is no upside to even driving 10/10ths. In your haste to disagree and resort to juvenile behavior, you missed that completely, and actually still do for that matter. Maybe you enjoy things like watching Alonso's tires fall off a cliff in Canada, or Kimi hitting marbles and having his tires shredded. That's fine, but don't expect everyone to like it, or to even find any of this to be a good thing just because you think it is.

This is F1, not NASCAR, GP2, or whatever other series you want to throw in there. Drivers should not be penalized for driving on the limit. Nor should they be puttering around a circuit waiting for the next pit stop so they can drive at maybe 9/10ths at best for a small window of time.


The Lotus cars were extremely fragile - FACT. If you pushed them to the very limit of their performance, they would break, crash, and a driver would be seriously injured. Fact. It happened pretty often. Pretty hypocritical you calling that hyperbole when you're acting like these tyres are the end of the world lol.

Secondly, as posted above (again not reading the thread mate!!!) Kimi isn't top bothered by the tyres, so Schumacher's comments plus some hearsay isn't all drivers. Sorry! F1 has always been about going round the circuit THE BEST WAY, not necessarily the fastest. These tyres make drivers think.

Unless you enjoy watching stuff like Alonso stuck behind Petrov or procession races, which is what you seem to be advocating.

#91 Shiroo

Shiroo
  • Member

  • 4,012 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 18:39

Cause Bernie asked them to do such tyres.

/thread

Edited by Shiroo, 05 March 2013 - 18:39.


#92 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 05 March 2013 - 18:46

I still don't understand the argument in defense of tires. If a tire slows down the cars to similar speed, while engines are very similar in their output, and any aero gains are negated by necessity to drive slowly for a tire to last, thus, since tires are the allegedly the same, don't we have now IRL style series, something which no one really wanted? What's good about that? They all will drive around in circles, slowly, in matching speeds. Ferrar now will equals Marussia, what a beauty.

If I would be an owner of RBR, and after spending around 200 Mill. Euros only to find out that it was all wasted because of tires, I might even get prettey cheesy about it and move on to other areas which allow me to win on merit of my investment, and not by a coin drop - heads/tails, who wins?

Edited by Sakae, 05 March 2013 - 18:48.


#93 ApexMouse

ApexMouse
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 05 March 2013 - 18:49

If aero gains are negated due to tyres sakae, why do Ferraris finish 3 laps in front of a marussia?

What utter garbage.

#94 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 9,216 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 18:50

I still don't understand the argument in defense of tires. If a tire slows down the cars to similar speed, while engines are very similar in their output, and any aero gains are negated by necessity to drive slowly for a tire to last, thus, since tires are the allegedly the same, don't we have now IRL style series, something which no one really wanted? What's good about that? They all will driver around in circles, slowly, in matching speeds. Ferrar now equals Marussia, what a beauty.

It's a great argument. It would be even better if there was any truth in it.

#95 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,050 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 18:52

I still don't understand the argument in defense of tires. If a tire slows down the cars to similar speed, while engines are very similar in their output, and any aero gains are negated by necessity to drive slowly for a tire to last, thus, since tires are the allegedly the same, don't we have now IRL style series, something which no one really wanted? What's good about that? They all will drive around in circles, slowly, in matching speeds. Ferrar now will equals Marussia, what a beauty.

If I would be an owner of RBR, and after spending around 200 Mill. Euros only to find out that it was all wasted because of tires, I might even get prettey cheesy about it and move on to other areas which allow me to win on merit of my investment, and not by a coin drop - heads/tails, who wins?


You're the anti-logic.

#96 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 19:49

I still don't understand the argument in defense of tires. If a tire slows down the cars to similar speed, while engines are very similar in their output, and any aero gains are negated by necessity to drive slowly for a tire to last, thus, since tires are the allegedly the same, don't we have now IRL style series, something which no one really wanted? What's good about that? They all will drive around in circles, slowly, in matching speeds. Ferrar now will equals Marussia, what a beauty.

If I would be an owner of RBR, and after spending around 200 Mill. Euros only to find out that it was all wasted because of tires, I might even get prettey cheesy about it and move on to other areas which allow me to win on merit of my investment, and not by a coin drop - heads/tails, who wins?


This literally makes no sense. They drove around in Bridgestones in matching speeds, with no overtakes and boring races. The Pirellis in part changed that, made all the cars behave dramatically different, and allowed overtaking.

THAT'S why we defend the tires. Did you even watch 2010?

#97 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 05 March 2013 - 20:22

This literally makes no sense. They drove around in Bridgestones in matching speeds, with no overtakes and boring races. The Pirellis in part changed that, made all the cars behave dramatically different, and allowed overtaking.

THAT'S why we defend the tires. Did you even watch 2010?

Are you sure that in time period you are reffering to was problem associated with "Bridgestone", and not some other factors, like aero, drivers, etc.? (Yes, I watched 2010 season). I guess that I am one of those fans who do like racing with two or three drivers being in the mix, rarely more, and I do not mind if the overtakes are rare, as long as those are memorable. Twenty cheap back and forth moves puts me to sleep.

#98 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 March 2013 - 20:47

Are you sure that in time period you are reffering to was problem associated with "Bridgestone", and not some other factors, like aero, drivers, etc.? (Yes, I watched 2010 season). I guess that I am one of those fans who do like racing with two or three drivers being in the mix, rarely more, and I do not mind if the overtakes are rare, as long as those are memorable. Twenty cheap back and forth moves puts me to sleep.


Well the problem went away when they switched to Pirelli... So yes.

#99 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 21:29

Are you sure that in time period you are reffering to was problem associated with "Bridgestone", and not some other factors, like aero, drivers, etc.? (Yes, I watched 2010 season). I guess that I am one of those fans who do like racing with two or three drivers being in the mix, rarely more, and I do not mind if the overtakes are rare, as long as those are memorable. Twenty cheap back and forth moves puts me to sleep.


In addition to mattferg's post, given that the drivers in 2010 and 2012 were largely the same at the front (and in the midfield not so different as well), I think we can rule them out.

Advertisement

#100 Boxerevo

Boxerevo
  • Member

  • 2,662 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 21:43

2010 didn't had DRS.

Edited by Boxerevo, 05 March 2013 - 21:46.