Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:46
Because's there's a few different variables that have changed dramatically all at the same time, people's views are getting a bit foggy. Reminds me of my argument a few years back that F1 changes its rules so often that is losing all of its identity and nobody knows what F1 is, or should be anymore. That is still very true. Some hate DRS, some love it, some hate Pirellis, some love it, same for refuelling, same for the qualifying regulations, some have extreme views on some variables yet moderate views on others at the same time, add team and driver allegiances on top of this, the knee-jerk reactions after every race, and it's all a giant cluster****. In the middle of this there's very little you can do to be heard, but I'll still offer my humble, hopefully sensible opinion.
As far as I'm concerned, I certainly don't want the racing of 2010 back. A Ferrari losing the title because it was stuck behind a much much slower Renault for 30 laps, in a track that featured several massive long straights into hairpins, was the most obvious extreme F1 was totally broken. But beyond forgetting this sad scenario, people also forget that wasn't entirely the Bridgestone's fault - DRS has gone a long way to fix the overtaking issue now (indeed, sometimes far too long a way as it has become so easy!).
No, Pirelli have not fixed overtaking at all (at least not directly), yet they have introduced 3 different side-effects with their ballsy approach, which have completely changed the dynamics of the race as well:
1. softness of compounds, which directly equals more pitstops
2. much higher need to manage the tyres through driving
3. much higher variance of pace throughout a race
Please notice I have distinguished between 1) and 2) which is the crux of the issue. These two effects are no doubt interlinked due to the construct of the tyre, but they are not the same! And this is my problem with Pirelli.
I think they have the right idea. The #3 effect (variance of pace) is a brilliant introduction to the races and has dramatically improved the show, I believe this is by far their greatest achievement. I think #1 and #2 were neccessary as well too. Without at least 1 more pitstop compared to the bullet-proof 2010 Bridgestones, you don't have a wider array for strategical decisions which is a core feature of F1, and you would not have such a scope for variance of pace as well. I also really like the idea of drivers being able to choose between pushing or saving tyres a little - not an option on Bridgestone days when you HAD to push all day.
The problem is that both #1 and #2 are vastly overdone effects as it is. I personally think 4 pitstops in a race just for tyres is truly ridiculous, not only it's hard to explain to a casual fan, it's also difficult to justify what exactly this many pitstops adds to a hardcore fan's enjoyment of a race. Surely we all tune in to watch fast cars driven really quickly, not to watch the pitcrew repeatedly in the cameras? No, 1 stop, 2 stops, at a push maybe 3 on a very extreme day, is a far more sensible thing.
Then we come to what everyone's been rightly complaining about - drivers aren't just managing tyres a bit, they're driving WAY off the peak limit of their machines to desperately squeeze out more laps of their rubber. It's insanely extreme. You didn't get a choice between pushing or saving with the Bridgestones, you had to push; but you don't have a choice with these neither, you have to save. Which is probably a little worse. No, what I want is for that choice to be there.
Now, this is NOT a direct factor of how soft the tyres are - and this is Pirelli's biggest failing. Think about it for a minute. Bridgestone made tyres that lasted 40 laps all driven at 100% and could take it. At their softest however, they would probably have to be nurtured a little, but would still last some 20 laps at 95%. Pirelli makes tyres that lasts just 10 laps driven at 70% at best... and at their hardest maybe they can last 25 laps driven also at 70%. This is all on purpose, because they have the skills to make rock-hard ones as well. I understand it's extremely difficult to get the variables right, but if they can mess with them on purpose, then why the **** is the optimal point driving them at 70% instead of 90-95%? Why can't they make a tyre that is relatively soft, ie won't last over half a race, but can be slightly abused without massive worries your times will drop by 3 seconds a lap?
So to cut it short, as I've written far too much - I believe Pirelli have a better idea than Bridgestone did, but their execution is rather poor. Tone it down, make compounds that are both slightly harder and considerably more forgiving, and you'll have the perfect tyre for Formula 1.
And whilst you're at it tweaking F1 things, also tone down DRS slightly to put a higher premium on track position which is totally meaningless right now (a major reason why people won't defend vs others on different strategies now, even if they're direct opponents). The formula is about right, it's just overdone.
I'm kind of missing the forced nostalgia for the Senna-Prost era, at least it isn't as embarrassing as the even more forced nostalgia for the Bridgestone procession years.
