283 replies to this topic

[Alexandros]

What we are witnessing this year with Merc dominating is mostly tire related and not engine related. There are quite a few teams with Mercedes engines yet none come close. Engine arrangement doesn't give 1-3s/lap.

 

Pirelli brought harder tires for this season in order to prevent a situation where the rears would be destroyed by the extra turbo torque which would be a fiasco. The tires were much harder in fact, which combined with the lack of downforce, disallows most cars to even get the tires in their operating window. Thus most cars are constantly outside the operating window of the tires. Most cars are visibly like driving on ice and are actually degrading their tires simply because they are sliding with no grip. There is a paradox where even the harder tires of the two that teams have to choose, are often chewed more but not due to abrasion, rather from excessive sliding around.

 

Mercedes has tremendous mechanical grip and what would otherwise be a usual season for them (where they are destroying their tires after a couple of laps) has now turned into a "dream season" because they can operate the very hard tires much closer to their operating window. The fact that they are within the window, allows them to slide less and thus they are producing more abrasion which is related to normal tire use, rather than useless abrasion from sliding while having no grip.

 

If the tire spectrum suddenly was extended 3-4 clicks toward the softer end, every team would come alive and their cars would perform while the Mercedes would destroy their tires. A zero/hero and hero/zero effect would take place.

 

A few quotes this year (there are plenty) about tires and how the harder they are, the more they don't work, but keep in mind that the softer end of the spectrum is still too hard, so it's a relative improvement but still not where teams should be working their tires:

 

Sutil - Australia: I think the tyres are too hard, as it’s a very conservative approach, but I have to deal with that. 

 

Bottas - Malaysia: The prime was sliding quite a lot and wearing out

 

Alonso for Bahrain: It will be very hot in Bahrain and the tyre compounds are softer. This might be an advantage to us, because on the harder tyres we are sliding a lot.

 

Kimi for Bahrain (FP1/2): In the second session we concentrated on looking at the two Pirelli compounds and with the soft it was definitely better than the medium.

 

Fry / Bahrain after FP2: We must look closely at tyre performance, which is a key factor this weekend along with fuel consumption

 

Paul Hembery (Pirelli): “The cars are sliding around more and that has a big effect on the tyre. There’s only 5% less energy going into the tyre in the new-look Formula One – but instead of it coming from lateral forces and cornering, some of that energy is now coming from sliding.”

 

Paul Hembery: “We were slightly surprised by the gap between the hard and the medium, which was one and a half seconds in Malaysia. That is down to decreased downforce levels at the start of the season: the hard tyre is not worked as much as it once was, so it slides more."

 

 

[KingTiger]

No.

[Nahnever]

No

[Kingshark]

No.

[Asterion]

Wrong

[Sennasational]

There are quite a few teams using Mercedes engines, you are correct in that. There are, however, even more teams using Pirelli tyres.

 

Thus I must agree with my fellow posters above; no.

[teejay]

No.

[hollowstar]

No.

[spacekid]

I disagree.

However, seems like a good opportunity to say I think the Pirelli tyres are spot on so far this year. No nonsense gimmicks, just a reliable product that can seemingly be leant on. I approve. We'll done Pirelli.

[DinosaursRoarForHugs]

Yes! This is exactly what nobody else thinks! 

 

I haven't seen such a well-constructed and factually-supported argument since, what, a couple of days ago?

 

You, my man (or woman), should be considering a career in law. The way you've collated the facts to create this argument then complied reams of evidence to back it up....this is some real serious high court business right here. I honestly cannot find a single hole in your argument. And I've been sitting here in disbelief for at least 5 minutes. With logic this sound, you can make it to the very top 

[Alexandros]

Pirelli: "Wear is the physical consumption of the tyre, which has been substantially reduced this year (and why you see fewer marbles)"

Pirelli: "Pirelli has used all the tyres so far apart from the supersoft, with decreased graining."

Pirelli (Australia): The degradation on the medium tyre is very low, with degradation on the soft slightly higher. We’ve seen no blistering or graining at all today and also fewer marbles, so up to now we have met our objectives. The new tyre regulations seem to have worked well so far.

 

So much attention of people about things they can comment on (like changes in nose design) and so little attention on things that actually make a difference (changes in tires) of SECONDS per lap and that have demonstrated their ability to shift the balance of power from one team to another even from one GP to another, when a tire company changes the parameters.

 

Say all the nos that you want. I will tell you "Eppur si muove" and by mid-season at the latest, what you read here will be common knowledge.

[BillBald]

What we are witnessing this year with Merc dominating is mostly tire related and not engine related.

 

 

If you are right, Pirelli will come under pressure to use the softer compounds more.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens.

Edited by BillBald, 07 April 2014 - 00:53.

[George Costanza]

If this was last season, I'd agree about tires.

 

But for 2014? it is obvious MGP has the engine locked and loaded.

[Alexandros]

If you are right, Pirelli will come under pressure to use the softer compounds more.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens.

 

It's not "if". People who've driven the tires are open about the situation. Romain Grosjean on FP3 was so all over the place that he said "wtf is this? is there any temp in these tires?" - or something to that effect. Even the locking that we see is not brake-by-wire settings but, usually, a result of lack of grip that is then translated to locks.

 

Ferrari has pinpointed the problem and is alluding to it as a core issue through both drivers and technical personnel. But they know that even if the tire spectrum suited them more right now, their problematic PU would not be enough to propel them in a winning position. Renault teams won't complain either because they have to fix their PU too. It would appear as a case of bad losers if they focused on Pirelli.

 

The only teams that have a true incentive to actually bitch about the situation are the other Mercedes powered teams - and especially Mclaren.

[teejay]

LOL at using a busted ass Lotus as a reference point for anything atm.

[Alfisti]

It's not that crazy of an idea, the Merc has eaten tyres for three or four years now and suddenly it's a non issue. 

 

In saying that, you get this feeling that the Red Bull may well be extremely close or even a match for the Merc as a car sans engine, they are so far ahead of the non-Merc runners it's insane. Vettel and DR were hustling people in front of them all race, if it were JUST the engine then Williams or FI should have eaten them alive after the SC. 

[Atreiu]

I don't think so, but it could be a factor. Still, from Bridgestone to Pirelli, Red Bull had a near seamless transition and they haven't suffered for long over tyres ever since. In that case, it shouldn't take them much longer to be right back where they have become used to racing.

[eronrules]

you need more F1 watching young padowan ... feel the Farce 

[phoenix101]

Bahrain results:

 

1. Mercedes-Mercedes

2. Mercedes-Mercedes

3. ForceIndia-Mercedes

4. RedBull-Renault

5. ForceIndia-Mercedes

6. RedBull-Renault

7. Williams-Mercedes

8. Williams-Mercedes

 

The Mercedes teams all did superior chassis work to the other teams? If tire utilization is making the difference, the PU must be an integral part. The way it makes power or recaptures power or the way it release heat or something.

[Cool Beans]

Interesting theory.

[morrino]

If you're right...

Why don't we have RedBull, Ferrari and McLaren complains then?

[Alexandros]

Addressed in post #14.

[meddo]

O.K. It's the tyres. You done?

[PayasYouRace]

No.

 

 

No

 

 

No.

 

 

Wrong

 

 

No.

 

 

No.

 

Do I need to add anything?

 

Mercedes chassis and engine have been developed in unison, for each other. They're optimised for each other, so it's no surprise that they're ahead of the other Merc-engined cars. Ferrari have similar advantage over the other Ferrari-engined cars. Renault don't have a works team. OK Red Bull are supposedly that, but pre-season showed that it's not the same relationship as having it all in house.

[ReeVe]

no

 

both renault and ferrari engines at awful at delivering power, meshing the ICE and the Electric motor. Red Bull masks it with a great chassis and to an extent with a lower power output (common to all Renault engines), fragile tyres would destroy them

 

Softer tyres would just make the gap bigger between the merc and non merc teams, the harder tyres mean non merc teams can live with the rears getting a bit more pain

Edited by ReeVe, 07 April 2014 - 12:09.

[stanga]

Perhaps they should just change the tires then and put Mercedes in their rightful place as tire destroyers. That's the fair way of doing things and more people will be happy than not. Sounds kind of democratic almost. RBR will dominate again and we there will be much rejoicing.

[McRules]

Rosberg quickly lost performance on his tyres when chasing Ham on soft tyres after the SC. So i don't think tyres are the contributing factor. I do hear your thoughts on operating window, but still think its got to do with the power delivery to the tyres rather than the tyres themselves.

[MaxisOne]

No

[Bartonz20let]

                               

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

No.

[vista]

I think the OP has a point. The tyres play a crucial role in performance but I would really like to know how some teams can heat the tyres more than others? Could be related to the silicium rims (last year on thermal cameras from red bull and merc we heated rims). One would think teams focused more on putting heat into the tyres to get them in the right operating window - especially if it meant the world in performance. Apparently, Ferrari has been rubbish at this for the last 3 years and they (as far as I can see) haven't improved much in this area. Whereas Red  Bull and Merc are much better at putting heat into the tyres and therefore also very good in qualifying. 

 

But their is no doubt the merc power unit is superior and bringing them a huge advantage at the moment.

[sock22]

I can see two flaws in the idea. Firstly, if only Mercedes has the mechanical grip to get these tyres in the operating window, then surely they have the best car? And if they have the best car then of course they will be faster than the rest. If the tyres increase that advantage then good for them; it's up to the other teams to build a better car if they want to make the most of the tyres. It's not like last year where teams were pegged back due to having too much grip.

 

Secondly, if the advantage was purely down to tyres, why would Red Bull be blaming the gap on their engines? Why are the likes of Williams and McLaren blaming a lack of downforce? Last year we saw huge lobbying for tyre changes when tyres really were a factor but this year we're not.

[Alexandros]

Do I need to add anything?

 

Mercedes chassis and engine have been developed in unison, for each other. They're optimised for each other, so it's no surprise that they're ahead of the other Merc-engined cars. Ferrari have similar advantage over the other Ferrari-engined cars. Renault don't have a works team. OK Red Bull are supposedly that, but pre-season showed that it's not the same relationship as having it all in house.

 

1-3s per lap for "engine arrangement" and "good chassis/engine integration" = impossible.

 

It's actually a way to take credit where you shouldn't (if you are Merc) or a way to distract your opponents from finding out your real edge which is the tire spectrum working for you and not them.

 

I mean RB has infinitely more complex and integrated package compared to Toro Rosso, yet you can see RBs and Toro Rossos fighting on track with Toro Rosso not being that far behind - actually being one of the better Renault teams out there.

[bub]

I doubt it. If it were true I think we would have heard more comments from the drivers and teams complaining that they couldn't get/keep the tyres in the operating window. When this was the case before, we heard about it. Also Mercedes vastly improved their tyre destroying issues last year already. As long as they're all using the same tyres, some will use them better than others and it's fair because the tyres are the same for all.

[Alexandros]

I think the OP has a point. The tyres play a crucial role in performance but I would really like to know how some teams can heat the tyres more than others? Could be related to the silicium rims (last year on thermal cameras from red bull and merc we heated rims). One would think teams focused more on putting heat into the tyres to get them in the right operating window - especially if it meant the world in performance. Apparently, Ferrari has been rubbish at this for the last 3 years and they (as far as I can see) haven't improved much in this area. Whereas Red  Bull and Merc are much better at putting heat into the tyres and therefore also very good in qualifying. 

 

But their is no doubt the merc power unit is superior and bringing them a huge advantage at the moment.

 

When I'm talking about operating window, it's not only a heat issue where a team has to take the tire up to X temp so that it can work, but also tire loading / tire squeezed to the track in a certain / harsher way. 

 

As for the merc power unit, 8 cars are wearing it, not 2. 

[PayasYouRace]

1-3s per lap for "engine arrangement" and "good chassis/engine integration" = impossible.

 

It's actually a way to take credit where you shouldn't (if you are Merc) or a way to distract your opponents from finding out your real edge which is the tire spectrum working for you and not them.

 

I mean RB has infinitely more complex and integrated package compared to Toro Rosso, yet you can see RBs and Toro Rossos fighting on track with Toro Rosso not being that far behind - actually being one of the better Renault teams out there.

 

Please show your working.

 

I won't argue that Mercedes might have figured out how to use the current tyres better than the others and yes, tyres are very important. But we've known that the tyres will be harder this year for a good 12 months at least. It's what everyone knew the situation would be. So Mercedes has been able to make a car that makes the most out of the tyres? Good for them.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 07 April 2014 - 13:45.

[Alexandros]

I can see two flaws in the idea. Firstly, if only Mercedes has the mechanical grip to get these tyres in the operating window, then surely they have the best car? And if they have the best car then of course they will be faster than the rest. If the tyres increase that advantage then good for them; it's up to the other teams to build a better car if they want to make the most of the tyres. It's not like last year where teams were pegged back due to having too much grip.

 

Secondly, if the advantage was purely down to tyres, why would Red Bull be blaming the gap on their engines? Why are the likes of Williams and McLaren blaming a lack of downforce? Last year we saw huge lobbying for tyre changes when tyres really were a factor but this year we're not.

 

It's not an idea and it's not flawed. It's cold, hard reality. Having said that, mechanical grip does not equate with best car. Mp4/16 in 2001 had tremendous mech. grip but it was not the best car (the Be ban took power levels to 1998). It could however use the mech grip to go well in the wet, in qualify, in tracks like hungary and monaco etc.

 

As for the second, Mercedes has no more downforce than, say, Red Bull and probably McLaren as well which is pretty well designed. Let's just say that Mclaren are not lacking 2s / lap in aero compared to Merc. Red Bull has the most chances to load the tires to near-Merc levels due to having more aero pushing them down, yet they are lacking in engine. But all the teams that are not lacking HP due to wearing a Mercedes, are not lagging because of aero. They are lagging because of tire utilization.

[Alexandros]

Please show your working.

 

I won't argue that Mercedes might have figured out how to use the current tyres better than the others and yes, tyres are very important. But we've known that the tyres will be harder this year for a good 12 months at least. It's what everyone knew the situation would be. So Mercedes has been able to make a car that makes the most out of the tyres? Good for them.

 

They didn't have to "figure it out" more than when Mclaren fitted the 2007 Bridgestones in the 2006 car and was topping the time sheets in winter testing. Just like that.

 

It just so happens that the suspension or overall car balance is ideal for a certain tire and not for another. The "flop" 2006 Mclaren was suddenly doing the best times simply because it changed tires.

 

Go back to 2002 and see how the balance of Williams and Mclaren or Renault was fluctuating either towards Williams, or towards Mclaren/Renault when Michelin brought harder and softer tires. Williams was gaining the poles (tremendous mech. grip) but the tires were degrading over the long run. Mclaren was too soft with those tires and couldn't even exploit them. When Michelin brought softer, suddenly the Williams was killing their tires pretty fast in the races and Mclaren was overtaking them by the middle of the race.

 

Or go back to 2013 and see how the balance of power shifted when Pirelli brought different tires. Same cars, quite different performance levels and with slight changes to constructions, not massive (including a huge shift towards harder compounds). Why would anyone think that the changed tires from last year have no effect whatsoever? Because they didn't see an in-season change to notice it? But they were changed - in fact they were changed VERY much and towards the opposite direction of what it was going all those years (more degrading tires for better show and suddenly the tires are brick-hard and pressed to the ground even less due to less downforce). So when the teams were preparing to manage tire degradation, they suddenly had to work with brick-hard tires that necessitated fundamental changes to their cars which are not so easy to perform. And who benefited? Mercedes which were the harsher team on the tires all those years - having a massive degradation problem from chewing them due to excessive load.

Edited by Alexandros, 07 April 2014 - 14:00.

[Alexandros]

Please show your working.

 

I won't argue that Mercedes might have figured out how to use the current tyres better than the others and yes, tyres are very important. But we've known that the tyres will be harder this year for a good 12 months at least. It's what everyone knew the situation would be. So Mercedes has been able to make a car that makes the most out of the tyres? Good for them.

 

You can expect the rear tires to be harder to accommodate increased torque, but are they (and the fronts) accommodating lack of downforce with increased grip? No. And you can also expect them to be somewhat harder, but not totally outside an f1's car operating window. It's just a huge "miscalculation". 

 

Initially teams might have thought "ok, why complain? It's the same for everyone", except that a certain f1 car has an entirely different operating window for its tires.

Edited by Alexandros, 07 April 2014 - 14:08.

[SanDiegoGo]

OP doesn't even know why the mercs were shredding tyres the past 4 years. Don't tell him, he'll figure it out eventually.

[OneAndOnly]

It's everything. 

[PayasYouRace]

You can expect the rear tires to be harder to accommodate increased torque, but are they (and the fronts) accommodating lack of downforce with increased grip? No. And you can also expect them to be somewhat harder, but not totally outside an f1's car operating window. It's just a huge "miscalculation". 

 

Initially teams might have thought "ok, why complain? It's the same for everyone", except that a certain f1 car has an entirely different operating window for its tires.

 

Your premise appears to be that the cars' tyre usage characteristics have basically remained unchanged from last year, despite the biggest technical overhaul the sport has seen in years, and as a result Mercedes have lucked into a performance window. Seeing that the tyres were known to be harder for this year, the other teams have no excuse for their cars not being able to use them properly.

 

However, you have also claimed that the advantage of developing your chassis and engine (apparently the best engine) together cannot yield a big performance advantage, but you haven't backed up that claim.

[Alexandros]

It's everything. 

 

Certainly not the engine (others have it too - and not in a "client" spec that is down on horsepower), aero (RB = better) or "engine arrangement" (please provide one example in modern formula 1 when this gave a car their dominant status, or even a significant advantage of 1s+).

 

Even if someone had no clue what's going on, he could still start deducting things, eliminating known factors, and finding the truth through the options that remain. But here we already have drivers saying the tires are too hard/conservative, teams saying that they are destroying tires through lack og grip and sliding and pirelli confirming everything about how the lack of grip has actually created a new kind of wear for the tires (sliding). On top of that we know it's not the engine because multiple car wear it. How the engine is placed does not give 2-3s per lap. Even if an engine was placed in a way where it could get really cool air, it would show through increased horsepower that would simply demolish the rest of the grid in terms of acceleration and top speed. In such a scenario a Merc would have an HP advantage compared to other Mercedes teams even larger than what Mercedes teams have to Ferrari. You can't hide this power if you have it.

[Retrofly]

Yes

 

I mean no.

 

Wait, can I say "Don't know"?

[RealRacing]

It would seem a possible explanation of the big differences between works Merc and their clients IF we believe that they are providing them with exactly the same engine. I don't believe that either aero and/or "engine arrangement" and "good chassis/engine integration" can explain such a large margin. After all, these teams knew the engines they were getting a fairly long time before season start and it's not like Merc gave them the engines at the last minute. Also, I would guess that teams like Williams have plenty of experience in those areas.

 

In any case, be that as it may, it would be another reason to provide teams with at least 3 dry-weather compounds to choose from every race weekend and eliminate the mandatory use of compounds during the race. This would just open up options for the teams to optimize their cars and performance and make the racing closer. It seems to me that now they are given a too-narrow window for making a winning car; if you hit it like Merc you have a huge advantage, if you miss, you are left with few options to catch up. 

[superdelphinus]

No

[TheManAlive]

These tyres are just what was needed. The last few years they have dominated the racing, now they are one of many factors that can influence a race. I liked the whole option vs prime of the last stint between Nico and Lewis - far more exciting than 'oh the tyres have gone off so they will plummet down the field' type of racing we had. Yesterday we saw two guys go at it hammer and tongs really pushing as hard as they could for the lead of the race - what more could you want. The fact that this was going on throughout the field for the whole race on a track that has had some real snoozefests, tell me that this formula is good.

 

 

Whilst this year the Merc is dominant, it is better than the Red Bull dominance as there are two nearly matched drivers able to go at it full on. It doesnt matter if you know it will be a merc winning, if you dont know which one. Its similar to the Prost/Senna years of dominance - still very exciting.

[Alexandros]

Your premise appears to be that the cars' tyre usage characteristics have basically remained unchanged from last year, despite the biggest technical overhaul the sport has seen in years, and as a result Mercedes have lucked into a performance window. Seeing that the tyres were known to be harder for this year, the other teams have no excuse for their cars not being able to use them properly.

 

However, you have also claimed that the advantage of developing your chassis and engine (apparently the best engine) together cannot yield a big performance advantage, but you haven't backed up that claim.

 

They are not unchanged but the tires have changed more than the cars. Far more in terms of hardness.

 

As for knowing about hardness, if I tell you "I may be late for our appointment" and I come after 5 hours, you'll understandably yell at me. Late could mean 5 mins late or 5 hours late. That's how good it is knowing "it'll be harder next year" in terms of preparing your car. It'll be harder but how much harder? 5% or 50%? And then you have to guesstimate whether this will be a problem because if it's the same for everyone, it's ok. But if someone can actually find grip with these tires when everyone else can't, its a huge issue.

 

As for the last section, it can be an advantage but not a 1-2-3s / lap advantage. All you need to do is go through the history of modern f1 cars and see which teams that worked that way got that advantage. BMW was making engines for their team. Toyota was making engines for their team. Honda was making engines for their team (since the Jordan era - where Jordan was even faster than BAR despite having the Mugen -10/-15hp engine variant). Renault was making engines for their team, from the 111 deg engine and how it was combined with the low chassis (straight to the back of the grid due to problems) to the more conventional designs in the later seasons. And of course Ferrari which is doing that for years and hasn't taken a championship since 2007. So? Where are the examples of tremendous advantages from inhouse design of car/engine and massive advantages over others? I can't find them. On the other hand, I can find plenty of examples where tires dictated car performane, shifting the balance even by seconds per lap. So if I have to speculate and balance the possible/frequent and the impossible/infrequent, I don't have much choice but to go with the possible/frequent. That's how reasoning and logic operates.

[Petroltorque]

Good God! The advantage of inhouse design of chassis and power unit is shown by Mercedes. Their customer teams have to tailor their chassis to the unit. Renault provide an off the shelf unit that's adapted for 4 teams. Ferrari are not a great example since they seem to have gone on ebay and sourced components for their power unit from a Trabant.

Edited by Petroltorque, 07 April 2014 - 14:52.

[RealRacing]

Certainly not the engine (others have it too - and not in a "client" spec that is down on horsepower), aero (RB = better) or "engine arrangement" (please provide one example in modern formula 1 when this gave a car their dominant status, or even a significant advantage of 1s+).

I guess it's very difficult to prove the customer engines are exactly the same? Or does FIA have any sort of control tests (HP, torque, etc.)? RB being better in aero is also not sure. Aside from the fact that they were better in past seasons and many drivers and others are saying they are this season as well, who's to say the Merc is not as good or better? In any case, I agree that aero and how you engineer the PU into the car shouldn't count for that much difference.