Vettel: Tyres give drivers more chances to make progress

2012 Spanish Grand Prix

Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, Shanghai, 2012Sebastian Vettel says the change in approach with tyres in F1 has given drivers more opportunities to improve their position in races.

Michael Schumacher sparked debate over F1′s Pirelli tyres when he criticised them on the Sunday of the Bahrain Grand Prix.

He later told CNN the new tyres were like “driving on raw eggs”.

Asked about Schumacher’s comments, Vettel said: “I think we get a completely different impression inside the car than you might get outside the car so, you’re always talking of two different worlds, I think for us quality of racing is – if you compare racing today you have to look after your tyres much more than probably you had to three, four, five years ago.

“For us if you take 2009, where we were allowed to refuel, you had new tyres and the tyres lasted longer, they didn’t see that much degradation, it’s a different quality inside the car because you can push nearly every lap, very similar to qualifying.

“Whereas now I think the racing’s different. We fuel the cars up, the cars are much heavier, if you have a heavier car it’s more stress for the tyres, so it puts the whole thing in a different window.

“I think if you put a new set of tyres on with 20 laps to go or 15 laps to go, which is let’s say the stint length you had earlier a couple of years ago, it’s a different world for the tyres. But the tyres do see more degradation and then we start to slide and one guy slides more than the other just because he put his tyres on two laps later or two laps earlier, and that creates a different type of racing – more overtaking, which I would imagine is seen as a better quality from the outside because, simply, things happen.”

Vettel said the new tyres have opened up more possibilities for drivers to make progress in the race. He compared the current situation to his experience of spending most of the 2009 Spanish Grand Prix stuck behind Felipe Massa:

“I think it depends what you really want in that regard. We’ve had more overtaking like Fernando [Alonso] said earlier. So I think the races today – to be honest last year, the last two years – since we have changed a couple of things have become much better, also for us.

“I had a race here where I was following Felipe for, I think, 60 laps, and I couldn’t pass. Nowadays you know that your chance will come in the race and it’s changing the position in the car as well.”

Alonso added: “I agree with Seb but I don’t agree that Michael continually criticises Pirelli.

“Michael said one thing and what has been written in the press is maybe exaggerated what he said. Because I read what he said and I don’t see any big problem with that.”

Have the current generation of tyres changed the racing for the better? Have your say here:

2012 Spanish Grand Prix

Browse all 2012 Spanish Grand Prix articles

Image ?é?® Red Bull/Getty images

Advert | Go Ad-free

67 comments on Vettel: Tyres give drivers more chances to make progress

  1. BasCB (@bascb) said on 10th May 2012, 15:21

    Its nice to see the drivers are starting to really say things in the press conferences again. I understood there was also a bit of fun between Seb and Alonso, where he (SV) imitated Alonso’s words to Rosberg about leaving space!

  2. Tom (@newdecade) said on 10th May 2012, 15:22

    Easy for him to say, he almost never has to worry about improving his position! Far and away he has been the biggest benefactor of the changes to car and tyre regulations. We have all seen that the pirellis exhibit very different behaviour when running in clear air compared to traffic, and he & red bull came up with the formula that optimises that for them. Sure it might be easy to make progress in the race, but we have seen it is nigh-on impossible to catch the pole sitter if they get to turn 1 ahead in most races. Furthermore, whilst it might be possible to progress, the risk of a driver’s race collapsing simply because their tyres fall out of the optimal operating window is equal, or even greater, than the prospect of harvesting places simply because the other guy’s tyres fall off a lap earlier. Kimi fans may agree somewhat.

    • David-A (@david-a) said on 10th May 2012, 15:32

      Easy for him to say, he almost never has to worry about improving his position! Far and away he has been the biggest benefactor of the changes to car and tyre regulations.

      I thought he did just fine on indestructible Bridgestones as well. And it was only 2 races ago that the degradation saw him lose 3 places in the closing stages of a race.

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 10th May 2012, 15:34

      I think Red Bull has been the biggest loser with the changes/restrictions to the EBD effect for this year that saw last year’s car being designed around it, and this year’s car therefore nowhere near as dominant.

    • Todfod (@todfod) said on 10th May 2012, 16:36

      Easy for him to say, he almost never has to worry about improving his position! Far and away he has been the biggest benefactor of the changes to car and tyre regulations.

      The biggest benefactor without a doubt has been Jenson Button. He wouldn’t be within a shout of the championship if the drivers could drive flat out on indestructible tyres.

      • fascistmax said on 10th May 2012, 17:50

        Button won it on Bridgestones me things

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 10th May 2012, 17:59

          But why is Vettel the main benefactor then? What did he win it on in 2010? Question also goes to @newdecade .

          • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 10th May 2012, 20:19

            I think Jenson and Sebastian are both just as good at managing their tyres. I can’t believe everyone overlooks Sebastian’s ability to keep his tyres in good condition, because it arguably won him a few races last year in the closing stages.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 10th May 2012, 21:13

            @davd-a – In my opinion, the tyres played no part in 2010 (weren’t they still bridgestones at that point?) Vettel won because a) he was the fastest driver & b) the RB6 was phenomenally quick when it didn’t have any reliability issues

          • Tom (@newdecade) said on 11th May 2012, 0:07

            @david-a Yep agree with the replies above, he drove fast, had a fast car and (sometimes) a clear head in 2010. However he had a hard time beating the combined forces of webber, hamilton and alonso on pace alone. He crushed the lot of them in 2011 not just through car superiority but because of the combination of his driving style with EBD/tyres/cookie cut race strategy. None of the above had the potential to equal his full package, car deficiencies regardless. Vettel simply suits these tyres better than his rivals.

        • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 10th May 2012, 18:02

          Yes, Button did win on the Bridgestones, but in a completely domanent Brawn (at least in the first half of the season anyway), Vettel also did well in the 2nd half of the 2009 season.
          Not that that matters to me; the racing is much more exciting now so I’m glad Pirelli have rejoined F1 – certain aspects of the tyre dilemma could be improved by changing the rules & possibly introducing qualifying tyres. Also I’d like to see a less pronounced drop-off to allow drivers to more freely choose to go on a risky strategy.

          • NERD said on 10th May 2012, 19:18

            Me thinks a certain Herr Schumacher may have had a pretty good car compared to the rest for a number of his DWC’s

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 10th May 2012, 19:36

            @NERD – Me thinks every world champion may have had a pretty good car compared to the rest of a number of their WDC’s

    • javlinsharp (@javlinsharp) said on 10th May 2012, 21:22

      @newdecade

      Easy for him to say, he almost never has to worry about improving his position!

      He is certinally having to worry about it this year. I enjoy to see how a driver reacts in new/different equiptment. For years, Jenson Button was a goat, unrealized talent, a waste as a driver. When really, all the time he was capable, but the car was not. Or maybe his WDC was all just the car? Could Sato have done the same thing in that magical Brawn GP, could Vettle have any success in a lowely HRT? I really dont know, the answers, but its fun to speculate.

  3. thejudge13+ said on 10th May 2012, 15:24

    There we have it – Alonso and Vettel loving the tyres.

    Stop moaning everyone and enjoy the racing!!!!

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 10th May 2012, 15:45

      I’m not so sure they ‘love’ the tires…I think they just appreciate that it has changed the approach they have to take. But they do still seem to think it is still racing, unlike some posters on recent related topics.

    • SteveLWA said on 10th May 2012, 15:47

      I don’t care what Alonso/Vettel think, I hate these crappy tyres, Hate the so called racing they produce & simply won’t bother watching the crappy tyre era anymore.

      Also watching the press conference live on Sky & when directly asked about Schumacher’s comments Alonso said & I directly quote from my Sky+ recording “I agree with what he said”.

      • thejudge13+ said on 10th May 2012, 15:59

        @SteveLWA Loving your passion. Not sure why you watching the press conference if you not going to watch the racing though.

    • DK (@seijakessen) said on 10th May 2012, 16:06

      I think the tires do need to last a little longer…and would prefer to not see marbles turning the track into a single file race with everyone unwilling to pass due to the marbles.

    • snowman (@snowman) said on 10th May 2012, 16:38

      When questioned again on the tyres, Alonso said he completly agreed with what Schumacher said and that he had nothing more to add or something to that effect.

  4. Robbie (@robbie) said on 10th May 2012, 15:28

    While I do understand lamenting being limited by the tires as a driver, obviously it is not bugging most drivers like it seems to be bugging MS, and even at that FA seems to think MS’s comments have been a bit overblown.

    For now I think most people prefer 4 winners in 4 races to one driver dominating, and given that it is SV that one would think would have as much of a tire issue as MS, since he was the one dominating last year, and yet he doesn’t, I think speaks volumes to the fact that we just need to give the teams a little more time and I’m sure things will level out and the tire issue will seem less extreme. Sounds to me like most drivers see opportunity in these tires, not just the opposite, or MS’s stance, which is that they are handcuffed. I think that on a day when one driver is handcuffed by the tires, opportunities arise for other teams/drivers to excel on that day. MS will have his day yet where he will be glad that he had his tires hooked up that day and someone else struggled to his benefit. ie. the Schu will be on the other foot at some point, I predict.

  5. David-A (@david-a) said on 10th May 2012, 15:42

    I always thought Michael’s comments were out of a bit of frustration. Not so much that he isn’t performing up to task, but at the mechanical (and Grosjean) issues he’s had. The teams who are still getting used to having no EBD, will get to grips with the tyres eventually like last year. The drivers should know that with high fuel, they won’t be able to push like they would in qualifying, which multiple world champions Vettel and Alonso clearly are aware of.

    • Dizzy said on 10th May 2012, 16:00

      I always thought Michael’s comments were out of a bit of frustration.

      Yes out of frustration that at Bahrain he wasn’t able to push really hard to come through the field like he would in the past.
      Having to conserve tyres throughout the race meant he wasn’t able to make the progress he’d hoped.

      If you look at Suzuka 1998 as an example, After he stalled on the grid he was pushing flat out to come back through the field, No worries about tyres just drive as hard as possible to make up as much ground as possible. He was able to get to 3rd before he ran over debris & had a rear tyre blow-out.

      With the tyres as they are now its no longer possible to put on the same sort of on the limit, flat out drive as your always having to drive well below the limit to look after the crappy tyres.

      • DK (@seijakessen) said on 10th May 2012, 16:46

        Tires should wear out over time….having one set for the whole race is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen.

        But I do think the Pirelli tire design is crap in terms of how fast they wear out.

        They have too many variations of tires, and they all do not last.

        • Mike (@mike) said on 10th May 2012, 17:12

          So they should last longer but not too long?

        • Dizzy said on 10th May 2012, 17:27

          Tires should wear out over time….having one set for the whole race is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen.

          Yet thats how F1 was for a long time.

          Through the 60s/70s/early 80s you only saw tyre changes due to a change in weather.

          were also times in the late 80s/early 90s where drivers put on the hards & went the entire race non-stop, Although in this era you could also run a softer compound & plan 1 or more stops.

          • artificial racer said on 10th May 2012, 19:23

            They would change them when refuelling. Typically the tires would last a very long time but would still degrade in performance vs. fresh tires, just not a dramatic cliff.

      • David-A (@david-a) said on 10th May 2012, 16:58

        And you could argue that the teams just haven’t worked out how the tyres work yet. Doing so could allow for people to drive through the field while pushing at practically the limit of their car, even on thee tyres.

      • Mads (@mads) said on 10th May 2012, 18:03

        @Dizzy
        So what you are saying is that it is impossible to progress through the field these days, yet Schumacher him self took off from 24th and last to 7th in spa last year, and Webber went from 18th or something like that to a 3rd place in China.

        • Exactly because they had so many sets of fresh soft tyres. The Red Bull and Ferrari were within about 0.5s pace in quali. Come the race, Webber with his new rubber was lapping consistently 2-3 seconds faster Alonso. The tyres basically paralysed Alonso to the point where he didn’t even bother to fight for position.

          I have yet to see an example like Lewis and the Ferrari’s from Malaysia 2010 where they started in 16th to 20th place and just scythed through the midfield using pure pace rather than tyre strategy. I can understand Schumi’s frustation when he’s at the back and knows that on any given lap he can go 2 seconds faster than the car in front but he has to drive within himself to conserve the Pirellis.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th May 2012, 0:09

          Even more exactly, that was last year, with last years compounds, we are not complaining about last years compounds, we are complaining about THIS YEARS compounds, which even with 4 sets would not let a Schumacher, Webber, Hamilton or even a Vettel make that kind of drive.

      • Kimi4WC said on 11th May 2012, 4:04

        Well if he wasn’t pushing and car still looked like cow on ice, I think Mercedes got a bigger worry rather than just tyres.

    • javlinsharp (@javlinsharp) said on 10th May 2012, 21:34

      I dont mind the tire wear situation. I think tire life is a bit short, and that limits the possibilities in Strategy (Going long on hards etc.)

      What I think is exceptionally stupid ar the other rules associated with tires.

      It is the requirement to use both compounds in the race.

      Teams get just enough tire allocation to make it through the weekend, and one bad lockup in Q2 can blow a set, and hence, the entire strategy.

      Drivers must start the race on their fastest Quali tires (this is compounded by the fact that they wear so quickly)

      In this season, when the tire formulation adds so many limitations already, do we really need these artificial constraints?

  6. Jake (@jleigh) said on 10th May 2012, 15:43

    It probably is the case that the tyres have improved opportunities compared to what they were with Bridgestone, but that doesn’t mean it’s as good as it could be. If the tyres could stand up better when in a bit of dirty air then the opportunities would be even greater.

    I don’t understand the current attitude of “It’s better then it was so everyone shut up and accept it”. Yes it’s better, but with a few simple changes it could easily be even better. If we actually look at what MS has said, it’s difficult to disagree with him. He says the drivers can’t push the cars to their limits. True. He says it’s like driving on egg shells. Probably true (he knows afterall, he’s the one driving). He says F1 shouldn’t be all about saving tyres. I’m pretty sure most here would agree with that.

    However, unfortunately, everyone just sees it has MS moaning, and they seem to think the only alternative is to go back to the Bridgestone ways. The fact is though, that there are many other possibilities, and many of them, in my opinion would supply even better racing. @keithcollantine ponted out some very small changes to the rules that could improve the racing, and there are equally small changes to the tyres that could do the same. One simple example: The tyres are exactly the same but don’t wear out so quickly in dirty air. Suddenly we have a truly exciting battle for the lead in the last race.

    So, as should be the case in F1, instead of simply saying “it’s better than it was”, suggestions should be made to try and improve things that clearly can still be improved. Perhaps the lack of such a suggestion was MS’s big mistake.

    • verstappen (@verstappen) said on 10th May 2012, 16:02

      I hope you’re right. Because engineering the same tyre which isn’t affected when the aero load on the car changes when following another… There’s a challenge for Pirelli!

      Now what you’re point does show is that the patch for ‘dirty air’ – Pirelli’s and DRS – isn’t the solution for the real underlying problems!

    • MahavirShah (@mahavirshah) said on 10th May 2012, 17:26

      @jleigh You make a very good point and that was the crux of the entire debate. The only thing I want to add is that although Schumacher has a right to voice his displeasure over the tyre degradation, people using it to attack Pirelli over their tyres seemed unfair. The point is that no one else seems to be voicing their concerns over the tyre situation. This can be interpreted in 2 ways, either they have no issues or they don’t want to voice their opinion.

      Personally, I feel that a racer should cope with what is given to him. The tyre rules at this point do seem rigid and I would welcome a change that made it more flexible for a driver in terms of strategy. Schumacher’s comments seemed to be used y people to propose a change to the tyre itself rather than the tyre rules. Like you and others say F1 should not be about having to conserve tyres, but F1 should be able to differentiate between drivers on the basis of how well they can manage the systems in their car and tyres are a part of that system just like fuel, brakes and engines.

      In all fairness, I felt Schumacher was frustrated more than anything else and yes, his lack of suggestion to the problem did not help his case.

    • Solo (@solo) said on 11th May 2012, 0:43

      You can’t here it but am applauding. You said it wonderfully.

  7. Dizzy said on 10th May 2012, 15:56

    I still don’t like the Pirelli tyres & what they have done to F1 & I can’t see myself ever liking the current artificial & gimmickey era that were now seemingly stuck in.

    I want racing, I want to see drivers pushing, I want to see drivers racing each other with both on the limit.
    I don’t want to see drivers conserving to the degree we now do, I don’t want to see drivers who push hard punished by the tyres suddenly falling to bits, I don’t want to boring & unexciting drive-by passes caused by DRS or tyres at different stages of wear.

    What we have no is quantity over quality, The quantity of passes is up but the quality of them is down to the point where Im starting to feel overtaking is becomming seriously devalued.
    I just hope the novelty of this crap wears of quickly so we can get back to some proper racing again in the next 2-3 years, If not then I’ll simply stop watching.

    At least there’s some proper racing to be found in Indycar this year, No silly tyres, No DRS & there not even using P2P yet there’s still been some brilliant racing & a ton of proper, exciting overtaking.

  8. kilrcola (@adelaidef1fan) said on 10th May 2012, 17:03

    Bring back refueling.. scrap this tyre degradation.. well not completely.

    At least when refueling was in not every pit stop was the same as they all had different loads in their car.

    Now it’s just boring oh he is pitting.. Lets see where he comes out now after 20+4 seconds for the pit. Add’s another variable without messing too much with the quality of racing. I’m guessing they scrapped refueling for safety reasons though yes? Keith?

    Having these tyres go off after a certain time yes I get that, but perhaps we can have it all. Tyres that do go off (but not as quickly) and refueling?

    Thoughts anyone? Or is it just me?

    • StefMeister (@stefmeister) said on 10th May 2012, 17:49

      I’d be against refueling coming back, Think refueling hurt far more races than it helped.

      Think the stats show quite clearly that from the 1st race where refueling was allowed (Brazil 1994) the on-track overtaking figures decreased substantially while the amount of passes done in the pits increased massively.

      I remember watching Brazil 1994 which was the 1st race of the refueling era & enjoying the prospect of a Senna/Scumacher fight for the win only for that to be ruined by the 1st fuel stops with Schumacher coming out ahead & then driving off into the distance.

      There were plenty of other races like that, Great on-track fights ruined because of fuel strategy. France 2004 is another example, Alonso/Schumacher fighting for the win yet after 15-20 laps they were seperated by 10-15 seconds due to there differing fuel strategies, After there final stops Schumi was 10 seconds ahead & drove away to the win.
      That race would have been so much better without refueling if they had been fighting it out on the track with any eventual pass been done on the track.

      • artificial racer said on 10th May 2012, 19:48

        I used to think that but now I think that’s a little naive. What would be expected to happen with no pit stops is that the fastest guy on the day starts from pole and leads the whole race until the end. Refuelling adds a bit of strategic variation, at least creating tension around in/out laps.

        What the tires (and to some extent, refuelling) add is strategic options, and therefore more unpredictability. There is some balance there between… purity? elegance? racing to the limit? and turning the thing into a random circus.

        With DRS now, the guy behind gets chances that didn’t happen before. I fully understand the negativity around DRS but on some level it does help to mitigate the aero disadvantage of following a car in the modern era. However, I’d much prefer if it just passively worked based on aero principles. These F1 engineers are smart people, they should be able to design the parameters of a two car chain.

        I like strategic choices, but I don’t want it to butcher qualifying with tire conservation. Refuelling is an option to mix up strategy a bit more and potentially become more conservative on the tire front.

        • Dizzy said on 10th May 2012, 20:06

          What would be expected to happen with no pit stops is that the fastest guy on the day starts from pole and leads the whole race until the end.

          But we never had refueling Pre-1994 & often had races with no pit stops & the racing was better & there was more overtaking.

          Besides even in the Pirelli era we still see the fastest driver start from pole & lead to the end. The last 2 rces for instance saw this happen as did many races through 2011 with Vettel.

          Hated refueling when it was in F1 last time, Hated what it did to the racing, Hated how strategy became more important than the actual racing & hated how the strategy was decided by engineer’s & there laptop simulations rather than by drivers out on track.

          Refueling was great if you love the strategy side of F1 but it worked out horrendously bad if you wanted to watch proper racing.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 10th May 2012, 22:30

      @adelaidef1fan Good riddance to refuelling. It made for predictable, unexciting racing. We don’t need it in F1.

      The refuelling ban plus the new tyres has given us excellent racing. Get rid of some of the silly tyre rules and scrap DRS (or at least just give each driver a set amount of time they can use it in each race and get rid of the ‘only when you’re within a second’ rule) and F1 will be right back where it should be.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th May 2012, 0:23

      @adelaidef1fan, re-fuelling was another gimmick introduced by Bernie to entertain the general public in another era of 1 team dominating from start to finish, Williams have never recovered.

  9. caci99 (@caci99) said on 10th May 2012, 17:13

    Fair enough! If they say it is ok for them how can I contradict?
    Yet I don’t like some aspects of the current tyres, especially the marbles they leave on the track.
    Doesn’t look to me as if the marbles are good for racing.

    • bernieslovechild said on 10th May 2012, 17:46

      How to solve the marbles:

      Could have a half time like in football. Send out the marble sweeper uppers.

      Bernie could give the track a quick watering to slicken it up

      Stefano could throw the tea cups and give Massa the hairdryer treatment for being slow.

      HRT could do a mass sit down on the track for a siesta.

      Rossberg and Alonso could have a punchup in the tunnel over “robust” driving.

      Just a thought….

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 10th May 2012, 22:33

      @caci99 I don’t agree with the knee-jerk view that ‘marbles are bad’ – they also contribute to the racing in a positive way.

      • caci99 (@caci99) said on 10th May 2012, 23:21

        @keithcollantine Why would you consider it as a knee-jerk reaction. I don’t see the use of marbles, and the argument you linked in your reply doesn’t convince me. Nowadays we need to through all kind of stuff into the track to make races better, aren’t drivers good enough for that anymore? If I’m a given a 10m wide track, but a lot of it is covered by marbles, well…., what about banana skins, mushrooms, cucumbers, you name it. It could be embarrassing and unusual at first, but later on, it will be all part of racing, more excitement and more racecraft to be found in a driver.
        I am not criticising Pirelli here, I just don’t like some aspects of the tyres as they are today, sure they can do better than that.

        • NERD said on 11th May 2012, 0:05

          What an imbecilic comment. Hembrey clearly stated on the flying lap following Mugello that the marbles affect the car for maybe 10-15 seconds after they regain the racing line

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th May 2012, 0:29

            With an average lap time of 90 seconds, 15 seconds equals 1 sixth of a lap, a lot can happen in 1 sixth of a lap.
            “He would say that, wouldn’t he”

          • Kimi4WC said on 11th May 2012, 4:09

            Whole marble thing got out of proportion when Kimi went wide, he lost his places not due to marbles but cause his tyres totally gave up. He was driving on ice for 3-4 laps prior to that, his lap times prove it.

  10. Snafu (@snafu) said on 10th May 2012, 17:44

    I’d rather watch a driver trying to overtake for 60 laps than watch him stay back and wait for leader to fall back.

  11. The Limit said on 10th May 2012, 20:01

    I felt at the time that Michael Schumacher’s tyre complaints were more based on his disappointment over his lack of success since his return, rather than the tyres. If I remember rightly, Lewis Hamilton won the 2008 title due to Toyota putting the wrong tyres on Timo Glock’s car. Nigel Mansell’s hopes of winning the title in 1986 ended due to tyre failure, this really is nothing new.
    Schumacher was strong in the era of refuelling cars that started grands prix on light or varying fuel loads. The strategy with this setup was different to now, now everybody starts with the same fuel and it is more on who can look after their tyres better. This has certainly made life difficult for a number of drivers, especially Lewis Hamilton, who are hard on their tyres.
    It is a completely different concept to six years ago when Michael was at Ferrari and the main title threat to Fernando Alonso. I felt Vettel brought up some interesting points, about there being more overtaking and about drivers being better placed to pass rivals. Tyres, DRS, and to a point KERS have all helped in this regard despite them all being controversial inclusions into F1 racing. What we are all agreed on is that we don’t want to see processional racing like we used to see, when you were lucky to see two passes in a grands prix. That cannot be any good to the drivers levels of satisfaction either.

    • F1_Dave1 said on 10th May 2012, 20:14

      If I remember rightly, Lewis Hamilton won the 2008 title due to Toyota putting the wrong tyres on Timo Glock’s car. Nigel Mansell’s hopes of winning the title in 1986 ended due to tyre failure, this really is nothing new.

      Toyota never put the wrong tyres on Glocks car, They just never switched to the right tyres.
      It started to rain, They tried to stay out on dry tyres & a lap from the end it got too wet for that to work.

      With Mansell in 1986 that was a tyre failure, However it wasn’t caused by artificially crap tyres it was caused because they tried to go the full race without making any pit stops (Which you can’t do now) & the tyre compound they picked coudn’t make it. Others pitted, Others ran harder compounds, Mansell didn’t pit & ran a soft compound & paid the price for a strategy mistake.

      If the current tyre rules were in place back in 1986 the tyre blow out likely woudn’t have happened because of the mandatory stop to run both compounds would have forced him to pit.

      I still think the limitations on race compounds & rules forcing them to run both compounds are the biggest problems we have now. Take it back to how it was, 4 race compounds, hards can go the distance, medium/soft/super-soft can’t & just let teams run there races however they want.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th May 2012, 0:39

        Absolute and total agreement with @F1_dave1 , and to all those newbies ( relatively speaking) we are not asking for a return to goodyear type tyres, not saying that tyre management/strategy has no place in F1, just that it has gone too far and we don’t want the teams to have to use the wrong tyre.

  12. AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 10th May 2012, 22:59

    That’s a brilliant insight from Seb. It’s good to get another idea on the tyres from another driver. With him not having an overtly aggressive style I guess he was never going to complain as much as Schumacher did but that just goes to show that it is purely down to preference, which no rule book should cater for.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th May 2012, 0:49

      I may be biased but I read Vettels comments as saying, ” It’s not real racing but at least it is entertaining for Hans Public and looking on the bright side I will be able to pass Massa this year.” I might have skewed that a little but only to compensate for the fact that all the teams and drivers have to say positive things about F1s sponsors and the tyre supplier is a MAJOR SPONSOR.

  13. Anti-RBR (@matt2208) said on 10th May 2012, 23:41

    F1 need’s refuelling back, better racing. The Pirelli Tyres are duds, and the cars are way to slow.

  14. kilrcola (@adelaidef1fan) said on 11th May 2012, 4:41

    Good points guys. I’m happy to hear your responses.

    I did enjoy the different strategies of the refueling era, but you’re right the over taking is much better and more time spent out on the track fighting for position is better.

    As for marbles, they do make the racing better in terms of if you go off line and pull off a move you are a HERO in my opinion. Perhaps they could make these tyres produce less marbles though? I mean a big clump of rubber would surely be classified as debris?

  15. Nickpkr said on 19th May 2012, 12:24

    If there are Tires with smaller range in The same lot unintentionally or perhaps they are intended to particular team and race. I mean if tires give 1 second difference you could manipulate results at will, all we see is the color band.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.