Pirelli changes tyre choices for Australia and Bahrain

2013 F1 season

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Melbourne, 2012Pirelli has chosen softer tyres from its range for the first race of the season.

The Super Soft and Medium tyres will be provided for the Australian Grand Prix at Melbourne, where Soft and Medium were chosen last year.

The tyre allocations for Malaysia (medium and hard) and China (soft and medium) are unchanged for 2013.

In Bahrain teams will be provided with soft and hard tyres – last year the soft and medium compounds were used.

Pirelli have produced a softer range of tyres for the 2013 season. The new hard tyre is similar in compound to last year’s medium.

Circuit 2013 Option 2013 Prime 2012 Option 2012 Prime 2011 Option 2011 Prime
Melbourne Super Soft Medium Soft Medium Soft Hard
Sepang Medium Hard Medium Hard Soft Hard
Shanghai Soft Medium Soft Medium Soft Hard
Bahrain Soft Hard Soft Medium No race No race

2013 F1 season


Browse all 2013 F1 season articles

Image ?é?® Pirelli/LAT

Advert | Go Ad-free

80 comments on Pirelli changes tyre choices for Australia and Bahrain

  1. Robert (@rob8k) said on 13th February 2013, 9:16

    I know this has been debated before, but why can’t the teams have all the compounds available to them for practice but have to choose two prior to qualifying and still use both in race. I know the reasons are due to cost cutting but surely the entertainment value would increase with the variety of choices that are available to the teams.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 13th February 2013, 9:55

      @rob8k It’s easy to casually dismiss the enormous cost involved in doubling the number of dry weather tyres the teams ship around the globe.

      Not to mention the fact that most of them would have to be discarded because they wouldn’t get used. You’re asking Pirelli to turn up at Monaco with a truck full of hard tyres which it wouldn’t even be worth unpacking, let alone mounting on rims.

      Compare the very real and very high cost of that versus an intangible and questionable potential ‘entertainment value’ arising from it and you rapidly come to an understanding why there’s no demand for this.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 13th February 2013, 9:57

      Because the FIA don’t want the race result to be decided by tyre selection. They don’t want teams to build cars that will perform at their best on one or two types of tyres, and then just use those tyres all year long.

      • I see your point, but would it be a bad thing if teams did that. If different teams decided to suit there cars for different compounds then it could still add a variation of tactics. Plus could teams do this effectively, for example Ferrari in 2011 Spanish grand prix worked effectively on the soft compound but struggled on the hard.

        I understand and respect your concern with all compounds being offered, just being the devils advocate here

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 13th February 2013, 16:12

          @rob8k, I agree with you and I am sure there are ways it could be done without the extra costs. F’rinstance teams pre-order their tyre choice far enough ahead for Pirelli to make and transport them, the teams know what to expect at every track and Pirelli could report substantial change from previous years surface if it occured.

      • Nick.UK (@) said on 13th February 2013, 12:28

        Well, teams wouldn’t do that I don’t think. Any team that designs their car to be quick on softs for example may will at Monaco et al, but they may as well not even bother to turn up to the likes of Suzuka, Spa and Sepang.

    • I’ve raised this point before but with the alteration that they have to choose their tyres before the weekend starts: that adds a tactical element which may work or may not (for the reasons PM has said). That would only pose a logistical problem which I’m sure could be solved. Also, I would delete the “use both compounds” rule if that were to be the case.

      • I think this is a lot better idea as it would keep costs down and if it was done in the time-frame BasCb proposed. Although I prefer the “use both compounds” rule.

      • javlinsharp (@javlinsharp) said on 13th February 2013, 18:23

        I would propend the problem with pre-order is the street tracks and venues with inconsistant surface. .

        If a team makes a wrong choice for a track that does not have a consistent surface, they are completely screwed. If, however, Pirelli supplies all the tires and they are the same, then EVERYBODY is screwed, and the individual team has less to worry about.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th February 2013, 10:13

      If anything it might be an idea to have teams choose from the range – say about 6-10 weeks before a race, or choose per 2-3 events much like Pirelli does now.

      Producing tyres, bringing them to the race, putting them on the wheels knowing that half of them will not be used by design whatever the track conditions may be is not a sensible solution, especially when you realize that these tyres will then have to be destroyed.

      • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 13th February 2013, 13:05

        I’ve suggested a similar solution in the past. Give the teams the same number of tyre sets as they currently use now (seven, plus extras that may only be used in practice) but allow them to pick any combination of the four compounds available. I expect you would see decent variations in strategies as teams picked the tyre combinations that suited their car best for qualifying and races.

  2. Armchair Expert (@armchairexpert) said on 13th February 2013, 9:29

    So 2013 tyres are softer and still Pirelli chose softer compound for Australia? Ridiculous.

    One of the most appealing things about the end of last season was that drivers could push all the race. Maybe not as much as in Bridgestone era, but still times were dropping with every finished lap. Indian GP wasn’t exciting, but races in Abu Dhabi and Austin surely were, even with fake overtakes thanks to DRS. It was exciting to watch how Alonso tried to catch Raikkonen at the end in Abu Dhabi and how Hamilton was trying to get Vettel, which he finally succeed. These relentless pursuits, with giving everything from the car and the driver, lap after lap, that is what F1 should be all about.

    Last year in Australia soft tyres lasted first 15 laps, with McLarens driving to delta time 1:33.5. With softer 2013 tyres and supersofts instead of softs, how long will they last, 10 laps with even slower race pace? That will be massively exciting, snail pace for Top 10 at the beginning (because absolutely stupid rule about starting the race with tyres from Q3 still exists) and then trying to drive 2 stints of mediums and make them last till the chequered flag. Oh, the excitment…

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 13th February 2013, 9:43

      Your concerns might be valid if all Pirelli had done was soften the compound itself. But they have altered the structure of the tyres itself so as to address many of the issues with the tyres in 2012. The problem with last year’s tyres is that they were designed using a Renault R30, which was two years out of date. Pirelli wanted a different, newer chassis to test with, but none of the teams were willing to make one available. So while the tyres behaved as expected during testing, the changed to the regulations between 2010 and 2012 created a host of unintended side-effects. The 2013 tyres were designed to address that issue. I’m not sure what chassis Pirelli have used to carry out their testing, but they have said that their tyres will be must more predictable in their behaviour.

      • Skett (@skett) said on 13th February 2013, 11:55

        Could they not use a variety of cars? Have an engineer in each pit garage during the free practices or something when bringing new tyres?

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2013, 8:36

          Pirelli does have an engineer in all the teams garages @skett. And it does a lot to give good feedback on how the tyres work out, that experience is why Pirelli don’t announce ALL tyres for the year in advance, because they keep learning.

          But it wouldn’t help with developping new tyres, like the different construction used this year. No team would be willing to give up in season FP running to test tyres for Pirelli. Not to mention that it might be dangerous and not as productive to do the first testing in the hectic environment of a race weekend. That’s why they have done 2 whole seasons worth of racing in laps per year racked up on the 2009 Toyota and 2011 Renault.

      • Bruno (@brunes) said on 14th February 2013, 6:45

        They were actually using the Toyota designed for 2010 up until last year when the switched to a more recent Renault.
        (I think)

    • Bradley Cornish said on 13th February 2013, 10:31

      There’s no reason they couldn’t develop their tyres to be both softer and longer lasting. Pirelli were asked to make an aggressively wearing tyre when they entered F1. They intentionally engineered their tyres to wear faster than the Bridgetsone tyres. There is no reason that at this point, they couldn’t engineer their tyres to be both softer and more durable.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2013, 8:00

      This

      It was exciting to watch how Alonso tried to catch Raikkonen at the end in Abu Dhabi and how Hamilton was trying to get Vettel, which he finally succeed. These relentless pursuits, with giving everything from the car and the driver, lap after lap, that is what F1 should be all about.

      thank you for mentioning that @airmchairexpert

  3. sdtaylor91 (@sdtaylor91) said on 13th February 2013, 10:09

    Personally, I’ve had enough of these fragile tyres. They were introduced because of the 2010 canadian GP … everyone thought that was great, lets have it every race – IMO, too much of a good thing. Races like that were enjoyable because they were a one off.

    Watching some of the onboards from the last 2 seasons is just depressing because they were taking it so easy to protect the tyres. I found races like USA or abu dhabi much more enjoyable because you could see the drivers pushing every lap.

    To each his own, but for me, its wearing thin. No pun intended

    • Going back & watching Montreal 2010, It was an enjoyable race not only because it was something different, But also because the way the tyres didn’t fall off a cliff when they were wearing so a car on older/worn tyres was still able to race & defend against a car on newer tyres.
      That created good battles, Some good racing & the overtakes still had to be worked for.

      My biggest issue with the way Pirelli have gone about things is that instead of emulating that, They have come up with tyres which lost a lot of performance very quickly & then just get slower & slower.
      The problem with that been that most of the time a car on worn tyres is completely defenseless up against a car on newer tyres so you don’t get to see any sort of good battle or racing between the 2 cars & the pass is often just as easy & boring to watch as a DRS pass.

      • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 14th February 2013, 6:43

        But also because the way the tyres didn’t fall off a cliff when they were wearing so a car on older/worn tyres was still able to race & defend against a car on newer tyres.

        That was due the fact that DRS didn’t exist back then more than anything else.

  4. I quite like Pirelli’s aggressive approach – I feel in the end it suits both parties as at the start of the season we have the element of unpredictability and towards the end we start to see more flat-out racing when everyone understands the tyres and Pirelli pick more conservatively. I think the balance is good now.

    • andae23 (@andae23) said on 13th February 2013, 10:41

      I disagree with this. The less conservative tyre choice at the beginning of the season resulted in ‘unpredictable races’, meaning that teams like Williams and Mercedes were able to win a race. Pirelli then suddenly announced that their tyre choice for the final few races would be more conservative, as to not interfere with the championship. The result of this is that the smaller teams like Williams were not even close to winning a race late in the season. In my opinion, this is like changing the rules of a game when you’ve already started playing, and that’s not fair.

      • electrolite (@electrolite) said on 15th February 2013, 0:57

        The result of this is that the smaller teams like Williams were not even close to winning a race late in the season

        @andae23 The smaller teams like Williams fell behind right at the end mainly because the development game becomes more intense at the front of the field where the top teams can throw as much money as they like at the championship.

        I think we’d have had flat out racing at the end even if they had more ‘aggressive’ tyre choices. So I’d be inclined to agree with @vettel1 ‘s point.

        • andae23 (@andae23) said on 15th February 2013, 7:26

          @electrolite Ok, I was pushing the envelope a bit with that, but that’s of course not the main point I’m making. Changing your tyre choice philosophy mid-season will unquestionably alters the results of the races and therefore the championship. It doesn’t matter how their change in philosophy changed the results, it matters that they did chang their philosophy. And because they admitted this was because of circumstances on the track (they didn’t want to influence the championship – if 2012 would have been like 2011, they wouldn’t have made the same choice), I would say they weren’t unbiased and therefore their decision was unfair and it was like “changing the rules when you’re already playing”.

    • JB (@) said on 13th February 2013, 13:59

      @vettel1

      I will have to disagree with you on this Max… With regards to the choice in tyres…. that´s all fine and dandy with me but, my biggest problem is that Pirelli should announce the tyre selection for the whole year… not select them 2 or 3 weeks before the race because the way they go about doing this kind of makes you wonder if they influence in the races. By the end of the season… they know how the tyres behave and thus could benefit some.
      It would be a whole lot more impartial if they selected the tyre allcation for the whole year and not 2 or 3 races at a time!

      just my 2 cents.

  5. andae23 (@andae23) said on 13th February 2013, 10:36

    There are a lot of things that I don’t like about the role of the tyre supplier in Formula 1 (not specifically Pirelli). So I decided to itemize these points:
    – Colour schemes: look ugly, draws a lot of attention to the tyre supplier, gives the impression that Pirelli are more interested in selling their own products than the actual racing. Solution: 2009 (green band).
    – Tyre range: also draws too much attention to the tyre supplier. Solution: 2009.
    – Tyre degradation too high: drivers will be driving a lap delta. Solution: as mentioned above more durable tyres give the drivers the opportunity to push for a longer period during the race.
    – Tyre announcements before each race: might give an unfair advantage. For instance last year, Pirelli announced that their tyre choice would have a different philosophy from previous races, and they claimed that this was done so they would not interfere with the championship. Solution: announce tyre choices for every single race right now.

    That’s about it I think

    • Aditya F. Yahya (@adityafakhri) said on 13th February 2013, 10:51

      while I agree with the last one, I feel unsure about the others

    • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 13th February 2013, 12:03

      @andae23, I actually like the tyre range and the colours, and I also think that if something can done for the benefit of the tyre supplier, then this should be done (in exchange for cheaper tyres), as long as it does not interfere with the racing – so the rule of starting on the tyre you qualified on should go, imo.

      With regard to the tyre degradation, I still haven’t made up my mind whether I like degradable or durable tyres. I enjoyed both races in which there were many pit stops, and races in which there were few.

      As for tyre announcements, I don’t have strong views. One possibility might be to have teams announce their tyre choice in advance, at the same time Pirelli does now, and then we could also get rid of the rule of having to use both sets of tyres.

      • andae23 (@andae23) said on 13th February 2013, 17:02

        One possibility might be to have teams announce their tyre choice in advance, at the same time Pirelli does now, and then we could also get rid of the rule of having to use both sets of tyres.

        I’m very curious if that would work or not. My main point is that we need to get rid of the tyre markings, so that the ‘Pirelli tyre choice’ thing doesn’t get blown up every time they announce something. I’m just so fed up with seeing the tyre choices as an animation at the start of every single session, because it is completely irrelevant: it’s relevant that there is a prime, an option and two wet weather tyres.

        • Bruno (@brunes) said on 14th February 2013, 6:56

          Exactly… Bridgestone did it such a simple way that it was always very clear as to what tyre the cars were on.

          I don’t really care whether it is the super-soft, the medium or whatever. I just want to look at the tyre and know instantly if its Prime or Option. That’s it, and that’s what matters in the race for the viewers because there are only two dry choices anyway.
          It would only make sense to keep the four colors if all four compounds were available during the race weekend.
          I think in this case, Pirelli just did not want to do the same thing as their competitor. But for example, they could have chosen the Yellow logo for the Option and the white for Prime.

          A guys once said, “Keep it simple, stupid”

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2013, 8:18

            Guys, I pretty much disagree with both tone and content here, if I may say so @andae23 and @brunes.
            First of all, why blame Pirelli for a rule brought in by Bridgestone (the one about having to use both compounds).

            And when you state that it was “simple” with Bridgestone and having options and Primes, for me the current situation is far more simple. With Bridgestone you could have ss and softs at a weekend where the softs were the primes, and the next weekend we had softs and mediums where we had some commentors even questioning how it was possible that cars who did well on the primes the weekend before now suddenly struggled on them! That was because there was no such thing as an “option” and “prime”, they changed between races. And the garish green stripe was just horrible, and often hard to detect too.

            Now we know what tyres in the range are brought to the race and can even see so on timing screens (this innovation was brought in on request from many fans and its a huge improvement to accuracy)
            Because there is a difference between the tyres, its good to have it obvious, so people can better understand why a driver is suddenly going faster than the other, or why they are struggling in the opening laps butl will be able to make up ground earlier.

            Maybe you miss the mystery of being in the dark about what tyres people are on. For me its an enormous improvement.

          • andae23 (@andae23) said on 14th February 2013, 8:57

            @bascb I think you misunderstood my point completely. First of all, I have been trying not to blame Pirelli for things they did not influence, such as the ‘two compounds per race’ rule. See my original post:

            There are a lot of things that I don’t like about the role of the tyre supplier in Formula 1 (not specifically Pirelli).

            My point is that I love to know if Pirelli are bringing super softs/softs or softs/mediums to a race (I think that’s exactly what F1 fanatics want to know), but I think 95% of the viewers just doesn’t give a damn: as long as they can see what tyre is the prime and what tyre is the option. Therefore I think it’s best if there would be a clear distinction made between the prime and the option (not necessarily with a green band, but something similar), and the info about the actual compounds that are being brought to the race would be distributed on sites like F1F.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2013, 9:10

            From comments below I certainly did get the impression you blame Pirelli @andea23 (and that post was a reaction to both yours and those of JB – @brunes).

            As for the “common fan” I am pretty sure that for one its easier to remember/understand what is going on when the colours used are constant all year and don’t change from event to event.
            The idee fixe of having an option and a prime at all (when it only describes which of the 2 compounds the teams get an extra set for th weekend and when they have to be handed back) only makes sense because its something that F1 followers had to do (for lack of something better) for many year.
            A prime tyre does not exist (nor does an option), so why call it that?

            Remember when they brought more of the softer tyre to races last year (or was that 2011?). When sticking with options and primes it seems confusing. But when you just look at the tyre type, it was easy to understand and makes sense.

            On the other hand, a really casual viewer probably couldn’t care less even for something callled an option or prime and how many of each a car has available. Or for that matter soft, medium, etc., its just round rubber things on the cars. Having them brightly coloured at least makes them a tad more interesting and easier to see a difference, but not by much.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2013, 9:12

            let me add to that:

            The only time that it would make sense for me to discern only 2 types of tyres would be F1 using only 2 types of tyres for the whole season. But as far as I understood that was not your proposed solution.

          • andae23 (@andae23) said on 14th February 2013, 9:26

            @bascb I see your point. I think we should agree to disagree on this matter :)

            As for me blaming Pirelli: I don’t blame Pirelli for the fact that they are using tyres that are degrading too quickly, nor do I blame them for having that many compounds of tyres. I just don’t like them because of their attitude: they are way too commercial in my opinion, and therefore I get the impression that the actual racing aspect comes second.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2013, 9:32

            Yes @andae23, I think its safe to say we do indeed disagree on the colours vs. option/prime thing (and pretty much on the commercial approach as well).

            I am glad we did manage to understand what the other was arguing though and it was an interesting discussion.

          • andae23 (@andae23) said on 14th February 2013, 9:36

            Agreed :)

        • Bruno (@brunes) said on 14th February 2013, 12:07

          I actually understand both sides here. Sorry if I didn’t express myself well.
          I did not mean to blame on Pirelli for the 2 tyre rule. I actually like it, and it’s been around since the grooved tires I think.

          With Bridgestone you could have ss and softs at a weekend where the softs were the primes, and the next weekend we had softs and mediums where we had some commentors even questioning

          You actually made me see the other side of the story. It makes sense.
          I can tell which tyre the car is on with the Pirelli system, I just thought it could get confusing for some viewers.

          Summarizing. Yeah, okay, you convinced me that the current system is not bad.. haha

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 13th February 2013, 16:27

      @andae23, good points ,but the Tyre supplier has to get value (ie.publicity), I believe it was Pirelli that demanded the use of both compounds to give commentators a reason to talk about the tyres. I understand the supply/publicity equation but think it has succeeded beyond expectations.

      • andae23 (@andae23) said on 13th February 2013, 17:07

        I believe it was Pirelli that demanded the use of both compounds to give commentators a reason to talk about the tyres.

        Exactly. And that’s why I don’t like Pirelli.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2013, 8:20

        Actuallly @hohum, that was a rule already brought in with Bridgetone as single tyre manufacturer. If anything, that one, and the one about the top 10 qualifiers were more to blame on a manufacturer who is no longer part of the sport. So no need to dislike Pirelli for it @andeae23.

    • JB (@) said on 13th February 2013, 19:01

      @andae23
      That last one is exactly the same thing I meant to say previously to your comment. As to the other points… I agree There are too many tyre choices… they should just make 2 compounds… hard and soft… and the green band is an excellent solution… simple and effective.
      F1 and FIA are so full of it when they talk about cost reductions… just have 2 dry compounds and 2 wets and save a whole bunch of money in super soft and medium. I mean seriously… this is not GT5 where you can customize your car with a wide variety of tyres.
      Tyre dgradation…. have the soft compound last for only 6 or 7 laps and the hard for 17 laps… That´ll make it interesting and see if they can get to the end with a limited supply of tyres!

      And Thank you! I thought I was the only one that doesn´t like Pirelli because they try to hard to be a protagonist… I mean really… they even have their own line of merchandize in the official F1 webpage. Tyres should be just that… tyres… they should not interfere directly with racing… I´m sick and tired of always reading comments from Hembrey… They are just tyre suppliers for Christ´s sake!!!

  6. Timothy Katz (@timothykatz) said on 13th February 2013, 12:43

    I’m a little unhappy with the apparent ability of the tyre supplier to influence the outcome of the championship by altering tyres, compounds and wear characteristics.
    Imagine that two thirds of the way through the season Team A is being very successful due, in part, to their ability to maximise the performance/durability of one particular grade of tyre. The tyre company might ecome the target of people seeking to influence the outcome of the Championship by having the tyre company change that particular grade or compound.
    The people seeking that influence could be another team, the FIA, the Commercial Rights Holder (to make a more exciting end of season) or even a major TV feed provider.
    I think it might be better to remove the tyre company as a variable and potential recipient of undue influence in some way.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 13th February 2013, 12:55

      @timothykatz I know what you mean but it’s not something I’m that concerned about.

      If anything the potential for tyres to determine the outcome of the championship is less significant now than it ever was – think back to ten years ago when the drivers’ championships was basically decided by a contentious ruling on tyres.

      What I did think was odd was when Pirelli said last year they had brought more conservative tyres to prevent the outcome of the championship being affected. But whichever tyres they chose could be seen as favouring or disfavouring a particular team.

      Which is why it doesn’t bother me that much and I think the sensible thing for Pirelli to do is to just bring the tyres they think will produce the best racing and forget about the championship.

      • andae23 (@andae23) said on 13th February 2013, 17:14

        @keithcollantine

        … But whichever tyres they chose could be seen as favouring or disfavouring a particular team.

        Indeed. That’s why I think the announcements should be made before the season starts, as to eliminate this major flaw in the tyre allocation system. If they just continue to announce the tyre choices before each race (or couple of races), there is no way that the previous races don’t affect their tyre choices, because people at Pirelli simply don’t look like Lady Justice.

      • JB (@) said on 13th February 2013, 19:13

        @keithcollantine

        If anything the potential for tyres to determine the outcome of the championship is less significant now than it ever was

        For sure, you can´t be serious about this right??

        What I did think was odd was when Pirelli said last year they had brought more conservative tyres to prevent the outcome of the championship being affected. But whichever tyres they chose could be seen as favouring or disfavouring a particular team.

        Exactly and that is why tyre selection should be done for the whole year and not 2 or 3 weeks before each race. And the problem is that they can´t pretend to be impartial with so many tyres to choose from… 2 sets of dry is just! It would either be hit or miss for every team!

        the sensible thing for Pirelli to do is to just bring the tyres they think will produce the best racing and forget about the championship.

        In a Utopia that would be perfect but, even if they did do that, there would still be skeptics questioning their tyre choice. Solution? 2 dry compounds!!

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 13th February 2013, 19:33

          @catracho504

          you can’t be serious about this right?

          Of course I am.

          Do we have tyre suppliers giving preferential treatment to certain teams and drivers? No.
          Do we have a tyre war rendering half the field or more completely uncompetitive? No.
          Do we have the FIA banning certain tyre developments mid-season to the disadvantage of some teams and advantage of others? No.

          Do we have all teams and drivers being given the same compounds and a level playing field? Yes. And the sport is much better for it.

          • JB (@) said on 14th February 2013, 6:24

            @keithcollantine

            Do we have tyre suppliers giving preferential treatment to certain teams and drivers?
            *cough* Renault test car *cough* engine supplier *cough*

            Do we have a tyre war rendering half the field or more completely uncompetitive? No.
            I didn´t mention the need for a tyre war.

            Do we have the FIA banning certain tyre developments mid-season to the disadvantage of some teams and advantage of others?

            How can they?? There is no tyre war going on.

            Do we have all teams and drivers being given the same compounds and a level playing field?

            Yes and no. Yes they supply the same tyres… I wouldn´t call it a leveled playing field using a Renault test car.

            I mean no disrespect sir but I would have much rather preffered you addressed the other issues mentioned and not just my questioning of your statement. I would really have liked to have read your opinion on tyre allocation and compound diversity. There are way too many tyre compounds available and is giving Pirelli to much of a protagonist stature in the sport which is one thing that really bothers me and others according to previous statements.
            I honestly would like to know your opinion on those subjects.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2013, 8:24

            JB, the renault test car was something everyone in the sport had to agree with in a special vote/agreement.
            No doubt did they choose that one because it
            a. was not the fastest in the pack
            b. has an engine made by a company without a current works team (show me the Renault F1-team)
            c. is run by pirelli itself, not by any of the F1 teams
            d. was fast enough to give an accurate approximation of current downforce levels
            d. all relevant data are then shared by Pirelli with all the teams equally.

          • JB (@) said on 14th February 2013, 19:55

            @bascb

            a. was not the fastest in the pack

            Are we talking about the same car that held off the Ferrari for most of the 2010 Abu Dhabi GP?? The F10 was no slouch.

            b. has an engine made by a company without a current works team (show me the Renault F1-team)

            *cough* Lotus *cough*

            d. all relevant data are then shared by Pirelli with all the teams equally.

            If this were true… most teams would get the tyres to work quickly and so far, at least in 2011, only 1 team got them working on the first lap!

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th February 2013, 20:41

            @catracho504 – seems you have cought a cold, what with all the coughing there!

            Ok, that Abu Dhabi race was one of the things that made everyone think how much something like DRS was needed in the first place. Because it was all but impossible for one of the best drivers in a Ferrari to pass a mid grid car with a rookie russian pay driver.

            Lotus – I guess you mean the Enstone team running with a lotus badge on their chassis – has not been a works team for 2 years now. The closes to a works team for Renault would probably rather be Red bull than that team.

            The fact that not everyone is able to get the most of the tyres does not prove any bias about data received from Pirelli. Its even different between teammates, changes during the season.
            Red bull were great in qualifying in 2011 mainly because they had the most advanced exhaust blowing, and Vettel was expert at using that advantage and added to that the use of DRS in qualifying. Other teams were better than Red Bull at making the tyres last the distance. That is something we have regularly seen for ages in F1. Some are better in qualifying, some are better in the races.
            Fact is, that all teams are satisfied that Pirelli share data equally and fairly – we can be certain we would have otherwise heard about it.

            I think you would enjoy the sport far more, if you stopped reading too much into things.

    • craig-o (@craig-o) said on 13th February 2013, 14:14

      It’s not the first time it’s occurred though. Back in 2003, the FIA stopped Michelin from bringing a tyre upgrade for the final part of the season, this, of course, played right into the hands of Michael Schumacher, who was on Bridgestone tyres (I may be slightly wrong here though). I do though, completely agree with Keith, I’m more bothered about the racing, not whether the tyres are easy to get to terms with or not. If a team is struggling to figure out the tyres, it’s their fault, not necessarily Pirelli’s.

  7. A closer look at this, and barring two combinations- super-soft and soft(set aside for low-grip tight circuits) and super-soft and hard(a bizarre combo) Pirelli are using all available combinations. They’re probably doing this to see after the first 4 races which combo yields best results. The other thing is that Pirelli do not want to be lambasted for not experimenting much.

  8. Asanator (@asanator) said on 13th February 2013, 14:50

    I don’t really understand the whole issue people have with Pirelli and it’s tyres. It has always been, and always will be that some driver/chassis combinations are harder on their tyres than others and that fresher tyres (eventually before the appearance of tyre warmers) are always faster than older tyres.

    It isn’t Pirelli’s fault that some team’s cars can use the tyres better than others or that some drivers wear their tyres faster than others. If a one car on fresh tyres passes one on older tyres it is due to a difference in the teams tyre strategy for the race and the ease of that pass is largely due to the particular track it takes place on. Canada was an extreme for ease, due to the long straights. Webbers pass on Alonso at Silverstone was exciting to watch and not easy. Now think of the excitement we were all robbed of at the end of the 2011 Monaco GP, where no pass is easy.

    People complain about drivers not pushing 100% and having to drive to lap delta’s. Unfortunately this is due to the amount of data that teams are able to process and use over a weekend, more due to advances in technology than Pirelli’s tyres. Back in the day, a driver would push and pit when they wore out, and go again. Teams can now calculate the most efficient way to use the tyres, the best ratio of number of laps (wear)versus speed that they can get out of a tyre and can tell the driver the lap times he must achieve to optimise it. This IS the future of F1, and the teams can’t unlearn how to do it. The only way is to ban tyre changes and make tyres last the whole race. How good was 2005 for overtaking?

    Ultimately, as long as the same tyres are supplied to the same teams and not specifically to favour one or other then the winner will be the best team and driver combination over a weekend no matter what Pirelli do.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 13th February 2013, 16:36

      I would prefer to ask ” How good was 66 or 67 for overtaking/” those were years when no-one planned for a pit stop at all let alone planned to pass another car by pit stop strategy.

    • andae23 (@andae23) said on 13th February 2013, 17:35

      Teams can now calculate the most efficient way to use the tyres, the best ratio of number of laps (wear)versus speed that they can get out of a tyre and can tell the driver the lap times he must achieve to optimise it. This IS the future of F1, and the teams can’t unlearn how to do it.

      If the tyre wear is low enough, a point is reached where the most optimal way of running a race is to simply go as fast as possible without taking tyre degredation into consideration. Achieving that point is a bit of a stretch, but when the tyre degredation becomes lower and lower, drivers will be more able to forget delta times and just go as fast as possible. That’s why I think tyre degredation should be lower than it is currently.

    • JB (@) said on 13th February 2013, 19:23

      @asanator

      It isn’t Pirelli’s fault that some team’s cars can use the tyres better than others

      Are you sure about that??? I´m just asking since curiously… they decide to use a Renault car to make said tyres… Same car that supplies engines for a certain winning team?? So much for thinking they are impartial! Why don´t they use a Toyota?? Sure, it´s out dated but they really have no business in F1 now.
      The biggest issue I have with this is that it doesn´t look good to see that a certain team is always able to get the tyres working faster than any other team.

      • SatchelCharge (@satchelcharge) said on 13th February 2013, 22:03

        Nice post, @asanator.
        @catracho504

        So much for thinking they are impartial!

        This is absurd, you have no evidence to back it up.

        The biggest issue I have with this is that it doesn´t look good to see that a certain team is always able to get the tyres working faster than any other team.

        To whom does it not look good? You? If a team can build/tune their car around the tires, more power to them. It’s not a spec series….. Even if it were a spec series, some teams would still tune the car “better” and get more from the tires!

        • JB (@) said on 14th February 2013, 6:10

          @satchelcharge

          This is absurd, you have no evidence to back it up.

          Is it really?? What more evidence do you need? They use a a 2010 Renault car to test tyres… Same car that supplies the engine to certain teams…

          To whom does it not look good? You?

          Not only to me sir…. read some of the other comments above… there are plenty other fanatics that feel that Pirelli´s aproach does favor some. It´s not just me.

          If a team can build/tune their car around the tires, more power to them.

          I totally agree!! The thing is that to erase all doubt, they should use another type of car… Toyota comes to mind… They´re not even in F1 anymore. That would be impartial!

      • Bruno (@brunes) said on 14th February 2013, 7:03

        They did use a Toyota, but the car “got out of date” so it wasn’t comparable to the current cars anymore

      • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 14th February 2013, 10:01

        As others said, that Toyota car was several years, and rule changes old, missing seasons of development. It just wasn’t a good test car anymore, but better than none. Same for the current car, Pirelli really lobbied to get a very recent, very fast carm but teams couldn’t agree out of fear one of them got an advantage. So they took a bit older, not quite outdated, not too modern and winnig car. I don’t see how you can blame Pirelli for this.

    • craig-o (@craig-o) said on 13th February 2013, 22:23

      How good was 2005 for overtaking?

      Other than Suzuka, I can’t recall many, especially at Imola.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 13th February 2013, 22:50

      @asanator

      How good was 2005 for overtaking?

      Well, there was overtaking at Monaco. But that was one of few races where we saw much in the way of tyre degradation.

      • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 14th February 2013, 6:46

        @asanator

        How good was 2005 for overtaking?

        The worst in F1 history.

        According to F1 overtaking facts, 2005 had less overtakes than any other F1 season in history. Ever. Ironically, 2003, which is often perceived to be a part of the Schumi domination era, had more overtakes than any other season this millennium (post-2000).

        • JB (@) said on 15th February 2013, 17:23

          @kingshark

          Ironically, 2003, which is often perceived to be a part of the Schumi domination era, had more overtakes than any other season this millennium (post-2000).

          Hmmmm, that is interesting… So much for the “boring”-races-due-to-tyre-the-war discussion.

  9. jpowell (@jpowell) said on 13th February 2013, 19:15

    So now we have a super super soft ,it will be interesting to see how far through a single lap in Q3 they will hold together.I am going to Barcelona next week .Only 15 euros a day and just as exciting as the first half of last season.

  10. mantresx (@mantresx) said on 13th February 2013, 19:19

    Am I the only one who thinks that with softer tyres 2013 will be the year of “marbles”? I remember in early 2012 a lot of people were complaining about it and only stopped when Pirelli went conservative (but then we had some boring races), wouldn’t be surprised if the same happened this year :(

  11. Kimi4WDC said on 14th February 2013, 6:51

    There should be only two dry compounds and teams should be working with them and adjusting to whatever challenges are coming with that on a different tracks.

  12. LifeW12 (@lifew12) said on 15th February 2013, 4:12

    great choice Pirelli, taking the hardest tyres to the most boring track on this years calendar (Bahrain)

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.