Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Shanghai, 2013

DRS and tyres: Has F1 got the balance right?

Debates and PollsPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Shanghai, 2013The 2013 season is the third year in which F1 has tried to produce better racing using the Drag Reduction System and having Pirelli produce tyres that degrade rapidly.

Both have undergone changes this year. Pirelli has produced a new generation of softer tyre compounds and almost every track will have two DRS zones this year.

However it has opened a debate over whether Formula One has gone too far in altering the sport to make it more entertaining. Has it got the balance right?

DRS

Following complaints from some drivers the Drag Reductions System can no longer be used freely during practice and qualifying this year.

To ensure it still has a significant effect, an extra DRS zone has been added at most tracks which previously only had one. The last three races all had one extra DRS zone compared to last year.

Has that made DRS too powerful – or not powerful enough? Do you think F1 has got the balance right? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

[poll id=”414″]

Tyres

In the previous two seasons with softer tyres we’ve tended to see lots of pit stops and strategic variety in the early races, but by the end of the season the teams understand the tyres better and one-stop races become more commonplace.

In response to that Pirelli have produced softer tyres this year. But concerns they may have gone too far, voiced by Red Bull among others, have led them to change the hard tyre to a more durable compound.

Are this year’s tyres too aggressive? Has the move towards softer compounds produced better racing since 2011? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

[poll id=”415″]

An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here.

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Posted on Categories 2013 F1 season, Debates and Polls

Promoted content from around the web | Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 177 comments on “DRS and tyres: Has F1 got the balance right?”

    1. In the Pijelli era, the tyres are so bad that the teams give their driver a target lap time to drive to. The car is able go faster, the driver can is able to drive faster, but the tyres will simply disintegrate if they do so. A driver may only chase a car ahead, or defend from a car behind, if he is driving within the prescribed lap time. Otherwise he has to accept that he will not catch the driver ahead, or even worse, wave through a chasing driver… even though he may feel that an attack or defence is within his and his machine’s capabilities. Yet if he attempts to attack, or defend, outside the parameters of the prescribed lap times, he will be forced to make another pit stop.

      How anybody can class this as having a positive effect on racing is beyond me…

      1. Pirelli should dedicate to make erasers and not F1 tyres

        1. Traverse (@)
          3rd May 2013, 19:21

          @omarr-pepper
          Or they could compete with Durex for…actually, on second thought…never mind.

            1. @celeste, @hellotraverse Actually, it was an anger claim but resulted in a joke. F1 is damaged by 3 aspects: No refueling (makes the driver “care” the way it uses the fuel, and by that makes him slow down), DRS is a bad gimmick (makes useless to defend position, and add to that the fact that a good defense also damages the fragile tyres), and don’t forget DRS can get stuck and ruin races (Alonso and Schum). And the tyres, I can’t understand why drivers must use the two compounds. It should be up to the team. If a team could run a nonstop, it would be part of their skill.

            2. I think you are wrong there @omarr-pepper. I think the biggest things that are wrong with F1 currently is 1. too much of the balance tipped towards aero, and the dirty air problems that brings with it. 2. the sport being too expensive, so drivers need to bring money instead of just great racing skills and 3. getting enough young people to be interested to stay healthy for the future.
              As for the drivers running to pre-destined lap times – I lively recall far more of that from the refuelling era. I think its more to do with the pits having more information about what the car is doing than the driver (too much telemetry), so they start telling the drivers how to drive, instead of leaving it to the driver to feel the car (and reacting to fuel levels, brakes going off, tyres going off etc.)

            3. @bascb oh! I agree with those points as well. Thanks.

            1. David (@mansellsmoustache)
              9th May 2013, 22:40

              Indeed.

            2. @bascb utterly agree with you

      2. Non/Little F1-fan friends told me: “How a tyre can only last 2 laps in the pinnacle of motorsports?”

        1. Traverse (@)
          3rd May 2013, 20:13

          “How a tyre can only last 2 laps in the pinnacle of motorsports?”

          Because the F1 big wigs have a seemingly relentless desire to appeal to “new markets”, rather than concentrating on strengthening the territories F1 already operates in. Sadly, actual real racing doesn’t seem to appeal to casual fans and thus in order to quell the cries from “The Casuals” (cue The Twilight Zone music), they decide to go down the road marked “easy way out” and introduce these farcical gimmicks (It’s a bit like when a parent shoves a chocolate bar in their child’s mouth to momentarily pacify the kid, rather than deal with the route problem).

          As long as they’re pulling profit out of naive, casual fans, they don’t care, as far as they’re concerned real racing can go and make love to itself (and by naive and casual, I mean people who will pay through the nose for Sky F1 and purchase ridiculously expensive tickets without protest). But then why should they care? They could price the tickets at a grand per seat and people would still pay.

          1. Nick.UK (@)
            3rd May 2013, 22:19

            @hellotraverse “The Casuals” – are ruinning everything from motorsport to music and video games. It’s a disgusting era we live in where the talentless seem to thrive off idiots money.

            1. @nick-uk “It’s a disgusting era we live in where the talent less seem to thrive off idiots money”

              My vote is with this guy. It’s a sad fact that all major sports that are dependent on Sponsor’s hard cash are run as profit business and unfortunately have little interest in the genuine reason for the sport in the first place.

              It will not stop me watching F1 or loving it any less as from a young age I have been hooked & I honestly believe that we are in a golden era of F1 that will get looked back on like the ones we do now.

              No one seems to be mentioning Kers in this debate, I wonder why?

              1.Down with DRS as it is too fake & easy.
              2.Make Kers limited to a whole race distance not just a lap. It will add to strategy and help reduce the kers attacker failing because of the kers defender infront
              3. Take away aero & replace with mechanical grip. Then cars will follow closer and maybe make that pass without the car in front being a sitting duck or mission impossible

            2. James Allen (@jamesallen1705)
              8th May 2013, 11:28

              @Bobby – disagree with KERS. F1 needs KERS to keep manufacturers interested as it reflects the movement of the consumer car market along with the smaller turbo charged engines. I think remove DRS but have the amount of KERS that is coming next year, although maybe adjust that it gets restored every two laps, to add a little more tactics to it.

          2. “Sadly, actual real racing doesn’t seem to appeal to casual fans and thus in order to quell the cries from “The Casuals” (cue The Twilight Zone music), they decide to go down the road marked “easy way out” and introduce these farcical gimmicks (It’s a bit like when a parent shoves a chocolate bar in their child’s mouth to momentarily pacify the kid, rather than deal with the route problem).”

            And the thing is, it’s backfiring. Viewing figures are down, ticket sales are down. So what to do? Learn from this and revert to a proper formula? Or throw a whole load of new gimmicks at the show?

            I know which option I’d chose. Pretty sure FOM will go the other way though… :(

            1. I agree with Bobby. DRS should go away. It is too fake . Tires from 2012 were pretty close to perfect. This running to a delta or the tires shred is a joke. I would like to see Kers and/or DRS set up as a set amount of time to be used.(Maybe 3 minutes over a race span or a set # of times) And they can use them anywhere on the track. Once they are used up, thats it. This would allow drivers to defend a faster car strategically. Also going back to a mechanical grip formula so cars can follow and pass would make F1 exciting again. I doubt this will ever happen like I want, but hey this is what Forums are for, so us fans can vent and play armchair QB. :)

            2. yes, revert to what you call a proper formula and watch the viewing figures drop even more ; have you not noticed the move to pay TV ?

              and ticket sales down ? no recession where you are ? looked at ticket prices lately ?

          3. jimscreechy (@)
            16th May 2013, 16:30

            It’s not just F1, so many aspects of society and the world are being amalgamated. We’ll soon be a homogenous mass with one racing category across the globe… and it will run on google.

      3. I would agree that this year things have gone too far, I would prefer drivers being able to push harder more often.

        I liked how in the past the tyre performance dropped off rather suddenly. What if the compounds were more durable and consistent—so that a driver could push as hard as he wanted, but once the meat of the tyre was used, after say 15-20 laps, the tyres quickly degraded. Maybe even couple this with restrictions on sensor technology so the teams have less instantaneous data about the tyre condition?

        This would create situations where teams and drivers were debating if they could push one more lap or not. Some would get it right, some would get it wrong and the difference could easily be a second or three. It would put it more down to a driver being familiar with his car and the tyres to recognize how much life is left in the tyre.

        1. Yeah, that was “entertaining”, when the performance would drop suddenly. Like a musical chairs dance when you don’t know upfront when the music is switched off. Maybe they should throw dice to see when they need to do an extra lap? Or to go to “jail”?

      4. @PijelliZeroGrip: I totally agree. Added to that, DRS allows for zero-skilled overtaking.

        F1 has become a joke. It’s already been said a million times: bring back races where the drivers are putting themselves and their vehicles on the limit for the entire race.

      5. @pijellizero
        Well said there mate!

        1. Before DRS most overtaking took place in corners but now they just get close enough and wait for the next straight to cruise past. The extreme aero effects making overtaking difficult but a gimmick like DRS isn’t the answer. If they focused less on aero grip and more on mechanical grip then the tyres would be come more important.

          Make tyres last longer but have a mandatory minimum number of stops. Then drivers can drive flat out between stops and not have to worry about shredding their tyres. That would be real racing.

      6. +1. Add DRS to the mix and you have a very sad caricature of F1. How can some F1 “fanatics” consider this spectacle “good racing” is also beyond me.

      7. How are tyres that are designed to degrade any different from the limiting factors of any era in F1.
        For example in the turbo era they essentially drove to target lap times as dictated by the boost being run as a function of available fuel.

        1. No they were not given target lap times. They were told when and where to make best use of the turbos and they were told when they needed to conserve fuel. They were never told “Your target lap time is x:yy:zz”.

          And drivers weren’t on the radio asking if they should be bothering to defend.

      8. exactly

      9. +1 to that. I think best combination is DRS + Bridgestone era :)

        1. @steco – I half agree:

          DRS + Bridgestones + no refuelling
          or
          DRS + 2012 Pirelli’s + bring back refuelling

          Then F1 will be close to being back to how it should be. driver on the limit each lap, every lap!

    2. DRS has killed the sport aspect of F1 since it was brought in. We no longer see much real overtaking we see drivers passing eachother on straights as if they were on the highway. If we must have DRS, have it available for drivers to use a limited number of times per race weekend (Saturday to Sunday). They can use it whereever and whenever they like but the number carries over from qualifying to the race, so do they want to use it to get higher up the grid or to pass in the race?

      The tyres are great because everyone gets the same chance to work out the tyres. It creates strange results in the first half of the year before the best teams work out how to use them properly and move ahead in the second half. It would be nice to see the cars going flat out again all the time but the tyres at least give us real passing.

      Kill DRS, keep the tyres, you get less overtaking but it is real.

      1. @jonners99 So you think its ok that Red Bull have to turn their car DOWN to be able to handle the tyres?

        1. To me that argument is a bit like saying, shame Mclaren built their car to handle v10 engines and have to use a v8. It is the same for everyone and Red Bull had some idea that the tyres would be like this based on the last two seasons.

          These are the best designers and engineers in the world. They are capable of adapting based on fixed conditions. The tyres with a single supplier are a fixed condition that the cars need to be designed to.

          1. Have you actually been to 1 f1 race?

            My first was in 2000, at Spa. Before that I had heard that the noise was crazy and my thought was…” ah boys with toys, they just want to make noise :)”

            Wasn’t until the first one passed at the straight that a couple of things dawned to me:

            1. A weekend of (2000) F1 will have a permanent impact on your hearing if you don’t wear at all times.

            2. The noise (2000) is way beyond funny, in that split second it really became clear, a F1 racer isn’t noisy for fun but because you can’t have mufflers or anything else restricting flow if you want max power, you need every rev per minute you can possibly get from within the limits of physics to get that extra power over the other guys… No Compromise…

            But you and your like think its fine that the F1 field cannot use the already limited available HP in their engine, wow…

            Whats the freaking point of F1 then if may I ask??

            1. I have been to two F1 races, both unfortunately in the V8 era. I would love if the cars and drivers could run on Saturday and Sunday at the very limits of their ability. I just don’t like the argument of Red Bull having to turn their car down to compete as I am sure that all the teams could go a lot faster. I didn’t particularly like my opening metaphor in the last comment as I wrote it but couldn’t think of a better way to articulate my thoughts.

              I think from a racing perspective DRS is a bigger issue than the tyres and think that the tyres create a variable that is interesting for the teams to try and solve. The best argument against the tyres I have seen is that laid out by Pirellizerogroup in this thread. When every one is having to lap to a set time it is not really racing… when everyone has a magic button that lets them essentially drive straight past anyone if they can get within one second then that is also and to a greater extent in my opinion not racing.

              To a casual fan, the tyres make things exciting, I would imagine even to that casual fan DRS seems dumb and fake?

      2. Or perhaps they could do what they currently do and have two DRS zones? With separate activation points? And maybe they should shorten the DRS zones a bit but I think there are still brilliant passes in F1, and besides, DRS provides another tactical area, drivers maybe stay out longer or pit earlier to avoid another driver’s DRS? As for tyres, I think last year’s were perfect, right balance between speed and durability for entertaining racing. This year, pirelli have gone too far. But as for the DRS I can see where you’re coming from.

        As for me, I put really positive for DRS and really negative for pirellis.

        1. drivers maybe stay out longer or pit earlier to avoid another driver’s DRS

          But I don’t see how either of those is particularly interesting. It might be a strategic aspect, but it isn’t an exciting one- just as fuelling to complete passes during pit stops rather than on the track used to be a strategic aspect.

      3. It’s the tyres that do that. if the drivers are on the same quality tyres it’s not that easy to get past with DRS. When there is already a 1 to 3 second lap difference due to the tyres then indeed DRS just compounds the problem.

    3. I think DRS overall has rather spoiled more than it helped do what it was targetted to do. I think its been OK in Australia to help keep a battle going and following a car close enough to be able to find a way past. But more often than not DRS has meant cars zoom past without the leading car even thinking of defending position, and its also made drivers shy away from moves elsewhere too often.

      The tyres are a good thing, although its a delicate balance to keep right. China this year was really on the edge, and we’ve also seen Pirelli being a tad too conservative last year. But overall I would say its been a positive change compared to the bridgestones we had the years before this, where too often the only reason to change tyres during the race really was the mandatory use of both compounds.

      1. Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
        3rd May 2013, 18:11

        @bascb I still think that DRS, when implemented intelligently, has a place in F1 in 2013. Unfortunately, the FIA are not implementing it very cleverly this season, by putting two zones on every circuit – even ones that don’t need them. There are sections on F1 tracks that could do with a DRS zone and there are some long straights that don’t need one at all. I wish the FIA could see that.

        I agree with you about the tyres. I, for one, would much rather have the current tyres than go back to the old Bridgestone-style compounds.

        1. I agree with you about the tyres. I, for one, would much rather have the current tyres than go back to the old Bridgestone-style compounds.

          @magnificent-geoffrey – me too! Plus, the racing these past three years (this included) has been great and I’ve enjoyed watching every weekend! (It’s fun not pigeon-holing oneself and not declaring to be a “purist”!)

        2. @magnificent-geoffrey @bascb I think the FIA are aware of all of that, but because they changed the rules on the use of DRS in practice and qualifying this year, it meant that teams would likely shorten their top gear since gearing it long no longer gives them as much benefit in qualifying. To ensure that teams still have incentive to gear their cars with enough top gear to make effective use of DRS, they’ve added the second zone at all circuits to try and recover some of the benefit in qualifying that was lost. To me this just illustrates how broken the thinking behind DRS is in general. If that kind of artificiality needs to be used to make it work, then in my opinion the concept as a whole is flawed. I appreciate that it’s trying to fix the problem of dirty wake, but I think the original 2013 regs that were scrapped would’ve been a better solution with little to no wing, and the reintroduction of ground effect. That would’ve allowed the cars to still create a lot of aero downforce, with drastically reduced wake from what I understand.

          1. Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
            3rd May 2013, 23:17

            @us_peter

            If that kind of artificiality needs to be used to make it work, then in my opinion the concept as a whole is flawed. I appreciate that it’s trying to fix the problem of dirty wake, but I think the original 2013 regs that were scrapped would’ve been a better solution with little to no wing, and the reintroduction of ground effect. That would’ve allowed the cars to still create a lot of aero downforce, with drastically reduced wake from what I understand.

            It’s very hard to disagree with you there, I have to admit.

            1. Indeed @us_peter, @bascb and @magnificent-geoffrey, I can only agree whole-hartedly, but with a sagging feeling whenever I think of it. DRS could be a useful band aid, but currently it is not.

          2. @us_peter @magnificent-Geoffrey, agree 100%, I’ve been saying that for ages. People arguing that large diffusers for ground effect would produce the same turbulence are dead wrong, look how close the racing was in the last ground effect era of f1, not to mention diffusers design depends on keeping the air flowing through it attached and clean, other wise it wouldn’t work properly. I’ve said it before and ill keep saying it, bring back ground effect, very strictly controlled to avoid development costs skyrocketing, and then you can make the rear wing top elements tiny, like monza ones, plus no beam wing, and no winglets at all over the bodywork, and the wake would be reduced massively. Then cars could follow wing to wing through high speed corners, like they used to, and now can’t. Ground effect is the answer! Then just do away with drs because it will not be needed.

            1. @fangio85 I agree, but unfortunately that ship has sailed.

        3. The problem is the they cannot implement it intelligently. When the cars are on different strategies, DRS will always seem to make overtaking too easy. When clearly the underlying problem is the tyres. When cars are on the same tyres (same nr laps and same compound) then DRS will result in a battle for position which otherwise would not have been possible. If the tyres are different then overtaking is ridiculously easy already anyway. DRS just makes it a tad easier still.

          1. I do agree that it is the current combination that makes for thosse bad cases @patrickl,but I also think this means that given the tyres, we would often be able to do without DRS.

        4. And I agree with you on DRS too @magnificent-geoffrey!

    4. The tires are mostly positive, but I think I would like F1 more without the DRS. I would like to see better KERS (probably next year’s ERS) and bigger, more powerful engines, carefully ballanced by more freedom regarding aerodynamics. That would be my perfect Formula. :D

    5. No they have not.
      The DRS is stupid, complicated, unfair and unnessesary. Get rid of it and hopefully the embrasment will be forgotten one day. Probably not.
      Tyres are a bit more complicated.
      I think they are a too soft and the rules around the tyres doesn’t really suit I don’t think.
      Get rid of the top ten starting on qualifying tyre rule, to stop some from not running at all, and give an opportunity for them to start on the harder tyres more often.
      Then give the top ten qualifiers a replacement set of soft tyres for a tyre which they ONLY use in Q3. To stop them from only doing a single run in Q3. And maybe just a tyre more for everyone to stop those incredibly dull q1 and q2.
      Then the tyres need to be more consistent and faster, with more progressive wear I think. Not as agressive but still much more degrading then the old bridgestones. You don’t have to go from one exstreme to another. I think a middle thing between the current tyres and the 2010 spec bridgestones would be ideal.

      1. @mads agreed.

        DRS is making F1 like WWE Wrestling – not a sport, an “entertainment”. I say “enteratinment” as I believe that is the intention but I actually believe rather the opposite: DRS is sapping the entertainment value with the way in which it is currently implimented. Cars streaming by even before the braking zone is not “entertaining” in my eyes, rather destroying the entertainment value of ballsy overtakes with the last of the late brakers.

        The tyres though I think are a good thing: the rules are flawed and they are too aggressive currently but if we got rid of those rules and reverted to a mid/end of 2011 spec tyre I would be happy: I think there was a pretty good balance at that point in time.

    6. Its not DRS, its the tyres.

      1. @jushua-mesh. This is an interesting point, I’m surprised no one has engaged by this comment yet.

        At first, I thought “are you out of your mind! it’s clearly DRS that is the problem.” But after reflecting a moment, I feel more open to this idea. Creating longer-lasting tyres that the drivers can push non-stop on would allow for more balls-out racing. Keeping DRS would theoretically keep up the passing.

        I would prefer to see each of these gimmicks tested independently of each other. What is a year without quickly degrading tyres, but heavy DRS use like? What is a year with no DRS but quickly degrading tyres like? I think we’d quickly understand which is more artificial.

        1. @jmwalley every day of the week I’d take solely the tyres: even though I think they’re not perfect, at least they are the same for everyone. DRS is only available to a chasing driver, which makes it far more artificial and excitement enhancer in my eyes.

        2. @jmwalley

          I would prefer to see each of these gimmicks tested independently of each other

          Interesting idea indeed!
          My only concern with removing DRS is a midfield car’s dirty air messing up the race (for a huge number of laps) for a driver who’s a competing with front-runners (finally being passed anyway, but only after causing that unnecessary damage – unnecessary for him as he’s competing with other midfield cars).

    7. I put neutral effect for both. I feel that both have improved the show in some areas but detracted from it in others.

      2 DRS zones worked well in Oz and Bahrain but kind of spoiled Malaysia and Shanghai. I reckon it will also improve the show at places like Silverstone and Hungary, but I’m concerned it will again spoil Montreal, Spa, Monza and Interlagos. Those last 4 circuits would be better off not having DRS at all, to be honest.

    8. F1 should be about the wheel to wheel racing and DRS has all but killed that aspect of the sport. Now all we are left with is watching the fastest guy win with all obstacles removed from his path. Very unsatisfying. F1 without DRS is what the purist wants so why are we bring denied it? Is the sport really that badly managed that it can’t see the obvious? If so i fear for the future of F1.

      p.s. DRS is the sole reason i will not be attending a GP this year

    9. I do not love DRS; however, I cannot hate it. I think it serves a purpose once implemented properly. What would you suggest to avoid 2010 Abu Dhabi?

      1. (@millirem)

        I do not love DRS; however, I cannot hate it. I think it serves a purpose once implemented properly. What would you suggest to avoid 2010 Abu Dhabi?

        I’d suggest putting some proper tracks back on the calendar, and not the tilke-dromes. But that’s just me.

      2. I think the tyres alone could solve that problem. As someone with a degree that involved a lot of scientific experiments, one of the first things you learn is “only change one thing at a time”. I think if F1 had taken the same approach at the end of 2010 we would all be loving f1 right now.

        1. exactly only change one variable.

      3. Pirelli tyres

      4. Fix the aero issues that is the root cause. DRS is a bandage on a pulsing wound. The problem is still there and they are just moving the problems about, decompressing certain areas while compressing others, but not actually reducing the problem that still exists.

        My point, lack of overtaking has been seen as an issue for years now (see: OWG). And the OWG has many times said that disturbed air from all the aero is a problem, but it has yet to be addressed. Instead, F1/FIA took McLaren’s f-duct idea, and turned it into DRS. The result is that some drivers can pass on 5-10% of the track while the remainder not only stays just as useless because of aero influenced restrictions on close racing. That remaining 90% (or whatever it is) becomes even more useless because drivers have no incentive to risk tyres, time, or their car when they know that they can breeze by via these convoluted rules that only benefit the driver behind.

      5. What would you suggest to avoid 2010 Abu Dhabi?

        That depends on what exactly it is about Abu Dhabi 2010 which you wish to avoid.

        1. Hector, I’d put money on Jason wanting to avoid how Alonso was stuck behind Petrov for an eternity, even though he was in a much faster car. Of course this happened many, many times times to many drivers during this race and many others during the Bridgestone era. The Trulli Train was truly terrific when your driver wasn’t stuck but was truly terrible if your driver was one of the victims.

          1. The thing with Abu-Dhabi 2010 is that while Alonso was faster than Petrov over a lap, He was not faster than Petrov down the straights purely because Renault had a better F-Duct, Were running less downforce & a higher top gear.

            Alonso was unable to pass Petrov not because of turbulent air or because of the circuit layout, He could not pass Petrov purely because Petrov/Renault had done a better job with car setup, had gone with the right pit strategy & Petrov wasn’t making any mistakes.

            Also don’t forget that Alonso (And Webber behind him) had overtaken other cars before getting to Petrov.

            I’d also suggest that given the Renault’s straght line speed advantage over the Ferrari that race DRS would not have helped Alonso. It would have been like Schumacher/Hamilton at Monza 2011 where Hamilton’s use of DRS was nullified by Schumacher’s superior top speed & where it was only a small mistake by Schumacher (Late gear shift) which ultimately saw Lewis get by.

      6. I dunno, maybe implement the proposed 2013 aerodynamic regulations? The thing is DRS was only ever a stop gap – a sticking plaster if you will – and the root cause of the problems would have been highly mitigated by the regs in a way that would not have tainted the sporting balance.

        Thats the issue. KERS, and even the ERS brought in in 2014 is weaker than it can be. It is a bost buttons. It is also no different to a turbo boost button in that the driver can choose at what position on trak deployes it. DUring attack, defence or simply to minimise laptime.

        DRS is not the same. It is not available to the defending driver, and the attacking driver can only use it in restricted position, within a 1 second gap to the car ahead.

        And the worst thing is it doent facilitate great, skilful, oppotunistic overtaking. He cant use it when he spots the car in front having poor traction out of a corner, or when he has forced the other car onto a comprimised line.

        Its not even making the show better – it just gives the car behind a stupid advantage in a straight line, wheras the other regs would have promoteed not neccesarily the smae amount of overtaking, but struck a better chord between attack and defence. We hardly see drivers putting pressure on and forcing mistakes.

        Its not the pass itself we remeber but the build up, the battle and the eventual resolution that draws people in. And DRS robs that from the sport. Before you could say that for some tracks, overtaking would be difficult, but it would always be eventful. And that despite the greater amount of passing in other categories, F1 could throw up racing and races that no other motorsport could equal in drama, skill and excitement. But not now – this stop gap was never intended or designed as an all round solution to overtaking and the problem of aerodynamic wake, so why would it deliver all this.

    10. I’m enjoying it so I going to put neutral for both, simply because I can’t say it would be better without either agressive tyres or DRS nor has it improved the show. Ultimately it’s largely hypothetical to ponder anything other than the status quo.

    11. there are ways drs can be used in a better way. maybe 2 seconds instead of 1 second. or use a limit to how many times a driver can use the drs in a race. drs if used properly can be a great addition. however atm i despise drs especially when the driver in front has no chance to defend. No problems with tyres teams just need to get on with it

    12. I voted negative for both. DRS is a pretty simple one, its just not required in my view and has destroyed the art of defensive driving.

      With regards to the tyres, I feel that since 2012 they have had a negative effect as they have made really fighting for position a negative. Drivers aren’t pushing anymore, so if they are under attack by other drivers not pushing, they are better off just letting them by, as shown brilliantly by Rosbergs downfall in Bahrain.

      Don’t get me wrong though, Pirelli can have a great effect on F1; we saw it in 2011. I recently rewatched the Chinese and Spanish grand prixs from that year and they were absolutely epic! Still the different strategies and intrigue caused by dreading tyres, but with drivers pushing like hell, dicing for positions and fighting for all it’s worth. The only thin that slightly spoiled those races…. (Well, china) DRS!

    13. We dont need DRS when the tyres provide the passing opportunities. I think removing the DRS with the current tyres would provide purer and more strategic racing (if you cant just blast past someone on a straight you actually have to think about it), the tyres provide the variable needed to create differing tactics.

    14. I voted neutral effect for DRS. On the negative side, DRS is unfair and artificial, but a positive side for me is that the racing can be more exciting in the sense that if one driver is catching another, there is real possibility – but far from a certainty – that he will get by.

      Also, I feel that DRS detractors can get too hung up on a few motorway passes, to notice that some battles are still pretty good even on a DRS straight. Take the last race in Bahrain, for instance. Early on in the race Massa flew by Rosberg on start-finish, which is not the kind of thing that improves the racing, but there were also a lot of excellent battles, such as Button-Perez and Webber-Hamilton.

      As for the tyres, I voted positive effect. I would like to see tyres that enable drivers to push for 15-20 laps, after which they would have to come in for new tyres, but that seems infeasible. If tyres can withstand 15 laps of hard racing, then they would last a lot longer when a driver takes care of it, and we would be back in one-stop territory.

      In Pirelli’s first year, I didn’t like it that my favourite driver Hamilton wasn’t doing as well as he did on the Bridgestones, but since then, and taking an impartial point of view, I enjoy the spectacular if somewhat artificial racing of the Pirelli era more than I did the pure but processional Bridgestone period.

      As a final comment, I would like F1 to experiment a little more with the rules. In particular, I’d like to see a few races without any DRS, and also I would like to see the tyre regulations changed. Why not nominate one race in the season where teams can choose their compounds, and when to run them, i.e., no rule about having to race both (or all) compounds.

    15. I’m all for the improved efficiency of the cars from DRS, it always made little sense to me that such high-tech cars would be so wasteful of energy at higher speeds, where they don’t really need the extra downforce or the drag associated with it. However, the way it is implemented is defective by design and the rules need to be thoroughly revised.

      The tyres have always been a big factor in motorsports, and the current tyres, although a bit on the side of too fragile, don’t really make much of a difference, except for increasing the importance of strategic decisions. I might prefer more durable tyres, but with such different tracks on the calendar, it’s a hard balance to maintain, and the way it is currently doesn’t affect me too much.

    16. It’s had to judge when the FIA DOESN’T HAVE THE BALLS to avoid DRS at one race just to try what would happen. So the whole premise of the DRS being a temporary solution changed to being a permanent concept, nowadays.

      I say DRS has had it’s benefits. But they were often overshadowed by the complete lack of interest by the FIA in making it work properly. Or being clever with it. Putting a DRS zone at the Kemmel straight in Spa is nothing but plain stupid. A striaght that has seen plenty of overtakes even in the 2000’s and they put it there?

      Same with the 2 DRS zones but 1 activation point at Canada 2011. Surely FIA, one of the leading global organizations, can do better.

      1. @fer-no65 I think the opening races (where we had the telemetry problem) would’ve been a prefect test bed for trying a race with Pirelli tyres and no DRS but it seems the FIA have their heads stuck firmly in the sand.

        I think DRS can be useful in certain places (Catalunya or the Hungaroring for example) but on the Kemmel straight or the back staright in Shanghai? That is just simply stupidity.

        1. @vettel1 exactly, my friend.

    17. People who think DRS has ruined the sport really ought to go back and watch a whole race from 2010 or before. Drivers got within 2 seconds and then couldn’t do anything, even if they were 1-2 seconds per lap faster. While we do have some easy passes, DRS often enables battles around other parts of the lap that just wouldn’t have happened before. Just take a look at how much racing there was in Bahrain this year around turns 4-8, where there wasn’t a DRS zone.

      As for the tyres, I think they may have gone too far this year, but I am willing to hold definitive judgment until the second half of the season. At the moment there’s too much tyre saving but once teams figure them out properly the racing might improve. Just look at last year, when people were crying about ‘cheese’ tyres and lotteries early in the season but by the end we had one-stop races.

      1. For me it doesn’t matter that DRS enables battles around other parts of the track. DRS still influences the racing too much even if it means it helped set up some action elsewhere on the lap. It’s still interference by a gadget imho. Frankly I would rather they do other things, of which there are many, to avoid the processions and the inability for faster cars to get by slower cars due to their dirty air. There are other options that don’t result in the passer making effortless passes because his wing is open, and the defender look like he is standing still because he has a temporary disadvantage to the guy behind. That’s not my definition of F1. Passing because you have a gadget, or passing because the guy’s tires and your own are vastly different in condition. It’s makes it not about driver vs. driver.

        Stable tires, no DRS, and much less aero dependancy for me please. Let’s get back to driver vs. driver racing rather than lottery racing. I reject all claims that if we didn’t have DRS and degrady tires we would then by default have processions. There’s all kinds of shades of grey in between those two options that to me would look and feel a lot more like F1 should be.

        1. The thing about driver vs. driver racing is, it sounds like a great thing to aim for, but it’s an abstract notion that has never been consistently achieved. Sure, you can go through highlights reels and find isolated examples, but at the time you had to sit through many boring races to see them. You say there are many alternatives to what we have that aren’t artificial, so what are they? Less aero dependency would be great but would require a structural shift in the technological side of the sport which isn’t feasible, at least not in the short term.

          1. Well I don’t profess to be an engineer, but it seems to me that F1 has, or at least had, an opportunity for 2014, while I assume the chassis are going to be different to adapt to the new engine concept, to do something such as raise the height off the ground that the underside must be, by half an inch for example. They could also reduce the amount of wing they can use by restricting further their shape or angle. Or even just raise the minimum height the underside of the front wing must be. They can eliminate rear diffusers all together. That’s just a few examples off the top from a non-engineer armchair fan, and given that there already seems to be a structural shift in the technology side with the reduction of carbon fibre aero bits all over the cars, reduction in the effectiveness of the rear diffusers and the exhaust surrounding it, elimination of refuelling stops, and the addition of DRS, I don’t see why it would be such a technological stretch to continue to work toward less aero dependancy.

      2. @andrew81 I would agree with you except for the fact that we now have Pirelli tyres: I honestly don’t think both are needed and of the two I’d take the Pirelli’s, just slightly more conservative.

    18. It’s pretty obvious to me: all tracks where it is virtually impossible to overtake without DRS all have serious flaws in track layout (Abu Dhabi, Catalunya, Valencia, Hungaroring etc). DRS covers the flaws a bit. Well balanced circuits that already provided good racing/overtaking before DRS, such as Spa, Suzuka, Silverstone, Malaysia need no DRS.

    19. I don’t think Formula 1 is supposed to be about which driver/team is the best manager of tyres. It’s Formula ONE. It’s about who is the fastest, surely. Why not put grooves back in the tyres and the winner can be the one with the greatest tread depth? When saving tyres is so crucial it’s affecting Qualifying, it’s gone too far. I want to see driver’s being able to push their cars to the limit.

      1. Here, here!

    20. The tires are close, the softs could be a bit more durable and the tire formula would be pretty decent.

      DRS is not all bad. It helps to eliminate the processions behind slower cars that faster cars are unable to pass due to dirty air. The scrapped 2014 aero regs would be a better solution, but if DRS is to stay it should be better implemented. Less or no DRS at tracks that don’t need it. Better implementation of activation points and shorter durations of DRS zones would be better.

    21. I’m of the opinion that we need one and not the other. Personally, I’d rather see DRS but with the old Bridgestone tyres. We didn’t see much close quarter stuff because it was almost impossible to follow in the wake of another car. DRS would solve that.

      Alternatively, we could have no DRS and these current tyres (albeit slightly more conservative so that it’s the same number of pit-stops, but the drivers can push). It would be interesting to see how that goes.

      Just once this season I’d love to see FIA say that there is to be no DRS for a single race, and see how it unfolds. I think we’d see less people trying to pull away as much to escape DRS, so it could, theoretically, be a much closer field whilst racing.

    22. I think they had it right in 2011, and it’s slowly gotten a bit much since then. I think we (or the guys making the rules) need to keep considering what F1 would be like without DRS. Because I don’t think we need it to make the sport more entertaining any more – nor do the casual fans.

      I’ll await till mid season till I pass my judgment on the tyres. Last year it was much less of a dictator during the races by that point, and a lot had it figured out.

    23. Dusty in California (@dusty-in-california)
      3rd May 2013, 18:55

      I remember a few years ago (before both DRS and Pirelli) watching lap after lap of cars circulating in position, completely unable to pass. Even if a car was visibly quicker, once it got into the dirty air, it lost its advantage. There was one particularly famous 30+ lap episode, maybe with Massa, but it happened all. the. time. A driver would get close, but never close enough to pass and they’d finish the race like that.

      I am confused why someone would want to return to that. Can those of you so against the tires and DRS give me an honest answer why you think eliminating them wouldn’t return us right back to no passing?

      1. Can those of you so against the tires and DRS give me an honest answer why you think eliminating them wouldn’t return us right back to no passing?

        There was plenty of passing prior to 2013. Tyres made of cheddar cheese are not a requirement for passing.

        1. The options do not have to be either gadgets and phoniness or processions. There is lots they can do to reduce their aero dependancy like taking away rear diffusers, limiting their wing shapes and sizes, perhaps they could require the cars be a further half inch higher off the ground underneath, or some argue the opposite in that ground effects are the answer and less wing. Sure I agree that if you hardened up the tires and took away DRS without reducing their dependancy on wings and downforce they’d be back to processions, but as I say there is tons of middle ground in between.

          JV used to argue back in the day of grooved tires for the return of the big fat slicks they had in the 70’s. Not only did they provide tons of mechanical grip, but they also created so much drag down the straights that in order to achieve any kind of respectable straight-line speeds you had to run less wing. So that would kill two birds with one stone. Mechanical grip plus less wing and therefore less dependancy on downforce and less disturbance of your car when in dirty air. They had confidence back then to pull out and attempt passes by the seat of the pants, not by gadgets that make the job too easy like DRS does, and on tires that they fear killing just by trying to pass someone or by trying to defend.

        2. Dusty in California (@dusty-in-california)
          3rd May 2013, 19:45

          So you would be OK with 2012-spec DRS and tires?

          1. Yes.

            The tyre question posed was “What effect are the current tyres having on F1 racing in 2013?”

            I get the impression a lot of people are responding to some very different question of their own creation, one which perhaps looks like: ‘Do you like the Pirelli tyres of the last few years more than the tyre situation as it existed in the early 2000’s?”

            In fact I see several commenters who explicitly say they voted “positive” on the tyre question even though they think the 2013 tyres have gone too far, on the grounds that they like the “Pirelli era” in general. Which is not actually responsive to the question which the poll asked.

            1. The effect for me of the current tires is that most of the passing we see cannot be trusted to be a driver vs. driver competition but rather an advantaged drivers vs. a disadvantaged driver competition not due to one being more skilled than the other but due to one driver being on tires in a totally different state than the other or because one is forced to drive to delta times, far too often in the races. Or by DRS. In what is supposed to be the pinnacle of racing.

            2. @jonsan good point actually: overall I like the Pirelli tyres, but I feel that the 2012 ones would be better than these. So in that case, I disagree on that account that they are beneficial to the sport.

        3. @robbie I think the best way to curtail dirty air is to use ground effects and then simply remove front wings, and limit the rear wings to single elements. That way, we don’t have the stupid aero-sensitive, unnecessarily complicated, multi-element wings we have now which cost a fortune to develop.

          With the ERS systems in place from 2014, we can then remove DRS entirely and toughen up the tyres a notch, so we still have that element of strategy which I think is key but there is also an abundance of flat-out racing.

          I live in a dream world though… ;)

    24. The tyres are atrocious. If the FIA wants more pit stops (as they evidently do) than they should simply require that every car make some mandatory minimum number of pit stops per race. That way we’d get the strategy involved with multiple pit stops plus we’d see a bit more actual racing.

      Claims that “tyres have always been a part of F1” sail right past the point. Engines have always been a big part of F1 as well – it does not follow that the FIA should require all engines to be less reliable than they currently are because unpredictable breakdowns would add to “the spectacle”. Or does it? Based on some of the opinions I see here, it sounds like engines deliberately designed to be unreliable might go over very well with some people.

    25. DRS, get rid of this nonsense.

      Tyres, produce a tyre that can last the distance but if pushed too hard drops off. But comes back after a cool down period.

      Let the drivers drive, not manage. If I wanted to watch a bunch of managers I’d attend our board meetings more regularly.

    26. I’ve never felt that “one stop races” are the bane of Formula One and a problem which urgently requires correction. Where did this idea come from anyway?

      But if they really are such a problem, simply mandate that every car must make a minimum of two pit stops per race. Then make tyres which actually work. Result: we get to see pit stop strategy and we also get to see drivers pushing to the limit a little more often.

      1. @jonsan Not really. If the tyres lasted forever (like in the Bridgestone days), we would see basically a three-stage race, similar to the two-stage race we had back in 2007-2009, where positions would all be determined after a driver made their only stop.

        1. Sounds like you’re basically saying that it’s a bad thing if the finishing order in a race is determined by the order of the fastest car/driver combo.

          Absent reliability issues and driver errors, we should expect that in general (1) the starting grid would be in order of the fastest drivers/cars, that (2) the order at the pit stop (or stops) would reflect the faster drivers/cars, and (3) the finishing order would reflect the order of the faster drivers/cars. That is the entire purpose of a race, after all. If we’re going to start making rules to try to prevent this from happening then we’re getting away from racing and moving towards theater.

    27. Due to the shrinking margins between cars/laptimes, to see more “pure racing/ overtaking” do we now need 2km+ long straights?

      Or DRS.

      and/or degrading tyres?

    28. The main complaint I have against DRS is that it’s unfair: the driver trailing has an advantage over the car in front, which just seems wrong to me. One way to make this more fair is to give the drivers a certain amount of ‘DRS seconds’, which I still don’t like as it’s still artificial.

      Regarding the Pirellis: today I read some stories about Grands Prix from the 1950s. For instance there was the 1956 Italian GP: the Ferrari drivers Musso, Castellotti and De Portago didn’t put any effort in preserving their tyres. And within six laps, all three drivers either had to come in and change tyres, or in De Portago’s case crashed out following tyre delamination. Fangio on the other hand had put some effort in conserving his Ferrari’s tyres. As a result, he probably could have done the 60-lap race on one set of tyres (he hit mechanical troubles after 17 laps).

      What I’m trying to say: conserving the tyres is nothing new. Only because the teams are able to understand the tyres better (because of all sorts of measuring tools and simulations), they are able to give their drivers target laps. So it’s unfair to blame the ‘target lap’ thing on the current Pirellis.

      I voted the Pirellis have a neutral effect: like many comments on this article say, I think the tyre degradation is a bit too much, but essentiall it really isn’t all that bad.

      1. andae23 I agree re tyres.

        But e DRS: didn’t a trailing car always have an advantage with the slipsteam effect anyway? The aero on modern F1 cars has negated that. DRS brings it back.

        1. @adorimedia I completely agree! DRS should though be adjusted to give back the disadvantage of running in dirty air behind a driver, rather than give them the chance to be past any driver regardless half way down the straight.

          1. Yep, I see what you mean and it would be great to have the device as accurate as that. But I’m not sure that any car can pass any other down a straight. Its still the faster cars that will pass the (slightly) slower ones in front. Slower cars struggle to pass faster cars.

            Overall, what’s happened over the past 30-40 years is that in order to make the playing field more equal (fairer) and reduce costs, rules to level the playing field (somewhat) have been introduced. Initially this is seen as the way forward by teams and fans alike because everyone wants a level playing field. But when that happens, and particularly when huge resources/budgets are in play and at stake, then the point of difference becomes smaller. It becomes harder to achieve. It also becomes more expensive to achieve especially when loopholes are closed as quickly as they are in this era. Thats where F1 is now. Progress directs engineers to focus on an area that hasn’t been focussed on before, simply to gain that 10th advantage. In this day and age an “advantage” is 10ths of a second. 20-30 years ago it was more than that.

            The rule makers do listen to the fans and try to spice it up – hence the tyres/DRS. I’m not saying I agree with it, but i understand why we’ve got to where we are. And if we didn’t have it, F1 would be back to where it was in 2004 – before we had as many forums to voice our displeasure.

        2. @adorimedia – DRS is indeed intended to artificially induce ‘slipstreaming’, but the reality is that on most occasions the trailing car is able to just sail past. The difference between DRS and slipstreaming is that slipstreaming always switches off at exactly the right moment, while DRS (under current regulations) doesn’t understand the difference between driving behind, ahead or alongside a car.

          I would say: if you want to have a DRS system that perfectly simulates ‘slipstreaming’, don’t overcomplicate it and do what the FIA initially wanted, which is tweak the aero regulations to optimize slipstreaming (for intance: separate the rear wing into two parts on top of the rear wheels). But… unfortunately they postponed these regulation changes to 2017 (originally it was 2014) and to be honest, I don’t have much hope for that either.

      2. Tyres in the 1950’s were the best they could be. Nobody was deliberately putting bad tyres on the cars back then to try to create an artificial challenge for the drivers and teams.

        he hit mechanical troubles after 17 laps

        That was also an inherent limitation of the cars of the period. If we’re going to pit rapidly degrading tyres on the cars to ‘spice things up”, why don’t we likewise put rapidly degrading engines and other mechanical parts in them for the same reason?

        1. Firstly, I would guess its cheaper to make the tyres degrade and easier to maintain/police than an engine or a gearbox. Because if we put rapidly degrading “everythings” on cars, websites would be filled even more with disgruntled fans.

          Re 1950s: No one had the resources to look into the tyres back in those days. It was a challenge in itself to get the car to the finish line mechanically. Thats where R&D was directed (if at all). Its the price of progress…

          1. I would guess its cheaper to make the tyres degrade and easier to maintain/police than an engine or a gearbox.

            I doubt that. Simply require everyone to use a 1984 Honda engine and a 1986 Ferrari gearbox.

            1. @jonsan – lol, that made my day :)

      3. The main complaint I have against

        That’s not correct English, is it? :/

        1. @andae23 I think it’s fine, but perhaps “with” would fit better instead of against. It reads perfectly fine though!

    29. Juan Pablo Heidfeld (@juan-pablo-heidfeld-1)
      3rd May 2013, 19:52

      I voted positive for both. DRS in the last race was very good, brought the driver close enough to challenge, if they were clearly faster they passed, if only slightly then it put them side by side.

    30. I think DRS has been good for Formula 1. I do however think the current regulations are not great. I preferred the regulations regarding DRS from 2011 and 2012.

      Tyres on the other hand, I think have been fantastic for the sport. The only issue is, there has to be some compromise, either you make tyres really durable and then drivers can push like mad in quali, but only make 1 stop every race, or make them not last so long and have the problem we have today regarding having to only push 75-80% as oppose to perhaps 90-95% (and sometimes 100% if your name was Schumacher and you managed to make a 4-stop work) we had in the Bridgestone era.

      2011 and 2012 were fantastic years racing-wise, but perhaps some people are getting ‘bored’ of how F1 currently is. People didn’t mind Schumacher winning in 2000 and 2001 (the latter by some margin) but 2002 was silly and deterred a lot of people. Arguably it was similar in the ’90s when Williams was dominating, though I am a bit young to remember that. F1 is all about evolution and innovation as well as sorting out the legendary drivers from the great drivers from the above average drivers, and remember we have all these regulations coming in for 2014. None of the first 4 races have been an absolute classic, though the first half of Malaysia was fantastic, and then all of a sudden everybody is saying F1 has become boring or that Vettel wins every race because the tyres are messed up or something along those lines.

      Despite all this I do feel something does need changing regarding both DRS and tyres, but there’s absolutely no way whatsoever that (be warned, I’m about to defend the FIA here) whatever changes are made will please everybody, so really the FIA are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If F1 is ‘boring’ at the start of 2014, then I will worry, but at the moment I’m not concerned about the state of it.

    31. Voted for negative on the DRS since I see no need for 2 zones in every race, other than that, I´m cool with DRS although it is artificial.
      Voted very negative on the Pirelli tyres since what we are watching is not racing, it´s tyre management 101. I´m baffled how people can say it´s having a positive impact. That is beyond me!!

      Please let there be another tyre supplier for 2014…. out with the Pirellis I say!!!

      1. @karter22 the problem as far as you’re concerned is not the tyres supplier, but the FIA. Pirelli have done exactly as they were asked, so as long as what the FIA wants doesn’t change the tyre supplier doesn’t make the blindest bit of a difference.

        They could just as easily make indestructible tyres as mozzarella ones if they were tasked to do so I’m sure.

        1. @vettel1
          I understand that the FIA has asked them to produce these lemons, but in all honesty, if I was the owner of Pirelli I would not comply with such things. It´s my company, my product, and I don´t want people thinking my product is crap, simple as that.
          There is a saying in my country that says: the monkey will dance if you pay him enough. The same could be said about Pirelli, They have become the FIA´s callgirl.
          Seems that contract must´ve been good enough for Pirelli in order to give in to this crap.

          1. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
            4th May 2013, 8:42

            Actually, it was the teams that asked Pirelli to make these tyres. Not the FIA.

            1. @prisoner-monkeys true enough, I stand corrected on that aspect. The point remains the same though: Pirelli are just doing what they’re asked and they’re getting lots of publicity for it @karter22, and as the saying goes “any publicity is good publicity”.

            2. @prisoner-monkeys
              I doubt that the teams agreed to such lemons. They must´ve wanted grippier tyres but not so that they would tear off in so few laps.
              @vettel1
              Yeah I´ve heard that one as well but still, Pirelli will be asociated with bad tyres, I fail to see how that´ll increase sales! I wouldn´t want to put a tyre in my road car that has technology coming from F1 seeing how bad they desintegrate in so little time!

            3. @karter22 – The teams specifically asked for tyres that behaved differently to the Bridgestones. They wanted tyres that drivers would have to work to manage so as to introduce a range of strategy options for each race, because it was noted that when Bridgestone was supplying the tyres, there was only ever one optimal strategy that everyone stuck to. When Pirelli submitted their proposal for what they wanted to do, a large part of it hinged on the way they would constantly and subtly alter the tyre compounds so that the teams could never be totally comfortable with their previous knowledge of the tyres. This was one of the major elements of the proposal, and one that was very well-received by the teams.

              Of course, you can continue to stick to the belief that if something is bad for Formula 1, then it’s clearly not the teams’ fault and that they are just the victims who are forced to put up with the poor judgement and lack of foresight that other have inflicted on them. However, that argument holds no weight, as the teams had to unanimously agree on the new tyre supplier when Bridgestone announced their intention to leave the sport. They knew exactly what Pirelli planned, and Pirelli have followed that plan from the moment it was agreed that they would be the tyre supplier.

            4. @prisoner-monkeys
              I´m not saying the strategy part is all that bad… I just wish they wouldn´t desintegrate so fast… 2012 spec rubber would have been fine!
              Oh and BTW, Bernie got Pirelli as the tyre supplier, Jean Todt wanted Michelin as the sole tyre supplier!

            5. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
              5th May 2013, 9:43

              The teams were already familiar with the 2012 tyres. The point of changing them was to give the teams a new challenge.

              And while Bernie might have backed Pirelli and Todt Michelin, the teams were the only ones who got a vote on the matter.

        2. “They could just as easily make indestructible tyres as mozzarella ones if they were tasked to do so I’m sure.”

          Could they, though? Do we have any proof they could make anything near the quality of the Bridgestones? Perhaps they saw that the FIA wanted *** tyres and though to themselves “yea we can finally get back into F1 now. we can’t compete in a tyre war [Pirelli specifically stated they would not come into F1 unless they were the sole manufacturer] but we’re actually being ASKED to make shoddy tyres”

          Besides which, Pirelli accepted the FIA’s mandate and therefore ultimately responsible for this farce. If no tyre manufacture were willing to accept the FIA’s absurdity, then the FIA would have no choice but to back down and we’d be left with at least a semi-sensible formula.

          “I was only following orders” is not an acceptable line of defence in any courtroom!

    32. Traverse (@)
      3rd May 2013, 20:26

      I absolutely hate DRS, KERS, these Pirelli/Blue Peter/here’s one I made earlier/papier-mache/do it yourself Art Attack tyres and any new nonsense idea that Bernie comes up with.

      1. Traverse (@)
        3rd May 2013, 20:35

        Dagnabbit! I meant to vote “DRS is having a very negative effect on F1″ but accidentally picked “DRS is having a negative effect on F1”. That’s the last time I use a touch screen phone…EVER!!!

      2. KERS is OK because everybody’s in the same position. DRS is daft because it’s only the people following that get the benefit. I think very few people could argue that the first 6 laps or so of Bahrain were great. And that’s because everybody were on relatively fresh tyres, and pretty much everybody bar the leader has DRS – because they were all following within a second of the guy in front.

    33. I think the DRS should be available to all the drivers during the race and not only the ones that are 1 second behind.

      I don’t see any passing as artificial. Worn tyres are not anything new in F1, they are simply much more aggressive now. IMO too aggressive. I think what is needed is the right balance where tyres do not last an entire race, but at least half a race or a third of the race so that the drivers can push the cars rather than conserve them. I can not really tell whether they’re driving to delta times or not. If one car is, so are the others, so it’s the same for everyone anyway. What’s artificial about that?

      In the grand scheme of things, the more conservative the drivers drive, leads to better reliability and improved safety as the speeds are not as radical as they can be. Better reliability leads to saved costs. But if the tyres degrade too fast that may be a safety concern as well.

    34. Aimal (@aimalkhan)
      3rd May 2013, 21:09

      How about reducing the gap created by the DRS in the rear wing when activated?

    35. I would like to see the fragile tires and DRS gone, because they are band-aid measures that bring the credibility of F1 as a sport into question.

      The problem is that F1 has gotten to a point where these items are needed in order to provide “exciting” racing. Sooner or later F1 needs to change it’s formula and drop the downforce levels significantly. I would suggest that the wing sizes be drastically reduced and the ride height raised slightly. I would also like to see all teams either run a spec diffuser, or a spec floor with significant ground effect. These areas of development are largely invisible to viewers (especially the casual viewers that FOM seems so keen on courting), and yet they constitute a huge performance disparity between big and small teams.

      Furthermore, the whole development freeze on engines is doing F1 no favors… if F1 wants engine manufacturers to come back, they need to allow engine development, and frankly I think the cars could use a lot more power.

      Lastly, the cars need bigger, more puncture-resistant tires to shift the grip balance towards mechanical/away from aero; and to encourage drivers to battle wheel-to-wheel without fear of a puncture ending their race.

      I hope the formula can change soon, because I want to see a little less artificial competition. In the meantime, I’m sure I’ll still be watching anyways :-)

      1. +1, well said

    36. Michael Brown (@)
      3rd May 2013, 22:50

      DRS: Makes overtaking too easy. Its benefit should be reduced. Considering that, bring back free usage for FP and quali.

      Tires: The only Pirellis I liked so far were the 2011 ones. It may not have been perfect but it was still better than Bridgestone.

    37. DRS negative; Tyres positve.

    38. I voted negative for both.

      I loathe DRS & think its hurt the racing far more than its helped it & its also slowly but surely destroying my love of F1, Everytime I see a DRS pass I feel myself becoming less interested in watching.

      Also something to consider regarding DRS, The lack of DRS didn’t seem to hurt Alonso at Bahrain, He still managed to pull off a lot of overtaking, It was all real exciting overtaking as well!

      While I voted negative on the tyres I did so based on the tyres as they have been so far in 2013. I feel they have been way too sensitive & have hindered the racing & not helped it, Watching drivers driving to a lap time (Which is often slower than what GP2 cars could run at), having to ask there team if they should race a car ahead or behind them is not correct in my view.
      I get that tyre management has always been a part of F1, However the current level is too much & is detracting for the racing.

      I think the balance with the tyres was about perfect in 2011, They still degraded & therefore forced the pit stops people seem to love for some reason but they were not so sensitive that you had everyone desperately trying to nurse them & they were not the talking point of every weekend as they have been in 2012/2013.

      However if I had a choice I’d either take every dry compound to every race & let teams/drivers run whatever they wanted as was the case Pre-94, Or just make each team pick what compounds they want to run 2 weeks before each gp rather than having Pirelli force everyone to run the compounds they feel is best.

      For me there’s 1 word in the title of this article which needs to be looked at & thats ‘Balance’. There should be a balance between overtaking been too hard & been too easy & there should be a balance between managing tyres & been able to push them.
      Right now for me the balance of both is wrong, DRS is making passing so easy that its been devalued & Tyre management is now so important that drivers are unable to really lean on them.

      1. Something else I just want to say regarding DRS.

        One other reason I feel its bad for F1 is that I don’t feel there ever going to be able to get the balance right & therefore its always going to produce a number of the easier so called Highway passing which I don’t think anyone really enjoys to see.

        In 2011 when it produced easier passes we were told ‘Its work in progress’ that ‘The length of zones & position of activation points will be tweaked’ & that ‘It will be better next year’.
        Well in 2012 with knowledge gained & zones tweaked it still produced a similar level of the easier pass.
        In 2013 so far I feel its been much the same & the addition of 2nd zones hasn’t helped this.

        I feel that the issue is that everyone looks at controlling how effective or not DRS is purely by the length of the activation zone, Making it shorter will lessen the effect & making it longer will increase the effect. However I’d argue that assumption is wrong & that circuits like Shanghai, Montreal & Spa where Zones were shortened with little effect prove this.

        The effectiveness of DRS isn’t judged by zone length or detection/activation points but instead by tyres, downforce levels, gear ratios, gap between cars, wind direction, wind speed, How many cars are together & also how good an exit the cars got from the previous corner.

        Due to all this I feel it will be impossible to ever reach a point where DRS works as it was intended (An assist & not purely an overtaking device) on a consistent basis.

      2. @stefmeister Balance, indeed, and I see that lacking with DRS; witth the tyres it is imo. better, but I would like the FIA to be more aware of that need for a balance in most any rule.

    39. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
      4th May 2013, 1:10

      I don’t think Formula 1 has the right balance. I think it has the next-best alternative.

      To my mind, the tyres and DRS were introduced to do what the teams could not – or, more likely, were not willing to – do and create a version of the sport where drivers could actually race one another, and where the result was not decided by whoever was the first driver into the first corner. I remember those days quite well, and for all the criticisms of DRS and Pirelli, I think they are the lesser evil compared the alternative when the alternative is racing without any actual racing.

      In an ideal world, the endless pursuit of aerodynamic grip would be a thing of the past. For instance, the Red Bull RB9 has a front wing with six individual elements, which I think it just over the top – teams should be limited to a front wing with no more than two elements. But the teams would refuse to agree to any rule limiting their ability to develop their front wings, because they know that more aerodynamic grip means more speed. I’ve often found the talk of “improving the show” to be quite hollow, principally because deep down I know that every team on the grid would happily take a dominant car, and that if there is a show to be improved, then let it be the show for second place.

      1. @prisoner-monkeys, that is well put; I also agree for the most part, though I believe that DRS might be dropped without negative effect, that is only a slight difference in how we judge it.

        1. @prisoner-monkeys I too think what you have said has been well worded, but I don’t believe that our only options are these tires and DRS, or processions. And while I think you make an excellent point that the teams wouldn’t agree to, for example, two element front wings to help ‘improve the show’ when they would happily rather have a dominant car and let the show be for second place, I also think that they would change their tune if the fans starting falling away in droves due to a phoney show of DRS passes and drivers only pulling off passes because his foe was at a tire disadvantage.

          F1 went years doing nothing about the processions in the MS/Ferrari era, and now they seem bound and determined to promote passing at any cost, even risking the integrity of Pirelli and the sport, so something has changed, and if it is that they are now paying more attention to fan surveys, then perhaps they are listening still to those of us who certainly don’t want phoniness as a substitute for processions.

    40. Tyres need to be able to last a lot longer than they do.What’s the point in holding Quali if drivers can’t/won’t turn a few laps because they need to conserve the tyres that they have for the race.
      And what’s the point if the drivers have to drive the race in conservation mode for a fair percentage of the race so as to conserve their tyres.
      Maybe DRS would be better if the driver coming under attack from the driver behind can also use DRS.

      1. Then the DRS would have no point at all…

    41. Sports change and evolve to create a more exciting package. Football removed the rule allowing players to pass the ball back to the Goalkeeper for him to pick it up.

      I know there are a lot of racing purists who wish to see “skill only” overtakes but you have to admit that the amount of super exciting races has exponentially increased in recent years.

      China 2011, Canada 2011/12, Hungary 2011, Valencia 2012, Abu Dhabi 2012, Brazil 2012, Malaysia 2013 (Webber – Vettel fight was intense).

      You have to go back to Japan 2005, Brazil 2008 to find some truly epic races.

      The racing at places, that are historically boring, like Bahrain, Hungary and Australia has also increased the excitement immensely 2011 onwards.

      Abu Dhabi is the best case in point. The championship deciding race in 2010 was like watching a train and expecting the carriages to overtake each other. Fast Fwd >> to the 2012 race and there was over taking galore. Imagine that race replaced the championship decider of 2010 and can you imagine the level of epicness… ala Brazil 2012.

    42. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      4th May 2013, 7:23

      I voted:
      DRS is having a negative effect.
      – However, it has the potential to have a very positive effect, its just that the FIA have gone for complete overkill this season to compensate for the restrictions in Qually and Practice.
      – If they tone it back to just 1 singular zone, then the races (which is where points are awarded) would be better.
      – Also, the FIA needs to think more carefully about where they put a DRS zone(s) for a track. Just because a track has a massive straight, doesnt mean it needs DRS down it, in fact, DRS should never be put on the longest straight (bar Monaco) because that’s where cars have the best chance to overtake anyway. It should be placed in a less obvious place, so that you can position the cars to have a “possible” overtake, not an easy “hey lets open slot and fly past the guy 100m in front” type overtake.

      Neutral for Pirelli tyres
      Because they can always make the softer tyre more durable.

      But they aren’t . :\

      They need to:
      Make the Soft and Super-Soft MUCH more durable (4-7 laps is pathetic).
      Make the Medium slightly more durable.
      Leave the Hard tyre as is.

      Having such a massive gap between the tyre compounds doesn’t actually lead to a “greater strategy window”, because teams will obviously go for the harder compound and get rid of the soft ASAFP, and just run the prime for the rest of the race. Where’s the strategy in that?!

      And that’s my rant.

      1. Well…if you make the Soft and Super-Soft “much more durable” and the Medium “slightly more durable” you might just end up with Bridgestone tires, mate. It would be better just to make the Super-Soft some kind of a qualifying tire (for Q3, of course) and to improve (all-round) the Soft, Medium and Hard from time to time. Also, Pirelli should learn to work better with the teams, in both sides interest…and to make some bloody better tire designations (unlike China 2013).

        1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
          4th May 2013, 11:08

          @theseeker

          you might just end up with Bridgestone tires, mate.

          Well i didn’t mean make the softer compounds THAT much more durable. But they should be atleast be able to be competitive for 14-18 laps.

          Otherwise, they’re redundant, because if its anything less, then the teams just get rid of the option as soon as possible, and there’s no strategy there.

      2. @tophercheese agreed wholeheartedly with your rant!

    43. How about allowing multiple tires suppliers? That way Red Bull won’t be bitchin’ about Pirelli tires (while winning). Every tires supplier has it’s own characteristics and FIA would just have to ensure top quality and some ballance between different suppliers…
      Then, get ride of the DRS, encourage more investment more into KERS (ERS from 2014), bring some 1000bhp V12’s with turbochargers/superchargers (or not) and we would have a real sport…what F1 should be like.

      1. @theseeker that’s a terrible idea, as that’s just asking for every team besides Red Bull and Ferrari to go bankrupt with the cost of yet another tyre war.

        The problem here is emphatically not the tyre supplier, it’s what they’ve been asked to create. Your criticism should be directed at the teams themselves, not Pirelli.

        As much as I’d like those engines also, I just can’t see it happening sadly…

        1. A more open engine/kers formula would raise cost’s, However contrary to general opinion a tyre war would not raise cost’s for the teams.

          The biggest cost to teams from a tyre war in the past came from tyre testing, With testing now banned the cost on teams from a tyre war would be no issue.

          1. I know huge engines is just a childish dream right now, but multiple tires suppliers might be a solution…and with costs not being an issue for the teams this could be the answer. There is some kind of tire war going on right now actually, if you look close, with most teams agreeing to what Pirelli dose and with a few disagreeing. That tire war (caused by multiple tires suppliers) would be better for the teams, FIA and F1 than the current one.

        2. My criticism was directed at the teams, actually. And I do understand what you’re saying. It’s just that reducing cost doesn’t seem right for a sport like Formula 1. I would much rather see 7-8 spending huge amounts of money to be just 0.1 faster than the others, than 11-12 teams with most of them carefully investing. There are some constructors (like Audi, BMW…maybe some privateers) that would love to spend billions, if FIA would know how to attract such investment in the sport.
          [I know Audi said they will not get into F1 as it is not road-relevant, but…let’s be serious. I believe they just don’t want to invest a few hundred millions into engines, KERS, R&D…and wait 2-3 seasons or more, like Mercedes, for some real performance and then underperform, due to not understanding the tires, or invest funds and time into some kind of new development, like DDRS or passive suspension, that would then be banned by the FIA without any real motivation…]

    44. I have voted for DRS and against the tyres. DRS was introduced to make overtaking easier, as there was hardly any overtaking in the years before DRS. Agreed that the effect may be a little to strong now, but we need it in some form. The Aero-war is still the biggest issue in my view. I agree with Briatore (never thought I would say that).
      The tyres are making racing a big strategic farce. A driver cannot push, cannot stray from the race line, cannot risk a lock up while out braking an opponent etc etc.
      I would like to add one thing: ban communication between driver and team. That makes the driver(s decisions) more important and reduces all the strategic c***

    45. Interesting to see the results of this poll.. Once again it appears that the people who don’t like the tyres (The self-proclaimed ‘purists’ who then try to explain why the sport is rubbish) are the ones who shout the loudest and therefore think their opinion is gospel truth. I imagine Keith put this article up to try and gauge current opinion after so many comments about this on other articles. Same as last year, the minority appears to be the ones who are proclaiming to be the majority..

      1. im reading it slightly differently.

        combining the 2 answers (very positive/positive & very negative/negative) its clear that the vast majority feel DRS is having a negative effect while opinion on tyres is split.

        one of the interesting things though is reading the comments, there are those who voted that tyres are having a positive effect yet who also feel that the current tyre compounds could & should be made a bit harder.

      2. As I write this, the poll is 44% negative on the tyres to 43% positive. And it’s 22% “very negative” to 11% “very positive”.

    46. Daniel (@collettdumbletonhall)
      4th May 2013, 12:34

      Get rid of DRS and then decide on the tyres. DRS must go as soon as possible because it ruins the racing, if that goes then we can make a better judgement of the racing with these tyres.

    47. I do not understand why a lot of fans are complicating this tyre issue. The tyres are not helping F1 period – NOT because tyre management has not always been a part of F1, but because it is affecting it too much to the point where between the Pirellis, and DRS, the art of racing, and to a lesser extent, qualifying is now dead. What we have now is the art of managing tyres (it is not even about strategy), trying to qualify in a single lap whilst not using the tyres too much, the art of sub 2sec pit-stops, the art of driving to specified lap delta, and the art of getting to within 1sec of the car in front. Note, the main art missing from the list is “real hard racing”.

      Most people who support the current Pirelli “cheese” tyre claim that managing tyres have ALWAYS been a part of F1, conveniently ignore the main issue – which is tyres have NEVER been this much part of F1. Do most fans remember the face, or name of the Goodyear tyre representative, or Bridgestone, or Michelin? Hembrey has now achieved a Yoda like status, always being interviewed, constantly giving out PR sound bites. Week in week out, race day, qualifying, practice or break, all we hear are – tyres, tyres, tyres.

      Tyres were never specifically designed to kill racing, last a few laps, degrade suddenly and litter track with rubber marbles that means you may be doomed if you come off the racing line. The art of late braking in corners is certainly dead. God forbid you try that on the Pirellis, and you may be sporting a bald patch larger the Kojak’s – that is if the marbles don’t get you. Or you simply wait for DRS.
      Anyone remember the qualifying duels of yore? Drivers coming out again and again trading purple sectors? That is certainly a thing of the pastIn the ast, drivers rarely went out for a single lap in qualifying (unless stipulated by the rules) or even sat out qualifying because of tyres.

      Real racing is now so scarce that we foam at the mouth when we see any, like Bahrain (Button vs Perez), or the fight for the lead at the US GP 2012 (Hamilton vs Vettel). The epic battles between Senna, Mansell and Prost would never have happened in this Pirelli era, banging wheels, sparks flying, all the way into the corner daring each other who will brake the latest. Or the epic battles between Schumacher, Hakkinen and Alonso. We would have certainly not enjoyed Montoya, Raikonnen and Kubica in this era, and we were quite lucky to enjoy a bit of Lewis. Where is the real racing I ask you? Where is proper overtaking? Oh, how I miss F1.

      1. +1

        Thats what I’ve been saying for a while now, Tyre management has to some extent always been a part of F1, But never anywhere close to what we have today.

        There has never been a time in F1’s history where the drivers have had to run around so far off the ultimate pace & in which by driving around at under 80% to a per-determined laptime they have been driving at a slower pace than the support category (GP2).

        If I wanted to watch cars driving around at GP2 speeds, I’d watch GP2.

    48. The funniest thing is that there are quite a few fans who are voting positive or the tires, even though their opinion is based on the 2011 or 2012 tyres (their admission). Just proves that stats based on polls cannot really be trusted as people will read the question the way they want to, rather than the way it is written.
      I mean, how clear can @keithcollantine be??

      1. Agree, I think people are reading the question & taking it as ‘Tyres that degrade quickly’ rather than looking specifically at the current tyres.

        To answer the question, I don’t necessarily mind fast wearing tyres & actually quite liked the 2011 spec tyres, But I think the current 2013 tyres are ridiculous & are having an extremely negative effect on the races.

        They should scrap the 2012 & 2013 tyres & just go back to what we had in 2011, Tyres that did wear but that could actually be raced hard. With the exception of Vettel winning a lot that year I don’t recall many complaints about the tyres.

        Actually thats another point I’d raise, There was very little complaints about the tyres in 2011 & thinking back the tyres were not the biggest talking point of every race weekend. Its been the 2012 & 2013 tyres which have been utter garbage & brought up warranted complaints!

    49. Seems fan opinion on DRS has shifted, I remember the poll’s of 2011 been quite evenly split, Now it seems majority are against it which Im happy to see.
      Was open to it in 2010 when it was announced, but by the end of 2011 was firmly against it & am at the point now where if its not banned I may just turn F1 off because i hate the was its killing most of the racing & just producing a series of highway passing which quite frankly is not that fun to watch.

      Tyres im more open to, Im not against the whole fast wearing tyres thing but think what we have now is too extreme. Scale them back, Make them all more conservative & things would be better.

    50. DRS – Negative:
      For what it was designed to do, it’s not HORRIBLE. It’s just atrocious that FIA/FOM would rather remain so stubborn as to avoid the obvious solution, (ground effects,) than admit fault. So, while looking at it as a single item, I’m fairly positive. The rationale behind it is abhorrent, though, and increasing the zones just illustrates the reasoning.

      Suggestion: If we can’t return to ground effect days, why not reversing the DRS concept? Minimize the rear wing across the board, but give each driver, say twenty to thirty seconds’ usage of another element per race. Throw in the aero wash as an advantage to the leading driver, while the pursuers have the advantage for the rest of the race. Thoughts?

      Tyres – Very Negative:
      Shame on the teams for asking for this years set of compounds. Malaysia and China were difficult to watch, and I found myself longing for a return of the processional days over those shows. Watching drivers surrender positions as if given the blue flag has put me to the point where after a quarter century of being a fan, I think I’m getting ready to stop watching. The only other time I got to that point was May 1st, 1994.

      Suggestion: Just return to the rules where teams can run whatever compounds they like, whenever they like, on much fatter versions of 2012 tyres.

    51. I’m watching tbe porsche racing on itv4 and tyres is the defining factor. its always been a huge part of racing and can be seen even in this racing which is completley different to f1. I see tyre decions are crucial in moto gp and recent wec race at silverstone toyota lost as could not double stint their tyres like audi. Knowhere near perfect but better than bridgestone era or all f1 since the 80s where again tyres had a huge effect. i like that design niw has to focus on mechanical aspects to get the most from tyres rather than just manipulating air, aero was not a major part at the dawn of motorsport tyres were so if anything its more traditional.

      perfect for me but current f1 is the lesser of 2 evils compared to the bridgestone era and the whole of the 90

    52. Ahhhh….why are we moaning about rules set out at the start of the year !!!! A car needing to be 2 seconds faster than another car to pass is NOT real racing…in fact nothing about F1 is real racing…real racing is the faster car in pole and the slower cars remaining behind, who wants to watch that…if anything KERS is underpowered. As for DRS moaning, DRS is a cheap means of combating the ridiculous disadvantage of following an F1 car, DRS moaners should stop watching live tv and invest in 80s and 90s videos of F1.

    53. Steve McGrath (@)
      5th May 2013, 16:27

      In terms of aero – the downforce levels in todays F1 are so high surely you only really have 2 choices if you want the real racing that you see in other racing series and that is

      1. Reduce the overall levels of downforce in the rules
      Or
      2. Temporarily boost the cars’ performance with DRS and/or a system such as KERS to allow overtaking

      Otherwise you have exactly what @dcjohnson says which is a need to be 2 seconds a lap faster to overtake – which in itself is artificial (?) (call it different if you like) in comparison to other Motorsports or even the dawn of F1 itself
      DRS is good for me as it can often allow the car that has been passed to repass which makes for exciting racing and the quickest drivers are winning the races so there is nothing artificial in that sense.

    54. just watched the new BRDC formula 4 races for the first time … limited number of tyres for the weekend’s 3 races
      saw interview with winning driver of race 3 ….said he saved a new set for the race and it paid off

      the leading driver after the weekend ? didn’t win a race
      another driver commented about how he drove after the tyres went off

      motor racing was, is , and always will be about managing your equipment

    55. David not Coulthard (@)
      9th May 2013, 1:10

      DRS: Very negative
      Tyres:Negative

      I must say, though, that I may be ever so slightly clouded by the fact that I loved 2010 – I don’t think there was anything wrong with it.

    56. The World Endurance Championship is the way forwards, yes you heard me, endurance, because these days, the races are flat-out, drivers pushing to the max, manufacturers introducing new technologies and pushing the boundaries to improve their road cars. Re-fueling, tyres that actually work. Its an F1 Fans dream.

      Formula 1 has sold itself to the uneducated masses who in reality give nothing to the sport, and inadvertantly become a short version of what used to be endurance racing. Meanwhile endurance racing has been quietly transforming itself into a show of engineering excellence, with real performance gains year-on-year. The cars were on average 2 seconds a lap quicker around spa this year, compared to last in pretty much the same conditions.

      Variation exists in the wec, and yes although audi have won more times in the last 13 years can i can count, its still interesting because there are battles in other classes and the question is always, “can anyone catch audi?” and watching people try is truly fascinating, e.g. peugoet and more recently toyota. Porsche are coming back to LMP1 next year, who knows who will follow.

      F1 is dead/on its last legs, i’ve already made the switch, come and join me, you won’t regret it.

    57. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      12th May 2013, 21:16

      Why aren’t people replying to this topic after the original topic was locked? For some reason locking a topic and redirecting them always seems to kill a discussion.

      Could it be one of those things like high degradation tires that just works better in theory than in practice?(tongue-in-cheek)

    58. On the issue of tyres, I sat down and worked out some of the facts to come out of last nights 2013 Spanish GP which are pertinent.

      Qualifying Times:
      1. N. Rosberg 1:20.718

      22. C. Pic 1:25.070

      Race Lap Fastest Laptimes:
      Stint 1 – Lap 1-7: F. Massa L2 1:30.34
      Stint 2 – Lap 8-20: A. Sutil L10 1:28.25
      Stint 3 – Lap 21-36: F. Alonso L23 1:27.73
      Stint 4 – Lap 37-50: A. Sutil L38 1:26.56
      Stint 5 – Lap 51-66: E. Gutierrez L56 1:26.22 (FLAP of Race)

      Note: For point of reference I used WEB as indicator of pit stints as he pitted 4 times and was one of the first of each stint.

      At no point did anyone beat last place qualifier C. Pic’s 1:25.070 in very similar weather conditions, using the same tyre make, compound, and towards the end of the race, similar fuel load. At no stage was anyone in danger of getting close to 1:21, let alone 1:20…

      All of those fastest laps per stint were achieved on the first timed run after coming out of the pits. In Massa’s case, it was on lap 2 after the start of the race. The tyres do not produce multiple laps on pace.

      According to the race records, E. Gutierrez had the fastest car on the day, but finished outside the points in 11th place, and he had no major incident to explain why he finished 11th with the “fastest car on track”.

      Should tyres be affecting F1 in this way?

      Sources:
      2013 Spanish Grand Prix Laptimes and Fastest Laps
      Rosberg on pole as again Mercedes claim front row
      2013 Spanish Grand Prix result

    59. I got Pretty much TYRED with TYREs.
      Make 4 Pit stops still go 80 – 90 % of the Pace and add to this some sudden Delaminations. DRS may help Drivers to over take when they are stuck behind but this Tires are clearly making Nonsense.
      I can’t Understand who was at which position and who was in Which kind of Strategy. Last year and year before it was fun with Wide range of strategies and still exiting and certainly not this year.
      FIA and FOM and Pirelli must remember one thing. Every race can’t be a Spectacle no matter what you do. We have Races like Austin which is a Spectacle with 1 stop but monaco is bored one with 1 stop only.
      Which clearly proves More MORE only leads to destruction and this what Happening at the Moment.
      As a Long term F1 fan i want to see Drivers Racing with Flat out for 80% of a Stint not with 80% of Pace through out the stint.

    60. I agree that DRS needs to go. I love KERS, but I think it would have a much bigger influence on the races if it wasn’t limited. As long as they have enough energy stored they should be allowed to use it whenever they want. That way we would also see the teams trying to produce the best possible KERS system which would appease the car manufacturers and sponsors.

    61. For the past couple of years, I thought Pirelli was doing very well and had the balance just right. But I think that they went a tad too far this year, but by Brazil the tyres will be fine.

    Leave a Reply

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

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.