Is Pirrelli tyres really giving exciting f1 racing?
- This topic has 12 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
I clearly remember teams abstaining from racing in USA a few years ago because Michelin tyres were said to be unsafe because the tyres failed under racing conditions. The Pirrelli has delaminated in the last few races, the f1 paddock do not seem to be alarmed by this. But what l want to really talk about, is the effect of tyres at the moment on the state of racing. Are they really making the racing interesting? How l am seeing it at the moment is that the emphasis of the challenge has moved more to the engineering at the expense of the spectacle. Ok the engines have got smaller and f1 engineers have shown they can get the smaller engines to exceed FIA speed expectations. So f1 racing seem to be about racing within the pure pace possible from the engines, it will appear this is where the limited grip window tyres changes the emphasis of racing from being about speed to aerodynamics and balance. Redbull is good indication of this suggestion. Even Redbull has said that racing is about the pace the tyre not of the raw pace of the car. But what is wrong with that you might ask? Well, from a spectacle perspective, we do not get to see proper wheel to wheel racing. The racing has become artificial and inhibited. Every car today suffered severe tyre wear and there was at least one delamination this weekend, also suggests that the useful window of the tyres are too narrow and fragile. For some reason, it has become politically incorrect to criticize the Pirrelli tyres. The tyres ere clearly a frustration for drivers and teams principles alike, but they come across as being gagged from giving their true opinions about it. I say bring back the bridgestones.
The teams asked pirelli for them,today might have been 2 far even paul hembrey(head of pirelli motorsport) admitted it on twitter,but id like to see what overseas press/fans are saying about it as it seems to dominate here
I think the tires are destroying the sport completely. I don’t like Red Bull dominating the sport BUT at the same time the tires have changed the balance of the sport. Specifically we have seen the following things happen:
1. The commentators are saying that this a fantastic race every 5 seconds to sell us on it so we don’t switch off and stop watching F1 for 2-3 years;-) It’s not a fantastic race because driving is playing 3rd fiddle to the constructor and the tires….
2. Qualifying is less important. P3-P5 is good enough to win and in fact should be the goal to minimize tire deg and increase race pace.
3. The top 10 were all lapped and fell 90+ seconds behind the leader. Not sure what’s causing it but it’s ridiculous.
4. When Hamilton gets on the radio and says “I can’t go any slower”, the FIA should take notice and switch the sport to FSlow until they resolve it. Perhaps, victory should go to the car with the most rubber left on the tires!!! It’s certainly something to consider. If they want to change the sport so much what’s more radical than not giving victory to the one who crosses the finish line first?
5. Button from P17 mysteriously passes Perez in ~P6 who’s soft on tires while having terrible pace and tire problems. Did Perez suffer a puncture or a drive through penalty that everyone missed?
6. The Renaults are able to have equal pace to the top constructors while avoiding 1 pit stop and being set up to qualify in the 2nd row.
7. Following the race borders for the viewer. You literally need a pit stop chart and “real” positions superimposed over the driver.I’m not sure how they can fix this but perhaps they should eliminate tire strategies and force everyone to drive on a specific tire at the same time with the same number of pit stops. Just a loud thought.
Last but not least, very happy to see Alonso win, Raikonnen do well, Massa make a come back. Incredible to see Hamilton in P12 but there’s obviously something wrong with the Merc and particularly with Hamilton’s chassis which resembles a Marussia at times – I imagine a new chassis has been ordered by the time this has been posted.
What I think is much worse right now is how the tyres occasionally seems to completely delaminate.
How good would it look if Alonso had lost the victory in front of the spanish fans because the glue Pirelli use on their tyres aren’t good enough? It would have been a disaster!
But I agree that I think F1 is way too much about the tyres and way too little about the cars and the drivers.
The tyres should play a role. It can be fun and you can’t take it away because its what makes the car stick.
But why aren’t we talking about the updates on the cars? Or the form of the drivers? It feels like what matters the is the track, the tyre selection and the temperature at that track. And that will decide the winner.
I know it isn’t entirely like that, but I think it’s a way too large factor.When Bridgestone brought rapidly wearing tyres to Canada in 2010, people were about as enthusiastic as having their first child. Pirelli had to design this kind of tyres, because Bridgestones were boring.
When we had re-fuelling, people were complaining that the pitstops and strategy calls determined the outcome of a race by too much. They banned refuelling, then pitstops didn’t mean anything anymore. Now they mean something again and it’s too much.
When Michelin dominated over Bridgestone in 2005, people were complaining. People complained about the Bridgestones being too safe, about Michelin not working in cold conditions; the tyres mattered too much. Some say Schumacher lost the 1998 title due to not having Bridgestones.
When there were no tyre changes, it led to very boring races.
Do I feel the delaminating of the tyres is an issue? Yes. All the other complaints I’m reading have been there before in the complete opposite direction, about another tyre manufacturer or another rule. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
It depends on the race really. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again that I don’t mind tyres that don’t last an entire race, but I don’t think there should be a defined ‘cliff’ for the tyres. The only way to properly do this would be to design a tyre, which enables teams and driver to race either at full capacity, and run the risk of more pit stops but have far better pace, or go for a slower, kinder approach that enables drivers to really look after the tyres properly.
What we have now, I don’t think the drivers really make that much difference. Yes, they can slow down to slow down the rate of tyre degradation, but that isn’t what Formula 1 should be about, whether it’s exciting or not. If we’re going to have more extreme degradation, then it should be down to the driver (and of course the car) to make the difference. Drivers like Raikkonen and Button should be rewarded for their smoother styles, whilst giving the option to the Hamiltons and the others to be aggressive and race at 100%.
In my opinion, that would be the best way to have variations in strategies. I’m not a tyre expert, so I don’t know how easy or difficult this would be. What I’d like is a combination of the two tyre compounds of Bridgestone a Pirelli. The way the Bridgestone used to chemically react with the track and rubber in, with (slightly less, but) the degradation of the Pirelli. No marbles being thrown off, just a high wear rate resulting in strategies from 1, 2 or 3 stops, based on what the teams and drivers decide.
Decent blog post by Nbcs will buxton about it
http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/the-game-changer/Yes, l have heard the one about tires always being a factor in the outcome of races for as long as f1 has existed. But there has never been an era before the Pirrelli one when the wheel to wheel racing has been inhibited by tires as much as this one. Some drivers like Kimi is not bothered by the tires so much, but then that is one element that puts the Lotus in the mix with Ferrari and Redbull this season. So its no surprise he would say he is happy. With anything, there will be gainer and losers.
Yes, the Pirrelli tires presents some mid field teams an opportunity to get close enough to the front pack, to allow them to capitalize on any failure of a front pack team to perform on race day. Force India seem to be demonstrating that trend at the mo.
But at the same token, it is a heavy burden back of the pack team. Having aero disadvantage and tire problems as well will root them permanently where they are. Another consideration, is that it must have an impact on cost of running the team, if the team must chase a tire grip mirage through the year, which is counter intuitive to the FIA cost saving initiative.
Come sunday, 3 drivers will grace the podium, they would be happy that time round. But one thing is clear, the tires this season are more extreme than last year’s tires. It will take a serious casualty to emphasize this fact unfortunately.I’ve thought about this before, and in my view, they need a hard tyre that lasts around 40% of the race distance, with a slow drop off, and a soft tyre that lasts 10-20%. Then you would get drivers trying to eek out as long as they could and do less stops, and others really going for it but then stopping a little more often
I’ll just refer to Will Buxton for my opinion.
http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/the-game-changer/
Edit: Duplicate thread closed by moderator
DRS and tyres: Has F1 got the balance right?
For more information see the forum rules
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.