So, Pirelli admit that their tyres are crap....
Discussion
Some Gump said:
I'm sorry, but i disagree with 90% of ou in this.
At the end of last season, the teams met the tyres for this season.
They tested at the start, and knew what to expect.
Just because only Ferrari and Lotus have managed to correctly engineer their cars for the design parameters (in this case tyre heat), does not mean that Pirelli should cave in so that Merc (who's facility hasn't brought a sucessful car in 8 years) and Red Bull (who are frickin extreme, man) can have a better crack of the whip.
IMO changing the tyres mid season to keep red bull happy is just as completely arse as banning the Renault tuned mass damper to kep ferrari happy eyars ago. red bull are funding 2 teams, and so have too much hold over Bernie. It's exactly the same as when Ferarri were the crowd puller and had the influence.
I accept this is karma for ferrari, but it's well harsh on lotus. That team constantly brings innovations that get banned (tmd, suspension liked to brakes etc), only to see them banned. If others bring clever interpretations like double diffusers / flexi wings, they get to keep them. Finally, when lotus are competing on a flat playing field and doing well, the rules are changed again to suit the better lobbyists.
THIS! x100000000At the end of last season, the teams met the tyres for this season.
They tested at the start, and knew what to expect.
Just because only Ferrari and Lotus have managed to correctly engineer their cars for the design parameters (in this case tyre heat), does not mean that Pirelli should cave in so that Merc (who's facility hasn't brought a sucessful car in 8 years) and Red Bull (who are frickin extreme, man) can have a better crack of the whip.
IMO changing the tyres mid season to keep red bull happy is just as completely arse as banning the Renault tuned mass damper to kep ferrari happy eyars ago. red bull are funding 2 teams, and so have too much hold over Bernie. It's exactly the same as when Ferarri were the crowd puller and had the influence.
I accept this is karma for ferrari, but it's well harsh on lotus. That team constantly brings innovations that get banned (tmd, suspension liked to brakes etc), only to see them banned. If others bring clever interpretations like double diffusers / flexi wings, they get to keep them. Finally, when lotus are competing on a flat playing field and doing well, the rules are changed again to suit the better lobbyists.
The tyres should be a constant throughout this year and they'll also be, I presume a baseline for next year too. I wonder if any teams will start issuing the FIA or Pirelli with invoices for all the R&D and man-hours it's taken to develop a car to deal with one lot of tyres and regs, future updates based on the current known parameters and then have to change lots of it for something else. This could really have a bad knock on effect for 2013 too. It's going to be bad enough with new engines to worry about. This has to be sorted out by someone before Canada ideally.
REALIST123 said:
Dr Z said:
I love how you get so wound up by this. F1 is supposed to be <insert some generic macho crap about "REAL" racing, whatever that means>
Call it 'thermal degradation', for all I know, this year's tyres seem to give the teams a different challenge to last years. Tyre degradation in the traditional sense was managed to a larger degree by the drivers, but the '13 spec tyres are involving the car designers too. This has got to be a good thing in my eyes. What these '13 spec tyres have done is completely challenge the way car designers and drivers have thought about managing tyres. And of course, nobody likes it when the status quo is challenged. So what? It's the pinnacle of formula racing after all.
The big flaw with your argument is that the designers weren't and aren't involved in the spec of the tyres. How are you supposed to design a car to optimise the use of a tyre, perhaps 12 months ahead, when even the tyre manufacturer, clearly, doesnt know what its characteristics will be?
This has been a failed attempt to confound the designers, emasculate the formula and create interest from the ignorant masses. To some extent that has apparently been achieved.
If the tyres have a huge variation in performance at a given track temp, from set to set of a same compound, then I'd be inclined to agree, it's harder for the teams to get an idea. But this is not what I'm getting (unless you have inside info being associated with a team?). Lack of in-season testing is the same for everyone, I'm afraid, so tough luck for those who can't get a handle on it. The fact that Ferrari and Lotus can extract good performance out of these tyres suggests to me that the tyres are self-consistent, refuting this notion that the tyres are completely unworkable. This is further reinforced by the fact that Ferrari and Lotus have been consistently good performers during the races throughout this season.
I've made this comment so many times, but it seems I am alone with the opinion:
It doesn't matter whether a tyre falls apart as long as there is a slower alternative that doesn't. Drivers can then choose to drive flat out on a tyre for 15 laps at a time, or flat out on a less grippy tyre for the whole race. What frustrates me is the rule that you have to use both types of tyre which dilutes either scenario and the associated requirement that you have to stop at least once.
Remember the days when you were waiting for someone to make their expected stop 20 laps from the end, then started wondering what was going on 10 laps from the end before watching them practically dragging a bare carcass over the line?
As ever, variation produces more unpredictable racing. It may not be so close start to finish, but the strategists would be all over the place and there would rarely be an obvious winner.
It doesn't matter whether a tyre falls apart as long as there is a slower alternative that doesn't. Drivers can then choose to drive flat out on a tyre for 15 laps at a time, or flat out on a less grippy tyre for the whole race. What frustrates me is the rule that you have to use both types of tyre which dilutes either scenario and the associated requirement that you have to stop at least once.
Remember the days when you were waiting for someone to make their expected stop 20 laps from the end, then started wondering what was going on 10 laps from the end before watching them practically dragging a bare carcass over the line?
As ever, variation produces more unpredictable racing. It may not be so close start to finish, but the strategists would be all over the place and there would rarely be an obvious winner.
i think the goal is tyres that can last a whole race but get much slower as you use them, the softer compund starts faster and gets slower quicker than the harder compound, the old bridgestone tyres didnt do this though, they lasted so long that the cars ended the stint as fast as the begining after the fuel burned off, the small window of usage on the currant tyres is a bit pathetic though and any hard driving on them just kills the tyres, its probably a lot harder to engeneer the tyres to do this,
Now just to stir this up more - the FIA have stepped in to say "you can't change the tyres" (other than to improve safety). The degradation must stay the same as before, but they can improve the construction to stop them falling apart.
The teams knew what the tyres were going to be like when the spec was set last September. Most teams have been able to design cars that don't over-work the tyres and get good life out of them. Two teams have failed in that respect as they have built cars with large amounts of downforce that leads to overheating the tyres causing faster degradation. One team has said "we'll work it out", the other has said "It's not fair, we want the tyres changed, boo hoo".
Well I'm sorry, this is the pinnacle of the sport where the best designers are given a set of criteria that they must work to, and go build a car that is the ultimate within that criteria.
Sorry Mr Mateys
tz, you have clearly failed - go to the back of the class and put the dunce hat on.
Many years ago, in the Goodyear era, there were cars that were blinding over one or two laps, but crap over race distances because they ate their tyres. Why should today be any different.
Pirelli have stated that they can make tyres to bring back processional racing. No, make tyres that wear out quicker even on the more gentle cars. Then you'll see the best chassis & driver combinations up the front instead of Leadfoot Fred and his amazing downforce super sucker.
Better still, take all of the wings off making them slide around a lot more and let's see more opposite lock through the corners!
And give 'em H-pattern stick shift 'boxes with ordinary clutch pedals. Missed a gear sir? Whoops, lost a place!
The teams knew what the tyres were going to be like when the spec was set last September. Most teams have been able to design cars that don't over-work the tyres and get good life out of them. Two teams have failed in that respect as they have built cars with large amounts of downforce that leads to overheating the tyres causing faster degradation. One team has said "we'll work it out", the other has said "It's not fair, we want the tyres changed, boo hoo".
Well I'm sorry, this is the pinnacle of the sport where the best designers are given a set of criteria that they must work to, and go build a car that is the ultimate within that criteria.
Sorry Mr Mateys
tz, you have clearly failed - go to the back of the class and put the dunce hat on.Many years ago, in the Goodyear era, there were cars that were blinding over one or two laps, but crap over race distances because they ate their tyres. Why should today be any different.
Pirelli have stated that they can make tyres to bring back processional racing. No, make tyres that wear out quicker even on the more gentle cars. Then you'll see the best chassis & driver combinations up the front instead of Leadfoot Fred and his amazing downforce super sucker.
Better still, take all of the wings off making them slide around a lot more and let's see more opposite lock through the corners!
And give 'em H-pattern stick shift 'boxes with ordinary clutch pedals. Missed a gear sir? Whoops, lost a place!
thunderbelmont said:
The teams knew what the tyres were going to be like when the spec was set last September. Most teams have been able to design cars that don't over-work the tyres and get good life out of them. Two teams have failed in that respect as they have built cars with large amounts of downforce that leads to overheating the tyres causing faster degradation. One team has said "we'll work it out", the other has said "It's not fair, we want the tyres changed, boo hoo".
not quite fair...the just cause they got sight of the tyres last year does not mean they know what the details of the construction are (and I bet they are not allowed to keep them and cut them up to find out).
it's one thing to have tyres that are crap and go off/wear out/etc. it's another when you start to have them de-laminate and fail catastrophically.
from what info is out there, they seem to have designed them for cars making less downforce than last year?, WHY? the teams designers are always going to be adding more downforce wherever they can, why would you then design tyres to be able to deal with less?
Interesting the the FIA have jumped in, I guess pretty predictable as Ferrari will have been winging.
Still think F1 needs proper tyres that the drivers can actually RACE with, even without the failures, the racing is a joke,
looking at the stats, last race:
Pole 1:20.718 (Rosburg) - Fastest race lap 1:26.217 (Gutierrez)
go back 10 years to 2003
Pole 1:17.762 (Schumacher) - Fastest race lap 1:20.143 (Barrichello)
go back 20 years
Pole 1:17.809 (Prost) - Fastest race lap 1:20.989 (Schumacher)
so, 20 years on, they are dog-slow, and no where near the cars ultimate pace (from Qualifing).
Please tell me, how is this a good thing?
Scuffers, why didn't you list the first 3 races of this season where the gap between Qualifying faster and Race fastest was only 2 seconds? And the 4th where it was 4 seconds? They're all longer tracks too so in fact the times were even closer in percentage terms.
Not that it matters; if we debunk your criticism of race-qualifying gap you'll just shift your criticism to something else about the tyres that you don't like.
Not that it matters; if we debunk your criticism of race-qualifying gap you'll just shift your criticism to something else about the tyres that you don't like.
Some Gump said:
scuffers, that is the most piss poor use of stats i've seen outside of the daily mail. Not only is the choice of data completely tenuous, but you've overlooked the redesign of the track in 2007.
So?The point about qualifying times vs race times still stands, no matter what cct.
Pick some other ones then, I just took 10 and 20 years back.
Scuffers said:
So?
The point about qualifying times vs race times still stands, no matter what cct.
Pick some other ones then, I just took 10 and 20 years back.
Lol, the bloke above said you'd do that.The point about qualifying times vs race times still stands, no matter what cct.
Pick some other ones then, I just took 10 and 20 years back.
The point is, when your arguement is "the cars are s
t slow because 10 and 20 years ago they were faster" is like saying that modern endurance cars are crap because they get to slower speeds on the mulsanne.When you put a chicane in the middle of a track, cars get slower. That is what chicanes are for.
Some Gump said:
Lol, the bloke above said you'd do that.
The point is, when your arguement is "the cars are st slow because 10 and 20 years ago they were faster" is like saying that modern endurance cars are crap because they get to slower speeds on the mulsanne.
When you put a chicane in the middle of a track, cars get slower. That is what chicanes are for.
With respect, that's bull too, chicanes were there when the record was set.The point is, when your arguement is "the cars are s
t slow because 10 and 20 years ago they were faster" is like saying that modern endurance cars are crap because they get to slower speeds on the mulsanne.When you put a chicane in the middle of a track, cars get slower. That is what chicanes are for.
So, the FIA said the only permitted changes will be on safety grounds and that changing the tyres in any other way won't be happening.
This is probably in response to smart arses in the media finding an FIA rule that whilst a little vague could be construed to say changing the performance of the tyres is prohibited.
Of course if some of those "safety" changes result in more durability etc it would be a happy coincidence, right ?
This is probably in response to smart arses in the media finding an FIA rule that whilst a little vague could be construed to say changing the performance of the tyres is prohibited.
Of course if some of those "safety" changes result in more durability etc it would be a happy coincidence, right ?
Scuffers said:
With respect, that's bull too, chicanes were there when the record was set.
Your data points - 2014, 2004, 1994.Chicane install 2007.
Laptimes pre 2007 are faster than post.
In the last 3 years, fastest lap of the race has been 1.26.something.
In the last 3 years, fastest lap in quali has been close to 1.21ish
You said pick some stats to dispute your assertation that this years tyres are much worse than last years. I think i just did.
Some Gump said:
Scuffers said:
With respect, that's bull too, chicanes were there when the record was set.
Your data points - 2014, 2004, 1994.Chicane install 2007.
Laptimes pre 2007 are faster than post.
In the last 3 years, fastest lap of the race has been 1.26.something.
In the last 3 years, fastest lap in quali has been close to 1.21ish
You said pick some stats to dispute your assertation that this years tyres are much worse than last years. I think i just did.
Scuffers said:
Some Gump said:
Lol, the bloke above said you'd do that.
The point is, when your arguement is "the cars are st slow because 10 and 20 years ago they were faster" is like saying that modern endurance cars are crap because they get to slower speeds on the mulsanne.
When you put a chicane in the middle of a track, cars get slower. That is what chicanes are for.
With respect, that's bull too, chicanes were there when the record was set.The point is, when your arguement is "the cars are s
t slow because 10 and 20 years ago they were faster" is like saying that modern endurance cars are crap because they get to slower speeds on the mulsanne.When you put a chicane in the middle of a track, cars get slower. That is what chicanes are for.
Le mans - fastest top speed was 1988 - over 400kph. In 1990, 2 chicanes were added to slow top speeds. Current cars max out at what, 330-340kph? This is not because they are st and slow, it is because the track is a different shape.
Your arguemnt above was that current f1 is st and slow, becuase the laptimes now are higher than 20 years ago, when the track was a different shape. I compared your arguement with the le mans situation.
I'm not trying to dissuade you from having a negative opinion on the tyres that the FiA, FOM motorsport and the teams all agreed on pre season. That is your perogative. I am mearly stating that if you're going to use random stats to "prove" your opinion is right and other viewpoints are wrong, at least choose some stats that are remotely relevant or credible.
For the record, one such set of numbers would be the total race time for the first place finisher, since 2007. That set of numbers would have added weight to your arguement - as the problem is not in fact single lap pace, but degredation.
This is the problem with the random use of stats - if you want to, you can skew the numbers to "prove" anything - but it won't make you right.
t and slow, it is because the track is a different shape.Your arguemnt above was that current f1 is s
t and slow, becuase the laptimes now are higher than 20 years ago, when the track was a different shape. I compared your arguement with the le mans situation.I'm not trying to dissuade you from having a negative opinion on the tyres that the FiA, FOM motorsport and the teams all agreed on pre season. That is your perogative. I am mearly stating that if you're going to use random stats to "prove" your opinion is right and other viewpoints are wrong, at least choose some stats that are remotely relevant or credible.
For the record, one such set of numbers would be the total race time for the first place finisher, since 2007. That set of numbers would have added weight to your arguement - as the problem is not in fact single lap pace, but degredation.
This is the problem with the random use of stats - if you want to, you can skew the numbers to "prove" anything - but it won't make you right.
Imo, the defining comment in the tyre debate was that made by Lewis Hamilton when told that his tyres were at the top end of their operating range, he said 'I can't drive any slower!'. Is that really what we want to hear from drivers in what is meant to be the pinnacle of motorsport?
Some Gump said:
Le mans - fastest top speed was 1988 - over 400kph. In 1990, 2 chicanes were added to slow top speeds. Current cars max out at what, 330-340kph? This is not because they are st and slow, it is because the track is a different shape.
I was talking about the record WITH the chicanes....t and slow, it is because the track is a different shape.Wiki said:
The R90CK was notable for achieving the highest straightline speed on the Mulsanne straight at the Le Mans circuit following the installation of a sequence of tight serpentine curves (chicanes). Mark Blundell reached at 366 km/h (226.9 mph) on his pole position lap - 24.2 mph less than the previous record trap speed.[2] The qualifying engine, normally capable of up to 1000 bhp, had its wastegate wired shut, leading to an engine which produced well over 1100 bhp.[3] Bob Earl took the fastest lap during the race in the NPTI car at 3:40.030[4] This trap speed record with the chicanes in place still stands to this day.
so, you were saying?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff