Official 2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Discussion
Drawweight said:
TheDeuce said:
It's moments like this that make me wonder why Pirelli bother with F1 - I can't get my head around how the marketing angle works for them, when there is so much open criticism for their tyres from figures in the sport and of course a fair few mass media stories about Pirelli tyres letting go at high speed this era, how can that be good!?
NB: I don't blame Pirelli for the nature of the tyres myself. It's clear the FIA are defining a very narrow tyre performance/spec to effectively hold back the cars and force interesting strategy. I've no doubt that Pirelli are doing as well with the spec as requested as any of their competitors would do with the same brief... I just don't get how it works for them as a brand these days as they tyres they're asked to produce are basically designed to be far worse than they could be..
It’s the mass marketing angle that they want. They want the Pirelli brand on the cars and on the track.NB: I don't blame Pirelli for the nature of the tyres myself. It's clear the FIA are defining a very narrow tyre performance/spec to effectively hold back the cars and force interesting strategy. I've no doubt that Pirelli are doing as well with the spec as requested as any of their competitors would do with the same brief... I just don't get how it works for them as a brand these days as they tyres they're asked to produce are basically designed to be far worse than they could be..
Nobody is going to refuse to buy Pirelli tyres for their road cars because a few F1 tyres explode per year but someone may decide to buy Pirelli’s because they’ve seen the exposure they get.
It’s better to be out there than not.
DanielSan said:
Have Mercedes give any reason why they were running new power units in both their cars this weekend while the Honda units in the RB weren't? Seems a bit mad to even say that about a Honda power unit even now.
Not sure, guess its just the long straight nature of Baku. All ferrari and merc engined cars had new engines.Interestingly all Honda engines have been running in a lower mode in every race after Bahrain. Apparently the engine blocks were built too 'tight' which gave rise to Vibrations. The next batch which might be in France has this issue rectified so they will be back at full power.
honda_exige said:
DanielSan said:
Have Mercedes give any reason why they were running new power units in both their cars this weekend while the Honda units in the RB weren't? Seems a bit mad to even say that about a Honda power unit even now.
Not sure, guess its just the long straight nature of Baku. All ferrari and merc engined cars had new engines.Interestingly all Honda engines have been running in a lower mode in every race after Bahrain. Apparently the engine blocks were built too 'tight' which gave rise to Vibrations. The next batch which might be in France has this issue rectified so they will be back at full power.
SmoothCriminal said:
kambites said:
SmoothCriminal said:
I don't think it's a cover up but he won't even admit publicly that Hamilton can make a mistake just an interesting dynamic is the team as they said Bottas stopped long in his box last race to contribute to the wheel nut saga.
But he said exactly that Hamilton made a mistake - he pressed the wrong button on the steering wheel. That's every bit as much of a mistake from an F1 driver as braking too late would have been. Neither what the BBC are reporting either.
Wolff said: "I have a four-hour flight with Lewis now and I just need to let him know that this wasn't because of a mistake by him. He doesn't make mistakes and I wouldn't have anybody else in that car."
If it wasn't a mistake, can we conclude the "finger problem" was deliberate?
SmoothCriminal said:
But he said exactly that Hamilton made a mistake - he pressed the wrong button on the steering wheel. That's every bit as much of a mistake from an F1 driver as braking too late would have been.
Mistake ? yes, but not even in the same ballpark as braking too late.
But, I must admit I cheered a little. I want this championship to go to the wire. Don't particularly care who wins (though if pushed I would probably want Max to win this year), just as long as its nip and tuck throughout.
I like that the midfield keeps on snapping at the heels too.
(feeling a bit better now
)Polite M135 driver said:
What Hamilton did was clearly a mistake - an action and an outcome that wasn’t intended - but it wasn’t a misjudgment.
yes, but you can't compare it to a driver missing their braking point.It was a mistake but poor ergonomics might be the root cause, or a problem with the glove (not saying it was). Braking too late is more fundamental driving error.
I would not try to equalise them in analysis. You could even argue the mistake was made by the person who put the switch there (though, of course that could be Hamilton too)
even if the result was the same.
TheDeuce said:
Drawweight said:
TheDeuce said:
It's moments like this that make me wonder why Pirelli bother with F1 - I can't get my head around how the marketing angle works for them, when there is so much open criticism for their tyres from figures in the sport and of course a fair few mass media stories about Pirelli tyres letting go at high speed this era, how can that be good!?
NB: I don't blame Pirelli for the nature of the tyres myself. It's clear the FIA are defining a very narrow tyre performance/spec to effectively hold back the cars and force interesting strategy. I've no doubt that Pirelli are doing as well with the spec as requested as any of their competitors would do with the same brief... I just don't get how it works for them as a brand these days as they tyres they're asked to produce are basically designed to be far worse than they could be..
It’s the mass marketing angle that they want. They want the Pirelli brand on the cars and on the track.NB: I don't blame Pirelli for the nature of the tyres myself. It's clear the FIA are defining a very narrow tyre performance/spec to effectively hold back the cars and force interesting strategy. I've no doubt that Pirelli are doing as well with the spec as requested as any of their competitors would do with the same brief... I just don't get how it works for them as a brand these days as they tyres they're asked to produce are basically designed to be far worse than they could be..
Nobody is going to refuse to buy Pirelli tyres for their road cars because a few F1 tyres explode per year but someone may decide to buy Pirelli’s because they’ve seen the exposure they get.
It’s better to be out there than not.
However, clearly it does work for them overall as they remain involved, no matter how comical and contrived the FIA tyre specs become.
The vast majority of the motoring public do not follow Motor Sport and may glance an image of a busted car and see nothing more than a crash. But in a few weeks or months when they're in KwikFit choosing new tyres for their Fiesta and weighing up the options and then spot a picture of Lewis Hamilton winning a race with a Pirelli logo on the poster, that's sometimes enough to swing the balance.
And those that do have a modicum of interest in the sport will recognise that the intensity of racing bears no resemblance to the daily commute and that two failed tyres from 100s used in a race weekend is not really an issue for them so they may yet be motivated to buy Pirelli because the association with F1 is - for some - a strong buying motivator.
And worth noting that Pirelli are a supplier to F1, not a sponsor. The teams pay for their tyres. Sponsors can leave on a whim whereas a supply contract ties in a supplier.
Pirelli pay to supply tyres to F1.
That’s why they fail. They’re not like the Michelin’s or Bridgestone built to be the best possible tyre (they had to be, it was a competition). Pirelli are in competition with nobody, and they are paying to supply the tyres. The tyres are built down to a cost - they use certain mass production methods that were not historically used for F1 tyres (which is why their construction is a bit different/limited compared to other tyres).
That’s why they fail. They’re not like the Michelin’s or Bridgestone built to be the best possible tyre (they had to be, it was a competition). Pirelli are in competition with nobody, and they are paying to supply the tyres. The tyres are built down to a cost - they use certain mass production methods that were not historically used for F1 tyres (which is why their construction is a bit different/limited compared to other tyres).
Polite M135 driver said:
Pirelli pay to supply tyres to F1.
That’s why they fail. They’re not like the Michelin’s or Bridgestone built to be the best possible tyre (they had to be, it was a competition). Pirelli are in competition with nobody, and they are paying to supply the tyres. The tyres are built down to a cost - they use certain mass production methods that were not historically used for F1 tyres (which is why their construction is a bit different/limited compared to other tyres).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Grand_PrixThat’s why they fail. They’re not like the Michelin’s or Bridgestone built to be the best possible tyre (they had to be, it was a competition). Pirelli are in competition with nobody, and they are paying to supply the tyres. The tyres are built down to a cost - they use certain mass production methods that were not historically used for F1 tyres (which is why their construction is a bit different/limited compared to other tyres).
Edit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_United_States...
Edited by numtumfutunch on Tuesday 8th June 08:01
Polite M135 driver said:
Pirelli pay to supply tyres to F1.
That’s why they fail. They’re not like the Michelin’s or Bridgestone built to be the best possible tyre (they had to be, it was a competition). Pirelli are in competition with nobody, and they are paying to supply the tyres. The tyres are built down to a cost - they use certain mass production methods that were not historically used for F1 tyres (which is why their construction is a bit different/limited compared to other tyres).
They're a supplier that wouldn't be a suppler if they didn't make the tyres that behave as the FIA and F1 desire them to behave.That’s why they fail. They’re not like the Michelin’s or Bridgestone built to be the best possible tyre (they had to be, it was a competition). Pirelli are in competition with nobody, and they are paying to supply the tyres. The tyres are built down to a cost - they use certain mass production methods that were not historically used for F1 tyres (which is why their construction is a bit different/limited compared to other tyres).
As a customer, F1 orders tyres that are a very long way from being 'the best possible', if pirelli started to make stronger, more durable tyres with a far more practical operating window, F1 wouldn't use them.
You can't change the quality of tyres that F1 want and demand simply by adding another supplier..
To be honest, I think there's a lot of waffle about the tyres-they are what they are.
My only change would be for there to be a super tyre that you only get one set of per weekend. You can use them for qually, race or whatever and they get you X amount of laps of perfection.
People could use them in Q3 to set the best time but then you forfeit your Q2 set and have to start on them. Or you could save them until the end of the race for a last dash to the finish.
Even the likes of Haas or Williams could use them in Q1 to try and get out of the bottom 5.
My only change would be for there to be a super tyre that you only get one set of per weekend. You can use them for qually, race or whatever and they get you X amount of laps of perfection.
People could use them in Q3 to set the best time but then you forfeit your Q2 set and have to start on them. Or you could save them until the end of the race for a last dash to the finish.
Even the likes of Haas or Williams could use them in Q1 to try and get out of the bottom 5.
Eric Mc said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
To be honest, I think there's a lot of waffle about the tyres-they are what they are.
They are what they are due to dopey rules.Bring Dunlop and Michelin back in along with pirelli and we'd just have three very mildly different takes of the same idea. Some might be better at certain circuits and worse at others, but overall.. none of them would ever be what we would conventionally consider a 'good tyre'..
Because modern F1 demands a deliberately compromised tyre.
TheDeuce said:
Eric Mc said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
To be honest, I think there's a lot of waffle about the tyres-they are what they are.
They are what they are due to dopey rules.Bring Dunlop and Michelin back in along with pirelli and we'd just have three very mildly different takes of the same idea. Some might be better at certain circuits and worse at others, but overall.. none of them would ever be what we would conventionally consider a 'good tyre'..
Because modern F1 demands a deliberately compromised tyre.
Absolutely nothing that Pirelli has done has given one team any advantage over the others.
Quite how the tyres can be "contrived to be frankly ridiculous" when last season saw the fastest F1 cars in history I don't know.
TL;DR
F1 internet fans will piss and moan about anything given the opportunity. This week it's tyres.
(next week it'll be track design after Paul Ricard, then the kerbs at Austria for two weeks in a row, the Hamilton and "the best fans" at Silverstone.")
TheDeuce said:
Eric Mc said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
To be honest, I think there's a lot of waffle about the tyres-they are what they are.
They are what they are due to dopey rules.Bring Dunlop and Michelin back in along with pirelli and we'd just have three very mildly different takes of the same idea. Some might be better at certain circuits and worse at others, but overall.. none of them would ever be what we would conventionally consider a 'good tyre'..
Because modern F1 demands a deliberately compromised tyre.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
TheDeuce said:
Eric Mc said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
To be honest, I think there's a lot of waffle about the tyres-they are what they are.
They are what they are due to dopey rules.Bring Dunlop and Michelin back in along with pirelli and we'd just have three very mildly different takes of the same idea. Some might be better at certain circuits and worse at others, but overall.. none of them would ever be what we would conventionally consider a 'good tyre'..
Because modern F1 demands a deliberately compromised tyre.
Absolutely nothing that Pirelli has done has given one team any advantage over the others.
Quite how the tyres can be "contrived to be frankly ridiculous" when last season saw the fastest F1 cars in history I don't know.
TL;DR
F1 internet fans will piss and moan about anything given the opportunity. This week it's tyres.
(next week it'll be track design after Paul Ricard, then the kerbs at Austria for two weeks in a row, the Hamilton and "the best fans" at Silverstone.")
Has everyone forgotten Schumacher having custom made tyres? Why would we want to go back to that scenario?
Why is it that we regularly get posters moaning about changing something that was brought in to cure a specific issue? Refueling is another good one - forgetting how boring two sprint races was. Multiple tyre suppliers is a classic one - half the teams were out of the running before they had even landed at the airport if they were running the slower tyre supplier.
TheDeuce said:
Eric Mc said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
To be honest, I think there's a lot of waffle about the tyres-they are what they are.
They are what they are due to dopey rules.Bring Dunlop and Michelin back in along with pirelli and we'd just have three very mildly different takes of the same idea. Some might be better at certain circuits and worse at others, but overall.. none of them would ever be what we would conventionally consider a 'good tyre'..
Because modern F1 demands a deliberately compromised tyre.
Mr Pointy said:
Exactly this. If one suppliers tyres were 1% better than another then it's game over for all the teams not running that tyre & everyone would be moaning about that. There's no way the tyre supplier to RB or Ferrari wouldn't be following instructions from those teams about what characteristics the tyres should have & screw what any other team needed.
Has everyone forgotten Schumacher having custom made tyres? Why would we want to go back to that scenario?
Why is it that we regularly get posters moaning about changing something that was brought in to cure a specific issue? Refueling is another good one - forgetting how boring two sprint races was. Multiple tyre suppliers is a classic one - half the teams were out of the running before they had even landed at the airport if they were running the slower tyre supplier.
You could have competing tyre manufacturers without giving a single team a fixe advantage - it's all a matter of regulation. Also... The same situation we used to have with tyres, we still have and have always had with PU's.Has everyone forgotten Schumacher having custom made tyres? Why would we want to go back to that scenario?
Why is it that we regularly get posters moaning about changing something that was brought in to cure a specific issue? Refueling is another good one - forgetting how boring two sprint races was. Multiple tyre suppliers is a classic one - half the teams were out of the running before they had even landed at the airport if they were running the slower tyre supplier.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff