Official 2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***

[Polite M135 driver]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

What you'd get is one manufacturer spending more than anyone else and signing an exclusive deal with one team. Then that team would blitz the opposition week in, week out.

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.")

In the context of racing tyres, they are ridiculous. They are ridiculously heavy, but their structure is still too weak to support reasonable (for racing cars) tyre pressures, which have to be mandated at extreme pressures (for racing cars) to protect the tyre integrity. The tyres degrade in a ridiculous way that inhibits the racing. On some tracks, drivers even have to manage their pace on qualifying laps to get a tyre to last through to the end of the lap in terms of thermal deg. (note: F1 did not ask Pirelli to develop tyres that are subject to ‘thermal degradation’ - they asked them to deliver tyres that wear out... ). The tyres could for example, wear out through loss of tread, not just ‘overheating’. Such a mechanism would allow close following without worrying about temperature ranges).

Pirelli could engineer a better tyre and still meet the criteria of F1. They don’t, because it’s cheaper not to.

The cars are quick despite the tyres. The tyres are the limiting factor for race pace. We know this, because since Pirelli started supplying tyres, rookie F1 drivers began being on the pace within a few races/half a season. Historically, this never happened. We know this because since Pirelli started supplying tyres, competitive time gaps between drivers have fallen to the lowest level ever: the drivers drive to the pace of the tyres. We know this because retirements from races through mistakes have dropped to extremely low levels: the drivers are driving to the ultimate pace of the tyres, not to the ultimate capability of the cars.

[Leicester Loyal]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

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.

That sounds fantastic!

[Piginapoke]

This is all true, but a competitive tyre/tyre war would immediately take seconds off the lap times of the cars, when many circuits are struggling to contain the speeds already. I think FIA are glad the tyres are slowing the case down!

[LaurasOtherHalf]

TheDeuce said:

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.

So you'd regulate them to create the same tyre? What the fk is the point in that then? To cost more money for no gain?

[TheDeuce]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

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.

I meant ridiculous and contrived in the context of tyre design. If Pirelli we simply asked to make the best possible tyre for a privately owned F1 car they could produce a set that offered insane levels of grip and far greater longevity with a much broader operating temp band as well.

In the context of F1, they tyres are arguably ideal. They offer the very high grip these cars require, but also have a very narrow temp band so produce plenty of drama and occasionally cars out of position if they can get them switched on in quali. They also have a deliberately short life which is good for the sport, as it places teams with a difficult decision most GP's.. they want to push the tyres as far as possible for strategic reasons, but if they push just a little too far, it ends in disaster.

My point was that anyone who thinks that the tyres are a bit flakey because it's 'Pirelli's fault' has entirely misunderstood the reason the tyres are that way, and by extension the reason the sport are pretty happy these days to work with a single supplier offering a single and easy to prescribe range of tyres. The only downside is that across such a varying array of circuits each season, it's highly likely that every now and again such contrived tyres are simply not going to be good enough.

[TheDeuce]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

TheDeuce said:

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.

So you'd regulate them to create the same tyre? What the fk is the point in that then? To cost more money for no gain?

Exactly! Which is why I'm not suggesting there should be a return to multiple suppliers. I was responding to others who thought that competition would make for better tyres than Pirelli currently produce... because those people don't seem to understand that Pirelli are making the tyres of the current spec/performance as that is what the sport wants from them.

Regards regulation 'if' the sport ever wanted to bring in a second supplier again, they could have a system where each team has to use an equal number of sets from each manufacturer during the season - thus providing some additional strategy along with a competition between the tyre suppliers as to which earned the most points when fitted. Not saying I want such a thing, but that's one example of how it could be done.

[snotrag]

Confirmation it was Mark Webber who screamed like a girl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXaPhotkOfk

[kiseca]

TheDeuce said:

Regards regulation 'if' the sport ever wanted to bring in a second supplier again, they could have a system where each team has to use an equal number of sets from each manufacturer during the season - thus providing some additional strategy along with a competition between the tyre suppliers as to which earned the most points when fitted. Not saying I want such a thing, but that's one example of how it could be done.

That's actually a decent idea, I think. Instead of just different compounds, the team can freely choose between different brands.

Possible downsides are 1) it would open the door (a back door down a quiet alley) for a team to negotiate some informal agreement with one of the manufacturers and influence how they make the tyres, and then that team just chooses those tyres all season, or 2) one manufacturer simply does a better job than the other, and the end result is only the one brand gets used all season - however that's what competition's about.. it would be about the other manufacturer working to catch up so that by the next race, or two races time, or three, they become the tyre of choice.

It would also avoid calamities like USA in... was it 2005? When only the six Bridgestone cars ran. If one tyre brand was looking unlikely to cope with the race stress, the teams all have the option of running the other manufacturer's tyre at that event.

I do like that, because it solves the one problem with tyre wars... which is that usually one brand has a distinct advantage, makes one or two teams significantly quicker, and there's no obvious visual reason why. For some reason I find it easy to be impressed when someone builds a better engine, or a better aerodynamic package, and sails off into the distance, but when someone builds a better tyre and does the same, that doesn't excite me at all. I don't know why. For me the tyres are just as important as any other component in the car and, as Ferrari showed in the early 2000s, if you give them as much attention as you do to the engine, the chassis, the aero, the strategy, the pitstops and everything else, you get a competitive advantage.

It's just nice to say this engine develops 40bhp more than that one. That's cool. Or this aero does this clever or funky thing with the exhaust gases, or even Red Bull's predictably bendy wing. But somehow, saying this black rubbery cylinder has a coefficient of friction 1% higher than that one, or has a wider operating temperature... I get bored

EDIT; Sorry I misread your idea a bit and responded as if they had freedom of choice, where you said they'd be required to use both brands. That would rule out one of my downsides.

[Mr Pointy]

TheDeuce said:

The only downside is that across such a varying array of circuits each season, it's highly likely that every now and again such contrived tyres are simply not going to be good enough. (edited)

I do think it's a bit odd that many people (not necessarily you) are assuming that just because there were two incidents that there was an issue with the tyres in Baku & that the failures weren't caused by debris. Given that both failures were rear left & hence both ocurrred on the lesser loaded tyre it's far more likely that there was a specific track issue causing tyre damage, especially given that exactly the same tyre on Hamilton's car had visible damage.

If the most highly stressed tyre had failed in both cases then yes, you might think that the tyre had failed but it's way less likley that the lower stressed tyre would give up in both cases. Plenty of other drivers did more laps on their tyres without issue.

[Murghee]

Thought id listen to the bbc radio 5 live commentsey of the gp race while i work but it cuts off after 2 hours.

Does anyone know where i can listen to the rest? It cut off during the red flag.

[Exige77]

Polite M135 driver said:

LaurasOtherHalf said:

What you'd get is one manufacturer spending more than anyone else and signing an exclusive deal with one team. Then that team would blitz the opposition week in, week out.

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.")

In the context of racing tyres, they are ridiculous. They are ridiculously heavy, but their structure is still too weak to support reasonable (for racing cars) tyre pressures, which have to be mandated at extreme pressures (for racing cars) to protect the tyre integrity. The tyres degrade in a ridiculous way that inhibits the racing. On some tracks, drivers even have to manage their pace on qualifying laps to get a tyre to last through to the end of the lap in terms of thermal deg. (note: F1 did not ask Pirelli to develop tyres that are subject to ‘thermal degradation’ - they asked them to deliver tyres that wear out... ). The tyres could for example, wear out through loss of tread, not just ‘overheating’. Such a mechanism would allow close following without worrying about temperature ranges).

Pirelli could engineer a better tyre and still meet the criteria of F1. They don’t, because it’s cheaper not to.

The cars are quick despite the tyres. The tyres are the limiting factor for race pace. We know this, because since Pirelli started supplying tyres, rookie F1 drivers began being on the pace within a few races/half a season. Historically, this never happened. We know this because since Pirelli started supplying tyres, competitive time gaps between drivers have fallen to the lowest level ever: the drivers drive to the pace of the tyres. We know this because retirements from races through mistakes have dropped to extremely low levels: the drivers are driving to the ultimate pace of the tyres, not to the ultimate capability of the cars.

Have we you read what you have written ?

If it’s true, then Pirelli have been spectacularly successful in giving the FIA what they wanted ?

[HustleRussell]

Personally I’m enjoying the fact that the on-track performance of the teams has converged to the point that we have more than one team with the potential to mix it with the top two and significantly reduced gaps through the grid. In recent seasons the driver has been making the difference, in contrast to the Noah’s arc grids we had in the early part of the turbo hybrid era.

I assume that those advocating multiple tyre suppliers aren’t enjoying that convergence.

[APontus]

Leicester Loyal said:

LaurasOtherHalf said:

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.

That sounds fantastic!

I had a similar thought, but for qualifying only. For Q3 give them slightly more time, say 20 minutes, mandate a minimum number of laps they have to do (to avoid a bare period), some hypersoft, super duper banzai tyres and whatever engine mode and setup they want. That way you'll get to see what these cars and drivers really are capable of when really trying to be fastest over a single lap ahead of all else.

[HustleRussell]

APontus said:

whatever engine mode and setup they want.

Again, doing away with Parc Ferme and engine map rules which exist to limit costs and bring the field closer together.

[HustleRussell]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

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.")

although I believe next week it will be the curbs or circuit preparation at Baku as people gradually accept that the failures were apparently not Pirelli’s fault.

[honda_exige]

Polite M135 driver said:

The cars are quick despite the tyres. The tyres are the limiting factor for race pace. We know this, because since Pirelli started supplying tyres, rookie F1 drivers began being on the pace within a few races/half a season. Historically, this never happened. We know this because since Pirelli started supplying tyres, competitive time gaps between drivers have fallen to the lowest level ever: the drivers drive to the pace of the tyres. We know this because retirements from races through mistakes have dropped to extremely low levels: the drivers are driving to the ultimate pace of the tyres, not to the ultimate capability of the cars.

Hamilton, Vettel, Schumacher, Coulthard, Hill, Villeneuve.... What tyres where they on? All were up to speed ASAP.

Rookies get up to speed faster due to the massive amounts of telemetry they have now. Your team mate is turning in here, braking here, lifting here etc. Now get in the simulator and try it till you match his times.....

[honda_exige]

snotrag said:

Confirmation it was Mark Webber who screamed like a girl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXaPhotkOfk

[exelero]

Gary C said:

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.

Hamilton doesn’t make mistakes :haha: it’s the car’s fault

[HustleRussell]

Hamilton has admitted the mistake. He believes he accidentally toggled brake magic back on when reacting to the race start.

I don’t recall this happening before to any other driver including his team mate who likely has a similar switch arrangement for brake magic so it’s a mistake Hamilton has made when other drivers have not.

The team will of course analyse and maybe even revise the wheel / switch layout but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a Hamilton mistake.

[Munter]

HustleRussell said:

Hamilton has admitted the mistake. He believes he accidentally toggled brake magic back on when reacting to the race start.

Ah but what some of the genius's on this thread are arguing about is the difference between a mistake and an accident.

Can it be a mistake if it's accidental. One side: If a mistake is an incorrect deliberate action, it's not accidental. This was accidental so it's not a mistake. Other side: Mistakes and Accidents can be the same thing in the right circumstances.

I guess what most of us are thinking is. Only an utter spacktard would decide to have an argument over that.