2011 - Pirelli - What do you think?

[Some Gump]

Right PH,

I was wondering what the general concensus was re. pirelli's choices on tyres...

In 2010, we had the best races where there were many pitstops, and / or extreme degredation. This spurred the remit for Pirelli to be "make the soft one degrade." As a fan, I really hope they keep with the strong degredation so that we go back twoards the 80's - spank laps 1-5, and you come unstuck by 8. Drive more consistantly, and you're good, but have to repass the other guys. IMO this is great for the spectacle.

However, if you were Pirelli, is this a wise move? I can see bar room undits everywhere saying Pirelli make crap tyres compared to Bridgestone? Obviously, Pirelli have hit their design remit, but is it a risky markting move?

PS - i am a current Pirelli user, and they're ste. Last 5 minutes. This might be due to Pirelli, or it may be my lack of traction control... Oh, and they're ste in the cold...

[Munter]

I don't think it will affect the brand in terms of how the tyres perform. So long as they don't fail a lot. If they degrade as they get used I think it'll be easy for them to turn around and say "Thats deliberate to improve the racing" and it be accepted.

[Doniger]

Some Gump said:

PS - i am a current Pirelli user, and they're ste. Last 5 minutes. This might be due to Pirelli, or it may be my lack of traction control... Oh, and they're ste in the cold...

Without wishing to derail the topic (because it's a good 'un I'll be watching), I would suggest that's probably down to whatever your car is and which tyres you bought. For example: ludicrously soft P Zero Rossos are often fitted to Audi A4 cabrios which weigh almost two tonnes or Q7s which aren't far off three and are stereotypically driven by cocks who rag the crap out of them. Yes they grip like fk and handle like a dream but this does require heavy tyre wear and they're knackered within 5000miles - something many of my customers at Audi refused to grasp.
On the other hand, I ran Pzero Corsas on my old Prelude and not only were they were absolutely fantastic in all conditions down to just above freezing, which isn't bad for a summer tyre, but the fronts lasted nearly 20,000miles too.

[Some Gump]

Doniger, I agree.

We ran P Zero Corsa on a 944 turbo for 4 seasons - great, in fact brilliant tyre. Pirelli Porche cup tyres were also great, and the Michelin crossply ste after were a nightmare (this may have been our fault, we were weekend racers without a clue, or testing time)

However, on autopilot, I replaced the P Zero Rossos on my Boxster (worn when I bought the car) with the same - and they've been very dissapointing - the issue is that the tread pattern has high / low cut points - at 4mm ish, they become a totally different tyre, and ive bugger all grip in cold / wet. I can abide by the <10k mile life, because I have no TC, and at weekends it gets driven - but in relaity, 5-6k of those miles was the missus driving to work and back...

Thats why I was wondering re. marketing implications - will people put 2 and 2 togeher and make 7, or will the general public understand that the design brief was to degrade? i can predict that next year, the first half of the season will be full of commentators on the telly / radio going on about the "degrading pirellis" and their short lifespan...

[Beyond Rational]

If they get the message out, people may start believing that the average Pirelli street tyre is too good for F1.

If it is known that the tyres were made worse in certain areas, they may be protected slightly from other failures unrelated to this decision as well.

[d3dna]

As an avid follower of all types of motorsport, it has been noted that during the last season on WSBKs which has it's tyres solely provided by Pirelli, there were a fair few 'dud' or inconsistant tyres. Often you could see a cutaway to one of the riders pitting and getting a new tyre with an almost immediate effect on performance. This was also happening in 2009 when Ben Spies had a dodgy tyre in one of the latter races and nursed his bike to 5th, having IIRC won the first race.
If Pirelli can work with the feedback they get from the teams they should be able to provide a comparable tyre to what Bridgestone had been able to achieve. Granted there were times when the Bridgestone didn't quite cut it, but as a whole the entire grid got a product to use which was up to the job.
If Pirelli can provide a decent tyre, good wear rate and a compound which is stable and has a good rate of degradation, and also a tyre that provides a different variable [being new is one] then I do believe they can succeed.

[PabloTeK]

When NASCAR hit Indianapolis this year they had some tyre problems down the Indy's rather rough surface - although not at the level of the 2005 US GP or an earlier Brickyard 400 - a bit of failure here and there might looks bad but it gets you talking about Pirelli and that's what it's all about! Goodyear didn't suffer but you saw a whole lot of the tyres all shredded-up and getting that logo on the TV is what the company wants...

As long as Pirelli have a harder tyre that can last a fair chunk of the race but isn't that fast and have a softer tyre that is quicker but drops off very quickly then I'll be happy.

Although one crap tyre compound would be nicer

[hotmelt]

Schumacher will say. If it suits his style must be a good tyre than.

[hairyben]

Munter said:

I don't think it will affect the brand in terms of how the tyres perform. So long as they don't fail a lot. If they degrade as they get used I think it'll be easy for them to turn around and say "Thats deliberate to improve the racing" and it be accepted.

Me and you as car and formula 1 enthusiasts know that F1 tyres have nothing to do with road tyres, but it's not us they're targeting- it's joe public idiots who really do assume renault F1 cars are made on the same line as clio's

I had this conversation not so long ago:

Me: "... phillips "advertise" brain scan machines during prime time telly so you think they're an awesome company with super-high-level engineering and subconsciously associate that brilliance with all their products, but the TV, DVD's are just banged out of a subcontractors factory in china"

Moron I've just explained this too: "But I have a phillips telly, they're the best because they make brain scan machines and all the bits are the same and they have to be good."

Me: "...." *smile and nod, smile and nod.*

[DrTre]

What do I think?

Not as good as 1995 with Christy Turlington and certainly not as good as the classic "Tyre tread" over the arses.

[ArnageWRC]

I'm another who follows a few Motorsports - and in my opinion Pirelli are rubbish. In fact, to hide this fact, they prefer non-competition - so most of the series they are in are a 'spec tyre'. When they were up against Michelin/BF Goodrich in the WRC they were soundly beaten - and usually only won events through freaks of nature, i;e the weather, their wet Tarmac/Gravel tyres were pretty good, but apart from that they weren't good. The reason they got the WRC tyre contract was because they weren't Michelin - who the FiA/Max fell out with after Indy 2005.

So as usual, we really won't be able to tell how good/bad their tyres are, as they have no competititon. Again!!

[hairyben]

ArnageWRC said:

I'm another who follows a few Motorsports - and in my opinion Pirelli are rubbish. In fact, to hide this fact, they prefer non-competition - so most of the series they are in are a 'spec tyre'. When they were up against Michelin/BF Goodrich in the WRC they were soundly beaten - and usually only won events through freaks of nature, i;e the weather, their wet Tarmac/Gravel tyres were pretty good, but apart from that they weren't good. The reason they got the WRC tyre contract was because they weren't Michelin - who the FiA/Max fell out with after Indy 2005.

So as usual, we really won't be able to tell how good/bad their tyres are, as they have no competititon. Again!!

weren't michelin offered the sole supplier deal and told the fia to stick it, they weren't interested in motorsport if they couldn't be competitive, to drive development, with the chance to be winners?

The sole supplier is a different thing entirely, given series are going sole suppliers for the specific reason the organisers want a slower tyre, thus the tyre manufacturer is a simple parts supplier and not a competitor. I'd say pirelli's business plan is they're happy just to see their name on the telly, and don't want to spend lot lot lot more money to try be winners.

[Redlake27]

I hope for a big gap between the tyre types. Some of the most interesting GPs of the last few years have been a result of tyre degradation, or a driver/car looking after its tyres better than others. I'd love to see a real divergence of strategy.

[slipstream 1985]

does anyone seriously buy tyres just because they are used on f1 cars? pirelli will not gain customers from this. they will gain them from having their logo seen and name spoken that may remind people of the product,

[skinny]

well they do seem to degrade pretty badly, and leave a lot of marbles off the racing line.
the bridgestones were way too stable, these pirelli's are quite different...!

[NHK244V]

Good! glad they degrade so quick, last year was nearly spoilt by the everlasting gobstoppers opps i mean tyres, Canada was one hell of a race due to the opposit IE the tyre wore out very quickly
Although if we see quicker wearing tyres at a race where everylasters wear out we may need some extra sets i'd love to see one of the top teams have to switch to full wets 4 laps from the end of a dry race cos thay ran out of slicks

[Some Gump]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/89364

It seems Mr worth has stolen our PH discussion, and passed it off as his own in an interview. Think the PH massive can get him to refer to a custard test in the next one?