1) Could it be that Pirelli was asked to provide a tire the did if fact have more wear and give-up than you have ever been associated with? That your baseline is not appropriate? I have no recall of any other tire manufacture having to design or provide such a tire.Jersey Tom wrote:The first tires Pirelli brought were significantly off in compounding if you ask me. One thing to ask for some give-up, but when the tire treads very rapidly disintegrate to dust all over the track.. it's obvious that things aren't what they're supposed to be. There IS such a thing as too much wear and give-up, where the cars are --- to drive and race. Took a while for Pirelli to address that issue, but they did solve it.
2) "But as I said, it's not just about the tire performance at the track. The "other" aspects are more what I give a low score. Wish I could disclose more specifics, but I won't here."
This statement is of no value to this discussion. We acknowledge your personal opinion on the Pirelli subject as a tire expert, just do not know enough about it to find it persuasive. Nothing wrong with that under your situation.
3) "In any event, all of this misses what I still think is the bigger issue. The racing itself is not particularly good and there is a huge disparity in competitiveness among the field. To rely on tires falling apart to make a race worth watching... is a band-aid on a much more fundamental issue."
This tire strategy is a valid tool for making the racing better. It adds a randomness to the cars performances. I would say that over the coarse of the season, statistically the results are that the same, the best team wins the championship. But during any segment of a particular race, you could expect more changes of position, which seem to be the current barometer for good racing.
Even if everyone raced spec cars, which are impossible to make equal, the better teams would do a better job of managing the situation.
Brian
