They should create a tire that has excellent grip for 10-15 laps then start to rapidly degrade.
Might wanna talk to J.T. about that. Might be a hard compromise to achieve with a single compound..
It harkens back to the two old compound tires where there was actually a soft compund that wore away to reveal a harder compound underneath. But even that might be hard to acheiev safely with todays G loads.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss
richard_leeds wrote:Gonzo - I was putting into into context for those saying that in the old days a driver would drive as fast as possible all the time. No they didn't, they couldn't because the car would fail to finish.
Secondly, if we went back to the everlasting Bridgetones we'd have the most boring races imaginable because previously significant variables are now constant.
- Richard i´m, sure you are right, but why relate to history. We don´t have to choose between stone hard Bridgestones and tires that degrades faster than ever. There must be something between that works ok. Why the fuzz about defending Pirellis bad work? They done bad so far this year, that´s nothing to it! And they will do better in future!
The point is the Bridgestone's weren't "stone hard" They had similar (or better grip) to the Pirellis and better durability. By any definition they were "better" tyres. Was the racing better - that's an entirely different question.
The genie clearly isn't going back in the bottle, because the racing's great. Unfortunately drivers who experienced what Bridgestone were capable of will never be satisfied with what we have now.
I agree with Ben's sentiment that the Bridgestones were generally a much better product - and they should be, with the difference in development dollars between the two companies. I also think the line that "Well, they TOLD Pirelli to bring crappy tires" only has so much truth to it. The wild amount of wear and marbling is evidence of that.
More importantly - there's a difference between the event being great, and the racing being great. KERS, DRS, and now the tire curve ball are all crutches to make for a better show, since the cars and drivers don't put on as much of one without it.
I do like different tire strategy (compounds or manufacturers) but at the same time I'd want a tire with consistent performance that can take some abuse to let my driver get after the guy in front of him... and not have to worry that if they slide the tires a bit they're junk for the rest of the run.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
Pirelli are probably "crappy tires" but you have to agree that Pirelli was really asked to act this way.
And they were asked again last year since current compounds are softer than ones used in 2011 and there is less difference in lap times between various compounds.
So I wouldn't blame Pirelli for this situation, underneath it there is a choice fundamentally wrong which affects race show.
But that choice was taken, in good faith even if it was wrong.
I certainly don't hate Pirelli for the current situation. They were asked to reproduce a race like Canada 2010 but for the entire season and I think they have done a great job at that. I just think they went a bit too far with the deg/durability. Like I've said before, all they need to do is tweak each compound to have less deg, a bit more performance and still included the cliff to ensure pit stops. Maybe its more difficult to do than it sounds but I would try this first before looking at more extreme reactions like bringing back refueling or another tire supplier for a tire war. Pirelli just bought a 2010 Renault F1 car, its time to put it to good use.
Jersey Tom wrote:I agree with Ben's sentiment that the Bridgestones were generally a much better product - and they should be, with the difference in development dollars between the two companies. I also think the line that "Well, they TOLD Pirelli to bring crappy tires" only has so much truth to it. The wild amount of wear and marbling is evidence of that.
JT what's your personal view on that? Did Pirelli underestimate the loadings/forces an F1 car puts on tyres, then cop out by, "oh it was all planned. They told us to make bubble gum tyres!"
I remember you were somewhat bemused that the Pirelli fronts could take "up to" 4 degrees of recommended camber.
I'm not a tyre expert - but even when F1 was racing in Canada in 2007, 2008 and 2010, with the supersmooth asphalt causing lack of traction and hence graining everyone's tyres up, we never saw anything LIKE the number of mables now. Paul Hembery says they were always there, and it's the HD resolution that's now showing marbles clearer but I think that's croc tbh. In all the live races I've gone to I've never seen marbles that bad. The first race I got to go out on track in last year (to watch the podium ceremony) was in Singapore. I saw the marbles and my mind was piqued - I tried to pick them up, but they were quite stuck to the track actually. Isn't that almost like rubber boiling and chunking off the tyres and cooling on the track surface? I don't know. First tyre marbles I ever saw. I guess I thought they were just laying on the track rather than stuck to it.
are all crutches to make for a better show, since the cars and drivers don't put on as much of one without it.
.
Could not agree more. Personally I'm tired of the show meaning more than actual racing. Who are these children that we think we must entertain.
Seems generational to me.
.
Paul Hembery says they were always there, and it's the HD resolution that's now showing marbles clearer but I think that's croc tbh.
.
You think right. There are more and more and more marbles to where you cannot go offline to pass without dancing on marbles.
JT will correct me if I'm wrong but they stick to the track because the rubber is cohesive. Meaning it would rather stick to itself than other things. What they are sticking to is the rubber laid down on the track rather than the tracks asphalt.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss
My main problems with the Pirellis is that firstly they cant be pasted into the ground for the first 5 laps of the stint. I think this is what needs to be worked on. Lap wise they have the degredation right i think.
Second problem is that there is simply too many marbles on the track, a car weighs 5kilos less at the start of a stint to the end of a stint if fuel levels were the same. That is a fact. At the end of a race there is arround 500kilos of rubber at the side of the track. That is based on a 3 stop strategy where a driver has 4 stints.
Bridgestone had only arround 250grammes of weight loss on a set, and thats one that went like Vettel at Abu, one set that did the entire race. However Bridgestone had F1 rubber sorted out.
If i were Pirelli and the FIA id think about a change in the regulations, where 3 compounds are taken to each race, something like this:
RED: Hard: 3 sets - Lasts 22-27 laps at a 5Km lap length
YELLOW: Medium: 4 Sets - Lasts 15-18 laps at a 5Km lap length
GREEN: Soft: 5 Sets - Lasts 9-12 laps at a 5 km track length
WHITE: Intermediates: 5 sets - Lasts generally 35-40 laps at a 5Km track length
BLUE: Wet: 4 Sets - Lasts generally 50 Laps at a 5Km track length
Those tyres are avalable and muts be used throughout the weekend. It will give any car arround 170 laps for the weekend, and 850Km of potential distance to play with. Each compound should have arround 3 to 5 tenths of a lap time intermediate at the start of their life, whitch id place at the first 3 to 5 laps.
However id introduce a FP1 driver rule, where a extra set of softs are avalable for that driver, whitch will give the teams an extra 50Km of distance to play with.
As for Quali; Drivers in Q3 have only one run, on a set of Green/Softs, and must start on that set. Id also make that set unavalable for Pree Practice sessions. Any driver that is put out in Q1 dosnt need to worry about the 2 tyre compound rule, where every driver has to use at least 2 compounds in the race. Q3 would last for only 5 minuites, and the 5 mins lost from Q3 would go into Q2.
In effect it will give the Q3 drivers the headache of going for a 4 or 5 stopper, the Q2 drivers a 3 or 4 stopper and the Q1 drivers would only need 2 stops. Meaning that the race would me a massive strategy fest and also the last few laps would be where the cars came together, and the DRS would come into its own.
However id make a tweak to the DRS rule where each driver was only allowed 20 activations on "DRS Approved Straights" per race, so that DRS was used as a tactical tool you could use for attacking or defending posistions.
It would make Quali much better, the race would be a almost unpredictable, and the "show" or specticle would be such that it would mean that F1 would, in my opinion, be a much better sport.
Nando wrote:Pirelli are no idiots. If you tell them to create a better tire then the one we have today in terms of longevity they would easily be able to do that.
With an acceptable level of grip? I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
Jersey Tom wrote:With an acceptable level of grip? I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.
They already have an acceptable level of grip though.
No drivers have complained about the peak grip of the tires.
The problem is that peak grip lasts for 1 lap then they are finished as far as hot-lapping goes.
Making them last longer and provide the peak grip for longer should be no problems.
The tires have been designed to rapidly degrade.
F1 wanted to improve the show and they did.
"Il Phenomeno" - The one they fear the most!
"2% of the world's population own 50% of the world's wealth."
raymondu999 wrote:Yes - but I think JT's point is that they have not demonstrated they can combine longevity WITH peak grip.
That was never the case though from the beginning though.
Again, the tires are designed to degrade and improve the show.
They are not designed to do a full Monza race where you come in on the last lap, change tires and finish the race.
They are designed to improve the show, and they did.
It´s a bit extreme now i agree but this is what Formula 1 asked for and they essentially got what they asked for.
"Il Phenomeno" - The one they fear the most!
"2% of the world's population own 50% of the world's wealth."
Nando wrote:Pirelli are no idiots. If you tell them to create a better tire then the one we have today in terms of longevity they would easily be able to do that.
JT was replying to this comment. I take JT's view on this. If we told them to create a "better" tyre then we might see rather sh*tty levels of grip.
There is nothing that says you can't maintain peak grip and make them last longer.
Bridgestone are proof of this.
So again, Pirelli are not incompetent idiots, they know very well how to build tires and the produced a tire which had the specifications that F1 wanted.
If F1 wants a "perfect" tire i can't see any reason why they could not produce that.
"Il Phenomeno" - The one they fear the most!
"2% of the world's population own 50% of the world's wealth."
