Thoughts on 2012 tyres?

[raymondu999]

There is nothing that says you can't maintain peak grip and make them last longer.
Bridgestone are proof of this.

Is it possible? Yes. Does Pirelli have the know-how? They have not demonstrated as such. In fact they have demonstrated that they personally don't even understand their tyres fully. Even THEY were surprised when the marbles were all over the place in China.

Back on topic,

I actually prefer the 2010 action. I’m not a fan of driving at 80% through corners. Overtaking to me is a bonus – but not a must have. I’d much rather see 1 driver disappear into the distance in all honesty. I know I’m in a very small minority, but hey, that’s me. I prefer seeing driving and engineering excellence – and how 1 guy or 1 team, whoever that may be, can so comprehensively outclass 11 other teams (or 23 other guys). It's the races like Senna in Monaco 84... and in 91, was it? When he was leading by some 50 seconds? Races like Silverstone 08/09. Like China 09. I know I'm in the minority here, but the sheer excellence of a driver streaking away is what gets me going, rather than overtakes.

I’m actually willing to bet that if next year we had the 2010 tyres back and removed DRS – we’d see more action and more varied strategies than in 2010. I'd like to point to Singapore 2010. Kubica had a puncture with either 6 laps or 8 laps to go. They pitted him and slapped primes on. Even then; in 8 laps he carved his way back through and only finished 7th (he was in 6th when he got the puncture). Point being - I think teams were being slightly "blind" to how much pace advantage a fresh set actually could give them (in 2010) and decided track position was better. I remember seeing Bahrain 2010 and the cars even LOOKED slower than they did in qualifying. Fuel? Tyre management? I don't know. But they could probably have afforded to be more aggressively racy and attacked with a more-stop strategy.

[Nando]

Is it possible? Yes. Does Pirelli have the know-how? They have not demonstrated as such.

They have not demonstrated as such..... seriously?

Nobody has told them to demonstrate perfect tires!
F1 told them to demonstrate rapidly degrading tires and they did.

I also doubt they truly were surprised about the marbles in China.
Last year the track was covered as well and it's well known among the teams that the track produces high wear.
read some of the pre-gp quotes and see,

The tires are the same as last but softer compunds for all except super soft and the performance deficit has ben shrunken between the compounds.

Basing an opinion on Pirelli that they can't produce perfect tires when nobody asked them to is ridiculous.

[Richard]

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!

I agree. I think the Pirelli are brave in not providing ever lasting tyres. Its the right move but it'll take them time to find the right combindation.

[ubrben]

Nando,

With all due respect the only place we can compare Pirelli's ability to produce a tyre with a competitive level of grip vs. durability is endurance racing.

In the GTE-AM category of the World Endurance Championship the fastest lap over the combined official practice sessions was 121.3seconds for a Dunlop-shod Ferrari. The best for a Michelin-shod Porsche was 121.5. The fastest lap by the Pirelli-shod Porsche was 125.009.

http://imsatiming.com/Results/2012/ALMS ... -2-3-4.pdf

What this tells me is that for Pirelli to have comparable durability to a development Dunlop or Michelin it has to give up 2.8% lap time.

Let's be clear I respect Pirelli as an organisation, but they have different business goals. They've proven time and again that they want to buy into championships as a single supplier (World Superbike, BSB, F1, GT1 World, Grand-Am) they contribute financially and receive a large marketing return. Michelin, Bridgestone, and Dunlop in Sportscar racing focus more on having the most competitive product. There are different business models and value judgements going on.

That's not to say Pirelli couldn't get there, but their current business model precludes them from doing so.

Ben

[raymondu999]

Is it possible? Yes. Does Pirelli have the know-how? They have not demonstrated as such.

They have not demonstrated as such..... seriously?

Nobody has told them to demonstrate perfect tires!
F1 told them to demonstrate rapidly degrading tires and they did.

Basing an opinion on Pirelli that they can't produce perfect tires when nobody asked them to is ridiculous.

exactly. I said they haven't demonstrated it. I didn't say they can't. The two are different concepts.

I also doubt they truly were surprised about the marbles in China.

i had the opportunity to talk to Hembery post-China. He said he was truly surprised because all of the 2012 tyre data through testing and the first two race weekends showed no such symptoms, nor signs that this was ever going to happen..

[Nando]

Nando,

With all due respect the only place we can compare Pirelli's ability to produce a tyre with a competitive level of grip vs. durability is endurance racing.

In the GTE-AM category of the World Endurance Championship the fastest lap over the combined official practice sessions was 121.3seconds for a Dunlop-shod Ferrari. The best for a Michelin-shod Porsche was 121.5. The fastest lap by the Pirelli-shod Porsche was 125.009.

http://imsatiming.com/Results/2012/ALMS ... -2-3-4.pdf

What this tells me is that for Pirelli to have comparable durability to a development Dunlop or Michelin it has to give up 2.8% lap time.


Let's be clear I respect Pirelli as an organisation, but they have different business goals. They've proven time and again that they want to buy into championships as a single supplier (World Superbike, BSB, F1, GT1 World, Grand-Am) they contribute financially and receive a large marketing return. Michelin, Bridgestone, and Dunlop in Sportscar racing focus more on having the most competitive product. There are different business models and value judgements going on.

That's not to say Pirelli couldn't get there, but their current business model precludes them from doing so.

Ben

You can't compare two different teams...

It has to be the same car, same setup, same day, same drivers to get a proper analysis.

[ubrben]

You can't compare two different teams...

It has to be the same car, same setup, same day, same drivers to get a proper analysis.

2010 LMS Spa. Racing Box 2-car LMP2 team. Pro driver car #30 on Pirelli. #29 gentlemen driver car on Dunlop.

Qualifying:

#29 128.309
#30 128.398

At the previous race at Paul Ricard both cars were on Pirelli:

Qualifying:

#30 110.221
#29 113.514

So the Gent drivers were 2.9% slower with the same tyres at Ricard and did essentially the same speed when they had better tyres at Spa.

Like I said around 2.8...

Ben

[Nando]

All you have showed is that the gentlemen driver could not exploit the full potential of the Pirellis.
Something the pro driver could.

See if you can find the same driver testing one compound then testing the other.
that way you leave out any driver skills even though you might still end up with the driver testing one tire that does not suit his style.

Also, was the Dunlops specifically made for the car?
was the Pirellis specifically made for the car?

[Jersey Tom]

Let's be clear I respect Pirelli as an organisation, but they have different business goals. They've proven time and again that they want to buy into championships as a single supplier (World Superbike, BSB, F1, GT1 World, Grand-Am) they contribute financially and receive a large marketing return. Michelin, Bridgestone, and Dunlop in Sportscar racing focus more on having the most competitive product. There are different business models and value judgements going on.

That's not to say Pirelli couldn't get there, but their current business model precludes them from doing so.

Ben

Spot on.

Though I'll add the other part of the business model is the size of the company. For one of the "big three" tire conglomerates to spend the development money needed to have the most competitive product is one thing - and it's challenge enough. For a smaller company, it would be such a disproportionate amount of cash it would make no business sense or be completely infeasible.

Pirelli's current approach makes sense for them and is an OK fit for a single supplier, don't get me wrong. But let's not over-inflate (har har) their capabilities based on the "No one's ever asked them to make a competitive product!" line. It's BS. Not the first time Pirelli have gone racing.

But hey, what do we know... if only there were some engineers around here with a background in race tires, and could shine some objective analysis on the topic.

[Nando]

Pirelli has won 7 WDC 1 WCC

Remove one of those because they were the sole supplier (2011)

Bridgestone has won 11 WDC and 11 WCC.

Remove three of those as sole supplier. (07-10) and you end up with 8-8 titles.

Brisgestone has had 244 starts, Pirelli 222.

Bridgestone have 175 wins. 116 of those as sole supplier.
Pirelli have 66 wins, 22 of those as sole supplier.

59 "true" wins for Bridgestone.
44 "true wins for Pirelli.

Not bad considering they have had 22 starts less.

[Nando]

Let's be clear I respect Pirelli as an organisation, but they have different business goals. They've proven time and again that they want to buy into championships as a single supplier (World Superbike, BSB, F1, GT1 World, Grand-Am) they contribute financially and receive a large marketing return. Michelin, Bridgestone, and Dunlop in Sportscar racing focus more on having the most competitive product. There are different business models and value judgements going on.

That's not to say Pirelli couldn't get there, but their current business model precludes them from doing so.

Ben

Spot on.

Though I'll add the other part of the business model is the size of the company. For one of the "big three" tire conglomerates to spend the development money needed to have the most competitive product is one thing - and it's challenge enough. For a smaller company, it would be such a disproportionate amount of cash it would make no business sense or be completely infeasible.

Pirelli's current approach makes sense for them and is an OK fit for a single supplier, don't get me wrong. But let's not over-inflate (har har) their capabilities based on the "No one's ever asked them to make a competitive product!" line. It's BS. Not the first time Pirelli have gone racing.

But hey, what do we know... if only there were some engineers around here with a background in race tires, and could shine some objective analysis on the topic.

Let me guess... Firestone employee? or former?

Firestone that was bough by Bridgestone...

[ubrben]

All you have showed is that the gentlemen driver could not exploit the full potential of the Pirellis.
Something the pro driver could.

See if you can find the same driver testing one compound then testing the other.
that way you leave out any driver skills even though you might still end up with the driver testing one tire that does not suit his style.

Also, was the Dunlops specifically made for the car?
was the Pirellis specifically made for the car?

You're clutching at straws now...

Your statement about exploiting the "potential of the Pirellis" is making an assumption that the Pirelli has that potential - what evidence do you have for that?

Ben

[Jersey Tom]

Let me guess... Firestone employee? or former?

Firestone that was bough by Bridgestone...

No, but not far off. Particularly in the literal sense.

More to the point of the thread... there's a "good show" and then there's good racing. Good racing contributes to a "good show" but they are not the same thing. Tires going to crap after a lap makes the end result a bit more unpredictable, but for good racing I would rather have a tire that can be pushed hard more than once and stay consistent. I just don't believe Pirelli can match that additional requirement while maintaining current grip levels.

Hell we could have a big red button on Bernie's desk that causes a random mechanical failure to one of the cars when it's pushed... which would make for some entertainment and unpredictable end results... but that doesn't mean the racing would be any better.

Like I say, in my experience in other series.. when you have tires with huge tire fall off you only have a few laps to try and do anything before everyone is just hanging on for dear life and don't have the ability to really chase someone down. The driver has got to feel like they have "enough car under them" to be able to get after someone without crashing or demolishing the rubber. Probably is more benefit to drive around babying your tires and not attacking so you can conserve what grip you have, rather than trying to be aggressive and then having junk and poor lap times for the rest of the stint.

[Nando]

All you have showed is that the gentlemen driver could not exploit the full potential of the Pirellis.
Something the pro driver could.

See if you can find the same driver testing one compound then testing the other.
that way you leave out any driver skills even though you might still end up with the driver testing one tire that does not suit his style.

Also, was the Dunlops specifically made for the car?
was the Pirellis specifically made for the car?

You're clutching at straws now...

Your statement about exploiting the "potential of the Pirellis" is making an assumption that the Pirelli has that potential - what evidence do you have for that?

Ben

Im clutching for straws?
You are the one implying Pirelli can't make a competitive tire.
i showed you that is false.

[N12ck]

I think the current pirelli's are ruining racing to be honest, we want to see raw racing, not 'lets save our tyres and not try overtake' because it in my opinion is preventing good battles at the front of the grid,