Pirelli 2011 vs Pirelli 2012

[Javert]

So after 4 races and 5 quali we can begin to make a point on this year Pirelli tires.

2011 tires difference gap between compounds (hard, medium, soft, supersofts) was larger and tires were blistering. Said that, they were an excellent indicator on how good the car was, if you bolt more downforce to the car then you surely got faster lap times. More regular races

2012 tires have less gap between compounds and are less blistering, so they let you to do a greater range of strategies during the race. This let to 4 different winners in 4 races.
Said that, it's a bit a random thing to say who will get pole or win the race as a car with less downforce that hits the 'sweet spot' is faster than a car with more downforce that miss it.

I'd go on 2011 ones.

[Hail22]

WHO IS READY TO PLAY THE LOTTERY?! HIT IT!

[Lorenzo_Bandini]

The F1 now is a big lottery. Every car could win a race now. The faster car is the car who find the right setup for the tyres. Pirelli tyres have too much influence on the race result, it's sad. During the race, we speak more about the tyres than the stuff on the car.

Perhaps at Monaco we will see Toro Rosso and Force India at the front after all..

[Crabbia]

I really dont think the tyres are to blame. I think the cars are just very similar this year, or rather very competitively equal.

few reasons:
Mandated weight distibution; ok its the same as last year but i think the cars have moved even closer together this year because it caused the different teams solutions to converge even faster than they would have naturally, and there is an equilibrium established that would have normally taken say 5 years of constant rules and constant tire suppliers.

No loop holes: for the first time since 2009 season with brawn we have what the Overtaking Working Group actually wanted without a team exploiting a loophole in it. We have high wings small diffusers and no (or not much) funny business attempting to virtually couple the two. so the original intention of the OWG is being finally carried out. i think this is why we're seeing more overtaking without DRS, not the tires degging faster or inconsistenly.

I think the role the car has on the perfomance of the whole driver/car/tire package is just being lessened, and the tires and driver (especially wrt setup) are coming to the fore. good thing or bad thing it depends who you are:

i think that why team principals are upset because they are receiving diminishing returns for their expenditure and on R&D.
consequently technical fans such as us on this forum don't like it either because simply the car has a diminished role in the outcome of a race. the most technically interesting or complex car may not win.

Counter to this the fans that watch it for the pure racing love it because they just see the on track action and the increased overtaking and they're happy.

[raymondu999]

While I don't know if it is scientifically possible, I'd actually prefer it if the tyres were just connecting the car to the road, and giving them all equal amounts of mechanical grip and longetivity. IMO the differences in pace and tyre life should all come solely from the chassis and the driver. It may not be the majority belief that it should be as such - but that's mine.

[Crabbia]

Well they have ensured consistency between sets (and from what i have read no one in the pitlane is complaining about that.) thats as close as your going to get to the utopian situation you would like to see.

[prince]

Last year's tyres were much better in their behavior and also provided good spectacle. Drivers could have pushed the car to limit and after few laps, the tyres used to start degrading, which was absolutely fine. But instead this year, they are not even pushing the tyres and the tyres are falling off. Instead of this sort of situation, if FIA would have ensured same tyres as last year and added re-fuelling, I am sure, we would have seen better spectacle. There would have been a lot of scope for strategy. Instead of talking mechanical language, all we are now reduced to do is, talking rubber language. The cars which have won most of the GPs this year aren't necessarily the fastest ones but the ones which have luckily found good setup for a race day. The winners themselves aren't expecting the results that they have got. Is it good to have such a level of unexpected racing.

At the end of the day, what technological innovations are the manufacturers going to take out to the road car market?

[raymondu999]

I don't think it's right to say the setup choices were lucky. I just don't like that setup makes a bigger difference than the car's "core"/underlying pace.

[Lorenzo_Bandini]

I miss Bridgestone tyres.. Really, Bridgestone tyres, with DRS and KERS is the way to go. In 2010, the spectacle on track was poor because of DDD. It's ok Bridgestone tyres was perhaps a little too hard, but Pirelli tyres are way too soft, the F1 is a sprint, not an endurance race.

[Crabbia]

I don't think it's right to say the setup choices were lucky. I just don't like that setup makes a bigger difference than the car's "core"/underlying pace.

I understand your dislike of this situation but the fact that setup plays a bigger role for overall pace in recent history shows that the machines are very close in performance.

Isn't this kind of close racing the racing we wanted in the MS/Ferrari era of dominance?

[raymondu999]

To me I don't mind them being overly soft - what I do mind however is that they're performance differentiators in a big way, such that teams could fluctuate race by race. The tyres should be consistent race-to-race IMO. The tyres are spec parts, and spec parts, in an ideal world, should not be performance differentiators. We live in a real world however, and the fact of the matter is, given how each car works and uses their tyres they will be performance differentiators. No matter how small the differentiation is, it will be there.

The issue for me is that the differentiation of performance by these tyres can surpass the differentiation of performance by the team-controlled elements such as chassis. As such teams' fates aren't entirely in their hands. Maybe the Pirellis should be given a hell of a wide operating window such that (within reason) all teams can switch the tyres on equally, and a such it falls a lot more to the chassis to differentiate performances.

Isn't this kind of close racing the racing we wanted in the MS/Ferrari era of dominance?

While I may probably fall into a minority, quite frankly it's not. Circumstances and variables should never be artificially introduced into any such sporting situation, be it equal or not.

If a team is dominating, then so be it. They've worked harder for it and deserve it. F1 is not, and should not (to me) be about an overtaking show - it should, instead, be a study in excellence. The "more" excellent guys will prevail.

[Nando]

2012 tires EASY.

Yes ths type of tire disallows drivers to push all the time but Pirelli has created a Rubics cube.

They have taken all the strengths of the cars and nullified it for the race.
This means that the best team strategy wise and whoever solves the puzzle first will be champions.

Nobody knows anything about the tires, they have zero clue on what the tires want in a particular scenario.
This is what makes it so great.

It's not about who has the best aero, it's not about who has the most money.
A least for now. And this great imo.

This might turn out to be the best year ever in Formula 1 from a spectators point of view.

[Lorenzo_Bandini]

Yes, it's close, but for me, it's like the racing is " fake ". I'm french and i'm not able to use the right word at the right moment for explain my point of view but the main idea is that Pirelli tyre have too much influence on the race.

If average car had the right setup for the tyres, they will be unbeatable.

This year, only Lotus and Hamilton was fast at all condition. Behind them, you can't tell what is the pick order, i can't tell you if Williams is as fast as Redbull, if Scuderia Alonso is as fast as Red Bull, if Sauber is faster than Mercedes, if Mercedes is as fast as Red Bull..

I can't tell you anything. But at each race, the winner is the guy who was able to have the better setup for the tyres.

I miss Suzuka 2000 race, Imola 05-06 race, those race where we seen two driver at full speed for the win. Today, it's all about tyres, it's boring, they have to preserve tyres, they drive like if they were on a highway

[Nando]

I miss Bridgestone tyres.. Really, Bridgestone tyres, with DRS and KERS is the way to go. In 2010, the spectacle on track was poor because of DDD. It's ok Bridgestone tyres was perhaps a little too hard, but Pirelli tyres are way too soft, the F1 is a sprint, not an endurance race.

As you say F1 is not an endurance race... so why do you want endurance tires?

[raymondu999]

Yes ths type of tire disallows drivers to push all the time but Pirelli has created a Rubics cube.

Why the Rubik's cube analogy?

Nobody knows anything about the tires, they have zero clue on what the tires want in a particular scenario.
This is what makes it so great.

That's exactly what I hate right now. It's like you're telling a footballer to kick in any direction. The goal is invisible - if you're lucky you'll get a goal in. If unlucky, you might get an own-goal.

I don't mind teams not knowing HOW to get the tyres working - but I do severely mind that the teams don't know WHAT will get the tyres working. They have to know the goal of what to reach. Then leave them to discover the correct path there themselves.

As you say F1 is not an endurance race... so why do you want endurance tires?

So the racing does'nt have to be endurance. Grands Prix have a set disntance, which in itself dictates the need for some endurance, to be able to at least finish. In order to win, you need speed. You need speed+endurance.

If you had non-endurance tyres, then the endurance will have to come from the car + drivers. If you had endurance tyres, then the endurance factor doesn't have to come from the car+drivers - what the car+drivers will give out is speed.